2000-06-283916REPS1839302000-06-28—————Mr SPEAKER (Mr Neil Andrew) took the chair at 9.30 a.m., and read prayers.Bills18393R112518393Bill presented by Mr Truss, and read a first time.1839309:31:0018393Truss, Warren, MPMr TRUSSGT4Wide BayNPMinister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.The purpose of this bill is to amend the Quarantine Act 1908 and the Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation Act 1980.A new Part VA will be introduced into the Quarantine Act 1908 to cater for the use of a computerised system for the quarantine clearance of imported goods.The government, in its response to the report Australian quarantine: a shared responsibility, accepted recommendation 63 of the report, which proposed the development and increased use of electronic information systems to speed the clearance of cargo, subject to the development of satisfactory quality assurance systems and audit procedures.The Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service (AQIS) has made considerable advances in the development of a computer based system for the clearance of cargo in response to this recommendation. The system will be programmed to issue notices which, under the Quarantine Act 1908 in its present form, can be done only by the Director of Quarantine or a quarantine officer. The new Part VA provides a legislative framework for this system, supported by offence provisions. This framework provides for notices to be issued by computer in respect of imported goods, to order goods into quarantine, to release goods from quarantine, to require goods to be treated in a certain manner, to require goods to be left at a specified place, to require goods to be moved to a specified place and to indicate the extent, if any, to which goods may be dealt with. To ensure that the computerised system operates within the scope of the act, a provision has been inserted in Part VA stating that the Director of Animal and Plant Quarantine must take all reasonable steps to ensure that the computer program concerned does not result in electronic notices ordering goods into quarantine unless there are reasonable grounds to believe there is an unacceptably high level of quarantine risk in respect of the goods. A number of minor amendments to the act are also proposed. One of the amendments clarifies that sections 6C and 14A extend to both the regulations and proclamation. Another amendment clarifies that a person may be appointed under section 9AA to be both a quarantine officer plants as well as a quarantine officer animals.The amendments recognise that quarantinable pests and quarantinable diseases may themselves be matters of quarantine concern by amending sections 18, 35, 48AB and 66AA of the act. At present the act only recognises the risk arising from goods infected with a quarantinable pest or a quarantinable disease. The amendments confirm that, for the purposes of section 46A of the Act, offences against the laws of a state or territory, in addition to offences against the laws of the Commonwealth, may be relevant to a person's suitability to manage a place where goods subject to quarantine may be treated or otherwise dealt with. The amendments also allow for directions to be given to the person in control of a vehicle under section 48AB of the act. The present situation, that directions may only be given to the owner, is impractical as the person in control of the vehicle may not be the owner, and searching for the owner could interfere with the timely and efficient management of the quarantine risk.The amendments also clarify that arrangements with persons under section 46A and 66B of the act may extend to the performance of certain quarantine activities in respect of vessels. The amendments allow seizure notices to be given to consignees under section 68 of the act. At present the notice of seizure must be given to the importer. However, particularly in the case of mail items, the only person with any interest in the item in Australia may be the person to whom the item is addressed. In practice, this person, the consignee, is not always the importer. This amendment will ensure that the requirements of section 68 are satisfied by giving notice of the seizure to the consignee. The amendments to the Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation Act 1980 are to address inconsistencies between the voting arrangements for payers of the wine grapes levy and payers of the wine export charge at the Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation's annual general meeting.These inconsistencies arose in 1997 when the wine export charge was introduced and inadvertently not all relevant sections of the Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation Act were amended at that time. The repeal of section 29Z and amendments to subparagraph 46(1)(a) allow rules on voting arrangements to be made by regulation.It has always been the intention that the payers of the wine export charge have the same voting rights at annual general meetings as the payers of the wine grapes levy. These amendments will ensure this occurs.I present the explanatory memorandum to the bill.Debate (on motion by Mr Horne) adjourned.Bills18394R111818394Bill presented by Mr Truss, and read a first time.1839409:37:0018394Truss, Warren, MPMr TRUSSGT4Wide BayNPMinister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.The Protection of the Sea (Civil Liability) Amendment Bill 2000 will amend the Protection of the Sea (Civil Liability) Act 1981 (Civil Liability Act) to strengthen Australia's existing legislation governing the protection of the marine environment.The most important amendment in this bill is the insertion of a new part IIIA into the Civil Liability Act to require all ships entering or leaving an Australian port and which carry oil either as cargo or as fuel to be insured to cover the cost of any pollution damage from the ships. The amendment will only apply to ships of 400 tonnes or over. This is the size of ship to which international conventions on marine pollution generally apply.The amendment will not apply to oil tankers carrying more than 2,000 tonnes of oil as cargo. The Civil Liability Act already requires those ships to have an insurance policy to cover the cost of the clean-up following a spillage of oil. This is in accordance with the International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage.The amendment will give effect to recommendations contained in the 1992 Ships of shame report and the 1998 Ship safe report. It is also consistent with the government's ongoing commitment in this area as set out in Australia's ocean policy, which was released by the government in 1998.Shipowners already have an obligation to meet any pollution liabilities they incur in Australia. This legislation will merely require shipowners to have insurance to cover those existing liabilities. There is a risk in the case of a major spill that an uninsured shipowner would not be able to meet his or her liabilities to contribute to the cost of the clean-up. A shipowner does not have unlimited liabilities in the case of an oil spill. However, existing liability limits are high enough to meet the total cost of the clean-up following the majority of spillages. The requirement for insurance will ensure that the cost of the clean-up does not have to be met by governments and the community. The amendment has the full support of the shipping industry.Customs officers will check every ship that enters an Australian port to determine if the ship has appropriate insurance cover. As this check will be part of the routine check of documentation that already occurs for all ships, it will not place an administrative burden on either the crew of ships or on Customs. Any ships that do not have adequate insurance may be detained until the requirements of the legislation are met. While the master and owner of an uninsured ship will be liable on conviction of a penalty of up to 500 penalty units the possible detention for failure to be insured is a greater incentive for a shipowner to arrange insurance. In the international context, Australia, as a member of the International Maritime Organisation, has been a key advocate for an international regime of compulsory insurance to cover the cost of pollution damage following a spill of bunker fuel. A draft text for a new international instrument has been developed and is expected to be concluded in early 2001, although it is expected to be some years before any new convention comes into effect internationally.These amendments to the Civil Liability Act are being introduced now, rather than waiting for the conclusion of an international convention, because of the importance placed on the protection of the Australian marine environment by the government. A number of other countries, such as Canada and the United States, have similar domestic legislation in place.The Australian Maritime Safety Authority (AMSA) is empowered by the Protection of the Sea (Powers of Intervention) Act 1981 to take `intervention action' to prevent or reduce pollution where oil or some other noxious substance has escaped from a ship or is likely to escape from a ship. The intervention action may range from moving the ship to another place to, in an extreme case, sinking the ship. The cost to AMSA of such intervention action may be recovered from the shipowner. The shipowner's liability is limited by section 20 of the Civil Liability Act. There is currently some uncertainty about the liability limits that apply, due in part to the use of obsolete terminology. Part 2 of the bill amends section 20 to remove the uncertainty by specifying that the limit will be the limit that applies under any international conventions in force in Australia that apply to the ship.The Civil Liability Act allows AMSA to recover any costs it incurs in performing its function under its enabling legislation to combat pollution in the marine environment where the pollution is caused by a discharge or disposal from a ship. The Civil Liability Act is quite explicit in stating that AMSA may recover its costs where there has been an actual discharge or disposal from a ship. But there is some doubt about AMSA's ability to recover its costs where there has been a threat but no actual discharge or disposal, for example, where a ship has gone aground. The amendment contained in part 3 of the bill will remove this doubt.Finally, in accordance with modern drafting practice, part 4 of the bill will convert all penalties in the act to penalty units.I present the explanatory memorandom to the bill.Debate (on motion by Mr Horne) adjourned.Bills18395R111018395Bill presented by Mr Truss, for Mr Anderson, and read a first time.1839509:44:0018395Truss, Warren, MPMr TRUSSGT4Wide BayNPMinister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.This bill amends part X (X means tenin this context) of the Trade Practices Act 1974, which regulates the market conduct of international liner cargo shipping companies that collaborate as conferences to coordinate joint services, share capacity and agree on freight rates.Liner shipping comprises scheduled services for non-bulk cargo, most of which is carried in containers. The annual value of Australia's international trade carried by this sector of the shipping industry is around $85 billion.The legislation has its origins in the late 1920s and resulted from concerns that Australian exporters should have access to adequate and efficient liner shipping services at reasonable freight rates.The government's objectives in respect of liner shipping are to ensure that Australian shippers—that is exporters and importers—have ongoing stable access to services of adequate capacity, frequency and reliability, at freight rates which are internationally competitive. These objectives are given effect through part X of the Trade Practices Act 1974, which permits conference operations while aiming to enhance the competitive environment for liner shipping services through the provision of adequate and appropriate safeguards against abuse of market power. This includes allowing shippers to form negotiating groups with countervailing powers to bargain with shipping conferences.The means by which these objectives are achieved reflect the Australian government's commitment to effective and efficient regulation.The legislation sets out conditions for granting limited, but assured exemptions from Section 45 and some parts of section 47 of the Trade Practices Act to allow liner shipping companies to collaborate as conferences. The current conditions include requirements to negotiate with exporters on standards of service and freight rates to be provided under registered agreements.If exporters are dissatisfied with the negotiations, the minister can refer the matter to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission for investigation. This can lead to the minister removing the exemptions.It should be noted that part X does not exempt shipping conferences from section 46 of the Trade Practices Act that prohibits misuse of market power.Part X provides a legislative framework within which shipping conferences and their customers can resolve problems through commercial negotiations, with only minimal government involvement Australia's major trading partners, including the USA, Japan, Korea, the European Union and New Zealand, have arrangements broadly similar to part X for regulating international liner shipping.Productivity Commission's reviewDue to its relevance to competition policy, part X was included in the Commonwealth legislation review schedule for review in 1998/99.On 12 March 1999 the government, through the Assistant Treasurer, Senator the Hon. Rod Kemp, referred part X to the Productivity Commission for inquiry and report. The commission submitted its final report on 15 September 1999, recommending the retention of part X with a number of amendments.On 23 December 1999 the government announced its decision to retain part X and implement the amendments recommended by the commission, plus a number of additional changes to strengthen part X so as to bring it more into line with national competition policy. The amendments in the bill can be divided into six broad categories.1. Exemptions relating to rate settingThe exemptions relating to rate setting will be limited to `terminal to terminal' type shipping arrangements; that is, ones that include the ocean transport as well as cargo handling at a terminal carrying out operations on behalf of a shipping line.The definition of terminal is to be widened to include terminals located away from ports. The relevant operations may take place at terminals on the waterfront or some inland terminal facility used for assembling export cargo for delivery to a port or for delivering cargo to importers.In some port approaches such as Sydney and Melbourne where there can be considerable traffic congestion, shipping lines are developing a practice of placing containers on rail wagons and sending them to some inland facility before delivery to an importer takes place. A reverse operation in respect of exports can also occur.Individual shipping lines will still be able to quote door-to-door rates, but they would not have an exemption to collude in respect of arranging the inland haulage tasks.2. Shipping conference negotiations with stevedoreAt present there is some uncertainty as to whether part X provides exemptions for conference lines to negotiate collectively with stevedores for the provision of stevedoring services to member lines of conferences. However, this has been a common practice for many years and no objections have been raised to it on competition policy grounds.The government has decided that part X should be clarified to confirm that shipping conferences may negotiate collectively with stevedores. The reason for this is that where a group of shipping lines act collectively through a conference agreement when negotiating with stevedores, the conference lines are able to offer a much larger volume of cargo. This can give the conference lines considerable leverage in negotiating a more favourable stevedoring rate than would be the case if shipping lines were to negotiate individually with stevedores.3. Countervailing powers for importersAs far as practicable, importers will be provided with similar countervailing powers to those provided to exporters under part X. This means extending to inward conferences the appropriate conditions in part X that apply to outward liner shipping conferences.Given the direct effect of inward liner shipping on Australia there is, in principle, no reason why Australia should not assert jurisdiction over such shipping in a manner consistent with international legal principles.In this regard measures will be taken to avoid conflicts of jurisdiction where conferences are operating under exemptions granted in the country of export. The OECD has established a set of principles concerning the regulation of international liner shipping, which include ones aimed at avoiding problems from overlapping jurisdictions. The government will be guided by these principles.In addition, the amendments covering inwards liner shipping will contain provisions for the minister to issue exemption orders covering those sections in part X that could lead to conflicts of jurisdiction. The advice of the Attorney-General's Department will be sought when considering the need for an exemption order.The exemption orders will be disallowable instruments so that they will be subject to scrutiny by parliament.4. Increased powers for minister and Australian Competition and Consumer CommissionThe minister and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission will be granted increased powers to deal with concerns about conduct which has resulted in, or is likely to result in, a substantial lessening of competition and which is likely not to result in a public benefit. Such a situation could arise with the operation of discussion agreements that cover parties to traditional shipping conference agreements as well as independent operators.The increased powers will only be used in `exceptional circumstances', such as where the operation of all agreement results in an unreasonable reduction in shipping services and/or an unreasonable increase in liner shipping freight rates, and where the public benefit from the conference agreement may be lost. In these circumstances the minister will have the power to suspend, in whole or in part, such an agreement.As a guideline for exercising the additional powers, exceptional circumstances will be taken to apply where:• an agreement has the effect of giving its parties a substantial degree of market power;• the conduct of the parties to the agreement has led to, or is likely to lead to, an unreasonable increase in freight rates or an unreasonable reduction in services; and• the anti-competitive detriment of the agreement outweighs the benefit to shippers flowing from the agreement.Exceptional circumstances will also be taken to apply where the agreement in question is substantially similar to one that has previously been deregistered pursuant to section 10.44 of part X.5. Open/closed conferencesLiner shipping companies are to be allowed to continue to form `closed conferences'—that is, those that require agreement by existing members before new members are admitted. However, where refusal to admit a new member to a conference is considered to be contrary to the interests of Australian shippers, the minister would be able to refer the matter to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission for investigation and report. If such an investigation reveals that refusal to admit the new member is unreasonable, the minister will be empowered to either suspend the operation of the agreement in question, or accept undertakings from parties to the agreement that would make suspension unnecessary.6. Other mattersRepeal of section 10.05Section 10.05 which prohibits price discrimination in certain circumstances is to be repealed. The government agrees with the commission's view that the price discrimination provisions of part X serve no useful purpose, and indeed are potentially harmful if they discourage efficient price discrimination. In addition they would be extremely difficult to implement.Section 49 in part IV of the Trade Practices Act contained similar provisions to section 10.05 and was repealed in 1995 as not being cost effective.Australian flag shippingWhile the existing provisions which prohibit parties to a conference agreement from hindering Australian flag shipping are being retained, the government has accepted the Productivity Commission's recommendation to add a national interest test to apply to any determination by the minister as to whether Australian flag shipping is being adversely affected by the conduct of conference lines.This amendment will ensure that shippers' interests are taken into account explicitly in a ministerial determination as to whether a conference, or non-conference carrier with substantial market power, is misusing that power in order to hinder an efficient Australian carrier.Enforcement undertakingsThe bill provides for more effective and flexible enforcement of undertakings along the lines of section 87C of the Trade Practices Act.While enforcement provisions have been resorted to only very infrequently, a greater range of sanctions would be useful, and will further encourage conference members to abide by the rules, and facilitate the commercial resolution of disputes between conferences and shippers.Mechanism for reviewing decisionsDecisions taken by the minister or the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission under part X, and which affect the interests of shippers and/or shipping lines, are to be reviewable by the Australian Competition Tribunal.Future reviews of part XThe amendments to part X represent a continuation of the process of regularly reviewing the mechanisms for controlling the conduct of liner shipping conferences with the aim of ensuring that the arrangements result in overall benefits to the users of liner shipping services in Australia.In line with the Productivity Commission's recommendations, the government has decided that part X should be re-examined in 2005. I present the explanatory memorandum to the bill.Debate (on motion by Mr Horne) adjourned.Bills18398R112418398Bill presented by Mr Entsch, and read a first time.1839809:58:0018398Entsch, Warren, MPMr ENTSCH7K6LeichhardtLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.The purpose of this bill is to dissolve the Joint Coal Board under the Coal Industry Act 1946 and transfer all the assets and liabilities to New South Wales. This follows a longstanding Commonwealth government policy to place the New South Wales coal industry on an equal footing with other coal producing states that each adequately service their coal industry without this level of Commonwealth oversight or involvement. The Joint Coal Board was established in 1946 by mirror Commonwealth and New South Wales state legislation. The board had the task of addressing the parlous state of the New South Wales coal industry at the end of the war. Most of eastern Australia's industry was dependent on coal at that time.Consequently, the inaugural legislation provided the Joint Coal Board with sweeping powers over virtually every aspect of the New South Wales coal industry. These included control over mining methods, opening and closing of coalmines, distribution of coal including its purchase and sale, regulation of prices, employment in and recruitment to the coal industry, and power to acquire and operate any mine or to manage any mine.The board has been instrumental, among other things, in:(1) introducing mechanisation to the New South Wales coal industry, and hence the Australian coal industry, because at the time the New South Wales coal industry was the major coal producer;(2) eliminating pneumoconiosis (black lung) from the New South Wales and Australian coal industry through its industrial hygiene and occupational health services; and(3) improving the general standard of pit amenities by issuing formal directions to some mine owners. For example, when the board was first established only three mines had bath and change houses of a satisfactory standard, while more than half the mines did not have a satisfactory supply of drinking water at the surface.(4) improving the welfare of coal miners. For example, in 1990 the Retired Miners' Superannuation Scheme was unfunded. The board agreed to pick up the pension liability for the pre-1978 pensioners. The cost of this liability was $64 million. Also, many of the older, traditional coal mining areas have relied on the board to provide them with facilities that city people take for granted, for example, water and sewerage schemes, recreational facilities, libraries, parks and gardens.The Joint Coal Board has overseen the New South Wales coal industry moving from a domestic oriented industry to a premier coal exporter. Like all successful organisations, the board has needed to adapt to the changing operational environment. In 1992, the Coal Industry Act 1946 was amended to remove its regulatory functions and to focus its activities on health and welfare issues.Today the mission of the Joint Coal Board is to deliver quality service to protect, support and advance health and welfare in the New South Wales coal industry. Its four core functions are workers' compensation insurance, occupational health and rehabilitation, information services, and training. The Joint Coal Board is self funded and derives its income from workers' compensation premiums, income from investments and fees for services. The Commonwealth government recognises that the Joint Coal Board undertakes these important functions for the New South Wales coal industry and that they need to be continued by either the New South Wales government or industry.Following negotiations with the New South Wales government, it was jointly decided to transfer the full responsibility of the Joint Coal Board to the New South Wales government. This includes the transfer of all the assets, liabilities and rights of the Joint Coal Board to New South Wales. This is to ensure that the new corporation or entity established under New South Wales legislation to replace the Joint Coal Board has a financially sound base and continues to have the resources needed to maintain these important functions. The New South Wales government has also provided a written assurance that all the resources currently attributable to the Joint Coal Board will be quarantined and used solely in the exercise of functions previously undertaken by the Joint Coal Board in the new corporation or entity. We have also been assured that it is the intention of New South Wales that all staff of the Joint Coal Board will be transferred to the new NSW corporation or entity. The date of proclamation will be coordinated between the Commonwealth and New South Wales to ensure that the new arrangements are in place and that the new NSW corporation or entity is ready to take over once the Joint Coal Board is dissolved. For the first time in over 50 years, New South Wales will be given the flexibility to determine what administrative arrangements would best suit its requirements in managing these functions. This is a major reform for the New South Wales coal industry. It provides opportunities for New South Wales to streamline and reduce the cost of services it provides to its coal industry. But even more importantly, it provides additional flexibility that will allow the New South Wales government and industry to respond more effectively to the many dynamic challenges facing the coal industry. I now present the explanatory memorandum to the bill.Debate (on motion by Mr Horne) adjourned.Bills18400R111218400Bill presented by Mr Entsch, and read a first time.1840010:04:0018400Entsch, Warren, MPMr ENTSCH7K6LeichhardtLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.The objective of this bill is to amend the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Trade Marks Act) to give effect to the provisions of the Protocol Relating to the Madrid Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Marks (the protocol). This is a necessary first step should a decision later be made for Australia to accede to the protocol.This government has ensured that wide-ranging consultations with state and federal agencies, and relevant interest groups and individuals, are undertaken before a decision on accession to an international treaty is undertaken. It is also a requirement of the treaty making process that any legislative requirements to give effect to the provisions of the treaty must be in place before accession. This bill ensures that the legislative steps required, if Australia does accede to the protocol, have been taken.The Trade Marks Act provides for the registration of trademarks and sets out and protects the rights deriving from registration. A trademark is a sign used in the course of trade to distinguish goods or services. The protocol, a multilateral treaty administered by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), sets up an international registration system for trademarks. The amendments contained in this bill will enable the Trade Marks Office to process international applications and registrations under the protocol should the decision to accede be made. The amendments in this bill do not involve any substantive changes to our domestic trademarks law however, and overseas applicants designating Australia will need to meet the requirements of the Australian Trade Marks Act before protection is granted here.The globalisation of commerce and the rise of the new information economy have resulted in an increasing interest from traders in protecting their trade marks not only in their home market but also in markets overseas. Most of Australia's major trading partners are members of the protocol, or are actively working towards accession. There are currently 46 contracting states, including Japan, the United Kingdom, European Union countries and China. The United States of America recently announced its intention of proceeding to accession, and I understand that Singapore and the Republic of Korea are also making progress towards acceding. Access to the benefits of the protocol would enhance the ability of Australian business enterprises to compete effectively in overseas markets. By investigating accession, the government is demonstrating its commitment to helping Australian business to compete internationally by `cutting costs and red tape' wherever possible. Australian traders seeking to protect their trade marks in overseas markets would benefit from a considerable saving of time and expense. A study in the United States reports that cost savings of more than 67 per cent can be expected. The international registration system allows a trade mark owner to file one application and pay one set of fees to cover multiple countries that are party to the protocol—at present, Australian traders seeking to protect their trade marks in export markets need to file several applications, in different languages according to where protection is sought, and pay separate fees in the relevant foreign currencies.Apart from obtaining international protection, the streamlining of procedures and the resultant cost savings under the international registration system is equally applicable to maintaining that protection. For medium to large enterprises with large numbers of trade marks, this represents a great saving of time and expense. To illustrate: under the protocol, the protection granted in all designated member countries may be renewed simultaneously through the payment of the appropriate fee to the international bureau of WIPO. Similarly, any changes to registration details, such as a change of address, may be actioned by a single notification to the bureau. Currently, an Australian enterprise with multiple registrations in a host of different countries would need to file numerous amendment applications. Under the protocol, a single amendment application could be filed with WIPO.Accession to the protocol would also assist Australian businesses to take advantage of the opportunities offered by electronic commerce, by making it easier for them to secure widespread protection of their trade marks at a lower cost. In the borderless marketplace of the Internet, the ability to protect and promote Australian brands and trade marks, more cheaply and with less red tape, and in as many markets as possible, is necessary if innovative and entrepreneurial Australian enterprises are to take full advantage of electronic commerce. Australia's accession to the protocol would not only be advantageous to Australian business enterprises, it would also serve to enhance Australia's reputation as a leading member of the intellectual property (IP) community regionally. Australia has always been at the forefront in acceding to international agreements aimed at harmonising and normalising the administration of IP rights. Accession to the protocol would be consistent with this history. By investigating accession, the government is demonstrating its commitment to maintaining a competitively excellent IP system that ensures our traders are able to protect their IP rights both domestically and abroad. If Australia accedes to the protocol, this step would most likely trigger increasing interest in the treaty in our immediate region, and undoubtedly more and more countries in the Asia-Pacific would progressively come on line.There are no contributions payable to WIPO by contracting states to the Madrid protocol. There will be no additional cost to the government of administering this legislation, and the cost recovery nature of operation of the Trade Marks Office will be maintained. The implementation costs arising from the development of new practices and procedures, as well as staff training and modifications to the Trade Marks Office computer system, could be met within current budgetary arrangements. Consultation to date has revealed that there is strong general support for Australia's accession to the protocol, particularly amongst users of the trade marks system. However, further close consultations will be held with all interest groups and stakeholders before a final decision on whether to accede to the protocol is made.I commend this bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum to this bill.Debate (on motion by Mr Horne) adjourned.Bills18401R110718401Bill presented by Mr Reith, and read a first time.1840110:13:0018401Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPMinister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.The coalition's 1998 workplace relations election policy More Jobs, Better Pay contained commitments to further legislative reform in our second term of office.These commitments were reflected in four pieces of legislation already introduced by the government since October 1998, dealing with small business unfair dismissal exemptions, superannuation, youth wages and multiple reform issues in the Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (More Jobs, Better Pay Bill) 1999.That bill was passed by the House of Representatives on 14 October 1999 but subsequently blocked by the combined opposition of the Labor Party and the Australian Democrats in the Senate.Since opposing the `more jobs, better pay bill' last November, the Democrats have publicly indicated that they prefer to deal with the contents of that bill on an issue by issue basis, not as an omnibus piece of legislation.In a speech to the ACT Industrial Relations Society on 6 April 2000, Democrat spokesman Senator Murray said, and I quote:In my view only technical bills should be general and broad ranging. Policy bills should be specific. It is far better for a reformist government to deal with one issue at a time on a specific and limited basis.And again, in the course of the inquiry by the Senate Employment, Workplace Relations, Small Business and Education Legislation Committee into the bill, the senator said:It seems to me the Act can be conveniently broken up into major sectors ... I find these kind of omnibus bills result in a lot of negativity and it is very difficult to progress them.Taking these sentiments into account, the government has sought to accommodate the preferences of the Australian Democrats by proceeding, other than on technical issues, with an issue by issue consideration of policy matters arising from the `more jobs, better pay bill 1999'.The first of these issue by issue bills was a bill dealing with pattern bargaining and related matters which passed the House on 1 June 2000, but which is now also being opposed in the Senate by the Labor Party and, so far, by the Democrats. The government is now in a position to introduce further single issue bills drawn from the `more jobs, better pay bill 1999'. This bill concerns procedural and technical amendments to the approval processes for Australian workplace agreements. The Workplace Relations Act 1996 has provided a wide range of options to employers and employees recognising that different workplace arrangements will suit different organisations. Employers and employees can choose between collective certified agreements, made with a union or directly with employees, Australian workplace agreements, which are made directly between a single employer and employee, informal agreements, or a mix of these forms. The right for an employer and employee to make formal individual employment agreements has been one of the outstanding features of this government's reforms. There is no doubt that AWAs have found support among employers and employees. This is evidenced by the increasing use of AWAs. Over 100,000 individual agreements have been made since the provisions of the Workplace Relations Act came into effect, covering around 1,900 employers. More than 4,500 agreements are now being made each month and during last month alone more than 6,000 new AWAs were made. AWAs have been used to introduce a wide range of innovative flexible working arrangements. They have helped lift productivity, often tailored wages to performance incentives and bonuses, and allowed more flexible work arrangements so that employees can balance their work and family requirements. The government is committed to AWAs and the right of workers and employers to choose to make them. The government, unlike the opposition, believes that it is important to ensure that employers and employees have genuine choice about the working arrangements which will apply to them. Streamlining agreement-makingWhile ensuring that Australian workplace agreements, certified agreements and the no-disadvantage test are retained, the amendments will introduce a streamlined approval process for AWAs. The current filing and approval processes for AWAs will be amalgamated to ensure a much simpler and speedier formalisation process. AWAs—and variation agreements—will take effect from the date of signing, or the date specified in the agreement or the date employment commences. This will mean that pending approval by the Employment Advocate, there is a presumption that the AWA meets all the statutory tests. Employers will be required to apply within 60 days to have the agreement approved. There are complementary provisions introducing cooling off periods and compensation provisions to fully protect employees' interests.AWA procedures for high salary earners—those whose remuneration is higher than $68,000—will be fast tracked. Unless otherwise requested, for employees whose remuneration is above $68,000, an AWA accompanied by the appropriate declarations from an employee will not be assessed against the no-disadvantage test before approval. Of course, where the employee still requests such an assessment be made by the Employment Advocate, it will occur. The employer will no longer be required to satisfy the Employment Advocate that the employer did not act unfairly or unreasonably in failing to offer AWAs in the same terms to all comparable employees. These changes will provide greater scope to recognise individual performance through such agreements.Approval of all AWAs will be by the Employment Advocate. Currently, where the Employment Advocate has concerns about whether an AWA meets the no-disadvantage test (NDT), the Employment Advocate must refer the AWA to the commission. This has frequently meant delay in finalising approval of the AWA. The proposed amendments will give the power to the Employment Advocate to decide whether or not to approve an AWA, subject to principles which may be developed for this purpose by the president of the commission.Relationship between AWAs and other instrumentsIn addition to simplifying the processes associated with the making and approval of AWAs, the legislation will clarify the relationship between AWAs and awards—including state awards—certified agreements, state agreements and other legislative instruments, in order to allow them to operate more effectively. For example, provision is being made to ensure AWAs are not excluded by those awards made under section 170MX. Industrial action and AWAsFinally, the bill's amendments will remove the limited immunity available in respect of industrial action taken in support of a claim for an AWA. The AWA industrial action provisions appear to have rarely been threatened, let alone used. In introducing this bill the government is conscious of the fact that the Australian Democrats have supported the role that AWAs play in our modern workplace relations system. As Democrat spokesman Senator Murray said on 1 June 2000:AWAs have a good place as part of the agreement mix. A limited number of employees, particularly better paid highly skilled employees, where the one-size-fits-all award could be an impediment to productivity, do well under AWAs.The Democrats' dissenting report to the Senate Employment, Workplace Relations, Small Business and Education Legislation Committee in November 1999 did not support the AWA amendments as a whole, but did indicate that `there are some positive matters dealt with in this [AWA] schedule'.The Democrats are also on the record as supporting simplified, less technical and less legalistic procedures for employers and employees using the system. In these circumstances, it is reasonable for the government and the Democrat support for AWAs to be translated into a more streamlined approval process. That is what these amendments do. In introducing this bill I am clearly indicating that the government is determined to proceed on an issue in respect of which there appears to be Democrat support. The government is prepared to consider amendments to refine the detail of the procedures proposed by the bill, if it is the detail that is the barrier to the bill's passage through the parliament. The bill is an important one which will build on the objects of the 1996 reforms and improve the AWA system in the interests of employers, employees and small business.Of course, this matter has already been before a Senate committee. However, the government would welcome further Senate scrutiny, provided that such a committee will review the bill in order to ensure a more effective framework for making AWAs and so underpin better access to the full range of agreement options. The right of the coalition to implement its workplace relations mandate, subject to constructive Senate review, is a principle that has been acknowledged by the Democrats—and one that they should now act upon. On 15 June 1996, the then Leader of the Australian Democrats—now Labor shadow minister Kernot—said on the issue of workplace relations:The Democrats accept that the government has been elected to govern and that it has its right to present its legislative program to the parliament for consideration. But the Democrats have been elected to do a job, and that is to closely scrutinise legislation to ensure that it is fair, and workable and the best solution to an identified problem.... the Democrats have no intention of being obstructionist in this Senate. As we have done for 15 years of holding balance of power, we will carefully review legislation, suggesting ways to make it work better if possible.Adopting a just say `no' attitude to this bill would be inconsistent with not only the proper role of the Senate as a house of review but also breach the principle under which the Democrats themselves marked out their past approach to these issues, at least until 1997.I commend the bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum.Debate (on motion by Mr Horne) adjourned.Bills18404R112618404Bill presented by Mr Williams, and read a first time.1840410:22:0018404Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.The Administrative Review Tribunal Bill 2000 provides for a fundamental reform of the system of federal merits review. It will establish the Administrative Review Tribunal to replace four merits review tribunals—the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, the Social Security Appeals Tribunal, the Migration Review Tribunal and the Refugee Review Tribunal.Almost 25 years ago the Administrative Appeals Tribunal was created to provide merits review of a broad range of administrative decisions. The intention at the time was to have a single independent tribunal dealing with appeals against administrative decisions across as wide a spectrum of Commonwealth activity as possible. Despite this intention, a number of specialist federal merits review tribunals were subsequently established. These include the Social Security Appeals Tribunal, Migration Review Tribunal and Refugee Review Tribunal.The role of each of these tribunals is to provide independent, external review of administrative decisions made in particular areas of government. However, each is invested with a range of different powers and modes of operation. It was therefore appropriate to assess whether the federal merits review system was providing an efficient and effective avenue of redress for individuals seeking review of government decisions.Such an assessment was undertaken by the Administrative Review Council in its report Better decisions: Review of Commonwealth merits review tribunals. The council is a distinguished body that was set up to monitor the administrative law system and recommend improvements. The council urged the formation of a single tribunal to replace a number of existing federal merits review tribunals. The government accepted the recommendation. It decided to create a strong, independent tribunal that would exercise the jurisdiction of several existing tribunals, and at the same time would streamline merits review, remove duplication and inefficiencies, and improve performance. To have several tribunals performing a similar review function, but with separate membership, staff, premises, information technology and corporate services systems, is wasteful of resources. It also limits the range of work available to the members of the various tribunals.The establishment of the new tribunal will be a major development in the field of administrative review. It demonstrates the government's commitment to improving and enhancing the Commonwealth system of merits review. A vast number of decisions made by government departments and agencies on a daily basis affect the rights and interests of individuals. The government is committed to ensuring individuals have ready access to independent and high quality review of decisions that is inexpensive, prompt, informal and effective. The vital task of increasing public awareness of review rights and the availability of external review will be more easily achieved when there is one major tribunal conducting most federal merits review.The goal of creating a tribunal that provides individuals with an appropriate review forum and encourages efficient public administration is reflected in the objects set out in the bill. These include:to ensure that the Administrative Review Tribunal provides an accessible mechanism for reviewing decisions that is fair, just, economical, informal and quick;to enable the tribunal to review decisions in a non-adversarial way; andto enable the tribunal to use flexible and streamlined procedures and a variety of processes, including inquiries and conferences, for resolving issues.The new tribunal will be headed by an independent president, appointed by the Governor-General as a statutory office-holder. The president will be responsible for the operation and administration of the tribunal. Unlike the President of the AAT, there is no requirement in the bill that the president of the new tribunal be a judge. This is in keeping with the government's goal of creating an informal, non-legalistic environment in the new tribunal. Other members will also be appointed by the Governor-General.The tribunal's six divisions will reflect the main review jurisdictions of the existing tribunals. The divisions are the Commercial and General Division; the Immigration and Refugee Division; the Income Support Division; the Taxation Division; the Veterans' Appeals Division; and the Workers' Compensation Division. Each division of the tribunal will be headed by an executive member who will have responsibility for the day-to-day management of that division.In recognition of the different classes of decisions that will be reviewed by the tribunal, and the needs of particular classes of applicants, specialist procedures will continue to exist for particular divisions where appropriate. Practices that have worked well in the separate tribunals will be carried over to the new tribunal. However, it is not the government's intention that the new tribunal will merely be the sum of its parts. As far as possible, the government intends the tribunal as a whole to develop a flexible, non-adversarial culture, with an emphasis on informality and accessibility.Members appointed to the new tribunal will have a range of knowledge and skills. It is expected that many members will be chosen from those currently serving on the existing tribunals, bringing their experience and expertise to the new tribunal. Members will be appointed to a particular division, and they may be cross-appointed to other divisions to accommodate fluctuations in divisional workloads. The bill provides for the appointment of a limited number of members as senior members—highly skilled and experienced members suitably qualified to review difficult, complex or particularly significant decisions and to provide intellectual leadership and guidance to other members. The government has carefully considered whether a second-tier of external merits review should be provided. Second-tier review clearly adds to the time and costs of merits review. In its Better decisions report, the Administrative Review Council concluded that applicants should not have an automatic right to second-tier review.The government agrees that the merits review process should be finalised as efficiently as possible. Accordingly, there will not be an automatic right to second-tier review in the new tribunal. Second-tier review will be limited to cases that raise a principle, or issue, of general significance where the first-tier review was conducted by a single member of the tribunal. It will also be available where parties to the first-tier review agree that the decision involved a manifest error.This reform will mean that second-tier review will be available in areas for which currently there is no second-tier review, such as taxation and workers compensation. The current right to appeal a decision of the Veterans' Review Board to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal will not change: decisions of the board will be subject to review in the Veterans' Appeals Division of the new tribunal.Appeals from the new tribunal to the Federal Court will be available, in the same circumstances as appeals from the tribunals being amalgamated. Transfers of such appeals to the Federal Magistrates Court will be possible to the extent presently provided for. Judicial review of administrative decisions under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 will also continue to be available to the same extent as at present.The government intends that the new tribunal will develop a user-friendly culture. To encourage informality and an efficient use of resources, the government envisages that most reviews will be heard by the tribunal constituted by a single member. The president will have discretion to direct that two or three members constitute the tribunal where the review raises a principle, or issue, of general significance or where additional specialist expertise is required. The tribunal will generally give its reasons for decision orally, with written reasons being provided on request or where the tribunal considers the reasons for decision should be in writing due to the significance or normative value of the matter.Departments and agencies whose decisions are under review will not be required to participate in a review, in the sense that they must appear before the tribunal. This will not affect the need for departments and agencies to give to the tribunal information and documentation relevant to the decision under review. However, it will assist in reducing the formality and adversarial nature of reviews. When decision makers participate in reviews, the bill provides that they must use their best endeavours to assist the tribunal. The emphasis is on achieving the correct and preferable decision, rather than on defending the original decision.Flexible practice and procedure directions will be a feature of the new tribunal. It will be able to tailor its practice and procedure according to the division within which a decision is reviewed and the type of decision under review. Other measures to promote economical and quick review will include the use of technology, such as conducting reviews by use of video and telephone conferencing.The government is also keen that the new tribunal use a variety of processes, as well as informal hearings, in reviewing decisions. The tribunal will have a discretion to direct that conferences or inquiries be held at any time during a review to attempt to resolve issues and may encourage the use of other processes, including counselling, mediation and conciliation.The emphasis in the new tribunal on non-legalistic processes will minimise the need for legal representation. However, there will always be situations where legal or other representation will be warranted, either because of the complexity of the issues or the particular needs of the applicant. Participants may choose someone else to represent them before the tribunal if the tribunal agrees and representation is not prohibited by practice and procedure directions. The new tribunal will use the infrastructure of the existing tribunals. Court-like hearing rooms that are still used in some registries of the existing tribunals will be replaced with meeting or conference rooms. In addition, the new tribunal, where appropriate, will use the support personnel of the existing tribunals, retaining valuable corporate knowledge and ensuring continuity in the administration of the federal merits review system.In keeping with the government's aim of improving the quality and processes of administrative decision making, the bill will continue in existence the Administrative Review Council. The council provides expert advice to the government on strategic and operational matters relating to the Commonwealth system of administrative review. In the last 25 years, the council has produced a large number of useful reports on a range of administrative law matters, including the report that recommended the creation of the new tribunal. The bill requires the council to keep the Commonwealth administrative law system under review, monitor developments and recommend improvements that might be made to the system. The government looks forward to the council continuing its important contribution in this area.The Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2000 will be introduced in the next sitting of parliament. More than 350 enactments confer jurisdiction on the tribunals that are to be amalgamated and these must all be amended to confer jurisdiction on the new tribunal and make the necessary amendments that will ensure a seamless transition to the new system. Preparation of the consequential and transitional provisions bill is a very large undertaking, which involves all departments and many agencies; it is in the final stages of completion. The government has placed a high priority on the new tribunal commencing operations as soon as practicable. The government is therefore taking the step of placing the main bill before the House so that parliament and the community can examine the provisions that will establish the new tribunal and provide for its structure, membership and procedures. The consequential and transitional provisions bill will provide the detail on the tribunal's jurisdiction, how the tribunal's procedures will be modified for the review of certain decisions and how the transfer of jurisdiction from the existing tribunals to the tribunal will be achieved.This bill to establish the new tribunal is a further significant step in the government's reform of the federal civil justice system, following the recent establishment of the Federal Magistrates Service. The government is firmly committed to the continued independence, effectiveness and accessibility of federal merits review. The Administrative Review Tribunal will be an independent, flexible, accessible, user-friendly tribunal. It will provide review that is fair, just, economical and efficient and, in the process, improve the quality of Commonwealth administrative decision making. I commend the bill to the House. I present the explanatory memorandum to the bill.Debate (on motion by Mr Bevis) adjourned.Bills18407R109718407Bill presented by Mr Williams, and read a first time.1840710:46:0018407Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.I am pleased to introduce this bill which will enable Australia to ratify the Convention on the Safety of United Nations and Associated Personnel. The object of the convention is to give greater protection to the men and women who under the auspices of the United Nations put themselves at risk while serving the international community. Recent events overseas have unfortunately once again demonstrated the significant dangers which can face the men and women associated with UN operations. While violent attacks against UN personnel in Australia are unlikely, the bill is clearly a desirable measure. Domestic laws of this kind underline the determination by a significant part of the international community to deter such attacks and to do everything possible to bring offenders to justice. The bill assists the attainment of these ends by strengthening the ability of Australian authorities to take action against alleged offenders.This bill deals with the individual criminal responsibility of persons who attack United Nations and associated personnel. It adds a new division, division 71, to the Commonwealth Criminal Code which makes the crimes set out in the convention offences in Australian domestic law.Proposed section 71.16 describes the circumstances in which Australia will be able to exercise jurisdiction in respect of the offences established by the bill. The offences will apply to attacks against UN and associated persons occurring outside Australia where there is an Australian connection, for example, if the victim or the alleged offender is an Australian. Subject to a provision which prevents division 71 overlapping with state and territory criminal laws, the bill will also apply to attacks committed in Australia.I might point out that, in accordance with provisions of the convention, the proposed offences will not apply where the UN or associated persons are connected with authorised enforcement operations in which UN personnel are engaged in combat against organised armed forces and to which the law of international armed conflict applies.I am pleased to say that the governments of the states and territories have been consulted about the convention and that there is general support for Australia becoming a party. The bill reflects this cooperative approach by expressly preserving state and territory criminal laws. In addition, it will not be possible to convict a person in a state or territory court for an offence under division 71 if the relevant conduct is the subject of a criminal penalty under a law of that state or territory. This means, in effect, that the offences created by this law will not operate in relation to conduct that occurs in Australia where the relevant state and territory law implements Australia's convention obligations. The Commonwealth law will operate primarily in relation to conduct outside Australia, as well as being available to cover any gap in local criminal laws. I hope that the proposed legislation will receive broad support. The convention was signed for Australia under the former government. I am pleased that the present government is able to complete the steps necessary for Australia to become a party to the convention. I commend the bill to the House and table the explanatory memorandum.Debate (on motion by Mr Bevis) adjourned.Bills18408R112018408Bill presented by Dr Kemp, and read a first time.1840810:40:0018408Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPMinister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.The Indigenous Education (Targeted Assistance) Bill 2000 will be the vehicle for the government's indigenous education targeted funding program for the 2001-04 quadrennium and will provide the authority to appropriate some $591 million in grants to indigenous education providers in the states and territories over the quadrennium.The bill will implement the 1999-2000 budget initiatives for indigenous education, including the Commonwealth priorities to improve literacy, numeracy and attendance outcomes for indigenous students. Specifically, the bill will provide funding for the Indigenous Education Strategic Initiatives Programme (IESIP) for the period 1 January 2001 to 30 June 2005 to maintain Commonwealth effort in improving education outcomes for indigenous Australians. This incorporates supplementary recurrent funding and funding for specific projects with the purpose of meeting the objects of the bill. It will also provide for the continuation of the `mixed-mode' course delivery away-from-base element of the Abstudy scheme, transferred to IESIP from 1 January 1999 for the 2001-04 period. Specifically, the bill contains funding arrangements for education providers delivering Abstudy approved courses. This bill will replace the Indigenous Education (Supplementary Assistance) Act 1989 and will operate on a quadrennial basis in line with the States Grants (Primary and Secondary Education Assistance) Bill 2000 commencing from 1 January 2001. These two bills represent the government's renewal of its commitment to school education and indigenous education for the new schools quadrennium 2001 to 2004. The States Grants (Primary and Secondary Education Assistance) Bill 2000—which I will be introducing shortly—provides Commonwealth funding for the education of all Australian school students while the Indigenous Education (Targeted Assistance) Bill 2000 provides additional funding for supplementary education programs designed to assist education providers and improve educational outcomes for indigenous students.The Commonwealth government is committed to working with indigenous families, communities, states, territories and education providers to overcome the educational disadvantages that many indigenous students face. An important step towards this goal was the launch by the Prime Minister of the National Indigenous English Literacy and Numeracy Strategy in March of this year. This strategy builds on the National Literacy and Numeracy Plan endorsed by the Commonwealth, state and territory education ministers in March 1997 and is aimed at improving education outcomes for indigenous people.The objective of the strategy is to achieve English literacy and numeracy for indigenous students at levels comparable to those achieved by other young Australians. The strategy will encompass the involvement of local communities, schools, parents and students; cooperative action between the Commonwealth and the states and territories which have primary responsibility for schooling; and coordinated action within the Commonwealth government across relevant portfolios. The strategy will extend across the preschool, school and VET sectors. Education providers will be encouraged to adopt approaches to teaching that have been shown to achieve better student outcomes. There will be extensive resources available for the education of all Australian children through state, territory and Commonwealth recurrent funding programs. Specific supplementary funding arrangements designed to support improved educational outcomes for indigenous students will also be available. This strategy will heighten awareness of indigenous literacy and numeracy issues and accelerate implementation of successful teaching practices.The passage of this bill will enable the Commonwealth to play its part, in concert with the states and territories, in pursing the goal of equitable and appropriate educational outcomes for indigenous students by 2004. This goal is vital if indigenous people in communities are to enjoy the many opportunities available in Australia and to achieve their aspirations and hopes for their families and communities. I commend the bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum.Debate (on motion by Mr Bevis) adjourned.Bills18409R112218409Bill presented by Dr Stone, and read a first time.1840910:46:0018409Stone, 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 Defence Legislation Amendment (Aid to Civilian Authorities) Bill 2000 proposes to amend the Defence Act 1903 to bring the framework for call-out of the Defence Force in law enforcement emergencies up to date. I believe the bill provides a sound basis for the use of the Defence Force as a last resort in resolving such emergencies. The drafting of this bill follows a process of examination of Australia's counter-terrorist capability and response framework, which has been in place for over 20 years. The impetus for this examination was the Hilton bombing, which occurred at the time of the Commonwealth Heads of Government Regional Meeting in 1978 which, it may be recalled, led to the call-out of significant numbers of the Defence Force to secure the town of Bowral. Following these events, the government appointed Justice Hope to carry out a protective security review. Justice Hope produced a report which contained numerous recommendations relating to Australia's counter-terrorism preparedness. Many of those recommendations have been acted upon over the years, focusing on aspects relating to physical reaction capability, coordination amongst relevant authorities and intelligence capability.Justice Hope made a number of recommendations regarding the use of the Defence Force assisting in law enforcement, and he proposed that legislation be enacted to provide for the process, powers and accountability regime for when the Defence Force is called on in such circumstances. The Hope report highlighted the unsatisfactory state of the existing call-out framework, including anachronistic provisions. There was no express accountability to parliament and there was a lack of authority vested in members of the Defence Force when called out. These concerns were also echoed by academic legal commentators at the time.The existing legislation is not responsive to contemporary needs. Rather, it reflects its 18th century English origins, which focused on riot control—at a time before modern police services were developed. This can be seen by the archaic references in this legislation to the presence of magistrates, the blowing of bugles and the reading of proclamations, requirements that do not assist, or may possibly even inhibit, the resolution of modern-day terrorist incidents. The present legislative framework does not provide sufficient accountability to parliament. Nor does the legislation provide members of the Defence Force with appropriate authority to perform the tasks they may be required to carry out, either in an assault upon terrorists or in a related public safety emergency. Furthermore, there needs to be provision both for safeguards in the exercise of such authority and for accountability for the actions of individuals as well as government.Our expectations for use of the Defence Force have been distilled over the years since 1978 in the national antiterrorist plan, now in its sixth edition. This plan was formulated in coordination with all those agencies, state, territory and Commonwealth, that are involved in counter-terrorist response. Under the plan, the Defence Force will only be called out to assist state or territory law enforcement agencies where they may not have the capability to resolve an incident. Tasking for the Defence Force may include the use of specialised assault equipment and skills to deal with the more sophisticated security threats in order to release hostages or to recover hijacked aircraft, ships, vehicles, offshore oil and gas installations and buildings. They may also be asked to perform tasks related to resolution of such incidents by providing cordons, assisting in evacuations, searching premises for and seizing and making safe dangerous items such as firearms and bombs, control of public movement, picketing and guarding and temporarily detaining suspects. Such support might be required in a situation involving a chemical, biological or radiological device where the assistance of the Defence Force is required to evacuate and secure a large area.The response in other democracies has been varied. In many countries a third or paramilitary force has been created that has special legislation governing their actions. Examples are the GSG 9 in Germany, the Gendarmerie in France, the Carabinieri in Italy and the National Guard and Coast Guard in the United States. Such an option is not considered appropriate or necessary in Australia. Another option adopted by New Zealand and Canada is to simply assign to members of their defence forces the same powers, obligations and protections as are available to their police services. This approach is not considered desirable as it encourages the view that the Defence Force is a substitute for the police force rather than to support them. The powers available to defence personnel would be different from state to state and because it is preferable to make provision only for specific tasks the Defence Force might be asked to perform.Other unique difficulties exist for Australia in relation to the nature of our federal structure. Each state and territory currently has different emergency legislation. In addition, the Constitution specifically prohibits and precludes the exercise of control over Defence Force personnel other than by the Commonwealth. This situation makes it imperative for federal legislation to provide a cohesive and clear framework for call-out.The concept behind this bill, therefore, is to modernise the procedures to be followed for call-out of the Defence Force, set out safeguards, including parliamentary supervision, and specify the powers and obligations of the Defence Force when used to assist the police, as a last resort, in the counter-terrorist assault role and for related public safety tasks.The bill amends the Defence Act 1903 by repealing most of section 51 and adding a new part. The government also proposes to repeal those parts of the Australian military and Air Force regulations that deal with call-out. Under the bill, call-out may be initiated to protect Commonwealth interests or on the application of a state or territory to assist that state or territory to resolve a law enforcement incident. The proposed legislation is consistent with the obligation imposed on the Commonwealth under section 119 of the Constitution to protect a state, upon request to the Commonwealth, against domestic violence.Call-out will occur only if the Prime Minister, Minister for Defence and Attorney-General agree that a state or territory is not, or is unlikely to be, able to protect the Commonwealth or itself against the domestic violence. In making or revoking an order, the Governor-General acts on the advice of Executive Council or, for reasons of urgency, he or she is to act with the advice of an authorising minister. The Chief of the Defence Force is to use the Defence Force for the purpose set out in the order. Subject to directions from the minister, the Chief of the Defence Force will determine the composition of the force to be deployed and will exercise command of it.The Chief of the Defence Force must ensure that the Defence Force, while remaining under his command at all times, must assist and cooperate with the police force of the state or territory. Members of the Defence Force will only be able to exercise such powers as are specified in the order, which in turn may only be from those powers that are set out in the bill. As far as is practicable, members of the Defence Force will not be able to exercise these powers unless requested to perform a task by the police of the state or territory.The order must state the nature of the Commonwealth interest threatened and the domestic violence. It must state that it comes into force when made and, unless revoked earlier, it will cease after 20 days. The order must be revoked if the ministers cease to be satisfied that call-out is warranted or if the state or territory withdraws its application. When an order or orders cease to be in force, the Minister for Defence must, as soon as practicable and within three sitting days, table a copy of the order or orders and any declarations and report on the use of the Defence Force.The Defence Force counter-terrorist assault role will be provided for in division 2 of the proposed new part. This division authorises the assault force to, among other things, rescue hostages and recapture premises. The division also permits these personnel to do things related to this purpose, such as detaining suspects until they can be handed over to a police officer, evacuating persons found in the premises, searching the premises for dangerous objects, and seizing and making safe such objects.In relation to those tasks associated with public safety arising from an emergency, specified powers will be set out in division 3. I should emphasise that these powers will be conferred on members of the Defence Force when a general or designated security area is declared by ministers, and only on those personnel called out. The fact of the declaration of a general or designated security area, the reasons for the declaration of such an area, and the powers that the Defence Force may exercise in it must be advised to the public. Within a general security area, if the Chief of the Defence Force or an officer authorised by him believes on reasonable grounds that there is a dangerous object, such as a bomb, chemical weapon or firearm that could be used to cause death, serious injury to persons, or serious damage to property on any premises in the area, and it is necessary as a matter of urgency to make the dangerous object safe or prevent it being used, then members of the Defence Force may be authorised to search such premises. The authorisation requires the following matters to be set out:a description of the premises;identification of the member in charge;the names of the authorising officer and other search members authorised to carry out the search;authorise the seizure of items believed on reasonable grounds to be a dangerous object;authorise the search of persons near the premises who are believed on reasonable grounds to have a dangerous object in his or her possession; to seize that object; and state the time that the authorisation remains in force, which cannot be for more than 24 hours. In acting under the authorisation, the member of the Defence Force may use such force as is reasonable and necessary in the circumstances. A copy of the authorisation has to be given to the occupier, the member in charge must identify themselves to the occupier, and any person searched must be shown a copy of the authorisation. The occupier is entitled to observe the search provided the person does not attempt to impede the search.Defence Force members may also be authorised to search a means of transport in the area if they believe on reasonable grounds that the transport contains a dangerous object, and they may erect barriers and use reasonable and necessary force to stop, detain and search the transport for as long as necessary to search it and to seize any dangerous thing. If there are reasonable grounds for believing that a person in the general security area is in possession of a dangerous object, Defence Force members may search the person and seize the dangerous thing.Division 3 also introduces the concept of the designated area which the ministers may declare to be in effect within the confines of the general security area. If such an area is declared, it must once again be advised to the public, including its specific boundaries. Within the designated area, a member of the Defence Force may use reasonable and necessary force to direct a person not to bring a means of transport, such as a car, into the area, to take it out of the area, move it to another place within the area or not to move it at all. Within the designated area, members of the Defence Force may erect barriers and remove or move any unattended means of transport. They may direct a person not to enter the area, to leave it, or to move from one place to another within it, and enter and search premises or a means of transport for the purposes of directing any person found therein to leave the area. It will also be possible for members to make it a condition of entry that a person or vehicle be searched for any dangerous object.Defence Force members will be authorised to make safe or prevent from being used any dangerous object seized under these provisions and, if practicable, will be required to issue a receipt for it. If it is suspected to have been used in the commission of an offence, then it must be given to a police officer; if not, then it must be returned to the owner. Someone who is suspected of having used a dangerous object to commit an offence may be detained and handed over to the police. In detaining such persons, necessary force may be used and, if practicable, the person must be advised of the nature of the offence unless this is clear in the circumstances. When exercising the authorities set out in division 3 it will be an offence for a Defence Force member not to wear uniform and identification attached to the front of the uniform, except where the absence of identification is caused by the act of someone else. It will also be an offence to obstruct a member performing these duties. If a member fails to comply with any obligation in relation to the exercise of these authorities then they will be taken not to have been entitled to exercise them.The bill has no effect on uses or authorities of the Defence Force under other legislation and powers such as customs, immigration and fisheries legislation. The bill also preserves the current prohibition set out in section 51 of the Defence Act regarding the use of Defence Force elements in connection with industrial disputes.The bill attempts to provide for the changing nature of the terrorist threat, a threat that was not within contemplation when the Defence Act and its regulations were drafted almost 100 years ago. Today we must be on our guard against not only deadly military style conventional weapons but also the so-called weapons of mass destruction. When the sarin gas device was triggered in Tokyo the lack of control and capability at the scene resulted in around 5,000 people fanning out around the city to contaminate other persons and medical facilities. While there is no expectation that we will ever confront such a threat it would be irresponsible not to be prepared for it. It is scenarios such as this that the division 3 provisions were designed to address.Whilst it is the government's intention to bring this bill into effect prior to the Olympics, it should be viewed in the wider context of our counter-terrorist preparedness and in that context it should also form part of our long-term deterrence posture. Through these measures international terrorists will know that we are serious and we are prepared.The bill provides for the limited use of the Defence Force in the last resort where there is a significant threat to public safety or to deal with an armed terrorist attack where the resources or capability of a state or territory may not be adequate. It does so without derogation from our cherished standards of justice and due process of the law. It provides safeguards and accountability. The tasks and authorities of the Defence Force are clearly spelled out so that both the public and the Defence Force know exactly what to expect. This also provides a sound basis upon which the Defence Force can train so that their responses and actions will be measured and appropriate. The bill does not interfere with the jurisdiction of the courts to supervise the actions of the Defence Force. Members of the Defence Force remain accountable for their decisions to use force and the lawfulness of their actions. However, the bill does provide Defence Force members with better protection for the action they may reasonably take.Finally this bill enshrines fundamental democratic principles in the call-out process as opposed to the current inadequate legislative framework and emphasises and provides for the primacy of civilian control. It is a bill which is long overdue and I commend it to the House. I present the explanatory memorandum to this bill.Leave granted for debate to continue forthwith.11:03:0018413Martin, Stephen, MPMr MARTIN8I4CunninghamALP00—As the parliamentary secretary has indicated, the Defence Legislation Amendment (Aid to Civilian Authorities) Bill 2000 will amend the Defence Act 1903 to bring up to date the framework for the call-out of the Defence Force in security emergencies. The bill will provide a proper basis for emergency use of the Defence Force as a last resort. Whilst the parliamentary secretary has indicated that this particular amendment to the legislation is long overdue, I think it is important that we do recognise that the catalyst for its being considered at this time is the Olympic Games and the preparedness that we need to have for the security of the people of Sydney and those people who are coming to Sydney as athletes, officials and guests. We all recognise that in this world today, unfortunately, there are still terrorist groups that would like nothing better than to highlight their ability to cause mayhem, death and destruction by targeting a specific world event. There is certainly not going to be a larger world event this year, as far as Australia is concerned, than the Olympic Games in Sydney in September. It is therefore important, as suggested by the parliamentary secretary and by the government, that the Australian Defence Force play a role in whatever security measures may be required and that nothing is left to chance. It is important, for the fundamental regime that governs the way in which that Defence Force can participate as part of a call-out to protect Australians and Australia's interests and people who are visiting this country, that we have that framework in place.The impetus for the examination of the Defence Legislation Amendment (Aid to Civilian Authorities) Bill 2000 was the Hilton bombing at the time of the Commonwealth Heads of Government regional meetings in 1978, which led to the call-out of significant numbers of the Defence Force to secure the town of Bowral. Following this event, a protective security review was instituted, headed by the then Justice Hope, who went on to become the Chancellor of the University of Wollongong, and who I regarded as a very close friend. We miss him dearly.In this respect, the Hope report highlighted the unsatisfactory state of the call-out framework, particularly from the point of view of the vagueness of the authority and expectations of the Defence Force's accountability and process. While there are two types of potential call-out, either Commonwealth initiated or following Commonwealth agreement to call out upon the request of a state, the current legislation deals with call-out only in response to a state request. The present legislative framework does not provide for sufficient parliamentary accountability to prevent any perceived misuse of the Defence Force. There needs to be provision for both safeguards in the exercise of such authority and also accountability for the actions of individuals as well as governments.Our expectations for the use of the Defence Force have been distilled over the years since the 1978 national anti-terrorist plan, which is now in its sixth edition. This plan was formulated in coordination with all those agencies—state, territory and Commonwealth—which were involved in the counter-terrorist response. Under the plan, the Defence Force will be called out only as a last resort, where the resources of a state or territory are not sufficient to provide the best resolution of a situation. The plan provides for the use of specialised assault equipment and skills to deal with the more sophisticated threats in order to recover hostages, aircraft, ships, vehicles, offshore oil and gas installations and buildings. They may also be asked to perform tasks related to terrorist threats, such as providing cordons, evacuations, seizing and making safe dangerous items and building search. Such support might be required in a situation involving a chemical, biological or radiological device in order to evacuate and secure a large area.The Defence Legislation Amendment (Aid to Civilian Authorities) Bill 2000 amends the Defence Act 1903 by repealing the first paragraph of section 51 and adding a new part. It also repeals the related Australian military and airforce regulations. Call-out will be initiated to protect Commonwealth interests or on the application of a state or territory to protect that state or territory from domestic violence. Call-out will occur only if the Prime Minister, the Minister for Defence and the Attorney-General agree that a state or territory is not able or is unlikely to be able to protect a Commonwealth interest or itself against the domestic violence. An order of the Governor-General would authorise the Minister for Defence to use the Defence Force for the purposes set out in the order. The Chief of the Defence Force must ensure that the Defence Force, while remaining under his command at all times, assist and cooperate with the police force of the state and territory. Members of the Defence Force will be able to exercise such authority only as is specified in the order from within the prescribed authorities set out in the act. As far as it is practicable, members of the Defence Force will not be able to exercise these authorities unless requested to perform a task by the police of the state or territory. As was indicated by the parliamentary secretary, there are all sorts of limitations placed on the way in which those orders can in fact be struck. There is a 20-day limitation, for example, under a number of other sections and divisions of the amendment being proposed. There are also inclusions for tasks associated with public safety, terrorist assault roles, the way in which the authorisation can be handled and so on. As I said in my introductory remarks, this legislation sets out and firms up a process that, I guess, has sometimes been taken for granted. It also, of course, provides the opportunity for scrutiny of the way in which something like this may be used by this parliament to ensure that it is done in the appropriate way. Quite obviously, as I said, for all good strong commonsense legal reasons, you will get written into this legislation, as it is proposed and as the parliamentary secretary noted, the need for things like handing over receipts if things are taken during the course of a search and so on. There may be a good legal reason, but I have to say that, in terms of practical implementation, it would be a bit hard if you are leading an assault on someone who might be trying to do maximum harm to the maximum number of people at the Sydney Olympics to say as you are going out the door, `By the way, here's the receipt for your nuclear device' or `Here's the receipt for your chemical weapon'—a bit odd; but, nevertheless, I understand the reasons why that is included within the bill. I would like to indicate that Labor will not be opposing the legislation in the House. We recognise that section 51 of the Defence Act does require amendment so that more appropriate provisions and processes can be put in place with regard to the use of the Australian Defence Force personnel in emergency law enforcement roles. Of course, we have seen that this is something that our Australian Defence Force has a capability of doing—in peacekeeping and policing operations. In some cases we have also seen the Australian Federal Police in unarmed situations. This type of role is appropriate for the Australian Defence Force, and its use in those very limited circumstances is appropriate, but with the appropriate caveats, controls and mechanisms that this legislation seeks to provide.As I mentioned earlier, the report prepared by Justice Hope in his Protective Security Review does assist—despite being done in 1979—in highlighting some of the deficiencies with the current legislation. However, as I said earlier, I accept that it is the Olympics that is the driver for the changes that are being brought in in respect of the timing of this bill. As I am sure other members of this House know, the Australian Defence Force has been training for any potential difficulties that might arise at the Olympics. Operation Gold is the tag name that is given to that process. I well recall that there were some complaints from people about the use of Black Hawk helicopters and our trained SAS people flying over Homebush to participate at night in an antiterrorist training exercise. But for a few short hours at night, I am sure they will sleep much better knowing that if troops were required in the real thing that training will stand them in good stead. We understand the professionalism that people like Air Vice Marshal Brett Espeland and others, who are coordinating the role of the Australian Defence Force in the security of the Olympics, will bring to that task. We certainly hope that it is something that is not required during the Olympics. We hope that the Olympics in Sydney turn out to be the showcase for Sydney and Australia that it is hoped it will be. We are, however, comforted in the knowledge that, through the training for Operation Gold, the Australian defence personnel across the three services will have a very real role that they can play should that need arise.That said, I think it is also important that we indicate and put on the record that the opposition will not be pressured into passing legislation if we are not completely confident about its merits and its value. But we are happy to facilitate as speedy a passage as possible for the legislation through the House of Representatives and, I would hope, also through the Senate. It is important to point out that, if passed, this bill will not give the ADF any greater powers than it has at the moment through section 51 of the Defence Act. I think that is probably the most critical thing in this debate. This legislation, as it stands now, gives the ADF the sorts of powers that we are seeking to amplify and specify in the legislation and imposes some processes and procedures to be followed. It also provides for the appropriate protection for ADF personnel if and when they are ever used under the provision of this act. As I said a little earlier, regrettably, in this world of constant change and in this world where you have people with plenty of money to spend on all sorts of fanatical causes, we do have circumstances in which there are terrorist activities and attempts to bring maximum harm to the maximum number of people in order to maximise the publicity that those particular individuals or organisations get. We still have the ongoing drama in Fiji, which is a terrorist activity. We still have ongoing problems in the southern Philippines, where a separatist Muslim organisation has kidnapped tourists from neighbouring Malaysia and is still holding many of those people hostage to try to push for a separate Muslim state to be created in the Philippines, which of course is a largely Catholic country. We still have, from time to time, bombings of major buildings. There were the Oklahoma bombing and the bombing of the World Trade Centre in New York. All of this is geared towards some fanatical organisation trying to maximise publicity for its particular cause. I think it is important, therefore, that this legislation spell out how we in Australia treat seriously the call-out provisions that exist already but that may be required during the course of such a major event as the Sydney Olympics. It is important that we indicate how seriously we as a parliament and as a nation take the need to ensure that every aspect of this aid to civilian authorities bill, which is proposing these amendments, provides appropriate protection for ADF personnel if and when they are called and that the processes and procedures followed are correct and can be ticked off on.Also, it is appropriate that I thank both the Minister for Defence and the Attorney-General for providing me and the shadow Attorney-General, my good friend the honourable member for Barton, and indeed the Leader of the Opposition, with briefings on the bill prior to its introduction. It is important that a spirit of bipartisanship be exhibited in this place on something as important as this, and that has been the case in the briefings that we had with the relevant ministers and their staff. I would also readily acknowledge that the government has already taken on board most of the recommendations that the Labor opposition suggested to it at those briefings, and these have been reflected in the bill. My colleague the member for Barton will probably make some comment on the provisions which have been picked up by the government. I think that demonstrates how, on something as important as this, both sides of politics can work for the common good. In this case, the common good is the protection of Sydney during the course of the Olympics. But at some future time, again when terrorist activity may be thought likely to occur, the Australian Defence Force can play a legitimate role in assisting state and territory governments and police forces in taking whatever steps are necessary to ensure that that does not occur.I would like to point out at this stage that there are still some reservations that the opposition has with regard to certain parts of the bill. It will not be a surprise to the government, because we have already signalled our intention here, that Labor will move to have the bill referred to an appropriate legislation committee in the Senate for examination. What we do not believe is necessary is some long drawn out discussion within that legislation committee in the Senate, but I do think it is important that the ADF and others in the Australian community have an opportunity to put some submissions to that particular committee on one or two of the elements here that are still of concern to us.One of the major sticking points that we would like the government to address is that surrounding the authorising ministers. As it stands at the moment, the Prime Minister, the Attorney-General and the Minister for Defence are the authorising ministers, but the bill allows for them to delegate or nominate an extra minister if the circumstances require it. Frankly, I do not know that there is a need for that. I think, when we are talking about something as critically important as authorising the use of the Australian Defence Force for quelling domestic violence—it is a quaint term, I know, but it refers to antiterrorist activity and so on—that we have got it right with the Prime Minister, the Attorney-General and the Minister for Defence being the responsible ministers. To suggest that it may be delegated to someone else along that chain of command is inappropriate. They, at the end of the day, are three participating ministers—including the Prime Minister—in the security committee of cabinet. They are the relevant ministers when it comes to something as critical as this, so they should be the three who take that responsibility. In this day and age of communications, I find it extraordinary to think that, if one of those particular individuals were not readily available to make an authorisation, they could not be contacted. Mobile phone coverage around this country today is pretty good. We saw the shadow minister for industrial relations tapping away in here on his computer a moment ago. I am sure Minister Moore, the Attorney-General and the Prime Minister are up on their skills in that area as well, so it would not be difficult to get emails to them if necessary to get the appropriate authorisation.The best way to deal with this, as I have already indicated, is to pass it speedily through this place. It is certainly not the intention of the opposition to hold up the bill's passage. We have three or four speakers on our side and there are probably a similar number on the government side, so we will get rid of it by question time today and off it will go to the Senate. We do think that it is necessary to have this inquiry into the bill by a Senate committee during the winter recess. It is appropriate that it then come back in the first sitting week in August for consideration. That is only six or seven weeks away. It could be passed by the Senate at that stage, hopefully with the suggestions that we have already flagged, which we feel are important. It would then become law and we would have in place some clear, concise, direct guidelines as an adjunct to section 51 of the Defence Act which specify the way in which the Australian Defence Force might be used in a call-out for domestic violence. As I said earlier, and I will wind up on this, I think that the parameters that have been included in this build on the excellent work that was done initially by Justice Hope and on the excellent work that was done over the years by a whole series of attorneys-general. I know that in this respect Lionel Bowen looked at the way in which those policy parameters might in fact be put in place and they were implemented successively by Attorney-General Duffy and also justice ministers Tate and Kerr in Labor administrations. At the end of the day what we should not get away from is the fact that the catalyst for this legislation coming forward to date is the Olympic Games. We will provide—certainly with the support of both sides of this parliament and indeed, I would suggest, the whole of the parliament—support for the ADF should that become necessary. Of course, we all hope it does not; we all hope that the security arrangements that are in place are appropriate, as they are at the moment. We certainly hope that the Olympic Games are the success that people in Australia believe they will be and should be. There has been a lot of time, effort and, dare I say, money expended on the Olympics to ensure that it does showcase Sydney and Australia. However, it is important that we say to those dissident groups that might be around the world, should they decide that it is an appropriate venue to try to stir up some problems, that Australia is ready, and the men and women of the Australian Defence Force certainly are ready, to lend assistance to the police force in New South Wales in the event of such a contingency arising. As I say, though, we would hope that is not necessary. We wish this legislation a speedy passage through the parliament.11:24:0018417Thompson, Cameron, MPMr CAMERON THOMPSON84CBlairLP10—It has been a long time since the Hilton Hotel bombing and the incident referred to by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage and the member for Cunningham in which defence forces were called out around the town of Bowral. It is okay for the opposition defence spokesman to roll the credits of all the former ALP defence ministers and attorneys-general, but what concerns me a little about where we are at today is the length of time that has elapsed since the events of the Hilton Hotel bombing and the CHOGM meeting and the fact that it is only at this late stage that we are getting down to this important bit of legislation. This is legislation that the parliamentary secretary referred to as `overdue'. I would certainly agree with that. I think it illustrates the necessity for the shake-up that is going on in the Defence Force, that what we need to do is ensure that we prioritise effectively—and I believe that this legislation, being overdue, should have been seen in this House long before now. In fact, I do not think it is correct for people in this place to talk about it purely in the context of the Olympics. The Olympics, of course, is a vital event, something that Australia looks forward to with a great deal of relish and that we must be absolutely prepared for. But this is not an Olympic bill: this is not a bill about doing something special for the Olympics; it is a bill that sets in place a set of protocols that have to be correct, appropriate and effective for the purposes of the correct running of our Defence Force and the good order of our society. I am pleased to hear the opposition spokesman speak of bipartisanship. It is good that the opposition will be facilitating the bill's rapid progress through the House and the Senate. I am glad that there has been a level of bipartisanship that has allowed for a briefing of the opposition about this. Without this bill you would have to wonder about the circumstances that personnel would find themselves in if they were involved in the kind of terrible activity that this bill contemplates. Without this bill you would have to wonder about the legal protection, for example, of military personnel who might be tied up in very serious events in which policy in relation to life and death may well be being made on the run. Earlier on the parliamentary secretary talked about the current position requiring bugle calls and things like that. I cannot believe that we are so archaic as to still have that within our system. We live in the 21st century and it is a real concern to me that for something as serious as this quaint term `domestic violence'—which is really about riots, serious public affray, danger, bombs and all these kinds of things—we are that far behind in relation to governing legislation.We would not want to find ourselves in a situation where, in the middle of a hostage drama, we are confronted by a constitutional crisis about who gives the orders. That is precisely what is going on today in Fiji. Who is the giving the orders over there? What we need is a simple layout of where and when responsibility shifts in a situation like this. I realise what both the parliamentary secretary and the opposition spokesman have said about the existing national antiterrorist plan and the fact that it has been through six generations. I cannot believe that we have a national antiterrorist plan that has gone through six generations and yet things such as those that are contemplated in this bill have not been cleaned up. I think we have put the cart before the horse, although it is a very important cart. Being able to rescue people, being able to deal with hostage situations and being able to deal with serious rioting and that sort of thing are things that we must have at our fingertips; they are an integral part of the management of good order.I would like to refer to the procedures that apply. The Australian Defence Force may be called out under the Defence Legislation Amendment (Aid to Civilian Authorities) Bill 2000 if the Prime Minister, Attorney-General or the Minister for Defence—who are the authorising ministers—are each satisfied. The opposition spokesman said in his comments that he could not see why it would be contemplated that there would be the opportunity to defer responsibility to another minister. Mr Deputy Speaker, I will suggest to you that, if we are dealing with hostage situations, we have to be able to contemplate the possibility that maybe the defence minister himself will be a hostage in a situation like that. Every eventuality has to be covered. If there are eventualities that are not correctly covered and if the chain of command is not absolutely clearcut and watertight, this sort of situation can break down very quickly—and by overseas experience we can see exactly what that means. As for the concerns of the opposition on this matter, I do not think that they have really given this the thought that is needed. There needs to be a clear chain of authority, and it is important that more than just one minister is required to sign off on this kind of activity. We have three, and we have the opportunity if there is not the three for there to be a replacement. That is important. I have spoken about the first of the procedures. The second is that these three ministers must be satisfied that a state or territory is unlikely to be able, or is unable, to maintain order or to protect the Commonwealth interests or the state or territory concerned against domestic violence. They must also be satisfied that the ADF is needed to assist. Then, and only then, the Governor-General may make a written order directing the Chief of Defence Force to use the ADF for that purpose. Those procedures are important, well thought out and appropriate. I do not think that it serves us well after having waited since 1979, after a length of time during which this was contemplated by the Defence Force bureaucracy, for us now to go off to a legislation committee and to run around there for too great a period of time. I appreciate that the opposition would like to see it minimised, but I really wonder whether it is necessary to engage too much in overheated public discussion when we are getting advice about something as basic as this from the Defence Force and when what we want is effective military management of a serious situation. As I have mentioned, the delays in this are of concern to me, and I think they are symptomatic of various problems we have seen in the Defence Force over the years. The situation in the Defence Force at the moment is that we are still endeavouring to clear up the problems that have confronted the government over the submarines, which the Department of Defence is yet to be able to bring effectively on line for the defence of our country. I do not think we would be in the position of having to contemplate this massive reorganisation of the defence forces in Australia today if we had not had debacles like that submarine exercise. We have seen a cost blow-out over that exercise which has increased the initial budget of $2.6 billion to about $5 billion, and all the way along there has been a series of obfuscations from the opposition about the whole submarine exercise. Quite honestly, today the defence of Australia is suffering as a result.I would like to go back to some of the various parts of the bill. There are two divisions of power within the bill that I think are important to note. They are set out in divisions 2 and 3 within the bill. The first one enables the kind of activity to recapture premises, to free hostages, to detain people, to evacuate an area and to search for and seize a dangerous thing. That, of course, is something that the national antiterrorist plan has been working on for some time, and I am sure that when it comes down to the nuts and bolts of administering such a thing the antiterrorist plan is going to be effective after six generations.In relation to division 3, however, we come into some different areas. This division is in relation to calling out the Defence Force for policing activities. There would be difficulties in simply assigning police powers to Defence Force members. Unlike New Zealand, Australia has different states within which police have different powers. It is too incredible to imagine that we could require our Defence Force personnel to become expert in the various levels of police responsibility that apply in each one of those states—it would be an unmanageable situation. I believe this bill comes up with an effective answer to that: basically, it sets out the situation where orders will be given and where people will act on those orders. It is not a matter of having blanket powers that can be enacted; it is a matter of addressing the situation that arises. For example, the bill sets aside the opportunity to establish a general or designated security area. Within that area, the defence forces are able to cordon off areas where they might want to deal with some dangerous thing such as a bomb, a chemical weapon or something like that. They can also search transport vehicles and take that kind of action. I have given an undertaking that I will be short in my remarks, so I will truncate them somewhat, particularly in relation to industrial disputes. In relation to section 51 of the Defence Act, which prohibits the use of the Reserve or emergency forces of the ADF in industrial disputes, I think the people of Australia will be pleased to know that the status quo is to be maintained. That is appropriate. We are not setting out to change the boundaries of what is or is not appropriate practice, particularly when we come from a long history of ascertaining what is acceptable and appropriate in those sorts of circumstances. The existing situation has been retained, and we are setting out the flow of command that facilitates that activity.Something else that members should note is that it is only possible for reserves to be called out in situations when the permanent force of the Defence Force is insufficient to accomplish what is required to be done. Defence Force members in this activity are required only to use reasonable force. Once an activity is complete, the minister is required to report to parliament within seven days. I commend the bill to the House. I believe it is appropriate, and I welcome it because I believe it is long overdue.11:37:0018420McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLANDJK6BartonALP00—I think it is fair to say that in modern-day Australia the greatest threat to Australians is not from foreign invasion of 15,000 troops but rather 15 individuals coming into Australia to undertake terrorist activities, whether that is using sophisticated weaponry, chemicals, gas or even biological weapons. We must be alive to that possibility. It is not one that we think is likely, but we would be in neglect of our responsibility to the Australian people if we did not properly equip our defence forces to handle that task. It has to be said that the Defence Legislation Amendment (Aid to Civilian Authorities) Bill 2000 is not giving the defence forces any powers that they do not already have but it is providing for four factors. Firstly, it is going to set the parameters for the conduct of the defence forces when they are called out in a situation of a domestic emergency. Secondly, it will provide a detailed regime of accountability, and that is vitally important. Thirdly, it will form part of our deterrence insofar as anyone contemplating this sort of terrorist activity in Australia would be on notice, if you like, as to the response that that activity would receive. The fourth issue where this bill is very relevant is in the area of training. It will certainly be of assistance to our defence forces if they know what those issues are and the parameters involved in the conduct, and they can properly train to coordinate and cooperate with state police forces in undertaking their duties. Much has been said in the debate earlier regarding the quaint expression `domestic violence'. It is in fact an important expression. It is contained in section 119 of the Constitution. That section provides:The Commonwealth shall protect every State against invasion and, on application of the Executive Government of the State, against domestic violence. That has been interpreted to mean significant violence, not violence in a household. In addition to that, while section 119 refers to call-out to assist states at the request of states, the High Court has held in The King v. Sharkey that the power of the Commonwealth also extends to defending Commonwealth interests. In the judgment, reference is made to what is a famous quote, in this area at least, by the authors Quick and Garran on the constitutional law. It is probably worth referring to that quote because it does set out the interaction between the two issues of this power. One is to protect the interests of the state when requested by the states, and the other is the power that the Commonwealth has to protect the interests of the Commonwealth. The authors say:The maintenance of order in a State is primarily the concern of the State, for which the police powers of the State are ordinarily adequate. But even if the State is unable to cope with domestic violence, the Federal Government has no right to intervene, for the protection of the State or its citizens, unless called upon by the State Executive. If, however, domestic violence within a State is of such a character as to interfere with the operations of the Federal Government, or with the rights and privileges of federal citizenship, the Federal Government may clearly, without a summons from the State, interfere to restore order. They are the two heads of power, and it is important to note that section 51, which this bill will repeal, refers to only one aspect of power, and that is the aspect in respect of the call-out at the request of the states. There is clearly a broader spectrum to have in mind. So it is important for people to realise when they consider this bill that it is not giving additional powers to the Commonwealth but rather is codifying and clarifying those powers.It is also necessary, when you are looking at this bill, to compare it with what exists currently. A number of speakers have spoken on the quaint powers that exist in the Australian Military Regulations, and in particular part 5—the Duties In Aid of the Civil Power During Domestic Violence. They are contained in regulations 398 through to 415. Those regulations were made under the Defence Act, which we are amending. There is no doubt that those regulations are based on common law as it existed in the 18th century. Many members of the House would have heard the expression `I'm going to read the riot act'. That is where that expression comes from. It is in regulation 407, which provides that a magistrate must accompany the defence forces and the role of a magistrate is to `read the Riot Act' before the defence forces go into the area. I understand that there is a necessity to blow a bugle before that occurs. That is quite inappropriate to modern risks that we would confront by way of terrorist activity. As Senator Durack previously said in response to the Hope report, which other speakers have commented on:Part 5 of the Australian Military Regulations and Part IX of the Air Force Regulations are directed to a riot situation of a kind more to be expected in 18th century England than in Australia in the present day. By contrast, these regulations make no specific provisions for acts of violence by individuals or small groups of persons, possibly armed with highly effective weapons. That is undoubtedly correct. All members of the House are cooperating to bring our laws up to date. I think the previous speaker, the member for Blair, suggested some neglect on the part of the military in respect of this issue, and I think that is unfair. The neglect has not been on the part of military at all; for a long time they have wanted these matters clarified. The neglect has more relevantly been at a legislative level in not clarifying the powers more precisely. As previous speakers have indicated, the impetus for these amendments came in 1978 following the Hope commission and that followed the utilisation of the defence forces in Bowral to provide protection to foreign officials following the Hilton bombing in 1978. The use of the defence forces in those circumstances involved some controversy. The public will always be apprehensive when they see the defence forces used in any number in that sort of situation. The inquiry into the use of the defence forces in that particular situation and generally showed just how inadequate the current framework is—hence the recommendations to address it.As I have indicated, there are two types of call-out: one call out to protect the interests of the Commonwealth; the other when the states have requested it. The present legislation deals only with the second. Also, the current legislative framework does not provide for sufficient parliamentary accountability. So anyone examining this bill must, if they are doing fairness to it, factor in as a vitally important component that for the first time there will be a need to report to parliament regarding the use of the defence forces in these circumstances. There is also going to be a number of safeguards which will apply. Those safeguards include defining more readily the circumstances in which defence forces are going to be required. It must be recognised that there may well be circumstances where it will be only the Australian defence forces that are properly equipped with specialised assault equipment and skills to deal with more sophisticated security threats in order to recover hostages, aircraft, ships, vehicles, offshore and gas installations, and buildings. They may also be required to provide cordons in domestic violence situations, to assist in the evacuation, seizing and making safe dangerous items and undertaking searches of buildings. We cannot ignore the possibility of chemical, biological or even radioactive devices being used in terrorist activities and the need to urgently evacuate and secure large areas. The protections that are built into the legislation will include that the Chief of Defence Force must ensure that the Defence Force, while remaining under his command at all times, must assist and cooperate with the police force of the state. It is important to appreciate that the Defence Force will be able to exercise only such authority as is specified in the order from within the prescribed authorities set out in the act. As far as is practicable, members of the Defence Force will not be able to exercise these authorities unless requested to perform a task by the police of a state or territory. The other protections involved are that the order itself must state the nature of the Commonwealth interest threatened or the domestic violence occurring in the state. It must be clearly specified; it cannot be just a general utilisation of the defence forces in anticipation, for instance, that there could be an event during the period of the Olympic Games. There would have to be an actual threat or an actual violent incident for this legislation to be enacted.The order ceases after 20 days, if not revoked earlier by the relevant ministers, who are the Prime Minister, the Minister for Defence and the Attorney-General. The Minister for Defence must, as soon as practicable and within seven days, table a copy of the order or orders and any declarations and report on the use of the Defence Force. The Defence Force counter-terrorist assault role will be provided for in division 2 of the new part being inserted into the Defence Act. That will really clarify the circumstances in which the defence forces are able to use necessary and reasonable force in the important tasks that may be required of them, such as rescuing hostages and recapturing premises, including private property.In relation to tasks associated with public safety generally, division 3 is important. It provides for the role of the military, in securing areas, that a declaration must, again by way of safeguards, specify the area, the reasons for the activity and the authorities that the Defence Force may exercise. Equally, in respect of search and entry, the authorisation must describe the premises, identify the member in charge, authorise that member and other search members to carry out the search, and authorise the seizure of items believed on reasonable grounds to be dangerous things. It will also authorise the search of persons in the vicinity, but only on the condition that there were reasonable grounds to believe that they possessed a dangerous thing or substance. It is important to realise that the power can be used only for the time that the authorisation remains in force which, in the case of that particular activity, cannot be for more than 24 hours. It is also important to note, by way of a safeguard, that a copy of the authorisation has to be given to the occupier or the person representing them in that building. So it is not a situation where the military can come in completely unrestrained. Division 3 also introduces the concept of the designated area which the ministers may declare, but the safeguards in place are that that declaration must once again be advised to the public, including its specific boundaries.Defence Force members will be authorised to make safe or prevent from being used any dangerous things seized under those provisions and, if practicable, as we have indicated, to provide a receipt. It has to be recognised that in many circumstances that will not be practicable, but their activities will nonetheless go unimpeded. If an item is suspected to have been used in the commission of an offence, then it must be given to a police officer. If not, it must be returned to the owner.The other protections are that it will be an offence for a member of the Defence Force not to wear a uniform and identification attached to that uniform. If a member fails to comply with any obligation in relation to the exercise of these powers and authorities, they will be taken not to have been entitled to have exercised them. So there are very strict obligations on members of the Defence Force exercising these authorities. As the previous speaker mentioned, it is also important to realise that this bill will not apply to situations of industrial dispute. That is, the status quo currently set out in section 51 of the Defence Act will remain. Nothing is changed in that respect. That is important. It is also important for people looking at this particular issue to note that, as a result of negotiations with the opposition, the government will include in proposed section 51A, subsection 1, clause (a), an additional phrase which will place as the precondition on the exercise of these powers that domestic violence is occurring or is likely to occur in Australia. So the context of a mere industrial dispute would in any event not be likely to fall into that category of serious domestic violence for which these powers are designed. There are a number of other safeguards built into the legislation which other speakers have spoken on. As has been constantly noted, it is important for people who are analysing this bill to note that no additional powers are being given to the defence forces. What is being done is to clarify the exercise of those powers to set a framework of accountability in place. That is in the interests of good law enforcement but also in the interests of the members of the defence forces themselves who will be required to exercise these powers. In short, the Commonwealth cannot simply act on a whim. It cannot act on the whim of a particular minister—or even the Prime Minister—who has some particular desire to call out the military. There are safeguards in place. However, we believe and I understand it is the belief of the government that, to reassure the public that all matters or likely concerns have been ticked off on, it is appropriate for this matter to be referred to an appropriate Senate committee. The opposition certainly thinks that is desirable. We recognise that it is important to have these measures in place for the Olympics but, as a previous speaker indicated, these measures should not be seen as simply a short-term measure that can be sunsetted after the Olympics. They are in themselves important measures that are certainly required and the opposition certainly supports this legislation.11:55:0018423Gash, Joanna, MPMrs GASHAK6GilmoreLP10—It is good to see the bipartisan approach taken to this legislation, particularly on this Defence Legislation Amendment (Aid to Civilian Authorities) Bill 2000. I would like to remind the people of Australia that no government really owns the Defence Force. It is the Australian people that own the Defence Force. I think that is made very clear by this legislation and the bipartisan support for it. I am pleased to rise today to speak on a bill that will enable us to use the Australian Defence Force to assist with combating violence and terrorism and in other related public safety emergencies. Currently, there is an ability to call out the ADF but without an explicit accountability to the parliament. Obviously, the upcoming Sydney Olympics have encouraged the advancement of this bill, but the matter has been awaiting review for several years.As was stated last year, the deployment to East Timor was the most significant deployment of ADF personnel since the Second World War, in terms of its size and its contribution to Australia's security. The deployment to East Timor and its great success in restoring peace and security to the people of East Timor displayed the great contribution that our defence forces make to our country. The Defence contribution to the Sydney 2000 Olympic Games will be on a comparable scale to the deployment to East Timor. It is expected to be of the order of some 4,000 personnel. However, whilst the Defence support to the Sydney 2000 Olympic Games will be significant, in the best-case scenario it will be low key. Whilst the New South Wales Police Service will be responsible for overall security of the Games, they are working closely with Defence and other agencies to ensure that a high quality security response is provided to our Olympic Games. This planning does not indicate that the government is aware of a specific threat, but in planning for major international events it is normal to consider all possible eventualities and to plan and train accordingly.I have been fortunate to see the result of the ADF training. Late last year I observed the Crocodile '99 exercises in Northern Queensland and I have to say I was very impressed. The standard of training was high. The innovation and attention to detail was extremely professional. I understand Operation Gold is the name given to the ADF support to the Sydney 2000 Games. It includes ADF support in two main areas: security tasks and general support. The general support will include drivers to assist in driving technical delegates and officials, ADF bands, support to ceremonial activities and venue managers. It is the security support that the ADF will provide to the games that is relevant to the bill we are discussing today. The security tasks to be undertaken by the ADF include a counter-terrorist response, operational search of venues and vehicles, bomb search, clearance divers and liaison officers. As my colleague the member for Murray has explained, the Defence Legislation Amendment (Aid to Civilian Authorities) Bill 2000 proposes to amend the Defence Act 1903 to bring the framework for call-out of the Defence Force in law enforcement emergencies up to date—and not before time. The bill provides a sound basis for the use of the Defence Force as a last resort in resolving such emergencies. Current legislation in the Defence Act 1903 concerning the procedures for call-out of the ADF to aid the civil power is deficient and certainly outdated. The purpose of this bill is to modernise this legislation in time to ensure that Australia has every possible option to ensure that the success of our games is not compromised. The concept behind this bill, therefore, is to modernise the procedures to be followed for call-out of the Defence Force, to set out safeguards including parliamentary supervision, and to specify the powers and obligations of the Defence Force when used to assist the police as a last resort in the counter-terrorist assault role and for related public safety tasks.The bill will repeal section 51 of the Defence Act and add a new part. This new part will incorporate procedures for the use of the ADF to protect Commonwealth interests against violence in a state or territory, or at the request of a state or territory, as defined in section 119 of the Constitution. The Chief of the Defence Force must ensure that the Defence Force, while remaining under his command at all times, assists and cooperates with the police force of the state or territory. Members of the Defence Force will be able to exercise only such powers as are specified in the order, which in turn may only be from those powers that are set out in the bill. As far as is practicable, members of the Defence Force will not be able to exercise these powers unless requested to perform a task by the police of the state or territory.This does not mean that the Defence Force will be taking over law enforcement in a scenario where they are called out. Rather, the legislation states unequivocally that the Defence Force will be there to assist the civilian authorities. Powers given to the Defence Force to, for example, rescue hostages or recapture premises or to detain suspects or search premises for dangerous items—all conceivably tasks that may be required of the ADF in a worst-case scenario—may only be exercised when a security area has been declared, and this declaration, the reasons for it and the powers conferred on the ADF must be made known to the public.As my colleague the member for Murray has explained, when exercising the authorities set out in this bill, it will be an offence for a Defence Force member not to wear uniform and identification attached to the front of the uniform except where the absence of identification is caused by the act of someone else. It will also be an offence to obstruct a member performing these duties. If a member fails to comply with any obligation in relation to the exercise of these authorities they will be taken not to have been entitled to exercise them. The bill has no effect on uses or authorities of the Defence Force under other legislation and powers, such as customs, immigration and fisheries legislation.This bill also preserves the current prohibition set out in section 51 of the Defence Act regarding the use of Defence Force elements in connection with industrial disputes. It attempts to provide for the changing nature of the terrorist threat, a threat that was not within contemplation when the Defence Act and its regulations were drafted almost 100 years ago. Today we must be on our guard against not only deadly military style conventional weapons but also the so-called weapons of mass destruction. When the sarin gas device was triggered in Tokyo, the lack of control and capability at the scene resulted in around 5,000 people, initially in contact with the toxic substance, fanning out around the city to contaminate other persons and medical facilities. While there is no expectation that we will ever confront such a threat, it would be irresponsible not to be prepared for it. This bill is therefore not only to add to the security measures that the government has for the Olympic Games but beyond that to our long-term ability to meet these types of security challenges. This form of support from the ADF is a less publicised role of our defence forces. Many members here will be aware of the tremendous support that the ADF provides to the community through defence aid to the civil community, as opposed to civil power. We will all be aware of the rescues of lone sailors, Isabelle Autissier and Tony Bullimore, or the role that the ADF played in rescuing yachtsmen and yachtswomen during the tragic Sydney to Hobart yacht race in 1998. In this instance, assets from HMAS Albatross in my electorate were deployed to assist in the search and rescue operations. I can comment from my own experience on the professionalism and dedication of the ADF personnel carrying out these tasks. These are well-known examples of the capabilities and skills of our Defence Force. We have also seen the ADF contribute to the repair of homes in Sydney following last year's hailstorm and to countless other tasks, including medical evacuation, disaster relief and support to Customs and Immigration. Again, in my own electorate of Gilmore where large and intense bushfires are not uncommon, the local Defence Force personnel have left their bases to assist the Rural Fire Service and the community to protect our precious environment. I am confident that this bill will only add to the ability of our Defence Force to contribute to the safety and security of Australia.The bill provides for the limited use of the Defence Force in the last resort where there is a significant threat to public safety or to deal with an armed terrorist attack, where the resources or capability of a state or territory may not be adequate. It does so without derogation from our cherished standards of justice and due process of the law. It provides safeguards and accountability. The tasks and authorities of the Defence Force are clearly spelled out so that both the public and the Defence Force know exactly what to expect. This also provides a sound basis upon which the Defence Force can train so that their responses and actions will be measured and appropriate.The bill does not interfere with the jurisdiction of the courts to supervise the actions of the Defence Force. Members of the Defence Force remain accountable for their decisions to use force and for the lawfulness of their actions. However, the bill does provide Defence Force members with better protection for the action they may reasonably take. Finally, this bill enshrines fundamental democratic principles in the call-out process, as opposed to the current inadequate legislative framework, and emphasises and provides for the primacy of civilian control. In speaking of civilian control, for the first time we are currently seeking civilian input into our future defence policy.The release yesterday of the government's public discussion paper on defence is to be applauded. Its aim, to involve the Australian community in determining our defence capabilities, means that it is timely to be discussing defence issues. As chair of the government defence and veterans' affairs committee, I led a delegation to Perth recently to investigate the capabilities of several defence bases and contractors in Western Australia. I cannot overemphasise the importance of our Australian citizens understanding the issues that face the ADF over the next 20 years. If we are to be in a position to assist our neighbouring countries to attain the security they desire, we must make some decisions very soon. The more people who can contribute their well-informed opinions and ideas, the better.As the Prime Minister said yesterday, the discussion paper breaks new ground in involving the community in the defence debate. The highly successful and professional deployment of our Defence Force to East Timor means that public interest in defence is heightened. During my visit to East Timor earlier this year I saw, at first hand, the high regard in which our troops were held by the locals. This respect had been well earned through professional and humanitarian efforts on the part of our ADF personnel. I am sure that, if needed, our ADF personnel will provide the same top quality and dependable assistance in Sydney in the immediate future and to Australia in the long haul. The Defence Legislation Amendment (Aid to Civilian Authorities) Bill 2000 is a bill which is long overdue and I commend it to the House. I thank the opposition for supporting the bill and for taking a totally bipartisan approach. 12:07:0018426Edwards, Graham, MPMr EDWARDS83RCowanALP00—My understanding is that the Defence Legislation Amendment (Aid to Civilian Authorities) Bill 2000 lays out the proper procedure for the call-out of defence forces as a last resort in security emergencies. This updating of the Defence Act is driven by the Olympics—and, I would hasten to remind members, the Paralympics—and it is of course something for which there is a strong bipartisan approach. But it is not just the Olympics or the Paralympics that demand this type of legislation, because who can envisage what situations might occur in the future?I understand that the bill has been developed in conjunction with the agencies that would most likely be involved in a counter-terrorist call-out. I also understand that the bill provides that the call-out of the Defence Force can occur only as a last resort, where the resources of a state or territory are not sufficient to provide the best resolution of a situation. The sort of situation envisaged is one in which the use of specialised assault equipment and skills is required to deal with threats that might require the recovery of hostages, aircraft, ships, vehicles, offshore oil and gas installations, and buildings or other unforeseen areas of possible operation. Such situations could occur in an environment where chemical or biological substances have been used and where wholesale evacuation, the provision of cordons, seizing and making safe dangerous items, or a building search are required.The bill provides for the Defence Force counter-terrorist assault role and authorises the use of necessary and reasonable force, including lethal force, for the purposes of rescuing hostages and recapturing both private and public property. Most importantly, it provides that the Defence Force remain under the control of the Chief of the Defence Force while ensuring that he, at all times, must assist and cooperate with state or Territory police. This is a most important, indeed crucial, part of any counter-terrorist action. I can see no circumstances where Defence control of Defence personnel should be passed to any other authority. That, however, places an extreme responsibility on all commanders to ensure that maximum and total cooperation exists at all times between Defence and civilian authorities. The bill provides for the limited use of the Defence Force in last resort situations where there exists a significant threat to the safety of the public, or to deal with armed terrorist activity where the resources of a state or territory may not be sufficient to deal with the situation. Most importantly, this process spells out the tasks of the Defence Force. This is crucial for many reasons, including control on the ground, legal protection of Defence Force individuals, accountability and, most importantly, training purposes. The training that defence forces must undergo in counter-terrorism activities is extremely hazardous and dangerous. In many respects, it is more demanding and more dangerous than what many troops encounter in times of actual conflict, and I think we should bear that in mind.Can members of this House envisage the degree of training that our Defence Force have had to undergo to achieve the high degree of professionalism that they pride themselves on? Can members envisage the dangerous, demanding and stressful regimes that members of the Defence Force must expose themselves to in order to achieve the precision and expertise that in times of terrorist action can make the difference between success or otherwise in an incident for which they are called out. The training separation from loved ones and the dedication to the protection of property and person are too often overlooked. The hazardous nature of Defence personnel training, particularly for the SAS and those who work closely with them, often only comes to light when there is a tragedy of the like of the Black Hawk disaster. I certainly wish our Defence Force personnel well in their duties. They and their civilian counterparts will have a crucial role to play between now and the end of the year. We, like all Australians, would hope that there are no incidents associated with the Olympics or Paralympics. But, at the conclusion of the games, I hope that we as a nation pay as much tribute and give as much support and recognition to our Defence personnel—who have worked at no small cost to themselves to meet whatever contingencies arise—as that afforded to our recently returned Timor veterans, because these troops will indeed be the front line.In conclusion, I must say that I have some serious concerns about the proper and adequate resourcing of our Defence Force under this government. The recent announcement that our defence forces are to be cut back by an additional 2,000 uniformed members is of serious concern and must put pressure on the Defence Force all the way down the line. In this context, I think it is unfair to blame the military for the delay in this type of legislation, as one previous speaker did. This type of legislation is the responsibility of the government and that is where the responsibility must rest. Having said that, I am very keen to reiterate the strong support that the opposition give to this bill, but I also want to reiterate the caveats put forward by the shadow defence spokesperson and the shadow Attorney-General who have given this bill their strong support. I also give my strong support to the bill. I certainly agree with other members who have spoken on it. We hope that what has been provided for in this legislation is never called upon.12:15:0018427Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr FITZGIBBON8K6HunterALP00—Mr Deputy Speaker, I will take the opportunity to make a short contribution to the debate on the Defence Legislation Amendment (Aid to Civilian Authorities) Bill 2000. I am pleased that a number of government members have recognised that, as far as possible, the opposition has taken a bipartisan approach to the defence review. There could be no more important an area of government responsibility in this country than defence and it is always important that, as far as possible, we do take a bipartisan approach, both from the defence perspective and from the perspective that this is a very major area of government expenditure in this country.I want to briefly touch on a Defence facility in my own electorate of Hunter—that is, of course, the Singleton infantry centre. That centre really underpins the health of both the economy of Singleton and the economy of the wider Upper Hunter community. It is a Defence facility that has had a dark cloud pushed over it on one or two occasions in the past. From my perspective, it is very important that the government move very quickly to reassure the residents of the Singleton and wider Upper Hunter communities, and indeed the Hunter community, that the review currently before the Australian community does not in any way threaten the ongoing viability or existence of that infantry centre. I know that I speak on behalf of all Hunter residents in making that point. It is vital that the facility remain in place. One has to say that once we start to talk about going below the critical 50,000 mass in our Defence personnel, some merger or aggregation is likely and, therefore, it is my great fear that that centre could again come under threat. I call upon the government to reassure the community that that is not the case.12:17:0018427Lindsay, Peter, MPMr LINDSAYHK6HerbertLP10—I rise to support the Defence Legislation Amendment (Aid to Civilian Authorities) Bill 2000 because the area I represent in the Australian parliament has Australia's largest Defence base. Townsville-Thuringowa is known as the garrison city of the Commonwealth of Australia so many constituents of mine are very interested to see this legislation come in to the parliament this morning. Townsville is the home of the 3rd Brigade and, of course, 11 Brigade. In the 3rd Brigade we have Australia's ready deployment force. That is the group that responds at very short notice in times of emergency. We also have units like the 1st Battalion of the Royal Australian Regiment, the 2nd Battalion of the Royal Australian Regiment, 3 Brigade Administrative Support Battalion and 5 Aviation Regiment, which has been referred to in this debate today—that is the Black Hawk squadron. We have 3/4 Cavalry Regiment, 103 Signal Regiment, 4 Field Regiment, 3 Combat Engineers, 10/4 Support Battalion—in fact, you would almost think that we have the whole of the ADF with those kinds of units. It is certainly Australia's largest Defence base, along with RAAF Townsville, which serves an equally important purpose. I have to be very careful what I say in relation to RAAF Townsville because we have a lieutenant colonel with the Australian Army in the parliament this morning. In looking at this legislation—I was privileged to have a briefing and to examine the legislation before it came to the parliament—I was very careful to make sure that it contained the checks and balances that are needed. I note that a number of speakers today have made the point that, indeed, this legislation basically puts into law nothing more, really, than is already in practice. I am pleased to see the bipartisan support the legislation is being given. I asked questions like: does this impact on people's civil liberties? Who can give the orders? What is the process of that? Are the orders time limited? What happens if there are Rambos around the place? Is there any change in how the defence forces may be used for things like industrial disputes? Of course, it all came up with a clean bill of health.I make the point, and I think my colleagues would agree with me, that we have been trying to get this legislation in place for, perhaps, 20 years. There was certainly an attempt made in 1987 under the former Labor government and again in 1989, but they did not come to fruition. I guess it is sad that this legislation is not in place because it protects our members in the ADF in whatever they might do. It sets out the rules under which they can operate. It gives them a lawful base for doing what needs to be done in times of some kind of domestic violence in the country. It is very important that we have this in place, but it is sad that it has not been in place until now. I do know and understand what the urgency of this is. I know my colleagues know and understand that and I thank them for that support. I think this is a great step forward in what we are able to do.I know that, certainly in times of domestic violence, 5 Aviation Regiment from Townsville is likely to be very closely involved. I pay tribute to the men and women of 5 AV, who have been training extraordinarily hard with other units from Perth to protect this country later this year if needed. I know that some of the residents of my city, just the odd one or two, had some complaints about the noise as helicopters were landing on the Civic Theatre, on top of the Taxation Office building, but it was training that needed to be done. It was in the national interest that our men and women in 5 Aviation Regiment trained with other regiments in their counter-terrorism role, and I know that they will be extraordinarily well prepared in the very unlikely event that they will be needed. I also know that they have been training in Sydney and, in the middle of all of this training, they did get a little bit of training in a place called Timor. Many of our helicopters went over there, and one of the interesting takeouts of that was that the more they flew the helicopters, the more reliable they became. It is interesting to know that that could happen, and there is a bit of a message in there for the ADF, I believe.This is very good legislation. It certainly moves us forward very much. I am very pleased to be able to support it this morning in the Australian parliament on behalf of the several thousand men and women of Townsville and Thuringowa who are proud members of the Australian Defence Force.12:23:0018428Price, Roger, MPMr PRICEQI4ChifleyALP00—I am pleased to speak on the Defence Legislation Amendment (Aid to Civilian Authorities) Bill 2000. Of course it is being supported by the opposition. The impetus for this bill is long standing. It really goes back to 1978, with the Hilton Hotel bombing in Sydney during the CHOGM meeting. I guess it reflects poorly on governments on both sides that we have not responded earlier to that situation. The urgency now is because of the Olympics. I think every member in this chamber would hope that this legislation will never be required to be used—that is, that there is never a need to call out the ADF to help the police in a terrorist situation. Once upon a time we would have been fairly confident that that would not be the case. Now we are probably a little less confident, but I sincerely hope that it does not come to pass. There was a great deal of media coverage of the police and the ADF practising counter-terrorism in relation to the Olympic Games. I apologise for bringing a personal complaint to you and to the House, Mr Deputy Speaker, but the softball facilities for the Olympics, which were a venue for practising counter-terrorism, are located in my electorate. I regret to say that $100,000 worth of damage has occurred. This is not actually the source of my complaint. I have been approached by a number of constituents who have said that there is a particularly ugly building in my electorate—the former Astro Cinema, which is no longer used—and why wasn't I forthcoming in assisting our Defence and counter-terrorism forces by offering that building as a practice ground. So could I make the plea to the learned departmental officers in the advisers box that if they are contemplating any more practices, could we have a dialogue and I will see what I can do about the former Astro Cinema site in Mount Druitt.This is a bill about calling out Defence. I would not want to reflect on the honourable member for Herbert, but I can suggest to him a useful fundraiser. He has a large number of Defence personnel in his electorate. 8K6Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr Fitzgibbon—Two dollars for coffee.QI4Price, Roger, MPMr PRICE—Not $2 for coffee, although I understand the member for Eden-Monaro has pioneered that particular approach amongst pensioners. My suggestion is to run a guessing competition on when the government will bring in legislation to give effect to the policy that they have already announced; that is, the ability to call out the reserves in other than the defence of Australia. This was announced quite some time ago by the minister. Although we have this important bit of legislation, it has nothing to do with that announced policy. It seems to me to be quite ironic, at a time when we are going to be busily consulting with the Australian people, that the government has been unable to give legislative effect to its announced intention.The unit that would be primarily involved in counter-terrorism would be our SAS. As members of the public, we do not always get to hear about their good deeds and their strengths, which are considerable, both in counter-terrorism and in other operations. But I might say that it is conceivable—if this legislation passes, and surely it will—that there may be some reserves involved. I can imagine a scenario where the SAS may be involved and, to make up numbers, a reserve unit of commandos may be called on. Perhaps the parliamentary secretary can help me. I would be very interested to know, and clearly they must be covered under this legislation, whether in such an eventuality that commandos were utilised, would they be merely on commando pay or reserve pay? Would they be on full-time pay? What would be the length and duration of that full-time commitment? I would be very interested in that. If they were going to be paid extra emoluments or allowances, would they, like the 600 reserves that went to East Timor, lag behind everyone in the regular forces? Has the government thought this situation through?I do not want to give the impression that I am quibbling about this legislation—it is important, and it rectifies a great deal of uncertainty. I notice that there are some safeguards: the state does have to request assistance; there must be a defined area of operations; there must be a decision by the Prime Minister, the Attorney-General and the Minister for Defence; and an order must be signed off by the Governor-General to effect this call-out. These are important issues. There needs to be a degree of accountability, like all matters involved in the breadth and width of national government, and there is certainly a greater degree of accountability in these arrangements. Successive governments, of course, have had a cabinet national security subcommittee, and this is hardly radical or new, but in the light of this bill, and in the light of so much uncertainty in our environment, I repeat a call made by the former shadow minister, Arch Bevis, that the time is rapidly coming where we need to have a national security council made up of not only ministers and public servants but also some outside specialists. The benefit of this primarily is that, in issues of national security, you will more readily get a whole of government approach to it. Time is ticking away and I predict with a degree of confidence that not before too long we will see this major change in our national security arrangements. Mr Deputy Speaker, you might say it is a bit of nitpicking—I will not apologise for that; I do not think it is nitpicking—but it is most unfortunate that the bill, and the things that accompany the bill, talk about these legislative changes meeting the needs of domestic violence. When people talk about domestic violence these days—and forgive me, because I am involved in family law—we normally associate that with the violence that occurs in homes. It is a little insensitive of the government to use the words `domestic violence'. There is a whole range of words that could have been used—domestic disorder, domestic unrest or a severe terrorist situation. Mr Deputy Speaker, if you feel that I am rebuking the parliamentary secretary at the table, or even of being bold enough to rebuke the advisers or those sitting in the advisers box, so be it, but I do think it was insensitive. It might have been a tad better had other words been chosen.My time is limited, I regret to say. The opposition supports this measure, but there is only one day left in the legislative calendar for this to be debated, and that is tomorrow. You could hardly say that the government has left itself with a lot of leeway on this measure. After all, the Olympics have been a fairly predictable event for some time. Be that as it may, the opposition supports this change, and one can only hope that the bill gets a swift passage in the Senate.I will finish on this note: I hope the Minister for Defence will bring further legislation into this parliament, perhaps calling out the reserves, and that he will be prepared to make a number of ministerial statements. It is an absolute scandal that the launch of a green paper that allegedly makes a huge change to the way we approach defence matters does not merit a ministerial statement. The opposition has not been given the opportunity to adopt a bipartisan approach, which in Defence matters we try to do. I compliment the government. When we have been in government, we have certainly tried to be bipartisan, but the government has to actually give us some opportunities, both in policy terms and in debating terms. The shadow minister has not had an opportunity to comment in the Hansard about that, and there are a number of members around who may be involved in their party's defence committee or the parliamentary committees who would be interested in a statement of such alleged significance and would want to contribute and to participate.It is fair enough to say that we have all gloried in the success of East Timor—General Cosgrove and all of those thousands of men and women in the ADF who participated over there—but where was the debate in this chamber about the lessons learned in East Timor? None at all. There have been severe problems—very severe problems. Where is the minister's statement? We know there are two cabinet submissions, but where is the ministerial statement about how the minister sees the reserves fitting into the structure of the Army? How does the government see that? There is a whole raft of questions. I am thrilled that the minister wants to consult with the Australian people, but he actually has to put forward before this House and the Australian people what his ideas are and the direction in which he is heading. It is easy to declare war on the department—his most successful tactic to date—or even demonise some of the initiatives of the Labor government, but where are the ministerial statements on these matters? We do not have them and democracy is the poorer for it.12:38:0018430Stone, Dr Sharman, MPDr STONEEM6MurrayLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage10—in reply—In summing up this debate on the Defence Legislation Amendment (Aid to Civilian Authorities) Bill 2000, I want to begin by thanking all participants in this debate for supporting this bill. The members for Cunningham, Blair, Barton, Gilmore, Cowan, Herbert and Chifley all made thoughtful comments and strongly supported this bill. The member for Cowan was right in emphasising that the bill provides for more modern and appropriate processes for Defence Force call-out for any untoward event in the future—I do not refer to these measures as `domestic violence'. The bill sets out safeguards, including parliamentary supervision. It specifies powers and obligations of the Defence Force when used to assist police as a last resort in a counter-terrorist assault role and for related public safety tasks. I re-emphasise that this bill helps to ensure not only that Australians are properly protected but also that their civil rights as individuals are not compromised. That has been a very significant part of making sure that this bill is most appropriate for this coming era in Australia's protection. The member for Chifley asked about issues of reimbursement and conditions for call-out for various elements of the forces. I assure the member for Chifley that legislation dealing with the call-out of the reserve forces and appropriate employment protection for the forces is progressing well. The department is working hard on those issues. Draft legislation will be available for introduction in the next session of parliament. I am sure that, in the spirit of cooperation that has been shown in working up this bill, members of the opposition who wish to participate in that debate will be more than welcome to contribute to the development of a final, very appropriate strategy or program of policy to ensure that our troops are appropriately reimbursed. The member for Chifley was also concerned about the use and call-out of reserves within the context of a terrorist attack. I remind the member for Chifley that the new section 51G prohibits the use of reserve forces unless the Minister for Defence, on advice from the Chief of the Defence Force, is satisfied that there are insufficient permanent members available. This is because the government considers that permanent members should be used for such tasks wherever possible, given there is always an expectation that their training has been most recent and most complete.What we have seen with the speakers this morning is an extraordinary level of cooperation and bipartisan support, as you would expect, of course, when we are dealing with issues of great importance in relation to this nation's defence. It was, of course, to have been expected that a great deal of praise would be directed to our great defence forces, especially with regard to their recent performance in the East Timor theatre. Let me also add that we should never forget the great duties performed and standards set by our police forces in the states and territories as part of this nation's security. This bill is all about making sure that, in the future, the defence forces and the state and territory police forces can work together in the most well-organised and appropriate way.The member for Cunningham raised the issue of the provision for authorising ministers to delegate to other ministers the power to authorise a deliberate assault. In the spirit of continuing bipartisanship in relation to both this bill and future developments in relation to this bill, we invite the member for Cunningham to work further with the department and others as they look at that issue with respect to the delegation of powers to other ministers. As I say, this debate has been characterised by a great deal of cooperation and bipartisanship. This bill is about the safety of our nation. It is also about protecting the freedoms and civil liberties of individuals. Of course, the Olympics and the Paralympics are looming fast, and by passing this bill—hopefully today—we will make sure that we can do the very best for all the visitors and people from Australia who will be attending those Olympics and Paralympics. It is a new era, and our defence forces and the police forces in our states and territories in this country will have processes in place that make them amongst the world's best prepared should there unfortunately be a terrorism event or threat in this country. I commend this bill to the House.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.18431Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.Bill (on motion by Dr Stone) read a third time. Bills18431R71818431Bill returned from the Senate with amendments.Ordered that the amendments be taken into consideration forthwith.Senate's amendments—(1) Clause 2, page 2 (after line 2), after subclause (2), insert:(2A) If this Act receives the Royal Assent before 1 July 2000, items 9A, 10A, 16A and 19A of Schedule 4 do not commence. (2B) If this Act receives the Royal Assent on or after 1 July 2000, items 9, 10, 16 and 19 of Schedule 4 do not commence.(2) Schedule 4, item 22, page 134 (lines 8 and 9), omit the item:Motion (by Mr Slipper) proposed:That the amendments be agreed to.12:45:0018432Albanese, Anthony, MPMr ALBANESER36GrayndlerALP00—I am pleased to see that the government is supporting amendments moved by the Australian Labor Party in the Senate relating to the family allowance income test. The government has agreed to omit schedule 4, item 22, page 134, lines 8 and 9. This amendment, which was supported by the Democrats in the Senate, was aimed at stopping the government from using the age of independence in a selective manner to reduce benefits to young unemployed people. Under the original legislation, the rate of family allowance is reduced when income exceeds $23,550 per annum, plus $624 for each additional family allowance child. Because under the government's legislation a young person is not independent until the age of 21, a `family allowance' child can be a child receiving youth allowance. The government wanted to stop this by altering the legislation so that a child receiving youth allowance was a family allowance child only if they were under 18 years of age. Thus the government was trying to make 18-year-olds independent for the purposes of calculating family allowance but dependent for the purposes of calculating youth allowance. A 19-year-old who received youth allowance would have had a reduced rate of youth allowance based on the income and assets of his or her parents, but his or her parents would not have been able to claim their 19-year-old child as a dependent child when calculating family allowance. It is a nifty trick and one the opposition was determined to prevent from happening.The government's acquiescence to our amendment has come over three months too late. The introduction of the family tax benefit on 1 July will cause this amendment to become largely redundant. Labor originally moved the amendment to ensure that no-one was worse off in the interim period between the introduction of this bill and the introduction of the family tax benefit. This bill has been so delayed that this amendment, although now accepted by the government, will not have much impact on Australian families. Cast your mind back to last year when the government was introducing its youth allowance scheme. The government originally proposed that unemployed young people aged under 21 would be determined dependent for the purposes of calculating the young person's youth allowance but defined as independent for the purposes of the tax system. The government originally proposed that recipients of youth allowance not qualify for family allowance or for the family tax initiatives. Therefore, parents struggling to support their unemployed children would receive no compensation via the taxation system.After much pressure from Senator Harradine and the Australian Labor Party, the government agreed to pay a maximum of $37.50 a fortnight to families earning roughly between $40,000 and $73,000 whose children were not eligible for youth allowance. The amendment Labor was forced to move three months ago and the negotiations that Senator Harradine was forced to undertake a year ago demonstrate the same basic fact. The fact is that this government is not about helping the unemployed and it is not about helping Australian families; it is about penny pinching, scraping and cutbacks—and the cost has been borne by Australia's young unemployed.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills18432R102518432Bill returned from the Senate with a request for a further 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 that Act, other than a pension that is payable: (A) under section 30 of that Act to a dependant of a deceased veteran; or (B) to a person to whom a special rate of pension is paid because of subsections 24(2) to (5) of that Act;12:49:0018433Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration10—I move:That the requested amendment be not made.In moving this motion, I want to point out to the chamber that excluding the DBA disability pension from the social security income test would cost about $23.5 million per year. It would include abolishing the special rent assistance income test for service pensioners so that they would not be disadvantaged. This would involve estimated administration costs for Centrelink and the Department of Veterans' Affairs. This second attempted amendment by the Australian Democrats, however, still does not resolve the issue surrounding the rent assistance income test for service pensioners, which would be an undesirable consequence if this amendment were passed. Veterans with a service pension under the Veterans' Entitlements Act administered by the Department of Veterans' Affairs and who rented would be disadvantaged because, although their disability pension would not be counted in the calculation of their service pension, it would be counted for calculating the amount of rent assistance. This was one of the problems highlighted by the government in the previous request, and it remains in this new attempt by the Australian Democrats.Part B of the amendment is also a nonsense. Section 24 of the Veterans' Entitlements Act pays the special rate for `totally and permanently incapacitated' disability pension. The wording of this amendment means that all special rate disability pensions would continue to be counted as income. This is another failed and crude attempt at amending government legislation through an amendment which bears no relation to the bill. The government therefore opposes this latest crude attempt to amend this legislation.12:51:0018433Albanese, Anthony, MPMr ALBANESER36GrayndlerALP00—Labor disagrees with the government on this issue and we support the technical changes to this amendment regarding the payment of veterans' pensions. There was a technical difficulty with the original amendment that made it problematic. The amendment is now better drafted than the earlier amendment, which was too broad. We remain committed to recognising the contribution that veterans have made to the security of Australia and our region. As the member for Cowan so succinctly pointed out in this House last week, Australians who enlisted for active duty during the Second World War were fully committed to serving their country anywhere in the world for as long as they were needed. They were prepared to put their lives on the line for the security of Australia and the allied nations. These members of the armed forces deserve our recognition and our thanks. They underwent active training and lived in a state of preparedness to serve overseas at short notice. In fact, many did all in their power to get overseas and to serve on the front line. They also lived in a state of preparedness to defend Australia in the event of an invasion by a foreign power.For Australians like me and my generation, who were born after the Second World War, it is difficult to imagine that Australia was under threat in the 1940s. However, of course, Darwin was repeatedly bombed. Japanese submarines made it as far south as Sydney Harbour. It was a frightening time for all Australians. Our sovereignty was under threat in a very real way and the members of the armed forces stationed in Australia were of vital importance to us. As the legislation currently stands, people who have a pension for problems that they incurred in the time of their service have that pension counted as income against social security benefits. Veterans who saw active service overseas, however, and have similar pensions do not have their pension treated as income against social security benefits. This is an anomaly that has been around for a very long time—for too long, in fact. Veterans groups have put this anomaly to the government, but their pleas have fallen on deaf ears. Labor remains committed to supporting veterans' entitlements. It is vital the veterans' needs are addressed. This government is so penny pinching that it has made massive cuts to all areas of the social welfare safety net. It is not surprising, therefore, that it resists any attempts to broaden the net to include war veterans who have not seen active service. This is a government, however, that is prepared to spend $431 million of taxpayers' money on self-promotion. It is happy to throw away this money that could have covered the cost of this amendment and much, much more—more hospital beds, more schools, more support for the frail, the elderly, and the homeless. We remain committed to this amendment and indicate to the House our opposition to the government's actions with regard to this matter.Question resolved in the affirmative. Bills18434R1077Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation for amendments to the Indirect Tax Legislation Amendment Bill 2000 announced.Bills18434R107718434Bill returned from the Senate with requested amendments.Ordered that the requested amendments be taken into consideration.Senate's requested amendments—(1) Schedule 5, item 5A, page 31 (lines 3 and 4), omit “you make the acquisition for the purpose of providing *fringe benefits”, substitute “the acquisition would (but for this section) be a *GST-creditable benefit on the provision of which *fringe benefits tax is payable”.(2) Schedule 5, item 5A, page 31 (lines 11 and 12), omit “you make the importation for the purpose of providing *fringe benefits”, substitute “the importation would (but for this section) be a *GST-creditable benefit on the provision of which *fringe benefits tax is payable”.(3) Schedule 11, page 72 (after line 4), after item 11, insert:11AA At the end of section 84-15Add: (2) If the transfer is a transfer of the services of an employee, this section does not apply to the transfer to the extent that any payments that: (a) are made from the *enterprise in Australia to the enterprise outside Australia; and (b) relate to the transfer;would be *withholding payments if they were payments from the enterprise in Australia to the employee.Motion (by Mr Slipper) agreed to:That the requested amendments be made.Bills18434The following bill was returned from the Senate without amendment or request:Diesel and Alternative Fuels Grants Scheme Amendment Bill 2000Bills18434R113118434Debate resumed from 27 June, on motion by Mr Anthony:That the bill be now read a second time.12:57:0018434Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN2V5LilleyALP00—There have not been many occasions in this House when I have felt so ashamed of the political system as I do today. After 18 months of debate and the constant raising in this House of matters to do with mobile homes, caravan parks and boarding houses, we are no closer to helping the people living in this situation than we were 18 months ago. Indeed, they are still going backwards, and they have every right to feel very discouraged. But this is just a metaphor for what is happening at a broader level in this country. As the divide between rich and poor grows wider, too many of our citizens turn away from politics and become disillusioned with the system. The more they turn away, the more the system is discredited and the more our society is pulled apart. This bill today pushes that divide further and entrenches a deep cynicism about the political process. Too many Australians are not getting their fair share of the gains of economic prosperity and are crying out for fairness—something that is completely missing from this bill. That is why we will be moving a second reading amendment in this House today to try to right the wrong that is perpetrated in this set of arrangements and that is why we reaffirm Labor's iron clad guarantee to remove the GST from the rents of mobile home, caravan park and boarding house residents. Before the last election, the Prime Minister promised that no Australian would be worse off as a result of the GST. At the election before that he promised that he would be a government for all of us. At the moment we have a political propaganda campaign running at public expense, costing $431 million, which sends out the message that we need a GST so as not to hold Australia back. Today this trilogy of deceptions is laid completely bare before us. The truth is that the provisions contained in this bill demonstrate that this is only a government for some of us. It will make the most vulnerable in our society even more worse off and it will continue to pull our society further apart. Therefore, it will send us backwards. That makes me both sad and angry. It makes me extremely sad that 160,000 innocent Australians will hurt and hurt some more, both financially and personally.You only have to go to a mobile home or caravan park and talk to the elderly residents there to see how personally distressed, let alone financially distressed, they are by what the government is doing. This did not have to happen. It makes me angry because the government now knows, through the independent assessment of Econtech, that these people will be worse off. The government's own modelling shows that those people will be worse off, and nothing in this bill does anything to rectify that discrimination. Is it any wonder that the credibility of the political system and this government is at an all-time low? Those people will be worse off. This government has been caught deliberately misleading people regarding the compensation arrangements and future price increases. That is contained in the minister's second-reading speech: fewer than 200 words to respond to the debate we have had in this place and around the country over the past 18 months. What is the conclusion? The minister, Mr Anthony, states:This 10 per cent increase in the maximum rate of rent assistance, on top of the 4 per cent increase in pensions and allowances, will ensure that low income members of the community will be protected from any price increases under the new tax system. That is simply untrue. Before I deal with the arrangements relating to rent assistance, I will deal with the minister's proposition of a four per cent increase in pensions, inadequate as that is. I refer to what the government had to say about a four per cent increase in one of its glossy brochures distributed in September last year. It states:A 4 per cent up-front increase to pensions. Another brochure, distributed in March this year, states:Pensions and allowances up 4 per cent.Sadly, pensioners will discover this week that part of their first regular fortnightly pension payment due on 6 July will be stolen. It will not reflect the full up-front four per cent increase to offset the cost of the GST from 1 July. Ninety-nine per cent of pensioners will find that almost $10 of their $15 increase has been stolen; it will be simply missing. Like thieves in the night, the Prime Minister, John Howard, and the Treasurer, Peter Costello, will have taken $10 of that $15 increase. That is money that pensioners in this country could use to pay for the increased cost of fuel after 1 July, the increased bank fees and charges and increased supermarket prices. However, like thieves in the night, the Prime Minister and the Treasurer have taken $10 of that $15 increase. How could a government do that? Do they really live in the real world? Do they understand how people live? Do they understand that people on low incomes live day to day and that $1 means a lot to them? If the Prime Minister and the Treasurer lived in the real world, they would understand that pensioners budget on a fortnightly basis, that they budget in advance from when they receive their payment and that they struggle from day to day. The government are actually saying that they are expecting pensioners to pay the GST on just about everything they buy for the whole fortnight following 1 July but compensating them for only four days. So pensioners get the price increases for 14 days, but get the compensation for only four days. Ten dollars might not seem a lot to the Treasurer in Paris, to the Prime Minister when he is visiting London, to anyone on the back bench opposite, or to any of the wealthy ministers on the front bench opposite, but it means a lot to a pensioner. This means that the increased pension payment, including this one for the GST, reflects only the proportion of the increase that falls after the day the increase is made. For pensioners, next Thursday's pension payment will include only four paid days at the four per cent rate and the remaining 10 days at the lower, existing rate. That is a classic case of the government giving a few crumbs with one hand and taking more with the other hand. Under the previous rules, pensioners were paid the full increase in the fortnightly pension on the first day after the increase was made. Of course, that rule was changed last year. The government argues that the rules are fair. They argue that pensioners are paid at a higher rate for each day for which they are technically entitled. How could the government even bother to argue that? The problem with this government is that it is so out of touch. It has lost contact with prices in the supermarket because it is concerned only with prices in the share market. It is concerned only with what is happening at the boardroom table; it has not a clue about what is going on at the kitchen table. None of this debate would be taking place if the government understood what was actually happening in mobile homes and caravan parks or if they understood how pensioners really lived. If they did, they could not possibly be out there claiming that those people are getting a four per cent increase in pensions for the first fortnight after the GST comes in when they are getting that increase for only four days of that fortnight. The government comes in here and talks about their wonderful social coalition and that they are compassionate conservatives. They are not compassionate conservatives at all; they are cold-hearted conservatives, they are callous conservatives and their arrangements for pensions prove that, as does the inadequacy of the compensation arrangements in this bill relating to rent assistance. Last year when the government changed the legislation regarding payments, they effectively saved around $25 million. That is $25 million that could be in the pockets of pensioners to offset the effects of this hideous tax. But what has happened to that $25 million? It has been spent as part of the $430 million GST propaganda campaign. Can the government get any lower than that? Sadly, I think they can, and they have. In another GST botch-up—and at this stage we will say that it is a botch-up—millions of families, pensioners and retirees stand to have their family payments and savings bonuses taxed when they are deposited in their bank accounts after 1 July. That has occurred because of a serious oversight by the government. It means that government financial institutions duty will be levied on these new payments. It was never done like that before. Previously, exemptions existed for payments made under the Social Security Act. However, the new payments to families and the bonuses for retirees are paid under tax law that will see them attract the duty. So this oversight will see over $6 million in family payments and over $1 million in bonus payments returned to Treasury coffers. Once again, this is a classic case of the government giving with one hand and taking with the other. This is money that would be better used if it were in the pockets of families and retirees. We should remember that this tax was one of the taxes that were supposed to be abolished when the GST came in. However, it has not been. While this tax is a state based tax, its maintenance was part of the final GST deal. Most importantly, it was not until this morning that this tardy, incompetent, callous government took it upon itself to actually write to the states about the problem of the imposition of FID on family payments and bonus payments. It was not until this morning that the government actually took some action. Of course, that will not necessarily have any effect for some time. So in changing the payments, the Howard government should have advised the states early, sorted out this problem and not left that impact. That brings me back to the compensation arrangements in this bill. I have dealt with the inadequacies of the four per cent increase. I have not even talked about the fact that when pensioners receive the four per cent increase it is gobbled up by an inflation rate of 6.75 per cent in the September quarter and 5.75 per cent for the whole year. So pensioners can do those sums. They can also do their sums and realise that, although they are getting an increase in their pensions of four per cent on 1 July, two per cent of that increase is taken back next March; they are constantly behind in terms of the compensation arrangements when compared with the inflation rate. Pensioners know that, too.However, the thing that really sticks out in this bill is that battlers living in mobile homes, manufactured homes, caravan parks or boarding houses still have the imposition of the GST on their rent but millionaires living at Kirribilli do not pay any GST on their rent. That fundamental discrimination remains uncorrected by this bill. So it does not solve the problem; it merely confirms the problem.What is the government's solution in this bill? What is this callous, cold-hearted government's solution to the final admission that these people would be worse off? What is their solution—because the bill being debated here is recognition that they are worse off; that is the one thing we have got out of the government. So what have they said the solution is? They said they are going to pay 16c a day to people living in mobile homes and caravan parks, manufactured homes and boarding houses if they receive full rent assistance. But of course there is no assistance—no additional money in this bill—for recipients who do not receive full rent assistance. So having admitted that people living in this situation across-the-board are going to be worse off, they have brought in a so-called compensation measure which goes to only a very limited number of them. When it goes to them, what do they get? Sixteen cents a day! So once again, like the previous measures I was talking about, this proves that the government only ever gives back a fraction of what it takes away. The aid, the meagre, paltry aid, for those living in this situation—mobile homes, caravan parks and boarding houses—goes only to those who receive maximum rent assistance. This has been an issue which has attracted a fair bit of debate in the government and I suppose we could say that that is something. What has the Liberal Party sought to do about it? They have done nothing. All the action has been with the Democrats and with the National Party. We know how callous and cold-hearted the Liberal Party are, but look at the record of the National Party on this. The National Party started huffing and puffing about this a few weeks ago. They went to Tweed Heads. Larry Anthony, the Minister for Community Services, said he was going to resign. The Deputy Prime Minister was going to come down to Canberra and get tough with John Howard; he was going to confront the Prime Minister. But nothing happened. All we got was some pathetic announcement from the National Party—some autobabble from the Deputy Prime Minister on AM—that they were going to have closer supervision. Nothing changed. Nothing changed at all.We have had the National Party Minister for Community Services, who is the minister responsible in this area, huffing and puffing for some time. Up in Tweed Heads some months ago, when my colleague the member for Grayndler put him under a bit of a pressure, he admitted there was discrimination in all of this. He said, `I hope I can come back to you shortly through your representatives and hopefully there can be a change.' There has been no change. The minister has not resigned. The one thing we can say about the Minister for Community Services is that he is Canberra's mouthpiece in Richmond rather than Richmond's voice in Canberra, because he has toed the line. So there was no change, despite all of the pressure and all of the debate. The Nationals were publicly humiliated by the Prime Minister. Then we had the Democrats. They came out breathing fire and brimstone. They said suddenly, `This is unfair.' How did they discover it was unfair? They let it go through in the original package. Then they said, `We might commission some reports about the unfairness of it.' Some reports were commissioned but were never asked for by the Democrats. And then, suddenly, when Laurie Oakes gets a break on National Nine News and reveals that everybody is going to be worse off, the Democrats want to go out and change it.So that is the origin of the bill that we have before us today, but it does not contain the proposals that the Democrats put up. They said that they had a proposal to halve the rate, which would have continued the discrimination. But even that got knocked over, and now we get the compensation measures contained in this bill. The Democrats' subservience was laid bare and it is there for everybody to see in the bill before the House today. They have come up with a beads and blankets deal that delivers the token assistance of 16c a day to some caravan, mobile home and boarding house residents. Only an arrogant and out-of-touch government and an arrogant and out-of-touch coalition partner like the Democrats could come up with 16c a day as some sort of a solution to the ongoing disadvantage caused by these arrangements for people living in this accommodation.What is of concern about this whole fiasco is that the seriousness of the issue seems to be lost—completely lost—on the lemmings opposite. The fact that rents will rise causes hardship across-the-board. Rents are a very big-ticket item. For many average households, rent makes up more than 30 per cent of the expenditure of the weekly budget. As a result, even small increases in rent have a big impact on households. We should not forget that the current compensation package was designed by the government to compensate for an average 1.9 per cent GST price effect, let alone the 5.75 per cent or 6.75 per cent price effect at various stages of the year. But I will look further at the price effects. The government was talking about clothing going up by six per cent, footwear by six per cent and electricity by six per cent. What are the ACCC estimates here? What has Professor Fels had to say about all of those? We find clothing is to go up by between eight per cent and nine per cent, footwear by eight per cent to nine per cent and electricity by nine per cent to 9.5 per cent. So these people are getting a much bigger whack on the price rise.4K6Causley, Ian, MPMr Causley—Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The speaker is now going on about issues that are not related to the rent assistance or the caravan park issue. I ask you, Madam Deputy Speaker, to draw his attention to the subject of the bill.10000Crosio, Janice (Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER)Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. J.A. Crosio)—I take on board the honourable member for Page's point of order, but the shadow minister, the member for Lilley, was referring to caravan parks at the beginning of his speech and right through his speech, and he was then referring to comments made by other parties. I believe he is in order, but I will continue to listen to his words.2V5Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN—I can understand why the member for Page does not want to discuss these matters, but the fact is that rents are a very substantial part of the budget of most families.At the last election the government promised that rents would increase by no more than 2.3 per cent across-the-board. In fact, they argued that the real impact was going to be only 0.7 per cent. So what do we find in the Econtech report? It says that it will be 4.7 per cent for general rents and four per cent plus for residents living in the situation that we are talking about. In the case of boarding house rents, Econtech has assumed that a 5.5 per cent GST will lead to an increase in rents of only 4.4 per cent. The government's preferred modeller has said that a 5.5 per cent GST will lead to an increase of 4.4 per cent, regardless of whatever cost savings will be passed on—and we have had a very good example of all of that with petrol over the past few days. I think we should consider this very simple fact: to produce a 4.4 per cent increase assumes that boarding house operators will actually reduce their weekly rent this Saturday—and I do not know whether that is happening in the member for Page's electorate—before applying the concessional 5.5 per cent GST. Hardly! I would like the government to produce just one example of this, because we already have evidence of rents actually increasing by their full five per cent and more. While I would like to talk about the Econtech modelling in greater detail, there are other matters with which I need to deal.We have already had the Treasurer confirm on AM last week that rents in general will rise by $8 to $10 on an average $200 a week rent. The Treasurer said that that was affordable. Consider this: for a dual income family on $45,000 with two kids, this rent increase will automatically wipe out almost half of the $25 per week tax cut and increase in family assistance. That will leave just $15 to pay for the GST on the rest of their spending—a grand total of just $3.75 for each family member. That hardly sounds affordable; it leaves the government's long overdue tax cuts completely in tatters.Just imagine if this family is living in Sydney or on the Central Coast around Gosford, where rents for an average house are up to $350 per week. In this case the family will be paying up to $17 per week more, leaving just $7 per week to pay for the GST on the rest of their spending, a grand total of $1.75 per person per week. NATSEM estimates that the GST price impact on a family of this type will be around $20 a week. So it does not take a genius to work out that this family will be big losers, and there will be many losers out there. That is what the NATSEM work has demonstrated, and it is also what we find by having a good look at the Econtech report. That is absolutely why the government hid this report for six months, because it undermines the whole tax package, even if the Econtech report's optimistic assessments are accepted. It clearly shows that the dishonesty of this government knows no bounds. They were caught out on mobile homes, caravan parks and boarding houses, which is why there is this pathetic measure in the House today that goes no way towards solving the problem for these people, but it gives those opposite the ability to pretend that they are going to do something about this.I note that the minister also said in his statement to the House that he was going to have an education campaign to go out and tell these people who are lucky enough to get the 16c a day how much better off they will be. I hope it does not follow the precedent of the rest of the television campaign—some $50 million—and the rest of the $431 million, because it will simply blow up in the minister's face.The point that needs to be made is that battlers and working people will experience rent increases. With the GST and tax cuts, many will be substantially out of pocket. Something like five million Australians rent, but only 20 per cent of them get rent assistance. Therefore, the measures in this bill do not go to a large number of people. This bill does not solve the problem of vanishing tax cuts or compensation. As I said before, it does not even benefit everyone who gets rent assistance. Only one-third of the one million Australians who receive rent assistance get less than the maximum rate. As a result, they will all miss out. There is nothing in here for them. For these people, this bill does not give them one extra cent, because it is only the maximum rate that is being lifted. This is important because many people in caravan parks and mobile home parks fall into this category.At the end of the day, who gets the 16c a day made available in this bill? Who gets it? It is possible that over half the people living in these situations will not get it—over half. I do not know if anyone has told the Democrats that yet, but over half of them will not get it.R36Albanese, Anthony, MPMr Albanese—They haven't told him. 2V5Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN—I have not told him, either. I am sure that is true. Consider this: to receive the maximum rate of rent assistance and thus get some benefit from these measures, residents would have to be paying the following weekly site fees: a single person, $88 a week; and a couple, $108.50 a week. Those people who have actually been to these places would know that site fees range in price from around $75 a week to $125 a week. For single people that means that only those paying mid-range site fees or more will benefit. For couples, only those paying site fees near the upper end will benefit from this measure. When that is taken into consideration, it is probably dramatically less than half who are going to get the 16c a day. We do not know. We would like members opposite to tell us. What is the government's figuring on this? Members opposite are also sitting on the modelling that looks specifically at mobile homes and caravan parks. I do not think we are ever going to see that in this House unless it appears on Channel 9.This government does not even make a decent fist of assisting the people who started this whole debate. That is why I am sad that this bill is so pathetic. So many people out there have been completely dudded. They had their expectations raised by the Minister for Community Services, and he did nothing. They had their expectations raised by the Deputy Prime Minister, and he did nothing. They had their expectations raised by the Democrats, and they did nothing. All along the line members on the back benches of the government did absolutely zero. Did they get up and protest when the minister of the time came into this House and in answer to a question from me described everyone living in this situation as tourists? Did they go and have a quiet word to the minister then? Obviously not, because if they had we would not be here today. This matter would have been fixed over a year ago if those members opposite on the back benches were diligent and knew what was actually happening in their communities. It would have been fixed a long time ago.I want to take some time to talk about the Econtech report. The thing that is so distressing about Econtech is that the government have known its findings for six months. When we questioned the government in detail in Senate estimates and the Treasurer in this House, they said nothing. But they did something. They went back and fiddled the figures in the Econtech report and changed them. Subsequently, they were sprung by Laurie Oakes on their claim that there was not much difference between a long-term and short-term effect. Well, I am sorry, but they have been caught, because the real Econtech report proves conclusively that these people will be substantially worse off. It is for all these reasons that we intend to move our amendment today. This is a government that does not defend battlers. They walked away from them years ago. Their sole task in life now is to create battlers, and this bill does that. It continues to add to the number of lower income people in this community who have been whacked by this government.As we have said on so many occasions to do with so many measures in this house, this is a government that is strong on taxing the weak, and very weak on taxing the strong. Nothing that the government has done in this house demonstrates that point more than this bill. What is sad about it is that the member for Grayndler and I have been raising these issues in this House for over 18 months. We have used every legitimate measure known to parliamentary democracy in the Westminster system to talk about the needs of a group of vulnerable people in our community—160,000 of them who have been singled out to be the only renters in the country to have a GST placed on their rents. We have had nothing from the government. For the first 12 to 15 months, there was nothing.R36Albanese, Anthony, MPMr Albanese—They laughed.2V5Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN—That is right: cackling, laughter, dismissals! It was only when the political heat started to build that we saw some of those opposite pretend to do something. What is so sad about this bill is that we actually believed government backbench members had some concept of decency and that they might actually fix the problem. We would have been delighted to stand in this House today and say, `You've done the right thing. You've fixed the problem. You've ended the discrimination. You've ended the worry. You've ended the financial pressure on the people living in this situation.' But they have not. In a truly spineless performance, those on the back benches would not stand up to the Prime Minister. They would not stand up to the Treasurer. They would not do anything other than covet their seats in this House and say nothing whatsoever. I would like to compliment the member for Grayndler. He is an active parliamentary secretary on our side of the House who has done a fantastic job of getting out there with the people and raising this issue. It is a pity that there are some on the other side of the House who do not adopt the same approach to their parliamentary affairs. The hopes were raised. You cannot turn around and say they were raised solely by us on this side of the House. They were raised by the government. The park owners have told you this is unfair. The residents have told you this is unfair. Your own ministers have told you this is unfair. Your preferred modeller has told you this is unfair. Yet here we are in the House today giving one in three or one in four people 16c a day. That is why we are moving this amendment. I move: That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:“whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House condemns the Government for discriminating against caravan park, mobile home and boarding house renters by singling them out to pay upfront GST on their rents when it had promised prior to the last election that all rent would be GST free and again calls on the Government to honour its pre-election commitment and exempt such renters from the GST”.(Time expired)10000Crosio, Janice (Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER)Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. J.A. Crosio)—Is the amendment seconded?R36Albanese, Anthony, MPMr Albanese—I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.13:27:0018441Lloyd, Jim, MPMr LLOYDIK6RobertsonLP10—It is with great pleasure that I rise today to speak to the Compensation Measures Legislation Amendment (Rent Assistance Increase) Bill 2000. It was with some disbelief that I sat here and listened to what the member for Lilley had to say. The member for Lilley was a minister in the Keating government. I think he believes that the Australian public have very short memories. They do not have short memories. They are very angered by the scare campaign run by the Labor Party on this issue throughout my electorate and amongst residents of mobile home and relocatable home parks throughout New South Wales.I cannot believe that an opposition member would stand up here today and argue against a bill which proposes to give increased compensation to the most needy people in our community. I cannot believe that he would stand here and argue against a bill that provides an increase in rental assistance from seven per cent to 10 per cent for the battlers of Australia, the people who really do need assistance. In the whole tax reform debate, the Labor Party have never really stuck to the facts. They have always tried to run the scare campaign. They forget to mention the compensation package supplement for pensioners. I heard the member for Lilley talk at length about the supplement. He tried to accuse the government of taking some of that supplement back. We have to remember that that is in fact an up-front advance. It is not just part of the cost of living rise for pensioners; it is a 4 per cent supplement increase which will result in an extra $14.90 a fortnight for single pensioners. That will assist those pensioners greatly.Not only will pensioners receive the supplement, but also pensions are indexed to the CPI and pensioners will still receive increases in March and September of each year. The 1 July increase of four per cent is extra. It is a supplement. It was the coalition government that changed the legislation to ensure that pensions increased truly in line with the cost of living. We indexed them to ensure that they remained at at least 25 per cent of male average weekly earnings—something Labor never did. We are very proud to be able to assist pensioners as best we can.Members opposite always want to run the politics of, I guess, class warfare. They always maintain that they understand the needs of the battlers. They like to refer to ministers as being wealthy and they like to refer to backbenchers as being uncaring of people and caring only about the share market. I am here today to tell the opposition that the members of the coalition government do understand what it is like to struggle and to battle. Coalition members are making a contribution in relation to the needs of all Australians. I became involved in politics because I saw what the Keating government did over 13 years of government. I saw how it destroyed the dreams and hopes of so many people in Australia. I know how I was affected in small business. I know what it was like to struggle under a government that did not care about the average person in Australia, about people and about battlers. Today we heard a long tirade from the member for Lilley about these compensation packages. I say to the member and to the Australian community: I do not remember any compensation packages from Labor over its 13 years in government. There were always increases in taxes. There were constant increases in wholesale sales taxes—particularly after the 1993 election, when all of the wholesale sales taxes were increased—but there were no compensation packages for the battlers, for the pensioners and for the people who live in relocatable homes or boarding houses. There was no increase in compensation for those people. The Labor Party did not care about them. Labor was thrown out of government because it did not care about average Australians—the strugglers, the pensioners and the battlers. The coalition government does care about those people. It realises what they want to do. The government wants to provide compensation packages and assistance to those people. More importantly, the government wants to give those people hope and optimism, whether they be age pensioners or whether they be young people struggling to find a job. There is so much more optimism now on the part of older Australians about the opportunities that are there for their children and grandchildren and for the future of this country. Many of them say, `We have lived our lives and we are very happy in our retirement and in our relocatable home. Provided we have enough money to have a comfortable retirement, that is all we want. What we really want to do is make sure that our children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren have a future in this country.' That is what this coalition government has provided. I am very proud to be part of the coalition government under our Prime Minister, John Howard, and our Deputy Prime Minister, John Anderson, because we are a government that is prepared to make the hard decisions. We are prepared to bring about tax reform, which the Labor government never had the guts to do. Labor is having an easy time at the moment, because it can take the easy hits. I guess it is like when we first came to government in 1996. The first 12 months or so were fairly tough for us as a government because we went out there and made the hard decisions to get this economy back on track. We proposed things that were difficult. We did not have a track record as a new government, so the Labor Party could take easy hits at us and say, `You say these things, but where is the proof?' As I stand here now, in our second term, I can show the Labor Party the proof of things such as tax reform. I can compare Australia's current unemployment rate of around six per cent with what we were given by Mr Beazley as part of the Keating government—something like 11 per cent unemployment. Home mortgage interest rates are now running at about seven per cent. We have given the dream of home ownership back to so many people. The Keating government gave us home loan interest rates of something like 17 per cent and business loan interest rates of up to 23 per cent. Interest rates such as that destroyed families and destroyed lives. At that time inflation tore at the basic value of pensions. Those in the Labor Party say that they care about pensioners, yet they let inflation run riot in this country so that every time pensioners went into the supermarket they were faced with huge increases in their costs, week after week, month after month. Labor had no way of controlling the economy and its effects on this country. That was affecting the battlers and the pensioners. We in the coalition have made the hard decisions and have been able to give people hope for the future. We have been able to provide compensation packages that will ensure that the tax reform package, which is great for this country and will take this country forward, does not disadvantage those people. They will ensure that the battlers will be looked after. The member for Lilley criticised us for our compensation packages. He said that they really were pathetic and that it was not worth putting them in place. He should know about that, because he was part of a government that never gave any compensation. I was interested to go through some media reports that were on my desk. At a doorstop interview with the member for Lilley a journalist referred to compensation in relation to this bill. The journalist said, `I just want to clarify that that now remains your position on the election.' Mr Swan said, `There is an ironclad guarantee that we will remove the GST from site fees on mobile homes.' Ironclad! Okay, but then the journalist asked, `Will you leave the extra rent assistance in place?' Honourable members should listen to the answer from the member for Lilley. He said, `We have said that we will look at all the proposals for the roll-back of the GST and outline those proposals closer to the election.' That is right! Labor will roll back the compensation and assistance for the pensioners and battlers. There was no ironclad guarantee that Labor would not roll back the compensation, yet opposition members are in the House today arguing against this bill, which seeks to provide extra rent assistance for those people who really need it. When the next election comes around, when the Labor Party proposes its roll-back, I am afraid that its roll-back will roll right over it, because nobody can trust the Labor Party. Nobody will trust that it will not fiddle the books and change the tax system, because all it will be doing is rolling back the compensation and the benefits that come with tax reform for all people in Australia. They are for people with families, for people who are trying to buy homes, for people who are looking for work and for those who are really struggling; those people who are living in boarding houses and relocatable homes. This rent assistance increase will be of great benefit to those people. It will ensure that none of them is worse off.The reason the government put in place the legislation that gave mobile home park owners the choice between charging half GST or not charging GST was that it wanted to provide a system which minimised the costs and enabled park owners to keep rents as low as possible for residents. That is what it was all about. The effect of the Labor Party's amendments, which will create more costs for the owners of mobile home parks, will be an increase in costs, and those costs will be put straight back onto the residents. So the Labor Party proposal is to create a system that will increase costs on those who can least afford it—those living in mobile home parks and relocatable homes. I am very pleased to stand in this House to support the Compensation Measures Legislation Amendment (Rent Assistance Increase) Bill 2000.13:39:0018443Albanese, Anthony, MPMr ALBANESER36GrayndlerALP00—I am pleased to support the Compensation Measures Legislation Amendment (Rent Assistance Increase) Bill 2000 because the Labor Party is happy to see extra funds going into rent assistance. An increase in the maximum rate of rent assistance is welcome. As members of the government have said, it will provide $33 million in additional rental assistance to low income earners, not that this will go very far. For a single social security recipient with no children, it is worth 16c a day, $1.12 a week. For a single person with no children sharing the rent, it is worth 11c a day. That is 77c a week. In fact, it is only those social security recipients receiving the maximum rate of rental assistance who will receive the increase. As my colleague the member for Lilley has pointed out, that means that fewer than half of the residents of caravan parks and boarding homes will get anything out of this package. The fact is that this is a dud deal. That is why I seconded the amendment moved by the member for Lilley. It is also consistent—unlike the member for Robertson, who could not last 20 minutes speaking to this bill. It is consistent not just with Labor Party policy, it is consistent with National Party policy. I am pleased that the member for Page is in parliament, because I might like to offer him the opportunity to second the amendment. I would be happy to withdraw my seconding rights to this amendment, because it is consistent with the resolution adopted unanimously at the National Party conference, to which the member for Page was a delegate. The member voted for this amendment in Tweed Heads, as did Larry Anthony and Gary Nehl. All of the National Party members voted for it at their conference but, in here, they are silent; they defend the government's position. The history of this grubby tax on the most vulnerable people in our community is one that is important not just for what it says about the government being prepared to attack residents of caravan parks and boarding houses but because of what it says about the government's attitude towards the most vulnerable in our community in general. This bill is a miniature replay of the first Democrat-government deal that ensured the passage of the GST. The Democrats got out of that the Econtech report, which they would look at and which the government would consider. An independent review was undertaken by Econtech to consider exactly the impact of the GST on boarding house residents. That was an interesting strategy of the Australian Democrats—to vote for an unfair tax on the basis that there would be a report published later on to show just how unfair it is. The fact is that we repeatedly asked for the Econtech report to be brought forward to us. I raised this issue on 16 February this year. I said in this House: The government knows that these tenants will be worse off. That is why it is sitting on the report by Econtech into people in boarding houses.It was raised again on 17 February, 14 March, 30 May, 19 June, 20 June and, of course, we raised it again after the document was leaked on 26 June. We raised it in this House over and over again. My colleague the member for Lilley asked questions. We raised it in Senate estimates. Not once did the government release this report. Between 3 February and June, seven press releases were issued calling for this report to be released. However, the government sat on it, because it is a sorry tale. It shows that boarding house residents will be worse off. Now, as a result of this deal of extra rent assistance—a deal that leaves the discrimination intact—the Democrats came up with the stroke of genius of halving the GST so that it would be 2.75 per cent. However, that stance did not last long. Within 24 hours, the Democrats had once again folded to the government and settled for this inadequate package that leaves the discrimination. The only way to remove discrimination is to treat all tenants equally by abolishing the GST on all residential rents. Why is that such a radical proposal? After all, the National Party promised that at the last election. Mark Vaile, the member for Lyne, said:This will be treated in the same way as rental of a house or unit and is GST free. That was in election material distributed to permanent park residents. Since then, the government has been in damage control. The fact is that, when the GST was introduced, the government simply forgot that some 160,000 Australians live in this form of accommodation and tens of thousands of Australians live in boarding houses. The government moved only when they realised that so many of those residents lived in marginal seats. We on this side of the house have other reasons for wanting this tax removed. We want it removed because it is discriminatory and because it affects some of the most vulnerable people in our community. How do we know that? Because the government says that is the case. The government's national homelessness strategy, launched on 25 May, identified families living in caravans and hotels and people living in boarding houses as being at high risk of homelessness. Labor simply believes that millionaires renting property in Kirribilli, Vaucluse or Toorak should be treated the same as people who live in caravan parks in Coffs Harbour, Grafton, the Tweed, Cairns or Kalgoorlie. Why should the only people who pay the GST up front—5.5 per cent—be the very people who are the most vulnerable? It is a fundamental Australian principle that we do not discriminate on the basis of wealth. In order for them to squeeze every last cent out of these vulnerable people we find that, under the Howard government, even half of 10 per cent—the concessional GST—is no longer five per cent; it is 5.5 per cent. They add on the 10 per cent and then charge the concessional tax of 50 per cent of the GST. So it is a tax on a tax by this miserable, discriminating, reactionary government in order to squeeze out an extra 0.5 per cent. However, no-one has held more positions on this issue than the Minister for Community Services, the minister who could manage to weasel out just 200 words. He had half an hour on the clock in moving this bill, but said only 200 words. And it is not surprising, because the minister has discovered that words can come back to bite him. He said on 7 October 1999: Site fees are not the same as rent. This whole issue is nothing new.He kept defending it on 12 October. 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 that it had to mobile home parks.That is extraordinary when one considers the leaflet distributed by his colleague the member for Lyne and extraordinary given that residents in parks in his electorate were told by him in meetings that the GST would not apply. But then the pressure was put on so that by 9 February of this year he was saying to residents:But I do hope there can be a change there ... and I hope I can come back to you shortly, and I will, through your representatives, and hopefully there can be a change.In May he distributed a pamphlet to his electorate which acknowledged that he was aware that park residents are being treated differently from people renting outside parks. It stated:He has taken this message to the Prime Minister and the Treasurer. Most recently he had a robust discussion on this issue with John Howard in his Canberra office.But it gets worse, because on 15 June in relation to the urgency motion that was coming up before the New South Wales National Party conference he said:Certainly if that does become policy by the party, then if the National Party have come out in that position, then I think it is appropriate for the government to seriously consider changing this policy. Then the party will be making decisions and so will I.What courage we have seen from the member for Richmond! While the Labor Party stands for rolling back the GST through our amendment to this bill today, the National Party stands for roll-over, and they have rolled over on this issue. In spite of the rhetoric of the Leader of the National Party, in cabinet not a word was said. In the joint party room not a word was said by the member for Page or the member for Robertson; not one question was asked of the Prime Minister on this issue. What a disgrace! Black Jack McEwen would be rolling in his grave if he could see what the National Party have been reduced to today.But we are giving them the opportunity. If the New South Wales Nationals—forget about the people in the other states—vote for their party policy and vote for our amendment moved by the member for Lilley, there will be a majority on this side of the House. We will be calling a division and if those eight Nationals vote with the ALP on this issue, they will have their platform adopted—unanimously adopted—by the rank and file. This is a true test of heart and courage. This is a test of whether they represent their electorates or whether they are merely an adjunct to the Melbourne and Sydney Liberal Party machine. We will see how much backbone they have got. Mr Deputy Speaker, you would know how important this issue is. I cannot put it better than how you summed it up on 16 June—10000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—If the honourable member for Grayndler wishes to quote something said by the member for Cowper he should identify it, as the chair has said nothing on this issue.R36Albanese, Anthony, MPMr ALBANESE—I cannot put it better than how the member for Cowper put it. On 16 June he made a great statement, a courageous statement. He said:As far as I'm concerned there is one issue and it affects me very, very personally. But 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—everybody—because we went to the people of Australia at the last election and we said there'd be no GST on residential rents. It has an impact on John Howard's integrity and honour and that of the Liberal Party as well. How right the member for Cowper is. It took the National Party conference for the government to sit up and take notice at least for a couple of days.2V5Swan, Wayne, MPMr Swan—Hours.R36Albanese, Anthony, MPMr ALBANESE—They said they would do something for a couple of days, but they said not a word in this House, not a word when they came to Canberra. Perhaps the most offensive comment on this issue came from Liberal Senator Ross Lightfoot, a Liberal senator representing Western Australia, including the electorate of Kalgoorlie, which has some 14,509 permanent park residents. He has not been chastised or criticised by the Prime Minister, by the Deputy Prime Minister and Leader of the National Party or by the member for Page. I call upon a single member of the government to come out and condemn this senator and dissociate themselves from these comments. Senator Lightfoot said:These people are lucky. They are no more special than anyone else. It might be an incentive for them to get houses.The arrogance of these people with their family trusts and their spiv mates from the big cities! They say, `We'll tax you. We'll discriminate against you. We'll put you at risk of homelessness because it is an incentive for you to get out there and get houses.' The fact is that these people do have homes; they are proud of their homes. When you go into residential parks, you do not see many wheels on caravans. What you see is homes with plumbing, with full facilities. This is a government that is totally out of touch.The National Party concession was to say, `Oh, we're going to get the ACCC to monitor what's happening.' That was the concession from the National Party leader. I will tell members what the ACCC have to say. In a letter to the federal member for Chifley, my colleague Roger Price, Professor Fels said the following:It is important to note with the second option the GST concessional rate will not apply to additional charges for goods or services provided as part of the accommodation. For example, electricity, gas, mini bar items, laundry bills, meals, phone calls, et cetera. These items will attract the full GST of 10 per cent.This is how out of touch they are. They actually think that people in residential parks get mini bars filled up at night. They think they get food and phones provided. They get nothing of the sort. By and large, most of the services in these parks are provided by the residents themselves. But why wouldn't Professor Fels be out of touch on this issue, because the government is out of touch as well? On AM on 19 June when dismissing the National Party conference call, the Prime Minister said:If you pay the half GST, the owner of the caravan park is then able to get a refund of all the input taxes he pays on things like carpets, airconditioning, heating and so forth.That will be news to the residents. As well as getting their mini bars filled up at night and all these other services provided, they have benevolent owners of caravan parks coming in and putting carpet in their vans for them and providing airconditioning. What a nonsense! This government has no idea whatsoever about the lifestyle of ordinary Australians.The second part of the deal from the National Party which is even more offensive is that, on top of the $431 million campaign to sell the GST to the electorate, they announced that they will run an education campaign. The money that owners will pay in GST on their site fees and their rent is actually going to be used by the government to send propaganda into residential parks to tell them that they are better off for it. It is no wonder that only one member of the government was prepared to put his or her name on the speakers list for this bill. The Deputy Prime Minister has not had anything to say because he knows that the National Party is completely out of touch on this issue. People who live in boarding houses are some of the most vulnerable people in our community. I probably have more boarding houses in my electorate than there are in just about any other electorate in Australia. One of my constituents is a Mr Patrick Drage, who lives in Crystal Street, Petersham, in a row of six terraces containing 42 permanent residents. This is what a real battler has to say about the GST on rent: I go without meals as it is, if it goes up another $14 or so, that's meat and bread I'll have to go without. I go to the [Exodus] Foundation at Ashfield and pretty much everyone else here does, too. I can't read or write, I had silicosis all my life and I couldn't go to school. I didn't vote for the GST, it's going to make the rich richer and the poor poorer.Mr Patrick Drage of Petersham has got it right. This is an appalling cave-in by the Democrats. It is an embarrassment for the National Party, whose rank and file will wonder why they bother to go to conferences. I conclude by asking the National Party to find a spine and find eight of those New South Wales Nationals to vote for the policy that was adopted unanimously by the rank and file at its conference, at which they were all delegates. They voted for it in Tweed Heads. I say: if it is good enough to vote for it in Tweed Heads, it is good enough to vote for it in Canberra.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 2 p.m., the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 101A. The debate may be resumed at a later hour.Ministerial Arrangements1844714:00:0018447Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—Mr Speaker, I inform the House that the Attorney-General will be absent from question time today. He is attending the ceremonial first sitting and swearing-in of the Federal Magistrates Service in Melbourne. The Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs will answer questions in the Attorney-General's absence.Questions Without Notice184471844714:00:0018447McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN5I4FraserALP00—My question is to the Acting Treasurer. Do you recall as Acting Treasurer last week ruling out a moratorium on the introduction of the GST on partially completed houses, saying:... 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. Why, then, in your capacity as local member, did you write to the Domaine building company on 19 June, saying:Clearly, there is no excuse for the house not to be substantially complete by the 1st July ... I do not believe you are entitled to pass on $11,984.29 to [my constituents], which you estimate is the GST impact by July 1 ...Minister, if home buyers are required to pay GST on work done after 1 July, irrespective of whose fault it is, wasn't this statement by you false and misleading? Isn't it a case of you saying one thing in this parliament and another at home?3K6Cameron, Ross, MPMr Ross Cameron—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Under standing order 144, I think there are limits even to your generosity on permitting argument proffered in the form of a question.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Parramatta is right that there are limits to my generosity. I was obviously listening to the question from the Manager of Opposition Business, and in all instances it was framed as a question. I concede that it was longer than is normally tolerated, but had I not been happy with it I would have ruled him out of order, and I did not do so.18447Fahey, John, MPMr FAHEYHQ5MacarthurLPMinister for Finance and Administration10—I did indicate to the House last week that owners and builders were aware of the fact that there would be a GST impact on houses. They knew that in December 1998. The honourable member has referred to some representations received from constituents which I acted upon appropriately. Let me explain. The constituents that came to see me in respect of a house signed a contract in October 1999. That contract required completion of a home within a particular period of time—from memory, it was a 32-week contract. When my constituents came to see me, that house was at the stage of having a slab poured and half a frame erected. They came to see me after they received a letter from the builder indicating, without any explanation, that there would be an increase in price of just under $12,000. Their complaint to me related to the relationship between them and their builder and the fact that a representative of that builder had indicated to them earlier this year, when discussion came up on the question of what the impact of the GST would be, that the house would be three-quarters complete by 1 July and that the impact would be around $2,000. They received the letter with no explanation and with little progress occurring on their house under their contract. They said to me, `It seems a bit rich that all of a sudden a non-explainable $12,000 increase is now being requested of us, with little progress on the house over all these weeks, when we were told earlier this year that there would be an increase of about $2,000—which we had accepted.' Those matters were put to the builder in terms of re-examining the amount that had been sent in that letter in the context of the earlier discussions between my constituents and their builder. As I pointed out to my constituents and, from memory, as I pointed out in the letter to the builder, the contract was signed in October 1999, with knowledge they had had since December 1998. In all of those circumstances, I think it was not unreasonable for my constituents to believe that the house would have been substantially complete by the time that the GST impact took effect. They accepted from those discussions that that impact would be about $2,000. I put it to the builder that he might reconsider the amount in those circumstances. I think that goes to the contractual relations between the builder and the owners, and I would suggest that it is entirely appropriate that a concern expressed on delay and on impact to them be taken up by me, as a local member, with the builder. I did that, and I would do that again.1844814:05:0018448Bailey, Fran, MPFRAN BAILEYJT4McEwenLP10—My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Would the Prime Minister inform the House of arrangements that have been made to provide adequate compensation for pensioners after the introduction of the new tax system on 1 July?18448Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I thank the member for McEwen for that question, a member who has always displayed a very consistent interest in the welfare of pensioners and retired people in Australia. I am pleased to confirm to the parliament that pensions and allowances will be increased by four per cent from 1 July. In relation to arrangements for paying the increase—and this is important information for the benefit of pensioners in members' constituencies—on the first payday after 1 July, Centrelink will pay the increased pension and allowance entitlements, with the increase backdated to 1 July. On the first payday after 1 July, the Family Assistance Office will pay the increased entitlements under the new family benefits package, with the increase also backdated to 1 July. This arrangement ensures that pensioners and those who receive allowances will be ahead by two per cent more than they would otherwise have been, regardless of the price effect of taxation reform.In other words, the good news for pensioners is that there is a two per cent guaranteed real increase in the level of the pension, the sort of benefit that will be of continuing help, support and security for the pensioners of Australia. As a result of these arrangements, no less than 845,000 part-pensioners will be receiving a higher pension and 45,000 people will qualify for a part pension for the first time as a result of more generous income and assets tests for pensions. In addition to that, there will be special aged persons and savings bonuses in relation to people over 60 years who have income from savings and investment. That is what we promised the pensioners of Australia we would do in 1998 and that is what we are delivering, not only in full but with many significant enhancements since the election in 1998. How does that, I might ask rhetorically, stack up with earlier performances of governments which have said things about pensioners and then, when they have got re-elected, they have not done them? I was unkind enough to have a bit of research done on this, and I found that in 1993, in a document entitled Policies for Older Australians, this is what was said:Labor's commitment to removing all age and service pensioners from the tax system by 1995 will benefit pensioners paid at the part rate, as well as providing some assistance to retirees with incomes beyond the pension cut-out point. That was in the document called Policies for Older Australians issued for the 1993 election. On 18 March 1993, only five days after the election, the Labor government announced that it would not be keeping its commitment to remove all age and service pensions from the tax system by 1995. The commitment was estimated to be worth between $1 billion and $1.5 billion. Just listen to the explanation given by the then Treasurer: Look, that is something which of course the Government would want to review. We haven't given any definite undertakings—hang on, I thought they said they were going to remove it by 1995—and I think it was an undertaking given at a much earlier stage.It had in fact been given only a few months earlier. He continues:It is certainly not an undertaking we have renewed and I certainly don't feel under any obligation to follow through with it.On 19 March, incredibly enough, this is what the Australian Financial Review had to say: `Labor advisers say the commitment was included in the policy platform by mistake.' I cannot imagine that the Financial Review, or indeed any other paper, would allow some adviser of this government to get away with such a phoney explanation or phoney excuse. The reality is that 1993 and the months that followed that notorious election represent one of the worst litanies of deceit, broken promises and dishonesty on the part of a government and on the part of a serving prime minister that this country has seen. Not only did they promise tax cuts, not only did they attack our indirect tax package, but immediately on being re-elected they repudiated their promises to the pensioners, they repudiated their promises to the taxpayers of Australia and, to add insult to injury, they increased the price of petrol by 6c a litre without warning and without any compensation.Distinguished Visitors1844910000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—It is my pleasure to inform the House that we have present in the Distinguished Visitors Gallery this afternoon His Excellency the Australian Ambassador to Ireland and the Holy See, former Speaker of the House of Representatives, Bob Halverson. On behalf of the House, I extend to you, sir, a very warm welcome.Honourable members—Hear, hear! Questions Without Notice184491844914:11:0018449Latham, Mark, MPMr LATHAMK26WerriwaALP00—My question is to the Acting Treasurer. Is the minister aware that the Housing Industry Association estimates that 50,000 home buyers and 100,000 renovators will be caught out having to pay an average $6,000 and $2,000 respectively in unexpected GST because their building work will not be completed before 1 July? Is he also aware that the HIA has estimated that the government is set to reap a $500 million GST windfall from these home buyers and renovators? Minister, why are you cashing in on the misfortune of these 150,000 Australians whose building work will not be completed before 1 July—in many cases through no fault of their own? Minister, in light of your earlier answer, what are you going to do to help these Australians?18449Fahey, John, MPMr FAHEYHQ5MacarthurLPMinister for Finance and Administration10—I thank the honourable member for Werriwa for his question. Can I indicate that in my answer to the first question today I could have added that many of those facts were brought to my attention by the Domaine building company in responding to me in respect of those representations I made on behalf of my constituent. As I indicated to the House last week, there was a knowledge of the impact of GST from December 1998. There is a transitional period in everything. But let me simply say this: the benefit of GST goes to the states. I would have thought that the honourable member for Werriwa would have an open door to the Premier of New South Wales in view of his former occupation. I wonder if he has gone to the Premier of New South Wales, who will be the beneficiary of the GST in respect of home building and everywhere else, or perhaps to the Labor Premier of Victoria, and asked those premiers if they have the concern and are they prepared to forgo the benefits that will flow to them, because they will receive the GST? It goes to the states. K26Latham, Mark, MPMr Latham—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. My question went to the minister to get some justice for home buyers and renovators. On the point of relevance—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Werriwa will resume his seat.HQ5Mr FAHEY—I am sure the honourable member for Werriwa would have noted that in contracts that most builders have issued to owners for some significant time—in fact since December 1998—there was a provision to say that any impact of any taxes or otherwise would be applicable, and there is an impact the other way in respect of certain things that go into homes, particularly in the final stages. The one certainty is that when it comes to midnight on Friday the iniquitous, inequitable wholesale sales tax ceases—it goes—and there will be some flow-on in respect of that to homebuilders as well. Again, I urge the honourable member for Werriwa, with his concern for his constituents, to use his influence on the beneficiary of goods and services tax and make appropriate representations to the Premier of New South Wales.1845014:16:0018450Bartlett, Kerry, MPMr BARTLETT0K6MacquarieLP10—My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Would the Prime Minister inform the House of the importance of maintaining recent gains on industrial relations reform? Is he aware of the views of other prominent economic commentators on this matter?18450Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I thank the honourable member for Macquarie for a question that goes to the heart of one of the great achievements of this government; that is, not only has there been a reduction in the number of industrial disputes but there has been a dramatic increase in real wages over the last 4¼ years. When the alleged workers' party, the Labor Party, were in office, they drove real wages down and they boasted about it. Over the last 4¼ years, this government, through its industrial relations policy and other policies, has presided over a significant increase in the wages of Australian workers. That is something you never hear the member for Brisbane or the Leader of the Opposition telling gatherings of the trade union movement. You never hear them say that over the last 4¼ years workers have received a double benefit from this government. They have low interest rates and higher wages. That is a double which no government has delivered in 30 or 40 years. It is a double which eluded the 13 years of Keating and Hawke and it is a double that has been delivered to the workers of Australia by the coalition government. One of the reasons it has been delivered is that we have pursued policies to provide more flexibility to Australia's labour markets. It is a matter of public record that, if Labor wins the next election, it will reverse that process. In the nature of the democratic contest, it is always important from time to time to have a look not only at what the government is saying and doing but also at what the opposition is saying and doing. We read a little bit about what was being said and done in the Labor caucus yesterday morning. DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—It was not as bad as what was said in yours!ZD4Mr HOWARD—The report on your caucus meeting was far more colourful. I think it was the Deputy Leader of the Opposition who, at one stage, was actually yelling at people from the Left. He was saying to them that they had only raised that particular argument so that it could be leaked.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER— The Prime Minister might like to come to the matter of industrial relations.ZD4Mr HOWARD—Mr Speaker, in the natural banter of things, I responded to a vigorous interjection by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, but that does not prevent me from returning to the central issue raised, and that is productivity. When you have flexible labour markets, you have greater productivity. When you have flexible labour markets, you go ahead. The member for Macquarie asked me whether there is any evidence for that proposition from prominent economic experts. I have a speech in front of me which was delivered by a person by the name of Alan Greenspan. Most people would regard him as a fairly prominent economic expert. He would know something about flexible labour markets. It would be a very good idea if the Labor Party took a bit of notice. When Alan Greenspan was talking about the relative performances of economies, he said: Europe and Japan have participated in this recent wave of invention and innovation and have full access to the newer technologies. However, they arguably have been slower to apply them. The relatively inflexible and hence more costly labour markets of these economies appear to be an important factor.What that means is that, if you want to really get the benefit of technology, you have to have a flexible approach to labour market regulation. That is what this government has followed; that is what the governments of most European countries have not followed. One of the reasons why the Japanese economy has grown at a slower pace than the United States economy over the past few years is that the Japanese have been slow to provide greater flexibility to their labour markets. Everything that we have heard from the opposition—from the Leader of the Opposition, from the member for Brisbane and from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition—is all about bringing back greater inflexibility into the labour market. It is all about re-regulating labour. It is all about giving greater authority to the union. It is all about putting unions above the law through effectively destroying the secondary boycott prohibition. What this will really do is put at risk the gains that have been made on the productivity front over the last 4¼ years. It is no accident that Australian workers are better off now than they were in March 1996. They are better off now because the policies of this government have led to a reduction in interest rates, the policies of this government have boosted productivity and the policies of this government have boosted the pay packets of Australian workers. Every utterance of the Australian Labor Party on this issue, if given effect to, would set into reverse that highly desirable process.1845114:21:0018451Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN2V5LilleyALP00—My question is directed to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, do you recall taxpayer funded GST advertising promising `a four per cent up-front increase in pensions'? Prime Minister, will you confirm that the first regular fortnightly pension payment due on 6 July will not reflect a full up-front four per cent increase because the payment would include only four days paid at the four per cent rate and the remaining 10 days at the lower existing rate?10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Lilley is advancing an argument. The member for Lilley will come to his question.2V5Mr SWAN—It is pretty important. Prime Minister, won't this cost pensioners almost $10 in their pension and mean that they will have to wait until 20 July to receive the full four per cent increase designed to offset the cost of the GST from 1 July? Prime Minister, do you agree with the comments of the Treasurer last week that $10 is affordable to ordinary Australians?3K6Cameron, Ross, MPMr Ross Cameron—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. I feel a bit like Oliver Twist asking for more. I refer you to House of Representatives Practice, page 511:Questions cannot be debated, nor can they contain arguments, comments or opinions. They may not become lengthy speeches or statements and they may not in themselves suggest an answer. In short, questions should not be used as vehicles for the discussion of issues.I merely note that if argument is allowed to stand in questions it inevitably has an effect on the quality of behaviour on this side of the House.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I point out to the member for Parramatta that there is rarely a question asked that does not in one form or another advance some form of argument. All of the comments made by the member for Lilley were framed as questions. I intervened when I believed that he was entering into the area of argument and I will rule out of order questions that I believe contain argument or are advanced in such a way as to present an argument and which are not consistent with what have been the forms of the House in the past. 18451Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—If my memory serves me correctly, the member who asked the question was either the secretary of the Queensland branch of the ALP at the time of the 1993 election or in fact stood as a candidate at that election. In either event, it is beyond comprehension how, in the light of Dawkins's repudiation of your 1993 promise to Australian pensioners, you would have the nerve to ask such a stupid question. The reality is that the commitment we are making to the pensioners of Australia is being honoured in full—and you know it.1845214:25:0018452Causley, Ian, MPMr CAUSLEY4K6PageNP10—My question is directed to the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. Is the minister aware of moves to force employers to pay 15 per cent superannuation contributions for their employees? What are the ramifications of this policy?18452Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPMinister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business10—I thank the honourable member for his question. I have noticed that the ACTU Congress has now adopted as a policy that we should see an effective doubling in superannuation contributions by employers to 15 per cent. My concern about the adoption of this policy by the ACTU is that we all know that when the ACTU adopts a policy it will not be long before the leadership of the ALP does so as well. We have already seen the `world's greatest Treasurer', Mr Keating, on the 15 per cent push as well. It is quite clear that, despite the protestations of the frontbench on the other side, there is a gathering momentum for a very significant increase in contributions which would mean a very significant increase in costs on business. You do not need to be a Rhodes scholar or an economist to understand the ultimate impact of that. You do not need to understand much about running a business to know that, if you have a very significant increase in costs, that will mean a reduction in employment. That is the last thing that we ought to be advocating in this country. It is a policy that should be immediately repudiated by the Leader of the Opposition. But, when it comes to standing up to the ACTU, we all know that that is not something he is easily capable of. The fact is that this will drive people out of the work force. It will increase costs on business. It is like the introduction of a new tax. Labor's policy is already to introduce a new tax to fund the Employee Entitlements Support Scheme. A significant increase now in superannuation would see a lot of people lose their jobs and a lot of employment opportunities lost in the Australian economy.The ACTU are clearly very confident of their capacity to push around the Leader of the Opposition. The language of the ACTU really gives you a sense of the way in which the ACTU control the leadership and in particular the Leader of the Opposition. Sharan Burrow treats the Leader of the Opposition like a pet poodle. She has the pet poodle on her lap and she is belting it around the ears and then she says, `We know he is happy to take that flak and he'll wear a lot more and he'll wear it like a badge of honour'—like any good poodle would! This is not in the interests of Australian workers. This will cost Australian workers their jobs. It is yet another example of how the Leader of the Opposition cannot stand up to the trade union movement. As it marches to the left, destroying thousands of jobs, the Leader of the Opposition again fails to stand up for the national interest and for the jobs of ordinary Australian workers.1845214:29:0018452Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN2V5LilleyALP00—My question is directed to the Minister for Community Services. Minister, can you please explain why the government failed to provide detailed information direct to aged persons on the operation of the savings bonuses under the GST until only recently? Is the reason why the government deliberately omitted this information that it wanted to lead elderly Australians into thinking they would qualify for a bonus payment even though many did not stand a chance? Minister, will you please confirm that 43 per cent of those aged over 60 will be eligible only for an aged person's savings bonus payment of just one dollar or less?18452Anthony, Larry, MPMr ANTHONYXJ6RichmondNPMinister for Community Services10—The government has always been very clear in explaining the savings bonuses to pensioners right around this country. It was very clear that pensioners who had income from savings of up to $20,000 could be eligible for the $1,000 bonus and that from $20,000 to $30,000, depending on their income, the bonus would alter. This was part of the generous compensation package that the government put in place to ensure that when there were price rises as a result of the new taxation system they would be compensated. This was never done by the Australian Labor Party when they increased wholesale sales taxes from 10 per cent to 12 per cent or from 20 to 22 per cent and to 34 per cent. These are measures that have been put into place, along with, as the Prime Minister said, the four per cent increase and along with raising the assets test level by 2.5 per cent to ensure that they are well-off and ahead in the new tax system. 1845314:32:0018453Wakelin, Barry, MPMr WAKELINHV5GreyLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Can the minister advise the House about state government policies which impact on the take-up of new apprenticeships? What plans does the government have to respond to these policies?18453Kemp, 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 Grey for his question. Yesterday I informed the House about the record number of new apprentices in training as a result of the government's training reforms, but I also advised the House of the alarming drop-off in commencements in the Labor states, particularly in Victoria where commencements have fallen by 10.9 per cent since December last year, and in Queensland where commencements have fallen by 29.3 per cent since June last year. I should also mention that the Carr government has been a consistent poor performer within the framework of the apprenticeship system, with New South Wales missing some 30,000 apprenticeship and traineeship places which it would have if participation were at Victorian levels—the levels achieved by the Kennett government.The problem is that Labor is consistently seeking ways to give privileges to its union mates, to shore up its main bases of support, and to put in place more and more bureaucracy. In Victoria, despite the fact that employers want choice of public or private training provider, under union pressure the Victorian government has capped the number of places that private training providers can offer. We have seen that, as a result, the Victorian commencements have dropped almost 11 per cent since December last year. The New South Wales system is being strangled by the union unwillingness to get rid of the declaration of a vocation system which is excessively bureaucratic. The Queensland government is making it increasingly difficult for employers to take on new apprentices by adding extra entry forms into the system.I understand the Tasmanian government is now providing political funding to the Trades and Labour Council in that state so that that council can promote union membership amongst trainees and apprentices. We are seeing constantly the efforts of the Labor Party to shore up its own political base at the expense of quality training and real jobs for young Australians. What there is is an effort to maintain a railway gauge approach to training on the part of the states. National companies like Woolworths, Ford, Coles, Brambles, BP and Amcor are increasingly expressing their frustration at the poor business practices of the states and the fact that the Labor states are making apprenticeships more and more unfriendly to small, medium sized and national businesses. Ford, for example, says:Inconsistencies and bureaucratic nonsense are creating a stifling effect. We need one system, not eight.That is why I am putting forward national model legislation for apprenticeships—so that we can get some uniformity into the system and meet the needs of national businesses to provide this quality training. These issues require strong and immediate action by the states. I have taken this up with the states and on Friday, when I meet with the state ministers, I will be actively pursuing with them the need to get rid of these bureaucratic blockers that they have put in place. The problem is that whenever Labor comes to power, be it federal Labor or state Labor, its efforts to give privileges to its union mates inevitably start biting into the willingness of employers to offer quality training to apprentices. This is a tragedy. It is what would happen if Labor ever came to power nationally. We are now seeing it happen across the states where a Labor government has come to power. 1845314:36:0018453Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr FITZGIBBON8K6HunterALP00—My question is to the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation. Minister, can you confirm the receipt of advice from Westpac that, due to the GST, it intends putting prices up the full 10 per cent on 14 separate fees and charges it imposes on its small business customers—something you said could not happen? Didn't the government tell the public before the last election that bank charges would fall, not rise, because of its tax package? Minister, how do you justify this latest example of GST deceit?18454Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLPMinister for Financial Services and Regulation10—Mr Speaker, I take the opportunity to inform the House that I have today referred Westpac to the ACCC for investigation of the pricing nominations made on the front of one of today's papers. I also point out to the House—and I think every member of the House and every bank customer should be aware of this—that the original ANTS package taken to the last election was based on the abolition of $2.46 billion in financial services taxes, which the Labor Party opposed at every single point. The Labor Party opposed the abolition of taxes on financial institutions duty. The Labor Party opposed the abolition of debits tax. The Labor Party opposed the abolition of stamp duty on business conveyances. The Labor Party opposed the abolition of stamp duty on leases. The Labor Party opposed the abolition of stamp duty on mortgages or loan securities. The Labor Party opposed the abolition of stamp duty on bonds and debentures. The Labor Party opposed the abolition of stamp duty on credit arrangements. The Labor Party opposed the abolition of stamp duty on instalment purchase agreements. The Labor Party opposed the abolition of stamp duty on rental and hiring arrangements. As I say, in each case when it comes to bank fees and charges, I urge bank customers to shop around. Opposition members interjecting—DK6Mr HOCKEY—The opposition scoff at my remark about shopping around. I ask the opposition—who said this:Once again, the Price Watch team have shown how important it is for consumers to shop around for specials.Who said that? Who would that be? Who said this:The Price Watch team's latest results reinforce what I have been encouraging shoppers to do for a long time—shop around.Who said that? Which member of the Labor Party said that?83UCox, David, MPMr Cox—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order which goes to relevance. The minister cannot tell the difference between a shopping centre and a bank.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member will resume his seat. I had allowed the minister to continue down that course believing he would be in some way relevant to the question asked about bank fees, and I invite him to return to that question.DK6Mr HOCKEY—Mr Speaker, I ask the question—who said this:“Our surveys have shown customer loyalty is rarely rewarded. If people really want to save themselves money and are operating on a tight budget, they need to shop at the store with the most specials to suit their needs,” Mr Swan said.The member for Lilley is not the sharpest tool in the shed, but on this occasion he is right on the money.2V5Swan, Wayne, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Lilley! If the member for Lilley persists in interjecting, I will deal with him. 83UCox, David, MPMr Cox—I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I draw your attention to standing order 85 on irrelevance and tedious repetition—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Kingston will resume his seat. If he takes the trouble to read standing order 85, he will see that it bears no relevance to question time.83UCox, David, MPMr Cox—Mr Speaker, I was just about to read standing order 85. 10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Kingston will resume his seat. I am familiar with standing order 85, and I have ruled.1845414:41:0018454St Clair, Stuart, MPMr ST CLAIR84BNew EnglandNP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. Is the minister aware of attempts being made to allow workplace relations laws to interfere with commercial arrangements of small business independent contractors? What is the government's response to such attempts?18455Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPMinister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business10—I thank the member for New England for his question. The government is certainly aware of attempts to introduce laws that have the effect of taking a small business person and declaring them to be an employee at the request of a union. This proposal is in fact now Labor Party policy. We know that because I launched the policy myself in the parliament this week. Item 75 of that policy says:The protection of the IR system should be extended beyond a narrow definition of employees to include more in employment type relations. We know what this means, because the Labor government in Queensland have actually made this the law. In Queensland, you can be a small business person and, by Queensland law, a tribunal can come along, at the request of a union, and—hey-presto!—one minute you thought you were a small business person, the next minute you are an employee. The consequence of that is that as an employee you become subject to awards, union preference clauses and all the privileged arrangements which suit the union movement.What is particularly concerning about this is that we have a trade union movement whose membership in the private sector work force is now down to 20 per cent and, because it cannot get members by attracting them through good service, it is using the Labor Party to dragoon people into the trade union movement. This is a means of just frogmarching people into the trade union movement's clutches at the behest of a weak opposition leader and a weak Labor Party. In Queensland this has become law. In New South Wales, the government have introduced a bill to do exactly the same thing. In Victoria, Ron McCallum has a panel going around for the Labor government, and you can be sure that he has written this clause already. Why? Because the trade union leadership demand it of the parliamentary party. When you have a weak leader, as we have here federally, you can be absolutely certain this will be part and parcel of a bill to be introduced by Labor if they are ever elected.The consequences go beyond that. If they take somebody who is minding their own business, running their own business, and suddenly declare them to be an employee, look the consequence of this for the building industry. What incredible hypocrisy! The Labor Party are talking about costs in the building industry. If you take the tremendous number of small businesses in the building sector who build residential dwellings for Australians at low cost and high quality—one of the great industry sectors in this country—and turn them into employees and let the unions run that system, what do you think that will do to the cost of housing in Australia? It will send it through the roof, literally. Why? Because of the union leadership demand of weak leaders like the Leader of the Opposition that they get a privileged position.Lastly, and just to show how draconian this is, there are people such as Steve Harrison, a former leading union official who is now publicly opposed to this proposal because he knows it is so draconian. In fact, ultimately, it is against the interests of the trade union movement. They ought to be out there attracting members on the basis of delivering a good service, instead of frogmarching people into the union using laws put in place by the weak leaders of a parliamentary party, such as the Leader of the Opposition.1845514:45:0018455Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister, and I refer to comments yesterday by Professor Allan Fels, who said:The price guide on petrol was based on the assumption that government would follow certain policy. Prime Minister, wasn't that assumption based on the policy put by the then Minister for Transport and Regional Development, Mark Vaile, on 9 September 1998, when he said:Petrol prices for motorists in Australia will not rise with GST as we are reducing the excise (tax) on petrol by an equivalent amount to offset the impact of the GST to zero at the pump.Prime Minister, if you cannot be straight with your own price watchdog about your tax increase on petrol, why should the Australian people believe you?18456Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I have not had any discussions with Professor Fels about this matter at all. Therefore I cannot be absolutely certain as to what assumptions Professor Fels has in mind when he makes these statements. But the situation in relation to petrol excise is well known. It has been explained. The Labor Party is endeavouring, as it has with just about every other popular commodity, to create the circumstances of fear, concern and confusion. What we have done is deliver a cut in excise of 6.7c. When you add to that the cost savings, which we believe should be passed on in full by the oil companies, we believe, as I have said on a number of occasions in the House—DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker, that goes to relevance and to the statement by the transport minister at the last election that excise would reduce by the same amount as the GST put petrol up.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Prime Minister is being relevant to the question asked.ZD4Mr HOWARD—I can only repeat what I have said on a number of occasions—that is, we have delivered a reduction of 6.7c a litre. There are cost savings in relation to the sale of petrol, and we believe those cost savings should be passed on in full.1845614:48:0018456Billson, Bruce, MPMr BILLSON1K6DunkleyLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Is the minister aware of claims made about the future of the private health insurance industry and the prospect of premium increases next year? Has the minister seen any other comments in relation to these claims?18456Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4CaseyLPMinister for Health and Aged Care10—I thank the honourable member for his question. Yesterday in Melbourne Standard and Poor's released a commentary on the health insurance industry and, during a press conference, Mr Ian Thompson from Standard and Poor's made the comment that he expected premiums to rise by 10 per cent next year. I note that, on ABC Radio National this morning, the same Mr Thompson made the comment:Quite frankly, I think, you know, some of the comments, you know, were perhaps a bit over the top.Mr Thompson's comments were certainly over the top. This same Mr Thompson, in a conversation with a senior management person in a major Australian health fund, commented today that he had said that because he thought it would be helpful to the industry. Unfortunately, it has caused anxiety among a very large number of Australians. It is quite an extraordinary assertion given that, this year, health premium increases were the lowest for at least 20 years—premium increases were under two per cent on average. Given the success of Lifetime Health Cover, this actually put downward pressure on premiums compared with the last 12 months, and there have been recent statements by the Australian Health Insurance Association that people can look forward to a long period where premiums are not expected to rise substantially. The government's own fund, Medibank Private, has said that if there is a premium increase next year it will be somewhere between nothing and a tiny amount.The Standard and Poor's report fails on several accounts. It fails to recognise that 40 out of 44 health funds are not for profit. It fails to recognise that, unlike general insurance, health insurance is not risk rated. Last year my department pointed out to Standard and Poor's a number of factual errors in their first report and offered to provide comment on this year's report. That offer was knocked back and the same errors appear in this year's statement. The information in this report is 12 months old. Because it was publicly available information, it does not take into account the substantially better performance of the funds this year. On 1 March next year premium increases will be announced for the year 2001. At that point I expect an apology from Mr Thompson, and his other clients can determine the competence and accuracy of his company. 1845614:51:0018456Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Wasn't the assumption by the ACCC on petrol, when they took the government at face value, also based on the clear statement from the Treasurer on 25 November last year, when he said:When you equalise out the tax arrangements, you get the same amount of revenue anyway. The excise comes down and the 10 per cent goes back up. It is the same amount of tax. It just depends on whether you are taking it in a form of excise or whether you are taking it in the form of GST.Prime Minister, doesn't your decision to reduce excise by only 6.7c per litre but to impose the GST at 8.2c per litre breach the Treasurer's commitment?18457Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—As I said in answer to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, I am quite unable to put myself into the mind of the Chairman of the ACCC, because I have not discussed this matter with him. The Leader of the Opposition returned to the question of the total amount of Commonwealth excise collections. I would remind the Leader of the Opposition that the current excise collected by the Commonwealth on unleaded petrol is 44.13c, and it will fall to 37.48c under the new arrangements. In those circumstances, I fail to see the logical basis of the leader's question.1845714:52:0018457Cameron, Ross, MPMr ROSS CAMERON3K6ParramattaLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment Services. What is the expected employment impact of the Sydney Olympic Games? What is the government doing to maximise the employment opportunities associated with the games? Are there any alternative views on this subject?18457Abbott, Tony, MPMr ABBOTTEZ5WarringahLPMinister for Employment Services10—I thank the member for Parramatta for his question. I am sure that the member for Parramatta, like all members of this House, will be very pleased that, over the past 12 months, unemployment in the Sydney metropolitan region has dropped from over six per cent to under five per cent, despite an increase in the participation rate. Over the past 12 months, 50,000 new jobs have been created in the Sydney region. Since March 1996, 180,000 new jobs have been created in the Sydney metropolitan region.Earlier this year, SOCOG estimated that there would be nearly 100,000 paid jobs created, directly and indirectly, thanks to the Sydney Olympics and Paralympics. At the same time, there are about 100,000 registered job seekers in the Sydney region. Not all of these people can be expected to fill Olympic jobs, but the Olympics obviously provide Sydney with a once in a lifetime opportunity to drive unemployment down toward levels last seen in the 1950s and 1960s. Earlier this year, the government launched an Olympic employment site as part of the Australian Jobsearch service available to job seekers on touch screens around Australia and through the Internet. With just one click, job seekers can enter the exciting world of Olympic job opportunities. Today there are nearly 2,000 jobs available on this site and, like all Job Network services, this is available absolutely free to job seekers. Mr Speaker, I am sure that you, like all members of this House, would encourage job seekers to make the most of Olympic opportunities. I would certainly encourage all employers to give job seekers a fair go in competing for available Olympic jobs.I have been asked about alternative approaches. The New South Wales Labour Council has set up an Olympic labour exchange, and it proposes charging all successful job seekers a $6 a week levy for getting a job under this system. This is Labor's tax on jobs. It is Labor's GST on jobs—a `gold' in Sydney tax on jobs. There have been suggestions that the government is being too harsh on job seekers by expecting them to make the most of Olympic job opportunities. Let me just say that the cruelest thing you can do for job seekers is to encourage them to stay on welfare. The kindest thing you can do is to encourage them to take jobs, and that is precisely what this government is doing. 1845714:56:0018457Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question is to the Acting Treasurer. Are you aware that today the price of petrol in Gundagai was 88.9c a litre while at Cootamundra, less than 60 kilometres away, it was 7c more expensive, at 95.9c a litre? Why does your petrol grants scheme promise the same level of grant—1c a litre—for petrol purchased at both places, despite the price of petrol in Cootamundra being a full 7c a litre more expensive than in Gundagai, even before the GST is imposed? With anomalies like these, how can residents in the federal electorate of Hume believe your promise that the price of petrol will not rise as a result of the GST? 18458Fahey, John, MPMr FAHEYHQ5MacarthurLPMinister for Finance and Administration10—That question must have been written by Chris from Waramanga. Opposition members interjecting—Alby wrote it!HQ5Mr FAHEY—I think what the Deputy Leader of the Opposition was pointing out to the House is the extreme volatility in petrol prices. As you are aware, Mr Speaker, the new tax system does not commence until one minute past midnight on Saturday morning, but I was informed that today, in the same capital city, there were fluctuations in petrol prices of 9c a litre. That points out the volatility. As I pointed out to the House the other day, the government has an indexation twice a year, as the Labor government did. The indexation effect in February of this year was 0.65c per litre. Within three days in Melbourne, the price increased by 10c a litre. That was because the oil company had withdrawn its subsidies. It had withdrawn the measures it had taken to make competition vary between one company and the other, and as a result there was a wild fluctuation in price. It was nothing to do with taxes, whether they be the taxes of today, the taxes of Saturday, or taxes from that point onwards. DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—What about the John Howard deceit petrol tax?HQ5Mr FAHEY—You are not talking to Anthony Albanese when you fire out that sort of rude interjection. You are not talking to the Left of the Labor Party now, Simon, so just settle for a moment. Mr Speaker, I point out once again that the taxes of today have nothing to do with the volatility that will apply in that particular industry. This government has stated clearly that it expects the savings that the industry will achieve under the new tax system to be passed on to the motorists, and it expects that to happen from one minute past midnight on Saturday morning. If that is not the case, the watchdog, the ACCC, will do what is necessary.1845815:01:0018458Charles, Bob, MPMr CHARLESOT4La TrobeLP10—My question without notice is to the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation. Would the minister inform the House what Australia's competition watchdog, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, will be doing over the next 10 days to protect consumers from price exploitation during the transition to the new tax system?18458Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLPMinister for Financial Services and Regulation10—I thank the honourable member for his question. The Commonwealth government has allocated more than $56 million over three years to the ACCC to assist it with its price monitoring functions as a result of the transition to the new taxation system. At its peak, over the next 10 days, the ACCC will have more than 2,000 people working on price monitoring, either through the ACCC itself or through its contractors. This is the most extensive price monitoring and consumer protection regime ever undertaken during the transition to a new taxation system, outside of price control in Great Britain and a price freeze in Belgium, Korea and the Netherlands.Unlike other GST implementation programs around the world, the ACCC has covered all means of assisting consumers and business. In relation to indicative prices, the ACCC has printed eight million everyday shopping guides which have been mailed to 6.7 million households. They are still available in post offices and newsagents around Australia. The ACCC has distributed a further 760,000 leaflets with facts for consumers to households, and that material is being translated into six different languages, including Italian, Chinese, Spanish, Vietnamese, Arabic and Greek. The ACCC's hotline, 1300 302 502, has received more than 78,000 calls to date, mostly about pricing inquiries. Despite the best endeavours of the Labor Party, the ACCC has conducted an advertising campaign to tell consumers the phone number. The ACCC is also providing extensive advice to business. They have distributed more than 3,400,000 booklets and fact sheets to businesses, as well as 200,000 small business pricing kit CDs. In addition, the ACCC has held 90 seminars around Australia. In relation to the price monitoring of individual goods and services, Australia's competition watchdog is monitoring more than three million prices on 1,000 goods at between 8,000 and 9,000 different sites around Australia. The ACCC is also considering approving public compliance commitments from business. These public agreements between the ACCC and businesses cannot be used by business to claim an exemption from the full force of the law. The ACCC is agreeing to pricing methodology, but it is not signing off on individual prices. I reissue a warning to business: if they try to exploit consumers during the transition to the new taxation system, they may be liable for fines of up to $10 million for corporations and $500,000 for individuals.This regime that we have put in place is delivered by enforcement. There have been 763 completed matters since January this year, and a further 522 active matters are being investigated. Legal remedies so far have included an exploitation notice being issued, nine court enforceable undertakings and 30 voluntary undertakings made between the ACCC and those businesses. This price monitoring regime that the government has put in place, backed up by very significant powers under the Trade Practices Act, is delivering results. In the first two surveys after the first reduction in wholesale sales tax on consumer goods, it was found that, at a retail level, higher than expected benefits were passed through to consumers. The ACCC is doing an excellent job of protecting consumers, and it enjoys the full support of this government.1845915:06:0018459McLeay, Leo, MPMr LEO McLEAY4I4WatsonALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister and it concerns petrol prices in country New South Wales. Prime Minister, are you aware that today the price of petrol in Nyngan is 97.9c a litre, while in Condobolin it is 2c a litre more expensive at 99.9c a litre? Prime Minister, why does your petrol grants scheme promise a 2c a litre grant for petrol purchased in Nyngan, while the more expensive petrol in Condobolin gets a grant of only 1c a litre?18459Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—The Chief Opposition Whip has asked me a question about the petrol grants scheme, and it gives me an opportunity—DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—In Nyngan.ZD4Mr HOWARD—I do not specifically know the price. I am quite sure that the Chief Opposition Whip does not carry it around in his head either. No doubt the tactics committee said, `We'll give Leo Nyngan'. The issue that the Chief Opposition Whip raises is the generosity and the fairness of the government's grants scheme. I remind the Chief Opposition Whip that the grants scheme goes far beyond the commitments that were made by the coalition during the election campaign. We have heard an enormous amount over the last three days about allegations that, in relation to petrol, we have not matched the commitments we made. The reality is that there was no grants scheme promised in the election campaign. The grants scheme was something additional that the government funded to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars. I know that oppositions have a licence to be utterly irresponsible—and this opposition is exercising the freedom of that licence to the ultimate degree—but there does come a point, when you ask questions which imply, in effect, that the government should be spending more money, when those in the opposition who ask those sorts of questions—DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—Just like your promise.ZD4Mr HOWARD—In fact, there was no grants scheme promised during the election campaign.DT4Crean, Simon, MPZD4Mr HOWARD—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition, as always, provides helpful interjections. There was no grants scheme promised during the election campaign. The reality is that the grants scheme very generously assists people in non-metropolitan Australia in relation to the price of petrol. In order to get some kind of perspective back into this debate about the price of petrol, I would remind the Chief Opposition Whip that this country has the third cheapest petrol in the world. If you were in the United Kingdom you would be paying the equivalent of something like $1.70 a litre. If you were in Japan you would be paying $1.40 or $1.50. DT4Crean, Simon, MPZD4Mr HOWARD—I know the interjector likes to go to France a lot. They tell me that in Bordeaux it is the equivalent of about $1.90 a litre. The grants scheme is a very appropriate and, I believe, very generous scheme to compensate country people in relation to some of the price differential that exists between city and non-city petrol prices. It is a grants scheme to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars a year. It has been widely welcomed by people in Nyngan. It has been widely welcomed by people throughout the length and breadth of non-metropolitan Australia.DT4Crean, Simon, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is warned! 1846015:10:0018460Thompson, Cameron, MPMr CAMERON THOMPSON84CBlairLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Aged Care. Would the minister inform the House how the Howard government is meeting the needs for aged care in the community?18460Bishop, Bronwyn, MPMrs BRONWYN BISHOPSE4MackellarLPMinister for Aged Care10—I thank the member for Blair for his question. I know of his concern for his older constituents and those who need residential aged care in his electorate. I am pleased to say that, last Saturday, we advertised for more than 14,000 new residential aged care places and community aged care package places Australia wide. Together with last year's allocation, that makes 22,000 new places that have become available for allocation in the last two years. I remind the House that in 1986 the Labor Party set a benchmark of having 100 places per 1,000 people aged 70 and over. They never once met that benchmark. With our allocation of 22,000 new places, we will make up what the Auditor-General found in 1996 was a deficit left by the Labor Party of 10,000 places. That meant that the Labor Party short-changed older Australians by 10,000 aged care places which they failed to provide. With our 22,000 new places we will make up that deficit and provide for growth. Since coming to office, we have increased our expenditure on aged care. The last Labor Party budget for residential aged care was $2.5 billion. In this current budget we are spending $3.8 billion—an increase of $1.3 billion. This is evidence of the commitment we have made to older Australians and their need for residential aged care and community aged care packages. We are meeting the benchmark that was set by the Labor Party—a benchmark which they never met, We are, in fact, making up the shortfall and providing for growth.1846015:13:0018460Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, I ask you yet again: is it not a fact that, on Saturday, Australian motorists will be paying more tax on each litre of petrol because of your GST?18460Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I repeat what I have said on earlier occasions: at present—Opposition members interjecting— 10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Bendigo, the member for Melbourne and the Manager of Opposition Business! There is no obligation facing the Prime Minister to answer a question that has already been extensively answered on two previous occasions. He has responded to the question, and I have recognised him. I will not tolerate this level of interjection.ZD4Mr HOWARD—I repeat what I have said on earlier occasions: that is, at present, total Commonwealth excise collections are in the order of 44c a litre. Those collections are based on a certain set of Commonwealth-state financial relations. As the Leader of the Opposition and the members of the opposition frontbench know, those Commonwealth-state financial relations will change dramatically as from Saturday when the new revenue sharing arrangements come into operation whereby the states receive the full proceeds of the GST revenue. In those circumstances—and I say this very directly in answer to all of the questions that have been asked by the opposition on this revenue comparison point—if the current collections of 44-odd cents a litre are based on a certain set of arrangements and those arrangements, as they unarguably will, totally change on Saturday, then the only basis of comparison is the total Commonwealth excise collections. As everybody knows, those total Commonwealth excise collections will fall—DT4Crean, Simon, MP18461Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition always interjects at the right time. The total Commonwealth excise collections are 44.13c a litre. That is based on certain revenue sharing arrangements between the Commonwealth and the state.5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMullan—And on the GST.18461Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—Those revenue sharing arrangements will change for all time on Saturday. In those circumstances, the only proper basis of comparison is total Commonwealth excise collections now and total Commonwealth excise collections after Saturday. The figure now—and this is directly relevant to the question asked by the Leader of the Opposition—5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMullan—No, it is not.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Manager of Opposition Business is deliberately and persistently defying the chair.18461Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—The total Commonwealth excise collections now are 44.13c a litre. As from Saturday they will fall to 37.48c a litre. In those circumstances, there is a total change. I know that the question that is constantly asked by the Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition completely ignores the reality that on Saturday the Commonwealth-states financial relations will change. The existing excise arrangements are based upon an understanding between the Commonwealth and the states in relation to financial arrangements. That understanding will totally change on Saturday. Therefore, to compare one set of excise arrangements with another without taking that into account, which the opposition has sought to do, is completely misleading. That is why I assert that the only proper comparison is the total Commonwealth excise collections. They will plainly and unarguably fall by something of the order of 6.7c a litre, and the figure will go from 44.13c to 37.48c. In those circumstances, the assertion made by the Leader of the Opposition is wrong.Miscellaneous184611846115:17:0018461Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALPLeader of the Opposition00—I move:That this House censures the Prime Minister for:(1) deceiving the Australian community on tax - most recently exposed in relation to the impact of the GST on petrol prices;(2) imposing a tax system on the Australian community from next Saturday which will result in higher prices, less compensation and more complexity than he promised at the 1998 election, and whose adverse impacts will be felt in the days, weeks and months to come; and(3) wasting the opportunity, because of his personal obsession with the introduction of an old-fashioned tax, to help build the knowledge nation Australia requires for the new century.I think the last person to be ambushed by the GST prior to its implementation—and there will be many ambushes after this—was the price watchdog himself, Allan Fels. He was the last person to find himself in a situation of embarrassment prior to the introduction of the GST—the man who is supposed to implement the Commonwealth's price controls. He was asked to comment on the following by Laurie Oakes:The likely result is an increase of 1.4c a litre, contrary to the ACCC's GST price guide, which predicted no rise in petrol prices.Mr Fels said:Well, we took the government commitment at face value.He took the government commitment at face value. The Australian people, in the last election campaign, took the government commitment at face value. Indeed the Australian people, before the 1996 election, took the government commitment at face value. I think it is worthwhile us now reviewing that particular undertaking before the 1996 election which was, if you like, from a person who is a serial offender on deceit about this taxation arrangement. This is where the serial offence began. It was the first commitment of the crime as far as the goods and services tax is concerned. I go to those various statements that were made to the media and to the Australian people through the media during the lead-up to the 1996 election. We know the infamous `never, ever' quote. But, like many things that are reiterated in public life, it enters into the lexicon of political discourse; it becomes a joke, it becomes deprived of its moral content and of an awful lot of its force. So many people have pointed out the Prime Minister's breach of his `never, ever' promise that we have lost the sense in which it was given—the fullness of it as a precedent for what has gone on in terms of the shrouding of this tax with lies ever since. These are his quotes of the time, taken from a press release dated 2 May 1995:Suggestions in today's Australian that I have left open a possibility of a GST are completely wrong. A GST or anything resembling it is no longer coalition policy, nor will it be policy at any time in the future. It is completely off the political agenda in Australia. Then we go to a doorstop on the same day:Journalist: So you've left the door open for a GST now, haven't you?Howard: No, there's no way that a GST will ever be part of our policy.Journalist: Never ever?Howard: Never ever. It's dead. It was killed by the voters at the last election.Journalist: Were you misquoted in today's Australian newspaper, then?Howard: Well, any suggestion that I left the door open is absolute nonsense. I didn't. I never will. The last election killed the GST. It's not part of our policy and it won't be part of our policy at any time in the future.Then we went later on to Newcastle, a city that is truly beloved by me. The Prime Minister gave the electors of Newcastle on 11 December 1995 these responses when talking to a presenter:Howard: Can I look you straight in the eye and say this, that if I state before an election that we're not going to do something and say it in concrete terms, I mean it. One of the worst things about politics in Australia at the moment is that the public doesn't believe what its political leaders say. Now I'm telling you . . . Presenter: But you had the wrong bloke flogging it before. I mean, John Hewson wasn't good at selling it but—GST, I mean . . . Howard: Mickey, it's not on the agenda, full stop.Presenter: Would you like it to be?Howard: No, it's not on the agenda, full stop. Just not there. Vamoose. Kaput.Presenter: Well it would be political suicide, unfortunately. This is a little touchy. God, I wish I'd been the man to flog that . . . Howard: I'm just telling you what is on the agenda, and what's not, and that's not. I say to the people of Australia, there will be no GST, that it is not on our agenda and I mean it. It's not, you know tiny...Presenter: Cross your heart, type stuff?Howard: Look, it's absolute (inaudible) and you know, you could bring me back here after the election when we've won and you can ask me again, you can ask me again in two years' time and you will find that I've kept my word on that.Opposition members—Oh!PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—I go back to the Prime Minister's earlier part of that particular quote:Can I look you straight in the eye and say this, that if I state before an election that we're not going to do something and say it in concrete terms, I mean it.What did he state before the last election in concrete terms to the Australian people? What did he state about the issue that triggered this debate, though it is a much broader debate than simply that about petrol? He said the following—and it was not as he tried to convey to Laurie Oakes the sort of odd misstep that occurs from time to time, the slip of a tongue when there is a debate going on; and occasionally from time to time it is true that politicians may well find themselves caught out and they are entitled to a bit of latitude on the subject when they get into that type of engagement—and this was a statement to the Australian people, a considered statement read from a script by the Prime Minister in his address to the nation on the tax plan: For all businesses the cost of petrol will fall by about seven cents a litre.And then:The GST will not increase the price of petrol for the ordinary motorist.He said that, and that proposition has been reiterated time and again by the spokesmen for the government ever since, one of the most recent times, of course, being by the Treasurer in November last year. He said this:... when you equalise out the tax arrangements, you get the same amount of revenue anyway. The excise comes down and the 10 per cent goes back up. It is the same amount of tax. It just depends on whether you are taking it in a form of excise or whether you are taking it in the form of GST.That beats the gobbledygook we heard from the Prime Minister in the answer to his last question, which was his cover for the fact that the GST is going to massively increase the price of petrol for the ordinary Australian at the bowser—and will do it from Saturday. He tries to hide behind this nonsense of some 90c a litre strike rate that he talks about. The simple fact of the matter is this: Australians will confront a price of petrol above 74c a litre around this nation on Saturday the 1st, and I would suggest that every single Australian will confront a price higher than 74c a litre. The government will be collecting more in tax from petrol than it collects now and the impact of the GST will ensure that. There has never been a proposition put before the Australian people so shrouded in deceit as this GST, so shrouded in deceit on the question of compensation, so shrouded in deceit on the question of its price effects and so shrouded in deceit on the question of its initial introduction—every single element of it shrouded in deceit. I ask: if something is good for the country, does it have to be introduced on the basis of deception? No, of course, it does not. The reward for this government, of course, has been a series of editorials today which have gone to point out the level of its deceit on this particular matter. The Daily Telegraph under `Price rises add to sense of betrayal' said:No amount of sliding and dodging by the Federal Government will allow it to escape the abundantly plain fact that petrol prices will increase with the GST.From the Sydney Morning Herald:The argument over the cost of petrol can hardly be more confused and confusing. The motoring public feels cheated, with the prospect of a 1.4c or 1.5c a litre rise when the goods and services tax begins to apply on Saturday.The West Australian:It was he—the Prime Minister, that is—not the companies—who made what appears to have turned out to be an ill-advised political promise. And it is he—not the companies—who will be held accountable if the promise is not kept.He will be held accountable for that. He will be held accountable by the Australian people. What we have seen from the government over the last few days is an effort at positioning this GST. A great erector of straw men is the Prime Minister, and the latest one he has erected is the notion that, somehow or other, the opposition has been in there claiming that the sky will fall in on Saturday the 1st. Like Chicken Little we are out there—though Chicken Little cooked, of course, will attract a GST; uncooked or cold it will not. `But the sky will cave in'—it is said by the opposition, according to the government, that this will occur on Saturday. Of course, we do not say that and never have. This GST will be a slow burn, a slow accumulation and the feeling on the part of the Australian people and the government's new tax collectors—small business in particular—that they have been dudded. It will not occur, apart from now, to the surprise of us all, in this area of petrol on Saturday. It will occur as the first bill starts to come in for your insurance, for your bank fees, for your housing rent, for your electricity, for your gas and for the charges on services that you have been used to getting—and it will come from companies that have employed vast numbers of Australians, be it for your haircuts or whatever else it is you need at different points of time. And it will come in gradually as those who have sought in the first instance to take it on board decide ultimately not to absorb its cost. There will be a large number of Australian operations—services, shops—which will absorb the initial impact of the GST and gradually extend it. You can see it, for example, with the Canberra Raiders, for which I give them a tick on this subject. They are going to absorb, in the prices of their tickets, the GST for the next three games, but not for next season. DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—Not the AFL.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—As the Deputy Leader of the Opposition reminds me, neither will the AFL. The GST is going to come in slowly over time, in event after event in the lives of ordinary people. It will come in against a background of price rises and disappointments over the compensation packages, and it will mostly affect not well-off Australians but ordinary Australians—I will say something about that later on. Ordinary Australians will gradually get a handle on the fact that what has been taken out of their pockets is greater than what has been put in. The first to discover that will be the pensioners. I could not believe it today when the Prime Minister mocked the member for Lilley for pointing out that pensioners would find themselves short-changed by $10 in the first impact of the GST. For people of the wealth of the Prime Minister and his front bench, that is a bagatelle. But for people who count their lives in this community in cents rather than in $50 and $100 notes, it means everything. And from next March, the pensioners will see half of their increases get clawed back. Under the government's definitions, it appears that they are entitled to about eight months of bliss with this, and then it will be hauled back. I do not think that there is a single pensioner who will find a four per cent increase producing too much bliss around the place when they confront the sorts of price rises there will be under the GST.Of course, everybody will confront the Christmas price rises. That is when you are going to see the genuine effect. Most Australians have been smart and have been buying up clothes. They have been buying up those goods which they know the GST will impact on immediately. But if they have kids, they know that their clothes last about 12 months before they outgrow them—12 months and that is it. Families understand that the GST is the family tax. Whenever you have a kid in Australia from this point on, you enter a new tax bracket. Your tax will go up as you pay for the nappies and as you pay GST on the baby carriage, because all the implements that were previously untaxed now carry a 10 per cent tag on them. As I said, this tax is a slowburn, and it will be a slowburn in the minds of the Australian people as they realise how massively they have been deceived.And for what? The government's last defence, like the last refuge of any scoundrel, is bogus patriotism. They say to the Australian people, `Your family might be worse off. That is true. You might feel worse off. That may be true. You may object to now paying taxes on services. That may be true. But it is all for the good of the nation.' What in the government's figures actually demonstrates that fact? Have the Treasury's forward calculations on growth assumed that the economy is going to grow substantially or even marginally faster following the introduction of the GST? No. There are no figures from Treasury that demonstrate that. Let us take it a point further. There will be little impact on the macro economy, but what about on the micro economy? In the micro economy, in the lives of hundreds of thousands of businesses, the impact is going to be massive.Not known by many people in this parliament or many people in the general public—apart from those who are in small business—is the conflict suffered by hundreds and thousands of small businesses in the community as they desperately try to get to grips with a tax which has baffled the Taxation Office. The government is paying a terrible price for the way it has treated the Public Service over the last four years. There are not enough properly trained public servants to implement this tax. That is simply a fact of the matter. Somebody was nasty enough to run a test across the Australian tax officials. I do not blame the officials for this, but the test showed that about one-third of them were not in a situation to answer effectively the questions being asked of them. About a third of the tax office is potentially giving misinformation to the people who phone them. On the logic of that, one in three phone calls are therefore likely to involve misinformation given to the collectors of that tax. Is there any mercy for anyone in this business as far as this government is concerned? Is there any mercy for those in the housing industry who have been overrun by petrified people confronting the possibility of thousands of dollars of increases in the cost of building, of providing themselves with shelter? Is there any mercy for those people who have found themselves in a situation where they are overwhelmed with orders. I feel sympathy for the people that the Acting Treasurer wanted to dismiss: the people who have been accepting contracts to build houses and do renovations, people who have been overrun and will not manage to complete the orders by 1 July. It does not mean that they are crooks and laggards by being in that position; they are in a situation somewhat worse than the one they are normally in with the amount of demand upon them, and they have not made the cut. They have not made the cut, but the government has. The government is straight in for its cut as far as the ordinary Australian building or renovating a house at this moment is concerned.I now come back to the theme of the GST being `good for the country', as opposed to being good for anyone else. There is a group of people that will find themselves in a better position after these tax changes. High income earners in this country will be better off. There is no question about that. What they pay out in GST, they will get back, plus more, in income tax cuts. But it needs to be understood that these tax cuts did not come from the GST, though they will have a material effect on shifting the balance between indirect taxes, regressive taxes, and direct taxes in this country. There will be that imbalance. But the payment for the tax cuts has not come from the GST; it has come from spending the surplus. The Treasurer admitted only a couple of months ago that it would have been impossible to deliver most of the tax cuts without implementing a GST, but the government was also prepared to spend the surplus.They made a point about having to cut programs to pick up what they felt was an unacceptable deficit when they came into office. Every single cent of those cuts, and more, has been spent now on the tax arrangements associated with this GST package. And at whose expense? It will be at the expense of the universities of Australia, at the expense of the public schools of Australia, at the expense of the public hospitals of Australia, at the expense of the pensioner dental program for the pensioners of Australia and at the expense of business doing essential research and development for the new products that the new economy needs. Those are the people who are paying for the only section of the community that will personally feel any benefit from that. How is that massive deterioration of public investment in the critical areas of the new economy supposed to be good for the country? How can that be good for the country as it comes to slide in a 1960s French socialist tax? The modern economy of Australia, brought to you by the French Socialist Party—that is what we have. It is not good for the country and not good for the people, and the government deserves censure.10000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Is the motion seconded?DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—We were waiting for the Prime Minister to come and defend himself, but I second the motion and reserve my right to speak, and I invite the Prime Minister to come in here and defend himself.15:39:0018465Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—The first point that has to be made is that the Leader of the Opposition, on this supposed censure motion, goes to the issue of `deceiving the Australian community on tax'. Those are the first words of the motion. I would have thought that the greatest and clearest deception of the Australian people in relation to taxation matters came from the ALP in the build-up to the 1993 election. You will recall, Mr Deputy Speaker, that in the build-up to the 1993 election some very explicit promises were made by the man who once upon a time not so long before that had been described as the world's greatest Treasurer. Remember him, the world's greatest Treasurer? We might even touch on some of his exploits again in a moment. But let us talk a little about what we were promised in the build-up to the 1993 election. The first thing we were promised was that we could have major personal tax cuts in this country without a GST. We were told we did not need a GST but we could have major tax cuts nonetheless. What happened to those major personal tax cuts? Were the Australian people deceived on that? They were deceived on that. So that is deception No. 1. At the same time we were told in that election campaign that, because the tax system was not broken, there was no need for any increases in indirect taxation. What actually happened to indirect taxation levels with the first Dawkins budget after the 1993 election? Were they kept static? Were the Australian people able to say, `We were told there would be no tax increases and there weren't'? Or were they deceived? Were they told the truth or were they deceived? This censure is about deceiving the Australian community on tax. Where did the rates of indirect taxation go in the first Dawkins budget in 1993, after that election on 13 March? Up. Wholesale sales tax rates went up. The rate went up by 10 per cent for all those items on 10 per cent. It went from 20 per cent to 22 per cent for items on 20 per cent. It went from 30 to whatever. It went up right through the range. What did they do with fuel? What had they promised on fuel? Fuel went up very significantly, despite the promises. As has been pointed out many times in this place, those were in direct contradiction of the promises made at the time. But there is another aspect to this. Remember that we were told as a basis for all this that the tax system was not broken, weren't we? That is what we were told. Despite all this, they still could not balance the books. During that five years or so that the man who had once been described as the world's greatest Treasurer was actually residing in the Lodge, what happened with that broken tax system? They could not balance the books. We not only had the Beazley black hole—I do not know where he is to respond to this; he has gone—but the cumulative effect of the Beazley black hole was an increase in taxpayers' debt. It is not our money; we as a government know that, unlike them. We do not claim it is ours; it is taxpayers' debt. It had blown from $16 billion to $96 billion—an increase of $80 billion in just five years, and on its way up at the rate of about $10 billion a year. What a spectacular record. They talk about deceiving the Australian people. What were they telling us in the 1996 election? That the books were balanced, that everything was okay. What did we find when we got into power? That we had to turn around and go through the agonising process of putting the nation's books back into some sort of order. I believe it has been very widely recognised that this government's economic management was outstanding, that it has put us on a financial, economic and social footing of a quality that we have not seen for decades in this country. In the build-up to the 1998 election, we were able to genuinely say we were winding back debt. We were able to say that we would put the country on a good enough footing to survive the Asian downturn. We were able to point to rising real wage levels. The ALP never want to talk about that. They and their union mates presided over a very long period of time when the workers they represent were suffering real wage declines. What was happening under us? Real wage increases. And I reckon it is eternally to the credit of the man who is Prime Minister of this country that he had the courage to say, `We need to lock it in. We need to take the next step. We need a world-class and competitive taxation system to deliver the benefits of ongoing reform to the Australian people.' So, unlike what we saw in 1993, when we were told we could have cake and eat it too, the Prime Minister told the truth about what he believed the government needed to deliver to the Australian people and gave the Australian people the chance to vote on it. And what happened? They returned us. That has been overlooked. They returned us. John Howard had the courage to say that we needed to progress what we had started, that we needed to lock it in and that we needed a new tax system. What have the ALP done since then? Where have they been constructive? Where have they actually made a contribution to the public debate? I often enjoy Paddy McGuinness's articles and I well remember him writing one day that the debate in Australia ought not to be about whether we have indirect tax reform, including a GST, but about who can do the best job of it. There is no doubt about what we need in this country. He rightly says that the question ought to be—849Sidebottom, Sid, MPMr Sidebottom—What are you shouting for? Calm down!4K4Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON—They never like hearing a few home truths, Mr Speaker. The question ought to be about who can introduce the best tax reform, not whether or not we need it. So what have the ALP done? They have obfuscated, they have obstructed and they have scaremongered. I even noticed some comments here about complexity. If there is any complexity that we would have preferred not to and in fact had not intended to introduce in the new tax system, whose fault might that be? Look what happened with fuel. When it came to the time to negotiate on commitments we had made on better fuel outcomes, who did I find myself negotiating with? Was it my opposite number from the ALP?Government members—No.4K4Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON—They had ruled themselves absolutely and totally irrelevant. I had to deal with the Democrats. We do not always agree on policy terms, but I have to say that it was a pleasure dealing with people who were actually attempting to make a contribution in terms of better outcomes for Australia, instead of simply resorting to scaremongering, obfuscation and obstruction.Let me say a few things about those fuel reforms. Let me highlight the fact that what we are talking about here in terms of the totality of the package that was released the other day is an outstanding reform. There is no doubt about that. I remember a little branch of my own party saying 12 years ago, `It's crazy for us to impose diesel fuel excise on rail. Why can't it be removed?' Who removed it? Was it Labor? Never. It was us. Everywhere I go, I see people trying to export from this country and they are crippled by the amount of taxation that we put on haulage, particularly by heavy vehicles. What did Labor do about it? Nothing. What are we going to do about it? Put diesel down by 24c a litre and potentially more. We keep hearing about the fact that the Labor Party are going to roll back. You know what they are going to do with fuel, don't you? They are going to roll out. The shadow minister at the table, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, made that quite plain a little while ago. He said in relation to the cheaper fuel that we are delivering for transport in this country, which is so vital to our exports:Well, what we've—basically our position has been that there needs to be this mix between indirect taxes and direct taxes.In other words, the current system. He continued:We always had fuel excise in that mix. We were not proposing to make any changes to the fuel excise regime. That wasn't the issue.So they have been out there this week claiming that we are not delivering on massive fuel reform while their position is to roll out—not roll back. They are going to roll back out the very expensive taxation burden on transport fuel in this country. Of course, there is the $500 million that we have committed ourselves to ensuring that the differential between fuel costs in country and city areas in this great nation of ours is not exacerbated.The NRMA put out a very interesting list which purports to show what the price increases in regional areas would be if the savings that the oil companies ought to and should pass on on Saturday are not delivered. It shows with our fuel grants system in place that in fact only very modest parts of those savings for the oil companies would have to be passed on to people in rural and regional areas to get a reduction in fuel prices. Putting $500 million towards the job of relieving pressure on the differential between country and city fuel prices reflects a commitment to rural and regional Australia that we simply never saw from these newfound friends of the bush over here who parade around the country talking about Country Labor. Talk about Country Labor delivering—it is a name and a name only; a very superficial one at that. Let me reiterate that in this case it is quite plainly the ALP that deserve censure, not the Prime Minister and not the government. They have no plan, no vision, no policy except roll-back, with the exception of fuel where it will be rolled out. It seems to me that the Leader of the Opposition can only be described as having an unmitigated gall to launch a censure of this notion. The question of reform and its value to the regions is important. We hear that the system we are introducing is outmoded, that it is a French socialist model—that should appeal to the shadow minister sitting at the table, Mr Crean. We are an exporting nation. We heard in this place the other day that the Leader of the Opposition had conveniently lifted quite a snippet out of the Minister for Trade's recent speech to the Press Club in which he pointed out that the share of GDP contributed by exports in this country has risen from 10 per cent to 20 per cent and that many hundreds of thousands of Australian jobs depend upon it. There is no such thing as a level playing field. We all acknowledge that. We wish there was, but there is not. The point I want to make about that is that the ALP would leave the field tilted more against us by dint of our own actions rather than attempt to repair it. There are $4½ billion worth of embedded, largely hidden tax imposts on our export performance in this country a year. He talks about us wanting to pursue an outmoded tax system. We are the only one of our competitor nations—no-one else has a tax system like ours—with a tax system that ties one hand behind your back with a whole lot of embedded taxes.RW5Nelson, Dr Brendan, MPDr Nelson—Botswana.4K4Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON—We are told that Botswana is now moving to update. They are in front of the modern ALP. All of our competitor nations have put in place rebatable, indirect taxation regimes. Why? Because it helps boost their export competitiveness. It helps boost their export performance. The ALP want to leave us in the Dark Ages, claiming that we are talking about introducing an old fashioned tax system. It is the ALP who want to maintain support for an outmoded 1930s approach to taxation, one that will not deliver on what they claim are their cherished goals of things like social equity, a decent safety net, education in the future, the capacity of the states to meet health needs and so forth. That will not happen without indirect taxation reform.And it ought to be noted again that, whilst occasionally the state premiers are out there—just occasionally; not very often—publicly backing that mob over there, privately, what are they doing? Who do they think dudded them on taxation reform? Who do they think deceived the Australian community on tax? It was not us. They reckon what we are doing is pretty good. They salute the Prime Minister and the government for what we have done.Let us come to the issue of the value of tax reform. I often hear it said around the traps that some people seem, sadly, to have got to the point where they say, `I'm almost better off not working than I am working.' Have you ever heard that said in your electorate? That is a symptom of a broken tax system. That is a symptom of a tax system that the ALP support, that leaves people unable to receive sufficient remuneration and return for their hard work, particularly when they do better. We are going to fix it. We will be fixing it and people will shortly discover that in fact some 80 per cent of the nation's wage earners will now pay 30 cents or less in the dollar. That is a major and very worthwhile reform. Where is the ALP's response? They are just hoping that they can scaremonger enough. They talk about tax reform being a slow burn. They hope! `Amen!' they say quietly. They hope it is. It will not be, of course, because people will shortly realise that all of the scaremongering was just that and that they are better off. The ALP are hoping that the Australian people will not see through it and that they can just slide in somehow or other—which will not happen—so that they can then say, `Well, of course we can't really roll back. We can't really roll out. The previous government actually got it about right.'This is a disgraceful censure. I say unreservedly that the Prime Minister and the government deserve credit for having the courage to tackle the reforms that this country needs. In contrast, it has to be said that the ALP have shown no leadership whatsoever on tax reform, and deserve condemnation for that. (Time expired)15:54:0018468Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—I second the motion. We have the Treasurer in Paris and the Prime Minister in hiding. This is a disgraceful performance by a Prime Minister who has been asked half a dozen times in the last three days whether his decision on petrol is going to increase the price per litre of petrol and increase the tax. He refuses to answer it. He has a censure motion against him in this parliament today and he is in hiding. He squibbed it today. Do you know what the dictionary definition of `squib' is? It is `to desert someone in order to preserve one's own safety'. And well he might, because the Prime Minister has got a stinking skunk of a tax sitting in the middle of this table that is going to affect the whole Australian public come 1 July. He has been a serial deceiver in relation to this GST and he did it again today. He has broken promise after promise in relation to this tax. He refuses to release information on which he makes his claims.This week we saw the example of petrol highlighted graphically in the parliament. Let me go to the Prime Minister's pathetic defence of what he is doing with excise on petrol. He said it today. We have heard the minister at the table, Mr Hockey, talk about comparing apples with apples. Let us compare apples with apples when it comes to fuel excise. Whether you want to take just the net Commonwealth fuel excise or whether you want to take that which is collected on behalf of the states, the figure is still the same: come Saturday morning, the government will be collecting another 1½c on every litre of petrol that you buy. Not only will John Howard and Peter Costello have their hands in your pocket for every item you spend money on everywhere around the country; they have grown an extra finger in the case of petrol to take another 1½c a litre out.Today the Prime Minister referred to what the Commonwealth was now collecting in excise. He used the figure of 44.137c a litre, but that is a figure that includes 8.354c a litre on behalf of the states. What they are doing from 1 July is collecting 45.68c a litre, 37.48c direct for the Commonwealth but 8.2c on behalf of the states—their GST. Today they are collecting 44.137c a litre; on Saturday it will be 45.68c a litre. It sounds like a 1½c a litre difference to me. I would like to know how this minister is going to defend that; the Prime Minister refused to come into this House and defend it. Just take the netted out Commonwealth tax take. The Prime Minister wanted us to believe today that the Commonwealth would only collect 37.48c a litre after 1 July for themselves. The truth is that if you net out the state taxes they are only collecting 35.78c today—1½c a litre difference. They have put up taxes. They have broken a solemn promise that the GST would not increase the price of petrol.The promises they have broken do not just stop at petrol. Beer is also going to have its excise doubled. It is nothing to do with the GST. We were told the GST would increase the price of ordinary beer 1.9 per cent.DK6Hockey, Joe, MPMr Hockey—Wrong.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—It is not wrong. These came out of the Prime Minister's mouth. If he was in here to defend himself today, I would be interested to hear him deny those quotes. A 1.9 per cent increase? Beer is actually going up eight to nine per cent. It is not just beer being hit, either. Clothing, gas, electricity, public transport, football tickets, mobile phones and bank charges are all going up by more than the government said at the last election. We were told, when the deal was done with the Democrats, that food would be GST free—and now we have a publication that runs to a 29-page index explaining all the food that is still taxed.DK6Hockey, Joe, MPMr Hockey—Thanks to the Labor Party.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—The minister who is interjecting from the table said nothing would go up by more than 10 per cent—that it was the law and he would see to it. But he still has not produced the law. We have heard examples time and again of prices going up by at least 10 per cent, if not more, on 1 July. They also know that prices have been going up already. The other point that I think it is important to know, from the words of the ACCC prices watchdog yesterday, is that implementation costs to business can be passed on to consumers. He has confirmed that those costs can be passed on to consumers and his guidelines say so. The implementation costs of the GST start-up alone are $4.3 billion—$2.8 billion to the private sector and $1.5 billion to the various levels of government—and the ongoing annual costs are somewhere between $380 million and $680 million. All of that can be validly passed on to consumers.The Prime Minister says that he will not release his modelling on petrol, but do you know what the modelling that the Treasury has done assumes is the cost to business of the GST implementation? It is zero. It has wished away the $4.3 billion start-up and it is wishing away into the future somewhere between $380 million and $680 million. This is the other great scam that this government has pulled. It is no wonder it will not release its modelling. It is not just petrol that is exposed in this. Minister Hockey, release the modelling—I throw that challenge out to you again—not just on petrol but on all the other dodgy figures that you have given the Australian electorate. Your deceit knows no bounds.We also have honest John still saying that petrol will not go up on 1 July, but what has he left to rely on? Not the oil companies, not the automotive association, not the national farmers—not the Business Council, not the Labor Party, not anyone. The only thing he is relying on is what? His word, and does anyone believe it? This was a man who went on radio and said, `Anyone who claims that the price of petrol will go up as a result of the GST is telling lies.' We now know who was telling the lies. It has been exposed and it is why this censure motion has been moved today.We know about the bunker that the government were in yesterday—that happy little party room meeting that they always have—where the Prime Minister was giving his address to the faithful and saying, `Gird your loins, bear the scars when you come back.' It was likened to Henry V and King Harry, the Crispin's Day oration at Agincourt. This was supposed to inspire some dedication in the worthy troops to go out and defend and come back standing. I tell you what, the analogy of the Crispin's Day oration leaves me breathless. The outfit is more like that of Dad's Army. There was Captain Mainwaring—the Prime Minister, John Howard. We know that Captain Mainwaring wanted to take charge of this worthy band of troops because he claimed he had experience in the 1919 war. What were some of those famous quotes that Captain Mainwaring used to whip up the troops with? This was obviously the one that he got stuck with when people said, `What are we going to say when petrol is going up, Prime Minister?' This is what Captain Mainwaring would say, `I wondered who was going to spot that first.' I tell you what, it has been spotted. Then there is Wilson, his lieutenant—that is, Costello—missing in action. He comes in and says, `Did I miss something?' as the whole cacophony of dissembling goes around. We saw him in Paris yesterday, ringing the bells and saying, `I'm Peter Costello.' This is the hapless Wilson—Brother Costello. This is a man who, once this tax is in place, promises to go out and inform the regions. This is a guy who has spent more days in Paris in the last week than he has ever spent visiting the regions in the past. So do not hold your breath in terms of that commitment.Then there is Jonesy—Joe Hockey, sitting opposite—the person who is always getting put back in his box because he is making mistakes, sticking up his hand and saying, `Permission to speak, sir. Permission to speak.' This is Joe Hockey after round-up, Joe Hockey after the Coca Cola incident, Joe Hockey when he is threatening the ACCC. What a threat. And then there is Joe Walker. I will let you guess this one. Joe Walker is the spiv. He is the person that can get anything off a truck. He is the person that will say anything and do anything. Who do you think Joe Walker is?Opposition members—Peter Reith.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—Exactly. Peter Reith is there too. Then we have Jock Fraser, the person with the manic eyes, the person who sees a conspiracy in anything. That is Brother Abbott. We have just had, in place of the Prime Minister, who is not here to defend himself in this censure motion, Frank Pike—Anderson, the Red Hill squire, the obsequious one, always agreeing, always rolling over, never standing up for himself or for his party. And then there is Charles Godfrey, the doddery one, the one who has copped the hospital pass—John Fahey—as Costello heads off to Paris. What we have here is deceit revealed by a ragtag Dad's Army band, people who were not prepared to face the truth, people who were not prepared to have their leader come into this House and defend his honesty, his integrity and his tax. He cannot defend his honour and his integrity because they are in tatters. We saw them with this outrageous spend of $430 million on the chains ads. I understand they might be coming to an end this week, thankfully. But there are more. There are some more ads appearing next week from the tax office. They are producing ads to promote a helpline, which is typical of the tax office—they are doing it after the tax has been introduced. When you read the report in the Australian today you would have to be a bit concerned because a third of the tax office staff flunked the GST exam. They could not even give the answers. So complex is this tax that even the experts cannot work it out. If the experts cannot work it out, how do you expect ordinary Australians and businesses to cope with it? We heard the minister talk today about the ACCC hotline. I tell you what, I would love to be able to use a tape recorder in this House to demonstrate the stupidity of one of the helpful operations that the ACCC have put out. If you ring their hotline there is a tape recorded message that says, `Welcome to the ACCC's hotline. If you speak English, press 1; if you don't speak English, press 2.' What sort of help is that, Minister? What sort of a show are you running? It is truly a Dad's Army outfit, with poor old Jonesy over there saying, `Permission to speak'—but only if it is in English. The answers we have heard from you the last few days, brother, are not in English. They might be something else, but they are not making any sense to the ordinary punters out there.The ACCC and the Taxation Office have been denied sufficient resources. They have not been given clear direction by this government—and no wonder we have the shambles and the chaos that we have. The Prime Minister stands condemned, but he is not here today to defend himself. He has squibbed the opportunity in this parliament to give the rallying call that he was supposed to have given his troops on Tuesday. He was given the opportunity in this parliament today to stand up and honour a solemn promise that he gave in relation to petrol. He stood in the electorate and he swore black and blue, hand on heart, that the GST would not lead to any increase in prices. Full stop. No qualification. That is what is going to happen. Yet, today and yesterday and the day before, he has been exposed as having deceived the Australian electorate on it. This is not just one deceit; it is a litany of deceit.The Leader of the Opposition has outlined the solemn promises that the Prime Minister has made in other circumstances. The `never, ever' man is now the `serial deceiver' when it comes to taxation promises. The Australian electorate will remember him for it. They will know about it on Saturday when they go to fill up that car, when they take the kids to the swimming pool, when they go to the footy, when they buy a pie, when they go to the take-away at the end of the day. The government ought to be censured for this disgrace. (Time expired)16:10:0018471Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLPMinister for Financial Services and Regulation10—The opposition have challenged us today on what they allege to be deceit of the Australian community on tax. They have asked us to debate the issue of deceit of the Australian community on tax.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Batman, the member for Corio; I will deal very sternly with people who deny the minister the call. DK6Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEY—There must be just a touch of arrogance that is starting to pervade the attitudes in the Labor Party—a touch of arrogance with them thinking, `Well, if we just keep running on this issue, we'll have a hit.' That is what they think: `We will keep running on the GST issue, and we will have a hit.' It is starting to pervade every word that they mutter in this place. It is starting to pervade their attitude in question time; it is starting to pervade their attitude outside of question time in the House. The Labor Party are just starting to get a little bit arrogant about what they think is going to happen from 1 July. But isn't it interesting that for the first time today we have seen a change in the words used by the Leader of the Opposition? For the first time, instead of the opposition talking about the impact of the GST from 1 July, they started to talk about the `slow burn' of the GST. They want to stretch it out. Could it be that, all of a sudden, they have realised that Armageddon is not coming on 1 July? Could it be that the Labor Party are just starting to realise that on 1 July the sun is still going to come up? Could it be that the Labor Party are just starting to realise that on 1 July Australians will receive the biggest income tax cuts in Australian history? Could it be that from 1 July the Labor Party are just starting to realise that every business in Australia will have cheaper fuel? Could it be that from 1 July, the Labor Party are just starting to realise, pensioners will be better off, families will be better off, self-funded retirees will be better off, and the average Australian will have more money in their pocket after the introduction of the new tax system than they have today? Could it be that the Labor Party are just starting to recognise that? All of a sudden their rhetoric has turned from Armageddon on 1 July to the slow burn effects of the GST. And they have the gall to come into this place and move a motion to censure the Prime Minister about deceit on tax.The Deputy Prime Minister has already talked about deceit on tax. If anyone is well qualified to talk about deceit on tax, it is the Leader of the Opposition. And I will tell you why he is well qualified: the Leader of the Opposition was part of a government that in 1993 promised l-a-w tax cuts. Do you know what the Australian people got after Labor were re-elected in 1993? There were no l-a-w tax cuts; there were tax increases. Wholesale sales tax went from 10 per cent to 12 per cent, from 20 per cent to 22 per cent, from 30 per cent to 32 per cent, without one dollar of compensation for Australians. Their tax increases were without one dollar of compensation for the average Australian family, without one dollar of compensation for pensioners, without one dollar of compensation for those most vulnerable—and the Labor Party talks about deceit when it comes to taxation!This week we have had the Labor Party lecturing us about fuel excise. Let us talk about fuel excise. In 1993 the Labor Party increased fuel excise by 6c per litre. There was no compensation. Every business had to pay an additional 6c. Yet the Labor Party talk about deceit on tax. Do you know what, Mr Speaker? It is not just about the past; it is about the future. Because their deceit on tax extends to the here and now. The Labor Party are so opposed to the GST they are going to keep it. The Labor Party are so determined to see the death of the GST that, if they are elected to government, they will not repeal it. We can see that best exemplified in the attitude of the current state premiers. The Labor Party state premiers, who are so opposed to the GST—this outrageous tax that is going to penetrate every Australian family—signed on the dot and said, `We want in.' They said, `We want it now.' Have we heard Bob Carr talk about the terrible impact of the GST on Australians or on New South Welshmen? Have we heard Steve Bracks talk about the terrible impact of the GST on Victorians? Have we heard Peter Beattie talk about the terrible impact of the GST on Queenslanders? And the Labor Party come into this place and lecture us about deceit on tax! Yet the Labor Party state premiers will run around and receive every single dime of the GST. Do you know why we get angry on this side about the hypocrisy of the Labor Party? It is because we see so much of it. The irony is that the Labor Party keep coming into this place but do not know whether they are Arthur or Martha. They do not know whether they are defending business or whether they are attacking business. The only thing you can say that is consistent about the Labor Party is that they are hand in glove with and responsible only to the leadership of the trade union movement. There is one other thing you can say about the Labor Party, but it is really about the Leader of the Opposition: the Leader of the Opposition says no to no-one, except the government. He is the `Mr Yes' man—for interest groups? `Yes, we'll be there.' For special interest groups? `Yes, we'll be there.' For the trade union movement? `Yes, we'll be there for you.' The Leader of the Opposition says yes to every special interest group, every trade union leader and everyone in Australia, except the government. Yet the government are the ones delivering results through hard reform. It is a tradition of the Labor Party that they oppose us at every single point. They come into this place and use rhetoric and laughter, and attempt to intimidate people into doing what they want them to do. Well, we will not be there. We will not accept that because on this side of the House we believe in integrity. On this side of the House, we believe in honesty. On this side of the House, we believe in doing what is right for Australians, not what is right for the trade union leadership of Australia.We believe in doing things that are right. So when it comes to the individual issues that the Labor Party want to talk about, I will address the key issues in this debate—the ones they have listed here. If they want to talk about tax, we will cover tax. From 1 July we are delivering a simpler system, a system that delivers benefits to those most in need—$12 billion worth of tax cuts. From 1 July, 80 per cent of Australians will pay no more than 30 cents in the dollar in income tax. If you want to talk about lifting the burden off exporters, more than $2 billion worth of tax will come off Australian exports from 1 July. If you want talk about the impact on families, families will get the most substantial benefits they have ever enjoyed from 1 July. If you want to talk about pensions, there are real increases in pensions for every Australian pensioner from 1 July. If the Labor Party want to talk about a range of issues in relation to the new taxation system, let us talk about them.Let us talk about complexity because that is what the Labor Party want to talk about. From 1 July, we are replacing 11 reporting regimes with one. I ask you, Mr Speaker: is replacing 11 reporting regimes with one reporting regime a more complex system? If you believe the Labor Party it is. But who believes the Labor Party? From 1 July, we are replacing 32 different payment periods with four. And the Labor Party say that is a more complex system! From 1 July, we are replacing multiple business numbers such as the PAYE registration number, the ACM, the ASFM, the ARBN, the wholesale sales tax number, the PPS, the RPS and company tax numbers with one number—the ABN. And the Labor Party say that is a more complex system than what they are trying to defend!We had the extraordinary allegation from the Leader of the Opposition today that under this tax—this tax that he is so opposed to that he is going to keep—kids are going to be worse off. I put it to you that, under the current Labor Party defended wholesale sales tax system, baby powder is taxed at 22 per cent, but with the GST it will come down to 10 per cent. How is that worse? Rattles, currently taxed at 22 per cent under the Labor Party, will come down to 10 per cent. Toys, currently taxed at 22 per cent under the Labor Party, will come down to 10 per cent. Yet the Leader of the Opposition in his naive and simplistic way came into this place and argued that the GST is going to hit little kids. What about the wholesale sales tax regime that the Labor Party are defending? What about the wholesale sales tax regime that only the Labor Party and the government of Swaziland are defending. What does that say about the Labor Party? It says hypocrisy. It says that the Labor Party are so opposed to the new tax system that they are going to keep it.The Labor Party are also defending all of their so-called friends. Friends come and go, especially for political parties, but we have heard the most extraordinary words from the Labor Party about petrol during the course of this week. The Labor Party are saying that every business in Australia should not have to pass on the full benefits of the abolition of wholesale sales tax from 1 July. The Labor Party are saying that the oil companies are entitled to keep the windfall benefit that they may receive as a result of the introduction of the new tax system. The Labor Party traditionally ignore the facts, and the fact is that from 1 July more than 70 per cent of the costs of production of petroleum and coal products, which are recurrent, are going to be affected either way by the new taxation system. But what is absolutely sure is that water transport will be cheaper, petrol supplies to the petroleum producers will be cheaper, wholesale repairing and servicing will be cheaper, sand will be cheaper, mining products will be cheaper, liquefied natural gas will be cheaper, and the plastic products associated with petroleum manufacturing will be cheaper. If you believe the Labor Party, petrol is delivered to each service station in a plastic bag—because under the Labor Party's rules, big business can keep all of the benefits of the introduction of the new taxation system. Under the Labor Party's rules, you screw the consumer.The Labor Party have also raised the issue of honesty and integrity. I lay down this challenge to the Leader of the Opposition: if you are being honest with the Australian people, tell us what roll-back means. Tell us what it really means. Do not just react to every television camera and say, `We are so serious about rolling back fuel that we will have a good look at it.' Talk about squibbing. The Leader of the Opposition is not a squib, he is a squid. He has no backbone. The Leader of the Opposition talks about rollback. The Leader of the Opposition says, `We will have a serious look at caravan parks' and `We will have a serious look at boarding houses' and `We will have a serious look at the impact on housing.' `Oh, yes, we will look at that seriously,' says the Leader of the Opposition—so seriously that he will not make a commitment.The only fact about the Labor Party is this: the Labor Party are hypocrites. They are arrogant hypocrites. They stand for nothing, they believe in nothing and they are deceiving the Australian people. They have a history of deceit when it comes to taxation. They have a history of deceit, and the worst part about it is that, as each day passes, we can identify the deceit in relation to the new taxation system.Motion (by Mr Ronaldson) agreed to:That the question be now put.Question put:That the motion (Mr Beazley's) be agreed to.16:30:00The House divided.(Mr Speaker—Mr Neil Andrew) 61Adams, D.G.H.Albanese, A.N.Beazley, K.C. Bevis, A.R.Brereton, L.J.Burke, A.E.Cox, D.A.Crean, S.F.Crosio, J.A.Danby, M.Edwards, G.J.Ellis, A.L.Emerson, C.A.Evans, M.J.Ferguson, L.D.T.Ferguson, M.J.Fitzgibbon, J.A.Gerick, J.F.Gibbons, S.W.Gillard, J.E.Griffin, A.P.Hall, J.G.Hatton, M.J.Hoare, K.J.Hollis, C.Horne, R.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'Byrne, M.A.O'Keefe, N.P.Plibersek, T.Price, L.R.S.Quick, H.V.Roxon, N.L.Rudd, K.M.Sawford, R.W *Sciacca, C.A.Sercombe, R.C.G *Sidebottom, P.S.Smith, S.F.Snowdon, W.E.Swan, W.M.Tanner, L.Theophanous, A.C.Thomson, K.J.Zahra, C.J.75Abbott, A.J.Anderson, J.D.Andrews, K.J. Anthony, L.J.Bailey, F.E.Baird, B.G.Barresi, P.A.Bartlett, K.J.Billson, B.F. Bishop, B.K.Bishop, J.I.Brough, M.T.Cadman, A.G.Cameron, R.A.Causley, I.R.Charles, R.E.Downer, A.J.G.Draper, P.Elson, K.S.Entsch, W.G.Fahey, J.J.Fischer, T.A.Forrest, J.A * Gallus, C.A.Gambaro, T.Gash, J.Georgiou, P.Haase, B.W.Hardgrave, G.D.Hawker, D.P.M.Hockey, J.B.Howard, J.W.Hull, K.E.Jull, D.F.Katter, R.C.Kelly, D.M.Kelly, J.M.Kemp, D.A.Lawler, A.J.Lieberman, L.S.Lindsay, P.J.Lloyd, J.E.Macfarlane, I.E. May, M.A.McArthur, S *McGauran, P.J.Moore, J.C.Moylan, J. E.Nairn, G. R.Nehl, G. B.Nelson, B.J.Neville, P.C.Nugent, P.E.Prosser, G.D.Pyne, C.Reith, P.K.Ronaldson, M.J.C.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.Vale, D.S.Wakelin, B.H.Washer, M.J.Worth, P.M.Wooldridge, M.R.LByrne, A.M.Costello, P.H.Macklin, J.L. Vaile, M.A.J.* denotes tellerQuestion resolved in the negative.ZD4Howard, John, MPMr Howard—Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. I will be seeking leave at the appropriate time to make a personal explanation.Questions to the Speaker184751847516:35:0018475Price, Roger, MPMr PRICEQI4ChifleyALP00—Mr Speaker, yesterday I raised a point of order under standing order 142. I apologise that I could have perhaps raised it a little quicker. It has been the practice for some time in the House to canvass alternative views, but it normally carries with it a preamble about a minister's portfolio responsibilities consistent with standing order 142. It does appear that a trend is developing where the preamble is dispensed with. I ask you: would you be kind enough to examine the Hansard, consider the matter that I have raised and report to the House?10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Assuming the House rises as anticipated at the end of this week, I will use the winter break to have a look at the issue the member for Chifley has raised. There are some issues about questions that I shall be investigating as well.1847516:36:0018475Thompson, Cameron, MPMr CAMERON THOMPSON84CBlairLP10—Mr Speaker, I would like to draw your attention to the behaviour during question time of the member for Kingston. During question time, on every occasion a Labor member approached the dispatch box to ask a question, the member for Kingston held aloft a newspaper clearly so that the fallacious words upon it would be visible to the television cameras. You would be aware that the member for Kingston is one of two or three members always framed by the camera in question time. This behaviour is clearly an effort to abuse the forms of the House and an attempt by the ALP to use parliament as a television studio.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Blair has made his point. He should come to his question.84CThompson, Cameron, MPMr CAMERON THOMPSON—My question is: after a week in which confected anger and straight-out acting by the members opposite—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Blair will come to his point.84CThompson, Cameron, MPMr CAMERON THOMPSON—Mr Speaker, I ask you whether you would consider, in the light of that behaviour, altering seating arrangements in the House or turning the television—18475SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—The member for Blair will resume his seat. The member for Blair is a relatively new member to this House. Should the occupier of the chair see people conspicuously reading newspapers, the occupier of the chair will deal with that person. If, as the member for Blair alleges, the member for Kingston was reading the newspaper, I did not view it. I will try to be a little more watchful in future.1847516:38:0018475Rudd, Kevin, MPMr RUDD83TGriffithALP00—Mr Speaker, today in question time the member for Kingston raised a point of order based on standing order 85. I note that you said that standing order 85 did not relate to question time. If that is the case because it is drawn from that part of the standing orders which deals with matters other than question time, my question to you is: given that the section of the standing orders that deals explicitly with question time does not contain standing orders on questions of offensive language, personal reflections and other matters, such as our requirement to address members by the name of their seat, does that mean that in the future, because those are located in the section of the standing orders in chapter 7 which do not deal with question time, you will not be able to take action in question time on questions of offensive language, members having to be referred to by the name of their seats and personal reflections?18476SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—The member for Griffith might care in the winter recess to read standing order 85 where he will find that there is not specific mention made to one section of the standing orders or the other but to the very obvious fact that standing order 85 refers to debate and that question time is not a debate.1847616:40:0018476Thomson, Andrew, MPMr ANDREW THOMSONFB6WentworthLP10—Mr Speaker, following up on the member for Blair's question, I wonder whether you would give consideration to the notion of suspending broadcasts of question time for a period of, say, four sitting weeks to ascertain the effect on both the chamber itself and on public opinion.18476SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—The member for Wentworth will resume his seat. I have dealt with the matter raised by the member for Blair. 1847616:41:0018476Rudd, Kevin, MPMr RUDD83TGriffithALP00—Mr Speaker, having drawn my attention to standing order 85, you said that it refers explicitly to debate. The phrase in question says:The Speaker, or the Chair, after having called the attention of the House, or of the Main Committee, to the conduct of a Member, who persists in irrelevance, or tedious repetition either of his or her own arguments, or of the arguments used by other Members in debate ...It is arguable, based on that reading of the standing order, that the reference to arguments does not necessarily exclusively refer to arguments within debate because it occurs in the first part of the standing order.18476SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—The member for Griffith might be well aware that the chair acts largely on precedent. He might for that reason care, also, in the lengthy winter break to take a look at House of Representatives Practice. He remains almost as welcome as the member for Grayndler in my office at any time to discuss the matter with me.Personal Explanations1847616:42:0018476Mr SWAN,MPMr SWAN2V5LilleyALP00—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?2V5Mr SWAN,MPMr SWAN—Yes.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Please proceed.2V5Mr SWAN,MPMr SWAN—Mr Speaker, during question time the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation purported to quote from my `Lilley Price Watch'. An accurate record of what I say in `Lilley Price Watch' can be found on my web site at swanmp.org.16:42:0018476Mr HOWARD,MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Does the Prime Minister claim to have been misrepresented?ZD4Mr HOWARD,MPMr HOWARD—Yes.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Please proceed.ZD4Mr HOWARD,MPMr HOWARD—In the Australian today there is an article authored, I think, by John Ellicott, which refers to an announcement I made on Monday night that the Commonwealth government would make a matching contribution of $5 million to a private sector contribution of $10 million for medical research at the Children's Hospital at Westmead in Sydney. The body of the article contains the erroneous claim that I had made this announcement without discussing the matter with the Minister for Health and Aged Care. That claim is completely wrong. I had a personal discussion, probably of some 15 or 20 minutes, with the minister for health about the matter and there had been quite a bit of contact between our two offices. A simple inquiry by the journalist would have elicited that fact. The claim is quite wrong. 16:43:0018476Zahra, Christian, MPMr ZAHRA84HMcMillanALP00—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?84HZahra, Christian, MPMr ZAHRA—Yes.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Please proceed.84HZahra, Christian, MPMr ZAHRA—In a media release dated 30 June—which is amazing, considering today's date is 28 June—the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Judith Troeth, said the following in relation to Lifetime Health Cover:I note that the member for McMillan, Christian Zahra, has recognised the benefit of the government's policy and taken the opportunity to join a private health fund. I would encourage all Gippsland residents considering taking out private health insurance to follow Mr Zahra's lead and take advantage of the extended cut-off date for Lifetime Health Cover.The statement implies that I have recently taken out private health insurance in response to the government's policies and the taxpayer funded advertising campaign they have run in relation to this issue.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for McMillan will come to the point of misrepresentation.84HZahra, Christian, MPMr ZAHRA—I am just coming to it now.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I am listening.84HZahra, Christian, MPMr ZAHRA—Mr Speaker, this is not true and I can demonstrate this easily. Firstly, my statement to the registrar—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for McMillan has made that point that he was not taking—84HZahra, Christian, MPMr ZAHRA—This is an important point and I want to make it.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for McMillan indicated that he had been misrepresented by an allegation that he had taken out a particular form of health cover that he had not taken out. I would have thought that had clarified the misrepresentation.84HZahra, Christian, MPMr ZAHRA—Mr Speaker, I have been misrepresented in a number of ways in relation to this issue and I want to make my point.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for McMillan may indicate whether he has been further misrepresented.84HZahra, Christian, MPMr ZAHRA—I have been. Firstly, my statement to the registrar of members' interests records publicly—WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr Reith—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. 84HZahra, Christian, MPMr ZAHRA—This is a joke.Opposition members interjecting— 10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the House has the call on a point of order, and I have become very familiar with members seeking the point of order and being accommodated. The same courtesy is extended to the Leader of the House.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr Reith—The point that I wish to make is that he is not going on to show where he has been further misrepresented, he is simply going to put his argument. He is not entitled to do that. It is not a joke; it is the standing orders.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for McMillan knows that he must indicate where he has been personally misrepresented. The chair has been accommodating to this point in time; the accommodation will shortly run out.84HZahra, Christian, MPMr ZAHRA—This is an important point; I do not raise it frivolously.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for McMillan will come to where he has been personally misrepresented.84HZahra, Christian, MPMr ZAHRA—That is exactly what I am doing. Firstly, my statement to the registrar of members' interests records publicly that I took out private health insurance last year, whereas the government's `run for cover' advertisements only started in April this year. Secondly, anyone who can read, watch television or listen to the radio would have—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for McMillan will resume his seat.84HZahra, Christian, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for McMillan! Opposition members interjecting— WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr Reith—Mr Speaker, I make the point of order again. As the member for Kingsford-Smith interjected, he has made his point.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The matter has been dealt with.16:46:0018477Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4CaseyLPMinister for Health and Aged Care10—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?8E4Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE—Yes.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Please proceed.8E4Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE—Further to the Prime Minister's personal explanation, in the Australian today in the same article John Ellicott claimed that sources said:Mr Howard had made the announcement without consulting Dr Wooldridge, who is forced to fund the monies for the donation from current health spending. Yesterday Dr Wooldridge was searching through his portfolio to see where he could find the money.This is inaccurate. In fact, I undertook the negotiations personally with the new Children's Hospital and with the University of New South Wales and funds were identified last week through an underspend in the department.Miscellaneous1847818478Bill returned from Main Committee without amendment; certified copy presented.Ordered that the bill be taken into consideration forthwith.Bill agreed to.18478Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.Bill (on motion by Mr Reith) read a third time.DT4Crean, Simon, MPYU5Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr Tanner—Are you calling me a spiv!10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will withdraw that remark.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—I withdraw.Documents1847818478Reith, Peter (Leader of the House)Mr REITHWI4FlindersLPLeader of the House10—Papers are tabled as listed in the schedule circulated to honourable members. Details of the papers will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.Miscellaneous1847816:49:0018478Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPMinister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business10—Mr Speaker, I seek your indulgence to say something about the sitting arrangements.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the House may proceed.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—There are two things that I want to say. Firstly, I have been asked about this Friday. The position is that, ultimately, we are in the hands of the Senate. I can only confirm the advice from the whips that members should work on the basis that they may have to be here on Friday. We are not in a position to say anything else and we ask members to make those arrangements, as advised by the whips. The second matter which I wish to raise relates to the sitting pattern later this year. This has been the subject of discussion with the opposition and it has the agreement of the opposition, so I am informed by the Manager of Opposition Business. It seems that many members, including the Prime Minister, have had a lot of requests for their involvement in activities leading up to the Olympics.4I4McLeay, Leo, MPMr Leo McLeay—Name them, Pete.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—For example, the World Economic Forum is an important one.4I4McLeay, Leo, MPMr Leo McLeay—They would not invite you to that.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—No, I do not think that I have been invited, that is true. 83KRoxon, Nicola, MPWI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—It was intended that the parliament sit in the week prior to the Olympics, starting 11 September—and I am thinking about what my response to that Vanguard comment from the member for Gellibrand should be, that is true. 4I4McLeay, Leo, MPMr Leo McLeay—They made you their patron, Pete.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—Instead of sitting in the week starting 11 September, we propose to sit in the week beginning 28 August, which will give us a two-week block and that will I think suit the convenience of members given the range of activities in the week leading up to the Olympics.Delegation Reports184791847916:51:0018479Brough, Mal, MPMr BROUGH2K6LongmanLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business10—by leave—I present the report of the Australian parliamentary delegation to the kingdom of Cambodia and the 20th General Assembly of the ASEAN Inter-Parliamentary Organisation. The 20th General Assembly of AIPO was held in Manila, the Philippines, from 19 to 24 September 1999. The Australian delegation comprised me; the member for Swan; Mr Kim Wilkie, who is currently in Zimbabwe; and Senator Ross Lightfoot. Successive Australian delegations to AIPO have found it a valuable forum to initiate and develop good relations with countries in the South-East Asian region. This was the case for the 20th General Assembly. Full membership of AIPO is restricted to the members of ASEAN, the Association of South-East Asian Nations. In this respect, the 20th General Assembly of AIPO was significant because it saw Cambodia admitted to full membership. This followed Cambodia's admission to ASEAN in April 1999. Including Cambodia, ASEAN now comprises 10 member countries.For the Australian delegation, Cambodia's admission to AIPO had added significance because it followed an official visit to Cambodia, from 13 to 18 September. The delegation's visit to Cambodia left us in no doubt that Cambodia is a country facing tremendous challenges. Years of conflict have taken their toll on the economic potential and social fabric of the country. Sadly, the problems continue. To this day landmines inflict harm and misery on an estimated 200 people a month. Even when medical services exist, it is often the case that poor roads prevent access to the services in sufficient time to be of any benefit. HIV-AIDS is endemic. Poverty is widespread, and corruption militates against economic development and prosperity. Despite these circumstances, we found the Cambodian people determined to overcome their adversity. We were heartened by comments made by Australian business representatives based in Phnom Penh. They suggested that there are real opportunities for those willing to invest and work in Cambodia. Similarly, we were encouraged by the development assistance being provided by various non-government organisations in Cambodia. We were made to feel welcome wherever we travelled. In our meetings with senior government and parliamentary representatives we found affection for Australia and gratitude for the way Australia has stood by Cambodia for many years.The delegation's visit to Cambodia was the first from this parliament since 1996. On behalf of the Australian parliament, the delegation presented invitations to visit Australia to the President of the National Assembly, His Royal Highness Prince Norodom Ranariddh, and His Royal Highness Prince Sisowath Chivan Monirak, then Acting President of the Senate. I am advised that a Cambodian parliamentary delegation may visit Australia later this year. A highlight of this visit was an audience with the King of Cambodia, His Majesty King Norodom Sihanouk. The audience with the king left no doubt as to the high regard in which Cambodia views Australia.Before concluding my remarks, I would like to comment on the 20th General Assembly of AIPO. Australia's participation at AIPO is as an `observer nation'. This means attendance at some plenary sessions is precluded. However, observer status does require participation in dialogue sessions. Dialogue sessions provide an opportunity for AIPO member countries to direct questions to an observer nation delegation—a potentially daunting exercise for the observer nations. The timing of the 20th general assembly coincided with conflict in East Timor and announcements by the Australian government about Australia's response. This presented an uncertain and potentially difficult situation for the Australian delegation. I am pleased to say no difficulties were experienced. Perhaps to the contrary, we found a willingness to discuss issues amongst all AIPO nations and a generally positive attitude to Australia's role in the region. We found AIPO member nations had both a strong interest in Australia and a strong desire for Australian companies to invest in the region. Also of interest were education, trade opportunities and the sharing of information and technical expertise. Formal presentations and informal discussions suggested that countries in South-East Asia have renewed confidence following the problems associated with the Asian economic crisis. Keynote speeches highlighted the need for countries in South-East Asia to address cross-border issues in a cooperative fashion. A prime example is that of illicit drugs. From Australia's perspective, formal presentations provided an opportunity to reaffirm our long-term commitment to the region and our support for United Nations initiatives aimed at reducing the trafficking of people. Finally, I would like to take the opportunity to publicly recognise the support provided by His Excellency Dr Malcolm Leader, Australia's Ambassador to Cambodia; Ms Shennia Spillane, then First Secretary of Australia's Embassy in Phnom Penh; and His Excellency Mr John Buckley, Australia's Ambassador to the Philippines. I would also like to thank Trevor Rowe, who was the secretary accompanying the delegation, for the fantastic work he did in ensuring that this was a success for the delegation and for Australia. They all impressed us and have added greatly to Australia's contribution to South-East Asia. I commend the report to honourable members.Committees18480184801848016:56:0018480Snowdon, Warren, MPMr SNOWDONIJ4Northern TerritoryALP00—On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Native Title and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land Fund, I present the committee's 16th report, incorporating a dissenting report, entitled CERD and the Native Title Amendment Act 1998, together with evidence received by the committee.Ordered that the report be printed.IJ4Snowdon, Warren, MPMr SNOWDON—by leave—This report is being tabled as the result of a reference from the Senate on the compatibility of the amended Native Title Act with Australia's international legal obligations, in particular those arising under the CERD, the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. The reference was given on 9 December 1999. The committee was asked to inquire into and report on:(a) whether the finding of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) that the Native Title Amendment Act 1998 is inconsistent with Australia's international obligations in particular, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms Of Racial Discrimination, is sustainable on the weight of informed opinion;(b) what amendments are required to the Act, and what processes of consultation must be followed in effecting those amendments, to ensure that Australia's international obligations are complied with; and(c) Whether dialogue with the CERD on the Act would assist in establishing a better-informed basis of the Act.At the outset, on behalf of the committee I want to place on record our appreciation for the diligence, application, professionalism and sheer hard work of the committee secretariat. I refer to Mr Richard Selth, secretary, from 1 March 2000; Mr Peter Grundy, secretary, to 29 February 2000; Ms Anne De Soyza, principal research officer; Ms Suzanne Wood, senior research officer; Ms Rosalind McMahon, executive assistant; and Ms Bethwyn Morris, research assistant. I want particularly to make special mention of Anne De Soyza and Suzanne Wood, who have had the principal task of writing the report and without whom the work would simply not have been done. The parliamentary joint committee was, after an extensive inquiry, unable to come to a unanimous view on the issues referred to it. In my remarks I will be addressing the findings of the non-government members of the committee, which are contained within the dissenting report to that of the government members. In 1998, the CERD, which comprises a body of international law experts, decided that the amendments to the Native Title Act might not be compatible with Australia's obligations under the CERD. The CERD places an obligation on Australia to ensure racial equality or, conversely stated, to prohibit racial discrimination in the enjoyment of fundamental human rights. The prohibition on racial discrimination—or the obligation to ensure racial equality—is enshrined in the CERD and it is a fundamental principle of international law.Equality at international law requires Australia to ensure that its citizens enjoy substantive, real or actual equality in the enjoyment of their human rights. This means: (1) measures which are intended to address the disadvantage of a particular group; and/or (2) measures which are intended to protect the distinct culture or rights of a minority group. The original Native Title Act sought to provide a form of protection to native title that would take into account the unique nature of indigenous traditional title and its central importance in maintaining their distinct cultural identity. Of critical significance to the CERD committee was that the provisions of the original Native Title Act were seen to be implemented with the agreement of representatives of indigenous Australians, led by the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission, ATSIC.In 1994 the CERD committee found that the original Native Title Act was consistent with Australia's obligations under the CERD, despite the fact that the original act continued some provisions which were adverse to indigenous interests. This was primarily because the original Native Title Act was enacted with the consent of indigenous representatives. One of the justifications advanced by the Commonwealth government for the 1998 amendments to the Native Title Act was that the Native Title Act was `unworkable'. It was argued that the dearth of agreed determinations of native title and delays in the granting of mining and exploration tenements—which, it was alleged, were due to the right to negotiate procedure in the original act—were examples of the `unworkability' of the act.However, with the benefit of hindsight, it is clear that these apparent problems with the Native Title Act can be directly linked to the bad faith of some state and territory governments in implementing the original act. The report of the non-government members shows how governments have, in the past, approached their obligations under the act with a view to deliberately creating a situation where the legislation was unworkable. Let it be clearly understood that no legislation is workable or effective in achieving its aims when there is a lack of commitment by governments to its implementation. Let it also be clearly understood that the non-government members of the committee have found, after considering the weight of informed opinion, that the Native Title Amendment Act 1998 is racially discriminatory. We are of the view that it is, as the CERD committee found, in breach of Australia's international obligations, in particular those obligations under the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. The amendments to the Native Title Act were mainly discriminatory amendments in that they specifically targeted native title for extinguishment or suspension for the benefit of non-indigenous title holders and governments.The CERD committee identified four sets of provisions of the Native Title Amendment Act 1998 that discriminated against indigenous people. These provisions were: amendments to the rights to negotiate; the provisions which purported to `confirm' the extinguishment of native title; provisions which allowed for primary production `upgrades', essentially allowing for the expansion of the rights of those with grazing leases at the expense of native title holders; and provisions for the validation of acts done by government in breach of the Native Title Act and the Racial Discrimination Act. The non-government members found in support of the CERD committee in relation to these issues and, in addition, have identified other provisions in the amended Native Title Act which have an adverse impact on the rights of native title holders. A matter of particular concern to the CERD committee was that, while the original act constituted agreement between the Commonwealth government and indigenous representatives, the largely discriminatory amendments to the Native Title Act in 1998 were imposed on indigenous Australians. The non-government members have shown clearly that the Commonwealth government not only failed to secure the consent of the indigenous community to the amendments but never genuinely attempted to negotiate with indigenous Australians. This is a matter of grave concern to the non-government members, as it was to the CERD committee, which is of the view that at international law it is important that indigenous people are able to effectively participate in making decisions which affect their rights and that they give their informed consent to these decisions.The requirement of effective participation and informed consent has also been identified in the non-government members' report as being of critical importance in framing legislation, or amendments to legislation, which affects the rights of indigenous peoples. All governments must be on notice that before legislating for changes that will impact on native title there is a fundamental requirement to negotiate with, and to obtain the informed consent of, the native title holders so affected. It is worth noting that the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs came to grips with this issue in its unanimous report of August 1999 titled Unlocking the future: the report of the enquiry into the Reeves review of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976. The first and central recommendation of that report was:The Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 (`the Act') not to be amended without:traditional Aboriginal owners in the Northern Territory first understanding the nature and purpose of any amendments and as a group giving their consent; andany Aboriginal communities or groups that may be affected having been consulted and given adequate opportunity to express their view.That recommendation and the findings and recommendations of the non-government members on the native title committee provide a beacon, a signpost, as to where governments must head if they are to operate in a manner consistent with our international obligations in relation to the Native Title Act. The decision of the CERD should be a matter of concern to Australia, which has established itself as a leading member of the international community. The decision constitutes a warning to this country that it has committed an act of racial discrimination against the most disadvantaged group of it citizenry. The dissenting report of the non-government members on the committee makes 10 recommendations arising out of consideration of the issues in this inquiry. They are:Recommendation 1In the light of evidence presented to this Committee, the non-Government members find, and recommend that the Government acknowledge, that the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination ... is an expert and independent body, competent to receive and consider complaints regarding violations of rights protected under the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination.Recommendation 2The non-Government members find, and recommend that the Government acknowledge, that individuals and groups in Australia had, and still have, the right to bring to the attention of the CERD Committee alleged violations of Australia's undertakings as a signatory to the CERD, such as those inherent in both the substance of the amended Native Title Act and in the process through which it was drafted.Recommendation 3The non-Government members find, and recommend that the Government acknowledge, that the evidence presented to this Committee clearly shows that the weight of informed opinion supports the finding of the CERD Committee, that the Native Title Act, as amended in 1998, conflicts with Australia's international legal obligations. The non-Government members also find, and recommended that the Government acknowledge, that the inconsistency of the Native Title Act with Australia's international legal obligations is a matter of fact. Recommendation 4The non-Government members recommend that the Government, in responding to court decisions and the practical experience of the operation of the Native Title Act across Australia, amend its substantive and procedural provisions to render the legislation non-discriminatory and consistent with Australia's international obligations.Recommendation 5The non-Government members find that the requirement to obtain the informed consent of Indigenous Australians to legislation affecting their rights is, as a matter of fact, an obligation under our international undertakings, and recommend that the Government, in amending the Native Title Act, do so through a process of negotiation with Australia's indigenous peoples with the aim of gaining their informed consent to any such amendments, and to the amended Act as a whole.Recommendation 6The non-Government members recommend that the Government, in amending the Native Title Act, implement uniform, decent and enforceable national standards for dealing with native title, consistent with the Commonwealth's responsibility for the protection of the rights of Australia's Indigenous peoples. They further recommended that these standards be applied to any State native title regime presented to the Commonwealth Government and the Commonwealth Parliament for approval under the present Native Title Act.Recommendation 7The non-Government members recommend that the Government, in acknowledging the Native Title Act as simply one of many legislative or administrative instruments that have the potential to impinge on the rights of Australia's indigenous peoples, apply the principles underpinning its international and constitutional obligations to the drafting of any statutory instruments or administrative procedures that have any such effect.Recommendation 8The non-Government members acknowledge that native title, as recognised by Australian common law and as dealt with in statute, is capable of, and is vulnerable to, extinguishment. They contrast this with the fact that extant traditional title emerging from, and contained within, the laws and customs of indigenous Australians remains for so long as those people and their beliefs survive. They therefore recommend that the Government enact legislation that recognises and respects that fact, irrespective of findings that courts may make from time to time.Recommendation 9The non-Government members recommend that the Government acknowledge that its native title legislation is only one early element of a range of instruments to be drafted over time as a part of the process for a lasting settlement or accord between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians.Recommendation 10The non-Government members of the committee recommend that the Government, consistent with its obligation to protect Australia's international reputation, desist from any attacks on UN expert bodies, and renew positive dialogue with them on a range of matters, including Australia's native title legislation.The non-government members will be launching under a separate cover their report entitled Undertakings freely given: Australia's international obligations to protect indigenous rights. It will be launched by Dr Elizabeth Evatt tomorrow at 1 o'clock in committee room 1R3.17:09:0018483Melham, Daryl, MPMr MELHAM4T4BanksALP00—by leave—This report, framed, written and tabled here in accordance with the statutory responsibilities of the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Native Title and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land Fund, marks a significant advance in the understanding of the relationship between Australia's domestic legislation and administrative procedures dealing with indigenous rights and the framework of relevant international law and treaties to which Australia is a signatory. The report of the non-government members upholds the findings of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination that the Native Title Amendment Act 1998 was developed in a manner, and contained provisions, inconsistent with Australia's international legal obligations. The fact that the non-government members of the joint committee have been unable to present a report based on consensus with the government members is regrettable but not surprising. The Howard government have publicly rejected the CERD committee's findings and have attempted to systematically undermine public confidence in the competence and independence of that body. One can see a pattern in the government's approach to dealing with potential criticism. We remember well their attempts to discredit Sir Ronald Wilson and his report on the stolen generations. They started that campaign even before that report was handed down. It was an easy leap to later deny that such a generation even existed. This reveals a disinclination of the government to take on board the pressing social issues of relations between indigenous and non-indigenous Australians resulting from our history. Both the complexity of the issues and the impetus to timely and compassionate action are beyond them. Instead, they prefer to discredit the bodies which try to represent these social justice and human rights concerns in a thorough and measured way. Of course, responding to these issues entails developing a process to deal with them. Governments are under enormous pressure to state that they have all the answers. To prove to people that they do have all the answers means that a quick fix is put in place. Quick fixes almost never work. We continually go back to the same issue instead of moving ahead.This report of the non-government members shows that the amendments to the Native Title Act are racially discriminatory and a breach of Australia's international obligations. The report refers to discrimination in relation to various issues such as the validation provisions, confirmation of extinguishment provisions and the right to negotiate provisions. The report also provides an understanding of traditional title as opposed to native title. Native title is vulnerable to extinguishment and governments can attempt to extinguish native title in the courts. Traditional title emerges from the laws and customs of indigenous Australians and remains so long as indigenous people and their beliefs survive. This report of the non-government members recommends that the government not only respect that fact but enact legislation in recognition of it. The member for the Northern Territory has read the recommendations of the non-government members to the chamber. However, it is important for the government to come to grips with what this report stands for. The government must comprehend that this report puts to bed their obstinate argument that their amendments to the Native Title Act provide a solution to native title in this country. The original Native Title Act was always going to be continually refined in response to developments in case law and practical difficulties in implementing legislation. It was also designed to put a stop to the adversarial nature of native title conflicts by forming a framework for negotiating native title matters between parties in a simple and cost-effective manner. As we have seen, the Howard government's Wik amendments resulted in the return to an adversarial and divisive debate on native title in this country. This has not contributed to resolving native title issues across Australia. It has not helped reconciliation between indigenous and non-indigenous Australians so desperately wanted by the people of this country, as shown so vividly over the past months through the reconciliation marches in capital cities.We have seen what this quick fix has resulted in. It has resulted in a division between black and white over indigenous issues and a setback to reconciliation. It has resulted in attempts to discredit a reputable international body of experts such as the CERD committee in a way that has been praised by countries which, it could be said, are not the holders of an enviable human rights record. It has resulted in the shaming of Australia's international reputation and the validation of extinguishment in a manner that is not only legally risky but is without informed consent.The report of the non-government members offers the opportunity to put a stop to this division and dissent. It draws on evidence given by a range of experts and its recommendations provide a blueprint for this and future governments to proceed with indigenous native title rights. I draw attention to recommendation 9 in the report at page 95, which states:The non-Government members recommend that the Government acknowledge that its native title legislation is only one early element of a range of instruments to be drafted over time as a part of the process for a lasting settlement or accord between Indigenous and Non-Indigenous Australians. Let the government acknowledge that the Native Title Amendment Act 1998 is racially discriminatory and results in a significant setback to indigenous rights in Australia. Then let us work on ways to amend the legislation through genuine consultation with all stakeholders and with the informed consent and acceptance of all the legislative and procedural outcomes.This report has uncovered substantial and authoritative criticism of the Native Title Amendment Act 1998. This report attempts to present a blueprint for the government of the day. It is not a partisan document but is designed to enable us to break out of the repeated cycles of the native title debate. Let us close this destructive debate on the existence and extent of native title in this country and move on to working as a nation for improvements in indigenous wellbeing, as well as improvements in relations between black and white, by adopting this report's recommendations and framing a flexible process open to continued dialogue. Undertakings freely given by the national government should be honoured. Australia has international obligations to protect indigenous rights and should do so. I commend the report of the non-government members on CERD and the Native Title Amendment Act 1998to the House.17:17:0018485Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK0J4BerowraLPMinister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Reconciliation10—by leave—I thank the honourable member and the chair for the opportunity to comment on this report, although briefly. Let me first say that the government welcomes the 16th report of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Native Title and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island Land Fund, on this occasion entitled CERD and the Native Title Amendment Act 1998. In accordance with the usual practice relating to parliamentary committee reports, the government will carefully consider the committee's report. Accordingly, while I will not be delivering a formal government response to the committee's report today, I will make some brief points about the issues raised.Having served on many parliamentary committees, I am familiar with the way in which they operate. It is of interest to me to see the committee report with a substantial dissent, in this case by non-government members, and to see the comments from the committee being largely at this point in relation to the dissent rather than a report on the committee's view as concluded. Therefore, I feel I emboldened to read what the committee had to find. Page 54 of the report says:The amended Native Title Act strikes a balance between native title interests and other interests. It provides protection to native title that is at least the equivalent of the protection provided to comparable non-Indigenous interests, and provides significant benefits to native title holders which non-Indigenous title holders do not enjoy.In relation to the four contentious sets of provisions, the Government acted to balance competing interests and to provide certainty. The amendments do not breach the Government's obligations for a range of reasons, including the fact that they are within the Government's margin of appreciation, that there is little or no impact on native title and that there are countervailing beneficial measures for any effect these provisions have on native title, including compensation.Prior to Wik, the assumption that the grant of a pastoral lease extinguished native title was valid, and informed the drafting of the Native Title Act. The Commonwealth, States and Territories acted on the balance of legal opinion on the state of the common law regarding extinguishment. In the light of the Wik decision, however, steps had to be taken to resolve the uncertainty created by the fact that the original Act had not addressed the possible existence of native title on pastoral leases. The amendments introduced to address this issue were appropriate and reasonable and more limited in scope than the related provisions in the original Act.I think that is a balanced and sensible conclusion for the committee to reach. It is one which we as a government think reflects the real position. In 1998, the government made amendments to the Native Title Act which were necessary to deal with a number of practical issues arising out of court decisions, such as the High Court's decisions in Wik and Brandy. In particular, the uncertainty that was created by Wik in relation to pastoral leases needed to be addressed. It would not have mattered who was in office—those issues needed to be addressed. The government engaged in very extensive consultation on the amendments with major stakeholders, including indigenous people. Australia has a very strongly democratic system which enables all of its citizens, regardless of race, to participate in political life. Indigenous people can and do participate fully in the political and cultural life of our nation. This is what the CERD convention requires. Mention has been made of the CERD committee. On behalf of the Australian government, I led a delegation to that committee to put our report in relation to issues arising out of the need to eliminate all forms of racial discrimination. I spoke very comprehensively about a range of issues relating to programs that we put in place to create living in harmony and to address racial discrimination where it might be evident in the Australian community. I talked about the native title legislation. I talked about our legislation dealing with racial discrimination and the role of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission in relation to those matters.I also had to explain to them—this is an expert body, but it had very little understanding of the nature of the Australian federation—the way in which our democratic system works. In a sense, if you look at some of the countries that these people, as experts, come from, it would be fair to conclude that they may have had little experience with democratic institutions. When you have experts from Cuba, for instance, telling you about democratic institutions and how they should operate, you start to have some question marks over the process. As one who had to respond to the questions that were asked, I have to say that people who come together a couple of times a year for several weeks to receive reports from a whole range of countries regardless of their expertise need to put a lot of work into getting up to and addressing these sorts of issues. I have to say, quite frankly, the system does not provide for that to occur. Many of the people who are involved in it are admirable people. I met them and had an opportunity to engage and talk to them. But in terms of dealing with these issues in relation to amendments to the Native Title Act, I do not believe the committee was in a position to put and develop an informed—and I use the word `informed' advisedly—view about whether or not Australia was in breach of its obligations under the convention.Clearly, we take advice in relation to these matters. All the advice that we had as a government from the government's legal advisers in these matters was that the Native Title Act, when looked at as a whole, continues to provide significant benefits to native title holders and that the amended Native Title Act achieves a successful and appropriate balance between competing interests. You cannot look at it in part; you have to look at in whole. What it delivers are positive advantages, overall, to native title claimants. The government has previously addressed the issues concerning the parliamentary joint committee and its inquiry before the CERD committee and we maintain our position in relation to the CERD committee's findings in 1998. That is, we consider that the committee's report is unbalanced and is a wide ranging attack that intrudes unreasonably into Australia's internal affairs. We consider that the CERD committee failed to consider the Native Title Act as a whole and focused on the amendments in isolation. We are well aware of our obligations under the convention. We take our deliberations in relation to these matters—the role of the parliamentary committee as well as the CERD—very seriously. This is demonstrated by the fact that we have made extensive submissions to and appeared before the committee as well as the CERD committee. As I mentioned earlier, the high level delegation to attend the hearings of the committees dealing with Australia's periodic reports was further evidence of the seriousness with which we undertake these measures.I was interested in the way in which the report of the opposition members of the committee dealt with the issue of where we ought to go in the future, because it raised the very important question that Laurie Oakes raised when he interviewed the honourable member for Banks. That is, if we are dealing with legislation which the opposition in principle believes is racially discriminatory, what is the opposition going to do about it? I have read the conclusions that the honourable member for Northern Territory read to us, and I still do not find it. What we find is that there is a view that there should be `further discussions'. I do not know what those discussions mean, and I guess we will probably raise some of these questions when we look at the report more comprehensively. But when you put whatever amendments you might have in mind in an environment in which one group of people are essentially—it appears to me—going to have a very significant role `through a process of negotiation with Australia's indigenous peoples with an aim of gaining their informed consent to any amendments and to the amended act as a whole', is that a veto? Does that mean that the opposition is saying, `We will only propose amendments that are acceptable to indigenous people'? Is that what you are saying? Or are you saying that if we can't get amendments that are acceptable to indigenous people, then the present act will stay? Is that what you are saying? I think the opposition still has a long way to go in terms of articulating its position if it is really thinking about these issues in the context of ever being a government. The hard work of policy development means that you have to sit down. You have sat down and drafted a report. It covers a lot of ground, but at end of the day it does not reach any conclusions about how the hard issues are going to be addressed. That is the reality of it. You are not informing the public as to the proposals that you have in mind. What you are wanting to do is to leave it vague, to leave indigenous people believing that they are going to have sway in relation to the way in which these matters might be addressed. But if they do not get their way, then it is quite clear that the only outcome you have got left is the law as it is at the moment. If you have another view, you should tell us. It is the same as it is in relation to the position relating to the Queensland delegated legislation in relation to native title. Are you intending to disallow that measure? If you are serious about being a government, you have to reach some conclusions about these matters. These issues are complex, they are unique and they are difficult—and we recognise that.We do not want to reopen a divisive debate in relation to these matters, but all Australians are entitled to know whether the opposition is of the view that the uncertainty on native title issues had to be addressed and whether the approaches which the government has taken were reasonable or unreasonable. If you are of the view that they are unreasonable—as you seem to be in this minority, or opposition, report—we need to know what you propose as an alternative. We do not have that before us in the document that you have outlined. That is really the beginning and the end of the substantial issue. This government remains committed to fostering healthy and productive relationships between all Australians, of all racial backgrounds. The government is committed to achieving a lasting reconciliation with indigenous and non-indigenous Australians, but we believe that these issues can be most effectively addressed by having a constructive discussion, by putting forward practical amendments which involve reaching conclusions after extensive consultations. We do not think it is appropriate to reopen the divisive debate on native title that we had before. We are, I would suggest, disappointed that this is not a unanimous report in favour of the conclusion that is outlined as the majority view on page 54.NaN:00:0018487Snowdon, Warren, MPMr SNOWDONIJ4Northern TerritoryALP00I move:That the House take note of the report.I seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted; debate adjourned.Bills18487R113118487Debate resumed.17:33:0018487Causley, Ian, MPMr CAUSLEY4K6PageNP10—It is a great pity that the conclusion of this debate did not happen before question time because we would then have had the honour of having the member for Lilley and the member for Grayndler, who were making such outrageous statements to the House, present in the chamber when we replied. In my 16 years in politics, between the New South Wales parliament and the federal parliament, rarely have I seen such an action by an opposition designed purely to scare vulnerable people. There is no doubt that these people, who are mostly old and frail in retirement, do feel very vulnerable. They are being used by the Labor opposition for political means. It is a great pity. It is probably the second time that we have seen this from the opposition. We all remember the nursing homes saga where, again, the government tried to address a particular issue and all the opposition wanted to do was to score political points and scare vulnerable people. This is another example of what it will do to try and get some political advantage. We can remember in a discussion of a matter of public importance—I do not want to go over too many of the issues that were raised last week—that the member for Grayndler and the member for Lilley were canvassing, yet again, some of the issues that they were putting forward. We now have the infamous photograph which was in the Tweed daily paper where the member for Grayndler, the member for Lilley and others tried to get some political advantage out of a situation such as this and were not telling the full truth; they were just using some of the truth. They were posing as residents. They claimed to be residents in the photograph, but not until it was revealed later—UU5Horne, Bob, MPMr Horne—I rise on a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. At no time did the honourable members referred to claim to be residents.10000Andrews, Kevin (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Andrews)—Order! That is no point of order.4K6Causley, Ian, MPMr CAUSLEY—I indicate to the honourable member for Paterson that in the newspaper there was no indication as to who the people were in the photograph. They all claimed to be angry park residents. We now know they were not. This was a deliberately orchestrated event. When you look at the photograph you see some two or three dozen people. There were at least five or six that we know are directly linked with the Labor Party and we suspect there were other members of the Labor Party within that group—one in particular being a person who has been up there trying to gain Labor Party preselection for the seat of Richmond and who used to work for the honourable member for Grayndler. I suppose she was trying to claim that somehow, at election time, she will be a local, but of course she was just trying to use this issue.The honourable member for Lilley also mentioned that he had spoken to some caravan park owners who also believed the situation was unfair. It is in the hands of the caravan park owners to do something about. It is completely flexible. It is a choice that they can make. I know of some park owners who have clearly identified the areas of their parks that have these long-term mobile park owners on them where they do not have any input costs. In fact, the electricity, the water and the other services are paid for by the owners of the dwellings. They are clearly not going to charge GST on that section of their park. They do not have any input costs in that section and they are not going to charge GST. Quite frankly, I have never seen any hard evidence to suggest that someone has come forward as a park owner and said, `We are going to charge this GST.' It has all been speculation. It has been speculation by the member for Grayndler.We know the member for Grayndler is a very active member of parliament and he has spent a lot of time on the North Coast. I am sure the honourable member for Paterson would have been witness yesterday to how active the member for Grayndler was. Of course, the member for Grayndler has been stacking branches around Sydney for some years. Attempts by the left-wing faction to overpower the right-wing faction all boiled to the surface yesterday when the deputy leader of the party had to make them toe the line. The member for Grayndler is very reactive in these areas and he is showing his skills. He tries to manipulate, and he is trying to manipulate this particular process. As I said in the debate last week, the member for Grayndler shows no knowledge of the complexity of these parks. Members of the government have been aware for some time of some concerns in this area; but it is the complexity that makes it difficult. The mix in these caravan parks makes this issue very difficult to address. I think that there is no doubt that many caravan park owners are trying—again, as I say, there is no evidence that they are not—to come to terms with how they address their short-term residents and their long-term residents. Of course, there is a lot of competition in this particular area, so people will soon come to know which park owners are treating their residents correctly and which are not. It is a very competitive area along the coast of New South Wales. While it would be difficult for people already in those areas to change, anyone new arriving would be able to choose a park where those fees were not applied.I want to associate myself with the Compensation Measures Legislation Amendment (Rent Assistance Increase) Bill 2000, because I think it is a very good outcome. I want to clearly say, too—as the National Party has been attacked on several occasions by the speakers opposite—that, if this issue had not been raised so strongly at the National Party conference, the Democrats would never have blinked. They knew all about it. They knew about it for months and months and months but, unless the concerns of these residents had been raised strongly by the member for Richmond and other members of the National Party, this issue would never have surfaced, because the Democrats only blinked when it became an issue. So, rather than criticise the member for Richmond, I think the residents in that area should thank him very much for speaking up about this concern, despite his being a government minister, which makes it very difficult for him to raise issues such as this.The Prime Minister has always been sympathetic to this issue. He has looked very closely at it on several occasions. His considered opinion has always been that it is fair. If you look at the complexity of it, it is; there is no doubt about it. Yet, when you get this knee-jerk reaction from the Labor Party, you start to see how they do not understand the complexity of it. It has been clearly shown that, if you deny the park owners the right to claim back their input costs, the rents will rise anyway. There are no free lunches in this world, unfortunately. If there are extra costs on the owners of these parks, they are passed on. I am pleased to see the member for Grayndler returning, because I really did want him to hear some of the things that I have to say. Maybe we can educate him on some of these areas. The particular issues involved here—R36Albanese, Anthony, MPMr Albanese—Listen to your own party.4K6Causley, Ian, MPMr CAUSLEY—The member for Grayndler used this debate to try to ridicule the government on some of the inputs that park owners can claim back. He does not understand, of course, the differences in some areas. In fact, in some of the mobile park homes people rent the entire house. They do not just bring their own house and put it on a block and pay the rent for the block; they rent the whole house. Of course there are input costs involved there. As I said, you have to understand the complexities of this. There is a whole range of people who live in this type of accommodation.R36Albanese, Anthony, MP4K6Causley, Ian, MPMr CAUSLEY—We have seen the flexibility of the member for Grayndler. I am sure that people opposite understand that he is misinterpreting some of these areas.83NHall, Jill, MP4K6Causley, Ian, MPMr CAUSLEY—We have the chatterer over here, again. She cannot help herself. She has to come in here and chatter away innocuously about it. As I said, the member for Grayndler has been trying to impugn the National Party on this particular issue by putting across to us that we should support the amendment that he has put forward because it is National Party policy.R36Albanese, Anthony, MPMr Albanese—That is right.4K6Causley, Ian, MPMr CAUSLEY—I have had people try to put words into my mouth before, but I am certainly not going to accept what the honourable member for Grayndler says on this issue. Quite frankly, the amendment is nowhere near National Party policy. What you are trying to do will in fact increase the costs on these particular people, and we want nothing to do with that. What the government is giving is an increase in rent assistance, which we applaud, because obviously these people need this particular support and it would help them. UU5Horne, Bob, MPMr Horne—How many will get it—25 per cent?4K6Causley, Ian, MPMr CAUSLEY—Of course, the member for Paterson and his colleagues are one-eyed: they have very narrow vision and do not look at the broader picture. They do not want to because it does not suit their argument. Let us look at the increase in pensions and the support that has been given to superannuants in the ANTS package. We should all recall that in the original ANTS package these payments given to the pensioners and superannuants were calculated on the basis that there would be a 10 per cent GST on food. But that had to be changed because of the deal with the Democrats. One thing that the Labor Party will never accept is that, if they had been responsible to the nation, looked at the original package and accepted that it was better for Australia—instead of just taking this absolutely negative, opposing position—we would not have this additional complication in the tax. Nevertheless, because of the agreement with the Democrats, the allowances calculated in the original tax package have not been reduced. The pensioners and superannuants will still get the payments that were in the original package—in particular, pensioners will always be two per cent ahead of the CPI.I know many speakers in this House have clearly outlined the difference between the position of the government and the Labor Party in these areas. As I said, I have been in politics for quite some time, watching the federal scene as well as the state scene, and I do not ever recall a tax cut from the Labor Party, nor can I ever recall any compensation for actions taken by them in government. This is the first government to have brought in a total change to the tax system, admit that there might be some areas that would disadvantage people in the community and try to do something about it and give them some support. We are saying that we will increase rent assistance from seven per cent to 10 per cent. That has to be a good position but, of course, the Labor Party cannot accept that. We believe that, given the fact that people have been alarmed, scared and deliberately deluded by the Labor Party, we can do something to at least overcome their fears. This must go a long way towards helping, because there is no doubt they will get that extra benefit.I think the member for Grayndler raised the issue, and has mentioned it before in the House, of a quote by Senator Lightfoot. I do not know what the question to Senator Lightfoot was, but I suspect that he has been selectively quoted, as usual, by the Labor Party. I say very clearly to the member for Grayndler that, as far as I am concerned and I am sure as far as most of my colleagues are concerned, we would dissociate ourselves with that particular limited quote, if it is correct. We would dissociate ourselves from it. I am sure that is more than what the people of Grayndler would say about the fact that the member for Grayndler went up to the North Coast and said, `I'd prefer to live up here than represent my electors in Grayndler.' He is a regular visitor at the present time. He made it very clear that he would prefer to live up there than—R36Albanese, Anthony, MPMr Albanese—Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order.AE4Nehl, Garry, MPMr Nehl—On that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker, the member for Grayndler should be speaking from his place.R36Albanese, Anthony, MPMr Albanese—Mr Deputy Speaker, on the point of order raised by the member for Cowper. I am speaking from the position as the parliamentary secretary to the shadow minister for family and community services in relation to this bill we are debating. When I speak on the community services legislation, of which I have had carriage, and we have heard from the member for Page—AE4Nehl, Garry, MPMr Nehl—Mr Deputy Speaker, I am sorry to interrupt my colleague who had the call but, on my point of order, the reality is that the member for Grayndler is a shadow parliamentary secretary; he is not a real parliamentary secretary. The parliamentary secretary seated at the table would only have the right to speak from the dispatch box when he has carriage of the legislation or government business. Equally, in the debate today—and I must say to the member for Grayndler that I deliberately did not embarrass him by getting him to return to his seat—the shadow minister who had carriage of the bill for the opposition has spoken. In that case the member for Grayndler, as shadow parliamentary secretary, did not have carriage and, just as the Chief Opposition Whip as Deputy Manager of Opposition Business is not entitled to speak from the dispatch box when the Manager of Opposition Business is here, because the shadow minister was here, he is not entitled to speak, either. R36Albanese, Anthony, MPMr Albanese—Further on that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker, I would have thought that it is fairly obvious that the shadow minister for family and community services is not in the chamber and that he has deputised me as parliamentary secretary on this issue. That is why I am in the chamber, just like the parliamentary secretary opposite. I simply want to say that the point of order originally—10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—I will deal with the point of order before the chair before I move to the one the member for Grayndler wishes to raise.4I4McLeay, Leo, MPMr Leo McLeay—Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to speak on the point of order as the Deputy Manager of Opposition Business. The opposition put out an office holders list and a shadow ministerial list at the beginning of the term. On that it says that the member for Grayndler is the parliamentary secretary to the shadow minister for family and community services, and he has designated him to deal with housing matters. The parliamentary secretary has spoken in this chamber, I think, three times so far today on these issues, and for the member for Cowper to stand up there and try to change these rules by way of intervention I find very interesting. If the parliamentary secretaries sitting opposite tried to intervene in this debate later on if there were a minister in the House, that would be an absurd situation.My memory goes back, for instance, to when Mr Miles was the parliamentary secretary to the cabinet and used to come in here all the time and do financial legislation. I do not know whether the Treasurer had designated him to do that. I do not think any of us saw any piece of paper that said that. What we saw was a government ministerial list which said that Mr Miles was the parliamentary secretary to the cabinet, and everyone took it with good grace that he was a parliamentary secretary and he got up and spoke to legislation that he said he had carriage of in the chamber. For the member for Cowper to suggest that we should turn this into some sort of a barney now, when events have overtaken whatever specious point of order he was trying to make earlier, is a bit silly. The government have changed the Ministers of State Act to provide that parliamentary secretaries on the government side have a little more authority than they used to. The same goes for this side. If we have decided that Mr Albanese is in charge of this legislation for us, that is our business. We have decided that.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—On the point of order, I understand that. The member for Grayndler did speak from the dispatch box when he made his contribution to this debate. I also understand that the member for Lilley had charge of the bill and spoke from the dispatch box. Had I been in the chair then I would have required the member for Grayndler to speak from his seat. If the member for Grayndler wishes to raise a point of order, as I understand he does, I invite him to do so from his seat.4I4McLeay, Leo, MPMr Leo McLeay—Could I speak on the point of order again, Mr Deputy Speaker?10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—I have ruled on the point of order.4I4McLeay, Leo, MPMr Leo McLeay—I guess, then, you would put me in a position where you might encourage me to dissent from your ruling.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—It is always open to a member to do that, as the Chief Opposition Whip well knows, but I am not sure that that will aid the procedures of the House this afternoon. I think the member for Grayndler has accepted my ruling and is happy to raise a substantive point of order— 4I4McLeay, Leo, MPMr Leo McLeay—He most certainly has not, and that is my point.R36Albanese, Anthony, MPMr Albanese—I have certainly not accepted your ruling, Mr Deputy Speaker. I merely deferred to my much more experienced and knowledgeable colleague, the Chief Opposition Whip, on this issue. The substantive point of order—10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—I understand he has a more substantive point of order. Would he come to that.R36Albanese, Anthony, MPMr Albanese—The substantive point of order was that, once again, the member for Page has misled the House by saying that I would rather live in the Tweed. The fact is that I, as shadow parliamentary secretary for housing, have visited the electorate—10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—The member for Grayndler will resume his seat. There are procedures of the House to make that point. The member for Grayndler will resume his seat. I call the member for Page.4K6Causley, Ian, MPMr CAUSLEY—Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker—(Time expired)17:54:0018492Horne, Bob, MPMr HORNEUU5PatersonALP00—In typical fashion, we can see how disorganised the government of Australia really is. I rise to speak to this legislation today because we have a Prime Minister who loves to tell the people of Australia that his never ever tax, his beloved GST, has been debased and the argument has been confused by the mischievous actions of the Australian Labor Party. Nothing could be further from the truth. This is a government that does not need any assistance whatsoever to confuse the Australian people. Whether it be statements on petrol pricing or whether it be what will be affected by the GST and what will not, right from day one this government has gone from blunder to blunder. Without doubt, the position of the government on rent has been at worst a deliberate lie and at best ambiguous and misleading. The people of Australia were given many promises by John Howard at the last election. We find out now that many of them were non-core promises and a few were core promises. But the promise that rent would not be affected by the GST was accepted as a core promise by many Australians, who now find that they were deceived. Members on the other side cannot cry `foul'. We have two ministers on record as saying that this tax on rent would not be levied, and they were wrong. Admittedly, those ministers were both National Party ministers—Mark Vaile and Larry Anthony—and therefore not necessarily privy to the machinations of the government. From the government response to their demands, it appears they were not privy to those decision making processes. Then, only two weeks ago, we had that famous National Party conference at Tweed Heads, where a unanimous motion by the National Party conference called on the Prime Minister to overturn the tax on residents in manufactured home estates. How long did it last? It lasted about 24 hours, and then we saw it disappear forever from the coalition promise list. We had the member for Page, who has left the House now, tell the House that the Prime Minister should be congratulated for refusing to remove the impost. We had a statement from Senator Ross Lightfoot that, I would suggest, rivals Marie Antoinette's `Let them eat cake' statement for insensitivity. He said:These people are lucky. They are no more special than anyone else. It might be an incentive for them to get houses.That just about sums up the arrogance and the ignorance of this government. The very point is that we are talking about houses. In many cases, tens of thousands of cases, we are talking about very substantial houses. Sure, the estate may be called a caravan park. I have them in the electorate I represent, and they are called caravan parks. But try to take your caravan in there for the Christmas holidays. You will not be allowed. They do not have facilities. We are talking about homes that have been pre-constructed, they arrive on the back of a number of trucks, they are assembled, they are constructed on concrete or brick piers, they are fully plumbed, they are connected to electricity, they have verandahs around them, they have concrete footpaths, and they have gardens and garages adjacent to them. The thing that is different about these homes is that the owners rent the land; they do not own the land. That is the difference. They own the whole of the home and all the fittings in it. They are very proud of it, and for many of these people it is the first home they have ever owned. It is their choice. They chose to live that lifestyle. Many of them are older people. They have chosen to live that lifestyle because the homes are modern and the maintenance is less, and they live in a community where they have a very good network of friends. They realise they are aging and there are days when they might not want to get out of bed. They can assist each other if there is a chore or some shopping to be done. That is the sort of network that exists in these places. And they were promised by John Howard at the last election that there would be no increase in their rent. How wrong they were. It was brought up by the Nationals at their conference and they then rolled over. But the government has made a change. They have convinced the National Party that these residents will be better off paying a 5.5 per cent GST, and the National Party have accepted it. That tells you something else about the GST. If the Prime Minister was able to convince the National Party members, who voted exclusively to get the GST removed from this rent, by telling them, `Well, actually, because of the complexity of the GST, these people—they don't know it yet—are going to be better off paying 5.5 per cent,' it makes you wonder how the rest of us are going to fare. Are we all going to be better off paying 5.5 per cent?83NHall, Jill, MPMs Hall—What a worry!UU5Horne, Bob, MPMr HORNE—It is a major worry. The argument must have been very compelling because all the National Party members have said, `Hey, we did a great thing. You're going to be better off now. You're still paying the 5.5 per cent, but you're better off.' Sure, there was an increase in rent assistance of 10 per cent, but the survey that I have done shows that only about one in four of these people will get rent assistance at all. Many of them do not get it. One in four will get it, but for many there will be no difference. What does that do? It exaggerates the difference that was already there, but for 75 per cent it will make no difference at all. For those who will get it, it means a difference of about 16c a day.I have been running this issue for well over 12 months in the electorate of Paterson, because there are between 3,000 and 4,000 people there who live in this environment. It is a major concern to them. I certainly resent the member for Page saying that it is scaremongering. Nothing could be more a case of scaremongering than a government promising there would be no rent increase at all under the GST, and tenants suddenly finding out that there will be a 5½ per cent increase. Many of them are pensioners, and many of them are on fixed incomes. They know that, at the end of a pension fortnight, there is nothing left in kitty. If they are going to pay 5½ per cent more, they know that, to pay that 5½ per cent, something else has to go.It is all right to talk about the compensation measures. The compensation measures are there because of the increased costs that these people will experience with the GST. According to the government's promises, rent was not one of those things that would increase, and now it is. They also know that rent is one of their major costs, and it is going up by 5½ per cent. That is the scaremongering. That did not come from this side of the House. That is a statement of fact that has been inflicted upon these people by the Howard government and its new tax system. There are 160,000 people around Australia who resent that this was a non-core promise. They resent the fact that, after next Saturday, they will be worse off—they will have less disposable income.I will say one thing in conclusion. We have been lobbying this issue with all of the housing estates in the electorate of Paterson, and I have found 10 home estates that will not be charging the GST. I congratulate those owners. They are trying to be fair—by not putting a GST on their rents, they are trying to ensure that the GST will have a minimal effect on their tenants. I advise the government that I will be monitoring what happens in those places because, according to the government, if the estates do not charge the GST, the residents will be worse off. It will be very interesting to visit these places over the coming weeks and to find out exactly how much worse off they are by not paying the GST, compared with those where the GST has been levied. I look forward to the opportunity to report back to the parliament when we come back in August, or at a later stage, on how they have been affected. Mr Deputy Speaker, that is my contribution to this argument. That is my contribution to this debate which really should not have taken place at all if the government had respected the needs of the needy and honoured the promises it made at the last election. Unfortunately, they have done neither.18:05:0018493Hall, Jill, MPMs HALL83NShortlandALP00—This Compensation Measures Legislation Amendment (Rent Assistance Increase) Bill 2000 is doomed to failure, just as the government's never, ever GST is doomed to failure. It is an absolute debacle that we are debating this legislation in this House tonight. It is a testimony to the government's failure right up until now to address a very important issue. Right at the last minute, we have been delivered legislation to consider, because the government have been caught out. It is not because they genuinely want to help people, but because they have been caught out.This tax that our 1950s style Prime Minister is about to slug the Australian people with is doomed in every possible respect. If the government have any honour or integrity whatsoever, they should accept the opposition's amendment, which will remove one of the inequities of this draconian tax. Unfortunately, I suspect that this government will ignore the amendment and push through this legislation that was rushed into the House at the last minute. This legislation has been formulated on the run, and only because the government have been caught out.If the Econtech report, a report that this government sat on for six months, had never surfaced—if Laurie Oakes had never brought it out into the public arena—we would not even be looking at the legislation today. There were repeated calls for the report to be released but, no, this government refused. When it was finally released, it showed the real impact that the GST would have on residential rentals. Now the government has been forced to act. It was deceitful in the way it sought to hide it from Australia, and it was deceitful in the way it sought to have this hike in rent thrust upon the Australian people without any compensation whatsoever. It knew about it, it hid it and ignored the impact.The only thing that forced the government to act today is the simple fact that their partners in the coalition, the Democrats—their partners in the Senate—demanded that the government act. At first the Democrats were about trying to create some equity for people who live in parks—an issue that I will touch on in a moment—but they rolled over, as they always do for the government, and came up with this very second-class package. You only receive compensation if you receive maximum rent assistance. Even if you do receive maximum rent assistance, you will receive only 16c a day compensation—and that is not much. If you are working or are a self-funded retiree, you will not receive any compensation. It is very inequitable for people who live in residential parks, mobile home parks and caravan parks. The majority of these people are on some sort of fixed income. About 20 per cent of them receive pensions. Not all of these people will be eligible to receive any of this increase in rental assistance. The members on the other side have gone to great lengths to say, `If they didn't have to pay the GST they'd have to pay more on rent.' I thought I would just give them a little example of one of the parks in the Shortland electorate, and that is the park at Redhead. The people in that park are going to be charged a 4.7 per cent rent increase and, on top of that, they are going to be charged the 5.5 per cent GST. They are going to get a 10.2 per cent rental increase. Even making an allowance for the 10 per cent increase in rental assistance, there is absolutely no way that it lines up. This government is failing these people dreadfully. These people will be faced with not only the GST but also, in most cases, a rental increase. It is similar at the Heritage Park in Toukley and many other parks throughout the Shortland electorate.I think part of this comes from ignorance. I do not think there are many people on the other side who really understand the lifestyle of people who live in parks. The Prime Minister said on AM a week or two ago that, if you pay half the GST, the owner of a caravan park is then able to get a refund on all the input taxes he pays on things like carpet, airconditioning, heating and so forth. What the Prime Minister does not understand is that these people own their own homes. They pay their own electricity, gas and water rates. They are responsible for the maintenance of their home and do their own gardening. I thought I would just describe some of the features of a couple of homes in the park at Redhead: garage built into the house; two storeys; house with large verandah and double garage; triple-wide house with glass verandah at the rear; a garage built into the side of the house; cement pad and tool shed. There are many examples of the type of permanent dwellings that these folk who live in residential parks have. They are not caravans. They are not buildings that can be moved at a moment's notice. Senator Lightfoot said on 19 June that if people pay the GST, it might be an incentive for them to get a house. Senator Lightfoot was obviously ignorant of the fact that these people own their own homes. These people are in a worse position than most other renters. They cannot just get up and say, `Okay, I'm going to move,' because they own the home. They have to sell the home before they are able to move to other accommodation. I would now like to move to some of the statements made by the members of the National Party—none of whom are here at the moment. The member for Page was quite vocal when he was here, but he obviously did not listen to his colleague on the North Coast, the state member for Coffs Harbour. After the National Party conference, the state member for Coffs Harbour, Andrew Frazer, said:I believe that the federal government gave an assurance prior to the last election that no-one would be disadvantaged by increased rents. Mr Howard has increased the rent of people living in caravan parks. I cannot support that, and I will not. I stated clearly and loudly at the National Party Conference last weekend that I did not support it. The conference stated unanimously `We do not support the GST on caravan parks.' What has happened to Mr Causley? Why won't he support his colleagues in the National Party in the state parliament? One after another they stood up and spoke to a motion in that parliament saying that residents of caravan parks and residential parks should not have to pay a GST. I have to agree with the member for Coffs Harbour when he described Mr Howard as being bloody-minded—and so he is. He is bloody-minded in forcing this GST on residents of caravan parks.Mr Nehl, the member for Cowper, has made a number of statements on this. He feels that his integrity is being impugned by the fact that the government is going to force residents of caravan parks to pay the GST. The member for Page talked about the photo that appeared in the paper. The thing is that residents of parks have come to us on this side of the House. They spoke to the member for Page and the member for Richmond and asked them to help. They asked them to listen to what they had to say. They asked them to go to the Prime Minister, to represent them, and to ask for the GST to be removed from their rental. But those members failed. They did not listen to their constituents. So those people had no choice but to come to us. We listened and we are in there fighting for them because we believe that they should not have to pay the GST on rental. I would like to add that the residents park group has come out very strongly and said that they do not accept this; they feel that it is still very inequitable. If the ACCC is to monitor the GST and its impact on rentals, I am really very worried about how it will go. Through my office I have contacted the ACCC about one case in particular in which the GST was charged on rent of a hospital television set. On 29 February I wrote to the ACCC about that. This particular company charged patients in hospital the GST on their television hire. I have received letters from the ACCC saying they are investigating it. We ring them weekly. They say, `We are investigating it'. They say, `Yes, it was charged on rental of the television set,' yet they have not acted on it. Is this the kind of assistance that the ACCC is going to give residential renters and people who are paying the GST in Australia after 1 July? I think it is. I think the ACCC is a toothless tiger that will not stand up for the people and will do nothing to help people who live in caravan parks. People who live in caravan parks and boarding houses will be hardest hit by the GST. They have limited income and this tax is going to impact on them negatively, leaving aside the fact that they will have to pay the GST on rent. It cannot be condoned. The government really stand condemned for forcing residents of caravan parks and hostels to pay the GST. 18:17:0018495Plibersek, Tanya, MPMs PLIBERSEK83MSydneyALP00—The Compensation Measures Legislation Amendment (Rent Assistance Increase) Bill 2000 is just another example of the government coming up with a half-hearted and insufficient response to the real injustice of the GST package. I do not know, Mr Deputy Speaker Quick, whether you are a regular watcher of television, but it reminds me of putting Mr Burns and Homer Simpson in charge of our tax system. You have the government, Mr Burns, doing their very best to screw every last cent out of the most vulnerable Australians. We have heard example after example of building works that will not be finished, petrol prices going up and all sorts of items going up in price that Australians were led to believe would be GST free or would drop in price under this new tax system. In this instance, rent is being paid by the most vulnerable members of our community when the government promised that rent would not be affected by the GST.Of course, the government's partner in this new tax system is the Democrats, or Homer Simpson. What happens time after time is that the Democrats slap their foreheads and say, `Doh! We missed that one. That one went through to the keeper.' It has happened with tampons. Meg Lees had to come out and say, `I am sorry, it was not in the original package that we agreed to. We just missed it. We overlooked it.' It has happened with beer. The Democrats are now supposedly leading this charge against the unfair impost on beer drinkers. Beer is going up by more than 1.9 per cent. You have to ask the Democrats: were they paying attention at all when they signed off on this agreement? The Labor Party have been saying for years, since before the last election, `Don't trust this government on tax reform. Things will go up when the GST is introduced.' The Democrats are saying, time and time again, `Doh! We missed that.'GST being paid on rent by caravan park dwellers and people who live in boarding houses is just one more example, and it is a particularly tragic example because these people are amongst the most vulnerable people in our community. The compensation is much too little too late for residents of boarding houses and caravan parks. The government originally said that the four per cent pension increase—if you can call it a four per cent pension increase when two per cent was coming anyway—and the seven per cent rent assistance increase only for those who are on the highest amount of rent assistance would compensate those people living in boarding houses and caravan parks. I think that this legislation shows exactly what that compensation is worth. It is an admission by this government that those people will be worse off and that they would have been worse off under the package, despite the denials that have been going on for months now from the executive of the government. Of course, we have had various backbenchers and even some ministers admitting that this is not a fair package and that it will disadvantage caravan park dwellers. This bill proves that the statement was never true.Our amendment is about saying that a few extra cents a day of rent relief does not deal with the fact that it is fundamentally unfair that the poorest and most vulnerable people in our community are the only ones who are going to pay a GST on their rent. The Econtech report that the government received in January but would never have released if they had had their way, by the government's modeller of choice, Chris Murphy—whom some of my colleagues last night were saying was like the Leni Riefenstahl of this government—is further proof that this group of people, the most vulnerable in the community, are clearly going to be worse off under this new tax system. The report clearly shows that rents in boarding houses will be going up by 4.4 per cent. The government's own estimate for other types of rent is a rise of 2.3 per cent. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, there were 2,597 boarding houses in Australia in 1996. Estimates of how many people live in those boarding houses vary but the 1996 census had a figure of 23,999 while, in that same year, National Shelter suggested the figure was something closer to 57,561. Either way, that is an awful lot of boarding house residents. In my electorate the 1996 census showed that there were almost 2,000 people living in boarding houses in my area, which is an enormous number of people living in boarding houses. They are often elderly. They are often frail. They sometimes have physical and intellectual disabilities. Certainly, they are generally unemployed and are relying on an unemployment, aged or disability pension. Several years ago, in 1992 in fact, the Victorian Rooming House Tenants Association found that 87.7 per cent of people living in boarding houses were social security recipients. Most of these people spend at least half of their weekly income on paying their rent to the boarding house. Many of them spend more than half of their weekly income in rent. Rents are often in excess of $110 a week, which is an enormous amount of money if you have $160 a week or even less coming in.There are many and varied reasons, of course, why people choose to live in boarding houses in Sydney but it is mostly because they are unable to afford more secure accommodation. Because they are living such a hand to mouth existence, they are often unable to afford a bond; they are not able to save a bond. Sometimes they do not have particularly good independent skills; they find it difficult to organise people to share accommodation with, particularly at short notice and in an area such as Sydney, where there is a very low vacancy rate for rental accommodation and where rental accommodation is extremely expensive. There is no doubt that for these people, who are amongst the most vulnerable in our community, this government's position, even with an increase in rental assistance, will lead to higher levels of homelessness.The government's own report into homelessness, the highly publicised National homelessness strategy, cites caravan park dwellers, particularly families living in caravan parks, and boarding house residents as amongst those who are most vulnerable to becoming homeless. Under this government's current proposal, these people are still the only people who will pay a GST on their rent. This has not changed under this proposed legislation. It is only the Labor Party that proposes to change that situation. This is, of course, in contrast with the best waterfront apartments in Sydney with the best harbour views and the best amenities. People can be paying $2,000 or $3,000 a week rent in Sydney for a particularly good apartment or a good house. These people do not pay GST on their rent. There is just no way that this sort of legislation, this tinkering around the edges, deals with that fundamental inequity between the highest income earners not having to pay GST on their rent and the lowest income earners, the most vulnerable people, having to pay that GST. Labor believes that there should not be a GST on boarding house and caravan park rents for long-term residents and that this tax is unfair. Tinkering at the edges will not solve that unfairness. 18:26:0018497Ellis, Annette, MPMs ELLIS5K6CanberraALP00—This is quite an amazing debate in which to be participating because the issues that we are raising here today, the important issues we are discussing, are not new. Many of the speakers before me have paid attention to that and I want to reiterate that point. We on this side of the House have been raising the inequity of these decisions affecting long-term tenants of caravan parks and boarding houses due to the effect of the GST. We have been raising these issues for 18 months or more and, I have to say quite sadly, have been ridiculed badly by the people opposite for all of that time. We have been labelled as scaremongering and frightening the poor people in the community when, in actual fact, what we have been doing is highlighting the very problem that we are talking about here today. So much for that ridicule. The government now believes, apparently, that the issue is of some significance; it really has come to the point where the bill that it has brought to the House is a result of the concern that we have all been claiming and speaking about for all of those 18 months. I want to take the time to pay tribute to our shadow minister, the member for Lilley, and also to the member for Grayndler, who have tenaciously shown their belief in this issue for so many months despite the accusations from the opposite side of the parliament that they were doing nothing more than stirring up the scaremongering storm. What a situation you have with the new tax system. A piece of legislation comes into this place, is voted on, the tax system legislation has enormous implications for many, many people throughout our community—in fact the overwhelming majority of people are going to feel the implications of this new tax system—we go ahead and point out the inequities in that new tax system, a report is commissioned by the government—after all the legislation has been passed—to see whether in fact there may be a problem and when that report is received the findings are kept under wraps. This is after everybody has been told, as the government say, `Trust us—we're the government. We are here to help you. We have a new wonderful tax system that everybody is going to think is the best thing ever, not just better than sliced bread but better than anything, and it is all going to be okay.' Then, of course, we saw the commissioned report—the report having come out and been held under wraps—and what does it say? It actually says that the projections by the government in relation to the effect of GST on rents, particularly those of caravan park tenants and those in boarding houses, and all that we have been saying is not quite true; the report says it is going to be worse than what we have been saying. The reality that we are facing here is that the government continually call for all of us to have regard for the national interest. They say it may be problematic for some people in the community, that the impact may have a slightly detrimental effect on them, but really the national interest is so big and so important that they should not worry about the detail.We have seen confusion over food. We have seen the cost of schooling question. We have seen the cost of the large list of health products that are going to be affected. We have seen the fiasco about petrol in the last few weeks. We know very well the problems that are going to occur in the private rental market. We have seen confusion throughout so many levels of our community, and yet we are told again and again, `Don't worry about the detail; the national interest is what is important.' The government and the Prime Minister simply have to understand that the detail does matter. It does matter to the tenant or the person in a boarding house. It does matter to the family that is attempting to maintain sporting activities for the kids outside school. It does matter to the small business person who is attempting to continue to survive against the amazing tide of paperwork and bureaucracy associated with this so-called simpler tax system. And it matters incredibly to the people who have set up their homes in a caravan park as permanent long-term residents. The detail does matter. It is wrong for the Prime Minister to say to individuals in our community, `Put that aside and think about the national interest,' when, as the Leader of the Opposition very clearly pointed out today, we are yet to see proof that the national interest will be enhanced by this whole new tax system. I find it quite sad and I am concerned for the future when I hear that the detail is an irrelevancy to the individuals we all represent. We represent these people, and it does matter to them.In moving against this bill today, we have been accused of voting against the very people that we are supposedly helping. That is just vacuous nonsense. We have been defending those people; for months and months, in the middle of ridicule and accusations of scaremongering, we have been pointing out the inequities and the basic unfairness that the tax system is going to impose on them. You cannot say that because we are standing up here today we are somehow being hypocritical about our position and that we are not defending the people affected by this bill. This bill is an insult to those who are going to be affected by the imposition of the GST on their lifestyle in a long-term caravan park or in a boarding house, and I find it an insult to be told that for some reason I am moving against those very people today. Taking the risk of sounding quite cynical, I believe that this is all being done because of a sudden focus on this issue. The National Party conference a few short weeks ago gave the government its first opportunity to see without its bifocals. It has seen the reality; it has seen that this may be a problem. Members of the coalition partner party stood up at their national conference and said that they simply must address this problem. The cynic in me says, `Maybe all that we've said is still being disregarded. This issue is only now being attended to because of political expediency.' The government thinks, `We've got to somehow calm down the nervous Nellies on our back bench and in our coalition partner party to somehow get through the next few weeks of the GST.' I stand very strongly by the comments that we have been making. I stand very strongly by the amendments we are moving to this bill.I represent the electorate of Canberra. Some people may not realise that I have a number of constituents who live in long-term caravan parks, albeit a smaller number than in other areas. The Canberra South Motor Park is one place that comes to mind. I have spoken to those people in recent weeks and months, and I know how they feel. Even though they may be smaller in number than the 11,000, 14,000 or 6,000 residents in other members' electorates, they are no less important. I have concern for them, and today I have the opportunity to represent them here, to stand up and say on their behalf, `Enough is enough.' The government is bringing down a piece of legislation which is going to give basically no financial recompense to these people. I think a single person sharing the rent will get 11c a day. This rent assistance will only help in a minuscule way. You could count the amount of money that is going to be of assistance to some of these people in cent pieces if they still existed. I very strongly support our amendment. I maintain my rage on behalf of my constituents and all others affected by this government's decision to continue blindly down the path of the GST the way they have done. For the sake of the people we represent, I hope that the government sees more clearly without its bifocals and that it suddenly starts to realise the reality of the impact of its deeds.18:35:0018499McFarlane, Jann, MPMs JANN McFARLANE83CStirlingALP00—I thank you for the opportunity to speak on the Compensation Measures Legislation Amendment (Rent Assistance Increase) Bill 2000. I wish to bring into this parliament the voice of the people in Stirling who are affected by the GST on site fees in permanent parks, mobile homes, caravan parks and boarding houses and to ask why the coalition parties and the Democrats cannot grant an exemption to these people. It strikes my constituents as being very unfair that private rent is exempted from GST and yet these more disadvantaged people have the GST on their site fees or other arrangements.Not only do the residents affected in Stirling think it is unfair and unreasonable; many people across Australia do. As other members have said, not only the over 160,000 people who live in permanent parks, mobile homes and the like are affected but a broader number of people are affected; the people in boarding houses are probably the most disadvantaged group whatsoever. I am not sure if it has come out clearly to the coalition parties during this debate that about 5.5 million people pay rent but only 20 per cent get rent assistance. This bill, which amends the original compensation bill, is to increase the rent assistance to 10 per cent. In the original bill, the rent assistance was going to be increased by seven per cent. That may seem very generous, but when you analyse it you see that it is not very generous. A lot of people are not on a Centrelink or veterans benefit or on a pension, and they are not going to benefit from getting an increase in rent assistance because they do not get rent assistance.I have three caravan parks in the electorate of Stirling and all these caravan parks have people who live there long term or permanently. About 50 to 60 per cent of them are on the Centrelink benefit but not a full Centrelink benefit, and there are two impacts of this amending bill on them. Some will not get the increase in rent assistance. They do not get rent assistance because their site fees paid are so low that they fall under the Centrelink definition of being eligible for rent assistance. Some of the other people living there are either on fairly low wages or are on payments from insurance companies because they have a workers compensation injury or, because of the split-up of a marriage or relationship, they have ended up moving out of the family home. Because the family home often is a public housing Homeswest place, their only option for housing is a permanent park or a mobile home. So they are not going to get rent assistance either. Then there are the people who are on some kind of overseas pension topped up with a small Centrelink pension. They also will not benefit or will benefit minimally from this increase in compensation or with rent assistance. My residents and constituents say that this is unfair and unjust and that it discriminates. My residents were appalled when they found out that they would have to pay GST on their site fees. Residents from the park approached my office for help because they were so confused about the issue. The reason that everyone was confused is that people renting houses do not have to pay GST on their rent but people renting a caravan park site or a permanent home park site do pay GST on their fees. It is one of the many strange inequities that have come out of the GST legislation. A couple of months ago I took the federal shadow minister for finance, Lindsay Tanner, to Carine Gardens to talk to the residents, and about half the residents came to talk to us because they are the permanent people. It was clear from talking to the residents that they felt discriminated against because they find themselves living in a caravan park. Some choose to live there, others live in caravan parks because they cannot afford private rent and yet others are waiting for a spot in a Homeswest property. Homeswest is the Western Australian public housing instrumentality. Clearly these are the people who can least afford to pay more for the same service. Residents were shocked to find that under the government legislation they would pay 10 per cent GST on the first 27 days of their stay and five per cent thereafter. It is not just people in Carine or in the electorate of Stirling who are angry about this. What do I say to my residents when they come to me with their concerns on the issue? And, now that they know about this additional compensation bill going through the parliament, what more can I say to them? I say to the residents, `There are things you can do. You can petition the government, you can join a lobby group, something like the Self-funded Retirees Association or the Pensioners and Superannuants Association, and join in their interest to bring their voice to government. You can write to your senators, write through me, your MP, organise rallies, ring talkback radio and write letters to the editor of the West Australian or your local community newspaper.' I tell my residents that in many ways they have got to get their voice up so that this government can hear their concern about the promise it broke that no Australian would be worse off. As the member for Sydney said, rents make up 30 per cent of the weekly budget of low income people, but that is only people in public housing. For people in other arrangements, including boarding houses and accommodation projects, the proportion of their budget going on rent can be up to 50 per cent because they are on a low income. Their accommodation options, as the member for Sydney pointed out, are very limited. These residents say to me that it is not too late to bring their voice to the government to say that the GST should not be applied to caravan parks, mobile homes, permanent parks, boarding houses and accommodation projects. I bring their voice to this place. I hope the coalition parties and the Democrats hear it and I hope I have a better result in the next little while.18:42:0018500Anthony, Larry, MPMr ANTHONYXJ6RichmondNPMinister for Community Services10—in reply—I would like to thank members for their contributions to this debate on the Compensation Measures Legislation Amendment (Rent Assistance Increase) Bill 2000. In particular I would like to thank the member for Page and the member for Robertson for their expressions of support in relation to the bill, and I would like to also thank other members for their contributions to the debate. The opposition has not been able to avoid the temptation of making cheap political points out of some positive reforms that we are doing to increase rent assistance. The amendments put forward by the opposition are certainly not substantive amendments; they are no real amendments whatsoever. The A New Tax System (Compensation Measures Legislation Amendment) Act 1999, the compensation measures act, amends the Social Security Act 1991 and the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 to provide a seven per cent increase in the maximum rent assistance rates available to social security and veteran pensioners and other social security recipients. The increase applies from 1 July 2000. This bill amends the compensation measures act to ensure that a 10 per cent, instead of a seven per cent, increase applies to the maximum rent assistance rates from 1 July 2000. This change will provide extra assistance for people with low incomes in rental accommodation, including caravan park, mobile home and boarding house residents. The maximum rent assistance rates for the family tax benefit are also to be similarly increased by disallowable instrument made under subclause 8(1) of schedule 4 to A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Act 1999. The estimated cost of the further increases in the maximum rent assistance rates applicable to social security, veterans' affairs and family assistance customers is $33 million in each year. I certainly welcome the announcement of an extra $33 million per year in the maximum rate of rent assistance paid to pensioners and low income earners. Currently one million Australians receive $1.5 billion in rent assistance. The $33 million increase means that the government will provide an additional $100 million per year in rent assistance after 1 July under the new tax system. The decision to increase the maximum rate of rent assistance by another three per cent to 10 per cent will help renters across the board, whether they be in private accommodation, relocatable homes or boarding houses. The government's thorough education program for relocatable home residents and relocatable home park owners will ensure that both are aware of the pricing implications of the tax options.When coupled with the government's decision to monitor and consult on the concessional GST rate on relocatable homes, working with park owners and residents, and providing funding to ensure the smooth implementation of the new tax system, relocatable home residents are ensured of fair treatment under the tax system. The government has provided unprecedented compensation for the introduction of the new tax system. These rent allowance increases are part of the compensation package that includes the four per cent increase in pensions, increases in the pension asset test threshold and taper rates. That is compensation that Labor never provided when they increased taxes. Instead, Labor ditched the l-a-w income tax cuts that they had promised.I feel quite strongly about this issue. As we have seen in the past, the member for Lilley, along with the member for Grayndler, is only concerned about raising his profile. If he is not interested in raising his profile, he is obviously only interested in scaremongering pensioners. The member for Grayndler, who is in the chamber, has certainly adopted the same policy as the member for Lilley, that is scaring people—not just pensioners but some of the most vulnerable in our relocatable home parks across the country. Indeed, in the Sydney Morning Herald a couple of weeks ago we saw these two clowns masquerading as caravan park residents. There is nothing that the gremlin from Grayndler will stop at to invoke fear in a lot of great people, very good people who live in the northern part of New South Wales. The bottom line is that you certainly cannot trust the Labor Party on this issue. Certainly, the members for Lilley and Grayndler are using this only as a beauty contest to promote their own image.The government is about protecting a group of people. While the government believes that its GST compensation measures will more than cover cost increases, we are prepared to take extra measures to reassure renters that they will not be worse off under the new tax system. For this reason, the government announced that rent assistance will be increased from seven per cent to 10 per cent, an additional three per cent in maximum fortnightly rent. That is an increase in additional assistance from $5.40 to $7.70 per fortnight for singles, meaning the new maximum rate is $85, and from $5 to $7.25 for couples, meaning the new maximum rate is $79.80. The ACCC will be monitoring prices in relocatable home parks and boarding houses to ensure that the margins have not been increased. They have a very rigorous regime to ensure that there is no price discrimination. R36Albanese, Anthony, MPMr Albanese—Like they did with the mini-bar.XJ6Anthony, Larry, MPMr ANTHONY—I think the member for Grayndler has been spending a bit too much time at the mini-bar! When the ALP bumped up wholesale sales tax, they never had proper price surveillance mechanisms in place. We know that. On top of the four per cent increase in pensions and allowances, these measures will ensure that low income members of the community will be protected from any price increase under the new tax system. A thorough education strategy will ensure that operators and tenants in caravan parks and boarding houses are fully aware of both tax options and their pricing implications.Labor has misrepresented this issue and has spent much time putting fear into some of the most vulnerable people in our community. It has no genuine aim; it is just for the purposes of pure political point scoring. The bottom line is that you cannot trust Labor. Unlike the Labor Party, the government is acting responsibly. Those people receiving the maximum rate of assistance will see an automatic increase in assistance from 1 July. For those who receive rent assistance below the maximum rate, as some of them do, the assistance will increase 75c for every dollar increase in their rent. This means that if rents go up $8 they will receive $6 extra rent assistance. I think even the member for Lilley would agree with that arithmetic. Additional pensions and other social security payments will be increased by four per cent.I would like to take the opportunity to speak on some of the issues that were raised during the debate by the member for Lilley. The member for Lilley's stock in trade is to scare the most vulnerable in our community. That is exactly what he has done with many of these people in relocatable home parks. You cannot trust the figures that the member for Lilley uses. The member for Lilley claims that the September CPI will be 6.75 per cent. The budget forecast is for 4.5 per cent for September 2000, with 3.75 per cent attributed to the GST. For low income earners, this increase will be covered by a four per cent increase in pensions and other social security payments. The member for Lilley continues to misrepresent the government's achievements in protecting the value of pensions. Pensions have been maintained at CPI or better than CPI thanks to the government taking the initiative and legislating to increase pension rates to 25 per cent of male average weekly earnings. That was never done by the Australian Labor Party. The four per cent increase in pension payments on 1 July will take pensions above the CPI. Even the member for Hotham agrees with the government that pensioners will be two per cent better off in the long term.The government has brought forward two per cent of the March 2001 increases to make sure that pensioners have the money available at the time of the increase in prices from the GST. The government has also legislated to ensure that the maximum single rate of pensions is at least 25 per cent of male total average weekly earnings. As a result of this legislation, since March 1998 the maximum single rate of pensions has increased by $13 a fortnight, more than it would have done under Labor, and the maximum partner rate for each member of the couple has increased by $11 a fortnight more than it would have under Labor for the same period. If Labor were still in power and still indexing the pension to CPI, a single pensioner would have been $13 a fortnight worse off. After 1 July 2000, pensioners will receive an extra $15 per fortnight. Add to this an extra $13, which they would never have received under the Labor Party, and that makes a total of $28 a fortnight, effectively an increase of $700 per year. The member for Lilley claims, falsely, that pensioners are going to be worse off because they will have changes to their payday introduced by the government. They will be better off. All pensioners and allowees will have more money in their pocket after the new tax system begins on 1 July 2000. They will be paid on each and every day that they are entitled to it. Pensions and allowances will increase by four per cent. This will be $15.10 each fortnight for a single pensioner and $12.50 for each member of a couple. These payments are made on a daily basis at the end of each fortnight. That means that people are paid the amount that they are entitled to—fairly elementary, but the member for Lilley cannot comprehend it. The historic tax reforms that this government is putting in place will help pensioners and allowees. Under the old system, people who lost entitlements the day before a payday received no payments for the period at all. Labor supported our payment cycle legislation and has indicated no plans to change it. Once again, I can only say that the Australian Labor Party and the member for Lilley are only interested in scaring pensioners.Finally, the other point raised by the member for Lilley is concerning the FID—the financial institutions duty—which is a state tax. FID is not and will not be levied on social security payments made under the Social Security Act. I would expect that the states and territories would extend this existing policy to the new social security payments from 1 July 2000. All states and territories have a FID and have committed to abolishing it on 1 July 2001. Ironically, again the stock in trade of the member for Lilley is to just use scare tactics. If he is so concerned about the FID, why don't he and the member for Grayndler convince the state ALP governments to remove it? I reiterate that states and territories should adapt the same principles as those applying to payments under the Social Security Act.There has also been lots of mischief. I would not like to leave out the Marrickville maverick. The member for Grayndler prefers to spend more time in my electorate than in his. I know he likes holidaying up there. He has often said to his own members that he would prefer to represent there than Marrickville, so maybe he should be the new preselection candidate. The member for Grayndler spends an enormous amount of time spreading fear and loathing among pensioners.2V5Swan, Wayne, MPXJ6Anthony, Larry, MPMr ANTHONY—I welcome him contesting. The member for Grayndler never mentions his own party's record and what Labor would do to the children and grandchildren of the good people he is trying to con. He does not tell them that Labor hate the GST and because they hate it so much they are going to keep it if they get elected—if they get elected. He does not tell them that their kids can look forward to rampant inflation, three times the current home loan interest rates and double the rate of unemployment, which is the past record of the Labor Party. This was the case under 13 years of Australian Labor Party stewardship. He forgets to mention that the tax changes under Labor would not be revealed until after the election and that there is zero compensation—absolutely zero compensation. What we are seeing here by Labor is a cynical, opportunistic and gutless performance—83NHall, Jill, MP10000Quick, Harry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Quick)—I remind the member for Shortland that if she wishes to refer to members she must do so by their electorate, not by their Christian names.R36Albanese, Anthony, MP10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! The honourable member for Grayndler is warned.R36Albanese, Anthony, MPMr Albanese—Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. The minister at the dispatch box has referred to me in the House in a number of ways by—10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—There is no point of order.R36Albanese, Anthony, MPMr Albanese—My point of order is that I ask you to be consistent.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—There is no point of order. XH4McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGauran—Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. The honourable member concluded his intervention by saying that he required you to be more consistent. I regard that as a reflection on the chair, and it should be withdrawn.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—It is all right.XJ6Anthony, Larry, MPMr ANTHONY—The increase in the maximum rate of rent assistance in this bill will benefit those who need the help the most. These are people, especially single, elderly people, who currently spend the greatest proportion of their pension on rent. What is wrong with that? Helping those least able to help themselves has always been a foundation of this government's philosophy. Having said that, the government recognises that some rents will go up under Australia's new tax system, whether through input taxation or the concessional GST in parks where owners choose that option. That is precisely why the government has made available these compensation measures. For most low income renters, inside or outside parks, the government will pay the increased rent assistance payments. This is an additional three per cent increase in the maximum fortnightly rent assistance. As I mentioned before, this means additional assistance of $5.40 to $7.70 for singles, putting the maximum rate at $85, or $5 to $7.25 for couples, meaning the maximum rate is $79.80. Combine this with the ACCC's monitoring of the pricing of all caravan parks and boarding houses to ensure that the margins have not been increased. This is on top of the four per cent increases in pension allowances, to ensure that low income members of the community will be protected from any price increases under the new system. As I have mentioned before, we will engage in a thorough education strategy to ensure that operators and tenants in mobile home parks or boarding houses, whether they are in Sydney or Brisbane, are fully aware of both the tax options and the price implications. The amendment that the Australian Labor Party has moved is not a substantive amendment. It is not a real amendment at all. It is a political tactic with no real policy implications. I commend my comments to the House.Question put:That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr Swan's amendment) stand part of the question.19:03:00The House divided.(Mr Deputy Speaker—Mr G.B. Nehl) 72Abbott, A.J.Anderson, J.D.Andrews, K.J.Anthony, L.J.Bailey, F.E.Baird, B.G.Barresi, P.A.Bartlett, K.J.Billson, B.F.Bishop, B.K.Bishop, J.I.Brough, M.T.Cadman, A.G.Cameron, R.A.Causley, I.R.Charles, R.E.Draper, P.Elson, K.S.Entsch, W.G.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.Reith, P.K.Ronaldson, M.J.C.Scott, B.C.Secker, P.D.Slipper, P.N.Somlyay, A.M.Southcott, A.J.St Clair, S.R.Stone, S.N.Sullivan, K.J.M.Thompson, C.P.Thomson, A.P.Truss, W.E.Tuckey, C.W.Vaile, M.A.J.Vale, D.S.Wakelin, B.H.Washer, M.J.Wooldridge, M.R.L.Worth, P.M.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.Ellis, A.L.Emerson, C.A.Evans, M.J.Ferguson, L.D.T.Fitzgibbon, J.A.Gerick, J.F.Gibbons, S.W.Gillard, J.E.Griffin, A.P.Hall, J.G.Hatton, M.J.Hoare, K.J.Hollis, C.Horne, R.Irwin, J.Jenkins, H.A.Kernot, C.Kerr, D.J.C.Latham, M.W.Lawrence, C.M.Lee, M.J.Livermore, K.F.Macklin, J.L.Martin, S.P.McClelland, R.B.McFarlane, J.S.McLeay, L.B.McMullan, R.F.Melham, D.Morris, A.A.Mossfield, F.W.Murphy, J. P.O'Connor, G.M.O'Keefe, N.P.Plibersek, T.Price, L.R.S.Quick, H.V.Roxon, N.L.Rudd, K.M.Sawford, R.W *Sciacca, C.A.Sercombe, R.C.G *Sidebottom, P.S.Snowdon, W.E.Swan, W.M.Tanner, L.Theophanous, A.C.Zahra, C.J.Thomson, K.J.Costello, P.H.O'Byrne, M.A.Downer A J GRipoll B FHoward, J.W.Beazley, K.C.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative.Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time.Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.18505Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.Bill (on motion by Mr Anthony) read a third time.Miscellaneous18505Motion (by Mr Ronaldson)—by leave—agreed to:That the following order of the day, committee and delegation reports, be referred to the Main Committee for debate:Family and Community Affairs—Standing Com--mittee—Report on indigenous health—Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate.Bills18505R91018505Consideration resumed from 27 June 2000.19:11:0018505McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLANDJK6BartonALP00—by leave—I move opposition amendments Nos 1 and 2:(1) Schedule 1, item 75, page 18 (line 6), after “infringed”, insert “in the circumstances described in subsection (3B)”.(2) Schedule 1, item 75, page 18 (after line 15), after subsection (3A), insert:(3B) The circumstances in which the copyright in the original artistic work is not infringed because of subsection (3A) are that either:(a) the work has been lost, or has deteriorated, since the preservation reproduction of the work was made; or(b) the work has become so unstable that it cannot be dispalyed without risk of significant deterioration.These amendments relate to the circumstances of archives and libraries displaying material and the copyright attaching to it. The rationale for these amendments is that cultural institutions should not be allowed to make a digital reproduction of a work for display without reasonable remuneration to the copyright owner. To achieve that purpose, the ALP recognise that there will be a need in circumstances where the work has been lost, where the work has deteriorated since the digital copy was made and where putting the work on display would cause significant deterioration.The circumstances that these two amendments relate to are when cultural institutions want to display a work to the public. The bill already provides that such a display in electronic form will take place on a discrete unit which will not be connected to a printer, will not be connected to online facilities and will not have any copying facilities attached. So it will be a straight-out case of a person having access on a screen. We recognise that it will be appropriate to have that access without any breach of copyright in those circumstances to which I have alluded, and that is the purpose of our amendments.19:14:0018505Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration10—The government is prepared to accept these two amendments that, as the member for Barton has indicated, deal with libraries and archives in section 51A of the Copyright Act, which allows the reproduction and communication of works for preservation and other purposes. As it currently stands, the bill would allow institutions to make preservation reproductions available on their premises on terminals from which users could not copy or communicate the works. This exception is designed both to facilitate the preservation of artistic works through their digitisation and to enhance public access to such works. The opposition amendments would mean that a gallery could only make a preservation reproduction of an original artistic work available where the work had been lost or had deteriorated since the preservation reproduction was made, or where the original work had become so unstable that it could not be displayed without risk of significant deterioration. This is essentially consistent with the policy of the government that preservation reproduction should be made available to the public only in certain defined circumstances. As I said, the government accepts these amendments.Amendments agreed to.19:15:0018506McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLANDJK6BartonALP00—by leave—I move:(3) Schedule 1, item 98, page 24 (lines 16 to 22), omit subsection (3), substitute: (3) This section does not apply in relation to the supply of a circumvention device or a circumvention service to a person for use for a permitted purpose if: (a) the person is a qualified person; and (b) the person gives the supplier before, or at the time of, the supply a declaration signed by the person: (i) stating the name and address of the person; and (ii) stating the basis on which the person is a qualified person; and (iii) stating the name and address of the supplier of the circumvention device or circumvention service; and (iv) stating that the device or service is to be used only for a permitted purpose by a qualified person; and (v) identifying the permitted purpose by reference to one or more of sections 47D, 47E, 47F, 48A, 49, 50, 51A and 183 and Part VB; and (vi) stating that a work or other subject-matter in relation to which the person proposes to use the device or service for a permitted purpose is not readily available to the person in a form that is not protected by a technological protection measure.(4) Schedule 1, item 98, page 24 (line 25), omit paragraph (4)(a), substitute: (a) for use only for a permitted purpose relating to a work or other subject-matter that is not readily available in a form that is not protected by a technological protection measure; or(5) Schedule 1, item 98, page 24 (after line 28), after subsection (4), insert: (4A) For the purposes of paragraphs (3)(b) and (4)(a), a work or other subject-matter is taken not to be readily available if it is not available in a form that lets a person do an act relating to it that is not an infringement of copyright in it as a result of section 47D, 47E, 47F, 48A, 49, 50, 51A or 183 or Part VB.(6) Schedule 1, item 98, page 25 (before line 11), before the definition of supply, insert:qualified person means: (a) a person referred to in paragraph 47D(1)(a), 47E(1)(a) or 47F(1)(a); or (b) a person who is an authorised officer for the purposes of section 48A, 49, 50 or 51A; or (c) a person authorised in writing by the Commonwealth or a State for the purposes of section 183; or (d) a person authorised in writing by a body administering an institution (within the meaning of Part VB) to do on behalf of the body an act that is not an infringement of copyright because of that Part. (7) Schedule 1, item 98, page 25 (after line 14), at the end of section 116A, add: (9) The defendant bears the burden of establishing the matters referred to in subsections (3), (4) and (4A).These amendments relate to the use of circumvention devices. While the bill contains a procedure by which persons who seek to use a circumvention device are required to complete a declaration setting out that they are doing so for a permitted purpose, it is our view that that is not sufficient to protect the underlying rights of copyright owners. We recognise that the declaration is an appropriate mechanism by which people who have a legitimate interest in accessing a copyright work—for example, a computer programmer who needs to decompile a work to find out the background to a computer program in accordance with the existing exemptions for computer programmers—can do so by means of a circumvention device.However, we believe that stronger safeguards are needed to ensure that circumvention devices are not used in a widespread fashion to defeat legitimate copyright protection. So the opposition amendments substantially increase the requirements of this declaration mechanism to use circumvention devices. Our amendments require that only a qualified person should be entitled to use a circumvention device, and that is somebody who has a legitimate reason for using a circumvention device by virtue of the exemptions currently in the act, and they are set out in our amendments. Circumvention devices will only be lawfully used where the work or other subject matter is not readily available to that person in a form that is not protected by a technological protection measure. For instance, this will allow computer programmers to take advantage of the computer program decompilation exemptions passed through the parliament late last year without necessarily having to approach a software company. That would avoid the situation where, in approaching the software company, they may, if you like, be required to give away a trade secret or the nature of the reason they want to have access to the particular software program, which could impede their ability to develop their intellectual technology. We have set out in our amendments that the person will be required to provide a number of additional items in a declaration, and these are set out in the terms of our amendments.19:18:0018507Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration10—In responding to the amendments now moved by the honourable member for Barton, the government accepts these amendments as well. They deal with aspects of the new enforcement measures for circumvention devices and services in proposed section 116A of the bill. These amendments will provide additional safeguards for copyright owners in relation to the manufacture and supply of circumvention devices for legitimate permitted purposes by ensuring the effectiveness of declarations made under the new provisions.The opposition amendments are consistent with the policy of the government underpinning the new enforcement measure provisions. That policy has always been to provide copyright owners with effective tools to combat online piracy while still enabling reasonable access to copyright users under the recognised exceptions to copyright owners rights. I understand that my friend the honourable member for Barton will move similar amendments in relation to the criminal offence provisions in subsections 132(5A) and 132(5B) of the bill, as amended by amendments Nos 41 and 44 standing in my name. The government accepts these amendments moved by the honourable member for Barton.Amendments agreed to.19:20:0018507McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLANDJK6BartonALP00—I move:(8) Schedule 1, item 100, page 28 (line 34) to page 29 (line 3), omit subsection (5G), substitute: (5G) Subsections (5B) and (5C) do not apply in relation to the supply of a circumvention device or a circumvention service to a person for use for a permitted purpose if: (a) the person is a qualified person; and (b) the person gives the supplier before, or at the time of, the supply a declaration signed by the person: (i) stating the name and address of the person; and (ii) stating the basis on which the person is a qualified person; and (iii) stating the name and address of the supplier of the circumvention device or circumvention service; and (iv) stating that the device or service is to be used only for a permitted purpose by a qualified person; and (v) identifying the permitted purpose by reference to one or more of sections 47D, 47E, 47F, 48A, 49, 50, 51A and 183 and Part VB; and (vi) stating that a work or other subject-matter in relation to which the person proposes to use the device or service for a permitted purpose is not readily available to the person in a form that is not protected by a technological protection measure.This amendment is designed to recognise directors' copyright interests in films. Currently, section 90 of the act provides that the owner of the copyright in a film is the maker of the film, which is the producer or production company. We note that the United Kingdom and a number of European jurisdictions have already recognised directors' copyright, and we believe it is appropriate to recognise that the contribution of directors should be recognised so that they are included among the group of underlying rights holders who are remunerated for the retransmission of free-to-air broadcasts. So the opposition's amendments will provide that, in relation to films, the principal director is deemed to be a joint owner of any copyright subsisting in the film, together with the person owning any such copyright under section 90 of the act.19:21:0018508Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration10—The member for Barton will be disappointed to know that the spirit of bipartisanship spreads only so far in this place. This particular amendment proposes to include directors as joint owners of copyright subsisting in films for the purposes of remuneration under the proposed statutory licence for the retransmission of broadcasts, the part VC scheme. While the government is sympathetic to the arguments for recognition of directors as owners of copyright, we are not prepared to accept the opposition amendment at this time.The government's proposed scheme, under part VC, will provide for the payment of equitable remuneration to all recognised copyright owners, including owners of copyright in film. Under the current law, the maker of a film is generally deemed to be the copyright owner. This is usually the producer. These arrangements are long standing and well recognised in the film industry. Given that directors are not specifically recognised as copyright owners, it would be premature for the part VC scheme to provide for their remuneration.More importantly, the issue of directors' ownership of copyright in films is much broader than one of remuneration for the retransmission of films included in free-to-air broadcasts. For example, the Copyright Law Review Committee, in part 2 of its report on the simplification of the Copyright Act 1968, addressed the broad issue of ownership of copyright in different forms of copyright material, including films. It is clear, therefore, that this issue goes well beyond the scope of the digital agenda reforms. Accepting this proposal in relation to remuneration under the retransmission statutory licence would pre-empt a more comprehensive consideration of the issue of directors' copyright. For these reasons, the government does not accept amendment 8.Amendment negatived.19:23:0018508Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration10—by leave—I move government amendments Nos 1 to 40 together:(1) Schedule 1, item 8, page 4 (lines 16 to 27), omit the item.(2) Schedule 1, item 9, page 5 (line 2), omit “and”, substitute “or”.(3) Schedule 1, item 11, page 5 (lines 12 to 18), omit the item. (4) Schedule 1, item 14, page 6 (lines 1 and 2), omit “made available online or electronically transmitted”, substitute “that is communicated”.(5) Schedule 1, page 6 (after line 16), after item 15, insert:15A Subsection 10(1)Insert:simulcasting means simultaneously broadcasting a broadcasting service in both analog and digital form in accordance with the requirements of the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 or of any prescribed legislative provisions relating to digital broadcasting.15B Subsection 10(1)Insert:technological protection measure means a device or product, or a component incorporated into a process, that is designed, in the ordinary course of its operation, to prevent or inhibit the infringement of copyright in a work or other subject-matter by either or both of the following means: (a) by ensuring that access to the work or other subject matter is available solely by use of an access code or process (including decryption, unscrambling or other transformation of the work or other subject-matter) with the authority of the owner or licensee of the copyright; (b) through a copy control mechanism.(6) Schedule 1, item 22, page 7 (lines 30 and 31), omit the item.(7) Schedule 1, item 23, page 8 (after line 4), at the end of subsection (1A), add:Note: The reference to the conversion of a work into a digital or other electronic machine-readable form includes the first digitisation of the work.(8) Schedule 1, item 25, page 8 (line 14), omit “a process of”, substitute “any process, including”.(9) Schedule 1, item 25, page 8 (line 16), omit “a process of”, substitute “any process, including”.(10) Schedule 1, item 25, page 8 (after line 22), at the end of subsection (6), add:Note: The reference to the conversion of a sound recording or cinematograph film into a digital or other electronic machine-readable form includes the first digitisation of the recording or film.(11) Schedule 1, item 42, page 10 (line 29) to page 11 (line 7), omit the item, substitute:42 After section 39AInsert:39B Communication by use of certain facilities A person (including a carrier or carriage service provider) who provides facilities for making, or facilitating the making of, a communication is not taken to have authorised any infringement of copyright in a work merely because another person uses the facilities so provided to do something the right to do which is included in the copyright.(12) Schedule 1, page 11 (after line 7), after item 42, insert:42A Subsection 40(2)Omit “copying”, substitute “reproducing”.42B Paragraph 40(2)(e)Omit “copied”, substitute “reproduced”.42C Subsection 40(3)Omit “copying”, substitute “reproducing”.42D Subsection 40(4)Repeal the subsection, substitute: (4) Subsection (3) does not apply to a dealing by way of reproducing the whole or a part of an article in a periodical publication if another article in that publication, being an article dealing with a different subject matter, is also reproduced.(13) Schedule 1, item 46, page 11 (lines 24 to 26), omit the item, substitute:46 Section 46Omit “wireless telegraphy apparatus”, substitute “reception equipment”.(14) Schedule 1, page 11 (after line 26), after item 46, insert:46A At the end of section 47Add: (7) In this section: broadcasting does not include simulcasting.46B After section 47Insert:47AA Reproduction for the purpose of simulcasting (1) If the broadcasting of a literary, dramatic or musical work, or of an adaptation of such a work, would not for any reason constitute an infringement of the copyright in the work, but the making of a sound recording or a cinematograph film of the work or adaptation would, apart from this subsection, constitute such an infringement, the copyright in the work is not infringed by the making of such a recording or film solely for the purpose of simulcasting the work or adaptation in digital form. (2) Subsection (1) does not apply in relation to a recording or film if a record embodying the recording or a copy of the film is used for a purpose other than: (a) the simulcasting of the work or adaptation in circumstances that do not for any reason constitute an infringement of the copyright in the work; or (b) the making of further records embodying the recording or further copies of the film for the purpose of simulcasting the work or adaptation in such circumstances. (3) Subsection (1) does not apply in relation to a recording or film unless all records embodying the recording, or all copies of the film, made under that subsection are destroyed on or before the relevant date specified in the regulations. (4) For the purposes of subsection (3), the regulations may specify different dates in relation to different classes of sound recordings or cinematograph films.46C Before section 47BInsert:47AB Meaning of computer program In this Division:computer program includes any literary work that is: (a) incorporated in, or associated with, a computer program; and (b) essential to the effective operation of a function of that computer program.46D Paragraph 47B(1)(a)Omit “made in the course”, substitute “incidentally and automatically made as part of the technical process”.46E Paragraph 47B(2)(b)Repeal the paragraph, substitute: (b) contrary to an express direction or licence given by, or on behalf of, the owner of the copyright in the computer program to the owner or licensee of the copy from which the reproduction is made when the owner or licensee of that copy acquired it.46F Paragraph 47B(3)(a)Omit “made in the course”, substitute “incidentally and automatically made as part of the technical process”.46G At the end of section 47BAdd: (5) In this section:reproduction, in relation to a computer program, does not include a version of the program of the kind referred to in paragraph 21(5)(b).46H Subsection 47C(2)Omit “is not infringed by the making of a reproduction of the work”, substitute “, and in any work or other subject-matter held together with the program on the same computer system, is not infringed by the making of a reproduction of the program, or of such a work or other subject-matter”.46I Paragraph 47D(1)(b)After “licensee”, insert “, or a person acting on behalf of the owner or licensee,”.(15) Schedule 1, item 56, page 13 (line 22), omit “is”, substitute “might be”.(16) Schedule 1, item 57, page 13 (line 31) to page 14 (line 1), omit the item, substitute:57 Subsection 49(9)Repeal the subsection, substitute: (9) In this section:library does not include a library that is conducted for the profit, direct or indirect, of an individual or individuals.supply includes supply by way of a communication. (17) Schedule 1, item 59, page 14 (line 8), omit “the other”, substitute “a”.(18) Schedule 1, item 63, page 14 (lines 18 and 19), omit the item, substitute:63 Subsection 50(4)Repeal the subsection, substitute: (4) Subject to this section, if a reproduction of the whole or a part of an article contained in a periodical publication, or of any other published work, is, by virtue of subsection (3), taken to have been made on behalf of an authorised officer of a library, the copyright in the article or other work is not infringed: (a) by the making of the reproduction; or (b) if the work is supplied under subsection (2) by way of a communication—by the making of the communication.63A Subsections 50(6) and (7)Omit “copy” (wherever occurring), substitute “reproduction”. (19) Schedule 1, item 64, page 15 (lines 36 and 37) and page 16 (lines 1 and 2), omit subparagraph (7B)(e)(ii), substitute: (ii) if the reproduction is of the whole, or of more than a reasonable portion, of a work other than an article—stating that, after reasonable investigation, the authorised officer is satisfied that the work cannot be obtained in electronic form within a reasonable time at an ordinary commercial price; and (iii) if the reproduction is of a reasonable portion, or less than a reasonable portion, of a work other than an article—stating that, after reasonable investigation, the authorised officer is satisfied that the portion cannot be obtained in electronic form, either separately or together with a reasonable amount of other material, within a reasonable time at an ordinary commercial price; and (iv) if the reproduction is of the whole or of a part of an article—stating that, after reasonable investigation, the authorised officer is satisfied that the article cannot be obtained on its own in electronic form within a reasonable time at an ordinary commercial price.(20) Schedule 1, item 64, page 16 (after line 2), insert: (7C) If: (a) a reproduction is made in electronic form by or on behalf of an authorised officer of a library of the whole of a work (including an article contained in a periodical publication) or of a part of such a work; and (b) the reproduction is supplied under subsection (2) to the officer in charge of another library;subsection (4) does not apply in relation to the reproduction unless, as soon as practicable after the reproduction is supplied to the other library the reproduction made for the purpose of the supply and held by the first-mentioned library is destroyed.(21) Schedule 1, item 65, page 16 (lines 3 and 4), omit the item, substitute:65 Subsection 50(8)Omit “copy”, substitute “reproduction or communication”.(22) Schedule 1, item 66, page 16 (lines 5 to 9), omit the item, substitute:66 At the end of section 50Add: (10) In this section:supply includes supply by way of a communication.(23) Schedule 1, item 79, page 18 (lines 26 and 27), omit the item, substitute:79 Subsection 52(3)Repeal the subsection, substitute: (3) If a work, or part of a work, has been published and, because of this section, the publication is taken not to be an infringement of the copyright in the work, the copyright in the work is not infringed by a person who, after the publication took place: (a) broadcasts the work, or that part of the work; or (b) electronically transmits the work, or that part of the work (other than in a broadcast) for a fee payable to the person who made the transmission; or (c) performs the work, or that part of the work, in public; or (d) makes a record of the work, or that part of the work.(24) Schedule 1, page 21 (after line 2), after item 90, insert:90A At the end of section 107Add: (7) In this section:broadcasting does not include simulcasting.(25) Schedule 1, page 22 (after line 9), after item 93, insert:93A After section 110BInsert:110C Making of a copy of a sound recording or cinematograph film for the purpose of simulcasting (1) If the broadcasting of a sound recording or a cinematograph film would not for any reason constitute an infringement of the copyright in the recording or film, but the making of a copy of the recording or film would, apart from this section, constitute an infringement of the copyright, the copyright is not infringed by the making of a copy of the recording or film if: (a) the recording or film from which the copy is made is in analog form; and (b) the copy is made solely for the purpose of simulcasting the recording or film in digital form. (2) Subsection (1) does not apply in relation to a copy of a recording or film if the copy is used for a purpose other than: (a) the simulcasting of the recording or film in circumstances that do not for any reason constitute an infringement of the copyright in the recording or film; or (b) the making of further copies of the recording or film for the purpose of simulcasting the recording or film in such circumstances. (3) Subsection (1) does not apply in relation to a copy of a recording or film unless all copies of the recording or film made under that subsection are destroyed on or before the relevant date specified in the regulations. (4) For the purposes of subsection (3), the regulations may specify different dates in relation to different classes of sound recordings or cinematograph films.(26) Schedule 1, item 95, page 22 (lines 20 to 28), omit the item, substitute:95 After section 112DInsert:112E Communication by use of certain facilities A person (including a carrier or carriage service provider) who provides facilities for making, or facilitating the making of, a communication is not taken to have authorised any infringement of copyright in an audio-visual item merely because another person uses the facilities so provided to do something the right to do which is included in the copyright.(27) Schedule 1, page 23 (after line 1), after item 96, insert:96A Paragraph 115(4)(b)Repeal the paragraph, substitute: (b) the court is satisfied that it is proper to do so, having regard to: (i) the flagrancy of the infringement; and (ii) whether the infringement involved the conversion of a work or other subject-matter from hardcopy or analog form into a digital or other electronic machine-readable form; and (iii) any benefit shown to have accrued to the defendant by reason of the infringement; and (iv) all other relevant matters;(28) Schedule 1, item 98, page 23 (line 8), omit the heading to section 116A, substitute:116A Importation, manufacture etc. of circumvention device and provision etc. of circumvention service(29) Schedule 1, item 98, page 23 (line 10), omit “effective”.(30) Schedule 1, item 98, page 23 (line 17), omit “effective”.(31) Schedule 1, item 98, page 23 (line 19), after “sale or hire”, insert “or otherwise promotes, advertises or markets”.(32) Schedule 1, item 98, page 23 (line 28), after “sale or hire”, insert “or otherwise promoting, advertising or marketing”. (33) Schedule 1, item 98, page 24 (line 4), after “provides”, insert “, or by way of trade promotes, advertises or markets,”.(34) Schedule 1, item 98, page 24 (line 6), omit “effective”.(35) Schedule 1, item 98, page 24 (line 9), omit “effective”.(36) Schedule 1, item 98, page 25 (line 9), omit “49, 50,”, substitute “48A, 49, 50, 51A,”.(37) Schedule 1, item 98, page 26 (line 5), after “subsists”, insert “without the permission of the owner or licensee of the copyright”.(38) Schedule 1, item 98, page 26 (line 18), omit “removal or alteration”, substitute “act referred to in paragraph (a) that was done by the person”.(39) Schedule 1, item 98, page 26 (lines 26 and 27), omit “removal or alteration”, substitute “doing of the act”.(40) Schedule 1, item 99, page 27 (lines 10 to 12), omit the item.The government has closely considered the report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, and it has proposed a number of amendments to the bill in response to the committee's recommendations. Changes have also been made to the bill as a result of further consultation with key copyright interests, in addition to minor technical amendments. The committee's key recommendation was that the bill incorporate a right of first digitisation with limited exceptions. This was based upon the committee's concern about the ease of infringement of copyright material that has been converted from print to digital form. The government proposes to accept, in principle, the committee's key recommendation. This will be achieved through a package of amendments based on strengthening the enforcement regime for copyright owners in the digital domain. However, the government's response will address the recommendation without substantially limiting access to information by copyright users. The amendments include clarification of the bill so that the right of first digitisation is explicitly recognised as an economic right of copyright owners. The criminal penalties will be substantially increased where the offence involves the digitisation of copyright material. Further, the amendments will provide an explicit power for a court to award additional damages in a civil action where the infringement involves digitisation.In addition, libraries will be required to provide notices which specifically refer to the increased criminal penalties and civil damages, so as to limit their authorisation liability. These changes will provide a greater disincentive to undertake infringing activity involving digitisation, in addition to sending a strong message against piracy. Another of the key recommendations of the committee was for the removal of the proposed definition of `library' under the bill. The definition currently excludes libraries owned by for-profit corporations from using the library exceptions. The government accepts the recommendation and believes that this issue requires further examination to assess the impact of the proposed definition on the ability of private libraries to participate in the inter-library network. Other amendments to the bill arising from the committee's advisory report include finetuning of the library and archives exceptions, the extension of the statutory licence under part VA of the act to enable educational and other institutions to communicate copies of broadcasts, the finetuning of the technological protection measure and electronic rights management information provisions, and the extension of the enforcement measures under the proposed part VAA to encoded free-to-air television broadcasts.I present the explanatory memorandum for the government amendments. I have had to reduce the size of my speech due to the exigencies of time, but I do commend these amendments to the House.JK6McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClelland—The opposition will agree to these amendments.Amendments agreed to.19:27:0018513Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration10—I move government amendment No. 41: (41) Schedule 1, item 100, page 27 (line 13) to page 29 (line 26), omit the item, substitute:100 Subsection 132(5A)Repeal the subsection, substitute: (5A) A person must not provide, or by way of trade promote, advertise or market, a circumvention service if the person knows, or is reckless as to whether, the service will be used to circumvent, or facilitate the circumvention of, a technological protection measure. (5B) A person must not: (a) make a circumvention device; or (b) sell, let for hire, or by way of trade offer or expose for sale or hire, or otherwise promote, advertise or market, a circumvention device; or (c) distribute a circumvention device with the intention of trading, or engaging in any other activity that will affect prejudicially an owner of copyright; or (d) by way of trade exhibit a circumvention device in public; or (e) import a circumvention device into Australia with the intention of: (i) selling, letting for hire, or by way of trade offering or exposing for sale or hire, or otherwise promoting, advertising or marketing, the device; or (ii) distributing the device for trading, or for engaging in any other activity that will affect prejudicially an owner of copyright; or (iii) exhibiting the device in public by way of trade; or (f) make a circumvention device available online to an extent that will affect prejudicially an owner of copyright;if the person knows, or is reckless as to whether, the device will be used to circumvent, or facilitate the circumvention of, a technological protection measure. (5C) A person must not remove or alter any electronic rights management information attached to a copy of a work or other subject-matter in which copyright subsists, except with the permission of the owner or licensee of the copyright, if the person knows, or is reckless as to whether, the removal or alteration will induce, enable, facilitate or conceal an infringement of the copyright in the work or other subject-matter. (5D) A person must not: (a) distribute a copy of a work or other subject-matter in which copyright subsists with the intention of trading; or (b) import into Australia a copy of such a work or other subject-matter with the intention mentioned in paragraph (a); or (c) communicate to the public a copy of such a work or other subject-matter;without the permission of the owner or licensee of the copyright if any electronic rights management information attached to the copy has been removed or altered and the person: (d) knows that the electronic rights management information has been so removed or altered without the permission of the owner or licensee of the copyright; and (e) knows, or is reckless as to whether, the doing of the act referred to in paragraph (a), (b) or (c) will induce, enable, facilitate or conceal an infringement of the copyright in the work or other subject-matter. (5E) Subsections (5A) and (5B) do not apply in respect of anything lawfully done for the purposes of law enforcement or national security by or on behalf of: (a) the Commonwealth or a State or Territory; or (b) an authority of the Commonwealth or of a State or Territory. (5F) Subsections (5A) and (5B) do not apply in relation to the supply of a circumvention device or a circumvention service to a person if the person gives the supplier before, or at the time of, the supply a declaration signed by the person: (a) stating that the device or service is to be used only for a permitted purpose; and (b) identifying the purpose. (5G) Subsection (5B) does not apply in relation to the making or importing of a circumvention device: (a) for use only for a permitted purpose; or (b) to enable a person to supply the device, or to supply a circumvention service, for use only for a permitted purpose. (5H) For the purposes of this section, a circumvention device or a circumvention service is taken to be used for a permitted purpose only if: (a) the device or service is used to do an act comprised in the copyright in a work or other subject-matter; and (b) the act is done with the licence of the owner or licensee of the copyright, or is not an infringement of the copyright in the work or other subject-matter under section 47D, 47E, 47F, 48A, 49, 50, 51A, 183 or Part VB. (5J) The only burden of proof that the defendant bears in respect of subsection (5E), (5F) or (5G) is the burden of adducing or pointing to evidence that suggests a reasonable possibility that the act or matter in question was done or existed.19:28:0018515McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLANDJK6BartonALP00—by leave—I move opposition amendments Nos 1 to 3 to government amendment No. 41:(1) Government amendment 41, omit proposed subsection (5F), substitute: (5F) Subsections (5A) and (5B) do not apply in relation to the supply of a circumvention device or a circumvention service to a person for use for a permitted purpose if: (a) the person is a qualified person; and (b) the person gives the supplier before, or at the time of, the supply a declaration signed by the person: (i) stating the name and address of the person; and (ii) stating the basis on which the person is a qualified person; and (iii) stating the name and address of the supplier of the circumvention device or circumvention service; and (iv) stating that the device or service is to be used only for a permitted purpose by a qualified person; and (v) identifying the permitted purpose by reference to one or more of sections 47D, 47E, 47F, 48A, 49, 50, 51A and 183 and Part VB; and (vi) stating that a work or other subject-matter in relation to which the person proposes to use the device or service for a permitted purpose is not readily available to the person in a form that is not protected by a technological protection measure.(2) Government amendment 41, omit proposed paragraph (5G)(a), substitute: (a) for use only for a permitted purpose relating to a work or other subject-matter that is not readily available in a form that is not protected by a technological protection measure; or(3) Government amendment 41, after proposed subsection (5G), insert: (5GA) For the purposes of paragraphs (5F)(b) and (5G)(a), a work or other subject-matter is taken not to be readily available if it is not available in a form that lets a person do an act relating to it that is not an infringement of copyright in it as a result of section 47D, 47E, 47F, 48A, 49, 50, 51A or 183 or Part VB.Briefly, these amendments, as with the opposition amendments previously moved, are to tighten up the declaration procedure in respect of the use of circumvention devices.19:28:0018515Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration10—The amendments moved by the honourable member for Barton mirror those moved by him in relation to proposed section 116A of the bill. They will incorporate, in the criminal offence provisions, similar requirements as to the making of declarations as have been incorporated in the provisions dealing with civil proceedings. As I foreshadowed earlier, the government accepts these amendments. Amendment, as amended, agreed to. 19:29:0018515Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration10—by leave—I move government amendments Nos 42 to 102:(42) Schedule 1, page 29 (after line 26), after item 100, insert:100A After subsection 132(6)Insert: (6AA) If: (a) a person contravenes subsection (1), (2) or (2A); and (b) the article to which the contravention relates is an infringing copy because it was made by converting a work or other subject-matter from hardcopy or analog form into a digital or other electronic machine-readable form;the person is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction by a fine of not more than 850 penalty units and/or imprisonment for not more than 5 years. (6AB) If: (a) a person contravenes subsection (1), (2) or (2A); and (b) subsection (6AA) does not apply;the person is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction by a fine of not more than 550 penalty units and/or imprisonment for not more than 5 years.(43) Schedule 1, item 101, page 29 (line 27) to page 30 (line 3), omit the item, substitute:101 Subsection 132(6A)Omit “(1), (2), (2A), (3), (5) or (5AA)”, substitute “(3), (5), (5AA), (5A), (5B), (5C) or (5D)”.(44) Schedule 1, page 30 (after line 3), after item 101, insert:101A Subsection 132(9)Repeal the subsection, substitute: (9) In this section:article includes a reproduction or copy of a work or other subject-matter, being a reproduction or copy in electronic form.distribute includes distribute by way of communication.place of public entertainment includes any premises that are occupied principally for purposes other than public entertainment but are from time to time made available for hire for purposes of public entertainment.supply means: (a) in relation to a circumvention device—sell the device, let it for hire, distribute it or make it available online; and (b) in relation to a circumvention service—provide the service.(45) Schedule 1, page 30 (after line 6), after item 102, insert:102A Section 134After “of a device”, insert “(including a circumvention device)”.(46) Schedule 1, item 104, page 30 (line 23), omit “subscription”.(47) Schedule 1, item 104, page 30 (line 26) to page 31 (line 5), omit the definition of encoded broadcast, substitute:encoded broadcast means: (a) a broadcast that is made available only to persons who have the prior authorisation of the broadcaster and only on payment by such persons of subscription fees (whether periodically or otherwise); or (b) a broadcast (other than a radio broadcast or a broadcast to which paragraph (a) applies) delivered by a broadcasting service that is a commercial or national broadcasting service within the meaning of the Broadcasting Services Act 1992;being a broadcast, access to which in an intelligible form is protected by a technical measure or arrangement (including a computer program).(48) Schedule 1, item 104, page 31 (line 6), omit “subscription”.(49) Schedule 1, item 104, page 31 (line 14), after “in relation to”, insert “the manufacture of and dealing with”.(50) Schedule 1, item 104, page 31 (line 16), omit “subscription”.(51) Schedule 1 item 104, page 31 (line 18), omit “subscription”.(52) Schedule 1 item 104, page 31 (line 24), omit “subscription”.(53) Schedule 1 item 104, page 32 (line 3), omit “subscription”. (54) Schedule 1 item 104, page 32 (line 6), omit “subscription”.(55) Schedule 1 item 104, page 32 (line 11), omit “subscription”.(56) Schedule 1 item 104, page 32 (line 17), omit “subscription”.(57) Schedule 1 item 104, page 33 (after line 7), after section 135AN, insert:135ANA Actions in relation to the use of broadcast decoding devices for commercial purposes (1) Subject to subsection (2), this section applies if: (a) a broadcaster makes an encoded broadcast; and (b) a person uses, or authorises the use of, a broadcast decoding device to gain access to an encoded broadcast without the authorisation of the broadcaster; and (c) the person so uses, or authorises the use of, the device for the purposes of, or in connection with, a trade or business carried on by, or in association with, the person; and (d) the person knew, or ought reasonably to have known, that the broadcaster had not authorised the person to gain access to the broadcast by so using, or authorising the use of, the device. (2) This section does not apply in relation to anything lawfully done for the purposes of law enforcement or national security by or on behalf of: (a) the Commonwealth or a State or Territory; or (b) an authority of the Commonwealth or of a State or Territory. (3) Subject to subsection (7), if this section applies, the broadcaster may bring an action against the person. (4) The relief that a court may grant in an action under this section includes an injunction (subject to such terms, if any, as the court thinks fit) and either damages or an account of profits. (5) If, in an action under this section, the court is satisfied that it is proper to do so, having regard to: (a) the flagrancy with which the defendant did an act described in paragraph (1)(b); and (b) any benefit shown to have accrued to the defendant, or to the trade or business carried on by, or in association with, the defendant, as a result of the use of the broadcast decoding device; and (c) all other relevant matters;the court may, in assessing damages, award such additional damages as it considers appropriate in the circumstances. (6) If, in an action under this section, the court is satisfied that it is proper to do so, having regard to all relevant matters, the court may, by order, direct that the relevant broadcast decoding device be destroyed or otherwise dealt with as specified in the order. (7) An action cannot be brought against a person under this section in respect of an act described in paragraph (1)(b) after the expiration of 6 years from the time when the person did the act.(58) Schedule 1, item 104, page 34 (line 3), omit “subscription”.(59) Schedule 1, item 104, page 34 (line 12), omit “subscription”.(60) Schedule 1, item 104, page 34 (line 15), omit “subscription”.(61) Schedule 1, item 104, page 34 (line 19), omit “subscription”.(62) Schedule 1, item 104, page 34 (lines 29 to 36), omit subsections 135AS(4) and (5), substitute: (4) A person who contravenes subsection (1) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction by a fine of not more than 550 penalty units and/or imprisonment for not more than 5 years.(63) Schedule 1, item 105, page 35 (line 15), after “Copying”, insert “and communication”.(64) Schedule 1, page 35 (after line 16), after item 105, insert:105A Section 135AInsert:agreed notice means a remuneration notice specifying that the amount of equitable remuneration payable to the collecting society by the administering body giving the notice is to be assessed on the basis of an agreed system. (65) Schedule 1, item 108, page 35 (lines 21 to 23), omit the item, substitute:108 Paragraph 135B(a)Omit “transmission” (wherever occurring), substitute “broadcast”.Note: The heading to section 135B is replaced by the heading “Copies and communications of broadcasts”.108A Paragraph 135B(b)Repeal the paragraph, substitute: (b) a reference to the making of a copy of a broadcast is a reference to the making of a copy of the whole or a part of the broadcast; and (c) a reference to the communication of a copy of a broadcast is a reference to the communication of a copy of the whole or a part of the broadcast.108B Division 2 of Part VA (heading)Repeal the heading, substitute:Division 2—Copying and communication of broadcasts (66) Schedule 1, item 109, page 35 (lines 24 to 27), omit the item, substitute:109 Subsection 135E(1)Omit “transmission” (wherever occurring), substitute “broadcast”.Note: The heading to section 135E is replaced by the heading “Copying and communication of broadcasts by educational institutions etc.”.109A Subsection 135E(1)After “by the making”, insert “or communication”.109B Paragraphs 135E(1)(b) and (c)After “copy” (wherever occurring), insert “or communication”.109C Paragraph 135E(1)(d)Repeal the paragraph, substitute: (d) the administering body complies with subsection 135K(1) or (3), or section 135KA, as the case requires, in relation to the copy or communication.109D Subsection 135E(2)Omit “copy of a transmission”, substitute “copy, or communication of a copy, of a broadcast”.109E At the end of subsection 135E(2)Add “or communication”.(67) Schedule 1, page 36 (after line 1), after item 110, insert:110A At the end of section 135FAdd: (7) The copyright in a broadcast, or in any work, sound recording or cinematograph film included in a broadcast, is not infringed by the communication of a preview copy of the broadcast if: (a) the communication is made solely to enable an administering body to decide whether or not that copy should be retained: (i) for the educational purposes of the institution administered by it; or (ii) for use in the provision of assistance to persons with an intellectual disability by the institution administered by it; and (b) the communication is made only to the extent necessary for the purpose mentioned in paragraph (a); and (c) the communication is made within the preview period.Note: The heading to section 135F is replaced by the heading “Making and communication of preview copies”.(68) Schedule 1, item 111, page 36 (lines 2 and 3), omit the item, substitute:111 Subsection 135G(1)Repeal the subsection, substitute: (1) An administering body may, by notice in writing given to the collecting society by it, or on its behalf, undertake to pay equitable remuneration to the society for: (a) copies of broadcasts made by it, or on its behalf, while the notice is in force; and (b) communications of such broadcasts made by it, or on its behalf, while the notice is in force.111A Subsection 135G(2)Omit “or a sampling system”, substitute “, a sampling system or an agreed system”.(69) Schedule 1, item 112, page 36 (lines 4 and 5), omit the item, substitute:112 Subsection 135H(1)Repeal the subsection, substitute: (1) If a records notice is given by, or on behalf of, an administering body, the amount of equitable remuneration payable to the collecting society by the administering body for: (a) each copy of a broadcast made by, or on behalf of, the administering body while the notice is in force; and (b) each communication of such a broadcast made by or on behalf of the administering body while the notice is in force;is such amount as is determined by agreement between the administering body and the collecting society or, failing such agreement, by the Copyright Tribunal on application made by either of them.112A At the end of subsection 135H(1A)Add “and for the communication by, or on behalf of that body, of the broadcast”.(70) Schedule 1, page 36 (after line 7), after item 113, insert:113A At the end of section 135HAdd: (3) If: (a) a broadcast is copied by, or on behalf of, an administering body, or is taken under this subsection to have been so copied; and (b) the copy is communicated by, or on behalf of, the body by being made available online, or is taken under this subsection to have been so communicated; and (c) the copy remains so available online for longer than the prescribed period;then, when that period ends: (d) the broadcast is taken to have been copied again by, or on behalf of, the body; and (e) the copy mentioned in paragraph (a) is taken to have been communicated again by, or on behalf of, the body by making it available online for a further prescribed period. (4) For the purposes of subsection (1), an amount of equitable remuneration must be determined (whether by agreement or by the Copyright Tribunal) having regard to: (a) copies and communications to which paragraphs (3)(d) and (e) apply; and (b) such matters (if any) as are prescribed; and (c) such other matters (if any) as are relevant in the circumstances. (5) In this section:prescribedperiod means the period of 12 months, or if another period is agreed between the relevant administering body and collecting society for the purposes of subsection (3), that other period.(71) Schedule 1, item 114, page 36 (lines 8 and 9), omit the item, substitute:114 Subsection 135J(1)Repeal the subsection, substitute: (1) If a sampling notice is given by, or on behalf of, an administering body, the amount of equitable remuneration payable to the collecting society by the administering body for: (a) copies of broadcasts made by, or on behalf of, the administering body while the notice is in force; and (b) communications of such broadcasts made by, or on behalf of, the administering body while the notice is in force;is such annual amount as is determined by agreement between the administering body and the collecting society or, failing such agreement, by the Copyright Tribunal on application made by either of them.114A Subsection 135J(1A)Omit “transmissions made by or on behalf of that body”, substitute “broadcasts made by, or on behalf of, that body and for communications by, or on behalf of, that body of such broadcasts”.114B After subsection 135J(1A)Insert: (1B) If: (a) a broadcast is copied by, or on behalf of, an administering body, or is taken under this subsection to have been so copied; and (b) the copy is communicated by, or on behalf of, the body by being made available online, or is taken under this subsection to have been so communicated; and (c) the copy remains so available online for longer than the prescribed period;then, when that period ends: (d) the broadcast is taken to have been copied again by, or on behalf of, the body; and (e) the copy mentioned in paragraph (a) is taken to have been communicated again by, or on behalf of, the body by making it available online for a further prescribed period.114C Subsection 135J(2)Repeal the subsection, substitute: (2) The annual amount referred to in subsection (1) must be determined (whether by agreement or by the Copyright Tribunal) having regard to: (a) copies and communications to which paragraphs (1B)(d) and (e) apply; and (b) the extent to which other copies of broadcasts are made and communicated by, or on behalf of, the administering body in a particular period; and (c) such matters (if any) as are prescribed; and (d) such other matters (if any) as are relevant in the circumstances.114D Subsection 135J(3)Omit “of transmissions”, substitute “of broadcasts and the communication of those broadcasts,”.(72) Schedule 1, item 115, page 36 (lines 10 and 11), omit the item, substitute:115 Subsection 135J(5)Omit “transmission”, substitute “broadcast, or communication of a copy of a broadcast,”.115A At the end of section 135JAdd: (6) In this section:prescribed period means the period of 12 months, or if another period is agreed between the relevant administering body and collecting society for the purposes of subsection (1B), that other period.115AB After section 135JInsert:135JA Agreed notice (1) If an agreed notice is given by, or on behalf of an administering body, the amount of equitable remuneration payable to the collecting society by the administering body for: (a) copies of broadcasts made by, or on behalf of, the administering body while the notice is in force; and (b) communications of such broadcasts made by, or on behalf of, the administering body while the notice is in force;is an amount (whether an annual amount or otherwise) determined by agreement between the administering body and the collecting society or, failing such agreement, by the Copyright Tribunal on application made by either of them. (2) If a determination has been made by the Tribunal under subsection (1), either the administering body or the collecting society may, at any time after 12 months from the day on which the determination was made, apply to the Tribunal under that subsection for a new determination of the amount of equitable remuneration payable to the collecting society by the administering body for copies of broadcasts made and communicated by, or on behalf of, that body. (3) Subject to subsection (5), the matters and processes constituting an agreed system, and any matters that are necessary or convenient to be assessed or taken into account for the purposes of the system, must be determined by agreement between the administering body and the collecting society or, failing such agreement, by the Copyright Tribunal on application made by either of them. (4) If: (a) a broadcast is copied by, or on behalf of, an administering body, or is taken under this subsection to have been so copied; and (b) the copy is communicated by, or on behalf of, the body by being made available online, or is taken under this subsection to have been so communicated; and (c) the copy remains so available online for longer than the prescribed period;then, when that period ends: (d) the broadcast is taken to have been copied again by, or on behalf of, the body; and (e) the copy mentioned in paragraph (a) is taken to have been communicated again by, or on behalf of, the body by making it available online for a further prescribed period. (5) An agreed system (whether determined by agreement or by the Copyright Tribunal) must require the assessment of an amount of equitable remuneration by a method or process that takes account of copies and communications to which paragraphs (4)(d) and (e) apply. (6) For the purposes of subsection (1), different amounts may be determined (whether by agreement or by the Copyright Tribunal) in relation to different institutions administered by the administering body. (7) If: (a) an agreed notice is given by, or on behalf of, an administering body to the collecting society; and (b) during any period, the administering body does not comply with one or more of the requirements of the agreed system determined under this section in relation to the notice;subsections 135E(1) and 135F(1) do not apply to any copy of a broadcast, or communication of a copy of a broadcast, made by, or on behalf of, the administering body during that period. (8) In this section:prescribed period means the period of 12 months or, if another period is agreed between the relevant administering body and collecting society for the purposes of subsection (4), that other period.(73) Schedule 1, item 116, page 36 (lines 12 and 13), omit the item, substitute:116 Paragraph 135K(1)(a)Omit “of a transmission”, substitute “in analog form of a broadcast”.116A Paragraph 135K(1)(b)Omit “transmission”, substitute “broadcast, and each communication of such a copy,”.116B Paragraph 135K(1)(c)After “copy”, insert “or communication”.116C Subsection 135K(2)Omit “For the purposes of subsection (1), a record of the copying of a transmission:”, substitute “A record of the kind referred to in paragraph (1)(b):”.116D Subsection 135K(3)Omit “of a transmission”, substitute “in analog form of a broadcast”.116E After section 135KInsert:135KA Notice requirements in respect of communications If a remuneration notice is given by, or on behalf of, an administering body to a collecting society in respect of communication of copies of broadcasts made by, or on behalf of, the body while the remuneration notice is in force, the body must, except in such circumstances (if any) as are prescribed: (a) give a notice, in accordance with the regulations, in relation to each such communication made by it, or on its behalf, while the remuneration notice is in force, containing: (i) statements to the effect that the communication has been made under this Part and that any work or other subject-matter contained in the communication might be subject to copyright protection under this Act; and (ii) such other information or particulars (if any) as are prescribed; and (b) in the case of each such communication made by it, or on its behalf, while the remuneration notice is in force—take all reasonable steps to ensure that the communication can only be received or accessed by persons entitled to receive or access it (for example, teachers or persons receiving educational instruction or other assistance provided by the relevant institution); and (c) comply with such other requirements (if any) as are prescribed in relation to each such communication made by it, or on its behalf, while the remuneration notice is in force.(74) Schedule 1, item 117, page 36 (lines 14 and 15), omit the item, substitute:117 Paragraph 135L(1)(a)Omit “of transmissions”, substitute “of broadcasts and communication of such copies”.117A Paragraph 135L(1)(b)Omit “of copies of transmissions”, substitute “and communication of copies of broadcasts”.(75) Schedule 1, item 118, page 36 (lines 16 and 17), omit the item, substitute:118 Subsection 135N(1)Omit “or 135J, as the case may be, for copies of transmissions”, substitute “, 135J or 135JA, as the case may be, for copies of broadcasts and communications of such copies”.118A Subparagraph 135P(3)(d)(i)Omit “or 135J”, substitute “, 135J or 135JA”.(76) Schedule 1, item 119, page 36 (lines 18 and 19), omit the item, substitute:119 Subsections 135U(1) and (2)Omit “transmission” (wherever occurring), substitute “broadcast”.(77) Schedule 1, item 122, page 37 (line 6), after “work”, insert “and to communicate, or cause to be communicated, that copy or reproduction,”.(78) Schedule 1, item 123, page 37 (lines 8 and 9), omit the item, substitute:123 Section 135ZAOmit “of a copy of a transmission”, substitute “or communication of a copy of a broadcast”.(79) Schedule 1, item 151, page 42 (line 33), omit “communication”, substitute “the first communication of the work”.(80) Schedule 1, item 153, page 46 (line 19), omit “institution or otherwise, or”, substitute “the institution or otherwise, of”.(81) Schedule 1, item 183, page 51 (lines 19 to 23), omit the item.(82) Schedule 1, item 185, page 52 (after line 17), after subsection (2), insert: (2A) If: (a) a work is reproduced by, or on behalf of, an administering body, or is taken under this subsection to have been so reproduced; and (b) the reproduction is communicated by, or on behalf of, the body by being made available online, or is taken under this subsection to have been so communicated; and (c) the reproduction remains so available online for longer than the prescribed period;then, when that period ends: (d) the work is taken to have been reproduced again by, or on behalf of, the body; and (e) the reproduction mentioned in paragraph (a) is taken to have been communicated again by, or on behalf of, the body by making it available online for a further prescribed period. (2B) An electronic use system (whether determined by agreement or by the Copyright Tribunal) must require the assessment of an amount of equitable remuneration by a method or process that takes account of reproductions and communications to which paragraphs (2A)(d) and (e) apply. (2C) Subject to subsection (2B) but without limiting subsection (2), an electronic use system (whether determined by agreement or by the Copyright Tribunal) may be based upon a records system, a sampling system or any other process or system. (2D) For the purposes of subsection (1), different amounts may be determined (whether by agreement or by the Copyright Tribunal) in relation to different institutions administered by the administering body.(83) Schedule 1, item 185, page 52 (line 26), after “period”, insert “by”.(84) Schedule 1, item 185, page 52 (after line 28), at the end of section 135ZWA, add: (4) In this section:prescribed period means the period of 12 months, or if another is agreed between the relevant administering body and collecting society for the purposes of subsection (2A), that other period.(85) Schedule 1, item 189, page 53 (line 22), omit “is”, substitute “might be”.(86) Schedule 1, item 193, page 54 (lines 9 and 10), omit the item, substitute:193 Subparagraph 135ZZB(3)(d)(i)Omit “or 135ZW”, substitute “, 135ZW or 135ZWA”.(87) Schedule 1, item 200, page 55 (line 13), omit “135ZZS”, substitute “135ZZT”.(88) Schedule 1, item 200, page 55 (line 24), omit “135ZZW”, substitute “135ZZX”.(89) Schedule 1, item 200, page 55 (line 26), omit “of the same”, substitute “in the same”.(90) Schedule 1, item 200, page 56 (after line 9), after section 135ZZJ, insert:135ZZJA Application of PartThis Part does not apply in relation to a retransmission of a free-to-air broadcast if the retransmission takes place over the Internet.(91) Schedule 1, item 200, page 58 (line 5), after “kept of”, insert “the title of each program included in”.(92) Schedule 1, item 200, page 65 (after line 24), after section 135ZZZB, insert:Division 5—Miscellaneous(93) Schedule 1, item 201, page 66 (lines 11 to 16), omit paragraph (a), substitute: (a) in the case of a literary, dramatic or musical work—a licence to perform the work or an adaptation of the work in public, to broadcast the work or an adaptation of the work, to make a sound recording or cinematograph film of the work or an adaptation of the work for the purposes of broadcasting the work or adaptation, or to electronically transmit the work or an adaptation of the work (other than in a broadcast) for a fee payable to the person who made the transmission; or(94) Schedule 1, page 66 (after line 27), after item 203, insert:203A Subsection 153A(1)Repeal the subsection, substitute: (1) The parties to an application to the Tribunal under section 135H, subsection 135J(1) or subsection 135JA(1) for the determination of the amount of equitable remuneration payable to the collecting society by an administering body for the making or communication, by or on behalf of that body, of a copy of a broadcast are the society and the body.Note: The heading to section 153A is altered by omitting “or subsection 135J(1)” and substituting “, subsection 135J(1) or subsection 135JA(1)”.203B Subsection 153A(2)Omit “or subsection 135J(1)”, substitute “, subsection 135J(1) or subsection 135JA(1)”.203C Subsection 153A(2)After “the making”, insert “and communicating”.203D Paragraph 153A(3)(a)After “are made”, insert “and communicated”.203E Subsection 153A(4)After “broadcasts”, insert “, and to communications of such copies,”.203F Subsection 153A(5)Omit “, broadcast,collecting society and institution”, substitute “and collecting society”.(95) Schedule 1, item 204, page 66 (line 28) to page 67 (line 8), omit the item, substitute:204 After section 153BInsert:153BA Application to the Tribunal under subsection 135JA(3) (1) The parties to an application to the Tribunal under subsection 135JA(3) for the determination of an agreed system are the collecting society and the administering body concerned. (2) If an application is made to the Tribunal under subsection 135JA(3), the Tribunal must consider the application and, after giving the parties to the application an opportunity of presenting their cases, must make an order determining the agreed system. (3) In determining an agreed system, the Tribunal must have regard to such matters (if any) as are prescribed. (4) In this section:administering body and collecting society have the same meanings as in Part VA.(96) Schedule 1, page 67 (before line 9), before item 205, insert:204A Before section 153CInsert:153BB Application to the Tribunal under subsection 135ZME(3) (1) The parties to an application to the Tribunal under subsection 135ZME(3) for the determination of the division of an amount of remuneration are the relevant copyright owners. (2) If an application is made to the Tribunal for a determination under subsection 135ZME(3), the Tribunal must consider the application and, after giving the parties to the application an opportunity to present their cases, must make an order determining the division of the amount to which the application relates between the parties in such manner as it thinks equitable. (3) In making an order, the Tribunal may have regard to such matters (if any) as are prescribed.(97) Schedule 1, item 209, page 67 (line 22), omit “institution,”.(98) Schedule 1, item 210, page 68 (line 11), omit “institution,”.(99) Schedule 1, page 70 (after line 12), after item 217, insert:217A After section 203FInsert:203G Additional offences relating to declarations under subsections 116A(3) and 132(5F) (1) A person must not, under subsection 116A(3) or 132(5F), make a declaration, knowing the declaration to be false or misleading in a material particular.Penalty: Imprisonment for 12 months. (2) A person must not, under subsection 116A(3) or 132(5F), make a declaration, being reckless as to whether the declaration is false or misleading in a material particular.Penalty: Imprisonment for 6 months. (3) A person must not dispose of or destroy, or cause to be disposed of or destroyed, a declaration under subsection 116A(3) or 132(5F), being a declaration whose prescribed retention period has not expired, if the person knows, or is reckless as to whether, that period has not expired.Penalty: Imprisonment for 6 months.(100) Schedule 1, item 219, page 70 (lines 15 and 16), omit the item, substitute:219 Paragraph 203H(4)(a)Omit “a copy”, substitute “on a reproduction”.(101) Schedule 2, item 3, page 73, line 29, omit “(1) A licence, contract or arrangement (other than”, substitute “A licence, contract or arrangement (including”.(102) Schedule 2, item 3, page 74 (lines 1 to 3), omit subitem (2).19:29:0018524McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLANDJK6BartonALP00—I move:(4) Government amendment 44, proposed subsection (9), before the definition of supply, insert:qualified person means: (a) a person referred to in paragraph 47D(1)(a), 47E(1)(a) or 47F(1)(a); or (b) a person who is an authorised officer for the purposes of section 48A, 49, 50 or 51A; or (c) a person authorised in writing by the Commonwealth or a State for the purposes of section 183; or (d) a person authorised in writing by a body administering an institution (within the meaning of Part VB) to do on behalf of the body an act that is not an infringement of copyright because of that Part.I put on the record that I move this amendment for similar reasons as those previously outlined in relation to typing up the procedure with respect to circumvention devices.19:30:0018524Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration10—Mr Speaker, the amendment is consequential on the amendments moved by the honourable member for Barton. For the reasons I stated earlier, the government accepts this amendment. Amendment agreed to.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The question is that government amendments 42 to 102, as amended by the member for Barton's amendment No. 4, be agreed to.Amendments agreed to.Bill, as amended, agreed to18524Bill (on motion by Mr Slipper)—by leave—read a third time.Adjournment1852410000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 7.30 p.m., I propose the question:That the House do now adjourn.1852519:30:0018525Sidebottom, Sid, MPMr SIDEBOTTOM849BraddonALP00—The Australian Law Reform Commission and the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission released a report in 1997 called Seen and heard: priority for children in the legal process. While a significant amount of the report's focus is on the juvenile justice system, it also deals with children as consumers in the justice system, the issue of abuse and particular responsibilities relating to children in care. It also advocates setting up an office of the child to coordinate the Commonwealth's approach to matters affecting the child. The report was tabled in this House in November 1997, and the government is yet to respond to it—three years later, no response and none imminent.The victims and survivors of child abuse suffer a great deal, and over a lifetime. This is manifested in many ways. A great abuse has been perpetrated and the pain is horrible. Unfortunately, secondary suffering can occur because of the processes of disclosure. Finding and achieving justice for the victims and survivors of child abuse is often as painful and difficult as the primary suffering. Society acknowledges the rights of children and abhors any pain or suffering visited upon them, but try getting justice and support within the judicial system itself!The legal processes appear to have failed young people. Admittedly, there have been improvements to the laws that govern children and child abuse, but these still lack a national uniformity. They tend to penalise retrospectivity, and definitions of a legally recognised and actionable harm resulting from the infliction of trauma are so specific, such as to result in a diagnosable medical condition or illness, that they make the process too difficult in the first place.The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which came into force in Australia in 1991, specifically sets out in Article 19 the Commonwealth's responsibility in relation to the protection of children from all forms of abuse and to follow up instances of maltreatment. Children and young people are frequently denied access to and appropriate participation in the legal processes that affect them. To address this, changes are urgently needed across all levels of government and across all jurisdictions. The Commonwealth must take on a leadership and coordination role in what is after all a national problem with national social and economic costs.The recommendations of the 1997 national inquiry into children and the legal process are designed to give full effect to the right of children to be seen, heard and protected in the legal process, and with the full might of the law. Our children are our future. Abused children have an abused future. Australia's legal processes have consistently failed to recognise this fact by often ignoring, marginalising and mistreating children who turn to them for assistance. The 1997 report makes 286 recommendations to address disparities in the status of children before the law. Many of these recommendations are urgent and compelling. They affect children who are being abused or are exhibiting behaviours indicative of the pain which is often the result of being abused. They are breaking out rather than breaking free.Mr Antrum of the New South Wales Law Society has written and campaigned extensively on the issue of child abuse and the legal rights of children. He wrote:Neglect for children can start at home and work its way through all of our institutional and government frameworks because we do not give children a real voice. Victims of child abuse, their supporters and loved ones do not accept the traditional view of children—that they should remember their place, and that they should not make any sort of contribution until they are earning a wage and casting a vote. In short, they do not accept that children should be seen and not heard.This positive view was shared by members of the 1997 inquiry. The report was deliberately and specifically titled Seen and heard: priority for children in the legal process. The law, whether it be in criminal, civil or family jurisdictions, makes the task of achieving justice for survivors and victims of child abuse very difficult. Michael Longbottom, of Advocates for Survivors Against Child Abuse, poignantly argues of the legal system, and particularly in relation to my home state of Tasmania:Sadly the law by its nature can only be reactive not proactive in relation to sexual abuse. There is little evidence that punishment of criminals and awards of civil damages against perpetrators will deter offenders. The law provides some degree of justice for those who have been harmed but does little to prevent harm occurring in the first place.A survivor once wrote:I've looked the memories in the face and smelled their breath. They can't hurt me any more.We must help other survivors be able to reach the same conclusion.1852619:35:0018526Georgiou, Petro, MPMr GEORGIOUHM5KooyongLP10—Some 20 years ago I was a secretary of the Ethnic Television Review Panel, a body that played a substantial role in the establishment of SBS television. Despite bureaucratic and political resistance, in 1980 SBS television was launched by the Fraser government. Since then it has proven itself many times over as one of this nation's great broadcasting institutions. Indeed, internationally SBS is hailed as a unique success story and has recently won the outstanding achievement award at the prestigious Banff Television Festival in Canada.SBS broadens our horizons. It reflects and enhances the diversity of Australia's culture. It has developed an admirable news and current affairs tradition with much original and groundbreaking reporting. Overwhelmingly, SBS has been a great success story. It has set high standards of innovative broadcasting in our ethnically diverse multicultural society, and it has helped to unite us as a nation. SBS television has proved popular with Australians of both non-English and English speaking backgrounds, and that popularity is increasing. In 1991, 2.7 million people tuned into SBS in an average week. Today that figure is more than 6.2 million.In May of this year, Newspoll found that 71 per cent of Australians surveyed valued SBS television, 78 per cent of Australians agreed that it is important that SBS be available to provide an alternative to ABC television and 86 per cent of Australians agreed that it is important that SBS be available to provide an alternative to the commercial stations. SBS is transparently and strongly supported by the Australian public. Repeatedly, this government has recognised the importance and success of SBS and has reaffirmed its commitment to the network with increasing funding and support. I was disturbed to read in the newspapers over the weekend reported comments by the new Managing Director of the ABC, Mr Jonathan Shier. Mr Shier is reported to have said that SBS is `patronising and dated' and that `it is a great regret for the ABC that SBS exists'. Mr Shier has used his first press conference in his new office to make a public statement advising all of us that he regrets that SBS exists. Mr Shier has lived and worked away from this country for more than 20 years. I think it is a little presumptuous of him—returning to Australia after an absence that spans the entire life of SBS—to, in his first major public statement, seek to undermine and damage an institution which we have successfully created, quite uniquely, in this country and which is highly regarded, popular and flourishing. To be frank, it is not apparent why we must be lectured with foolish assumptions and why an institution that has proven its success and which is much valued, appreciated and supported by the Australian community should now be denigrated or undermined by ignorant whim. I was also quite bemused by Mr Shier's statement that he was sad that Australian politicians do not feel that they could support the ABC. I, for one, do support the ABC. Like most politicians—probably all politicians—I do not always agree with their coverage. But I appreciate the ABC's successful current affairs programs, as do a great many of my constituents and my colleagues. The ABC has fine traditions of world-class current affairs reporting, and it is important that there be no diminution of their quality coverage. Such coverage is especially commendable and important, given that internationally there is increasingly a dumbing down of lightweight current affairs reporting. One would expect that the ABC would not ape the worst of international fashions but be encouraged to bring to the Australian public the high calibre of current affairs coverage that has served us well in the past.1852719:40:0018527Emerson, Craig, MPMr EMERSON83VRankinALP00—I feel it is my duty to relay some horrifying facts about child abuse in Australia. Infants in Australia are at greater risk of death by homicide than any other age group. Almost 100,000 children in Australia are reported abused or neglected each year. Ninety-four per cent of abused children are harmed by someone they know and trust and 71 per cent of abused children are harmed by their natural parent. Sixty-four per cent of women psychiatric in-patients have been victims of abuse. Seventy-six per cent of women and 72 per cent of men with severe mental illness have been abused. Homeless young people who have been physically or sexually abused are two to four times more at risk of attempting suicide than non-abused homeless young people. It is estimated that 80 to 85 per cent of women in Australian prisons have been victims of incest or other types of abuse. The odds of future delinquency, adult criminality overall, and arrest for a violent crime specifically, are around 40 per cent greater for people abused and neglected as children. Let us just dwell for a second on what it would be like to be abused as a child. That child, in being abused, would have feelings of being bad. A young baby or a young child being abused, if they were aware of it, would think that they had done something wrong and that they were bad. This will cause great confusion and trauma for the child. It will also cause great confusion and trauma as they reach adulthood—suffer the little children. These are children who suffer in silence because they cannot go to the police and report this crime. There is emerging evidence of the effect of abuse on the development of a child's brain; that is, physiological and chemical changes that affect those children all their lives. That is why we get these horrifying statistics.Struggling parents often find it very hard to cope. That is why they lash out, often in fits of rage, and abuse their children. Maybe they have no-one to turn to. How often is that the case? Society is losing its cohesion. It is losing a support base for parents, and some of those parents are then striking out at their children and abusing them. We are launching Purple Ribbon Day here today and Purple Ribbon Month—purple signifying compassion on the part of the Australian people and parliamentarians, in particular, towards the victims of child abuse, and also a commitment from us to do more to support parents who are struggling. Already there are positive parenting programs springing up in various states, which are proving to be spectacularly successful. Through home visiting and other means, they support struggling parents.I wish to thank Jan Watson, who came down from Wyong today. She gave us this idea. She has been working on and promoting Purple Ribbon Month for several years. She gave us the idea of launching `parliamentarians against child abuse' and Purple Ribbon Day today. Jan is in the House today observing this debate. I also want to thank the Kids First Foundation, NAPCAN and the hardworking staff of the departments of community and family services all around Australia. They are often much maligned, but we know those departments are underfunded and the staff themselves are under great stress. I am sure they do the very best job that they can. But more needs to be done, and that is why we are commemorating Purple Ribbon Day today—to promote that awareness. I believe that if we work together to let all Australian children blossom into loving and caring people, free of the scourge of abuse and neglect, then we as parliamentarians will have done this country a great service. There is a duty, an obligation on all of us, to do so. 1852719:45:0018527Vale, Danna, MPMrs VALEVK6HughesLP10—I wish to acknowledge my parliamentary colleague the member for Rankin on the other side of the House and join with him and our other colleagues here in promoting Purple Ribbon Day and Parliamentarians Against Child Abuse. This is such an important issue, and I believe the rest of the nation will give its approval to our combined efforts in seeking to break the barrier of silence on child abuse. There can be no greater cause on which parliamentarians can unite than the prevention of child abuse amongst Australian children. The number of children reported as being abused or neglected in Australia has virtually doubled in the last decade. In 1991 there were 49,721 cases of child abuse and neglect reported, but by 1998 this had grown to an alarming 98,568. The purple ribbon project was started through the good work of Jan Watson on the Gold Coast back in 1994, but it has struck a real chord in the wider Australian community. Today there are many councils and community organisations promoting the wearing of purple in the month of July. As this parliament will be in recess during July, we have decided—and we are grateful for the support of the whips, the Speaker and the President of the Senate—to uphold Purple Ribbon Day today.Earlier this year, on 16 March, I spoke of the horror of child sexual abuse and the excellent work of the Sutherland Shire branch of the Advocates for Survivors of Child Abuse in my electorate. Tonight I would like to focus on a study recently released by the Australian Institute of Criminology. The campaign to raise the level of awareness of child abuse within our communities was never more relevant than this week with the launch of the study of homicide in Australia from 1989 to 1999, entitled Homicidal encounters. This report is a comprehensive study of homicide in Australia during the last decade. What I found particularly disturbing in this report was that it found that the group for which there was the highest level of danger of dying as a result of murder was babies under 12 months of age. More disturbing still is that, despite the effective campaigns by schools to raise the level of `stranger danger', it is people the children know who are more likely to pose a danger to them. According to the statistics—and this will probably shock many ordinary Australians—distressed mothers are the main perpetrators of deaths of babies. The next group capable of inflicting death, injury, or sexual or physical abuse on little children is de facto partners. This report says that children are very rarely killed or abused by a stranger.In the period covered by this report, from 1 July 1989 to 30 June 1999, a total of 316 children were murdered. This figure represents 8.6 per cent of all homicides in Australia. The high vulnerability of children to violent abuse by adults is cited as having been a crucial factor in the deaths of these children, as the use of firearms, knives or other weapons is infrequent. Regrettably, the report says that children under the age of five are more likely to be beaten to death, while younger children are more likely to be suffocated, violently shaken or thrown. There are also cases of children dying due to criminal neglect. This study cites two common scenarios which emerge from the data as being circumstances which contributed to the death of children: family disputes and fatal abuse. In many cases involving the deaths of children, it is difficult to determine whether a killing was the act of an angry or frustrated response or a result of a series of continuous abuses of the child. Certainly there were case studies which suggested a long history of child abuse before the child was eventually murdered.The major question for each and every one of us then is: what can we do as a government to protect our children and babies from violence and abuse by adults? What can we do to reach out to help the mothers who are obviously stressed beyond endurance? We all instinctively know that prevention is 10 times better than cure, and the best prevention is support for parents from the time young babies are brought home from hospital. Once upon a time, this support was freely and easily available from extended family members, especially the female relatives of the mother: her own mother, the grandmothers, aunties and sisters. However, with many women in the work force today, young mothers are often left alone at a very crucial time, with no-one from whom they can seek advice, support or companionship. While education has a very important role to play in the prevention of child abuse, the emotional support of the young family, especially the mother, is vital during the crucial period of the baby's first year. This is a real community problem and its solutions will come from the community. In my electorate, an innovative program under the auspices of Rotary's Hope for the Children—Sutherland Family Network—has undertaken the task of supporting families in distress. The network arranges for trained volunteers to visit young mothers who are having difficulty coping with the demands of their family. This corps of volunteer grandmothers and mothers do not act as babysitters; they visit the families in their homes and actually mother the mothers. They give emotional support to the mothers and assist with friendship and advice on child care. The gratitude of many of the mothers because of the value they place on the presence of a volunteer in their home is one measure only of the success of important intervention; the other is the safety and welfare of the children. (Time expired)1852919:50:0018529McFarlane, Jann, MPMs JANN McFARLANE83CStirlingALP00—I am pleased to be able to stand here tonight as a member of the Parliamentarians Against Child Abuse, to wear my purple ribbon and to join with my colleagues from other parties to raise the issue in the House as a means of raising awareness in the community about this dreadful situation of continuing child abuse in Australia. I would also like to commend Jan Watson, who is sitting in the gallery tonight, for her efforts in bringing this issue up in the community and in raising awareness. In my first speech I talked about coming from a background of family violence and the effect it had on me and on my family's life. One of the reasons I went into community work 25 years ago was that I had a strong interest in social justice. I wanted to make the world a better place and, in particular, I wanted to make sure that other families did not have to suffer as I and my siblings did when we were children. This is an important issue. Unless it is raised in the community and community awareness is kept at a level so that neighbours, friends, relatives and people who notice something will do something about it, we will never, ever improve the situation for future generations. I agree with my colleagues' words tonight.1852919:51:0018529May, Margaret, MPMrs MAY83BMcPhersonLP10—As a mother and an elected representative, I am very concerned about the increasing problem of child abuse throughout the community, and I feel very strongly about joining my parliamentary colleagues in supporting Purple Ribbon Day. No caring Australian can bear the thought of any child enduring abusive or violent treatment. As politicians we have a special obligation to alert the public to this dreadful problem. For many, the problem of child abuse is easy to ignore. Every now and then we hear of a particularly sickening case which receives widespread media attention, but the vast majority of instances occur behind closed doors when no-one is watching.Abuse often leaves no easily identifiable physical marks. It takes many forms, including emotional abuse, such as constant criticism and belittling; sexual abuse; and neglect, including insufficient food, shelter or medical care. Every single child deserves to grow up in a loving and secure environment but, unfortunately, the reality is very different for many abused children. Their innocence and trust are shattered. Too scared or too small to speak out, they suffer silently and bear the physical and psychological scars into adulthood. Hopefully, someone will take notice of these children—a stranger, a teacher, a relative—and sound the alarm. Often, though, kids are not that lucky.I am proud to say that 14 years ago a group of professionals decided to sound the alarm. They saw the need to address the increasing problem of child abuse in Queensland by establishing a treatment program for abused children and their families. Two years later the Abused Child Trust was born. The first day centre, known as Contact House, was set up in Brisbane for families at risk of or experiencing abuse. The organisation reached the hearts and consciences of many Queenslanders and was able to expand its services. In 1999 Contact House was set up on the Gold Coast. Each year on the coast, the Department of Families, Youth and Community Care is notified of approximately 700 families who need help. Contact House provides a small but important service which counsels children under 10 years of age—and their families—affected by forms of abuse and neglect, emotional and sexual abuse. At the moment the service is counselling about 12 families. Contact House delivers vital and worthwhile assistance but, unfortunately, it hardly scratches the surface of the problem. Each year 91,000 Australian children are abused. One in 170 children under nine is a victim of abuse and neglect; that is one child in every third classroom. Ninety-three per cent of abused children are harmed by someone they know, 71 per cent by their natural parent. And it is not only the child victim who suffers: the repercussions are felt throughout the entire community. The tendency for criminal behaviour, including violent crime, delinquency and drug addiction, increases by 40 per cent for people who were abused and neglected as children. It is estimated that 80 to 85 per cent of women in Australian prisons have been victims of incest or other types of abuse. Abused adolescents carry significantly greater risk factors for suicide than non-abused children. These are the sorts of sad lives the Abused Child Trust aims to prevent.The trust believes that abuse need not have long-term harmful effects if victims have access to sensitive and effective treatment. The specialised therapy programs the trust provides enable each child to achieve his or her full potential. By breaking the cycle of child abuse, the trust is also saving taxpayers huge sums of money. It costs $60,000 a year to maintain one prisoner in a high security jail cell. When you consider the statistics on the links between the criminal behaviour I mentioned earlier, the massive costs are evident. It is incumbent on all members of the community to support our children—Australia's future. In particular, I would like to congratulate Lionel Barden, a businessman on the Gold Coast who has generously donated vast sums of his time and money towards addressing the problem of child abuse. Gold Coast trust executive director Jane Anderson has said:There is a high demand for the service on the Coast and while funds from supporters pay for a two day a week service there is a desperate need to extend it to a full-time facility.Sadly, our statistics certainly demonstrate that this lifeline is desperately needed. I know the Gold Coast community will get behind this worthy cause, and I look forward to doing all I can to help.1853019:56:0018530Edwards, Graham, MPMr EDWARDS83RCowanALP00—I have the privilege of being a member of the Australian Paralympic Games Team, not as an athlete, I regret to say, but as a member of the Team 2000 support staff. In a different capacity, I am Chairman of the WA Paralympic Committee and I am also a member of the Pollies for the Paralympians. I have a particular concern that I want to alert fellow Pollies for the Paralympians to tonight. It relates to what many would see as a matter of discrimination. I say `discrimination' because, while our Olympians and their support staff will—and rightly so—enjoy free entry to the Olympic Village for the duration of the Games, our Paralympians are being charged $1,085 each for the same privilege; not only that, but the additional 23 staff they need, as the host team, are going to be charged $4,000 each.Traditionally, home teams are given good financial concessions by their organising bodies in their home country. This is because home teams often have to assist visiting teams with a host of duties. They need to be prepared to step in at any time to extend a helping hand to visiting teams or visiting athletes, many of whom simply cannot afford to travel with a full complement of support staff. In addition, once again because this is a home games for Australia, the team needs extra support staff and additional media to cater for the expected rush of public interest that will flow once people see just how exciting and enthralling these games are going to be. So the 23 extra staff are a necessary component of a successful Team Australia. People with a knowledge of the Paralympics will know that concessions were made in Seoul, Barcelona and Atlanta to the home teams for those respective games. Then why the difference in Australia? I am aware that the federal and state governments have contributed an additional $10 million each towards the Sydney Paralympic Organising Committee. Of the $1,085 being charged for each member of the Australian Team, $1,000 goes to the Sydney Paralympic Organising Committee and the balance to the International Paralympic Committee. The Australian team is expected to have a membership of approximately 425. What I cannot understand is why our Paralympians are being charged if, as I understand it, our Olympians are not being charged at all. Believe me, I am not building a case to say that the Olympians should be charged—far from it. What I am saying is that the organisers should not discriminate against our Paralympians and they should also not be charged. I raise this issue here because I am aware that there is significant bipartisan interest in our Paralympians and that many members from both sides of the House have taken these champion athletes to heart. I am also aware that negotiations on this matter continue.In closing, I will give the House an example of this discrimination. Take, for example, world champion athlete Louise Sauvage, who is expected to be involved with both the Olympics and the Paralympics. As an Olympian, she will have free access to the Olympic Games. However, when she comes to compete as a Paralympian, the Australian Paralympic Committee will have to pay an entry fee of $1,085 on her behalf. I am a great admirer of Louise Sauvage and I have a poster of her on the window of my office. It quotes her as saying:I train, I sacrifice, I sweat, I win.Louise could add another line to say `I am discriminated against.' It is not good enough and it should be rectified. I thank members for their interest and I undertake to come back to the House to advise members of the outcome of those negotiations. In the interim, I am sure that all fair minded Australian sports followers will be disappointed to learn of this disturbing situation and, like me, will wonder why some of our greatest athletes face what many will simply see as the ultimate discrimination.1853119:59:0018531Lawler, Tony, MPMr LAWLER834ParkesNP10—In the couple of seconds available to me this evening, I would like to follow on from my fellow member and make a comment about the Paralympics. I commend him for his speech and for bringing to our attention a situation that I was not aware of. A young lady by the name of McKenzie Ling, who is five-years-old and is from Lake Cargaelligo Central School, is representing her area as the Lachlan Shire entrant in the Young Achievers for Paralympic Sport initiative. Over the next few months, she and her mother will be working to raise much needed funds for the Australian Paralympians to fulfil their dreams to represent Australia in the 2000 Games. Any help that anyone could give to support McKenzie Ling and other members of the public who are working hard to raise funds for the Paralympics I am sure would be most welcome. I commend McKenzie and others who are also involved in this activity.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 8.00 p.m., the debate is interrupted.20:00:0018531House adjourned at 8.00 p.m.Notices18531The following notices were given:BT4Kemp, Dr David, MPDr Kemp—to present a bill for an act to grant financial assistance to the States for 2001 to 2004 for primary and secondary education, and for related purposes.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr Reith—to present a bill for an act to amend the Workplace Relations Act 1996 in relation to tallies and picnic days, and for related purposes. XJ6Anthony, Larry, MPMr Anthony—to present a bill for an act to make amendments of the social security law, the family assistance law, and other Acts, and for related purposes.XH4McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGauran—to present a bill for an act to amend the Telecommunications (Consumer Protection and Service Standards) Act 1999, and for related purposes.DK6Hockey, Joe, MPMr Hockey—to present a bill for an act relating to the application of the Criminal Code to certain offences, and for other purposes.DK6Hockey, Joe, MPMr Hockey—to present a bill for an act to amend the Trade Practices Act 1974, and for related purposes.YT4Scott, Bruce, MPMr Bruce Scott—to present a bill for an act to amend the Social Security Act 1991 and the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986.YT4Scott, Bruce, MPMr Bruce Scott—to present a bill for an act to amend the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986, and for related purposes.YT4Scott, Bruce, MPMr Bruce Scott—to present a bill for an act to amend the law relating to veterans and the families of veterans, and for related purposes.7K6Entsch, Warren, MPMr Entsch—to present a bill for an act to amend the Patents Act 1990 by repealing the petty patent scheme and providing for innovation patents and other minor amendments, and for related purposes.0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr Slipper—to move:That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to Parliament: Navy ammunitioning facility, Twofold Bay, NSW.0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr Slipper—to move:That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to Parliament: Defence Science and Technology Organisation rationalisation project, Melbourne.0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr Slipper—to move:That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: RAAF Base Edinburgh, Redevelopment Stage 1, Adelaide.0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr Slipper—to move:That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Defence Science and Technology Organisation rationalisation project, Melbourne.0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr Slipper—to move:That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Fitout of new leased premises for the Australian Bureau of Statistics, Belconnen, ACT.0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr Slipper—to move:That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: CSIRO Energy Centre at Steel River, Newcastle, NSW. 2000-06-28—————Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl) took the chair at 9.40 a.m.Statements by Members185331853318533Quick, Harry, MPMr QUICKAV5FranklinALP00—Today I want to raise the impact of this government's stance on the GE issue and the dangers to our export trade from introducing genetically modified organisms, GMOs, into our agricultural systems. I am especially concerned by the potential for damage to Tasmania's international clean green reputation and niche market advantage. Apart from the serious questions raised by sectors of the scientific community about food safety hazards and potentially catastrophic environmental damage as a consequence of unleashing the GE genie, the immediate concern for Australia, and Tasmania in particular, is that approval and release of GMOs into our backyard destroys our clean green marketing advantage and access to the escalating market demand for clean, safe products.There has been widespread publicity concerning negative European reaction to GE produce, with GE bans implemented in Germany and France. Recent surveys in Japan reveal that two-thirds of Japanese trading houses do not want GE produce. The big multinationals who invest heavily in the GE technology, and are now under some threat, have initiated a highly coordinated campaign and have applied a great deal of pressure to attempt to influence state and federal governments.Tasmania's reputation and vast economic potential in clean green produce exports is under threat not only from this government's GE policy but also from the activities of agents of the multinationals in Tasmania which are being kept secret from the public. It is very perplexing indeed that Buz Green, the chief executive of Serve-Ag, Tasmania's major supplier of agricultural chemicals and the company overseeing trials of GMO crops at secret locations in Tasmania, is also a member of the Tasmanian Development Board, which oversees the direction of Tasmania's Department of State Development.Under the Bacon government, Tasmania has an active policy for organic industry development. The primary industry minister, David Llewellyn, has made it clear that the introduction of GMOs threatens clean food industry development. To me, it seems a blatant conflict of interest for Buz Green to provide a board advisory role to the department while leading the charge for GMO technology in Tasmania. It was only recently revealed that trials of GMOs on department of primary industry research farms were being conducted without the knowledge of the minister. Buz Green has led the pro-GMO public campaign in Tasmania, arguing that GE technology and organic or clean green production can coexist. What absolute rubbish that is.Tasmanian food industry leaders have taken a strong stand against GE products. The Tasmanian Apple and Pear Growers Association, the Viticulture Association and the Tasmanian Beekeepers Association have declared support for a GE-free Tasmania. The success of Tasmania's niche market dairy produce for companies like King Island Dairies has been severely threatened by the introduction of GMOs, with customers demanding GE-free verification. I would urge all Tasmanians to work to ensure that our great state becomes a GE-free bastion.1853318533Elson, Kay, MPMrs ELSON6K6FordeLP10—I was very privileged earlier this month to meet eight very special young women who most recently graduated from the Youth Enterprise Trust. The trust is a remarkable organisation which I am very proud to have in my electorate and to personally support. The trust's aims are to help children get back on track and find purpose and meaning in their lives following drug addiction. The trust runs several challenging programs designed to help participants explore their inner strengths, boost their confidence and find a way to contribute to their community. It was wonderful to see the optimism in this group of young people, each of whom had to meet many challenges and difficulties in their young lives. They had excelled on the wilderness experience and Kurrajong phase of the trust's program. I want to take the time in this place today to congratulate them once again on their courage and achievements and to encourage them to continue to achieve and succeed in whatever they set their minds to.I know that their families and friends are extremely proud of them for taking up the tough fight and for sticking at it. On behalf of the government, I would like to congratulate Melissa, Joanne, Carina, Deanna, Juanita, Tracey and the two Rebeccas. I also want to thank most sincerely the founder, Lloyd Hancock, as well as Colin Barnett and everyone at the Youth Enterprise Trust for their ongoing work.The fight against drugs is one of the most important challenges we face as a society. I know first-hand the devastating effect that drug addiction can have on the life of a young person and the enormous impact on those who love them. I want to take this opportunity to thank many local residents, friends and colleagues who expressed their kind thoughts and well wishes to me and my family over the past week.I also want to take this opportunity to thank the local media, Channel 9, Channel 10, the ABC and SBS for affording the incident involving my son the same media coverage it would have received had he been the son of a teacher or a taxidriver—none at all. The media often gets a bad rap, and I want to take the time to thank them for both their good sense and their sensitivity. Unfortunately, there was one notable exception—the sensationalism of Channel 7, which gave the story head billing on Brisbane news two nights in a row. It was crass in the extreme.I am prepared to cop most things in this job, but I am not prepared to sit back and take the way the local Channel 7 crew harassed family members when they came to my home, and then totally sensationalised the story—to the point of gross inaccuracy. I do not have the time to list all the things that were simply untrue in their story but will just say that, in classic tradition, they did not let the facts get in the way of a good story. I am surprised and saddened at the actions of Michael Coombes, the journalist involved. I wonder whether he stopped to think for a moment about the impact his dramatised and incorrect reporting of events would have on my seven other children and my grandchildren? Did he stop for one minute to consider whether the story would have rated a second look, let alone a mention on the news, had it been another family? Did he stop for one minute to consider whether his off-the-cuff demeaning remarks made in the courthouse in front of my children were insensitive and hurtful? It is a shame that there was one media organisation that lived up to all the worst expectations the community has of that profession.1853409:45:0018534Sawford, Rod, MPMr SAWFORD3J4Port AdelaideALP00—I would like to put forward the unfashionable proposition that, over the last 20 years, orthodox economic theory has been greatly overvalued, has been far too blindly accepted without question and has had significant failures.Economists have important outcomes to discuss and contribute. But philosophers have important ideas also. So, too, have social scientists and historians who are trained in the observation of human behaviour. Yet philosophers, social scientists and historians appear to have been relegated to minor importance over the last 20 years. Economists, by their very training, are rather more singular in their nature. It is a weakness seldom commented upon. The reductionism so associated with economic rationalism reduces much human activity to a dollar cost. But reductionism also reduces the human spirit. All people in our society crave the essential trinity of vision, process and outcomes. Economists correctly tell us that outcomes are important. I have no trouble with that whatsoever. But it ought to be pointed out that outcomes without a coherent rationale and translated process often end up at a place not intended or useful. Witness the economists' predictions. Are they ever accurate? I think not!A weakness in the training of economists is that they ignore the fact that we live in a pluralistic society where one size does not fit all and that diversity is a strength rather than a weakness. No-one should be surprised or overcritical of that fact. Economists are neither philosophers nor social scientists, but one of their general consequent behaviours is that they are generally devoid of any major purpose in a modern society. Economists generally are unable to recognise original ideas. That they are therefore also unable to translate any new thinking to appropriate processes is to state the obvious. Yet, in so much policy formation these days, economists masquerade their way through rationale and process when essentially all they do is give a different slant to a set of outcomes.Notwithstanding the oft quoted humorous observation that seven economists with two hands each have 14 views because they are saying, `On the one hand we have this and on the other hand we have that,' economists play a very important role in the provision of various sets of options to governments. But governments' role to integrate economic options with a sum total of human experience has failed too many people in both the developed and the developing world. Unemployment, underemployment and the exclusion of people from the labour market are now chronic and endemic. The divide between the haves and the have-nots has widened dramatically and continues to do so. The disengagement of citizens from mainstream politics continues unabated. We should not be surprised.Ignoring two-thirds of human experience has a consequence. Economists and financial markets dominating and driving government activity have a casualty rate much larger than acknowledged. What is surprising is that so many of the current influential class have failed to recognise that very fact.1853509:45:0018535Baird, Bruce, MPMr BAIRDMP6CookLP10—It is my pleasure today to speak on the recent Australian parliamentary delegation to the European institutions in Brussels, Strasbourg and Luxembourg which I had the privilege to lead. It ran from 11 to 16 June. I give my special thanks to my colleagues who accompanied me on the trip—Martyn Evans, Harry Jenkins, Senator Julian McGauran and Senator Natasha Stott-Despoja—and to the secretary of the delegation, Claressa Surtees. It was a very harmonious delegation and we learnt much from the visit. The assistance that was provided by the Ambassador, Don Kenyon; the Deputy Head of Mission, Justin Brown; the Minister-Counsellor (Agriculture), Peter Thomas; the First Secretary, Janaline Oh; and the Third Secretary, Max Wang, was also much appreciated. The latter two, in particular, went out of their way to assist us in every possible way during our visit.We had very useful discussions. Firstly, we had discussions with the President of the European Court of Human Rights, Mr Luzius Wildhaber, ranging over the full gamut of activities in which they are involved, the difficulties of establishing priorities with a very significant increase in the demand on the court, and the way in which they may need to make decisions in the future and prioritise where they move. We also had discussions with the Secretary-General of the Council of Europe, Dr Walter Schwimmer. That was interesting in terms of the problems that confront them as the council enlarges following the demise of the Eastern bloc and those countries becoming part of Europe in general. We had our most significant discussions with the European Delegation for Relations with Australia and New Zealand. Those discussions were hosted by Mr James Nicholson, the delegation chair. During our visit we discussed many issues of importance. I list amongst them the issues that Harry Quick mentioned: GMOs, climate change, Timor, Fiji and asylum seekers. All of us gained from those particular discussions. We will be turning in future times to talk about those issues.There were other issues that were important. We visited the Court of Justice of the European Communities in Luxembourg and understood the pressures on it as it is the court of final deliberations in terms of Europe. Europe is changing and evolving very much. It is our largest commercial partner in trade and investment. This parliament needs to continue the dialogue with the European parliament as we grow and expand as a nation.1853618536Mossfield, Frank, MPMr MOSSFIELDMK6GreenwayALP00—The introduction of the GST is now only a matter of days away. It is a policy that this government have had in detail, despite the `never, ever' claims to the contrary, since 1992—some eight years ago. Yet despite the length of time they have had the policy in their possession and the almost 1,500 amendments already made to date, they still cannot seem to get it right. Take, for instance, the building industry. I have had several constituents contact me in recent weeks concerning their building projects and the GST. These people have entered into contracts in good faith to have homes built or extensions added. The buildings were supposed to be completed by now and thus not attract the hideous new tax. In many instances, people have budgeted specifically for these projects to be completed before the introduction of the GST. The projects may not have been contemplated had the new tax system already been in place. However, shortages of labour and materials, Olympic related construction and just plain bad weather have resulted in unprecedented delays in the completion of building projects. All of these conditions are completely outside the control of the people for whom the houses are being built and will now attract the tax from next week. The Housing Industry Association estimates that some $300 million in extra tax revenue will be made by the federal government as a result of the delays being experienced—not bad money for a few rainy days. This is revenue that the government never expected. It is revenue that should never have been paid because the work should have been completed. The extra GST slug could range anywhere between $2,000 and $10,000, depending on how close the project is to completion. Builders on fixed price contracts will be forced to foot the bill themselves and somehow absorb the cost—that is, if they do not go bankrupt as a result.Some of my constituents have borrowed the maximum amount that the bank will allow them and they are now faced with the burden of an increased tax bill. It is a tax bill, remember, and as such will add nothing to the value of the homes under construction. There is no increased equity in the homes and because of this the banks are not going to lend the extra money needed to pay the Treasurer his cut. Clarendon Homes—the largest project home builder in New South Wales—which is based in Blacktown, in the heart of my electorate, has called for a 16-week moratorium in order to complete the projects that were due to be completed before the introduction of the tax. Both builders and customers have entered into these deals in good faith and have budgeted accordingly. Because of a number of factors, all outside the control of the parties involved, the government is set to reap this $300 million windfall. Unfortunately, without a tax amnesty for work that was due to be completed and not attract the tax, the government will also reap the consequences of increased bankruptcies as both customers and builders go to the wall. (Time expired)1853718537Cameron, Ross, MPMr ROSS CAMERON3K6ParramattaLP10—I wonder whether you could cast your mind back to 1983. It was probably about 4 o'clock in the morning, by my recollection, when hundreds of thousands of bleary-eyed Australians sat watching the footage and listening to the commentary as Australia II, under the command of John Bertrand, defeated Dennis Connor of the Stars and Stripes, and Bob Hawke famously said that any employer who did not give his employees the day off on that day was `a bastard', if I remember correctly.10000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—A bum.3K6Cameron, Ross, MPMr ROSS CAMERON—My apologies to the former Prime Minister. On Friday, 26 July we sat watching the herculean come-from-behind victory of Kieran Perkins—and I think it was Denis Commeti who did the commentary in the last 50 metres of the 1,500 metre swim. Those two events, in my mind, have perhaps been the most unifying national moments. The celebrations of 1988 were big, but those two events drew the whole nation together. On the day Australia II won, I remember going to university and seeing a couple of colleagues on City Road in black tie and tails drinking champagne at 7 o'clock in the morning.I want to draw the attention of the House to the problems of the 3.1 million deaf and hearing impaired Australians who can see the pictures but who cannot hear the commentary. As we come up to the Olympics, we are fortunate that Channel 7 are the broadcaster because, in terms of industry standard, they have provided the best leadership—far better than Channel 10, or even Channel 2. But in my view there is still a long way to go. At the moment, they have committed to captioning for the prime time, the opening and closing ceremonies and from 1 p.m. to 11 p.m. on weekends. But today I am asking them to find a way to close the loop and to go further by providing 24-hour captioning of the Olympic Games for the deaf and hearing impaired. We have the technology to do it. The Australian Caption Centre tell me that, at a cost of about $250,000, they can make up the difference between what is captioned at the moment, what is planned for captioning and what is unplanned.I want those 3.1 million Australians to be able to hear the commentary of Denis Commeti and Neil Brooks as it was delivered for Perkins. I want them to know that they share with all other Australians the unifying moments of the games coming up. From there we need to look to 2001 in the data broadcasting environment to lift the levels of captioning of all free-to-air networks from the relatively low levels that exist at the moment to reach into the lounge rooms of those 3.1 million deaf and hearing impaired Australians.10000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Order! In accordance with standing order 275A, the time for members' statements has concluded.Bills18537R108018537Debate resumed from 26 June, on motion by Mr Bruce Scott:That the bill be now read a second time.09:58:0018537Lindsay, Peter, MPMr LINDSAYHK6HerbertLP10—I would like to take this opportunity to speak to the House on an issue which affects a large proportion of people in Townsville and Thuringowa in my electorate of Herbert. Many of you will know that within my electorate I have Australia's ready deployment force. It is my people who go when we need to go quickly, and we are very proud of that. It also happens to be the largest defence base in the Commonwealth of Australia, and of course Townsville is widely known as a garrison city. It has enjoyed that reputation since the time of World War II when there were 100,000 Americans based in Townsville in relation to the Coral Sea battles. There are units in Townsville which are exceedingly interested in the Defence Legislation Amendment (Flexible Career Practices) Bill 2000. Apart from 3 Brigade and 11 Brigade, we have the 1st Battalion of the Royal Australian Regiment, 2nd Battalion of the Royal Australian Regiment, 3 Brigade Administrative Support Battalion, 4 Field Regiment, 3/4 Cavalry Regiment, 5 Aviation Regiment—the celebrated Black Hawks who will be in the forefront of maintaining security at the Olympic Games—10/4 Four Support Battalion, 103 Signal Regiment and so on. We have a very large concentration of members of the ADF, and of course we cannot forget the 500 men and women at RAAF Townsville.In accordance with the government's intentions to introduce flexible practices for members of the Australian Defence Force, this defence legislation amendment bill amends defence legislation to extend the limited tenure promotion scheme to the promotion of officers of the Army to the rank of lieutenant colonel and to the promotion of officers of the Navy to the rank of commander. The legislation also allows the rejection of a resignation of an officer of the Army or Navy which is tendered during an initial minimum period of service, and there have certainly been some difficulties associated with that, and this legislation will clarify that within the ADF. Finally, this legislation allows members of the Army and the Navy to change the nature of their appointment, whether they be officers or soldiers and sailors, from open-ended to fixed, and I think that that will certainly be welcome.These amendments are part of a strategy to develop flexible employment practices to provide service chiefs with an enhanced ability to shape the defence uniformed workplace. I think that it is Defence following what is happening in the private sector. It is Defence making sure that it is up with modern business practices and certainly, in this sense, we will go forward to achieve those goals. I certainly know from my direct dealings with the ADF at Townsville's Lavarack Barracks that this sort of legislative amendment will free up the bureaucratic process of progress. More broadly, the bill supports the process of creating a more flexible employment environment in the Australian Defence Force.I see the Navy has now joined us, and I welcome Townsville being made a home port base for the Navy where we can put the Tobruk, the Manoora and the Kanimbla—move them out of Sydney and up to where they are really needed. Instead of having a forward base in Townsville to support the 3rd Brigade, I think we should have a home port base. And to the Army, which have just joined us now as well, the ADF at Lavarack Barracks do a wonderful job for Australia out of Townsville, and it is great to see.The bill has its origins in the 1995 Personnel Policy Strategy Review—the Glenn review. This report noted that the changes in the demographic and social trends needed to be matched by new personnel strategies in the Defence Force. The coalition government has delivered on its 1998 election undertaking to increase standards within the Australian Defence Force. We have maintained defence spending in line with forward estimates in the 1999-2000 budget. Indeed, Defence was the only element in the coalition's first budget which escaped any cuts to cover the deficit that was left by the previous government. That was warmly applauded by members in Townsville and Thuringowa.I see too, Mr Deputy Speaker Nehl, as you will have seen, yesterday's announcement by the government in relation to the consultative process that we are now going to go through in the lead-up to the white paper. The Prime Minister has said—and he has said this now on a number of occasions—that, in his view, we need to significantly increase funding in the defence forces. I see in this morning's press an amount of about $500 million was flagged for the next budget, and that will be welcomed by officers and men of the Australian Defence Force. Not many people will know that we gave an undertaking in 1998 to create an Office of the Revolution in Military Affairs, the RMA, and to provide $10 million to the Defence, Science and Technology Organisation to conduct research into RMA. The government also indicated an undertaking to invest in chemical, biological and radiological defence, as well as addressing the Jindalee over-the-horizon radar and Collins class submarine projects. It is a matter of history now that the Defence Minister, John Moore, who I think is probably one of the best defence ministers this country has had, has faced up to the problems with those projects and, in a proper businesslike manner, has indicated quite clearly that it is the government's intention to get those things back on the rails, to get them fixed and not let them bump along the bottom as they had been doing. It was a breath of fresh air when the minister looked at the Collins class submarine project and indicated that he was not going to take any nonsense on what was going on. He wanted to know what the situation was and he wanted to get it fixed. The government is certainly going in that direction.It is interesting that, in 1996-97, we were able to redirect $125 million of Labor's administrative waste towards capability related initiatives, including the acquisition of night fighting equipment, additional Harpoon missiles and air-to-air and air-to-surface weapons. I believe $125 million is quite a bit of money to do that; and that was in relation to our vision that the resources of the ADF had to be where the action was. An efficiency review of defence was commissioned and led to the announcement of the Defence Reform Program in April 1997. On maturity, the DRP will realise ongoing efficiency in excess of $900 million every year and a one-off saving of $500 million to be redirected to combat capability. I know that there was some cynicism about that in the ADF, but currently the DRP is ahead of schedule in its task of achieving those savings and those savings are being redirected to the sharp end. By the end of 1998-99 there were accumulative achieved ongoing savings of something over a quarter of a billion dollars per annum and that was ahead of the schedule that the government expected.Under Labor, Australian Defence Force personnel numbers were cut and little was done to increase combat capability. In fact I think it is fair to say, and any reasonable person would draw the conclusion, that under the previous government combat capability was certainly run down. That is the advice that I received time after time. The Army's self-assessment after the previous government was that units were not adequately prepared for combat, the Army lacked sufficient combat power and, with some exceptions, units were understaffed, poorly equipped and had a low readiness level. Of course, that is not taking into account where the morale was.This bill addresses some of the fundamental problems that were created and it is good to see that the government is moving forward in being proactive in relation to the ADF. Commonwealth expenditure on defence, of course, was steadily reduced in the time of the last government. Defence outlays as a proportion of total budget outlays declined from 9.4 per cent to eight per cent. I think that that was noted by the ADF and, of course, administrative inefficiency was rife. Not wanting to be unkind, many used to say that the most bureaucratic organisation in the country was the ABC. That has certainly changed these days. Some have then said that it is CASA. I have just been with Mick Toller and I think that his organisation is changing—10000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Order! I am reluctant to interrupt the flow of eloquence of the member for Herbert but, apart from one glancing reference to the subject of the bill, he has spoken now for 11 minutes and has not mentioned flexible career practices. I encourage him to spend some of his time at least on discussing the subject of the bill. HK6Lindsay, Peter, MPMr LINDSAY—Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will conclude on that point, with your indulgence, by saying that perhaps the most inefficient organisation may now be the Australian Defence Force. In relation to the issues we are speaking about today, they will enable the ADF to get the efficiencies that they need. They will allow for flexibility in the nature of appointments to the ADF. They will prevent the problem which arises where an officer wants to resign from the service during the initial minimum period of service. The extension of the limited tenure promotion scheme to officers in the Army must also be commended. This bill has the support of members of the ADF in my patch. They have asked me to relay that to the parliament. I indicate my strong support as well.10:11:0018540Snowdon, Warren, MPMr SNOWDONIJ4Northern TerritoryALP00—I am pleased to follow the previous speaker, the member for Herbert, who gave a very wide ranging address in relation to Defence Force matters, some aspects of which, as you rightly pointed out, Mr Deputy Speaker, did not have anything to do with the defence forces. I will make my contribution relevant to the defence forces. I acknowledge that the purpose of the Defence Legislation Amendment (Flexible Career Practices) Bill 2000, as outlined in the Bills Digest, is to amend the legislative conditions governing the appointment and retention of Army and Navy officers and enlisted members by, firstly, extending the limited tenure promotion scheme to ranks of lieutenant colonel in the Army or commander in the Navy, or higher ranks; secondly, permitting Army and Navy officers and enlisted members to voluntarily change their appointment from open-ended to a fixed term; and, thirdly, allowing the rejection of the resignation of an officer who has not served a minimum period after appointment to that rank.As the Digest points out, one of the issues confronting the Defence Force at the moment is the question of separation rates. In 1998-99 the separation rate was 14 per cent. Those of us who have been following issues related to the defence forces will know of the difficulties that the defence forces have had with recruitment, and now with this question of retention. There is a question relating to the levels at which people can be recruited. Those are issues which are being confronted in this parliament by the Defence Subcommittee of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade in its inquiry into the Army. I am pleased to support the amendments that are before the Main Committee today. I acknowledge that they are as a result of the inquiry which was undertaken by Graham Glenn in 1995. He conducted a comprehensive review of trends and factors which influence and impact upon defence personnel policies. I think this is very important. Defence personnel policies are something which I am acutely aware of, and something which I have raised in this House as recently as last week. I will come back to it in a moment.The Defence Personnel Policy Strategy Review—the Glenn review—made a large number of recommendations, as the Bills Digest describes, relating to employment, work practices, pay entitlements, family support, training, education and the reserves. Several of these recommendations related to flexible work practices, a fundamental change from the notion of a lifetime military career. The Glenn review stated:We favour greater choice, flexibility and options ... We are proposing a fundamental shift away from traditional (reactive) recruiting practices and from what for many members is an undertaking of a lifetime career from the outset. In this context, we favour a system of constant recruitment and what we have called phased careers with Fixed Terms of Employment to stabilise the recruitment of people and permit more effective management and control of separations.That is fine but, as I have had reason to observe in recent days, there appears to be a great deal of rhetoric coming from senior levels of Defence and, indeed, from this government about the importance of defence personnel issues. I note the contribution of the previous speaker, in which he commented on the state of affairs when this government came to office. Among other things, he talked about low morale and said that, in his view, the defence forces were poorly equipped and had low levels of readiness. I can say to him that that has very clearly been the case. It has been demonstrated very clearly that in terms of a review to our operations in East Timor what we have demonstrated is clearly how this government has dropped the ball in relation to the defence forces. The questions of readiness, recruitment, separations and morale are issues which have not been properly addressed by the current government. There is a great deal of independent advice and of work which has been done to analyse our engagement in East Timor. There is absolutely no doubt that those Defence Force personnel who have been involved in that deployment have given exemplary service to this nation and the East Timorese community. But the defence forces could have given it a hell of a lot better had they been properly kitted, had the defence personnel issues been properly and adequately addressed and had the morale issues, which are significant in defence forces currently, been properly addressed.In this chamber last week, on that very issue of morale in the defence forces, I raised with the Minister for Veterans' Affairs and Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence a significant issue which is confronting Defence Force personnel in northern Australia currently and which has not been addressed: remote locality leave and fringe benefits as they affect armed forces personnel. On 21 June the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, in his contribution to this chamber, said:I thank members from the other side of the House for their contributions. They raise important issues in relation to the operation of the Defence Force—both civilian and defence personnel matters. As to remote locality leave travel, the FBT and housing relocation, those are issues of which I have been made aware. I thank the member for Reid for his contribution about defence civilians and the operations in East Timor.I will be taking these issues up with the head of the Defence Personnel Executive because they are issues that I take seriously. I know you want answers as soon as possible. I flag that this is something that I will take up at a serious level and get back to you as soon as we can get the head of the Defence Personnel Executive in to discuss these important issues. You have raised some very genuine concerns which we will have investigated as soon as possible.He went on, after I made another contribution to the debate, to say:I inform the member for the Northern Territory that I certainly will get back to you as soon as I can get a response from the head of the executive in personnel. Since coming to this office this government has been committed to ensuring veterans receive proper recognition for their service to our nation in times of war and also conflict.I have yet to hear from the minister. I do not know if it has taken him eight days to get the head of the Defence Personnel Executive in to discuss these issues, but I have had no response.QI4Price, Roger, MPMr Price—There is nothing new in that.IJ4Snowdon, Warren, MPMr SNOWDON—As my colleague and comrade has said, there is nothing new in that—I am not surprised. On 26 June, I wrote to the Hon. Bruce Scott, Minister for Veterans' Affairs, saying:I refer to matters I raised during the Main Committee deliberations on the Appropriations Bill last Wednesday. I again raise the question of the remote locality leave travel and the question of FBT.It is important that we understand the context of this, because the signals that have been sent to Defence Force personnel indicate that they will materially have their entitlements affected as of 1 July with the implementation of the GST. This will affect their remote locality leave travel in a way which I know will seriously undermine the morale of Defence Force personnel in Northern Australia. It seems to be of no consequence to this government that this issue has been around for some weeks and yet they have done precious little to address the consequences of it. Last week in the chamber I referred to a couple of signals which had been made available to me. One came out a couple of days prior to my contribution and gave an update on the remote locality leave travel issue and said that it would be impacted upon by the GST. Previously, I had been informed that due to the contracting arrangements with Qantas—because this was the issue—Defence Force personnel would be left with a 32 per cent decrease in the payment equivalent of their remote locality leave travel entitlement. I addressed this issue—again, in this parliament—to Major General Willis at a joint parliamentary committee hearing, and he said that he would see to it that it was fixed. I am sorry to say that, despite the good intentions of Major General Willis and the undertakings given by Minister Scott, nothing has been achieved to date. I had said previously that, if you cashed out the remote locality leave travel, you would get the equivalent of 68 per cent of an economy airfare between Darwin and Adelaide. But the new signal, which I quoted last week in the parliament, informed us all that in fact that figure would be 62 per cent because you had to also allow for the GST.I raised significant issues in relation to those issues, and they are on the record. I have, in light of my statements to the minister, this letter which I have written which goes to 2½ pages. I will not regale the Main Committee with the details in this document, but suffice it to say that I have made it readily available to the following people: the Minister for Defence, John Moore; the shadow minister for defence, the Hon. Seven Martin; the shadow minister for defence science and personnel, Mr Laurie Ferguson; Major General Simon Willis; Brigadier Robert Brown; and all Northern Australian Defence Force personnel. This letter has been liberally sprinkled throughout Northern Australian Defence Force bases so that they can be aware of the issues I have raised on their behalf in this place and formally in correspondence with the minister responsible for assisting the Minister for Defence and involved in personnel issues.It is incumbent upon the government to deal with this issue now. It is not an issue which can go beyond Saturday because the entitlements of Defence Force personnel, as I have pointed out, are going to be materially affected come 1 July. I say to the Minister for Defence, the minister assisting him and the ADF executive that they have to fix this problem now. They should be in no doubt, despite the rhetoric of the member for Lindsay, that the morale levels of Defence Force personnel in Northern Australia are plummeting. They are plummeting because they have been done over by this government. It is all very well for the minister to this week release his good governance document to underpin defence renewal. I read through the documentation that came out with this material, and the only reference I could find to defence personnel issues was a diagrammatic representation under the heading `Defence Matters', where `defence strategy' is sitting at the top and there is a big arrow coming down to `people matter'. Too right they matter!If we want effective strategy, if we want effective implementation of defence policy, then we need a defence force which has high morale, not low morale. We need a defence force which is being properly and adequately treated by this government in relation to Defence Force personnel matters. And these are not the only issues.I say to the government, that if they are pretending that somehow or other they are adequately and appropriately managing Defence Force personnel issues, they are clearly wrong. I note the fanfare with which the Defence review 2000—Our future defence force document was released yesterday. I note the fanfare with which the document on the organisation of defence was released earlier in the week. No such fanfare is given to addressing the key fundamental, basic and important issues of Defence Force personnel. I say to the minister: it is time action was taken. I know the Armed Forces Federation have been vocal in raising these issues but, unfortunately, despite their input, despite the fact they have been showing the warning signs and flying the flag, the warning signs have not been seen or read, and they certainly have not been properly understood. Separation rates are an issue—of that there is no doubt. Recruitment is an issue—of that there is no doubt. If you want to retain people in the Defence Force and if you want to recruit people to the Defence Force, you must provide the best possible conditions of service. Despite what this bill before us aims to do, we are not going to impact positively on retention rates in a way which will materially affect their performance to date unless and until you address these key issues of Defence Force conditions. If you do not believe that there will be an increase in separation rates if this question of remote locality leave travel is not fixed, then you are sadly mistaken.This is a very important issue. Whilst this bill aims to address at the margin some personnel issues, it seems to me that key and fundamental questions about how we deal with our Defence Force personnel have slipped. We have seen statements about numbers of personnel being cut and the question of priorities for defence purchases—capital equipment. It is all very well having the really smart technology but, if the troops in the field are unhappy, it will not work. I am pleased that we have this Defence Force discussion process in place. I hope the government understands that I am raising these issues not for any political partisan purpose but simply to assure that Defence Force personnel in this country are properly and adequately dealt with.10:28:0018543Price, Roger, MPMr PRICEQI4ChifleyALP00—It is a pleasure and an honour to follow the honourable member for the Northern Territory in this debate on the Defence Legislation Amendment (Flexible Career Practices) Bill 2000 as no-one more fearlessly, ruthlessly and relentlessly pursues the interests of so many ADF members who are proud to call the Territory home. As the shadow minister said, it is a rare honour to participate in a defence debate in this House and I do not want to miss the opportunity.The member for the Northern Territory touched on morale. Let me just say that John Moore, the Minister for Defence, is in a way our wartime minister. The thing he is consistently and constantly doing is declaring war on his department. The secretary of his department receives a bonus for good performance but the minister demands that he be sacked. The minister is unhappy and dissatisfied with the hierarchy at Russell; he declares war on them. The key feature of his ministry is his often-declared declarations of war. The same minister cannot be trusted to make a ministerial statement after the lodging of the green paper yesterday. He cannot be trusted to participate in an MPI without a written speech. And, if the questions he is asked are not covered by his brief, he gives a frivolous answer—all this at a crucial time for Defence.Australia has celebrated the performance of our troops in East Timor. They performed superbly well, and it should come as no surprise to any Australian that that was the case. But where has the minister taken the Australian people into his confidence by talking about all the difficulties that East Timor potentially posed for us? Remember when the opposition—who gave unqualified, bipartisan support to that operation—raised the issue of troop rotation. What did the minister say? `Don't you worry about that.' What did the junior minister say? `Don't you worry about that.' It was only when the public relations spokesman for the ADF blew the minister out of the water that we got a serious response and that need was covered with an additional 3,000 full-time troops. The member for the Northern Territory talks about morale. It is true that we managed that well. I am not so sure how we would have gone had the deployment to East Timor, in its initial phases, been not a short period but much longer. We are not able at this stage to say and talk realistically about what our Army contains. The Army will not, as far as this parliament or parliamentary committee is concerned, take us into their confidence and tell us how stretched they were in East Timor: the hollowness of the formed units of the Army. A lot of coalition members have said that they are delighted about the extra $20 million that is being spent on reserves, but we do not know what the government envisages as the structure of reserves. We know that there are two cabinet submissions languishing there, not publicised, no minister taking us into their confidence, notwithstanding the green paper being issued. We know that reserves were used to slot in vacancies in the Regular Army, but is that what we have got a reserve for, to plug the holes? Or should we have a reserve capable of being deployed into formed units?The Defence Legislation Amendment (Flexible Career Practices) Bill 2000 is an utter betrayal of the serving men and women of the armed forces. The member for the Northern Territory referred to the Glenn report of a review of personnel practices within the ADF. It was tabled in 1995, if my memory serves me correctly. When the coalition took over, they demonised not only the Glenn review but also Army 21 and the restructuring of the Army. The report of the Glenn review has a host of recommendations to deal with the future structure of the ADF. And what are we getting? One paltry, lousy element of it.What about the issue that we should continue to promote on the basis of rank, but that we may need to reward people not by promotion of rank? Where is the flexibility that the Glenn review sought for ADF careers? Being part of a war fighting machine—and that is what our ADF is—is a young person's game. Gone are the days when we can think in terms of 25- and 30-year careers in the ADF. Young people frankly do not want it. Where is the flexibility that Glenn envisaged about being able to put young people into full-time service, allowing them the flexibility of part-time service and even, in some cases, being able to opt out?Quite rightly the ADF should be proud of the level of recruitment of females serving in other ranks and at officer level. We invested a lot of money in them and, of course, they naturally want to have families. How is this bill about careers and the Glenn review and its host of recommendations accommodating that fact? We invest thousands of dollars in their training, but how can they opt out for a period of time to have a family and then have the ADF and the Australian people not lose that investment? This bill is called `flexible careers' and there is not one mention of it.If you talk to serving men and women in the ADF, they will tell you that family considerations rate highly. Whether that is the employment opportunities of a spouse or whether that is the education of their children, these things are very important, but where in this flexible careers bill is there any mention of that? There is absolutely none. That is why I say it is a betrayal of serving men and women. Admittedly, this was a Labor government document. Just because it is a Labor government document we should not react in an ideological way and say there is nothing worth while in it. But after six years, when you bring in a bill called flexible careers, wouldn't you think that some of the Glenn recommendations might be embraced? Well, they are not. And who are the losers? As the honourable member for the Northern Territory said, it is the serving men and women. In fact, it is Australia really, but it is also the serving men and women.To move on to the reserves, it is an absolute tragedy that we have a white paper coming out and we are saying we are going to ask the people of Australia to consult and we are going to look at their views, but the reserves at the moment, as everyone knows, are a phantom army. The recruitment problems are horrific. In fact, the only person who has come to us in the current inquiry into the preparedness of Army with a bit of new thought and innovation has been a brigadier from Victoria. And what has he done? He has tried to target school leavers and university students to fill up the reserves. But there is nothing in here, notwithstanding a whole chapter devoted to the reserves, notwithstanding $20 million allocated to the reserves in the budget, where we get a clue of what the government's thinking is about the reserves. Indeed, the crucial issue about reserves is entry level training. How much can employers afford to have their reserves away from work, for how long? And what were we told? Yes, there was a special committee advising Defence and one of the people on it was a representative of the chamber, but the chamber had never been asked what its opinion was and it disagreed with the position the ADF currently has. They moved to a block of six weeks training. I thought that was a good idea. They are now going to move to break it up into two lots of three weeks. There is a big issue here. Is it better to spend more time initially and maybe compensate employers, but get a whole raft of training in and then go out to your unit, or can the Australian economy no longer bear it? The other thing I might say, again in a bitter ideological way, is that the first thing this government did was to get rid of a very successful system, the Ready Reserves. And had we had the Ready Reserves, guess what? We could have actually deployed reserves in formed units over to East Timor, something that we could not do notwithstanding the 18,000 reserves that we have currently on our books—this phantom army.When I say it is a phantom army, I do not want to reflect on individual reservists. They are dedicated people. They are actually making a commitment for Australia. The only thing that is absent is a bit of leadership. And if you are talking about leadership, does it not go to the Prime Minister and the minister? Can we sustain, under current structures, the reserves that we have today? It is a big question. You will not find it in the white paper. You will not find a decent discussion on it. Do we need to return to something like a Ready Reserve scheme? You will not find that in the white paper either. What is the proper role for the reserves? Is it merely to slot in the gaps? If it is, this is new defence theology. I say that there is an acid test. Yes, we have got the glamour reserve units—the doctors, the dentists and the lawyers. We have got our northern surveillance forces, all doing an excellent job, and they fit in and mesh into the ADF very well. But for the rest of the reserves, this is the acid test: if you cannot be deployed into formed units, then forget about it. We need to come to another structure. I want to make another point. This parliament had a report into officer training. That report recommended that the ADFA undergraduate program be abolished because it is the costliest undergraduate program in Australia, maybe in the world, but certainly in Australia. They are well above their peer group. The report proposed that we should encourage about 1,000 people spread over about 34 universities to undertake their undergraduate training. Maybe I am reading it wrong, but I never thought that undergraduate training was a core business of defence. The point is this, that when people join the ADF they really want to do things like driving tanks, flying planes, driving ships, as soon as possible. I know that the Navy has changed its approach and will get ADFA undergraduates out to sea for a period. But this is the big point, that you cannot afford to have young people tied up for four years in training, or as much as six years in training, before they get to do the things that they want to do. It is a much better system to have people under a scholarship basis while they are at universities, and then have them undertake their rigorous military training. That is a much quicker way of getting them out to their particular units, doing the things that they want to do. It was true when I brought the report down in 1995, and it is still true today. But again, if we are looking at flexible careers, there is not a mention of it is in this bill. Of course, the other penalty you pay is this: admittedly, the recruitment level is absolutely down for ADFA, but you are spending more than half your professional development budget on the most junior officers. I have forgotten the numbers, but there used to be about 13,000 officers. In other words, 1,000 junior officers at ADFA get more than 50 per cent of the budget. The other 12,000 officers only get 50 per cent. Increasingly, not only will we have to invest in young people in the ADF for our own purposes, but we will need to think of what they require when they finish their careers and go out into the world of work. We need to have money in things like professional development that not only looks at their career in the ADF but also assists them in transitioning into the workplace. That is true about officers, but it is also true about the ordinary men and women in other ranks.As I said at the beginning, we are not going to be able to keep young people for extended periods of time—the luxury the ADF used to have. I think it is entirely appropriate, if someone has given sterling service in an infantry unit or at an RAAF base on the ground, that towards the end of their career we spend some Commonwealth dollars in preparing them for the world at work once they leave the service. There is not a thing in this bill about it. Six years the parliament and ministers have had—four years of conservative ministers—to absorb this Glenn report and do the decent thing not only by the ADF to secure its own future but also by the people who sign up to serve. You have done very little. I could use some colourful language that I regret would be unparliamentary, but in deference to the Deputy Speaker I will try and exercise some control. This is a severe time of change for the ADF. As we ponder the difficulties of issues like obsolescence, what is the appropriate force structure, where should we be operating, where should we have our strength, the real goal in the ADF is its people. The ADF not only believes so but says, `Our people give us an edge on the battlefield.' We just should not sit back and cop it. We have to give them things. There has to be some reciprocity. We cannot have them enmeshed in legislation, in regulations, in practices that are outdated.So do I support this bill? Of course I do. It is an important change. But when you look at the Glenn review, it is but one change. What about all the other recommendations? Will we get a statement from the minister saying whether any progress has been made and, in particular, when the government intend to bring the legislation forward? It is a great irony that the government—I think around November or January—announced that they were going to change the legislation in regard to the call-out of reserves. I support it very strongly. But where is the legislation? We can get this bill up—as insultingly small as it is—about the call-out of the ADF because of the Olympics, but we cannot tackle the really hard issues. I will finish where I started. If this is supposed to look after the serving men and women in terms of providing a career service, this legislation represents a betrayal of them.10:48:0018546Entsch, Warren, MPMr ENTSCH7K6LeichhardtLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources10—Firstly, I thank the members for Herbert, the Northern Territory and Chifley for their contributions. The member for Herbert spoke on the government's commitment to restructuring and improving readiness of the ADF. Certainly, as is indicated by this bill, the Defence Legislation (Flexible Career Practices) Bill 2000, the member for the Northern Territory focused particularly on issues relating to the ADF in his home state. The member for Chifley, while covering some broader issues, focused specifically on the ADF. He also raised concerns about the suggested inadequacy of what we are proposing today. But I suggest to the member for Chifley that consultation is continuing. That will be used in a further refinement of a personnel policy, which will, of course, be enabled by proposed amendments that we are putting through at the moment in this legislation. With regard to the reserves, our government is very much committed to enhancing the reserves as part of integrated ADF legislation which it is aimed will be introduced into the parliament during the spring session. Those on the other side have seen the reserves very much as a cost-cutting measure, not as an enhancement of the ADF's capabilities. The Australian Defence Force commits significant resources to training its personnel and therefore has a responsibility to retain them in service. On the other hand, the Defence Force must also ensure that personnel are not retained in service simply because of their seniority. From my experience during a number of years in the services back in the 1970s, one of the complaints was that people seemed to be retained very much on the basis of the time that they served rather than their ability to do the job that they were employed to do. I think this is a great change in focus and something that will enhance the capability of the ADF.In order to manage these sometimes competing requirements, the Australian Defence Force uses a number of flexible employment practices. These include limited tenure promotion, whereby personnel are offered promotion on the basis that they will retire at the end of a period of service in a higher rank or they will revert to their previous rank; enlistment of personnel for an initial minimum period of service in order to recover investments in the entry level training of personnel; and the Defence Force now makes greater use of fixed periods of service rather than permanent appointments for personnel in some occupations. Taken together, these provisions assist the Australian Defence Force in balancing the need to retain personnel in some occupations while maintaining healthy rates of turnover in other occupations. These provisions are already used sparingly but with good effect in the Australian Defence Force. The bill amends the Defence Act and the Naval Defence Act in order to extend or facilitate the application of these provisions. In particular, the bill will extend the application of limited tenure promotion to the promotion of officers of the Army to the rank of Lieutenant Colonel and officers of the Navy to the rank of Commander. It will allow Defence Force personnel to transfer from permanent appointments to fixed periods of service and it will allow rejection of an officer's resignation tendered during their initial minimum period of service.I would like to elaborate on this final provision in relation to questions raised in the House on 26 June by the member for Reid. The initial periods of service referred to in the legislation have been discussed by ADF policy stakeholders and agreed as follows: four years for most officers; a shorter period, or waived altogether, for some direct entry officers, such as doctors and lawyers, et cetera. In addition it should be noted that the fixed periods of service referred to in existing policy on this issue, introduced on 1 July 1998, will become redundant when the legislation and consequential policy are implemented. These fixed periods of service served an interim administrative purpose only. Existing return of service obligations—ROSO—will continue to be used for officers who undertake long periods of entry training, such as the Australian Defence Force Academy. ROSO will be acquitted concurrently with an officer's initial period of service; that is, once the initial period of service has been completed, any outstanding portion of the ROSO will still need to be acquitted.I am pleased to note that ADF personnel have been advised and consulted about details of the proposed changes. The proposal has been developed following a very long process of consultation with stakeholders. There has also been an extensive program of consultation across Australia, reaching 6,000 personnel directly, in addition to focus group discussions involving a further 600 personnel. Consultation, as I said earlier, continues, and is being used to further refine the personnel policy covered by the proposed amendments in the legislation. In conclusion, the enhancements introduced by the bill will create opportunities for the advancement of specialist personnel who might otherwise not have been considered widely employable enough to merit promotion. This should assist in retaining those skilled personnel. It will allow the Australian Defence Force to ensure that the right person is placed in the right job at the right time, rather than simply because they are at the head of the promotion queue. Finally, the bill will assist the ADF in recovering its investment in the training of its personnel by ensuring that officers serve for an initial period of service after their appointment and training. In short, these changes are sensible and useful enhancements to the way the Defence Force does business. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Ordered that the bill be reported to the House without amendment.Committees185481854818548Debate resumed from 1 June, on motion by Mr Reith:That the House take note of the paper.10:56:0018548Horne, Bob, MPMr HORNEUU5PatersonALP00—I rise to address the government's response to what is known as the Neville report, entitled Planning not patching. In doing so, let me quote from the first paragraph in the preface to the report: `Planning not patching is essential if Australia is to have the best possible transport system to service industry and community needs.' I also quote from a media release which was issued when this report was tabled in the federal parliament on 24 November 1997. Mr Paul Neville, the Chair of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Communications, Transport and Microeconomic Reform, said:The Commonwealth needs to place a greater emphasis on strategic planning in the provision of transport infrastructure. The call for a national strategic plan for transport is not new but it is overdue.In the almost three years since that report was tabled, we have seen the government's response. We have seen the written response—the document which we are considering today. More importantly, we have seen the response of the government in its budgetary allocations for road funding for transport infrastructure. In particular, we have seen in the past week that Australia has a government which really does not understand the transport problem. This was evidenced particularly by the Prime Minister's response when he tried to explain why petrol should not get dearer under the GST. He said, `There will be a huge saving of 24c a litre for diesel.' If the Prime Minister had done his sums correctly, he would have found that that equates to a saving of about 12c a kilometre for a B-double; less for a semi-trailer. It should be noted that a B-double carries in the order of 65,000 litres of petroleum product. By way of example, for a 500 kilometre haul from a fuel port that accesses 95 per cent of the Australian population, the maximum saving per litre is less than one-tenth of a cent per litre. This means that your fuel price goes from, say, 95.9c to 95.8c—if you can pass it on. That is meaningless in a tank of fuel for the consumer.Let us extrapolate it a little further because we are not always talking about litres of petrol. We might be talking about cans of soup. We might be talking about cartons of apples or kilos of beef. In every situation the saving is minimal and it really does not address the problem that transport in this country is facing. Yet the government persists. We had a minister in question time yesterday in answer to a question say that regional and rural Australia is going to experience massive benefits from this government's policy of cutting fuel excise. It is not going to happen, Madam Deputy Speaker Kelly. You know that in your electorate, I know that in my electorate and the whole of regional Australia is starting to get the picture now. In fact, as a result of the new tax system and GST, transport will get dearer, not cheaper. The response by the transport industry to the government's action shows how little support there is for the government's policy. We need to look at improving infrastructure, reducing haul times, reducing turnaround times and allowing the size of loads to increase. These factors have already yielded significant reduction in haulage rates. As a matter of fact, I have a table here that shows the reduction in haulage rates between Newcastle and Melbourne. In 1990 trucking costs were about $37.50 an hour and the cartage rate per tonne between Newcastle and Melbourne was $49.10. Now, although costs have increased enormously to $72 per hour, haulage rates are $47.50.The government comes along and says that reducing diesel by 24c a litre is going to bring about another massive reduction. It will not. Those rates have dropped because the time for a trip from Newcastle to Melbourne has been reduced by the building of a you-beaut highway and because of the increase in weight of loads that can be carried by trucks, so you carry more tonnes per trip and you reduce time. They are the factors that have reduced transport costs, not fuel costs because we have seen fuel costs virtually double in that period of time and yet the haulage costs have still gone down.I elected to speak on this issue today because the report does recognise the importance of upgrading infrastructure and I support that. The shame is that we have a government that does not recognise the importance of the upgrade of infrastructure. The Leader of the National Party, the Deputy Prime Minister, the Hon. John Anderson, certainly does not recognise it. How do I know? The budget tells me so. Where was the money to improve road infrastructure in this year's federal budget? It was not there. There was no new money for the Sydney to Brisbane upgrade of the Pacific Highway which is now stalling in many places. The funding was withdrawn from the Karuah bypass in the northern part of my electorate by former Minister Vaile in a fit of pique prior to the last election. To my knowledge that funding has not been reinstated by the federal government and we now find that the construction of that vital bypass which is necessary to get rid of a major bottleneck on the Pacific Highway will not start for two years. The ridiculous situation is that there will be, within a few months, a non-stop four-lane divided highway from Sydney to Karuah, which will then close down to a two-lane bridge and two lanes of tar-sealed road through to Bulahdelah, and which will spread out again to four lanes of concrete divided highway. This is the sort of ridiculous stop-go policy that is evident in this government today and it is the sort of thing that is driving the transport industry absolutely mad. The transport industry cannot cope with that. They need first-class highways and, where we have them, we have already seen that costs have dropped. That is the sort of support that we need from a government. I am very pleased that, in my first term in the federal parliament, I was heavily involved in convincing Minister Brereton that the upgrade of the Pacific Highway should happen. At that stage, the federal government's contribution was going to be $1 billion. We now find that that has shrunk to $600 million. We also find that funding for the national highway has shrunk. There is a concept that there is a national highway right around Australia and that the funding for that is the responsibility of the federal government. That funding has also shrunk under this government. My office is currently located in the major regional city of Maitland. This city is divided by the national highway. The highway passes right through the middle of it, cutting that major city into two. The turmoil that creates for a city is ridiculous. We have been planning, planning, planning. There is always money for planning, never money for construction. We are never prepared to take the action and build the road, and that is the ridiculous situation we are in. We had the ludicrous situation in the budget this year where $8.3 million was provided for the whole state of New South Wales to upgrade bridges to allow them to take heavy loads. I represent five local government areas. Every one of these areas could spend that money each year for the next 10 years and, at the end of 10 years, they would still not have all their bridges upgraded to a satisfactory standard. It is a major problem. We are talking about timber bridges that are nearly a century old carrying modern semitrailers in rural and regional Australia. Where does $8.3 million to replace them go? It certainly will not do the job. It is ludicrous and members here know that it is ludicrous.This report ignores the nature of our trucking industry, its composition and its make-up. We have some large operators—the Linfox type of operation. Those organisations own their own trucks and employ their drivers. They run very good businesses and do very well. There are also large operators such as Toll and K&S that own some trucks but use large numbers of subcontractors—owner-drivers—and, of course, the primary contractor sets the rate. The subcontractor has to accept that rate, and this is where the problem is. In Australia today, we have in the order of 25,000 owner-driver operators who work as subcontractors, and the problem is that these people are hurting the most. They are being screwed by the major contractors. They are being told that, with the advent of the GST, their costs will have to come down. I have one such letter here. It is a GST bulletin that has gone out from one of those major contractors that I have identified. It shows that the supposed cost reduction of fuel between Melbourne and Newcastle will be $178. It shows that the supposed reduction in cost of tyres will be $15.40. However, it does say that the cost of administration by the major contractor will go up. The subcontractor is being told that the net cost to be passed on to the major contractor is $183.The situation is this: two months ago tyres went up by 15 per cent; that is not accounted for. Over the last 18 months, the price of diesel has escalated by more than the 23c that it is now going to drop; that is not accounted for. We have 25,000 owner-driver operators in Australia that are currently working on virtually zero margins. I talk to the trucking industry and they tell me that, if they take a load of steel to Queensland, they often bring back a load from Queensland without recovering costs. They do it just to pay for the fuel to get home so they can get another load that pays. That is the sort of principle that our transport industry is currently operating on, and it will not work.There is going to come a point in the near future when these people will be insolvent. It has been suggested to me that many of our transport operations are currently operating insolvently. The owner-drivers have put forward a four-point plan. While it does contain some areas of state jurisdiction, it also contains some areas of federal jurisdiction. It is a worthy proposal and it should not be dismissed. I know that the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, the Deputy Prime Minister, has dismissed a number of the points that have been made, such as a base floor rate for transport. If we are going to have any certainty in our transport industry, if we are going to have an industry that allows us to move forward as a nation, then people in this business have to be guaranteed the right to make a living.In conclusion, if Australia is going to have a transport system that will generate competitiveness in rural and regional areas, we must have a massive injection of funding into infrastructure. I believe the way we look at infrastructure expenditure in Australia is wrong. We look at money spent on upgrading major highways, road and rail interchanges and port facilities to increase handling rates as a cost. We should not look at it as a cost. We should look at it as an investment that yields enormous dividends. There are examples around Australia. The upgrade of the Pacific Highway has already shown the development, the relocation of industry and the creation of jobs that that infrastructure creates. Until we have a government that is prepared to be objective and to look positively at infrastructure expenditure we will be condemned to having a second-rate transport system from the last century. 11:11:0018551McArthur, Stewart, MPMr McARTHURVH4CorangamiteLP10—In July 1995, the standard gauge was completed and I was honoured to be at the ceremony when the then Prime Minister, the Hon. Paul Keating, opened that standard gauge from Brisbane to Perth. I put on the record that that government achieved that outcome and I commend them for that because the objective of standardising the gauge from Brisbane to Perth had been on the books since 1923. That government invested $440 million to achieve that outcome. We know that parts of the track were not properly done, especially in parts of the electorate of Corangamite, but I do record the outstanding achievement of actually standardising the gauge across Australia. The new concept that was developed during that time was the ARTC with rail access, and I will talk more about that. The regulations that had historically been state based now moved to a more nationally based operation. During that time, of course, there were also safety concerns.The government's response this morning is to three reports. The first is the Neville report—I personally participated very vigorously in every inspection and in questioning every witness. The second is the Smorgon report which, it is fair to say, took a number of the recommendations from the Neville report. The third is the Productivity Commission report, which again was a fairly independent assessment of the rail industry, but utilised some of the evidence of the Tracking Australia report. Certainly the harmonisation of the state based rail operations was a key feature. The Neville report and the other two reports focused on that possible outcome.The sale of the rail operations of AN now means that a number of those operations—the Ghan, the IndianPacific and the Melbourne to Adelaide run—are moving towards profitability, having more passengers and becoming much more commercial. The sale of the freight operation in Victoria, V/Line, to Freight Australia has opened up remarkable new opportunities in terms of timber, wheat and other merchandise. Tasrail has been a remarkable success—an operation which was fundamentally broke for 100 years is now operating in profit.The fundamental thing we should address is that the federal government has allocated $250 million to rail operations upgrade and yet, on a year by year basis in Australia, the federal and state governments allocate $6 billion to road construction. It is very important, in this whole discussion, to recall that. We need an upgrade of the basic rail network structure. Governments, both state and federal, have failed to invest for all kinds of historical reasons. The sale of National Rail—which, in my assessment, has done a remarkable job of connecting capital cities, by means of the standard rail gauge and the National Rail operations—to the private sector will be another step in the right direction. Remembering that National Rail had to overcome the culture of every state government and, given the difficulties, I think its results have been commendable.I turn now to some brief comment on the specifics of the recommendations. On the national transport policy: this is an argument about rail versus road. There is some reluctance by the road operators to allow the rail industry to get a fair go. The road industry has had a very strong lobby, as members present would be aware, and is very keen to maintain its strategic advantage. The important things in recommendation 3 are a balance between rail and road and the need for a genuine cost-benefit analysis of which goods ought, in the long haul, to be carried by the rail network instead of the road system, rather than decisions being made because of the power of the road lobby. The next few recommendations concern project development processes. Particular reference is made to Canberra-Sydney and the response suggests that there be no restriction of future operations between Sydney, Canberra and Melbourne. I accept that. I raise the issue of the number of passengers between Canberra and Sydney, however, and I have raised that with the project developers on numerous occasions. I also raise the issue that government has indicated that it hopes there will be no further cost to government, but there are subtle pressures that governments provide support for these very big projects. Again I put on the record my concern about the Alice Springs-Darwin freight line: what are the numbers for the amount of freight that will move both ways between Alice Springs and Darwin? Can that be sustained by the private sector without heavy government involvement? I challenge the proponents of that rail to come up with the figures. I am a supporter of rail and I hope that that project is sustained in the long term and is not just a short-term, big wonder project.It is suggested that there be neutrality in charges and modes. In simple terms, that means that the tax regime for rail and road are reasonably neutral. Roads would just pay a registration sales tax, some tolls, some local government rates and, of course, fuel excise—which other motorists pay as well and which contributes to the road maintenance. Rail, on the other hand, is now paying for accreditation and track access, which is something that has not been sorted out, and pays considerable fuel excise. As the report suggests, we need to make sure that we have some neutrality between those two operations.In terms of the comparison between the road and the rail network, the response observes that there is private capital in the road operations, where trucking companies and private cars use what I call the free public road network. There is enormous political pressure for voters to maintain that road network and improve it forever, almost on a yearly basis, for those transport operators. In my view, they exert undue political pressure to upgrade the Australian road system. On the other hand, the rail system does not enjoy that level of political support. In fact, some state governments are subsidising their urban passenger systems by up to $1 billion per state. The investment in track upgrade for the access of rail operators is very much behind the investment in the road network. Again I emphasise that $6 billion a year is invested in the road network, as compared with the small investment in the rail network throughout Australia.All three reports recommend that privatisation take place, the Smorgon report suggesting that all federal and state rail operations be privatised. I entirely agree with that suggestion. The Productivity Commission's interesting suggestion is that the BOOT type operation—build, own, operate and transfer—be looked at that all freight operations be privatised and that there be a commercial approach to the rail operation. The federal government, I am pleased to see, is wholeheartedly accepting the recommendation on privatisation.Access to the ARTC is another important aspect in terms of policy. The ARTC should be a one-stop shop so that those operators who wish to go on the national track are able to deal with an authority that will give them access at a price and under conditions that are fair to all operators. The ARTC should control and maintain the operation in a fair manner and the interface between urban systems and country tracks should be one of equity and fairness. We see a problem in the Sydney operations where the one freight line is overcome by the priority given to urban city rail traffic. The integrity of the national track is important to the federal government. I particularly note the Kalgoorlie to Perth section which could be sold with the sale of the Western Australian Transrail. The important arguments that we face in the parliament in terms of the ARTC and the access regime relate to the commercial rate of access by private rail operators and to the methodology. Should they be paying a market rate or should they be seeing what the market will bear? Should it contain an upgrade? What is the relativity with respect to those road operators who enjoy national highways like the Hume Highway which have basically been paid for by taxpayers and private motorists? Let us move on to investment, about which the Neville report made very strong comments. As I have alluded to before, the Neville report commended the $250 million to be invested in the ARTC. It was suggested that another $750 million be allocated and that over 10 years a mere $2 billion be invested in the rail system. I emphasise `a mere $2 billion' because of the relativity between the road and rail systems. We need to make that sort of investment to ensure that the rail network, both state and national, maintains a position in the transport task.The Smorgon report suggested a figure of $250 million, and another $470 million on improving the national track. The Productivity Commission emphasised the importance of the freight route through Sydney to ensure that the national track was effective between Brisbane, Sydney, Melbourne and Adelaide, and that there was not a bottleneck. We see that there is support across the board for this investment, which would ensure the operation of the rail system. Certainly, some investments have been very cost effective. I note that the Ararat/Pura Pura line was upgraded in recent times. There was good cooperation between the Victorian state government and the federal government in upgrading that piece of track, which was done poorly under the One Nation program.With respect to operational uniformity, harmonising the operations is fairly straightforward. But when you look at the rail systems, you note the difference between Queensland, which runs a good rail system; New South Wales, which is fair; Victoria, which is different; and South Australia, which has a different operation. It is a remarkable situation in this modern day and age. Rail safety always gets a very big run. People are overly concerned, in my view, regarding safety of rail operations compared to road safety. I think there is a lack of consideration in both modes of transport. I accept the view that we need to ensure that rail is safe. I think we have one of the safest systems in the world, but we should not overdo it in terms of maintaining manpower and other issues.I will conclude by referring to the overview comments by the Productivity Commission. I think they summarise the position very clearly as to what is happening in rail in Australia. Some very exciting things are happening. I quote: Reforms in the 1990s have transformed the structure and operations of Australia's railways. My personal experience supports that. The overview states that there is now greater competition between railways and more private sector participation. That was never the case before 1990. It is also stated that productivity has increased remarkably in a number of those. The overview continues:Most government-owned railways are still not viable: —they face increasing competition from other transport modes; particularly road——suffer from inadequate investment—which I have referred to—and require significant government subsidies. That is especially the case with urban transit systems. The overview goes on:Greater commercial focus is needed...by:— contracting out, franchising or privatising existing government-owned railways.Again, I commend those policy changes that have taken place, particularly in Victoria:— the entry of new owners and further investment—Again, we have seen in Tasmania the remarkable change that has brought about. It continues:—rigorous application of contracts between governments and railways to meet non-commercial objectives. That is the CSO—again, an important policy judgment to be made with a reality and a commercial consideration. The overview says that there are different mixes of structural, access and ownership arrangements. That is something that has been a quite exciting change in the attitude of governments and railway operators that was just not possible in the last 100 years. The overview goes on:The Commonwealth has an important role in:— developing a national transport framework;—facilitating ongoing harmonisation of the regulatory arrangements—so that the state regimes are as one, as has happened in the road transport system—— establishing a single manager for the interstate network—ARTC is hopefully doing that. It continues:— ensuring a more commercial approach to road provision.That is, they do not always get the money when they provide a political lobby. The overview says the Commonwealth also has a role in financing freight bypass lines to Sydney. I support that as very important, although it would appear not as significant to the layman. Finally, it says:The suggested reforms have greatest relevance to Queensland, NSW and WA.Further reform is essential for the survival of most Australian railways. I commend those points. My close association with the railway network gives me great encouragement that railways do have a future in Australia, especially for the long haul west-east, from Perth to Melbourne. The east coast is a bit more difficult because of the terrain. With support from government on both sides, I am confident that over the next 10 years we will have a rail network that will work. This vast country will have a mode of transport that will be second to none and in 2020 railways will be efficient. (Time expired)11:27:0018554Mossfield, Frank, MPMr MOSSFIELDMK6GreenwayALP00—In speaking on the response of the federal government to the reports Planning not patching, Tracking Australia, Revitalising rail and Progress in rail reform, I would like to talk about the very high speed train proposal being considered by the federal government which is highlighted in the Revitalising rail report. The preferred option being considered by the federal government, the Speedrail consortium, is to use the TGV technology that is currently operating in eight European countries. This project has the potential to lift the Australian passenger rail network into the 21st century and provide interstate travellers with an alternative to air transport. There would be a further spin-off in that interstate air movements into Kingsford Smith airport would be reduced considerably and the noise and air pollution surrounding the airport would be reduced.For the VFT project to be successful, it has to adopt some of the efficiencies and sophistication of the European rail networks, particularly the Swiss system. To be an alternative to air transport, rail needs to jump ahead of air in terms of technology and service to the general public. It needs to deliver passengers into the central business districts of Sydney, Canberra, Melbourne and Brisbane at comparable times to air and it needs to compete with air in terms of cost.A private sector task force set up by the federal government to report on how to revitalise rail in Australia has presented its report—the one that I am speaking to now entitled Revitalising rail—which, in reference to the very fast train concept, states:The taskforce considers that very high speed trains have the potential to make a major contribution to Australia's long term transport needs and that this potential must be assessed as part of the development of a national transport strategy.If very high speed trains are found to have the potential to make a significant contribution to a national transport strategy, then the Canberra-Sydney V.H.S.T project represents a major opportunity to turn this potential into a reality. However, the government's handling of this proposal has suffered from the lack of a national approach to major interstate rail proposals. While there have been some encouraging statements made by the Prime Minister concerning the very fast train proposal, I think the government's official response still lacks a sense of urgency. I think it can be summarised by simply saying that the outcome of the Sydney-Canberra very fast train proposal has not yet been determined.With the estimated capacity of Kingsford Smith airport of 360,000 aircraft movements per year likely to be reached by the year 2009 or 2010—if nothing is done to either increase the capacity or to reduce the number of aircraft movements—there is a need to consider the impact of the Speedrail proposal on Kingsford Smith airport's capacity in the context of airport congestion. My comments are based on information provided by the Sydney-Canberra Speedrail Consortium. We should consider the full completion of the Speedrail proposal from Brisbane to Melbourne, via Sydney and Canberra, in three stages. If only one stage—Sydney to Canberra—were completed, the need to expand Sydney's airport capacity could be put back by some two years. If stages 1 and 2 were completed—Sydney-Canberra-Melbourne—the need to expand Sydney's airport would be put back by eight years. However, if the Brisbane-Melbourne link were completed, the need to expand Sydney's airport would be deferred by at least 20 years.The interesting point made by Speedrail is that the major proportion of aircraft diversion would result from the Sydney-Brisbane sector. This sector includes the three large urban centres of Brisbane, Coolangatta and Newcastle as well as significant regional centres such as Coffs Harbour, Port Macquarie, Taree and Lismore. This would suggest that this sector should be considered prior even to the Canberra-Melbourne link. The overall impact of the Speedrail proposal within stages or on completion of the project will result in a reduction in the number of aircraft using Kingsford Smith airport, with a corresponding reduction in pollution.Mr Wal King, who is Leighton Holdings' chief executive, recently addressed the ACT regional chamber of commerce and industry dinner, and he predicted that the Sydney to Canberra journey could be completed within 90 minutes. Mr King predicted that the project would create 15,000 jobs during the construction stage and a further 2,400 permanent jobs once the rail link was completed. Hourly services are planned, with stops at Canberra, Goulburn, the Southern Highlands, Macarthur and Sydney domestic and international airports. There would be considerable benefits to these regional locations through improved accessibility. Improvement in public transport systems would encourage more businesses to locate in these regions, therefore increasing economic growth and local employment. There would also be considerable environmental benefits resulting from the Speedrail concept such as reduced aircraft movements and the corresponding reduction in noise and air pollution.The future of Kingsford Smith airport and the possible development of Badgerys Creek airport are linked very closely with the very fast train proposal. A recent report released by Access Economics Sydney gateways in the 21st century states:2016 is the earliest possible timing for the Badgerys Creek Airport assuming the most favourable economic circumstances.I think this is an important timetable to consider when we are looking at the integration of air and rail transport. There would be some people who would see the building of Badgerys Creek airport as a fairly quick solution to our air pollution in Sydney. However, that independent report indicates that it would not be economically viable to have an airport at Badgerys Creek at least until 2016 and possibly later. This framework, however, does allow for the speedy development of the Speedrail proposal and would allow for a better integration of rail and air transport over the next five to 10 years. I would like to finish by summarising some of the advantages of stage 1 of the Speedrail proposal between Sydney and Canberra. Speedrail's TGV technology will link Sydney and Canberra in about 80 to 90 minutes at a phenomenal speed of 320 kilometres per hour, or one kilometre every 11 seconds. Speedrail will offer a range of fares, Qantas service and even Frequent Flyer points, as well as the ability to use mobile phones and computers—which I think we would all agree is rather a drawback when one is travelling by air. Stops at Sydney and Canberra airports will create significant efficiencies in aircraft movements, particularly in Sydney, and will also take an estimated one million cars per year off the Hume Highway.Speedrail will be investing an estimated $3.7 billion into the economy, creating 15,000 jobs during construction and over 2,000 permanent jobs. Many of these will be in the regional areas. Experience from France indicates development along the route will generate another 4,000 jobs. TGV technology is clean, electric technology, which uses significantly less energy per passenger than either planes or cars. There will be access across the line for people, native animals and livestock, and farming will not be disturbed. Speedrail will create a job corridor, reversing the steady decline of rural employment in the region. It will also enhance the tourist potential of towns and cities along the route.I will conclude by highlighting what I believe to be the big advantage of rail to our economy: the creation of jobs. I have a bit of a vested interest because my first job was as a railway apprentice. If you look at the situation today and the number of people and the apprentices who are being trained in industry, you will see a decline in the training of apprentices in the aircraft industry, as we have all seen in relation to Qantas. However, I do believe that rail has the potential and the willingness to train more apprentices.If you look at the technology in comparing the two forms of transport, you will see we do not build any major aircraft in Australia. For that reason, I suggest that most of the repairs, parts, et cetera, come from overseas; aircraft can be, and are, flown overseas for repairs. Take these points into consideration and then look at the rail industry, where you will see that most of the work for this new project would have to be performed in Australia. That would create a pool of employment which, in the long term, would be to the great advantage of the people of Australia and to the economy in general. I am happy to speak on this report.11:37:0018556Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLEKV5HinklerNP10—What a pleasure to be surrounded by three of my colleagues, including your good self, Mr Deputy Speaker Hollis, in responding to the government's response to the reports Planning not patching and Tracking Australia. I will not speak about Planning not patching today. I think the more important topic before us is rail. Few things I have done in this parliament have excited my imagination so much and given me so much personal satisfaction as being associated with Tracking Australia. I am sure that you, Mr Deputy Speaker, from your service on the previous committee as well as the current one—including your time as deputy chairman of this very fine committee—would share those sentiments too.It was very much a hands-on inquiry that we participated in. We went to see the track and saw what the problems were in order to gain a feeling for the very nature of what we were dealing with. As we look over the landscape of existing infrastructure, we cannot but be impressed at the extent and penetration of our rail system. But, sadly, it is being viewed in the negative by several states and federal governments. It has been seen as a necessary evil and sometimes as a tolerated relic of the past. Of course, none of these things is true. It is a massive resource, it is an underutilised asset and, quite frankly, it is a huge opportunity.With the completion of the standard gauge links between the various capitals two decades ago, we sat back, believing that all the transport sins of pre-Federation had been solved and forgiven. That is a myth. This myth disguises the failings of the rail system on the one hand and its potential on the other. It is like bringing a veil down over the stage so that you cannot see any of the players. When my colleagues on the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Transport, Communications and Microeconomic Reform—now the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Communications, Transport and the Arts—started on this endeavour we could scarcely have envisaged the interest that Tracking Australia would generate. It attracted 147 submissions. We took evidence from 84 organisations, held 14 public hearings and carried out a number of inspections. They were very much hands-on type inspections. The seminal findings of the committee revolved around the principle that there is a role for rail in the national transport system. If we could not have established that, the rest would have been an exercise in futility. Therefore, it followed from that that the Commonwealth has a national leadership responsibility role in relation to rail transport. It should declare the national track for interstate rail services in conjunction with the states and territories. It must address the chronic deficiencies in the national track infrastructure. It must, as a matter of urgency, invest in the national track. The sum of $250 million is welcomed by the committee, I am sure, but it is only a drop in the bucket. The individual issue that the inquiry threw up was the need for an integrated national transport strategic plan. I am saddened that it has been rejected in the response because I do not think we can go on throwing money at a road problem here and a rail problem there and never look across the two of them to say, `What is the cost-benefit analysis, firstly, on the individual projects and, secondly, as they integrate?' It just seems a terrible waste. You can drive now from the Gold Coast to Brisbane and see eight lanes and know that, within a decade or so, that probably will not be enough. Yet the high speed suburban rail from Brisbane, which is very good, has been slowly creeping down the coast. I think it should have an injection of funds and go straight through to Murwillumbah. That is my view of it. You really have to make these assets work instead of pouring countless dollars—not millions, not tens of millions but literally hundreds of millions and billions of dollars—into the road system.We need to look at national infrastructure standards and consistency in safety standards and practices. We need a one-off grant to standardise communications equipment and safety operations. These are fundamentals, yet we are overlooking them all the time. We need national training courses at approved educational centres, establishment of a national regulatory authority and national consistency in accreditation practices. We need a more focused look at part IIIA of the Trade Practices Act to create greater certainty, transparency and accountability. We do have the ARTC. Although the states are supposed to be cooperating through that, we found evidence during that inquiry that it was not exactly what was happening. We need access pricing that is transparent and accountable. We need an examination of public liability insurance—and this is very difficult for small niche operators like the ones in the Northern Rivers of New South Wales. What we are doing by not addressing that is squeezing out all the small niche players. Then we need the control and management of the national track. I mentioned in my earlier comments my disappointment that we were not going to have a national land transport commission.As we went around Australia we found that there were many things that could be fixed and fixed properly. These included double-stacking through the Adelaide Hills and the upgrading of the track into Adelaide. A lot of this has already happened near the electorate of the member for Corangamite. It was a sad thing when we were on that inquiry to know that when we inspected the track in his area, the train from Adelaide to Melbourne travelled the distance in 13 hours when 60 years ago it also took 13 hours. You just cannot have that sort of thing and have an efficient system. The whole thing, as I see it, really gets down to the track, and in the parlance of the industry, below track and above track. The committee was essentially interested in the below track operation, that is, the permanent way—the sleepers, the track, and the basic infrastructure that goes with that. It is the operation on which the thing runs. If you like, we were saying to the government, `We believe that the line from Brisbane to Perth, both through Broken Hill and Melbourne, should be treated like a national rail highway, and it should be of a standard commensurate with that.' This is not just a pipedream or people throwing ideas around in a flurry of rail excitement. In Queensland, two Labor and two coalition governments have had a focus on upgrading the north coast line, and especially the section from Brisbane to Rockhampton. Ten years ago it took 14 hours for a train to go to Rockhampton from Brisbane, and now it takes seven hours. You can get a train from Bundaberg to Brisbane at 5 o'clock in the morning and it gets you into Brisbane at 9 o'clock, faster than you can drive your car. In my own electorate it takes me 2¼ hours to drive from Bundaberg to Gladstone. The train does it in 1½ hours. These are not pie in the sky concepts, they can be achieved. I commend governments of both political colours in Queensland for their approach. They know you have to get the track right—the big eight-inch tracks, taking out all the crook curves, and being game enough to scrap metal bridges and put up modern concrete ones. And I might say that these concrete ones are built to standard gauge so that in years to come, when the track has to go to standard gauge, all the bridges are in place. It requires that sort of vision. That is what we have to have: a vision of rail in Australia. It is going to require a leap of faith by government. For example, we said we should spend $250 million a year in getting the preliminary bugs out of the whole system and then $202 billion over 10 years. That is only $200 million a year. Look at what we spend on roads. It is unbelievable that governments of both political persuasions in this country cannot see past that veil that I spoke about before. It is interesting that Smorgon was fairly complimentary, but I thought the Productivity Commission lacked a bit of vision when it came to this particular issue.We believe, too, that there has to be operational uniformity. You cannot have a system where you have got signals meaning different things in different states and different safety standards. At the time we were doing the inquiry there were 14 different radio systems running across Australia. That meant more than one system in some states. That has to be taken out of the system, that is just absolutely fundamental, and a one-off grant could have done that. We tried to take a practical look at things. You do not have to have an inquiry every time you do something. For example, we said that in matters of safety we need first to have a rail safety regulator—this was a concern expressed by speakers—particularly in Sydney at present. But, broadly speaking, first we need to have such a safety regulator, and the states would probably need to surrender some authority to that. Then you need a rail accident investigation unit, quite separate from the regulator, as we have in aviation. The model is already there; it is just a matter of paralleling those procedures. That would make a huge difference. It would be an incentive to the state rail authorities to come up to a national standard knowing that if there were accidents they were going to be scrutinised to a very high degree. Training is very important. We said that there should be a curriculum for train drivers. They should not just be seen as people in sooty overalls, which is the vision of other people. These are young, well-trained men who can be the young technocrats of today's society. I am not suggesting they all have to traipse off to university, but I am saying that you could have a number of designated TAFE colleges in Australia that were delivering a standard training system. If you get in a plane in Cairns, Fremantle or Hobart, you know the pilot has been trained to the one national standard. That is what it should be in rail. It is a nonsense to think that you have got to change drivers at borders. If we are going to have a national rail highway from Brisbane to Perth, then we need to make sure that the training is uniform. There is a fair degree of unanimity between Tracking Australia and the Smorgon report. I found the Productivity Commission report a bit too hard-nosed and a bit impractical. You cannot solve all these problems simply by saying that private industry will solve it. We have a huge deficit that has to be made up. I am a great states righter where states rights need to be sandbagged—I will not have any intrusion of the Commonwealth into it. But I believe the national rail system, by its very name, invites the surrender of some authority from the states to the Commonwealth—not in their intrastate rail system, but purely in the interstate system, the national highway idea. It has been done for roads. The state road authorities quite often do the work for the Commonwealth; they are quite often the contractors for the Commonwealth. It could be just the same for rail. It does not mean the states have been cut out of it; it means they are becoming more integrated players.The other thing that comes through very clearly is that Smorgon also had a vision for rail not unlike the one we had ourselves. I am accused sometimes of being a bit of a socialist—I know that offends my colleague the member for Corangamite—but my personal view is that the ARTC needs—VH4McArthur, Stewart, MPKV5Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLE—I would be a socialist to the extent that I would like to see the ARTC become either a total Commonwealth instrumentality or an instrumentality to the states where it had full and unbridled control. If it was privatised after it had done its preliminary work of getting the rail track in Australia into order, I would not be so upset. I do not think we are ever going to catch up unless the funding can be poured, in a focused way, into a national rail system. As I said before, that means getting out the curves, redoing the bridges, double stacking on the east-west corridor, extending the loops so the trains can pass—all those sorts of things. It is all a matter of efficiency. Some of the items in this response I am disappointed with, some I am heartened with. I continue to call on government for a greater national vision for the Australian rail system. I commend our original report which we will follow up in the future. (Time expired).Debate (on motion by Mr Sercombe) adjourned.Main Committee adjourned at 11.53 a.m.Answers to Questions in Writing18563The following answers to questions were circulated:18563(Question No. 1160)116018563Latham, Mark, MPMr LathamK26WerriwaALP00 asked the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, upon notice, on 16 February 2000:(1) Do the findings of the Morbidity of Vietnam Veterans series of reports indicate a significantly higher incidence of a range of very serious illnesses and disabilities among Vietnam veterans and their children than among the general population; if so, why has this Department become increasingly reluctant to grant Vietnam veterans their due entitlements under the Veterans' Entitlements Act. (2) Has he instructed his Department to take a tougher line with Vietnam veterans in determining whether they qualify for entitlements under the Veterans' Entitlements Act; if so, will he provide a copy of the instructions.(3) Have there been other instructions or directives to departmental officers about determinations for claims made by Vietnam veterans; if so, will he provide a copy of the instructions. (4) Has he been instructed by other members of the Government in relation to the matters referred to in parts (2) and .(5) What was the total number of (a) claims, (b) grants and (c) rejections made for the Disability pension in (i) each year since 1994-95 and (ii) the period 1 July to 31 December 1999.(6) In relation to each part of part (5), how many, and what proportion, were for Vietnam veterans.(7) Since 1995, in respect of rejections for the Disability Pension, how many appeals have been made to (a) review officers, (b) the Veterans' Review Board and (c) the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. (8) How many, and what proportion, of the instances referred to in part (7) were for Vietnam veterans.(9) What were the results of each appeal referred to in part (7), and how many, and what proportion, were for Vietnam veterans.(10) Will he implement each of the recommendations in Morbidity of Vietnam Veterans: Volume Three: Validation Study; if so, when; if not, why not.18563Scott, Bruce, MPMr Bruce ScottYT4MaranoaNPMinister for Veterans' Affairs and Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Yes, the study does show a significantly higher incidence of serious illnesses and disabilities. Where a veteran has a condition accepted as service-related the Commonwealth does provide compensation, including disability compensation and treatment. (2) First part: No. Second part: Not applicable.(3) First part: No. Second part: Not applicable.(4) No.(5) The following table provides details of the total number of (a) claims made, (b) conditions granted and (c) conditions rejected for the purposes of entitlement to disability pension in (i) each year since 1994-95 and (ii) the period 1 July to 31 December 1999 for all claims for veterans. Year(a) claims made(b) conditions granted(c) conditions rejected 1994-9527 0596 51612 9941995-9628 4267 77425 5621996-9730 8007 56324 1361997-9830 9248 37728 1421998-9929 1217 97324 3301999-00 (1 July to 31 December)14 7514 16011 974NOTE: Annual figures for conditions granted and rejected include conditions claimed during the previous year. It should also be noted that some claims sought entitlement to more than one condition.(6) These figures are not available. (7) The number of appeals against rejections that have been made to (a) review officers (b) the Veterans Review Board and (c) the Administrative Appeals Tribunal since 1995, are set out in the following table: YearReview Officers*(b) the Veterans' Review Board(c) the Administrative Appeals TribunalTOTAL1995-96 5 50010 0481 721 #17 2691996-976 0007 937 1 826 #15 7631997-98 11 50011 3121 592 #*21 4041998-99 6 0008 7961 590 **16 3861999-00 (1 July to 31 Dec)Figure not yet available3 373N/A3 373TOTAL41 4666 72974 038* These figures have been taken from the Department of Veterans' Affairs Annual Reports.# This figure represents all Repatriation Commission/Secretary of Department of Veterans' Affairs cases before the AAT; that is Compensation, Income Support and Defence Service Homes#* This figure represents all intakes, disposals and outstanding numbers of all Repatriation Commission/Secretary of DVA cases.** Only Disability Compensation cases are included in this figure.(8) The applications for appeal are not recorded by conflict area, therefore no complete figures are available for Vietnam veterans.(9) The acceptance rates for the appeals referred to in part 7 are set out in the following table. The applications for appeal are not recorded by conflict area, therefore no figures are available for Vietnam veterans. YearReview Officers*% acceptedthe Veterans' Review Board% acceptedthe AdministratveAppeals Tribunal% accepted1995-9656 %63.9 %65 %1996-9757 %47.2 %61 %1997-9855 %45.9 %63 %1998-9956 %54.8 %58 %1999-00 (1 July to 31 Dec)Figure not yet availableFigure not yet availableN/A* Departmental Review Officers screen all Veterans' Review Board applications upon receipt to check the soundness of the primary decision. A Review Officer may intervene under Section 31 of the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 and change or amend the primary decision at that stage.(Source: The Department of Veterans' Affairs Annual Report 1998-1999, page: 51)(10) In the 2000/2001 Budget the Government has strengthened its commitment to the needs of Vietnam veterans and their families with a $32.3 million package to address and validate findings of the Vietnam Veterans' Health Study.18564(Question No. 1259)125918564Gillard, Julia, MPMs Gillard83LLalorALP00 asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 14 March 2000: (1) Will missiles or naval ammunition be transported by road from Sydney to shipping docks at Point Wilson, Vic; if so, what is the proposed routes or routes.(2) How long will Point Wilson be used for the loading of missiles or naval ammunitions.(3) How frequently will missiles or naval ammunition be transported on the proposed route or routes.(4) What plans have been made to deal with any accident or other emergency involving the vehicles transporting the missiles and/or naval ammunition.(5) Will emergency services including, but not limited to, the police, fire brigade and ambulance, be notified on each occasion missiles or naval ammunition are transported on the proposed route or routes.(6) Were steps taken to consult with (a) community members who live near or use the roads on the proposed route or routes, (b) local councils which cover sections of the proposed route or routes and (c) Members of the House of Representatives whose electorates cover sections of the proposed route or routes; if so, what.(7) Is the Princess Freeway part of the proposed route or routes; if so, what steps have been taken to ensure safety given the substantial road works required to upgrade the Princess Freeway.(8) What is the cost of transporting missiles or naval ammunition to Point Wilson and using Point Wilson for loading missiles or naval ammunition, including a breakdown of any staff travel and accommodation required.(9) Are exemptions from Commonwealth, State and local Government laws, regulations or by-laws required to allow missiles or naval ammunition to be transported on the proposed route or routes; if so, what.(10) Were alternative locations for the loading of missiles or naval ammunition considered; if so, (a) what and (b) why were they dismissed.18565Moore, John, MPMr MooreEI4RyanLPMinister for Defence10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Yes. Naval explosive ordnance (including missiles and other naval ammunition) is transported by road from Sydney to Point Wilson. The route normally used is Northern Road - Hume Freeway - Western Ring Road - Princess Freeway. Occasionally there may be deviations to account for traffic and road conditions.(2) Point Wilson will be used for the loading of naval explosive ordnance until the end of 2002, when the proposed new Naval Ammunitioning Facility at Eden (NSW) is planned to be operational.(3) As the national import/export wharf for Australian Defence Force explosive ordnance, up to three shipments a year are received which are subsequently transported on the aforementioned roads. In addition, approximately 50 RAN ships are ammuntioned and deammuntioned at Point Wilson each year with each operation requiring road transportation to or from Point Wilson.(4) All relevant emergency authorities are aware of the utilisation of Point Wilson for explosive ordnance transfer operations. In the event of a road accident involving vehicles transporting naval ammunition, local emergency response plans for hazardous cargo accidents are utilised with Department of Defence explosive ordnance disposal teams used to supplement civil resources.(5) Local emergency services are not notified for routine explosive ordnance transfer operations.(6) Explosive ordnance transfer operations commenced at Point Wilson in 1962. Records are not available as to whether community consultation took place at this time. In 1994, when Point Wilson was intended to be the site for the RAN East Coast Armaments Complex (ECAC), considerable community consultation took place. A Commission of Inquiry into ECAC was established under the Environmental Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act 1974. The Commission encouraged public comment, including site inspections and a number of public information briefings and forums. The Commission of Inquiry provided a positive response to the development of ECAC at Point Wilson, however the Department of Defence subsequently scaled down the scope of activities to be conducted at Point Wilson in favour of an alternative facility at Eden in NSW.(7) The Princess Freeway is an integral part of the transportation route to and from Point Wilson. Most of the explosive ordnance transfer operations at Point Wilson will involve two or three vehicles with the timings of road usage planned to avoid peak periods. The department monitors road conditions of the routes used for road movement of explosive ordnance and adjusts routes and schedules to minimise risk and safety concerns. Conditions on the Princess Freeway will continue to be monitored.(8) $400,000 has been budgeted for transport, handling and staffing of Point Wilson explosive ordnance transfer operations during the period January to June 2000. (9) No.(10) Sites considered for explosive ordnance operations have included Jervis Bay, Eden, Gladstone, Sydney, Newcastle as well as Point Wilson. Eden is the preferred site for the proposed nee Naval Ammunitioning facility. The other sites investigated did not meet either operational, safety or environmental considerations. 18566(Question No. 1458)145818566O'Byrne, Michelle, MPMs O'Byrne84SBassALP00 asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 13 April 2000:(1) Does the Minister administer legislation which relates to domestic violence.(2) If so, what is the definition applied by the Minister's Department to the term “domestic violence”.(3) Is the definition sourced from a policy document or statute.(4) Is there discretionary flexibility available to be exercised by the Department when applying the definition to individual circumstances; if so, are there internal departmental manuals outlining discretionary options.18566Moore, John, MPMr MooreEI4RyanLPMinister for Defence10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) The Department does not administer legislation which pertains to domestic violence in the home.(2) Not applicable - see answer to (1). (3) Not applicable - see answer to (1).(4) Not applicable - see answer to (1).