2000-06-293916REPS1856502000-06-29—————Mr SPEAKER (Mr Neil Andrew) took the chair at 9.30 a.m., and read prayers.Bills18565R112818565Bill presented by Dr Kemp, and read a first time.1856509:31:0018565Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPMinister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10I move:That the bill be now read a second time.The States Grants (Primary and Secondary Education Assistance) Bill 2000 renews the government's commitment to school education for the 2001-04 quadrennium. It secures funding for Commonwealth programs of financial assistance to the states and territories for government and non-government schools. It succeeds the States Grants (Primary And Secondary Education Assistance) Act 1996 which authorised funding for the 1997 to 2000 funding period. This bill reflects the government's policy decisions related to the 2001-04 school funding quadrennium including:Implementation of the new socioeconomic (SES) funding arrangements of non-government schoolsIntroduction of a streamlined structure for Commonwealth targeted programs for schools, improving accountability and permitting greater flexibility in the application of Commonwealth funds to improving outcomes for educationally disadvantaged students.Strengthened accountability and reporting arrangements where education authorities will be asked to commit to reporting on student outcomes against agreed performance indicators and targets underpinning the national goals of schooling.This bill acknowledges the right of Australian parents to choose the most appropriate schooling for their children. It supports the devolution of decision making about education to where it belongs, to parents and communities. It will ensure that we have an education system that is responsive to student needs.The bill represents a major investment in the future of our society. Through increased financial assistance to schools, particularly schools serving the neediest communities, the government seeks improved outcomes from schools and a brighter future for Australian students. The bill ensures Australia will be in a better position to make major contributions to our global future and to continue our tradition of innovation and technical skill.To support these commitments, the government in this legislation will appropriate in excess of $18 billion for the coming 2001-04 quadrennium.This bill includes provision for the new socio-economic status or SES based funding arrangements. This historic reform will provide a more transparent, objective and equitable approach to funding non-government schools.Under the new arrangements general recurrent funding will be distributed according to need and schools serving the neediest communities will receive the greatest financial support. This means that parents at all income levels will now have a realistic capacity to choose the most appropriate schooling for their child.The new model will be more responsive to a school's actual need for financial assistance. Unlike the current system, it will not discourage private investment in education and schools will be able to raise private income without penalty. It will also provide financial incentives for schools to attract students from low income families. This is a major leap forward, both for schools and for parents who may not have had such education choices open to them in the past.Schools will be in a stronger position to respond to the changing needs of students and their families and to direct their resources towards achieving the best possible learning outcomes for their students.The bill allows for the increased funding to schools to be phased in over the quadrennium. Schools that are funded on their SES scores will have their increased funding phased in at a rate of 25 per cent of the increase each year, so that by 2004 schools will be fully funded at their new level. The bill guarantees financial security for all schools. No school will be financially disadvantaged by the move to the new SES funding system. Schools that would otherwise have their funding reduced under the new arrangements will have their year 2000 per capita entitlements maintained, with the year 2000 dollar rates adjusted annually in line with the latest AGSRC figures.The government's 1998 election commitment to Catholic systems will continue to be honoured under the new SES based funding arrangements. Approved Catholic school systems will be funded on a basis that essentially preserves in real terms the per capita equivalent of their current funding categories in the year 2000.New non-government schools not belonging to Catholic systems will have their entitlement to Commonwealth funding assessed according to an SES based measure of need. Therefore, new schools that attract students from the neediest communities will also be eligible to receive a higher level of financial assistance. This is a vast improvement on previous arrangements for new schools and augurs well for the future health of the education sector.In addition, the bill provides additional funding for schools experiencing severe financial hardship or facing problems of viability during the transition to the new SES funding arrangements and establishment grants will be available to assist new non-government schools with costs incurred in their formative years and enable them to be competitive with existing schools.In keeping with the government's commitment to choice and equity in schooling, the bill also provides recurrent funding for distance education students receiving that education from non-government schools. The bill provides for the introduction of a revised structure for some Commonwealth programs of targeted assistance for schools which is the outcome of the review foreshadowed in the 1999-2000 budget.The revised structure combines the literacy and numeracy grants to schools programs and the special education school support fixed and per capita grants into the Strategic Assistance for Improving Student Outcomes program. This program will be aimed at helping schools and school authorities to improve student learning outcomes of educationally disadvantaged students, particularly in literacy and numeracy, and schools, school authorities and government centres to improve the educational participation and outcomes of students with disabilities.The bill also combines the priority and community languages programs into the Languages other than English program and simplifies administrative arrangements under this program. Funding provided under this program will continue to be aimed at helping schools, school authorities, government educational institutions and other bodies to improve the teaching and learning of languages other than English. The bill recognises the right of parents to choose the type of education they want for their children. This bill recognises that every child is entitled to a base level of public funding towards their education. This bill recognises the right of children to a quality education through improved outcomes for all students. This bill provides for a more equitable approach to funding non-government schools. We want quality education for all our children. Through improved accountability and outcomes this bill will ensure the health of our education sectors and the future growth of our nation.The bill also introduces significant reforms in accountability for Commonwealth grants to schools. New accountability requirements will strengthen the link between the funding provided under Commonwealth programs and improved outcomes for all Australian students.In essence, all education authorities—government and non-government—receiving Commonwealth grants will be required to commit to achieving performance targets against the national goals for schooling and to report publicly on their achievement. With adoption by all education ministers in 1999 of the national goals for schooling in the 21st century, Australia has its first set of outcomes focused schooling goals. Ministers have committed themselves to nationally comparable reporting of educational targets in key areas of the goals, such as literacy and numeracy and VET in schools.Meanwhile national benchmarks for student achievement in basic skills have been put in place. Now, by mid-2000, we have the goals needed to support national performance targets, standards in the form of the first national benchmarks, and the first national performance measures under development.The Commonwealth has played a key role in establishing national goals, benchmarks and measures. It is now time that this approach to improving student outcomes be reflected in the Commonwealth's own programs for schools.I commend the bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum.Debate (on motion by Mr Lee) adjourned.Bills18567R110418567Bill presented by Mr Reith, and read a first time.1856709:40:0018567Reith, 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 1999' 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 Democrats 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 can 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 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, the Democrats.The government is now in a position to introduce further single issue bills drawn from the more jobs, better pay bill 1999.The Workplace Relations Amendment (Tallies and Picnic Days) Bill 2000 makes changes to the Workplace Relations Act 1996 which provide for further simplification of federal awards in two areas where industrial matters are more appropriately decided at the workplace level—union picnic days and tallies. Despite obstruction, the award simplification process under the 1996 act has been beneficial to employers and employees. Since July 1998 all federal awards have only been enforceable in a simplified form. Over a thousand obsolete awards have been set aside, and hundreds of others have been simplified to ensure that published versions of awards specify only allowable matters. Award simplification has established a fair and streamlined safety net of minimum wages and conditions of employment. It has also facilitated agreement making and more productive workplaces.Following the decision of the High Court on 15 June 2000 to uphold the constitutional validity of the award simplification process, it is now appropriate for the parliament to enact measures for further targeted simplification. Overly complex and restrictive awards only hinder agreement making and act as a barrier to continued employment growth and workplace decision making.Award simplification should be a matter of bipartisan policy in this parliament. It was a policy advocated by the former Keating Labor government between 1993 and 1996.The Labor Party in opposition has, however, regressed in its own support for award simplification. It now has an approach of mindless opposition, like that of the ACTU, to all award simplification. Rather than support simplified awards, Labor's policy—as recently as last Friday's version—is for awards with unlimited content and regulatory detail.Award simplification, however, remains a formal part of Australian Democrat policy. The Democrats' 1998 industrial relations policy indicated that:... in assessing the industrial relations policies of both major parties in the Senate, the Democrats will apply and pursue the following principles ... A comprehensive up to date, simplified and useable award system.TalliesThe bill removes tallies from the allowable award matters. Tally systems determine rates of pay and penalties by inputs rather than outputs. The award based tally systems which operate exclusively in the meat processing sector are a major disincentive to productivity and efficiency in that sector. This is supported by the 1998 Productivity Commission report entitled Work arrangements in the Australian meat processing industry. That report said:...there are two forms of tally—head tallies and unit tallies...The simple effect of the unit tally ... is to increase unit labour costs as output exceeds minimum and then maximum tally...Both head and unit tallies are based on inputs—such as the number of heads—rather than a measure of output, such as weight processed, yield per animal, or any other measure of quality. This has implications for the impact of the tally on incentives facing both employees and managements. Unit tallies in particular are complex and prescriptive...After some 30 years of operation the award tally system is outdated and has been overtaken by technological developments and advancements. The Cattle Council of Australia, earlier this month, published a paper entitled Australia's beef industry: a new era. That paper said:...With the focus upon inputs, unit labour costs are increased to a very large degree once the tally has been met. These increased labour costs limit throughput on a given shift and overall in meat processing plants. This also leads to significant under-utilisation of capital, with the effect that labour inefficiencies also reduce capital productivity...”If individual enterprises wish to operate tally systems they need to be designed and be able to be adjusted, having regard to the circumstances affecting particular plants and to changes in those circumstances. Award based prescription of tallies is therefore unduly prescriptive and a brake on productivity.A full bench of the commission, last year, decided as part of award simplification hearings that it would delete the tally system from the major federal meat industry award. It decided to replace the tally system with a provision allowing for the implementation of an incentive payment system at the enterprise level as an alternative to payment based on time worked. It found that the appendix to that award, which set out the substance of the tally provisions, was:...replete with matters of detail or process more appropriately dealt with by agreement at the workplace or enterprise level...the provisions prescribe procedures which restrict or hinder the efficient performance of work...tally values based on time and motion analysis of the way work was performed 30 years ago are unlikely to be accurate now...the provisions are incapable of rational application to the variety of plants which make up the modern industry ... The removal of tallies from awards is long overdue and has been widely advocated within industry and by policy makers across the political divide. As related by the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Transport and Regional Services to parliament on 26 June 2000:...for a short period only, (the Australian Labor Party) got realistic about this industry, and their spokesman, the then Minister for Industrial Relations, Mr Peter Cook, in 1992 said `We ought to get rid of the tally system.' Peter Cook was not able to...deliver. Do you know why not? The ACTU said no. Peter Cook said, `This will produce more jobs. This will save jobs and produce more jobs. It is an important reform. But the ACTU said no.'Why did the ACTU say `no'? The answer lies in the quote from an article in the Journal of Industrial Relations (MA Jerrard, March 2000), which described the tally system as:...the method by which the union controls the pace of throughput of the plant in a shiftHowever, neither the Labor Party nor the Democrats have called into question the commission's decision to remove tallies from the major federal meat industry award. Apart from this award, unit tally systems also exist in a number of other federal meat awards. Removal of tallies as an allowable matter will expedite the modernisation of these awards.As the National Farmers Federation said on Tuesday 27 June 2000:The statutory obligation of the meat industry tally system is also critical to creating a more flexible and export responsive meat processing sector.....We welcome the Bill that will make meat industry tallies a non-allowable Award matter as this will bring a clean and final end to a system that has no logic and which hampers productivity.Union picnic daysThe bill further amends the Workplace Relations Act 1966 to specifically exclude union picnic days from the allowable award matters. The effect of the amendment is to ensure that an award cannot provide for employees to observe, or be paid for, a union picnic day. Union picnic days as part of the award safety net are an anachronism. Union membership is less than 20 per cent in the private sector in today's modern labour market, and union picnic days are very isolated in their incidence and observance. Union picnic day, if it is to be observed, should be the subject of local agreement at the workplace level. There is no basis on which it could be sensibly said that the observance of union picnic day is a necessary and relevant feature of a modern award safety net.This point has been acknowledged not just by the government but also by the Australian Democrats. In his report in November 1999 to the Senate Employment, Workplace Relations, Small Business and Education Legislation Committee Senator Murray said:... much has been made of the fact that awards still contain anomalies in them. For example, I agree there is little to justify keeping union picnic days in awards.Two-thirds of federal awards presently contain no union picnic day provisions, including 60 of the top 100 awards. 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 changes proposed by the bill, if it is the detail that is the barrier to the bill's passage through the parliament.The limited measures in this bill will continue the award simplification process in an appropriate manner. They will ensure that awards meet the requirement of a genuine safety net of fair and enforceable minimum conditions, with primary responsibility for these industrial matters being determined at the workplace level.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 achieve a fair and streamlined safety net of wages and minimum conditions of employment. 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.She went on to say:... 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 not only be inconsistent with 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 approaches to these issues, certainly at least until 1997. I therefore commend the bill to the House and I present the explanatory memorandum.Debate (on motion by Mr Swan) adjourned.Bills18570R112118570Bill presented by Mr McGauran, for Mr Anthony, and read a first time.1857009:53:0018570McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGAURANXH4GippslandNPMinister for the Arts and the Centenary of Federation10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.The Family and Community Services (2000 Budget and Related Measures) Bill 2000 deals with a range of initiatives announced in the 2000 budget relating to the provision of greater flexibility and choice in child care, youth allowance family assets test, the period for data matching of income details, the exclusion of payments made under the Abstudy scheme from the income test and the protection of people affected by the termination of the agreement on social security between the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and Australia.There is a demand for more flexible child care from families whose needs are not met from existing services. The greater flexibility and choice in child care initiative will improve families' ability to access and choose child care that meets their needs. Shift workers, families working non-standard hours, those who have a sick child or who live in rural and remote areas without access to care will particularly gain through this initiative. The choice of child care services will be increased by making in-home care more accessible than it is at present. This bill makes amendments that are necessary to ensure that care provided by approved in-home care services will qualify families using that care for child care benefit.The bill increases the exemption for a person's interest in business assets under the youth allowance family assets test. Currently this exemption stands at 50 per cent, but the bill increases the exemption to 75 per cent. This will generally make youth allowance payable to young people from families with business assets of up to $1.658 million. The change shows the government's support of families, particularly those in rural areas. About 7,200 young people should benefit from the measure.At present, the matching of income details under the data matching program under the Data-matching Program (Assistance and Tax) Act 1990 is limited to the two most recently completed financial years. The bill proposes an amendment to extend this period to the four most recently completed financial years. In doing so, it will increase the ability to detect people who commit fraud against the social security system by deliberate action, or engaging in artificial tax schemes that minimise their declared income and their tax liability and allow them to obtain a social security payment.The Privacy Commissioner's office was consulted in the development of this proposal and all data matching will be undertaken in strict observance with the other requirements of the act. The measures relating to the exclusion of payments made under the Abstudy scheme remove the anomaly between these payments and the income test. This will achieve equity in the treatment of Abstudy scheme recipients with that of other income support recipients. It will also ensure that Abstudy scheme recipients are treated consistently with other income support recipients.The bill also provides for the protection of people affected by the termination of the social security agreement with the United Kingdom. People who migrated to Australia on or before 1 March 2000, the date written notice of the termination of the social security agreement with the United Kingdom was formally served, will be protected. This measure will enable these people to get early access to age pension, even after the agreement terminates on 1 March 2001 because they will be able to use their periods of contributions to the United Kingdom social security system as periods of qualifying Australian residence. I commend the bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum.Debate (on motion by Mr Swan) adjourned.Bills18571R112918571Bill presented by Mr McGauran, and read a first time.1857109:57:0018571McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGAURANXH4GippslandNPMinister for the Arts and the Centenary of Federation10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.Part 2 of the Telecommunications (Consumer Protection and Service Standards) Act 1999 establishes the universal service regime for telecommunications. The universal service regime ensures that telephone and digital data services are reasonably accessible to all people in Australia. These two components of the regime are known as the universal service obligation (or USO) and the digital data service obligation (or DDSO) respectively. Currently around 400,000 telephone services are subsidised under the USO. The universal service regime is a key element of the government's strategy to provide access to effective communications for Australians.The Telecommunications (Consumer Protection and Service Standards) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2000 amends the act by repealing the current part 2 and substituting a new part 2. The bill provides for a new universal service regime that is flexible, forward looking and better able to cope with the changing demands of industry and consumers.The bill is fundamentally about improving the delivery and funding of the USO and DDSO. It does not seek to alter the composition of the obligations. Rather it seeks to improve service levels and provide greater choice for consumers, by improving delivery mechanisms.The coalition has had a long-standing commitment to looking for innovative ways of delivering services, including introducing competition into the provision of telecommunications services to customers who largely rely on the USO.There is clear evidence that competition is the best means of improving service and choice for consumers while also putting downward pressure on suppliers' costs. One need only look to the significant reductions that have occurred in long-distance, international and, more recently, local call charges. Telecommunications users reliant on the USO should share in these benefits to the maximum extent practicable. The existing USO arrangements, by helping to reinforce a monopoly, do nothing in themselves to foster a quality of service improvement culture for those telecommunications customers who rely on the USO for provision of their basic access services.There have also been a number of practical measures to conduct a fundamental re-examination of the way the USO is delivered and funded. There have been widely divergent claims about the cost of the USO, ranging from Telstra's $1.8 billion claim for the 1997-98 financial year, to less than $200 million claimed by a number of Telstra's competitors. This has highlighted a lack of certainty in USO cost setting inherent in the current arrangements. There has also been debate about who should pay for the USO and DDSO and how the costs should be shared. It has become increasingly apparent that Telstra's monopoly over USO subsidies constitutes a barrier to increased competition in country areas. All competitors in the industry should have the opportunity, at some level, to compete to deliver USO services, particularly when it is they who, in the first instance, fund the cost. There is a simple issue of competitive neutrality.Many people seem to assume for historical reasons that Telstra should be the only universal service provider. This mindset that holds Telstra up as the only possible solution for regional and rural Australia needs to be reassessed. The Australian telecommunications market is a competitive telecommunications market. There is absolutely no reason why Telstra, as universal service provider, should not be exposed to competitive pressure. If others can do the job better they should be given the opportunity to do so.The government has undertaken extensive consultation over the past 18 months about the best way of introducing competitive pressures into the USO. A number of new models for USO delivery have been developed and assessed. A key event was a major forum hosted by the Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts last November. Over 200 people, representing the range of carrier, regional and consumer interests, attended to discuss key USO issues.After reflecting on these processes, in March this year, the government announced a number of initiatives in relation to the provision of universal service in Australia and of untimed local calls in remote Australia. In broad terms, the key decisions were: to amend the universal service regime to improve its general operation, particularly in relation to contestability, costing and funding; to extend the funding base for the USO and DDSO to include carriage service providers as well as carriers; o undertake pilot schemes in regional Australia to trial the competitive supply of services under the USO; to undertake a competitive selection process to award the $150 million allocated from the Telstra 2 sale for the provision of untimed local calls in remote Australia (Telstra's so-called extended zones), with the successful tenderer subsequently becoming the universal service provider for the area; and to enhance industry certainty by enabling the minister to determine a universal service provider's USO entitlements for up to three years in advance.On 10 May 2000 the government introduced into parliament a first, short bill, the Telecommunications (Consumer Protection and Service Standards) Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2000, to make critical amendments before 30 June 2000. It focused on the last two of the measures announced in March. This second bill builds upon that first bill and provides for the wholesale revision of the USO regime announced by the government on 23 March.As a result of the changes proposed in this bill, Australia will have a cutting edge USO regime that is effective, flexible and better aligned with changing industry and consumer requirements. This is reflected in the new objects of the part.I will now outline the key changes to the universal service regime provided for in the bill.It is useful to note at the outset that all proposed powers of the minister under the part will be able to delegated, on a conditional basis, to the Australian Communications Authority, the ACA, enabling it to take over the day-to-day administration of the arrangements once they are bedded down.Under the bill, the USO and DDSO will continue as they are and will continue to apply to the whole of Australia. To assist with resolution of day-to-day issues about whether something is or is not part of the USO the minister will be given a new disallowable determination power. The legislation will enable the USO to be divided into constituent service obligations in case different components are better provided by different universal service providers in the same or different areas. The whole USO will, however, always need to be fulfilled.The minister will be empowered to determine areas to be universal service areas in respect of one or more service obligations, in much the same way as the minister currently determines digital data service areas. These areas will be the basic spatial building blocks of universal service provider obligations. Areas not determined will be deemed to constitute a default service area in their own right.The bill does not upgrade (or degrade) the USO itself. The focus of the government's review activities has been on the very important delivery and funding machinery for the USO. Upgrade of the USO is an issue the government has addressed several times since coming to office. Only last year the government introduced the DDSO to complement the USO and ensure all people in Australia had access on request to a 64 kilobits per second data service. Moreover, the proposed contestability arrangements, for example, are directed at providing for market based solutions to improve the delivery of service over time, in a way which is flexible and more responsive to the real and varied needs of people in higher cost telecommunications areas.The government is also pursuing other means to enhance access to communications services for regional, rural and remote Australia. The very successful Networking the Nation initiative, funded from the first Telstra sale, is one example. Networking the Nation and the package of social bonus initiatives, funded from the second Telstra sale, have resulted in $920 million being targeted primarily at information technology and telecommunications in regional areas.Provision is made in the bill for primary universal service providers (or PUSPs) and competing universal service providers (or CUSPs). In essence, the PUSP is the `carrier of last resort' for a service area and has some special obligations, including always providing the standard telephone service. In turn it can receive additional subsidies if the circumstances warrant this. The minister must declare one PUSP in respect of each service obligation in respect of each universal service area. As a transitional measure, Telstra is deemed to be determined the PUSP for all service areas until such time as another person is determined the PUSP.A PUSP will be required to have a policy statement and a marketing plan that sets out how it will fulfil the USO as it applies to it. These will be approved by the Australian Communications Authority (or ACA). The PUSP will be required to consult publicly on the draft policy statement and marketing plan and will be bound by its approved statement and marketing plan. Payment of USO subsidies will depend on compliance.A central objective of this bill is to establish a statutory framework for ongoing competition in the delivery of USO services. In the first instance, this will support the government's proposed pilots and, later, their progressive extension into new areas.Under the bill the minister will be able to determine that supply of a service obligation in an area is contestable and thereby subject to default contestability arrangements. These arrangements will overlay the standard PUSP arrangements.A carrier or carriage service provider wishing to supply services in respect of a contestable service obligation in a specified service area will apply to the ACA for approval as a competing USP (or CUSP). The ACA will consider the person's application in terms of whether (i) the person is an appropriate person; (ii) the person has an approved policy statement; and (iii) the person has an approved marketing plan.A CUSP will be able to seek approval to supply standard USO services as defined in the act and/or alternative telecommunications services (or ATS) in fulfilment of the USO. This legislation is very technical and, to be frank, slips into jargon at times. But it is terribly important to put it down as a matter of record, particularly for those who will be directly affected by this legislation, if the House will continue to bear with me. I know that, for the aficionados in the House, this will be of abiding interest. The principles of the bill before the House are not to be overlooked in some of the technicalities. The government is expanding the universal service obligation by making it more relevant, applicable and flexible to people on the ground. Representing, as I do, a large rural constituency, Gippsland, I know how important the universal service obligation is to my constituents. In effect the ATS will be service packages which have the key features of USO services but may vary in some way, including in their terms and conditions. The ATS concept is a major innovation on the part of the government and is intended to provide greater scope for USPs to offer consumers the services consumers want, with the provider retaining the benefit of the underlying USO subsidy. Consumers will always have the option of the standard USO services offered by the PUSP. Whether consumers take up the ATS will be their choice. PUSPs will also be able to offer ATS, but only in addition to their standard services.Both CUSPs and PUSPs supplying ATS will be required to have approved policy statements and marketing plans that will be binding. Both will be free, under these circumstances, to cease offering the services they have undertaken to supply but will need to give notice and provide for the transfer of customers or a customer to other services or providers. This is consistent with the decision to supply these services being a commercial initiative of the PUSP or CUSP concerned. Where a CUSP ceases to provide services in fulfilment of that service obligation in respect of which it has been approved for an area, it will no longer be a CUSP.The minister will be able to modify the default delivery arrangements to deal with any new events or circumstances which may arise. Such modifications will be disallowable.I should say, Mr Deputy Speaker, that in the old days under Labor, Labor used to just table these second reading speeches, whereas the coalition government believes in greater accountability to the parliament. Not only does our Prime Minister attend question time on a daily basis and not only do we have 10 set questions allocated to the opposition in comparison to their five or six; we also have ministers required to deliver second reading speeches whatever the length or complexity; and whatever competing demands there might be on ministers outside of the chamber, they are required to be here as a matter of courtesy to the House and for true and full accountability. Having enjoyed that, let me continue.While its origins are clearly visible in the current section 57 of the act, proposed division 9, relating to the determination of USO subsidies, shows a new approach to USO costing issues. The proposed determination provisions are the main vehicle for giving effect to the government's decision to set USO payments in advance. Adoption of the term `subsidy' is intended to reflect the reorientation of the universal regime away from the old monopoly USO delivery model to one increasingly open to competitive USO delivery.The minister will determine USO subsidy entitlements for up to three years in advance. Subsidies will be able to be determined in respect of one or more parts of the USO in respect of one or more service areas. Given the uncertainties for suppliers in commencing supply based on an instrument which is subject to disallowance, the consequences of disallowance, and because the minister's decisions about setting subsidies—in general to be based on advice from the Australian Communications Authority—are largely administrative in nature, such determinations will not be disallowable.The minister will be able to determine additional subsidies for PUSPs in contestable service areas. The minister's determination will be able to set out the circumstances in which the subsidy is payable, that is, in effect, to set eligibility criteria.The minister will be able to request the advice of the ACA in setting subsidies. The minister's request will be able to specify principles, including the methodology, the ACA is to have regard to in preparing its advice. In the first instance, the ACA is expected to use the `efficient provider, avoidable cost less revenue forgone' methodology—so familiar to all of us—it has used for its assessment of Telstra's USO entitlement for the last three financial years. It is expected, however, that the methodology will evolve over time to take account of increasing experience and changing market conditions. Eligible revenue is the revenue measure used in the universal service regime to calculate contributions to the total USO cost. Contributions are proportional to a person's share of total eligible revenue for the industry.Consistent with the government's announcement in March, the bill provides for carriage service providers as well as carriers to contribute directly to USO funding. However, to assist implementation, provision is made for carriage service providers to be brought into the funding process by disallowable instrument.Carriers and carriage service providers earning gross telecommunications revenue under a threshold determined by the minister, and other classes of specified persons, will not need to lodge eligible revenue returns. They will therefore be exempted from contributing to USO funding. Further, carriers and carriage service providers earning less than a specified amount of eligible revenue will be deemed to have zero eligible revenue and will therefore be exempted from contributing to USO funding.For equity and to minimise the potential burden on smaller contributors, a person's eligible revenue assessment will be net of an amount equivalent to the eligible revenue threshold.As an important innovation to encourage contributors to lodge timely returns, the ACA will be able to estimate an eligible revenue figure if that person fails to do so. In the absence of this device, payments to universal service providers (USPs) can be inappropriately delayed.USPs and digital data service providers (DDSPs) will be required to lodge claims for entitlements that will ultimately derive from USO subsidies determined by the minister or DDSO rebates set in regulations.Claims for will be for a `claim period', the default being a financial year. A shorter claim period will, however, be able to be determined, thereby giving universal service providers quicker access to subsidy entitlements and reducing the cost burden on them.The ACA will be required to scrutinise and make an assessment of claims. The ACA will need to examine whether the circumstances set out in the minister's subsidy determination for payment of the subsidy have been met. To enable management of any difficult claim situations that may arise, the minister will be able to formulate principles to be followed by the ACA in assessing claims. The minister will be required to consult before determining such principles. The principles will be disallowable.Individual USO contributions will be calculated, as now, by multiplying total levy entitlements by each person's contribution factor, which is based on their eligible revenue. The minister will be able to modify this default formula by determination. This will enable the minister, for example, to establish a margin to cover defaults and to provide for the carrying forward of that margin. The determination will be disallowable.Provisions relating to the universal service account have been revised to align them with the standard forms for special accounts under the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997 and the overall changes to the universal service regime.The account is to be administered by the Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts or the ACA, if the ACA is prescribed as an agency for the purposes of the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997.Levy will be able to be paid out to universal service providers in proportion to their entitlement as contributions are paid into the account. This will help address concerns about universal service providers bearing additional costs when payment is delayed. The minister will be able to determine alternative disallowable rules for the making of payments out of the account, for example, to give priority to specified kinds of universal service providers such as PUSPs. The minister will be able to determine arrangements in relation to contributors to the USO and DDSO taking out performance bonds or guarantees in relation to payment.Finally, current information disclosure provisions are re-enacted. However, to enable any continuing concerns about the efficacy of the provisions to be addressed and to deal with new issues that may arise, the minister will be able, by disallowable instrument, to modify those provisions, for example, to make the disclosure test less restrictive.Taken together, this package represents a major and very significant reworking of the machinery for managing the USO into the next decade. It should enable the government to deliver USO policy more flexibly, creatively, and in ways which facilitate innovation and which support market-based solutions to meeting the communications needs of people in regional Australia.I wish to thank and congratulate the officials of the Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts who have worked so conscientiously and assiduously in preparing this extraordinarily complex but still understandable legislation. Their work is directed at achieving a principle, an objective and a policy which all in this House would support, to bring better telecommunications to people in regional, provincial, rural and remote Australia. I thank them for their hard work.By way of conclusion, I would say that my respect for Senator Alston, the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, the relevant minister, has never been greater. This is a highly technical area, wrapped in important social policy. He has mastered both aspects of that administration.I present the explanatory memorandum and commend the bill to the House.Debate (on motion by Mr Swan) adjourned.Bills18576R113018576Bill presented by Mr McGauran, and read a first time.1857610:24:0018576McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGAURANXH4GippslandNPMinister for the Arts and the Centenary of Federation10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.The Telecommunications (Universal Service Levy) Act 1997 currently imposes a levy on telecommunications carriers to fund levy entitlements accrued by universal service providers and digital data service providers in fulfilling the universal service and digital data service obligations, USO and DDSO respectively, under part 2 of the Telecommunications (Consumer Protection and Service Standards) Act 1999. The Telecommunications (Consumer Protection and Service Standards) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2000 is amending part 2 of the Telecommunications (Consumer Protection and Service Standards) Act 1999 to put in place a new universal service regime. The Telecommunications (Universal Service Levy) Amendment Bill 2000 makes amendments to the levy act consequential to these amendments to the Telecommunications (Consumer Protection and Service Standards) Act. The amendments arise from the extension of USO and DDSO funding to include carriage service providers as well as carriers and new arrangements in relation to claim periods. To this end, schedule 1 to the bill amends the levy act to: replace the term `participating carrier' with `participating person'—this new term covers both carriers and carriage service providers who are required, under the proposed new arrangements, to contribute to USO and DDSO funding; replace the term `financial year' with `claim period'—under the proposed new arrangements claims will be made in relation to a claim period, which may be a financial year or another specified period; and make it clear the proposed amendments do not apply to financial years that ended before 30 June 2000—this makes it clear the amendments only have effect from 1 July 2000.I present the explanatory memorandum.Debate (on motion by Mr Swan) adjourned.Bills18577R109918577Bill presented by Mr Hockey, and read a first time.1857710:26:0018577Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLPMinister for Financial Services and Regulation10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.The purpose of the Treasury Legislation Amendment (Application of Criminal Code) Bill 2000 is to make consequential amendments to certain offence provisions in legislation administered by the Treasurer to reflect the application of the Criminal Code Act 1995 to existing offence provisions from 15 December 2001.The Treasury Legislation (Application of Criminal Code) Bill 2000 makes amendments to the Financial Sector Shareholdings Act 1998, Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Act 1975, Insurance Act 1973, Life Insurance Act 1995, Prices Surveillance Act 1983, Productivity Commission Act 1998, Retirement Savings Accounts Act 1997, Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993 and aspects of the Trade Practices Act 1974 which do not require consultation with the states.In addition, the bill makes a number of amendments to the Corporations Law made necessary by changes in the Corporate Law Economic Reform Program Act 1999.It is proposed to introduce a second bill in the spring sittings to make consequential amendments to taxation laws, the Corporations Law, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 1989 and aspects of the Trade Practices Act 1974 which require consultation with the states. This bill provides for amendments which specify the physical elements of an offence and corresponding fault elements—where these fault elements vary from those specified by the code—and specify whether an offence is one of strict or absolute liability. In the absence of such an amendment, offences previously interpreted as being ones of strict or absolute liability would be interpreted as not being ones of strict or absolute liability. In addition, any defences to an offence are being restated separately from the words of the offence. Use is being made of this opportunity to convert penalties expressed as dollar amounts to penalty units.The bill does not change the criminal law. Rather, it ensures that the current law is maintained following application of the Criminal Code Act to Commonwealth legislation.I commend the bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum.Debate (on motion by Mr Martin Ferguson) adjourned. Bills18577R111618577Bill presented by Mr Hockey, and read a first time.1857710:29:0018577Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLPMinister for Financial Services and Regulation10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.This Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 7) 2000 will amend the income tax law to allow deductions for donations of $2 or more made to: the Community Disaster Relief (Sydney Hail Storm Assistance) Fund; the Australian Ex-Prisoners of War Memorial Fund;the Global Foundation;the United Hellenic Earthquake Appeal;the Foundation for Gambling Studies; the Foundation for Rural and Regional Renewal Public Fund; the RSL and 6th Division Australian-Hellenic Educational Memorial Fund and the Mount Macedon Memorial Cross Restoration; andthe Development and Maintenance Trust Fund.In addition this bill will amend the pay-as-you-go (PAYG) instalments regime to: simplify the way beneficiaries who are absolutely entitled to the assets of a trust and beneficiaries of certain investment trusts work out their instalment income; and minimise the compliance burden on the trustees of those trusts while maintaining the PAYG instalmentsbase.The bill proposes amendments to the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997, the Income Tax (Transitional Provisions) Act 1997 and the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 by correcting unintended consequences made by the rewrite of the provisions of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 resulting from the Tax Law Improvement Act (No. 1) 1998. In addition, some minor amendments will also be made to the readability of those rewritten provisions.The amendments will, generally, apply to assessments for the 1998-99 income year and later income years.The bill also proposes amendments to the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997: to ensure that the integrity measures relating to the CGT general discount operate more appropriately; and to clarify and ensure that the provisions concerning the CGT small business concessions have the intended consequences.The amendments will apply to CGT events occurring after 11.45 a.m. AEST on 21 September 1999.There is a minor technical amendment in the bill that replaces an incorrect reference to `foreign public official' with `public official' in the section that deals with non-deductibility of bribes to public officials.Full details of the measures in this bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum.I commend the bill and present the explanatory memorandum.Debate (on motion by Mr Martin Ferguson) adjourned.Bills18578R111118578Bill presented by Mr Hockey, and read a first time.1857810:36:0018578Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLPMinister for Financial Services and Regulation10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.The purpose of this Trade Practices Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2000 is to amend the Trade Practices Act 1974 to improve the way the act delivers protection to Australian small business and consumers.The reforms contained within this bill are designed to ensure that the act's mechanisms for creating a competitive and fair environment work more effectively, thereby enhancing the welfare of all Australians.This bill does not change the substantive legal rights and obligations of any person. Rather, it ensures that the enforcement and remedies provisions of the Trade Practices Act remain relevant in Australia's current economic and social environment.The amendments clarify and expand the sanctions a court may impose where the Trade Practices Act has been breached. The bill will also improve access to the remedies available under the act and enhance the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission's powers to ensure the efficient operation and enforcement of the act.In a globalised economy, it is imperative that Australian businesses operate in a competitive domestic environment in order to remain internationally competitive. This can only be achieved where the law encourages competitive practices.The bill incorporates a package of amendments that seek to consolidate the legal rights and responsibilities of the Australian community by ensuring the Trade Practices Act operates effectively. The amendments target the problems documented by the Australian Law Reform Commission in its report Compliance with the Trade Practices Act.The bill also incorporates amendments to the act announced by the government in response to the Joint Select Committee on the Retailing Sector, which became known as the Baird committee. I will take the opportunity now to commend the excellent work undertaken by the member for Cook and all the other members of that committee in looking at a difficult subject and obviously a very community sensitive subject dealing with retailing in Australia. A lot of the recommendations made by that committee have been adopted by the government and are incorporated in the proposed amendments to the Trade Practices Act.This bill is about consumer sovereignty. It is about promoting competition, ensuring fair outcomes in the marketplace, and about benefiting the Australian community.It will do this by: increasing the maximum penalty levels under the act to $1 million for offences against the consumer protection provisions; allowing the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission to protect consumers and small business by intervening in private proceedings and instituting representative actions; extending the limitation periods of the Trade Practices Act to six years; and ensuring the courts give preference to compensation over fines and pecuniary penalties.The government is committed to ensuring that the Trade Practices Act continues to deliver appropriate protection to Australian businesses and consumers while promoting the availability of the choice, information and redress necessary to ensure that businesses and consumers can make sound decisions.I will take the opportunity now, during this second reading speech, to thank two individuals in particular who have done an enormous amount for consumers and, in fact, businesses over their careers at the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission. I firstly pay tribute to Allan Asher, who is retiring on 30 June from the ACCC as a commissioner. Allan Asher has long been seen as a very strong friend and supporter of consumers' rights. He has obviously been involved in decisions that not everyone would necessarily say were to the benefit of business, but I think Allan Asher has had the respect of business and, most particularly, I think Australian consumers can thank him for his very significant efforts on behalf of consumers over an extensive period of time.I would also like to take the opportunity to pay tribute to Hank Spier, who is the retiring General Manager of the ACCC. Hank Spier has perhaps a greater knowledge of the Trade Practices Act and consumer protection than any other person in Australia. He has been involved in consumer protection since the late 1960s. He has been one of the foundation stones upon which has been built the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission. Hank Spier has enjoyed all sorts of tests over the years and on all occasions has, in my view, come out well. The greatest test for all of us is to ensure that the people that succeed us can do a better job and make a greater contribution than us. If that is the test of how well we have served the community, then Hank Spier has laid the foundations within the ACCC for an excellent group of people to continue to do the outstanding work that the ACCC does. On behalf of all in this House, I would like to wish both Allan Asher and Hank Spier good luck and good fortune for the years that will follow. I say, on behalf of the Australian people, that we greatly appreciate all the efforts that both of you have made to help enhance consumer sovereignty in Australia. Most importantly, we know that all of those who remain with the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission would share our belief that both of you have made a very significant contribution to the quality of life of all Australians.I commend this bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum.Debate (on motion by Mr Martin Ferguson) adjourned.Bills18580R111718580Bill presented by Mr Slipper, for Mr Bruce Scott, and read a first time.1858010:44:0018580Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.This Retirement Assistance for Farmers Scheme Extension Bill 2000 will extend the successful Retirement Assistance for Farmers Scheme until 30 June, 2001.The RAF scheme is a key initiative of the Agriculture—Advancing Australia package, introduced by this government in 1997 to ensure a strong ongoing future for this nation's farming sector.The AAA package has delivered unprecedented support to the rural sector, focusing on measures to boost competitiveness, sustainability and profitability. It has helped farmers to improve their business and risk management skills and to become more self-reliant. At the same time, AAA has introduced an effective safety net for farmers in financial difficulties.The RAF scheme provides older farmers with the opportunity to transfer their farm to the younger generation without affecting their access to the age pension or service pension. Since its introduction in September 1997, the scheme has assisted more than 1,400 retiring farmers and their partners.Its extension for a further nine months will allow more farmers to reap the benefits of the scheme. They will be able to pass their farm on to their children, providing their family not only with a going concern but with a sense of continuity and belonging in their community. At the same time it will allow retiring farmers immediate access to the age pension or service pension. The scheme is designed to assist farmers who are facing hardship because their business is forced to provide a living for two families when it is capable of supporting only one. RAFS removes a significant impediment to the intergenerational transfer of the family farm.The eligibility requirements of the scheme have not altered. Farmers will need to meet the eligibility criteria of the scheme as it has operated during the past three years.The extension of this initiative, costing around $9 million over four years, will further contribute to a strong farming industry and enable older farmers, including many veterans, to retire with peace of mind, leaving a proud legacy to the younger generation. I commend the bill to House and present the explanatory memorandum.Debate (on motion by Mr Martin Ferguson) adjourned.Bills18580R110818580Bill presented by Mr Slipper, for Mr Bruce Scott, and read a first time.1858010:47:0018580Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.Australia owes perhaps its greatest debt to the men and women who have served their nation and given their lives in times of war and conflict.This Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Budget Measures) Bill 2000 gives effect to a range of measures announced in the budget as part of this government's commitment to honouring that debt.It includes initiatives to respond to the findings of the Vietnam Veterans Health Study and to properly recognise the service of veterans in a number of conflicts and deployments in South-East Asia.The Vietnam Veterans Health Study found that Vietnam veterans and their children are more likely to have some adverse health conditions than the general population. In response the government has developed a range of treatment and support initiatives to meet the long-term health needs of Vietnam veterans and their families.The Department of Veterans' Affairs will fast-track access to treatment for Vietnam veterans diagnosed as suffering major clinical depression and severe anxiety disorders. This will enable Vietnam veterans to receive help when it is needed, irrespective of whether the veteran has made a claim for pension or of the outcome of any such claim. Veterans' partners will be given access to free psychiatric assessments. Until now, dependent partners have had access to counselling services but not to psychiatric assessments. This initiative will ensure that partners have access to appropriate mental health assessment and counselling.And, in recognition that the need for counselling does not end with the end of a relationship, access to counselling services will be extended to include former partners of Vietnam veterans for up to five years after the end of the relationship.The tragic problem of suicide is one of the most important and most difficult issues facing Australia today.The Vietnam Veterans Health Study indicated that the incidence of suicide among Vietnam veterans' children is three times that found in the general community.But suicide is not only a Veterans' Affairs issue—it is something that must be addressed through a coordinated approach by federal, state and local governments working with the community.Therefore, in addressing the findings of the health study, the Department of Veterans' Affairs has extended the focus of its support programs to bring them into line with the National Suicide Prevention Strategy and National Mental Health Strategy.Access to counselling services will be extended to cover Vietnam veterans' children up to their 36th birthday. Free psychiatric assessments will also be provided to these children until their 36th birthday to ensure they are referred to the most appropriate treatment and support.Education and educational support have been shown to play a crucial role in suicide prevention. Therefore, we will extend eligibility for the Veterans' Children Education Scheme to include Vietnam veterans' children who are identified as vulnerable to self-harm or suicide.There are other important measures, not requiring legislative change, that substantially increase the number and range of programs directed at improving the health, in particular the mental health, of these veterans and their families. These include health promotion and other preventive strategies to address lifestyle illnesses, such as heart disease and alcohol abuse in veterans. Bursaries will be provided to assist children to enter tertiary study. Additional group programs will address the needs of veterans and their families.This bill also gives effect to the government's decision to rectify a series of anomalies affecting the service eligibility of certain veterans of conflicts in South-East Asia between 1955 and 1975, following the review by Justice Robert Mohr.The government has decided to grant qualifying service to more than 2,600 veterans of a number of conflicts, including the Malayan emergency and the Indonesian confrontation.This means that they will be eligible to apply for full repatriation benefits, including the service pension.An additional 1,500 veterans will become eligible to apply for a disability pension in respect of their service aboard HMAS Sydney, Vampire, Parramatta and Yarra in Malaysian waters during the Indonesian confrontation.These extensions of qualifying service and operational service in this bill will align service in South-East Asia with the criteria of `warlike' and `non-warlike' service applied to modern Australian Defence Force deployments.It will also change some dates of eligible service to align them with the dates of the actual operations.In other areas of the Veterans' Affairs portfolio, this bill includes a change in the calculation of the fortnightly payment of the disability pension and war widow's pension, to align the calculation of grants and increases with the service pension and other income support payments.This bill also excludes Abstudy allowance payments from the income test for the service pension and other income support payments. This will ensure that a Veterans' Affairs pension recipient whose partner receives Abstudy payments is treated in the same way as other income support recipients with an Austudy partner. The veteran community deserves our greatest admiration, gratitude and assistance for their contribution to this nation. This government is firmly committed to honouring their service and to ensuring that their needs are met.I commend the bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum.Debate (on motion by Mr Martin Ferguson) adjourned.Bills18582R110918582Bill presented by Mr Slipper, for Mr Bruce Scott, and read a first time.1858210:54:0018582Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration10——I move:That the bill be now read a second time.This Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2000 is a parcel of amendments that directly or indirectly assist veterans and their families.Amendments being made in this bill will assist Australian Defence Force members who have been severely injured as a result of their service, and the families of members who have been killed as a result of their service.These amendments will ensure that any additional payments for the severe injury or the death, made by a determination under the Defence Act 1903, will not affect any compensation payments that may be payable under the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986. These additional payments were part of a package of assistance that this government introduced after an inquiry into military compensation arrangements undertaken in 1997, in the aftermath of the Black Hawk accident.A further element of this package of assistance being introduced through this bill is the provision for the children of these severely injured or deceased veterans to have access to counselling and guidance by the Veterans' Children Education Boards.This bill also will allow the Repatriation Commission to accept an application for reimbursement of travelling expenses incurred by a veteran travelling to obtain medical treatment more than three months after the travel where there are exceptional circumstances for the delayed application. There have been cases where the current three-month time limit has caused difficulties where a person has suffered a prolonged illness, limiting their ability to manage their affairs. By introducing flexibility into these processes, the government is demonstrating once again it listens to the needs of the veteran community, and is responsive to those needs.This bill will give effect to three recommendations made by Professor Dennis Pearce, in his review of the Repatriation Medical Authority and the Specialist Medical Review Council, which were endorsed by this government as part of its commitment to identify improvements in the system of determining claims for compensation. These recommendations clarify the powers of the authority in respect of requests it receives to review statements of principles.The bill will also complete compensation adjustments associated with A New Tax System. These adjustments will ensure the value of the pension supplement will flow through to the amount of a bonus calculated under the Pension Bonus Scheme and to the farmers income test, which is part of the criteria for eligibility under the Retirement Assistance for Farmers Scheme. Amendments will also enable the maximum amount payable for certain medical reports, obtained and used in support of a claim for pension, to be increased in line with the expected GST impact.This bill also introduces various changes that will improve administrative arrangements associated with the delivery of services and assistance to veterans and their families.The operation of the Veterans Review Board will benefit from increased flexibility. This will be obtained by: providing an additional configuration of the board; the introduction of a `slip rule' to correct an obvious error in the text of a decision or in a written statement of reasons for decision; and a power to delegate certain action within the board's registry.The Repatriation Commission facilitates access to a wide range of health care services for eligible veterans and dependants. The commission has progressively reviewed the circumstances in which it needs to approve treatment before it is provided to the eligible person as the Department of Veterans' Affairs has shifted its focus from a health service provider to a purchaser of services. This bill reflects these changes by removing references to the former repatriation hospitals from the act, and by reducing the need for prior approval of treatment from a general to an exceptional requirement.The bill will provide a link between any special assistance and benefit the Repatriation Commission may grant a veteran or dependant and the appropriation available to the similar form of assistance or benefit that is available to other veterans and dependants eligible under the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986. This will streamline the processes associated with any such grant by the commission in the future.The present restriction on the Repatriation Commission to delegate its powers to a person employed under the Public Service Act 1999 is a barrier to effective use of contracted and outsourced services. This bill will enable the commission to delegate its powers to certain contractors where the person, or the agency or firm for which the person works, is contracted to perform services on behalf of the commission. The desired standards of service and codes of conduct of persons to whom the commission would delegate its powers would be set out in the terms of the contract.The recent introduction of the Home Support Advance Scheme has provided an opportunity to invite tenders for provision of advances under this scheme. The changes to the Defence Service Homes Act 1918 will enable these business arrangements to be made, and separate this new scheme from the Defence Service Homes Scheme that continues to be administered by the Westpac Banking Corporation.In conclusion, this is a bill that offers reform to the conduct of business and further demonstrates this government's commitment to cut red tape. It also offers timely and appropriate assistance to veterans and their dependants.I commend the bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum.Debate (on motion by Mr Martin Ferguson) adjourned.Bills18583R111918583Bill presented by Mr Entsch, and read a first time.1858311:00:0018583Entsch, Warren, MPMr ENTSCH7K6LeichhardtLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources10I move:That the bill be now read a second time.The major objective of the Patents Amendment (Innovation Patents) Bill 2000 is to introduce the new innovation patent system to replace the current underused petty patent system. The new innovation patent system will provide a more accessible and effective protection for lower level or incremental inventions.This bill also meets two further objectives. The first is to facilitate streamlining the mechanisms available for payment of fees under the Patents Act and the second is to provide a number of minor amendments to correct unintended ambiguities in the Patents Act.The innovation patentIn 1979 the government introduced the petty patent system to assist Australian small to medium business enterprises. The government intended the system to provide a quicker and cheaper form of patent right for inventions with a short commercial life. However, the petty patent system has had limited success in meeting its objectives and has not been well used. In 1994 the government commissioned the Advisory Council on Industrial Property, ACIP, to conduct a review of the Australian patent system. The objective of the review was to assess the coverage provided by Australia's current intellectual property regimes for incremental and lower level inventions.ACIP's report Review of the Petty Patent System was released in August 1995. The review identified a `gap' in the protection provided by current intellectual property regimes. This `gap' related to incremental innovations that did not meet the inventive threshold requirements of the current standard or petty patent systems and were not appropriate for protection under the registered designs system. Many of the innovations developed by small to medium business enterprises fall within this gap. These innovations are often directed at improving, adapting and refining existing technology and although they may not represent major inventive advances they do have commercial value and play an important part in the commercialisation and application of technology.In addition, although a single innovation may not equate to a significant inventive advance, over time a series of innovations may comprise the essential steps culminating in a major breakthrough. A system that protects lower level inventions enables small and medium business enterprises to realise the value of their contributions in an ongoing inventive process and also rewards innovative developments as they occur, without imposing the long lead times often associated with major breakthroughs.The ACIP report recommended the implementation of a new `second-tier' patent system to fill the `gap' in current intellectual property protection regimes. Following consultation with a range of stakeholders, including the business community and professional groups, ACIP recommended the introduction of the innovation patent system.The government has acted on these recommendations and devised a `second-tier' patent system to better address the needs of business, particularly small to medium enterprises. The innovation patent will be relatively inexpensive, quick and easy to obtain. It will provide the same scope of protection as the standard patent; however, it will require a lower inventive threshold than that required for a standard or a petty patent. An innovation patent will have a maximum patent term of eight years, compared to a 20-year term for a standard patent.A major factor contributing to the reduced cost of obtaining an innovation patent will be the grant of a patent without substantive examination—the time consuming and costly process during which an application is assessed against relevant statutory criteria. Substantive examination will only occur if directed by the Commissioner of Patents or requested by the patent owner or a third party. However, to reduce the scope for unsubstantiated threats, the owner of an innovation patent may only take action to exercise their rights if their patent has been substantively examined. This will give innovation patent owners the option of putting their claims on the public record without the need to go through the costly substantive examination process.Although innovation patents will be available for most of the types of invention currently covered by standard patents, they will not be available for plants and animals, or biological processes for the generation of plants and animals. This exclusion does not include microbiological processes and innovation patents will be available for processes such as cheese and wine making and the synthesis of industrial compounds using micro-organisms.Over 48 other industrialised countries, including Japan and Germany, have already introduced second-tier patent systems. Overseas experience suggests that the innovation patent should provide better access to intellectual property rights and foster innovation by local enterprises.Other amendments to the Patents ActThis bill will also move many of the fee payment requirements from the Patents Act to the regulations to enable this administrative function to be handled more efficiently by the Patent Office. This will enable greater flexibility in handling these administrative functions in the rapidly changing e-commerce environment. The final objective of this bill is to introduce a number of minor amendments, some of which are technical in nature. These amendments remove a number of potential ambiguities and minor inconsistencies in the act.I believe that this bill reflects the government's commitment to providing Australia with a strong intellectual property system that meets the needs of Australians. The innovation patent will provide a greater incentive for Australians, particularly individuals and small and medium business enterprises, to invest in innovation and the marketing of their good ideas. The amendments to the fee payment provisions of the act will enable the government to provide a modern fee payment system for users of the patent system.I commend the bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum.Debate (on motion by Mr Martin Ferguson) adjourned.Bills18585R112318585Bill presented by Mr Slipper, and read a first time.1858511:09:0018585Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 3) 2000 which is now before the House contains a number of amendments to the Customs Tariff Act 1995. Most of the amendments have been previously tabled in this House as customs tariff proposals and now require incorporation in the Customs Tariff Act. Therefore, I will only outline the major amendments at this time.Schedule one is operative from 15 December 1999 and removes the customs duty on 268 nuisance tariff items.Nuisance tariff items attract a duty of five per cent or less, each raise less than $100,000 in annual revenue and represent goods where there are few or no local producers. These reductions in tariff rates lower business input costs which in turn enable Australian manufacturers to be more competitive in world trade.Schedule 2 imposes an excise equivalent duty on imported chemical grade toluene, benzene, xylenes and mixed alkylbenzenes from 10 March 2000. The imposition of the duty on these products combats duty evasion through the illegal blending of petroleum products with toluene, a product which had not previously been subject to an excise equivalent duty.The effect of these amendments is to close off this avenue of illicit activity. While there was no evidence that chemicals other than toluene were being used in fuel substitution activity, there was the potential for this to occur, particularly if this duty was not imposed.Regulations and administrative measures have been implemented to ensure that legitimate users of these chemicals are not disadvantaged.I commend the bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum.Debate (on motion by Mr Martin Ferguson) adjourned.Miscellaneous1858511:12:0018585Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration10—I move:Excise Tariff Proposal No. 3 (2000)Customs Tariff Proposal No. 4 (2000)The tariff proposals which I have just tabled contain alterations to the Excise Tariff Act 1921 and the Customs Tariff Act 1995.Excise Tariff Proposal No. 3 (2000) and Customs Tariff Proposal No. 4 (2000) formally place before parliament changes to the excise and customs duty on fuel. The policy document, Tax reform: not a new tax, a new tax system,outlined the government's commitment to maintain pump prices after the introduction of the GST. Under the new arrangements to be introduced on 1 July 2000, excise and customs duty will be reduced for unleaded petrol, leaded petrol, diesel and other fuel used in internal combustion engines.The measures outlined in this tariff proposal in conjunction with the Fuel Sales GrantScheme will assist in maintaining fuel prices following the introduction of the GST.A summary of the alterations contained in these proposals has been prepared and is being circulated.I commend the proposals.Debate (on motion by Mr Martin Ferguson) adjourned.Miscellaneous1858611:14:0018586Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration10—I move:Customs Tariff Proposal No. 5 (2000)Customs Tariff Proposal No. 5 (2000), which I have just tabled, contains alterations to the Customs Tariff Act 1995. These changes relate to a number of matters. Firstly, on 21 June, the Minister for Trade, Mr Vaile, and the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources, Senator Minchin, jointly announced that a settlement had been reached with the United States of America in relation to the Howe Leather dispute. Part of that settlement involves Australia reducing the customs duty on 30 tariff items from five per cent to free from 1 July 2000.This proposal gives effect to those agreed duty reductions. The second amendment relates to the preferential tariff treatment for developing countries, which has had longstanding bipartisan support in Australia. The United Nations reviews its list of designated least developed countries from time to time to ensure that the changing economic and development circumstances of individual countries are taken into account. Following such a review, both Angola and Madagascar have been added to the least developed countries list. This proposal makes the required changes to part 3 of schedule 1 of the Customs Tariff Act to reflect the designation of these two countries. A further change acknowledges the renaming of Zaire as the Democratic Republic of Congo. The effect of the amendments will be to accord a tariff margin of five per cent where available over the general rate of duty to Australia's imports from Angola and Madagascar.The final amendment involves item 54 in schedule 4 of the tariff act, which relates to the textiles, clothing and footwear import credit scheme. The administrative arrangements for the scheme provide transitional arrangements whereby import credits earned under the scheme may be used up until 30 December 2001. The current wording of item 54, however, allows credits to be used only up until 30 June 2000. Item 54 is therefore being amended to reflect the administrative arrangements. A summary of the alterations contained in this proposal is being circulated for the information of honourable members. I commend the proposals to the House.Debate (on motion by Mr Martin Ferguson) adjourned.Bills18586R109818586Debate resumed from 21 June, on motion by Mr Truss:That the bill be now read a second time.11:17:0018586O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr O'CONNORWU5CorioALP00—The Primary Industries Legislation Amendment (Vegetable Levy) Bill 2000 is a minor piece of legislation that corrects an anomaly which has grown up around the vegetable levy first introduced in March 1996 at a level of half a per cent on the value at the point of sale. An anomaly grew up here because some farmers were value adding to their produce and the value at the point of sale was larger for them than other farmers. Of course, they were caught paying a higher amount of levy. This situation was remedied in the 1999 legislation which consolidated the levies. However, from 1996 to 1999 some growers were caught in this anomalous situation. So this piece of legislation seeks to amend that situation and to give farmers who were adversely—or you could say `inequitably'—affected in a minor way the opportunity to have that situation redressed. The opposition supports the bill advanced by the government and we hope for a speedy passage through the parliament. I note that this anomaly involves a small number of producers. Indeed, we can identify one and perhaps some others at this point in time. We have not been able to find out who the lucky producer is whose situation is being addressed by a specific piece of legislation. It could be in the honourable member for Mallee's electorate—I am not quite sure. I understand that this producer was value adding to his cucumbers and then selling them pickled to the McDonald's chain, but was caught out by the anomaly of this situation.XJ6Anthony, Larry, MPMr Anthony—Do you like gherkins?WU5O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr O'CONNOR—The honourable member for Richmond seated opposite loves McDonald's—especially hamburgers sold in caravan parks.LS4Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin Ferguson—Most of the time now he looks like he is sucking on a lemon.WU5O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr O'CONNOR—He could well be. I understand that the minister has sucked on the GST lemon and has found it to be a very bitter taste indeed. As the farming community finds out the adverse impacts of the GST on them, it will be an even more bitter fruit for the minister to swallow.I have a personal interest in this industry, and I should declare that upfront. I am the son of a Western District dairy farmer. We had a mixed farm in the Western District of Victoria where we grew onions and potatoes on those rich volcanic soils, as well as milking cows. In the area I was raised, onions, potatoes, pumpkins and peas were basically the staple diet of the farming community. Of course, in those days there were many jobs that spun off from vegetable production, but those jobs are no longer there. We have seen the same sort of structural adjustment take place in the vegetable industry as has taken place in the dairy industry, with a consequent decline in the number of producers as well as the jobs that spin off from that rural production in the value adding chain, the transport chain and elsewhere. I think one of the unique features of this industry is its diversity. If you go to any farming community in the rich fertile soil areas, you will invariably see some vegetable production. Just scanning through the statistics you can see it is the everyday vegetables that Australians consume that are the subject of the levy that is the focus of this legislation today—vegetables such as asparagus, beans, beetroot, broccoli, cabbages, capsicums, chillies, peppers, carrots, cauliflower, celery, cucumbers, peas, lettuces, marrows, squash, zucchini—that would be a bit foreign, of course, to the minister opposite—melons, mushrooms, onions, pumpkins, potatoes, sweet corn and tomatoes. I have probably left out a few, but it is a very diverse industry. One of the interesting features of the diversity of this industry is the large number of small growers and their geographical spread throughout regional communities in Australia.We have seen changing patterns of production and they are reflected in the production statistics for this industry. Over 50 per cent of the production in the vegetable industry comes out of Queensland and Victoria. But it is an interesting situation when you get to exports, in that Western Australia and Tasmania are the main states involved in the export of vegetables from Australia. We have seen not only the diversity in the range of products produced by the vegetable industry in rural Australia but also a changing pattern of production. We are seeing now an increased production of Asian vegetables for a very strong domestic market, which has fed off the back of the immigration program over the last decade. Given that strong domestic production base, we are now starting to see a very interesting and growing export industry in the Asian vegetables market.You would be surprised, Mr Deputy Speaker, at the amount of vegetable production that is taking place in my own electorate, in the Geelong region. My electorate is renowned for its production of cars, textiles, petroleum and aluminium and we often overlook the contribution to the regional economy that comes from vegetable production. For example, at Batesford there is a very small but very productive valley engaged in the production of vegetables. At Lara there is burgeoning production in Asian vegetables, which is becoming a very prominent industry in that area. It is small scale, quite labour intensive and very important to the local economy. A traditionally very strong vegetable growing area of Victoria and Australia is the Bellarine Peninsula, where we have the production of potatoes, onions, broccoli and other such crops. We have great plans and great hopes for the expansion of the vegetable industry in my electorate. Avalon airport lies at the juxtaposition of some very important transport assets in Victoria—the Princes Highway, the port of Geelong and the national standard gauge all run very close to Avalon airport. Some six or seven years ago we mounted a very strong proposal to develop this airport as a dedicated airfreight centre for the export of vegetables, as well as flowers and aquaculture products. That project never came to fruition because the government privatised Avalon at the time. While we have seen some employment gains there, we have seen nothing like the employment that would bring back the jobs to the Geelong region that were there before this government came to office. At the stroke of a pen, they got rid of ASTAAS and, with it, 450 highly skilled jobs. That was going to be the core of the development at Avalon, with a dedicated airfreight capacity being developed so that we could, downstream, link primary industry, as well as the flower and aquaculture industries, into a very significant exporting effort from that facility.If it did become a dedicated freight facility, we would see a very significant increase in vegetable production in the Geelong region. I would certainly sound a word of caution to local government authorities to make sure that they protect the land base in the Geelong region so that, if Avalon were to realise the expectations we have for it, the capacity would be there to increase our vegetable production significantly. Sadly, that project has stalled with the privatisation of Avalon airport. That was a decision taken by this government. But I do have strong hope because we now have a state Labor government in Victoria with a very strong focus on developing regional infrastructure and the fresh food and food processing industries in Victoria. I am very hopeful that the Victorian Deputy Premier and Treasurer, John Brumby, who has a deep understanding of the requirements of regional Australia, will turn the state government's eye and energies to getting this particular project off the ground because, in Geelong, it has the potential to shift the economic base of the region, not away from cars and textiles but towards a very strong underpinning for the local economy. In that particular development the vegetable industry will play a very important role. We cannot understate the importance of the vegetable industry to rural and regional Australia. As I have said before, it is a small-scale industry that is very labour-intensive and there are very strong spin-offs for other businesses that support vegetable production, such as the chemical industry, the transport industry, marketers, et cetera.One very important aspect of this industry is that it lends itself to value adding close to the source of production, and indeed this will be a very important focus for policy of a future Labor government. We differ from the National Party in this respect. The Deputy Prime Minister and Leader of the National Party is on the public record as saying that economic development in the rural sector is best propelled by simply adding to the quality of the bulk cargo that goes through the port. There is nothing wrong with that particular philosophy, but it should not be seen in isolation. What we really need to develop is a value adding capacity that creates jobs in rural and regional Australia. The vegetable industry offers us not only great export potential but a great capacity to value add close to the source of production and, in a very significant way, to stimulate the economic development of local communities.If you look at the statistics on this particular industry and see the trends that are occurring, the total volume of fresh vegetable exports for the top five—onions, cauliflower, broccoli, carrots and asparagus—reached 150,000 tonnes in 1998-99, with a value of $157 million. The exports of all fresh vegetables were estimated to be in the region of 22 per cent of all Australian vegetable production in 1999. It is an industry that is export orientated and we hope to expand that. As I read through the development plans for the food industry, all the state Labor governments focus very heavily on the vegetable industry and on value adding to vegetables to stimulate jobs and to stimulate wealth production in rural and regional areas. Malaysia, Singapore and Japan are our major markets for the outputs of this particular industry but, even so, the barriers to entry in many of these countries—and these are our trading partners—are quite high. For example, if this industry wants to export vegetables to the Philippines, it faces not only high tariff levels but also a very strict regime of import restrictions. Thailand imposes tariffs of 60 per cent on imported vegetables. Chinese Taipei has relatively high import duties on onions, carrots, cauliflowers and broccoli, ranging from 32.5 per cent to 40 per cent. These are all significant barriers to the export of vegetables from Australia. Like many other rural industries, the vegetable industry is relying for expansion on a successful effort by the Australian government to lever open market access—to give them greater market opportunities in these countries. If we could achieve a substantial lowering of tariffs in these communities, there would be flow-on effects in Australia in the improved market access we could obtain and the expanded production and job creation that would flow from that.I notice out in the public arena that there is significant debate at the moment on trade policy, and of course we do go through this debate from time to time in the Labor Party and, I would imagine, in the coalition as well. The issue of free and fair trade is debated quite hotly within the ranks of the Labor Party, as it is in the general community, but the sorts of tariff levels that I have indicated are barriers for the export of Australian vegetable products. It would be a very tough task for Australia to argue for a significant lowering of tariff barriers in Chinese Taipei and the Philippines while at the same time arguing for an increase in other tariffs because of labour standards and environmental issues.I am not playing down the importance of those issues—they have to be considered in all fora throughout the world to achieve greater justice for workers in these countries and greater protection for the environment—but we do have to be very careful in this debate because we have a rural industry that has great potential for export, and that potential will be realised only if we are able to achieve a significant lowering of the tariff barriers in many of our trading partners. The industry is undergoing some interesting structural changes as far as its institutional arrangements are concerned. Quite recently the Horticulture Australia council had its inaugural meeting as the national representative body for horticulture throughout Australia. Mr Deputy Speaker, coming from a farming area and having a deep acquaintance with the affairs of rural Australia, you might appreciate just how difficult it is to get horticultural industries together—to get vegetable producers with citrus producers, and so on—but they have over a long period of time considered this issue and, I think quite rightly, concluded that there are some issues at the national level that are best addressed by a peak body. I congratulate all involved with the process that has brought them to the point where we will have a national peak body that will be able to articulate on behalf of the vegetable industry and other horticultural industries some of the key issues facing those and other rural industries today.This is a very important industry in Australian agriculture, and it does disappoint me when the government presents itself as a great supporter of the vegetable industry and then puts an impost like the GST on it. Recently I came across some correspondence from the seed potato industry of Victoria. They are very concerned about the advice that they received from the Australian Taxation Office on the implementation of the GST. This particular industry is located mainly in Victoria—85 per cent of it is in Victoria—and the growers are represented by Seed Potatoes Victoria. This organisation represents 106 certified seed potato growers in that state, which is 100 per cent membership of certified seed growers. This industry produces 35,000 tonnes of certified seed annually. It has a farm gate return of $16 million, of which $1½ million is export. Production is expanding at around three to four per cent annually and the growth in exports, although it is off a low base, is around 25 per cent annually. When Seed Potatoes Victoria went to the Australian Taxation Office to get advice on whether their product would be GST free, they got an initial indication from the Taxation Office that it would be. Of course, they notified their growers, who made their plans and structured their enterprises accordingly. Then the Australian Taxation Office started notifying individual growers that the product would be GSTable. The implications are quite devastating for the certified seed industry. It has the potential to divert demand into the uncertified seed area and to destroy this growing industry—a very important industry not only to Victoria but also to other regional communities around Australia. This highlights the administrative confusion surrounding the introduction of this tax and, if you like, the betrayal of the rural sector—I use those words guardedly, but I think it is betrayal. We have seen the betrayal on fuel and we now have potato growers and other vegetable growers, like other rural businesses, saddled with the enormous compliance costs associated with this GST—a tax that they do not want and which may not be of benefit to them in the long run. This particular measure has the potential to destroy this very specialised and growing area of vegetable production. It is a problem that we have highlighted in the media in the hope that we can lend support to the industry to get their case heard in the bowels of government. Here we have a new tax being introduced and suddenly people are waking up to the administrative confusion and the enormous cost of compliance, which is now falling on potato growers, as it is on other vegetable growers in this industry. This particular legislation is a minor piece of legislation, but it is important to the grower or growers—there may be some others—who might be brought within the ambit of this legislation. We understand that it is a small financial outlay—very small indeed. The opposition will be supporting the speedy passage of this legislation through the parliament.11:41:0018590Forrest, John, MPMr FORRESTNV5MalleeNP10—I am pleased to have the opportunity—albeit that I will be fairly brief—to support the Primary Industries Legislation Amendment (Vegetable Levy) Bill 2000. I tend to disagree a little bit with the member for Corio's comments, although I welcome the opposition's support for the bill. Whilst it might be a fairly minor matter in terms of the overall big picture that the parliament generally presides over, to the five vegetable producers that I am aware of who will benefit under this scheme it is a very important piece of legislation. This legislation shows that the parliament is interested in establishing and reinforcing equity. In the current arrangements, which this bill seeks to adjust, growers who did all the things that we challenge them to do—that is, to value add to their product and then send it into the market—had the levy paid in terms of the value added price of the commodity they were producing, whereas the levy is intended to apply only to fresh vegetables, which is the lesser cost when supplied into the market as a fresh commodity.There has been an enormous amount of discussion with the industry. Whilst it was one grower—I understand a person who produces pickles—who raised this matter, I think it gives the community out there some confidence that the parliament is interested in restoring equity. Included in that group of what I understand to be five vegetable growers around Australia who are, at this stage, engaged in value adding, are two very large vegetable growers in the district of Wemen in my constituency. One of those growers is a producer of carrots. It is very refreshing to go to this particular property and see around 1,500 acres of carrots being grown with the help of modern computer-aided irrigation systems. Rather than just supplying fresh carrots in a range of sizes into the market, the grower has risen to the challenge and is now juicing his carrots. It is a very impressive operation. I was fortunate in January this year to take the Deputy Prime Minister to visit that particular property, and he was suitably impressed. The grower has been able to take the opportunity to export, particularly into the Asian market and, more particularly, into the Japanese market where carrot juice is a sought-after item. So I am very pleased to see the government responding in this very positive way. I congratulate the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry for bringing this legislation to the chamber. The subject of levies is always a difficult one for horticultural growers to come to grips with. It has been a struggle for me over the years, with a constituency which is very much dependent upon the development of horticulture—it is the big economic driver, particularly in the northern regions of the Mallee associated with the Murray River and irrigation—to encourage disparate growers who are busy doing their own thing to act together, to have the confidence to reinvest in their industry in a corporate sense. A few years ago we worked very hard to establish a levy for table grape growers who are scattered right around the nation from Western Australia, up to the Northern Territory and along the Murray River. It is a booming industry offering enormous opportunity for economic development. If you visit the districts of Wemen and Robinvale on the Victorian side of the Murray, you will see that fresh grape production is very much a part of the employment and local economy of those regions. Sadly, it was not possible to get all disparate groups around the nation together, to have the confidence to say, `Yes, we have enough confidence in our industry to recommend to the government that we have a levy.' Work on table grapes will continue. The growers in my region are very keen to have access to a fund that can be matched with government support and do all the very necessary research into the appropriate varieties, what the market is thinking, what is in the minds of consumers and also research into the elements of market development and promotion.The vegetable industry, to which the Primary Industries Legislation Amendment (Vegetable Levy) Bill 2000 refers, is very much an infant industry and provides a great opportunity for us in Australia. In 1996, Australian vegetable production in gross value was $1.6 billion. In four years, that has grown to over $2 billion. The great opportunity is in the export sector, which is steadily growing. From 1990 to 1997, the value of horticulture in general—which includes nuts, vegetables and fresh fruit—was $680 million. That is already nudging $1 billion of export opportunity. I was a bit disappointed that the member for Corio took the opportunity to attack the government's tax reform direction because it is those very exporters whom tax reform is designed to assist. That $1 billion of horticultural exports goes onto the international market which is extremely aggressive. Like most commodities produced in primary industry, the $4 billion in toto of cascading domestic taxes on growers' backs reduce their capacity to be competitive in that international market. That is one of the very important elements of what tax reform is about. In addition, removal of 24c a litre on diesel will do very much to reduce freight costs to get those commodities to very important ports and on their way to international markets.Many of my growers will be asking questions about how this legislation applies. I have had interest from one grower who was very worried about retrospectivity. He misunderstood that this is one piece of legislation where retrospectivity will work in his favour. No doubt he will enjoy a small but welcome refund for excess levies he has been paying over the period, which this legislation seeks to adjust. I understand that the total refund is something like $5,000. I am very pleased that the minister considers this so important that he is prepared to go to those measures. The cost of preparing the legislation and for parliament to consider the bill might be well in excess of that, but parliament is interested in equity. It is interested in ensuring that growers who make the investment, value add and sell their value added commodity into the market are not disadvantaged by those growers who are still just supplying fresh commodities. I can assure growers that the administrative burden will be no more substantial than what is currently required. My congratulations to the minister. I thank him for considering this legislation and the interests of my vegetable growing constituency. I look forward to the bill's speedy passage and invite all members to give it their wholesome support.11:49:0018592Horne, Bob, MPMr HORNEUU5PatersonALP00—I will take only a few minutes of the House's time. As has been stated already, the opposition supports the Primary Industries Legislation Amendment (Vegetable Levy) Bill 2000. Like you, Mr Deputy Speaker, I represent an electorate where agriculture and horticulture are very important. However, many farmers are diversifying. No doubt this will accelerate, particularly in New South Wales where we are going to see massive changes to the dairy industry. I would like to mention a branch of the agriculture industry which is growing rapidly in my area, and I know it is also growing in the Page electorate, that is, aquaculture. Aquaculture offers a great deal to farmers through diversification. I now have former dairy farmers in the Gloucester area growing silver perch, former professional fishermen growing snapper at Hawks Nest, farmers growing yabbies in the Karuah-Booral-Stroud area and a farmer growing barramundi at Bobs Farm. I would like to point out to the minister the anomalies in the tax treatment of these people. It is an anomaly which is being overlooked. Over recent days, I have spoken to fishermen—catchers of wild fish and fish farmers. If a professional fishermen submits live lobsters and live crabs to a market, there is no GST. There is a market for live fish and these people have developed the means for getting fish to the market live in the freshest state. These fish are not going to be on-grown; they are going to be eaten. The restaurant trade wants to say, `We have the freshest fish.' However, there is GST on those fresh fish. I am pleased the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry is in the chamber. He always responds to these things. I suggest that he takes that matter back to cabinet to see what he can do because there is a premium for the best quality. That is what Australia has built its agricultural and horticultural reputation on. These people are now being penalised because they have done that. One fellow from Tasmania said to me yesterday, `If I send my fish to the Sydney market dead, they are worth nothing. Sending them there live is the only way I can sell them. If I send them there dead, there is no GST, but if I send them there live, I am paying a GST on them.'11:52:0018592Truss, Warren, MPMr TRUSSGT4Wide BayNPMinister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry10—in reply—I thank members who have contributed to this debate on the Primary Industries Legislation Amendment (Vegetable Levy) Bill 2000, although I think some of the comments have strayed a little distance away from vegetables. I would like to take up briefly the comments made by the previous speaker, the member for Paterson. I agree wholeheartedly with him that aquaculture has enormous potential in Australia. It is my view that it is potentially the next boom industry for Australia. In fact, it has the potential of wine—to grow and be one of our most significant national industries. It is not just an industry that is going to be located offshore; quite a lot of it can potentially occur inland and even indoors as technology develops. Aquaculture is an important industry and that is the reason why the government has recently announced the Aquaculture Action Agenda. Advertisements appeared in the paper last week inviting people from that industry to become involved in the committees that are going to drive this action agenda, because we want to put in place an appropriate mechanism to encourage this industry to expand and to reach its real potential.There were a number of comments in relation to taxation issues. I am certainly aware of the issue raised by the honourable member for Paterson. Unfortunately, when you have an arrangement—again as a result of the deal with the Democrats—that makes food GST free, difficult lines have to be drawn. I can acknowledge the anomaly that the member refers to. However, if we were to head in the other direction and make those fish GST free, then you would have the difficulty of differentiating between those fish and goldfish at the other end of the extreme or others that were going to be traded and would go into hatcheries. Difficulties arise wherever you draw the line in that regard. I think we all know about tax systems and indeed our own GST that is coming up. Nearly all of the problems we have arise as a result of exemptions. If you had no exemptions at all, the legislation would be one-tenth as thick as it is and most of the problems would disappear. I acknowledge that those sorts of issues do exist, but they are exceptionally difficult to address. I thank the honourable member for raising this issue. I thank also the honourable member for Mallee, who has referred to the details of this legislation and acknowledged that a couple of the handful of people who are actually going to benefit from this bill come from his electorate. This bill is a pretty good example of the whole of the nation stopping to help a small number of people, probably less than five, who have been caught up in an anomaly. It does not involve very much money, but it does involve the implementation of justice in this particular issue. As the honourable member for Mallee said, it does effectively apply in arrears. In fact, it only deals with the levy between 1 March 1996 and 30 June 1999, and ensures that vegetable producers are not disadvantaged in that period.The vegetable levy was introduced on 1 March 1996. The levy is imposed on vegetables that are either sold or used in the production of other goods. An issue arose where growers or processors and other vertically integrated operations were unfairly paying a higher assessment of levy when there was no sale or, at the time, any simple means to value the vegetables prior to processing. The bill amends the Primary Industries Levies and Charges Collection (Vegetables) Regulations to clarify the rate of levy intended to be struck on vegetables that were grown and processed by the producer between 1 March 1996 and 30 June 1999. It deals with the way in which the levy is calculated during that period. It does not apply after 1 July 1999 because the arrangements changed and the levy is now imposed under schedule 15 of the Primary Industries (Excise) Levies Act 1999 and that assessment arrangement is unaffected by the bill. There is no additional administrative burden; there are only a small number of refunds involved and the quantity of money involved will be quite small. The legislation does correct an anomaly. I thank honourable members for their contribution to this debate and assure them and the House that the government is committed to working with the vegetable industry to ensure that it is also able to achieve its potential to grow and expand. It is a significant industry. It is a significant employer. The great thing about industries like vegetables and horticulture generally is that those jobs are in rural and regional Australia. They are jobs that contribute mightily to our national economy. I commend the bill to the House.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.18593Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.Bill (on motion by Mr Truss) read a third time.Bills18593S20918593Debate resumed from 11 May, on motion by Dr Stone:That the bill be now read a second time.11:59:0018593Vale, Danna, MPMrs VALEVK6HughesLP10—The Environment and Heritage Legislation Amendment Bill 2000 seeks to regulate the dumping of waste at sea by limiting the quantity and toxicity of dumped material. Its main purpose is to update sea dumping practices, and to accord with the 1996 Protocol to the Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matters 1972, and the government's Australia's Ocean Policy. The sea is a huge and valuable asset to the whole people of this earth, and especially to the 17 million Australians in this land. We are one of the few nations surrounded by sea. Our enormous coastline bequeaths to us a duty and responsibility in regard to one of the largest areas of sea that comes under the jurisdiction of any nation on earth. Because of this, we have a leadership role to play in regard to our use and protection of the sea. The sea is a treasure chest. It provides an abundance of renewable food to the whole earth, a bounty of fuel and energy, recreation of great joy to millions of people, wildlife of great variety, and a medium for cheap transport and international trade. Because of this we must value and protect the sea to ensure that its benefits continue to flow as generously in the future as they have in the past. The eastern side of my electorate of Hughes, from Bundeena to Coalcliffe, meets the foreshores of the Pacific Ocean. From the cliffs of the Royal National Park down to Stanwell Tops on the southern, windswept edge of Sydney, where Lawrence Hargraves first articulated his principles of flight, there are spectacular views of the ocean and coastline. Consequently, many who live in this picturesque part of Australia have a heightened awareness of and a close identification with the sea, if only for recreational purposes. They are acutely aware of the practical effects when the sea becomes polluted. If materials are dumped at sea, offshore from my electorate, they would directly impact the environment in a way that immediately makes people aware of the problem, and the need for effective preventive measures. They are aware not only of pollution occurring at sea but also of pollution spilling from the land. People who use the coastline soon become aware that sea pollution not only affects the fragile, natural environment but directly affects human health as well. Most Sydneysiders, for example, are well aware that surfing in water that contains marine fuel oil, whether inadvertently spilled or deliberately dumped at sea, can be a real health hazard, particularly if it is ingested or adheres to the eyes or eyelids. Compared to marine animals, humans spend only a brief time in recreation immersed in the sea, and they consume only a fraction of their food from the sea. With this in mind, it is easy to comprehend the devastating effect that pollution has on marine animals that are totally dependent upon the marine environment.Recreational fishermen are aware that sewage outfalls can produce a hazardous as well as a plentiful catch. The northern boundary of my electorate is bounded by the broad waters of the Georges River, which up until recently was one of the world's best oyster producing estuaries. This was an important industry that gave the region part of its early identity and history, and has suffered because of the lowering standards of estuarine water quality brought about by pollution of its waterways. It should also be remembered that Australia's marine -based industries were valued in 1994 at $30 billion. Emerging marine industries such as aquaculture, pharmaceuticals and biotechnology provide opportunities for our future. This great public asset requires healthy marine ecosystems and protection of its biodiversity. It also demands our focused attention on its protection and survival.Australia is a nation that is a major producer of commodity exports that must be transported by sea. Clear access to commodity terminals is an economic necessity essential to Australia's future economic prosperity. Vessels must have ready and safe access to deep ports and berths, and this often means approaching and entering waterways affected by rivers and tides, and the movement of silt and sand. To keep them clear and safe requires the dredging of vast quantities of materials that must be relocated. Approximately six million tonnes of dredge spoil are dumped in Australian waters each year, the major part of which is uncontaminated. The main relocation or dumping areas are in the Sydney coastal region, the Pilbara in Western Australia and the mid to north coast of Queensland.Until very recently, the sea was regarded as a convenient rubbish dump. Its vastness lulled people into believing that its capacity to dispose of human and industrial waste in an uncontrolled manner was inexhaustible. All this began to change in the 1960s, and in 1972 the international Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter, otherwise known as the London convention, drew the world's attention to a potential environmental disaster of truly global dimensions. The challenge facing all peoples now became how to use the sea and reap its benefits, while protecting its fragile ecological balance, and respecting its capacity to forgive our indifference and neglect.The sea has also been treated as a free resource, and regarded as a free market, by those who could access it. Unfortunately, this has ripple effects. For example, those who have dumped at sea have obtained the benefit of a free resource, the dumping site. However, the cost has been borne by other users such as fishermen, who have found their free resource depleted as a result of pollution caused by dumping. This consequent market failure will be addressed by regulating the quantity and toxicity of material dumped. The limitation of sea dumping from the land will bring it into line with existing government policies on land based waste management and waste minimisation. There have been a number of policy developments that have led to this bill. In 1992, the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development in Rio adopted agenda 21, the blueprint for ecologically sustainable development and the targeting of issues such as waste reduction, waste management and ecological sustainability. This was followed in 1994 by the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. As I mentioned earlier, in 1996 the protocol to the London convention came into being.In 1998, to mark the International Year of the Sea, the government released Australia's Ocean Policy. This policy statement included commitments to ratify the 1996 protocol to the London convention and implement the total ban on industrial waste dumping at sea. It included a commitment to amend legislation to place beyond doubt the regulation of artificial reef construction to protect the marine environment from pollution. It also sought to prevent hazards in the sea for navigation, commercial fishing and divers through conditions attached to permits under the Commonwealth Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Act 1981. Prior to the 1996 protocol, one of the limitations of the London convention, and in turn the Sea Dumping Act, was that they addressed what could be termed sea-borne dumping. They do not deal with material dumped from a land source or operational discharges from ships, nor do they cover the offshore processing of seabed mineral resources. The 1996 protocol is intended to replace the convention's list of banned substances with a very restricted list of substances that may be dumped at sea with a permit. This eliminates the long list of possible substances that could be dumped by default, because they were not identified as excluded substances. This is a strong precautionary measure that this bill will provide. Substances that may be dumped under the 1996 protocol are dredged material; sewage sludge; fish waste, or material resulting from industrial fish processing operations; vessels and platforms or other man-made structures at sea; inert inorganic geological material; organic material of natural origin; and bulky items primarily comprising iron, steel, concrete and similarly unharmful materials, if generated at locations such as small islands with isolated communities having no practicable access to disposal options other than dumping.These items may be dumped at sea but only after issue of a permit. Before this can be done, they must be subject to a thorough waste assessment. The 1996 protocol also provides for the polluter pays principle, and this could be incorporated by using a sliding scale of fees based on contamination levels in sediments, quantities, and the sensitivity of the dump site. Applicants for permits will have to undertake a waste audit and formulate alternative waste management strategies. In some cases this could lead to better solutions than sea dumping. Port authorities may find it more economically viable to treat and sell some of their dredged sediments as landfill. The decision to grant a permit under the sea dumping act can trigger the application of the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act 1974. This is a valuable safeguard and check on the use of permits.A second objective of this bill is to amend the Sea Installations Act 1987 to remove the prohibitions on issuing, and varying, a permit that would authorise a sea installation to be located partly within and partly outside an area of Commonwealth waters adjacent to state coastal waters. I remind the House that Commonwealth waters commence three nautical miles out from the shoreline and extend out to the outermost limits of Australian waters. The waters within the three nautical mile boundary are state coastal waters. A sea installation is defined as any man-made structure that when in, or brought into, physical contact with the seabed, or when floating, can be used for an environment related activity. However, it generally does not include fishing installations, some exploration installations, such as pipelines used by the petroleum industry, defence installations and some cable installations. This bill will have a practical application to the proposed Basslink Interconnector cable that will link Tasmania to the national electricity market by means of a submarine electricity cable across Bass Strait. At present, the Sea Installations Act prohibits the issuing of a permit that would authorise a sea installation such as the Basslink Interconnector to be located partly within and partly outside Commonwealth waters. If passed, this bill will allow a permit to be issued, which in turn will trigger the Environment Protection Act and the Commonwealth's involvement in the environmental impact assessment of the proposed cable link. As our national anthem reminds us, `our land is girt by sea'. I support this bill as it will help to ensure good environmental practice in regard to dumping at sea and the installation of man-made structures across the seabed. It will thereby help to hand on to future generations a huge, sustainable resource and a national treasure chest—our healthy oceans. I commend this bill to the House. 12:10:0018596Snowdon, Warren, MPMr SNOWDONIJ4Northern TerritoryALP00—As the previous speaker, the member for Hughes, has outlined, the Environment and Heritage Legislation Amendment Bill 2000 proposes amendments to the Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Act 1981. They aim to implement the Protocol to the Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter 1972, known as the London convention, and will ensure that commitments set out in the government's Australian Oceans Policy are fulfilled. As the Bills Digest advises us:Australia's implementation of the 1996 Protocol to the London Convention is a positive development, as are the proposed amendments increasing the penalties for contraventions of the Sea Dumping Act. Changes such as the curtailing of the Defence Forces exemption are not likely to unduly burden the Defence Department, as the Defence Forces have voluntarily complied with the Sea Dumping Act.(39) The inclusion of Australia's exclusive economic zone around Antarctica is also a positive development. However, the possibility of sea dumping permits being granted for that area, may, for some, be a matter of concern. Under proposed section 19(8A), permits could only be granted in relation to the Antarctic area if dumping was consistent with Australia's international obligations under various Antarctic treaties. For example, dumping may not be consistent with Australia's obligations under the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty of 1 December 1959, which addresses, amongst other things, disposal of waste at sea ...For the majority of my contribution to this debate I want to talk about waste from fishing vessels and the impact that this waste potentially has on the environment. I want to refer particularly to an area in the Gulf of Carpentaria in north-east Arnhem Land and the role being played by an indigenous organisation in a proposed indigenous protected area at Nanydjaka, or Cape Arnhem. This is important, Mr Deputy Speaker, because, as I will retail to you, this organisation is monitoring the impact on the turtle population principally in that region of waste material primarily from fishing vessels. The organisation is doing this because of its interest in the area becoming an indigenous protected area. It is one of three indigenous protected area, or IPA, proposals in the Northern Territory under active consideration by the government. The Cape Arnhem project is being put forward by the Yolngu, or indigenous land owners, of north-east Arnhem land.Nanydjaka is a coastal area of thousands of hectares that comprises spectacular coastal scenery, a very rich biodiversity of land and marine species and a living cultural tradition that is exemplified in a large number of sacred sites complexes and also a rich oral tradition. Nanydjaka is also of significance to many of the Balanda, or non-indigenous people, in the region because, even given the limits imposed by sacred sites protection requirements, it is a significant recreational area. Reconciling recreational needs with protecting the cultural and environmental significance of the area is a major preoccupation of the landowners' own land management agency—the Dhimurru Land Management Agency—and they have had some success in achieving this with limited resources. Dhimurru has also been active in monitoring the impact of offshore fishing activity on local wildlife, particularly marine turtles, as I said earlier. I have been asked by Dhimurru's senior ranger, Nanikiya Mununggiritj, to place on record the Yolngu landowners' appreciation of the support and cooperation they have had from the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, Senator Robert Hill. I am informed that in several meetings and workshops, including the most recent in the remote northern part of South Australia, Senator Hill has accorded prime consideration to the wishes of landowners in determining the future regime of this highly significant area, and that is an important recognition.In recent weeks, I visited the Dhimurru Land Management Corporation and the area which it looks after. We flew in a helicopter along the coast of Cape Arnhem, and what we saw was not that pleasant. We saw a large amount of waste material from commercial fishing vessels, which operate primarily in the Gulf of Carpentaria, and we saw large numbers of nets washed up on the beaches. As I said, the Dhimurru Land Management Corporation sees as one of its responsibilities monitoring the impact of these activities on the turtle population. People from Dhimurru fly at a very low level in their helicopter, and they locate these nets which are scattered up and down the beaches and come in with the incoming tides. Often they will see entangled in the nets turtles and other marine life. This issue is very important to the Yolngu people, and indeed it is very important to the Australian community generally. It shows that we have yet to come to terms with our responsibilities in managing this part of Australia's coastline.In terms of the ability to do the necessary monitoring of the impact on the local environment of these sorts of activities, not only of offshore fishing but also of recreational activities on the land, there are a number of matters which need to be talked about, particularly as the creation of an indigenous protected area, as is being proposed, relies on the cooperation of different levels of government. It is very clear that the community that are involved, the Yolngu people, believe that they have had that cooperation from Senator Hill.The government says that it is committed to supporting IPAs, indigenous protected areas, through the Natural Heritage Trust as part of a comprehensive, adequate and representative national reserve system. Precise funding details are hard to find, but it is clear that the IPA program suffers from having very little established funding and no commitment to continuing funding for recurrent management costs after the end of 2002. This risks compromising the other aim of the IPAs: encouraging cooperative action between the community and the different levels of government. The really big question is: what happens to IPAs after the Natural Heritage Trust funding runs out in June 2002? Where is the money to come from? It certainly will not come from the sale of Telstra. No commitment to funding means that organisations like Dhimurru have to stagger along as best they can on their own resources and project grant funding. The landowners themselves have provided a substantial proportion of Dhimurru's funding since it was established in 1992. Further financial support has also come through the corporate sector in the form of contributions from the local mining company, Nabalco, and it is important that we acknowledge that contribution. Dhimurru is also developing income generating opportunities, but these funding sources do not meet recurrent operating costs. The IPA program is an important opportunity to bridge the gap.Uncertainty over continuing funding also means that organisations may need all levels of government to act with a degree of altruism, which is often difficult to find. Dhimurru has had, by and large, a good working relationship with the Northern Territory Parks and Wildlife Commission that was originally premised on a cooperative approach. This relationship, involving regional environmental monitoring and other collaborative conservation activities, has apparently fallen foul of the current Northern Territory government's political agenda. In the course of negotiations on the IPA, Dhimurru has invited the Northern Territory government to re-establish a ranger presence in north-east Arnhem Land. This collaborative management support has been requested by the landowners, through Dhimurru, in recognition of the assistance that the Northern Territory Parks and Wildlife Commission can provide in areas such as environmental monitoring and rehabilitation, visitor management and cultural recording and protection. In fact, the Northern Territory Parks and Wildlife Commission master plan notes an institutional commitment to investigating new and innovative management arrangements with indigenous landowners beyond the context of the old formal joint management model. But there appears to be limited commitment to this concept in the Northern Territory government's negotiations on the Dhimurru IPA. The Northern Territory government made a cabinet decision to withdraw ranger support in 1998, and it will not reinstate that support unless, as part of the IPA negotiations, Dhimurru and its landowner constituents agree to a joint management arrangement. The Northern Territory minister responsible, the Northern Territory Deputy Chief Minister, will not budge on this and says that anything less is unsatisfactory. This has not been part of Dhimurru's agenda. Dhimurru has successfully managed Nanydjaka's impressive array of cultural and natural resources in the past without the Northern Territory's involvement, and it has not asked the Northern Territory for any direct financial support.This is not an issue of Dhimurru versus the Northern Territory Parks and Wildlife Commission. What is being asked of the commission is to go against its own master plan and insist on one way, only, of acting cooperatively with Dhimurru. The real issue is that without ranger support the entire population of the region—which includes about 5,000 `Balanda' or non-indigenous Australians—have no access to the Parks and Wildlife Commission for its normal statutory enforcement and monitoring activities, for example, crocodile patrols and the like. The Northern Territory government is holding the entire population to ransom because it cannot get Dhimurru to roll over and accept total direction, reduced control and a figurehead role on a management board. The Northern Territory government approach is not in the spirit of the development of IPAs as envisaged by Labor when it introduced them. The Northern Territory government might hide behind its `territory rights' argument, but this is a matter of the National Estate and the desire of the Yolngu landowners of Nanydjaka to share their precious resource with the nation.We should not underestimate how important this issue is. Whilst we will hear stories of dumping material in the seaways that are frequented by large numbers of commercial shipping, we do not hear a lot of what happens in regional parts of Australia where there are not high intensity or highly visible commercial fleets. What is clear, in the case of north-east Arnhem Land and indeed, I believe, in the Gulf of Carpentaria, is that there is a great deal more to be done in terms of learning about the environment and the impact that waste material that has come from fishing fleets within the region has on that environment. Having witnessed the work which is being done by Dhimurru in relation to monitoring sea turtle populations and the impact that waste material from fishing fleets has had and is having on those populations, in my view it is extremely important that we do something to address the concerns which have been raised by the Dhimurru Land Management Corporation and in particular their concerns about the lack of progress in the development of an indigenous protected area agreement because of the intransigence of the Northern Territory government. I think this is an important piece of legislation but, as I have pointed out, we should not be misled into believing that this legislation alone will deal with many of the significant issues that are involved in waste material from offshore vessels in international waters and the impact the waste material has on our immediate environment.12:24:0018598Kelly, De-Anne, MPMrs DE-ANNE KELLYFK6DawsonNP10—This Environment and Heritage Legislation Amendment Bill 2000 contains amendments to the Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Act 1981 and the Sea Installations Act 1987. It will provide for significant penalties for the dumping at sea of harmful material which would do damage to a sensitive environment. Representing as I do the glorious north including Mackay and the Whitsundays, where the tourist industry on both island and mainland resorts relies on the clean, clear ocean and the Great Barrier Reef, I have a great interest in ensuring that unique and precious environment is protected. The commitment of the government and the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, Senator the Hon. Robert Hill, to the protection of our marine environment is evident from the measures proposed in this bill. Under these amendments, a person convicted of dumping seriously harmful material, including radioactive material, will face penalties of up to 10 years imprisonment and a fine of up to $210,000. Lesser offences will attract penalties of up to two years imprisonment and a fine of up to $55,000 or imprisonment for one year with a fine of up to $27,500. The flexibility of the proposed legislation is underscored by the fact that the minister will be given a greater discretion to recommend the prescription of material as `seriously harmful material'. This will allow the minister to be satisfied that such a material is capable of causing serious harm to the marine environment, even if there is no conclusive evidence of a causal relationship between the dumping of the material and harm to the marine environment. Clearly, this will allow an immediate response in the event of a perceived risk and will not allow potential polluters to resort to the strategem of pseudoscientific studies and other deliberate delaying tactics. Minister Hill's commitment to protection of the marine environment, which this bill reflects, has been previously demonstrated in regard to an issue which arose in my electorate, the proposed aquaculture development at Armstrong Beach near Mackay, in the Sarina shire. I believe it is important that the history of this saga, and the minister's careful and thoughtful response to a clearly perceived need, be documented. It was an example of how concerned the minister and the government are that sensible environmental measures be put in place. It also illustrates how important it is to the minister and the government that potentially affected local communities are allowed to participate in the process of determining the progress of developments.May I give a little history? In 1998, a Taiwanese developer, Goldiland Pty Ltd, proposed a large-scale prawn farming project at Armstrong Beach. The local community was concerned about the likely loss of amenity and the risk of pollution to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. A licence for the project was granted by the Beattie ALP state government on the basis of a report prepared by a consultant to the developer, Kuruma Australia Pty Ltd, a company now known as Pacific Aquaculture and Environment Pty Ltd. In a letter to me dated 14 January 1999, the state Minister for Environment and Heritage and Minister for Natural Resources, Mr Rod Welford, blandly informed me:Any inconsistencies found in the report were resolved prior to granting of the licence.If only that had been so. The state Minister for Primary Industries, Mr Henry Palaszczuk, advised me by a letter dated 24 December 1998 that the proposed project had been through what he called `a formal application process', which had resulted in land use approval from the relevant shire council, environmental authority from the Department of the Environment and Heritage, in-principle approval for a permit to remove, destroy or damage marine plants, and an in-principle approval for an aquaculture licence from the Department of Primary Industries. Quite clearly, the two Queensland ALP ministers simply signed off on the project, regardless of the views of the local people concerned. In fact, Mr Welford advised me in a letter dated 5 January 1999:The land is owned by Sarina Shire Council such that use of aquaculture is `as of right', thus no environmental impact statement was required under the Local Government (Planning and Environment) Act 1990, which was in force at the time of the application. There is no formal requirement in this circumstances for public consultation by the proponent.Understandably, the local community at Armstrong Beach and Freshwater Point were not impressed by this casual dismissal of their very real concerns. In a letter to the Sarina Shire Council, the secretary of the local progress association, Mr Graham Jones, made the point:Once again, the community has been denied a fully open, transparent process. We are of the opinion this will not change. Our community is unreservedly and fully committed to stopping the proposed aquaculture project.Mr Jones said the progress association rejected the public consultation process and the environmental impact statement. He continued: Accordingly, we continue to strongly endorse Federal Government initiatives, espousing the highest legal, moral and political means effecting implementation and enforcement of legislation to protect our immediate environment and those of national significance. The developer and its environmental consultant tried to head off local concerns—most forcefully shown at a well-attended rally of irate local people—and put a copy of the environmental impact statement on public view. This was followed by the hardly surprising statement by the consultant that only four submissions had been made. An Armstrong Beach resident, Mr Wally Keating, in a letter to the Daily Mercury in Mackay, expressed the reasons for this seemingly inexplicable lack of local interest. He wrote: Members of the public should know that the copy of the impact statement was placed at the Sarina Shire Council's chambers with viewing limited to the hours between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m. Monday to Friday. No member of the public was allowed to take the one copy available home overnight nor was photocopying allowed. Viewing restrictions severely restricted public access to the relevant data. In fact, as this letter demonstrates, this public consultation process was little more than a charade. On 23 June 1999 I wrote to Armstrong Beach residents, reporting to them on the outcome of my efforts on their behalf. In that letter I said: As you will see from the attached correspondence to and from the State Minister for Environment and Primary Industry, the Beattie Government has signed off completely on this project and regrettably left the people of Armstrong Beach without any recourse to the State Government. I must reiterate that the regulation of such developments is a State Government responsibility and it is regrettable the Beattie Government has shirked this responsibility. I continued in that letter: You have requested action through section 66-2(E) of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority Act. I have on several occasions through Senator Hill's office and the Authority asked for an opinion on the applicability of this section to the unfolding events at Armstrong Beach and have been advised that it does not apply in these circumstances. I undertook also in that letter to keep pursuing the matter, and Senator Hill showed a most sympathetic understanding of local concerns. After a great deal of work involving many meetings with Senator Hill's office, a consideration of the circumstances at Armstong Beach and a wider consideration of what might be termed `industry issues', Minister Hill announced on 22 February this year new aquaculture regulations made under the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975. It is significant that when making this announcement Minister Hill said: The need for a Commonwealth safety net has been highlighted by the Armstrong Beach aquaculture proposal near Mackay. In that case, although the waste would have flowed into the marine park, the Queensland Government approved the project without a proper environmental assessment. His statement continued: The new regulations under the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act will close a loophole in the Queensland legislation. This has allowed some environmentally significant aquaculture developments adjacent to the Great Barrier Reef to avoid requirements for a full and transparent environmental assessment. Under these regulations, warmly received by the local community at Armstrong Beach, a rigorous and transparent environmental assessment will be required before any permit decision is made. A permit from the marine park authority will not be required for existing aquaculture operations, nor will the regulations apply to any other industry. The claims by the Premier Mr Beattie that sugarcane growing and other agricultural operations would be affected by these regulations was, as usual, simple scaremongering. In fact, the regulations will allow for the development of responsible aquaculture projects while protecting the Great Barrier Reef. The gaping deficiencies in the Queensland legislation provided no assurance that a credible public environmental impact assessment would be conducted before permit decisions were made. There was no assurance that the potential impacts on the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park would be assessed, even if any assessment of a project was made. There was no assurance that appropriate conditions would be met and then monitored and enforced effectively. Until Minister Hill and the federal government took their decisive action, alerted by the Armstrong Beach community, there was a very real potential, because of sloppy and inadequate Queensland legislation, of significant and widespread damage to the marine environment of the Great Barrier Reef. It is quite extraordinary that the Labor Party makes such a song and dance about protecting the environment and respecting the legitimate wishes of concerned communities when the people of Armstrong Beach were treated in such a dismissive, shoddy and disgraceful way. The Queensland Labor Party government should hang its head in abject shame over this appalling episode. On behalf of the residents of Armstrong Beach I express my thanks to Minister Hill and his staff for their continued concern over this matter. Even the Australian Prawn Farmers Association has recognised that the Queensland legislation was deficient. In a statement the association said: It is clear that there is a flaw in the existing approvals process, in particular in those shires along the Queensland coastline where large scale aquaculture developments are an as of right activity, such as the Armstrong Beach aquaculture proposal. In this particular instance, the community proponent and the industry generally have been let down by the laws of the land. `Hear, hear!' to that. It is important that the scope and the impact of those regulations be understood. Now the Armstrong Beach proposal and projects like it will be subjected to a public assessment process. The regulations have been drafted to provide protection for the Great Barrier Reef without causing undue impact on the expanding aquaculture industry. We are very supportive of the aquaculture industry, which supplies local jobs and certainly helps to supplement and protect the wild stocks of prawns. The regulations in place will only apply to discharges of aquaculture waste that could potentially pollute the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park in a manner that is harmful to the animals and plants of the park. In relation to these discharges, the regulations will require a permit to be obtained from the marine park authority if the Queensland legislation has failed to adequately protect the reef. As I have said before, existing operators will not require a permit. Instead, the Queensland government is proposing a review of all existing licences for aquaculture facilities with amendment to existing licences where necessary. Although somewhat belated and half-hearted, this review is welcomed in the clear recognition that nothing would have been done by the Queensland Labor government if the Commonwealth had not acted in the positive way that it did. The regulations will also provide for a formal transparent process for accrediting Queensland legislation when it is upgraded to overcome the obvious existing deficiencies. In terms of future aquaculture projects and significant expansions of existing facilities, a permit is required from the marine park authority only if the state permit has not been obtained under an accredited regime. This is not a matter of the federal government overriding or overarching the responsibilities of the states. Constitutionally, the management of the park and of land based activities belongs to Queensland. However, in instances where the state government have plainly shirked their responsibilities to the marine park, the tourism industry and obviously local communities, it is appropriate that the federal government direct any future regulations until the state can step in and assume their responsibilities once more. Some of the misunderstandings that have arisen over the regulations also need to be clarified. They do not apply to any industry other than aquaculture. They do not impose an application fee of $64,000, as has been said by the Premier; they do not extend the marine park inland by 40 kilometres, which in itself would be quite extraordinary; and they do recognise that discharges of aquaculture waste into creeks or rivers up to five kilometres from the coast may pollute the marine park. There is a recognition that most existing aquaculture operators are responsible. Only last year in my area of Mackay one of the aquaculture operators received a national environment award for a sensitive and commonsense approach to the environment in that area. In closing, what began as a small local protest against the approvals handed out by an uncaring and disinterested state Labor government has resulted in a significant new protection for our Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. I again thank the minister, Senator Hill, and in doing so I also place on the record the tremendous privilege I feel in being the member of parliament that represents the Armstrong Beach community. They worked very hard as a small, isolated community to bring about what really was a tremendous change in both federal and state approaches to consultation with local communities and also to sensitive protection of the marine park. I also want to note the assistance given to us by the Mackay Conservation Group and Mr Ian Sutton, and most particularly the Armstrong Beach Progress Association, a group of local citizens that found themselves faced with a foreign developer, a state government that had simply signed off on a project and signed off on the local community. They took their battle to the highest levels of the land and succeeded. I wish them well and look forward to working with the Armstrong Beach community again. Debate (on motion by Mr Albanese) adjourned.Bills18602R102518602Bill returned from the Senate with amendments.Ordered that the amendments be taken into consideration forthwith.Senate's amendments—(1) Schedule 1, item 111, page 20 (table item 3), omit “26 weeks”, substitute “52 weeks”.(2) Schedule 1, item 111, page 20 (table item 5), omit “26 weeks”, substitute “52 weeks”.(3) Schedule 1, item 111, page 21 (table item 9), omit “26 weeks”, substitute “52 weeks”.(4) Schedule 1, item 114, page 26 (lines 4 and 5), omit the item.(5) Schedule 1, item 115, page 26 (lines 6 and 7), omit the item.(6) Schedule 1, item 116, page 26 (lines 8 and 9), omit the item.(7) Schedule 1, item 117, page 26 (lines 10 and 11),omit the item.(8) Schedule 1, item 118, page 26 (lines 12 and 13), omit the item.(9) Schedule 1, item 119, page 26 (lines 14 and 15), omit the item.(10) Schedule 1, item 120, page 26 (lines 16 and 17), omit the item.(11) Schedule 1, item 121, page 26 (lines 24 and 25), omit “26 weeks”, substitute “52 weeks”.(12) Schedule 1, item 121, page 27 (lines 12 and 13), omit “26 weeks”, substitute “52 weeks”.(13) Schedule 1, item 122, page 27 (lines 33 and 34), omit “26 weeks”, substitute “52 weeks”.(14) Schedule 1, item 126, page 29 (lines 3 to 9), omit clause 129.12:41:0018602Brough, Mal, MPMr BROUGH2K6LongmanLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business10—I move:That the amendments be disagreed to.The Social Security and Veterans' Entitlements Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Matters) Bill 2000 is a positive measure introduced by the Howard government to help with portability of some social security and veterans affairs matters. I call on the opposition to withdraw these amendments so that this portability can actually move forward. I remind honourable members that the simplification of the portability provisions will benefit around 90,000 Australians. Many benefits that are not portable or that have very limited portability at present will become portable for 26 weeks, simply meaning that an individual who has these benefits in hand can leave the country for that period of time without losing the assistance. Ancillary benefits such as rent assistance and pharmaceutical allowance will become portable for the very first time. I know from practical experience in my electorate office that this is a very important issue, particularly for some of the elderly in our electorates. Simplification will reduce red tape and improve service delivery. However, simplification can benefit customers only if the new rules are consistent. As it currently stands we have some which are 52 weeks and some which are 13 weeks. This collapses all these benefits into 26 weeks so that the uniformity is clearly understood by those who, for whatever reason, find themselves leaving the country. The new standard of 26-week portability is far longer than the majority of customers need. The median overseas absence of social security customers is in fact only around 14 weeks. The community would rightly question a policy that allows beneficiaries not being paid in respect of the permanent contingencies of life to remain overseas for an extended period of time. The proposed changes to the bill do undermine the purpose of simplification. This purpose was acknowledged as commendable. For that reason the government rejects the opposition's amendments as put. 12:44:0018603Albanese, Anthony, MPMr ALBANESER36GrayndlerALP00—It is a shame the government has not had a closer look at Labor's amendments to the Social Security and Veterans' Entitlements Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Matters) Bill 2000. If this bill is held up it will be because the government is unwilling to protect the entitlements of age pensioners, widows and people with disabilities. These are the people who will have reduced portability as a result of the changes the government is seeking to make and they are the reason Labor has moved these amendments. Many of the people affected by these mean-spirited changes to the legislation spend all their working lives contributing to Australia's economic growth. The majority of age pensioners affected are migrants who have worked hard for decades and have embraced Australia as their home. It will be a grave injustice if these people are prevented from being able to enjoy their retirement by spending extended periods of time in their country of birth.Labor support those measures in this bill that will see people gain additional entitlements to allowances. We are keen to see these new entitlements delivered, but we do not want to see that paid off by reductions elsewhere. Labor's amendments have been carefully constructed not to upset the beneficial measures in this bill relating to portability. We have not breached the process of simplification being undertaken by the government in relation to portability. The government are locating portability rules centrally to assist decision making. Our amendments do not change this process. The government are not moving to a system where every recipient will have identical entitlements. There remain different conditions for different classes of recipient.Within that framework, Labor have sought to amend the bill to protect existing conditions where they are to be diminished. Welfare Rights made a submission to the Senate committee, which I commend to the House. Their submission indicated that there are even likely to be savings to the government in some cases where existing portability is retained. This is because some social security recipients will ultimately draw their pensions from other countries whereas if they were asked to remain in Australia through stricter portability rules they would be drawing payments from here and, therefore, at a cost to the Australian taxpayer. I would hope that on financial grounds or any other grounds, the government's intentions are not far from Labor's when it comes to portability. We are not talking about a great number of people. Many of the people we are trying to protect are receiving pensions that will cease to exist in a matter of a few years. We should also be realistic about the fact that not many pensioners have the financial wherewithal to travel overseas. For these reasons, generous portability arrangements are a small entitlement. But that does not diminish the importance of having a flexible mechanism that allows people with sick or dying relatives or with a chronic illness themselves the flexibility to travel overseas for extended periods. There seems little point in the government not agreeing to meet us halfway on this issue. Our amendments are not designed to frustrate the government or delay this bill. Our intention is to ensure that, in an otherwise positive bill, some individuals are not hurt in the process.12:47:0018603Brough, Mal, MPMr BROUGH2K6LongmanLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business10—I will just clarify the situation with regard to three positions that the opposition have put. The first position was that the simplification of portability is a savings measure. This is not correct. Portability simplification is fiscally neutral. The savings from the international payment measure flow from the extension of the requirements to claim a comparable foreign payment to non-agreement countries. The second position was that shortening the portability period for DSP will mean customers seeking medical treatment overseas will be cut off after 26 weeks. Once again, this is not correct. Before going overseas, a DSP recipient undergoes a medical examination and is assessed as either severely disabled or non-severely disabled. People who seek medical treatment overseas of a kind not available in Australia would likely be assessed as severely disabled and thus eligible for indefinite portability; or, if a DSP customer fell seriously ill whilst overseas, they would very likely be eligible for an extension to the portability period.The third position put by the opposition was that the shortening of the non-proportional period from 12 months to 26 weeks would `work as a disincentive to people wanting to resettle in their country of origin'. Once again, this is not correct. Under Australian social security agreements with the major migrant source countries, the portable rate for permanent absences starts immediately. This has not had any effect on the number of people wanting to settle in agreement countries. The availability of ancillary payments for the first 26 weeks will assist many migrants while they are making up their mind whether to resettle in their country of origin.Question put:That the Senate amendments be disagreed to.12:52:00The House divided.(Mr Deputy Speaker—Mr G.B. Nehl) 76Abbott, A.J.Anderson, J.D.Andren, P.J.Anthony, L.J.Bailey, F.E.Baird, B.G.Barresi, P.A.Bartlett, K.J.Billson, B.F.Bishop, B.K.Bishop, J.I.Brough, M.T.Cadman, A.G.Cameron, R.A.Causley, I.R.Charles, R.E.Costello, P.H.Downer, A.J.G.Draper, P.Elson, K.S.Entsch, W.G.Fahey, J.J.Fischer, T.A.Forrest, J.A *Gallus, C.A.Gambaro, T.Gash, J.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.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.Williams, D.R.Wooldridge, M.R.L.Worth, P.M.59Adams, D.G.H.Albanese, A.N.Bevis, A.R.Brereton, L.J.Burke, A.E.Byrne, A.M.Cox, D.A.Crean, S.F.Crosio, J.A.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.Irwin, J.Jenkins, H.A.Kernot, C.Kerr, D.J.C.Latham, M.W.Lawrence, C.M.Livermore, K.F.Macklin, J.L.Martin, S.P.McClelland, R.B.McFarlane, J.S.McLeay, L.B.McMullan, R.F.Melham, D.Morris, A.A.Mossfield, F.W.Murphy, J. P.O'Connor, G.M.O'Keefe, N.P.Plibersek, T.Price, L.R.S.Quick, H.V.Ripoll, B.F.Roxon, N.L.Rudd, K.M.Sawford, R.W *Sciacca, C.A.Sercombe, R.C.G *Sidebottom, P.S.Smith, S.F.Snowdon, W.E.Swan, W.M.Tanner, L.Thomson, K.J.Zahra, C.J.Howard, J.W.Beazley, K.C.Vaile, M.A.J.O'Byrne, M.A.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative.12:57:0018605Brough, Mal, MPMr BROUGH2K6LongmanLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business10—I present the reasons for the House disagreeing to the Senate's amendments, and I move: That the reasons be adopted.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills18605R107718605Bill returned from the Senate with amendments.Ordered that the amendments be taken into consideration forthwith.Senate's amendments—(1) Schedule 5, page 34 (after line 14), after item 10, insert:10A Section 195-1Insert:fringe benefits tax means tax imposed by the Fringe Benefits Tax Act 1986.(2) Schedule 5, page 34 (after line 14), after item 10, insert:10B Section 195-1Insert:GST-creditable benefit has the meaning given by section 149A of the Fringe Benefits Tax Assessment Act 1986.(3) Schedule 11, page 70 (after line 33), after item 10, insert:10A After subsection 69-10(1)Insert: (1A) However, this section does not apply in relation to the acquisition or importation of: (a) a commercial vehicle that is not designed for the principal purpose of carrying passengers; or (b) a motor home or campervan.(4) Schedule 11, item 16F, page 79 (lines 7 to 9), omit the item, substitute:16F At the end of subsection 25-1(2)Add: ; or (c) a commercial vehicle that is not designed for the principal purpose of carrying passengers; or (d) a motor home or campervan.Motion (by Mr Slipper)—by leave—proposed:That the amendments be agreed to.12:59:0018605Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSONUK6WillsALP00—I put on record that the opposition do not object to this course of action. In a cooperative spirit of endeavouring to get things through the House as quickly as we can today, for obvious reasons, we will not be opposing the amendments that have come back from the Senate.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills18605S20918605Debate resumed. 12:59:0018605Emerson, Craig, MPMr EMERSON83VRankinALP00—The Environment and Heritage Legislation Amendment Bill 2000 implements the 1996 Protocol to the Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Waste and Other Matter 1972, the protocol to the so-called London convention. The legislation also increases penalties for illegal sea dumping. I would like to congratulate the government because this bill represents a shift away from treating our oceans like rubbish tips, something that we have done for our 200 years of European settlement of this continent. Short-sightedness is an easy option for the global community and has been an easy option for years—that is, to pollute our oceans. There has been an attitude of out of sight, out of mind. Wherever an Australian government makes progress on protecting the environment, it should be applauded. I take this opportunity to applaud the government for this legislation.More broadly, it has been the disposition of the Australian people over the years to, in effect, trade an environmental debt for an economic debt. I believe it is important that we consider the trade-offs here. Too often decisions have been made which have said, `Look, we need to ensure that the national economic debt does not rise' and in the process decisions have been made that effectively degrade the environment with attendant clean-up costs being deferred to future generations. That is no more nor less than simply substituting an environmental debt for an economic debt with the long-term attendant economic consequences; it is simply putting off the economic cost of the environmental decisions. It is not as if our economic debt is small—it is already in excess of $240,000 million. I just say in passing that from next Saturday, 1 July, the cost of running the Prime Minister's debt truck will rise as the Prime Minister breaks his promise that petrol prices will not rise under the GST. One of the reasons decision makers over the last 200 years in this continent have been able to effectively substitute an environmental debt for an economic debt is that an economic debt is easy to quantify in dollars and cents and is done regularly by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. An environmental debt is far more difficult to quantify and may not even be apparent initially. So short-sighted decisions can and have been made in the past on this basis.There have been some encouraging signs over the last 15 years that the environment is moving from the periphery to the mainstream of public debate. That is a good thing, and I think most Australians would agree. If we go back to the mid-1980s, specifically 1986 and 1987, a number of key decisions were made that I believe marked the watershed in Australian thinking and attitudes toward the environment. In my state of Queensland the Wet Tropics, a world heritage area, was listed. This followed an authorisation by the then premier, Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen, of a road being constructed through the Daintree rainforest. It caused a public outcry and, in an unintended way, from the point of view of the decision makers, led to a strong community impetus to the protection of not only that section of that rainforest but also the entire Wet Tropics world heritage area. Under the previous Labor government led by Prime Minister Bob Hawke, the Wet Tropics was listed on the world heritage list.The next major decision that was made pretty much at the same time was the addition of stage 2 of Kakadu National Park to the world heritage list. Another decision also in that same period of 1986-87 was the conducting of an inquiry into the Lemonthyme and Southern forests of Tasmania, which ultimately led to the world heritage listing of a very large additional portion of those forests.Finally in that period, in terms of the big decisions, there were proposals to mine Shelburne Bay, again in my state of Queensland, for silica—that is, essentially for making glass. A lot of angst was felt by the government of the day and they told the Japanese proponents of the Shelburne Bay mining proposal that it would not go ahead. It was a fairly courageous decision, because at that time the dollar was fairly weak and this was seen as perhaps sending the wrong signal to international markets about Australia's commitment to ongoing economic development. The Hawke government displayed courage in making the judgment in that it is important in that case not to trade an environmental debt for a potential economic debt.Shortly thereafter, there was global controversy over whether countries or members of the international Antarctic convention—the international Antarctic community, if you like—should sign a minerals convention which would have allowed, under some fairly strict guidelines, the mining of minerals in Antarctica. Again the decision was made under the leadership of Prime Minister Bob Hawke, to be one out on this, although very powerful countries such as the United States and the United Kingdom were strong advocates for signing the convention. He was advised by the then Department of Foreign Affairs that it would be very poor diplomacy to buck the system and disagree with the United States and the United Kingdom and European countries on this matter. He nevertheless did so and, with the support of Jacques Cousteau, set about convincing the French that it would be a smart thing on their part not to sign the minerals convention. One thing led to another, because he did convince the French that it would not be a good thing to sign the minerals convention and slowly but surely the momentum gathered and other countries were convinced that it would not be sensible or wise for the long-term future of our planet to sign the convention.As a result, ultimately in a meeting with then Senator Al Gore in the United States, in which I had the privilege of participating, then Prime Minister Hawke convinced Senator Gore that the American position was wrong. Senator Gore to his credit took that forward through the processes in the United States Congress and ultimately the United States changed its position and agreed with Australia, as did the United Kingdom, and the convention was not signed. As a result the fragile environment of the Antarctic has been protected, at least for many years, from the risk of mining. I say all that, because it was a period when courage was required on the part of Australian policy makers and then Prime Minister Bob Hawke, his cabinet and the entire federal parliamentary Labor Party displayed that sort of courage.6J4Sciacca, Con, MPMr Sciacca—A good Prime Minister.83VEmerson, Craig, MPMr EMERSON—He was a good Prime Minister. In 1989 there was a further development on the environment and that was the release of a major report and a set of policy commitments, Our Country Our Future, again by Prime Minister Bob Hawke. The then primary industries minister, John Kerin, labelled it WGES—the world's greatest environment statement. I remember Bob Hawke saying, `Now, listen, we don't want to talk up expectations on this,' and then John called it the world's greatest environment statement, so expectations were raised. But a lot of those expectations were met when that report was released. It received very favourable community support.The centrepiece of Our Country Our Future was a decade of land care. This commitment to a decade of land care marked a shift in public policy making and thinking from individual land use issues such as Tasmanian forests, Kakadu, Shelburne Bay and the Wet Tropics of North Queensland to a broader philosophical commitment to the environment—that is, we need to do things using a holistic approach instead of exclusively concentrating on individual land use issues. It was a very exciting period and I was very happy to have been part of that as the Prime Minister's economic and environmental adviser at the time.The next phase in the development of public policy thinking was the ecologically sustainable development process, the ESD process. In December 1989 a meeting was organised involving the Prime Minister. It was attended by the following people, many of whom have become very familiar names: Lauchlan McIntosh, who was the head of the Australian Mining Industry Council; Rob Bain, head of the National Association of Forest Industries; Phillip Toyne, Executive Director of the Australian Conservation Foundation; Judy Lambert, the Director of the Wilderness Society; and Simon Crean, the head of the ACTU at the time. This small meeting involving Prime Minister Hawke and relevant ministers initiated what came to be known as the national ESD process, a roundtable process. The table became very large and very round because I think there were 70 to 90 participants towards the end of that process producing various ESD reports.The purpose of the process was to change the way policy makers and community leaders think about the environment. Some people were somewhat dismayed that it did not come up with a whole lot of policy recommendations that could be implemented immediately. But the point of the exercise was to get people from usually opposing sides of an argument, traditional rivals and antagonists, around the table so that they could better understand each other's perspective and perhaps engender into all relevant public policy making a concern about the environment and an understanding about the impact of public policy decisions on the environment. It is a fact that many forest disputes were subsequently settled under the ESD principles that came about as a result of this lengthy ESD process. In Queensland, for example, just recently the Beattie government brokered a deal on the future of native forests that has been warmly and strongly supported by the industry, by the conservation movement and by the relevant union, the Australian Workers Union.6J4Sciacca, Con, MPMr Sciacca—A very good union.83VEmerson, Craig, MPMr EMERSON—A very good union. The honourable member for Bowman is a very close and strong supporter of that union, as I am.So we have seen the incorporation of the ESD principles into practical policy making. There are still ongoing forestry debates in other parts of Australia, and I will say something more about that shortly, but I believe that we are moving forward on the whole forest issue. It has been helped in a significant way by the adoption of principles of ecologically sustainable development. I believe now the time has come to renew the philosophical commitment of public policy makers to the environment. I say that in a bipartisan way because it is not inevitable in my view that the environment must be a partisan issue. It has the potential to be an issue on which we can all agree. I would like to see the further development of thinking on the environment proceed along those lines. There are plenty of things to divide the parliamentary Labor Party from the coalition parties—we do not have to go around looking for them; we naturally divide on a whole range of issues, whether they be industrial relations issues, taxation issues, commitment to public hospitals and so on—but it does not necessarily mean that we have to have a different approach to the environment. I call on the coalition and our own party to see if we cannot strive for some sort of bipartisan approach to tackling future environmental problems.I believe that one of the highest priorities emerging from any renewed commitment of that kind should be the rehabilitation of the Murray-Darling basin. It is ironic that the launch of the document that I referred to earlier—Our Country Our Future—was on one of the tributaries in the Murray-Darling basin. Many people will remember the graphic pictures of then Prime Minister Bob Hawke with his arm around then environment minister Graham Richardson, with the shadowy, scary figures of all the dead trees. They had been killed by waterlogging. That was a result of human impact on the Murray-Darling basin. Over the 10 or 11 years since the launch of that document, I believe we have gone backwards in relation to the Murray-Darling basin. It has not got healthier; in fact, it has got sicker. The ultimate cost that our negligence of the Murray-Darling basin will impose on the Australian community could be very large indeed. Already those costs are being visited upon us through waterlogging, salinity and the deteriorating quality of the water that comes out at the other end, particularly for South Australians who have to drink it, as a result of all the intrusions along the way.I also believe that the cotton industry is a major thirsty new user of the river system and it is contributing to the degradation of that river system. I point out that of course that would be upsetting for the conservationists but it is also very upsetting for the downstream users. I went back to my home town of Baradine over the Easter break and met a friend of mine named Kimmy Myers for the first time in 27 years. Kimmy Myers is no conservationist but he is very upset with the cotton industry. We used to go to the Barwon River and catch yellow-belly. Well, it is very hard to catch yellow-belly in the Murray-Darling system nowadays. The reasons are the introduction of European carp, which is a problem in many of our waterways, but also—Kimmy complained about this—the cotton industry. It uses up so much water and the water quality is such that the poor old yellow-belly cannot survive. They are very few and far between. They are a natural species and delicious to eat and great for kids to catch but that is an opportunity that seems to have passed us by, and a very human and simple manifestation of the sorts of problems that we are creating for the Murray-Darling basin. It seems to me that this basin is dying and we need to do a lot more in terms of policy involvement in that area.Having said that, I consider that environmental progress is being made on a number of fronts. I will use some examples. Australia has more than 10 world heritage sites. In fact, I have lost count in the last couple of years as another couple have been added. That puts Australia in front in terms of international efforts to protect the environment. I think we have more world heritage sites than any other country. Even though they are not all looked after to the extent that we would like, our management of world heritage sites is better than in a lot of countries. We now have a greater commitment to land care. That is a pervasive issue. It is terrific to see that more farmers now are much more conscious of the impact of their farming practices on land quality and soil degradation. Overall, I think that farmers are trying to be more careful, but unfortunately in my own state of Queensland we still have major land clearing problems. Sydney Harbour is a lot cleaner than it was 10 years ago. I went fishing with former Prime Minister Bob Hawke last Sunday and we caught four fish at the bottom of his jetty in Northbridge. They looked pretty healthy to me, as did the water. Many forest disputes are not settled, but they can be settled and I am hopeful that they will be. Our national park estate and the broader conservation estate are larger than they were 10 years ago. Air quality overall is probably improving as heavy industries are moving out of our major urban areas. Also, although there are a lot more cars, the new cars that are coming on the road are a lot cleaner.There have been successes and there has been progress but there are many great challenges in front of us. I believe that, if we work together as a parliament, we can achieve great things for the environment. This legislation is a further instalment on improvements in the environment. It does represent far-sightedness on the part of policy makers in ensuring that our seas and oceans are cleaner. So I congratulate the government on that and I look forward to a renewed philosophical commitment from this parliament to the protection of Australia's wonderful natural environment.13:20:0018609O'Keefe, Neil, MPMr O'KEEFECE4BurkeALP00—I would like to follow on from the remarks made by my colleague in relation to ongoing thought and commitment to the development of Australia's heritage and environment issues. I will signal a couple of areas that remain of concern to me and I urge the government to pay more attention to them.The first point—I believe this is a matter where the chickens are very much coming home to roost for the government—is that from the proceeds of the first tranche of the sale of Telstra the government, at the time, announced the world's greatest heritage fund, the Natural Heritage Trust—$1 billion of it. Those of us who understand these things and know how to read a budget statement properly said at the outset, `Hang on, what you have done here is added up over five years $1 billion worth of spending. But, by the way, you have made cuts here to programs that were ongoing in the budget, funded as recurrent funding.' A classic one was the funding of the Murray-Darling Basin Commission—cut back. Programs like Landcare—cut back. Programs for some of the river strategies that the member for Rankin was talking about a minute ago were cut back and all replaced with the Natural Heritage Trust. Fine, who cares where the dollars come from? The point is that at the end of that five-year program these well-established recurrent programs in the budget are gone. What has to happen instead is that you have to go to the Treasurer and ask for funding for a whole new program, except you have not got another sale of Telstra to fund it. Having made all these concessions to get the GST through, all of a sudden the government has to work out where the dollars are in its budget to support the ongoing environment and heritage allocations. That issue will come to the fore in the next 18 months as we lead up to the federal election, because, having let those programs go, they cannot be that easily written back in.What has happened to the Murray-Darling Commission? We now have the National Farmers Federation saying that we need a rescue package for the Murray-Darling. They are assessing that the rescue package will cost of the order of $64 billion—to fix up something that every one of us has known. The first day I was sent out to teach as a high school teacher near Kerang in northern Victoria—30 years ago—I could not believe the salt and the water that I could see lying around the paddocks—and I was a city slicker! Farming practices have changed. We have come to understand what has happened to the Murray cod, the yellow-belly and other species. But now the Farmers Federation is calling for somebody to come up with $64 billion to fix the problem. I find it astounding that Australia has let itself get to this situation especially when we had the Prime Minister securing the support of the Democrats for both the GST and the sale of the first third of Telstra for the world's greatest heritage fund—and here we are going further and further down the gurgler in a major national project such as the restoration of the Murray-Darling basin. I think that needs to be understood in the rawness in which I have outlined it. I turn now to the issue of forestry. I recently participated in a trade delegation to South American and Latin American countries. We visited several countries. One experience still has me standing here with my ears ringing and my head shaking in wonderment. We arrived in Uruguay—83DMurphy, John, MPMr Murphy—It is a wonderful place.CE4O'Keefe, Neil, MPMr O'KEEFE—It is. The wife of the member for Lowe, Mr Murphy, who is next to me, is from Uruguay. She is a lovely lady. We arrived in Uruguay, jumped in the car and headed to Montevideo, the capital city. The car trip from the airport to the city is about 20 kilometres. It is a beautiful drive along the coastal region, but before you reach the coastal strip you drive through eucalypt forests. I was sitting in the car looking out the window thinking, `Am I seeing what I think I am seeing? Am I seeing gum trees in Uruguay?' I asked the driver, `Are they gum trees?' He said, `Yes, we got them from Australia.'I went to lunch with a number of ministers. I was sitting next to the industry minister and I said, `By the way, what's with all the gum trees?' Herein lies the rub, Mr Deputy Speaker. He said, `We identified 15 years ago that there would be a shortage in the world of quality timber for woodchips, paper and other resources and we analysed what would be the best tree. We selected a number of Australian eucalypts and began planting plantations 15 years ago to move into the gap we knew would exist in the world trade for that product.' I sat there and thought, `We have spent 15 years of public energy in a battle with the timber industry, a battle in government over woodchips, a battle over access to public forests—15 years in energy and intellect and have gone just about nowhere—while smarter countries have said, “Hey, let's start planting trees; let's start reforestation; let's start building for the future of this industry.' I know that you, Mr Deputy Speaker Adams, have not only a very deep-seated interest in the topic but also a sadness in your heart at the absurdity of the debate that has gone on in Australia for the last 15 years. It is a debate that for all the time I have been here sums up what Australia has become.Within weeks of becoming the new government in 1996, this government introduced legislation to remove the ceiling on woodchip exports from Australia. The only tool the federal government had to lever the industry with was to say, `Unless you plant plantations, unless you start reforestation, we will not approve these woodchip exports.' The conservatives erased it from the legislation within weeks of becoming the government. What has happened in Australia since? The industry has gone flat out in its continuing fight for access to public forests and has done next to nothing in planting plantations and broadening the base of reforestation. When I got out of the plane in Uruguay and I saw these smart people growing Australian eucalypts, I thought `What on earth are we about?'I call again in this parliament for the people who are involved in this debate to understand that the fight is not about access to public forest. All our energy and all our resources should be going to reforestation—sensibly and profitably—of Australia's land mass, because this is a big future industry. Other countries can see it; why can't we?Just to conclude on this point, Mr Deputy Speaker, I might say that I was thrilled to see the change of government in Victoria, because the previous state government in Victoria had so bastardised the national forest agreement between the federal government and the state government that the Liberal minister for the forests here, Wilson Tuckey, had himself taken over the process of auditing what was going on in Victoria because he did not trust what he was being told by the Victorians. What has now just recently been signed between the federal government and the state government is the regional forest agreement covering the forest area in my electorate, which I have been highly supportive of. I am now saying to both ministers, the federal minister—and I expect I will be saying it to a Labor federal minister in about 18 months time—and the state minister: do not trust these bureaucrats and forest managers underneath this agreement, because I have evidence that they are already beginning to white-ant the agreement that has been made between the federal minister and the state minister. The shadow minister for forestry, Mr Ferguson, who is present in the chamber at the moment, is well informed on the fact that it is all very well for ministers and governments to make agreements but, if the forest managers underneath decide they want to do their own thing, it can gather pretty serious momentum. So I am just putting a little yardstick out there that I am supportive of the agreement that has been made between the Commonwealth and Victoria in the regional forest agreement, but I am asking both ministers to make sure that they stay right on the wheel of this and particularly right on the wheel of the commitments regarding investment in plantation and investment in reafforestation, because they are the bits of the agreement that I think are starting to fall off the cart already. I am certainly not going to stand by and watch that. I believe the nation has been sold a pup with the greatest environment program of all time, the Natural Heritage Trust; the chickens are going to come home to roost on that, as they are on a lot of other things. I am saying that the Murray-Darling basin, in particular, has to be the environmental priority of both federal and state governments involved in this, because even the National Farmers Federation has said it is a $64 billion problem. For all the energy we have put into the waterfront, the Industry Commission only ever said the waterfront was a $1 billion problem. This is a $64 billion problem—64 times that of the waterfront. If Mr Reith thinks he wants to do something about something valuable, then it is the Murray-Darling basin.I conclude by calling on both the federal and state ministers involved in the Victorian Regional Forest Agreement to keep a particular focus on the commitments regarding reafforestation and plantation. I thank you for the opportunity to make this contribution.13:34:0018611Murphy, John, MPMr MURPHY83DLoweALP00—The Environment and Heritage Legislation Amendment Bill 2000 is being implemented in conformance with Australia's obligations under international law for the ratification of an international instrument to which Australia is a signatory. The relevant international instrument in this case is the 1996 protocol to the London convention. The purpose of this bill is to amend the Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Act 1981 and bring our domestic legislation into line with this international instrument.I am deeply disturbed by this bill and the genre of bills we increasingly see being presented by the government. What is clearly apparent is a direction by this government to the release and privatisation of all aspects of social existence, including environmental, social and cultural spheres, which are supposed to be sacrosanct, that is, above private ownership or control. This bill superficially appears uncontentious until we take a closer look. The convention that this bill seeks to ratify in domestic law is in itself a good thing. The dumping of waste into the sea has caused predictable and foreseeable damage to the global environment on an unprecedented scale. Many of us in this House are at least partially aware of these impacts. They need not be mentioned in any detail here, save to say that we are all disgusted as we look on helplessly at environmental harm such as a spoiled beach or a tainted landscape. We envisage a vision of clean living waters and a restorative balance between man's use on the one hand and a sustainable balance of all life on the other hand.That is largely the problem with this bill. It is the fact that this type of pollution, waste dumping at sea, is conspicuous, predictable, foreseeable and direct. Therefore, it is inconceivable that the precautionary principle could possibly be absent in this bill. Only earlier this week I questioned the ethics of this government legislating an amendment to immigration law on parent visas where the government was simply unwilling to admit to itself the logical consequences of actions. It is clear that the government is repeatedly and recklessly continuing its blundering, ill-conceived and rushed agenda of pushing through legislation without recourse or due consideration to that legislation's impact on the broader law, that admixture of a bill in the context of the whole law, including federal, state and territory law, the common law and administrative and procedural laws. It is in the admixture of laws that the problems begin and where the public will suffer an ill-conceived law in its broader context. The bill is seriously flawed. It is a classical case of the biblical warning: by doing good, they shall do much evil. What is the good of which I speak and what are the evils? The good is the ratification of Australia's international obligations into domestic law. Further, this ratification of the anti sea dumping legislation would not, I dare say, be opposed by any in this House. The evils are twofold: one, the denial of accountability of corporations to the public interest; two, the denial of Australia's obligations to ratify the precautionary principle and ecologically sustainable development legislation at every relevant opportunity.While the subject of this bill is superficially uncontentious, the administrative and legal ramifications contained in the bill are highly disturbing, as I have said, and must be addressed. I draw to the attention of this House the definition of `seriously harmful material' found in item 14 of schedule 1 of the bill. Item 14 in turn refers the reader to item 77. It is worth reciting the comments found in Parliamentary Library Bills Digest No. 48 1999-2000, which states:Item 14 defines “seriously harmful material” as radioactive material, or any other material prescribed as such by the regulations.Item 77 inserts new subsection 14 (3) into the Act which ensures that before a regulation prescribes material as “seriously harmful material” for the purposes of subsection 4(1), the Minister must be satisfied that the material is capable of causing serious harm to the marine environment. This limitation on the kinds of material that may be prescribed as “seriously harmful material” does not appear to incorporate the precautionary principle.The gist of these items is that the definition of what substances are included in the definition of what is defined as seriously harmful material carries with it stronger regulation, including more stringent penalties. As item 77 says, the limitation of the kinds of material that may be so classified does not appear to incorporate the precautionary principle. Therefore, I am compelled to defend the public interest against this government's law-making, which is predicated on the privatisation of the public interest, the wholesale attempt to sell and own moral goods which cannot be bought or sold.What are those moral goods, Mr Deputy Speaker? They include intangibles such as biodiversity, intergenerational equity, clean air, water and environment, this government's sovereignty, the government's role as custodial trustees of the environment, cultural heritage, environmental heritage, and social heritage. Many more could be added, but these are the most important issues surrounding the impact of items 14 and 77. The list is important because it identifies the intangibles that are being dismissed by the effect of bills such as this. It is for this reason that I am compelled to restate the precautionary principle in this House, for it is the precautionary principle and everything that it enshrines as an ethic that is itself under attack by bills of this kind. However, this government has seen fit to abandon both the public interest but, more importantly, the role of this government as advocates of the public interest by explicit abrogation. There are many excellent definitions of the precautionary principle but I prefer the statutory definition contained in subsection 6(2)(a) of the New South Wales act titled Protection of the Environment Administration Act 1991. Section 61(2) says: For the purposes of subsection (1)(a), ecologically sustainable development requires the effective integration of economic and environmental considerations in decision-making processes. Ecologically sustainable development can be achieved through the implementation of the following principles and programs:(a) The precautionary principle - namely, that if there are threats of serious or irreversible environmental damage, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to present environmental degradation. In the application of the precautionary principle, public and private decisions should be guided by:(i) careful evaluation to avoid, wherever practicable, serious or irreversible damage to the environment, and (ii) an assessment of the risk-weighted consequences of various options. It seems clear to me that this government is adamant about implementing its campaign of selective amnesia when it suits itself to deny its obligations to embed the precautionary principle into domestic law. Before addressing the absence of the precautionary principle in this bill, I will address the assertion that section 18 of the sea dumping act allows the minister to require the applicant for a permit to enter into an agreement that includes provisions such as that the applicant will undertake research or analysis relating to the effect that the proposed dumping might have on the marine environment. In the main, I question whether a discretionary power in the hands of the minister is sufficient to fulfil our obligations to implement the precautionary principle.This bill appears to be but part of a broader strategy by the government. The strategy seeks to pander to the corporate world. This corporate world has sought to privatise every aspect of human existence: our ability to think—through monopolistic media control; and our environment in all its manifestations, including the natural environment, the cultural environment and the social environment. Everything is being reduced to a mere commodity. Everything has a price. This is the philosophy of economic liberalism, the bastard child of utilitarianism, of which I have spoken in this House before. The denial of basic rules against the onslaught of corporate conduct is a trademark of this government as they pander to the vested interests of the corporate world. For it is the utilitarian ethic, that defective ethic of the want based perspective, which has reduced everything to a commodity. According to the ethic that aims for the good of the most but not all for most of the time, there are winners and losers. More sinisterly, there are losers that are intangible, the unrepresented elements of our society that do not vote. I speak of the intrinsic rights of existence, the right of other life forms to exist, the rights of nature to exist and the right of biodiversity in all its manifestations to exist.That is not to deny the utility we as human beings enjoy from the attainment of clean air and water or the very existence of a food cycle on this planet. It is the realm of the technocentrists who assert that, so long as we find a technological remedy to the fulfilment of some utilitarian outcome such as food production, we can dispense with nature absolute. This is the reasoning behind genetically modified foods. It is equally defective. But I raise this analogy in order to highlight the logical consequences of the ethics imbued in this bill through the denial of the operation of the precautionary principle. This is the policy rationale of such policies as the multilateral agreement on investment, MAI. It is the reason why there were such violent protests in Seattle in the United States of America this year that it caused the entire collapse of that conference.People around the world are increasingly aware of subtleties of legislation such as the one put before this House today. This bill seeks to give the impression that it is fulfilling a noble obligation of ratifying a United Nations convention whilst, in fact, divesting government statutory powers to intervene through denying application of the precautionary principle in their conduct.I can recount many examples where this government has directly divested itself of legal powers and placed corporations above the law. I am particularly reminded of the Telecommunications Act 1996 as I say this. In that act, especially at section 360, this government gives rights to three telecommunications corporations exclusively beyond the rights of every other person, corporate or otherwise. Taxation laws are another example, including the corporate enjoyment of taxation breaks and the pandering of this government to the excessive demands of corporations.This week in parliament we heard the Prime Minister make repeated demands on the petrol companies to honour their commitments to pass on petrol price falls to the customer, but to no avail. The petrol company spin doctors have had their way, replete with the corporate attitude of `you try and make me'. Any attempt to deal with the corporate world is typically met with the response, `We will get up and leave' or `We will just not invest in you'. Threats of Australia being a pariah state by the corporate world are well known—the banana republic. So we engage in adjusting our economy to appease the infinite greed that attends to the corporates' desires. I can only be convinced that the new taxation system is a direct result of corporate demands for an economy that best suits their needs. In the late 1990s, we narrowly escaped the ratification of the MAI. The MAI was the last straw in a full-scale assault similar to the insidious attack being made here today in this bill. This bill is a small slice of the MAI agenda in that it seeks to exculpate a corporation from liability if the precautionary principle is breached. The MAI is itself comatose, but the agenda of the MAI and its corporate lobby continues unabated. The only thing that has changed is that the MAI agenda has moved from the OECD to the World Trade Organisation. In all material respects, the agenda remains the same. What is the agenda? It is a privatisation of everything. It is the reduction of everything, including the environment itself, to a mere commodity.I now wish to move on to some examples of the logical consequences of this utilitarian ethic born of its liberalist roots. These are a few home grown examples from my electorate of Lowe. An examination of the issues affecting the electorate of Lowe shows that the recognition of this approach by this government in pandering to the corporate world and globalisation lies at the root of the evils befalling our community. I first raise the example of Sydney airport and the operation of runway movements. Here is an example of what happens when government acts in a private way and how the community reacted to this conduct, in this case by taking the matter to the Federal Court on administrative grounds. In that case, the government considered it proper to exempt from the requirements of the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act 1974 certain proposed Commonwealth actions relating to the use of runways at Sydney (Kingsford Smith) Airport and the flight paths of aircraft taking off from or landing at the airport. The action also involved the decision of the then minister for the environment to exempt this action from the approved procedures under the act.A second local example includes the implementation of the dreaded precision radar monitor system. This system has been universally condemned by the public interest, represented in the Sydney Airport Community Forum. Motion after motion has unanimously called for its repeal. The Minister for Transport and Regional Services has repeatedly ignored the emphatic and declaratory objections made by SACF in the public interest and favoured the corporates with a vested interest.A third example includes the proposed construction of a mobile telephone tower in the suburb of Concord, which lies in the heart of my electorate. In this case, strong community protests raised the possibility that such a tower can produce constant exposure to low level radiation that may be harmful to human health. The debate at the public meeting on 9 March 2000 on the Concord mobile phone tower issue revolved around the precautionary principle. Until then, the corporation responsible for the tower, who were present at the meeting, were doing the usual spin doctor stuff. However, at the mention of the precautionary principle to the so-called independent consultant, a major fracas broke out. The consultant argued, inter alia, that the principle did not apply because there was no foreseeable risk. At least the principle was considered to apply but was just considered irrelevant for lack of identifiable harm.The whole point in this bill is that we are dealing with known or knowable harm. I recite from the New South Wales legislation:If there are threats of serious or irreversible environmental damage, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental degradation.Thus, the precautionary principle anticipates harm that may lack full scientific certainty and seeks to prevent it. The precautionary principle transcends empirical proof. The subject of this bill, namely, dumping of waste, including radioactive waste, into the sea is, in terms of environmental degradation, much more scientifically certain than electromagnetic radiation.Waste is relatively easy to identify and monitor; so too are its harmful impacts at once immediate and conspicuous. For these reasons, the subject of this bill is an obvious candidate for the application of the precautionary principle. If ever there were a subject relevant to the good application of the precautionary principle, then it is before us today. To deny the application of the precautionary principle in this bill is to have the following consequences. The corporation is absolved of liability or adherence to the precautionary principle, as indicated in subsection 6(2)(a) of the Protection of the Environment Administration Act. The precautionary principle is a component of the broader ethic known as ecologically sustainable development. To eliminate the application of the precautionary principle to this bill therefore fundamentally compromises this bill's application of the ethics contained in ESD, which Australia is also bound to implement through the ratification of domestic laws consistent with the several international instruments to which we have become a signatory. To deny the operation of the precautionary principle eliminates liability in the hands of the corporates who would seek to use the amendments found in items 14 and 77 in a way that denies culpability for failing to postpone measures to militate against the harm that may be caused. I remind this House of why the precautionary principle exists. This principle and its capital ethic, ESD, were espoused in the classical text on environmental ethics and in such texts as the Brundtland report. The basis for such policy is founded on the recognition that true environmental protection is only achieved through preventative measures. That is, it is rarely possible to restore a work of God in nature once it is destroyed. It is easy to destroy a thing of nature; it is almost impossible to ever restore a thing, once destroyed. It is this paramount and right reasoning that compels the application of the precautionary principle. To ignore this principle denies the possibility of arresting or of postponing measures before the event occurs. This is especially true of water pollution, where the effects of such pollution can be not only catastrophic for the ecology, but also horrendously difficult to fix or ameliorate after the event.When I review the broader body of pollution law in the Commonwealth jurisdiction and the states and territories, certain hurdles always present themselves. You must not only prove a pollution event occurred; you must also show a causal link. You must show a nexus between the actuating event and the pollution. You must show a connection between the person committing the offence, the pollution and the harm. I say all this with the greatest of respect to my Victorian colleagues, who I understand still enjoy laws that entertain a notion of absolute liability in environmental law. But I stand to be corrected on this point and would welcome further comment from any Victorian member of this House to clarify the point.I conclude with this warning to the government: you cannot escape the watchful eye of the public who are now very aware of the encroaching and cumulative influence of these laws. In particular, it is now clear that this government has an agenda of globalisation that seeks to diminish and ultimately eradicate sovereignty of Australia through laws such as those contained in this bill. These laws seek to diminish powers held in the public interest. Specifically, the denial of any power to apply the precautionary principle in this aspect of pollution law is a further reduction of powers in the hands of the public interest in dealing with preventative environmental powers that could be invoked to prevent environmental degradation. In doing so, this bill seeks to weaken government and devolve its responsibilities in guarding the public interest in the most critical aspect of environmental protection.Like the Concord mobile telephone tower saga that I referred to a moment ago and the lack of scientific certainty in showing the risk, it often comes down to the opinion of the experts. Adolf Hitler is sometimes credited as having said that the experts were people who told him what he could not do. Adolf Hitler was your classic consequentialist. He asserted at Nuremberg that a bird flies because it is a bird. Put another way, because a man can do a thing, therefore he must do a thing. This is the reasoning behind the denial of the precautionary principle. It asserts that the lack of a scientific report that demonstrates a nebulous but feasible new link between cause and effect means that the cause or actuating event may be done without legal repercussions or liability. This is exactly the type of event which the precautionary principle seeks to avoid. The immorality of this event is found in the philosophically illogical basis for the existence of the amendments contained in items 14 and 77. That is, logic permits the testing of validity of new enlightened conclusions reached from premises which we currently do not possess. The denial of being allowed to construct reasoning in this way is tantamount to intellectual hijacking. This line of reasoning asserts that, because we as yet do not know a thing exists, we conclude that it does not exist. The argument of not making the precautionary principle explicit in this bill rests on similar empiricist reasoning that, if something cannot be proved empirically, it is presumed to not exist and may therefore be disregarded. It is this line of false reasoning that results in liberalism being the morally bankrupt philosophy that it is and the reasoning from the political party in this House, which is the namesake of that philosophy. For these reasons I urge the minister for the environment, Senator Robert Hill, to explicitly incorporate the precautionary principle in this bill. 13:54:0018616Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr LAURIE FERGUSON8T4ReidALP00— I refer to Australian adherence to changes in international understandings legislated for in 1996. Perhaps this focuses the light on a few of the realities of the environmental debate. This legislation really stems from negotiations in 1971 and the whole movement to international concern about our waterways, including the impact that dumping has on sea life, the impact it has on industries that are dependent upon the sea, et cetera. Since 1971 we have seen that to achieve a balance in international negotiations requires a degree of give and take by a number of countries, all with different interests, to reach an understanding. At the same time, the balance of forces in the international debate—the environmental movement, its strength, and the question of the growth of scientific evidence and knowledge—come into play in moving the international community towards what I see as advances in this area.There is another focus. I refer to an article by Rachelle Baird in the Environment and Planning Journal, volume 53 of June 1998. She refers to what this country confronts in many other areas of international law. The reality for our region is that traditionally while we have been a pacemaker in regards to adherence to these conventions we are in a zone of the world where essentially adherence is not as great as it might be in western Europe and North America. It is interesting to note that in our region Japan and China are the only signatories to the convention and that in the Pacific, as far as I understand from that article, Australia, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea and the Solomons are the only other adherents. The reality we face in this area is that, whilst Australia has been at the forefront in getting international controls over dumping at sea, our region is characterised by a significant number of nations who do not have the resources to adhere to these conventions and, in some cases, lack the political will to be involved.The situation is that there has been a growth of international pressure and knowledge. Historically, the original convention, stemming from those 1971 negotiations and introduced in 1972, was essentially an agreement that sought to limit dumping. It did not seek to move towards total banning of a large number of substances. It had a system of permits. In some cases there were total bans, except for trace elements. In other cases there was a list of materials, outlined in an annex, that could be dumped at sea. Obviously, with the growth of pressure and the growth of interest and knowledge, the world has moved to a situation which says that in the light of our development that is not good enough. In that period the only substances that were banned were organohomogene compounds, mercury, mercury compounds, cadmium, high level radioactive waste, et cetera. The agreement in 1996 to change this legislation reflected that international pressure. We have had instances in the North Sea where there have been massive arguments over the question of oil installations. This bill provides for the movement towards outright incineration bans. Once again, that was not the original intention of the signatories. A summary of the intention of this bill is given in the article I cited earlier. Rachelle Baird states:It is intended that in time the protocol will replace the London convention. To facilitate a smooth transition to more prescriptive provisions of the protocol a maximum five-year phase-in period is allowed for states to comply. To receive the benefit of this transitional period a state must notify the secretary general of the IMO of the reasons why it is not able to comply with specific provisions of the protocol.The bill provides for a five-year phase-in period and encouragement throughout the whole thrust of these measures to seek alternatives. Essentially, while countries and states in our region that lack the facilities to fully implement the requirements of this legislation and conventions can be given exemptions and exceptions, before dumping there has to be a thorough assessment of the waste prevention audit and management options, specifications and characteristics of the materials sought to be dumped. They must come forward and give very concrete reasons as to why they are unable to do so.The legislation widens Australia's exclusive economic zone. The coverage of the bill extends to Antarctica's far reaches and obviously the opposition is supportive of that move to further applicability of the bans on dumping. I reiterate that there is a stress on seeking alternatives and looking for technological advances.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 2.00 p.m., the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 101A. The debate may be resumed at a later hour and the member for Reid will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.Miscellaneous1861710000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I inform the House that it is my intention to issue a writ on Friday, 30 June 2000 for the election of a member to serve for the electoral division of Isaacs, in the state of Victoria, in the place of Mr Gregory Stuart Wilton. The dates in connection with the by-election are fixed as follows: the issue of writ—Friday, 30 June 2000; close of rolls—Friday, 7 July 2000; date of nominations—Thursday, 13 July 2000; date of polling—Saturday, 12 August 2000; and return of the writ—on or before Sunday, 8 October 2000.Questions Without Notice186171861714:01:0018617Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TANNERYU5MelbourneALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer you to your 7.30 Report interview regarding National Textiles on 8 February, where you stated, `I've kept at arms length from the issue', and your statement to the House on 15 February that, prior to meeting with workers on 4 February, you were not aware of having received any advice on the issue. Isn't it a fact that your senior economic adviser, Peter Crone, discussed the government bailout with National Textiles administrator John Starr on 22 January, only one day after the workers' employment was terminated and two days after the Stock Exchange was notified? When did contact between your office and the administrator commence? What instructions did you give to Peter Crone? What discussions did you subsequently conduct with him on this matter? Will you now inform the House: what did you know, and when did you know it?18617Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—This question is in the true newspaper following style of the Labor Party, based on a report in the Sydney Morning Herald about freedom of information. The documents released to the Sydney Morning Herald do not shed any further light on this issue—no further light at all. There was contact between my office and the administrator of National Textiles. There is nothing unusual about that. It has happened in relation to Oakdale and other matters. It is entirely consistent with that practice. It remains the case the Labor Party is unhappy that we bailed out ordinary Australian workers. Nothing that you can say is going to alter that fact. Through the good officers of the workers' friend, the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business—the battlers' mate behind me here—we have been able to put in place a scheme, and your crowd in New South Wales are too mean to supplement it.1861814:03:0018618Lloyd, Jim, MPMr LLOYDIK6RobertsonLP10—My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Would the Prime Minister inform the House of changes in Australia's taxation system that will be in place when the House next sits in August?18618Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I would like to inform the House and the Australian people of something new—there will be a change to our tax system on Saturday. This is a generational change that this country has needed for at least a quarter of a century. It is a change that will immeasurably strengthen the Australian economy. It is a change that will reduce the income tax burden of every Australian taxpayer. It is a change that will reduce business costs. It is a change that will reduce the cost of fuel in country Australia because it will reduce diesel by 24c a litre.There is one thing about which the Australian public can be of no doubt—and it will have a very important influence in defining the long-term impact of this change politically, as well as economically and socially—the people who have fought against very difficult odds on many occasions to bring Australia the tax reform it so badly needed are the members of the Liberal and National parties. We are the people who have fought for the national interest. We are the people who have taken the risks. We are the people who have been prepared to confront the generational need for taxation reform. It will forever be to the credit of the Liberal and National parties that they fought to put in place a taxation system which will guarantee, in a way that no other national government has ever guaranteed, the necessary revenue to the states of Australia so that they can fund the roads, the schools, the police, the hospitals and all the other daily services that Australians have a right to expect from their state governments. Everybody in this parliament knows that the premiers conferences, whether under Malcolm Fraser's prime ministership, Bob Hawke's prime ministership, Paul Keating's prime ministership or my own, degenerate into ridiculous wrangling and farcical exchanges. Decade after decade, premiers have come to Canberra and said, `We want a new financial deal.' Prime Minister after Prime Minister has shirked the responsibility of giving them that new deal. That dereliction of responsibility ended with this government. We took a decision two years ago to give the states of Australia a better financial deal. Despite the political posturing of the Labor premiers, they have welcomed it with great glee and great alacrity because it will give them the financial sinews of war they do not now have. I look forward with keen anticipation to Saturday. I look forward to the weeks and months that follow. The Leader of the Opposition cannot make up his mind whether it will be instantaneous disaster or a slow burn. At the beginning of the year, the world was going to come to an end on 1 July, but a few days ago the Leader of the Opposition said that 1 July would be the best day.I say in this parliament to the people of Australia, as I will say to them tonight in my address to the nation, that we have taken this decision because we believe it will strengthen the Australian nation. It will make us a stronger economy. It will make us more competitive. It will give us a fairer taxation system. It will deliver the revenue underpinning for the states to provide essential services. It will end an archaic wholesale sales tax system. Overall, this represents the biggest beneficial change that a government can make to the economy of Australia. I invite the Australian people to give it their support, to give it the fair go it deserves. I have no doubt that, when we return in six or seven weeks time, it will begin to dawn on the Australian Labor Party that there is a point at which the Australian people will tolerate negativity and scaremongering no more. All the Labor Party has done is engage in absolutely destructive negativity. That is easy. You have had your easy hits. You have had your salad days in attacking it. From Saturday it will start to turn around, and the Australian people will realise the courage that this government has displayed. The Australian people will over time embrace the change that has been made. Before I conclude this answer, I would like to place on the record my particular thanks to all of my colleagues for the help they have given me. Most particularly I want to single out for special praise the work of the Treasurer, who has done an absolutely fantastic job in relation to this. He is vastly into detail. The personal commitment he has given to it has been absolutely exemplary. I record my gratitude to my colleague the Deputy Leader of the Federal Parliamentary Liberal Party and Treasurer of Australia. 1861914:10:0018619Theophanous, Dr Andrew, MPDr THEOPHANOUSQJ4CalwellALP00—I want to ask the honourable the Prime Minister a question in relation to his overall responsibility for the human rights record of the government. Is the Prime Minister aware that more than 1,700 people have been granted genuine refugee status by Australia's determination system but have only been granted a three-year temporary visa? Is he aware of the tough conditions imposed on those receiving this temporary visa, including the provision that they cannot unite with their spouse and children for at least three years and up to five years? Given the Prime Minister's stated belief in the sanctity of the family, will the Prime Minister respond to the pleas of organisations such as the Refugee Council of Australia, and act to remove these cruel and inhumane provisions in the three-year visa?10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I call the minister.QJ4Theophanous, Dr Andrew, MPDr Theophanous—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This is a question that concerns the whole of the government in Australia's human rights record. It is not a question just for the minister for immigration. The Prime Minister should answer this question.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Calwell, who has had lengthier service in this House than most members, is aware that the Prime Minister has acted within the standing orders, and I recognise the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs.18619Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK0J4BerowraLPMinister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Reconciliation10—In response to the honourable member for Calwell's question, let me outline that I made the announcement two days ago that, after due consideration of the claims of those who had arrived unlawfully in Australia—which, I might say, took longer than I would have liked, but was hampered very much by the fact that before they arrived in Australia many of them had disposed of documentation that might have assisted us in dealing with those issues—many had been found to have a well-founded fear of persecution in their home country and no other protection available to them. That puts them in the same situation as some 14 million other people around the world who have been found to be refugees. There is in Australia a very generous program—in fact, the largest program in the world per capita—to assist refugees with resettlement in Australia. Those places, which we allocate in concert with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, go to people who are judged to be in the most deserving situation, where they have no prospect of returning home, no safe place to stay and have an immediate and compelling need for resettlement. Those who come to Australia unlawfully, often bypassing situations in which they can be safe—QJ4Theophanous, Dr Andrew, MPDr Theophanous—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The whole question of whether refugees are unlawful has been rejected by the United Nations, Amnesty International and other bodies. People who arrive as refugees are not unlawful. The description of them as unlawful is—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Calwell will resume his seat. His point of order is not valid by any standard. The minister was responding to the question asked, and I invite him to continue.0J4Mr RUDDOCK—The point I was making is this. It might satisfy the honourable member for Calwell to know that some of the people who arrive in Australia unlawfully may later be found to be a refugee and then have a lawful entitlement to be here, but that does not mean that they did not arrive in Australia unlawfully. These people came to Australia unlawfully, bypassing other situations in which they could be safe, in many circumstances leaving situations where they had already been safe and have denied people who have a compelling need for a refugee place of that opportunity. We cannot walk away from our international obligations, but to leave in place incentives that would encourage people to come here, at risk to their own lives and at great danger and great cost, would, on our part, be highly irresponsible. One of the significant pull factors for people who were thinking about engaging upon those journeys to Australia was the fact that they got a permanent resident outcome if they were found to be refugees under the arrangements that were in place before. That was the outcome. Now they get a temporary entry permit, which honours our international obligation. Temporary entry holders do not get a family reunion entitlement. They do not get an Australian travel document to come and go from Australia at will, which numbers of permanent entry holders have been prepared to do, even though they were found to be refugees. The parliament agreed that the rules in relation to people who arrive unlawfully and establish refugee status should change and it was to reduce the pull factors to make Australia a less attractive destination. To unwind those measures now would only serve to send a signal to those people who are engaged in this insidious people trafficking business—the same sorts of people we saw involved in that practice in the United Kingdom—to continue to profiteer from this gruesome trade. We will not be a party to unwinding the measures that are designed to deal with that issue.1862014:17:0018620Fischer, Tim, MPMr TIM FISCHERDG4FarrerNP10—My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Given the introduction of the new tax system on 1 July with benefits for families, farmers and right through to rail, is the Prime Minister aware of any alternative plans to move Australia forward?18620Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I say to my colleague and friend the member for Farrer that the short answer to the question is no, but I know the honourable member would be a tad disappointed if I were so dismissive. Let me simply expand a bit by recalling what I said in answer to the first question, that we will go away for six or seven weeks and, when we all come back, the new system will be in operation. Of course, another event will occur while we are aware, that is, the biennial National Conference of the Australian Labor Party. The Australian Labor Party will have a great opportunity to work out what its alternative taxation policy is. No doubt when we return the Leader of the Opposition will unveil, during his numerous matters of public importance, why it is that the Australian people should embrace the alternative policy of the ALP. They criticise and obstruct what we try to do for the sake of a vote but not for the sake of the country. They say they are going to roll back the GST, but they do not specify where and how. They propose changes, but they do say that in essence they are going to keep the GST.The new taxation system will move Australia forward in a quite significant way. The kind of rolling back that Labor propose will only add complexity and difficulty to the new system. Over the last two years, the Labor Party have attacked the government in a quite mindless and opportunistic way. We had an outstanding example of it this morning. There is an allegation that a hacker has entered one of the systems associated with the introduction of the new system. What does the Deputy Leader of the Opposition do? In that true, national interest style for which he is renowned, does he go on radio and say, `Notwithstanding my opposition to the government's policy, I denounce the illegal practice of hacking'? Oh, no. He immediately says, `Oh, this is another opportunity to belt the government. This is another opportunity to blame it on the government.' That is absolutely and completely irresponsible and it is completely of a piece with the opportunistic attitude that this opposition, particularly the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, has taken.It is easy to criticise, it is easy to obstruct and it is easy to point score, but it is a lot harder to present generational taxation reform. When we return after the six- or seven-week break, I am quite certain that every member on this side of the House will look forward with great interest to hearing from the Leader of the Opposition his alternative plan. I have no doubt that they will discuss it at their national conference. They will have all the geniuses of the Labor Party gathered in Hobart. They will have all of their advisers. They will have their outgoing national president, although I think most of us over here rather like Barry in preference to Della Bosca. We will be waiting with bated breath to hear the new policy. When the Leader of the Opposition comes back, we will have our plan, endorsed by the people and introduced against great odds, pitted against their alternative and the Australian people will watch that debate with intense interest. If it is conducted in a spirited, constructive fashion, it can only be for the benefit of the Australian community. 1862114:21:0018621Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister, and I refer to his botched visit to a bottle shop earlier today. Prime Minister, now that you have demonstrated that your claims on the GST impact on packaged liquor do not add up, will you be visiting a pub on Saturday to explain how your promise on the price of ordinary beer does not add up either?18621Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I do not normally share my social plans with the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, but it is an interesting suggestion. I have had quite a lot of offers as far as Saturday is concerned. I am sure I will have an opportunity to savour some of the local brew. I am rather pleased that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has asked me a question because only yesterday the Australian Hotels Association released their recommended prices. I read a report in the Adelaide Advertiser of a lady running a hotel in Glenelg. The thrust of what she had to say was, `Oh, gee, we have seen the AHA price lists and they are nowhere near as bad as we were told.' I wonder who told them they were worse than what they have turned out to be. It would not be Simon, would it?Government members—No.ZD4Mr HOWARD—No! Isn't that uncharitable of him? In other words, the Australian Hotels Association has not only caught Simon out telling whoppers—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Prime Minister will refer to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition by his title.ZD4Mr HOWARD—Not only was the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, to give him his formal title, caught telling whoppers and porkies on this subject but it also has a tad dented the credibility of the breweries in Australia, which have been running these ads and making all sorts of shameful allegations about the Treasurer, not to say the absolutely absurd allegations they have been making about me.DT4Crean, Simon, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I will deal with the Deputy Leader of the Opposition if he defies the chair.ZD4Mr HOWARD—What the AHA price list says, interestingly enough, is that price increases were significantly below the claims being made by the breweries and significantly below the claims being made by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. What the lady running the hotel in Glenelg said was, `I cannot understand what all the fuss is about. The customers are really quite happy.' She said, `This thing will come and go,' without so much as a blink in the drinking habits of her patrons. The good news for them is that the prices have not gone up by as much as the Labor Party has scared them into believing. Fancy scaring the working men and women of Australia into believing that beer would go up by more than it will in reality. What an absolutely outrageous thing for the Australian Labor Party to do. Not only is beer not going up by the amount of eight or nine per cent that they talked about but also the working men and women of Australia will have additional dollars in their pockets to buy even more beers. I have no doubt that beer sales in Australia will be completely uninterrupted by the arrival of the new taxation system. 1862114:25:0018621Baird, Bruce, MPMr BAIRDMP6CookLP10—Mr Speaker, my question is addressed to the Treasurer. Would the Treasurer outline to the House recent economic indicators on the state of the Australian economy? In light of recent economic data, what are the future prospects for continued strong growth?18621Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I thank the honourable member for Cook for his question. I can inform him that the ABS job vacancies, which were released today, rose another two per cent in seasonally adjusted terms for the June quarter. That followed a 9.3 per cent growth in the last quarter. The skill vacancy survey, also released today, showed that skill vacancies rose by 1.5 per cent in June and are 15.8 per cent higher than a year ago. The unemployment rate is forecast by the government to fall to around 6¼ per cent by June of next year. This is the lowest unemployment rate in a decade. Since the coalition came to office, around 712,000 new jobs have been created. So far this year, 100,000 new jobs have been created in the Australian economy. The exceptional performance of the Australian economy has been recognised internationally. In its recent report, the meeting of the OECD, which represents the developed countries of the world, identified Australia and five other countries as the countries which were performing the best and which had increased their growth rates in the 1990s over and above the 1980s. It also found that Australia was showing the signs of a new economy. The signs of a new economy include a lift in productivity performance which allows an increase in growth without setting off inflationary forces. The new economy is fuelled by new, more productive ways of doing business, not just by improvements in information and communication technology but by the way in which they move back into the real economy, giving a productivity boost in so-called old industries as well, like agriculture and mining, which are now beginning to see the benefits of those changes.We have, in 36 hours, the opportunity to have a new tax system in this country. In 36 hours we will abolish wholesale sales tax. In 36 hours we will have the largest income tax cuts in Australian history. In 36 hours family assistance will be boosted. In 36 hours there will be a new Commonwealth-state financial arrangement. These are the changes which will drive Australia forward, which will give it the opportunity to boost its productivity and which will give it the opportunity to harness the factors and the opportunities which are in front of it. There is still strong growth in the Australian economy, strong opportunity for growth and strong opportunity for new jobs, which this government wants to see created.1862214:29:0018622Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—Mr Speaker, my question is again to the Prime Minister. I refer him again to his botched visit to a bottle shop early this morning. Now that you have visited a real bottle shop, Prime Minister, will you admit that on Saturday the price of an ordinary slab of beer will go up, a bottle of Australian red will go up, a cask of Australian white will go up and the alcohol that will fall in price is expensive imported beers and spirits?18622Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition would know all about the expensive imported ones, Mr Speaker. I have been saying for six months, 12 months, 18 months, that on Saturday the price of some things will go up, the price of some things will come down and the price of some things will remain the same. There is nothing unexpected about that. This is the last day and I thought, `Gee, they'll have something unexpected. They'll have a rabbit-killer today.' And all he does is steal one of my best lines. I really cannot believe it. He is slipping. Maybe the long, drawn-out campaign of negativism has even got too much for him.Let me take the opportunity, as I answer this question about the impact of the GST on liquor, which was the question, to correct something I said in answer to the earlier question. This is a very big revelation. I was wrong in the answer that I gave last time. I said the hotel was in Glenelg. I apologise to the member for Adelaide, in whose electorate I understand the hotel I was referring to is in fact located. It is the Criterion Hotel, a very fine hotel. It has very good beers, Mr Speaker. I can assure you it has wonderful beer—not as good as the Bennelong Arms but it has some very good beers. The publicans are Rose and Dick Pain. This is what the article says under the heading `My GST'—that reminds you of something else, doesn't it, Mr Speaker? It says:Criterion Hotel publicans Rose and Dick Pain are no longer worried about the effects of the GST on their city business. The impact on drinkers did not appear to be too great, Mrs Pain said yesterday. “We got a price list today and the customers have been pleasantly surprised that it's not going up that much,” she said.I wonder who told them that it was going up a lot. It obviously was not a member of the Liberal Party and it obviously was not the ACCC. She goes on to say:“They were all expecting it to be more. We seem to be fairly well prepared for it and I think once it's been in for a week or two, everyone will wonder why they were so worried about it.” Mr Pain said the price change would be the same as any other in the past. He had a computer program ready to handle the new tax. ...The Criterion employs 10 staff and is popular on Friday night with city office workers.I will be in Adelaide in a few weeks time to attend the annual conference of the South Australian division of the Liberal Party, which in percentage terms has performed magnificently in sending members to the federal parliament, and I think I will go along to the Criterion and have one of those very modestly priced Victoria Bitters from this very fine lady who understands the tax system and is clearly in touch with the workers. She knows a scare campaign when she sees it, and this one has come straight out of the mouth of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition.4T4Melham, Daryl, MPMr Melham—West End, not Victoria Bitter.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Order! The member for Banks! I fail to see any enthusiasm for the House's endorsement of any particular drinking establishment or brand of beer.1862314:34:0018623Cadman, Alan, MPMr CADMANSD4MitchellLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. Minister, would you inform the House how the Howard government is ensuring that all Australian workers can keep more of the money they earn and will be given a greater choice in how they spend their take-home pay?18623Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPMinister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business10—I thank the member for Mitchell for his question. It is a very important aspect of the new tax system coming into operation on 1 July that for ordinary workers the system will ensure very significant cuts in income tax. This has been the bane of the life of many ordinary workers and many small businesses too. Many people who have been offered the chance of working a bit of overtime in the past where they have had high marginal rates have said, `Really, why should you work overtime when half of what you earn goes to the taxman?' One of the great things of the new tax system is that we are putting incentive back into the system for ordinary workers with the biggest tax cut Australia has ever seen—a $12 billion reduction in income tax. It does mean that, when you are asked to work a bit of overtime, for many Australians, instead of their paying 47c in the dollar, the top rate will be 30c in the dollar, and that is incentive spelt with a capital `i'. For workers it means less tax on the money they earn and less tax on their savings, and so real encouragement to see greater savings and therefore greater investment in the economy. We are also seeing a halving of the capital gains tax as one of the benefits of the government's approach to tax reform. Workers will also receive increased family allowances, giving more disposable income to average families to ensure that they are better off as a result of the introduction of the new system. All that adds up to a very simple difference between the coalition and our Labor opponents. With the coalition, as from 1 July there is a new tax system, and with the new tax system income tax cuts. With the Labor Party, yes, you will still have the GST, but of course we know there will be income tax increases as a result of the roll-over which we are very much looking forward to seeing when the House resumes in August. We look forward to the debate in July at the Labor Party's national conference. I am sure it will be a rigorous one and the 60 per cent of the delegates' votes in the hands of the trade union movement will make sure that they get what they want, as usual. We can have a good debate about it when we come back here.The last thing I want to say, as we meet today for the last time, is that, when the new tax system comes into operation on 1 July, it will be the culmination, I believe, of one of the great acts of political leadership this country has seen. This is one of the most sustained and determined pursuits of a policy in the national interest this country has ever seen. Mr Speaker, you have to go back as far as June 1978 when the then Treasurer—and now Prime Minister—went to the Fraser cabinet and said we needed to change the tax system. It shows you a lot about this debate, because on that occasion not only was he rebuffed by the cabinet but CAI, the Confederation of Australian Industry, was opposed to the change, the Chamber of Manufactures was opposed to the change and leading editorials in the Sydney Morning Herald, the Australian and elsewhere were opposed to the change. The Australian Retailers Association in 1978 were opposed. But all down through the last 22 years the Prime Minister, knowing what was in the national interest, has been prepared to stick to his guns. In 1979, he was rejected. After the 1980 election he went back to the cabinet again and got another review on that occasion. He was rejected in 1981. In 1984 he had it as part of our policy to go to a broader based consumption tax in the tax system and, of course, we lost in the 1984 election. In 1985—this one ought to hurt— Opposition members interjecting—WI4Mr REITH—Just as a comparison, when the Keating government, when Labor, was in—R36Albanese, Anthony, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Grayndler!WI4Mr REITH—Never forget: Labor was in favour of a consumption tax in 1985 and, instead of taking a cheap shot against what Keating was proposing to do, this is what the Prime Minister then said:I think the public is tired of automatic opposition. It is very easy to talk about a 15 per cent tax on babies' booties but parts of what the government has in mind are very much in line with what we have been advocating.Down through the history of this debate, that is a statement of honesty and political courage which we have never seen from these people. When this tax comes into operation on 1 July, on this side we will say to future generations, `We were part of a great change to the tax system for the benefit of future generations.'Opposition members interjecting—WI4Mr REITH—Do you know what you will say to your grandkids? You will say to your grandkids, `We knew privately it was a good idea but we opposed it because we thought it was good for us.' In the last 10 years that I have personally been associated with this, as people on this side have been associated with this, we have seen the worst acts of political opportunism in Australia's political history. The Labor Party today stands condemned—and the very people that ought to enjoin with us in condemning you are the very workers who will benefit from this great reform this coming weekend.18624LS4Ferguson, Martin, MPMr MARTIN FERGUSON—My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Transport and Regional Services. Deputy Prime Minister, I refer to the Treasurer's commitment on 18 May 2000 that no small business would `go to the wall as a consequence of the GST'. What do you say to Mr Bill Scott of the Castlereagh Regional Abattoir in Coonamble, in your electorate, who is planning to close his business tomorrow, losing 50 jobs, because of the GST? What steps did you take to ensure the Treasurer's no closure commitment was honoured? JT4Bailey, Fran, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for McEwen!18624Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—I thank the honourable member for his question. It is highly appropriate that this new found friend of the family farmer in Australia should get up and ask a question to do with the wellbeing of the people of Coonamble in my electorate, particularly given his past incarnation as one of the great exporters of jobs, in the meat processing sector in Australia, to our competitors overseas. It is not so very many years ago that in this very place the then minister for industrial relations, Peter Cook—still present in this place as a senator—said it was time for the tally system to go, that it was in the interests of the Australian processing sector and of the jobs therein and of the pay levels of the people who worked in it if, in fact, the tally system was disposed of.UU5Horne, Bob, MPMr Horne—Mr Speaker—4K4Mr ANDERSON—Please draw it out; I have plenty more to say.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Prime Minister will resume his seat. The member for Paterson. UU5Horne, Bob, MPMr Horne—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. It is about relevance. This is about GST, about jobs and about an abattoir— 10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Paterson will resume his seat and I will rule.Government members interjecting—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Dunkley! The member for McEwen! I am heartily sick of reminding members of their obligations on more than one occasion, and it is occurring on both sides of the House. I would not think members need many reminders of the enthusiasm the Speaker has for order in the House. The Deputy Prime Minister was asked a question that referred to an abattoir. It is fair to say that he had not impacted on the first part of the question, which was the impact of the new tax system on that abattoir, but it was reasonable to presume that that is where he was heading. That is why I allowed him to continue. The Deputy Prime Minister.4K4Mr ANDERSON—As I was saying, the then minister for industrial relations saw that one of the great critical issues for our competitiveness was to do away with the tally system, but he was not allowed to. Why wasn't he allowed to? Because the puppeteers in the ACTU said, `No, you can't do that. We don't like it.' So they went on exporting jobs until we got into power and until the current minister responsible tackled this issue, to the great benefit of our competitiveness and therefore the jobs in the industry.LS4Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin Ferguson—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order which goes to relevance, in respect of your previous direction that he should come to the question of the GST and the impact on abattoir jobs. 10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The minister has the call. I will of course oblige him to come to the question, but I do not consider that he had in fact strayed from my ruling.4K4Mr ANDERSON—I will conclude the point that I was making about the ALP's record in this place by stating that the head of the ACTU at the time when they refused those reforms was none other than the person that now has the unmitigated gall to ask this question. I can tell you that I am very disappointed indeed that the Scott family—I know them well—are closing their business. I really am. Let me make a couple of points on this. If the member for Batman had been aware of the public statement that they issued yesterday, he would not have asked this question. The first point I want to make is that, yes, they have indeed acknowledged in writing that the GST has been the catalyst for this. They have also acknowledged that that was a result of the Democrats choosing to impact—Opposition members interjecting—4K4Mr ANDERSON—It was. That is a simple matter of record, and the Scott brothers have recorded it. Let me come to the heart of the issue. In the statement that they made, they said:With the onset of GST, it is time to look further in search of the reasons why we can't afford to continue, basically. These reasons were brought about by—remember that of course there are abattoirs in my electorate, so this issue is represented by us in this place, but it is mostly about the state of New South Wales—the state government in their never-ending regime of charges and regulations.For example, payroll tax. For example, workers compensation, which is currently 13.36 per cent and about to rise. They go on:Government departments with their ever-increasing demands, regulations and fees are pricing New South Wales operators out of the market. Clearly we would be better off in another state.And they conclude: Yes, the GST has been the catalyst but the New South Wales Labor government has been the cause.1862514:47:0018625Andrews, Kevin, MPMr ANDREWSHK5MenziesLP10—My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Would the Treasurer provide the House with an update on registrations for the new Australian business number, which of course is the key to the tax system?18625Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I thank the honourable member for Menzies for his question. I can inform the honourable member for Menzies that to date there have been 2.9 million applications for Australian business numbers and 2.75 million issued. The government estimated in August 1988 that there would be 2.1 million, so that estimate has been exceeded—one of the marks of bringing the black economy into the tax system. Without an Australian business number, a withholding applies, and those people which Labor let operate in the black economy for 13 years are now being brought in. Honest taxpayers are going to get the benefit of that, and I think all Australians will be glad for the honest taxpayers. In relation to the estimates for GST registration, more than 1.9 million Australian businesses are registered for GST, and that compares with the estimate originally made by the government of 1.4 million. Again, that has been exceeded. That has been exceeded notwithstanding every attempt that has been made by the opposition and its allies to frustrate the implementation of the new tax system, including industrial disruption and other action which was supported by the opposition. But the good news is that all of Labor's efforts to sabotage tax reform have failed. In 36 hours, the wholesale sales tax will be abolished. In 36 hours, the biggest income tax cuts in Australian history will come into effect. In 36 hours, family assistance will be increased. In 36 hours, pensions and allowances will be increased. In 36 hours, company tax will be cut. And in 36 hours time, the Labor Party will start supporting a GST. If Mr Beazley were elected Prime Minister today, he would repeal GST, and if he were elected on Saturday he would keep it. When the clock goes past midnight, the Labor Party goes in favour of GST. They have made that entirely clear. For the last two years, they have been so opposed to the GST that, if they ever get elected, guess what—they are going to keep it. They have been waging this campaign to sabotage the introduction of a tax which they want to take advantage of.When people sit back, as my colleague the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business said, in 10, 20 and 30 years and say to the Labor Party, `Where were you in the great debates on tax,' do you think the Labor Party is going to say, `We stood foursquare with Swaziland—we wanted a wholesale sales tax; we believed we should have a narrow, indirect high tax on goods'? Is the Labor Party going to turn up and say, `We wanted average earners to be on higher tax rates; we thought they should have been paying 34 cents or 43 cents in the dollar'? Where will the Labor Party be on family assistance? Will they say, `We thought there should have been 12 benefits rather than three' and `We weren't in favour of new Commonwealth-state relations'? No. The Labor Party will rewrite history. They will say, `We were actually in favour of tax reform, just as we were actually in favour of surplus budgets. We might have voted against every measure to get us there, but all along secretly we were for it. All along secretly we were for tax reform. We were only opposed to implementation.' `We weren't the most reactionary political force in the developed world,' they will say. `Oh, no, not us. We were led by Mr Beazley, seconded by Mr Crean. We were very modern in our thinking. We really wanted tax reform.' This has been a fraudulent campaign from the Labor Party from start to finish. When the clock goes to midnight, they are in favour of the GST. Somebody asked the question, `What will be different when we come back in August?' This will be different: when we come back in August, GST will be bipartisanly supported.1862615:23:0018626Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN2V5LilleyALP00—My question is directed to the Minister for Community Services. Minister, will you confirm that your department has written to child-care providers advising that errors and delays in the child-care benefit information will lead to difficulties in calculating and paying subsidies for parents? Doesn't the letter sent by your department also state that it may not be possible to pay the child-care benefit, leading to unreasonable expense for child-care services? Won't this unreasonable expense mean many families may not receive their child-care benefit discount, costing them up to $122 a week until this problem is fixed? What are you going to do to clean up your mess?18626Anthony, Larry, MPMr ANTHONYXJ6RichmondNPMinister for Community Services10—The first point that I want to acknowledge is that all families will receive their full entitlement of child-care benefit. Indeed, there have been some administrative glitches in the sending out of information, but it is important to acknowledge that all families will have their full entitlement of child-care benefit. Those families that may not be receiving that entitlement on 1 July will receive it within the first two weeks and it will be backdated. The important point here is that we are giving additional assistance to families through increasing payments in the child-care benefit, by an additional $600 million. When you look at child care, the greatest detriment to child care in this nation is the Australian Labor Party, because of their mischievous scaring, particularly, of child-care providers. In the last four years of the coalition government, we have spent 37 per cent more on child care than in the last four years of the Labor government. We have spent $4.2 billion, and we will spend $5.6 billion over the next four years, which is significantly more than the Australian Labor Party government spent. We acknowledge that there are some technical issues here. They will be solved. All families will get their full entitlement. With their extra family assistance of $2.4 billion combined with tax cuts, families will be significant beneficiaries in the new tax system on 1 July.1862714:56:0018627Lawler, Tony, MPMr LAWLER834ParkesNP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. Would the minister inform the House of the benefits of tax reform for small businesses including rural and remote areas such as the electorate of Parkes. What indication is there of support for the implementation of the new tax system?18627Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPMinister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business10—I thank the member for Parkes. The new tax system starting on 1 July will certainly produce a lot of benefits for the small business community. In fact, one of the big reasons for making these changes is to encourage our businesses. We make no bones about that, because if our businesses do well they create more jobs, lift living standards and give us the material things we want in a society such as ours. For those that are incorporated, company tax is coming down; that is a real plus. For those in rural and regional Australia, just slashing the cost of transport is a huge boost to that whole sector, which was so penalised when Labor was in office. Under this government, these reforms are terribly important for the whole rural and regional sector, particularly small business.What a fantastic move the abolition of provisional tax is. One of the great benefits of this package is the abolition of wholesale sales tax. There are thousands of businesses out there which, on 1 July, are going to get a credit for all the wholesale sales tax in their stock. It will be a tremendous boost to their cash flow and it will be a reminder to them of the weight around their neck of Labor's wholesale sales tax for years and years. The slashing of capital gains tax, again putting incentive back into the system, is a real positive for small business. As time moves on, the introduction of the simplified tax system will be another benefit for small business. The pay-as-you-go system has been opposed by the Labor Party out in the community, but they never opposed it in here because they favoured it. It was part of their policy. What incredible opportunism and negativity of the Labor Party to be out scaring small business—yet the delivery mechanism and the new tax administration is something they themselves have supported.The fact is that small business has been in support of this new tax system for a long time. Why? Because it will produce real benefit. There is no doubt there is a lot of work for the small business community to do to be ready and there is no doubt that there is cynicism and the like about any big change. But let me remind you of what somebody once said about this issue. They said:I have every confidence that much of this cynicism on taxation that might have developed through years of political buck passing will give way to a broader appreciation of the need for change and the honest and earnest attempt this government is making to bring about that change.Who said that? When was it said? I will give you a clue: 5 June 1985. It was said by none other than Paul Keating, the then Treasurer and later leader of the Labor Party.As the small business community moves through on Saturday and as the new system settles down, I will tell you what they want to know: they want to know how the Labor Party is going to change the system if Labor is ever elected. They will be watching the news at the end of July because they want to know what crazy scheme the Labor Party is going to cook up to impose on the small business community and to add administrative costs to the small business community. I will tell you what they will also want to know: they will want to know how much it is going to cost, because we all know that the Labor Party's plan is to put up income taxes—and many of the very people who will be paying those taxes will be small business people. When it gets to August and this parliament resumes, we, on behalf of the small business community, will be asking a few basic questions: what are you going to do, what is it going to cost, how are you going to administer it and what impact will it have on small business? Then the debate will really be focused on the GST. It will be about time for the Leader of the Opposition to finally stand up and tell us what he stands for so that there can be a bit of public scrutiny of his secret plans to impose additional red tape on the small business community. Distinguished Visitors1862810000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I draw to the attention of the House the presence in the gallery of the Hon. Peter Morris, former cabinet minister, and extend to him a welcome to the gallery of the House from all of us.Honourable members—Hear, hear! Questions Without Notice186281862815:02:0018628McFarlane, Jann, MPMs JANN McFARLANE83CStirlingALP00—My question is to the Minister for Aged Care. Can the minister confirm that as of 1 July frail older Australians who are unable to access home and community care services, and therefore must privately purchase essential home help for assistance with shopping, cooking and cleaning, will be slugged with the GST? Is the minister aware that two elderly Queenslanders quoted in the press on the weekend state that this will leave them $10 to $20 a week worse off? Given that these age pensioners will get less than $7.50 a week compensation, how does the government expect older Australians to pay the GST on privately purchased essential home services? 18628Bishop, Bronwyn, MPMrs BRONWYN BISHOPSE4MackellarLPMinister for Aged Care10—The new tax legislation clearly sets out which aged care services will be GST free. I would refer the honourable member to sections 38(10), 38(25) and 38(30) of the act. Section 38(10) sets out very specifically that nursing services and 20 other specific health and allied services will be GST free and no determination by me is required for that to be effective. Section 38(25) establishes that, where any individual in a residential setting requires and is receiving the sort of care that is set out in schedule 1 to the Aged Care Act, that will also be GST free. That is because we wish to treat like people in a like manner. Section 38(30) establishes that all HACC and state funded services and payments under HACC are provided GST free. It provides that, where any individual requires personal care, that personal care will be provided GST free. The determinations that I have made—I confirm that I have made them; they will be gazetted tomorrow—will activate the provisions of the legislation, but I may not override the legislation, alter the legislation or extend the legislation. 1862815:03:0018628Haase, Barry, MPMr HAASE84TKalgoorlieLP10—My question is addressed to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Transport and Regional Services. With the new tax system coming into place on Saturday, would the minister advise the House how people and business in rural, regional and remote Australia will benefit from this important national reform? Is the minister aware of any alternative policies? 18628Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—I thank the honourable member for his question. Indeed, I can comment not only on areas where we win but also on some fairly ordinary alternative policies which the Leader of the Opposition might care to explain to the good people of Eden-Monaro when he is down there tonight. As has been pointed out already in this place, transport costs is an area where rural and regional Australia, in particular, will see substantial benefits. At the same time there are a range of other benefits, not least of which are major reductions in income tax for ordinary Australian country families. Let me come firstly to those transport costs. The cost of diesel for heavy transport will be slashed by 24c-plus a litre. We will see a very significant—and, in the current debate, all too easily overlooked—reduction in the cost of transport equipment. The abolition of Labor's beloved 22 per cent wholesale sales tax on heavy haulage and parts and repairs and what have you will be extremely welcome and will produce real benefits. Of course, the more remote you are—the member who asked the question represents some very remote areas of Australia—the more you will benefit from these massive reductions in the cost of transport, because the present cost is so relatively high. Then there is the total abolition of excise on rail. There is cheaper business fuel, also easily overlooked, because the GST will be rebatable on petrol. There is the $500 million that we are devoting to ensuring that the differential between country and city prices is not exacerbated; it may indeed—as evidenced, incidentally, in the NRMA's work yesterday—be eased as a result of our reforms. Then there are the benefits for families. On the basis of some modelling done by Access, for example, a single income couple with a baby in Collarenebri, in my electorate, on $30,000 a year—a typical new family—will have an extra $65 a week coming into the house from July. A couple in Sale, Victoria, on $40,000 a year and with two children at school—a typical situation where one partner has re-joined the work force—will find an extra $46 a week in their pockets. A self-funded retiree on Queensland's Sunshine Coast with an income of $35,000 a year will find that they receive $13 a week in tax cuts and another $9 a week more in increased social security benefits. It is not hard to find the beneficiaries there. Then we come to some very interesting work done by the Centre for Agricultural and Regional Economics. They did an assessment of five types of farms. They found that a small grazing unit saw an increase in net disposable income of 57 per cent; a medium grazing exercise had a 20 per cent improvement in net disposable income; a cropping partnership, 16.1 per cent; a cropping company, 22 per cent; and a horticultural outfit, a 12 per cent improvement. They are very substantial benefits for rural and regional Australia. I think tonight in Cooma the Leader of the Opposition must explain clearly to those good people why it is that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has made it quite plain that the Labor Party do not believe the reductions in fuel excise are a good thing at all. They have made it very plain that they believe in the current mix. So in this area they are not going to roll back; they are going to roll out. They are going to take fuel back up to the prices that they currently are at. The Leader of the Opposition might like to explain to those people why it is that the opposition believe that fuel excise should remain on rail. The Leader of the Opposition might like to say why he wants to continue to belt heavy haulage; why it is that he does not want workers in the electorate of Eden-Monaro to have tax relief; why he does not want them left in a situation where 80 per cent of them will pay 30 cents in the dollar or less; and why it is that he does not want that hard-pressed rural sector down there to have between a 57 per cent and a 12 per cent improvement in farmers' net disposable income. That is the reality: those on the opposite side do not want those people in rural and regional Australia to have any of those benefits.I think it is incumbent upon the Leader of the Opposition to explain his position very clearly tonight, because he has only a few hours before time is up for the scare campaign. It will be out of time on Saturday. Yesterday in this place the opposition moved a censure motion which made accusations of deceptions on tax. What utter hypocrisy! They are the greatest deceivers on tax of all time. They will have an opportunity in August when parliament comes back: if they are to enlighten the Australian people as to the widely held perception out there that they are the ultimate deceivers on tax, they will want to put a pretty good position.1862915:09:0018629O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr O'CONNORWU5CorioALP00—My question is to the Minister for Transport and Regional Services. Deputy Prime Minister, in addition to the new petrol tax of 1.5c a litre on Saturday, courtesy of your GST, is it not also the case that farmers will be paying more for their diesel from Saturday unless you legislate to prevent this happening? Isn't this yet another example of your botched implementation of the GST costing farmers? 9V5Pyne, Chris, MPMr Pyne—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. Under standing order 144, it is very clear that questions should not contain argument. It has been very noticeable that almost every single question from the opposition in recent times is predicated on an argument. I suggest that you ask them to change their question methodology and strategy because really they are outside the standing orders. You should rule them out of order if they contain argument, as they always seem to. That one was particularly obvious.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—As I indicated to the House yesterday, the fact that the House is not expected to sit during July will give me an opportunity to reflect on questions asked by oppositions over some years and then to maintain some consistency with previous rulings. I will report to the member for Sturt if I find any inconsistencies.18630Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—I thank the honourable member for his question and note his sudden interest in the benefits of diesel fuel rebates for rural and regional Australia. It is interesting to note that in 1993, in that infamous budget, those opposite were not so interested when, overnight, excises were increased without any compensation. As well, diesel was jumped up by 3c a litre from 26.573c to 29.573c. There was no forewarning, no compensation; it was just part of Labor's continuing pattern of excise increases from around 6c a litre when they took office to a very high level when they left—some 500 per cent higher. The fact of the matter is that the mechanism to which you are referring today is a rolling six-month average arrangement. That is precisely the one you had in place and it is the one we have continued with. There is no change in it whatsoever. For you now to suddenly make out that the policy is different or differentiates or somehow discriminates against rural people is hypocrisy in the ultimate.1863015:13:0018630Nelson, Dr Brendan, MPDr NELSONRW5BradfieldLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Is the minister aware of recent comments by the ACTU calling for the roll-back of the government's successful Lifetime Health Cover reforms and the 30 per cent private health insurance rebate?18630Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4CaseyLPMinister for Health and Aged Care10—I am aware of these calls. This morning in the Financial Review it says that the ACTU has called for the abolition of the federal government's Lifetime Health Cover reforms and the 30 per cent private health insurance rebate. This would take us back to the bad old days when health premiums went up by anything up to 10 per cent a year—or even by 17 per cent in one year, in 1991. It would mean that private health insurance would again be going through a period of instability—losing profits, high premium increases—and that there would be a great deal of concern, particularly for the 800,000 Australians on incomes under $20,000 a year who have private health insurance.It is interesting that the Leader of the Opposition has consistently failed to say that he will actually keep the rebate at 30 per cent. He has consistently refused to say that he will not apply a means test to the rebate. In fact, senior figures in the Labor Party have been privately consulting and sounding out the possibility of rolling the rebate into some sort of superannuation benefit for health care. The Labor Party have not been prepared to rule these things out, and the ACTU have now come out and called for an end to Lifetime Health Cover and an end to the 30 per cent rebate. The fact is that these two reforms have been stunningly successful. By the end of this month, we will have in private health insurance 800,000 Australians who would not have had it without Lifetime Health Cover, and two million extra Australians in private health insurance since we started working in 1997, had the two per cent drop-out a year continued. This gives security to the industry and it gives security to the many older Australians who rely on private health cover. These are long-term reforms. It would be a catastrophe for the situation to go back to what it was under Labor. 1863115:15:0018631Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLINPG6JagajagaALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, can you confirm that, for those people forced to take out private health insurance, the extra costs they will be paying will largely absorb—3K6Cameron, Ross, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I will deal with the member for Parramatta if he interrupts the member for Jagajaga, as I will with members on my left.PG6Ms MACKLIN—Thank you, Mr Speaker. The extra costs they will be paying will largely absorb the GST compensation which is meant to provide for all the cost increases in daily essentials. Isn't it the case that a Victorian family with two children over 12 and an income of $45,000 who will have to pay out an extra $34.64 a week for blue-ribbon hospital-only health insurance will receive only $23.67 in GST compensation? Prime Minister, these families are more than $10 a week worse off after paying for their private health insurance. How is this family supposed to pay for the increased cost of clothes, shoes, electricity, gas, house insurance and transport?18631Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I could add to it. I could say that, if that family decides to buy a car on hire-purchase, the hire-purchase payments might offset the taxation reduction. What a ridiculous question. I thank the member for Jagajaga because it gives me an unexpected opportunity to extol the success of the government's policy to provide incentives for Australians to take out private health insurance. I think what the question reveals—and this a very important point that will not be lost on middle Australia—is that here is the mind-set of the would-be health minister in a Labor government. She sees incentives encouraging people to take out private health insurance as being some kind of compulsion. Deep down the member for Jagajaga hates private health insurance. Deep down the Labor Party hates private health insurance. Of course, she hates it so much she has probably got it—it is a bit like the GST. The best evidence of this is that when the Labor Party were in office they deliberately, and in a quite calculated way, allowed private health insurance in this country to bleed to death. They set out ideologically to destroy private health insurance. They do not believe in Australians having the option of a private provision for health. They believe in a public monopoly for health.We on this side of the House believe in a balanced health system. We believe in a strong public sector; we also believe in a strong private sector. It will be one of the great achievements of this government, for which I thank the Minister for Health and Aged Care. He has done an absolutely outstanding job in his portfolio. What the minister has done in his portfolio is a great credit to him, through the combination of the private health insurance rebate and also the Lifetime Health Cover.Incidentally, in the end, did the Labor Party support Lifetime Health Cover? They did! They supported Lifetime Health Cover. Dear, oh dear, oh me! That is the reverse of the GST. They supported Lifetime Health Cover but now they are against it. With the GST, they are opposing it; but on Sunday morning, they will be in favour of it. It is the reverse. Can I say to the member for Jagajaga that your analogy is absurd. There is no compulsion. We are providing an effective incentive. As a result of this policy, hundreds of thousands of Australians are now joining private health insurance. It will take some of the load off the public sector, and I think that is a triumph of enlightened, balanced health policy.1863115:20:0018631McArthur, Stewart, MPMr McARTHURVH4CorangamiteLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs representing the Minister for Trade. Would the acting trade minister inform the House of the benefits that will flow to exporters from the introduction of the new tax system? Is the minister aware of any alternative proposals that would hinder this process?18631Downer, Alexander, MPMr DOWNER4G4MayoLPMinister for Foreign Affairs10—I thank the honourable member for Corangamite because I know that he represents vigorously his constituents' interest in getting into export markets. Indeed, he has always been a very true man on trade issues ever since I first knew him, which is quite some years ago. Opposition members interjecting—4G4Mr DOWNER—We will come to you lot in a minute. It is worth the House remembering that one in five—that is around 1.8 million—Australian jobs depend on exports. These jobs pay 20 per cent more than the average for jobs in Australia. One of the objectives of this government is to build our exports and to build employment in export industries. Of course, that is one of the reasons why not only this country is introducing a GST but also something like 150 countries around the world have the GST indirect tax system—because it makes your exports more competitive.On Saturday morning, $3½ billion worth of taxes will be taken off Australian exports. Frankly, I think all exporters in Australia need to remember that the Labor Party was in favour of $3½ billion worth of additional tax on our exports, as compared with the coalition. That is a very simple proposition, and it explains why 150 countries around the world have introduced a VAT or a GST indirect tax system. As the Treasurer so often points out, when it comes to alternative policies, the Labor Party in this country is just about the only major political party in any liberal democracy that opposes a VAT or GST indirect tax system. It does not matter whether you go to Europe, to Africa, to our neighbours in East Asia or to South America, these countries all have a VAT indirect tax system. Let me point out that even the United States has a sales tax on services. The simple proposition is that they do not have the Labor Party's wholesale sales tax system. The simple proposition is that, from Saturday morning, our exporters will pay $3½ billion less in tax than was the case under the Labor Party tax system. Do not worry, Mr Speaker, that is something we will remind them of right up until the next election.1863215:24:0018632Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Do you recall that before the election your tax package said that bank costs would fall by $670 million per year, leading to reduced fees and charges? Are you aware that your preferred modeller, Chris Murphy, estimates that bank fees and charges will increase by $300 million per year? How do you explain this million dollar botch? Isn't the hike of 46 Westpac fees and charges on small business this week simply the beginning of the banks recovering the GST through increased fees and charges?18632Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—Mr Speaker, if my calculations are correct I think that, in the normal arrangements, this is the last question from the opposition. I note with interest that the opposition, having complained for a week about the Treasurer being away, have not asked him one question today about taxation. You absolute phonies!PE4Beazley, Kim, MPZD4Mr HOWARD—You have not asked him one question. You traduce the man's commitment to his job and you do not have the courage to ask him one question. You are a hopeless lot. Let me move to the question.BV5Adams, Dick, MPMr Adams—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Prime Minister rose and started to speak about matters that had nothing to do with the question asked of him. He caused the House to fall into disarray.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Lyons has a point of order, and it is what?BV5Adams, Dick, MPMr Adams—It is in relation to standing order 145, which goes to relevance. The Prime Minister did not go to answer the question—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I will rule. The Prime Minister was asked a question about the movement in bank costs and charges as a result of the GST, and I invite him to respond.ZD4Mr HOWARD—Everybody knows that, as a result of the changes imposed by the tax plan we took to the Australian people in 1998, the abolition of FID and BAD was resolved. I thought even the Leader of the Opposition knew that.1863215:27:0018632Macfarlane, Ian, MPMr IAN MACFARLANEWN6GroomLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. What are the benefits of the government's new tax system for Australian farmers and farming communities? How will this help improve the farm sector's international competitiveness? 18633Truss, Warren, MPMr TRUSSGT4Wide BayNPMinister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry10—I thank the member for Groom for his question. After two decades farmers will finally have a modern tax system on Saturday. Farmers have been campaigning for at least 20 years for a modern tax system so that they can compete effectively with other farmers around the world. And so, in less than 33 hours time, one of the burdens they have had to carry in international competition will be removed. No longer will they have to pay embedded taxes in the costs of their production. As the Minister for Foreign Affairs said a few moments ago, $3½ billion will be taken off their costs. Exporters will have the same kind of taxation system as people in other parts of the world with, of course, the exception of Swaziland. In 33 hours time the long-standing partnership between Labor and Swaziland will also come to an end because that is the time when Labor will change their tax policy. Labor did not have the courage in government to make these sorts of fundamental changes. They were always quick to criticise but they never had the courage to do the job. I thought the House would be interested in a couple of comments from today's editorial in the Fraser Coast Chronicle. I think they are well worth reading, Mr Prime Minister, because they make some comments about your achievements in this regard. It said:Prime Minister John Howard has had the guts to tackle the reform of our tax system while his predecessors bleated about the sprawling mass of taxation red tape that was suffocating the nation and stifling incentive. For once, we have a Prime Minister prepared to put the interests of the nation before his own welfare. The article also says:Australia is one of the few industrialised countries persisting with an outmoded, inequitable sales tax system instead of a broad-based consumer tax. That will change on Saturday, but our nation has allowed itself to be whipped into a frenzy of apprehension by shallow media reporting and mischievous Labor propaganda.I think that some of our capital city dailies would be well advised to take some advice from the editor of the Fraser Coast Chronicle—not a newspaper noted for praising the government, but it is absolutely right on this occasion. The government has had the courage to do what Labor would never have got around to do.The Fraser Coast Chronicle knows that, for farmers, this new tax system will save them around $7,000 a year. They will have lower income taxes because of the tax cuts. They will have lower costs as a result of the wholesale sales tax being taken out of their operations. There will be lower fuel costs, lower costs on transport and lower costs on rail. Those sorts of things are a major breakthrough for the rural sector. On Saturday, we will have a new taxation system, and the next time this House assembles, we will have an opposition with a different tax policy. They will no longer be against GST. They will no longer be on the same side as Swaziland, supporting the wholesale sales tax system. I am looking forward to some questions from the other side that praise GST. I am looking forward to members getting up during estimates and other debates, telling us what a wonderful new tax system we have in this country and reminding us that it was the tax system that they supported about 15 or so years ago—but did not have the courage to implement.Labor have a federal conference coming up, and they will come back, no doubt, with renewed vigour—a renewed tax system; a totally changed arrangement. In August Labor will tell us what they are going to do in relation to the taxation system of Australia, but we know one thing for sure—they will be backing a GST, because they know that it has always been good for Australia. They never had the courage to do it, but Australian people will benefit in just under 33 hours time from a modern taxation system which we will share with the rest of the world.ZD4HowardMr Howard—Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.Miscellaneous1863315:32:0018633SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I would like to advise members that this is the last sitting week in which my attendant, Mrs Carol Nichols, will serve in the chamber. As members may know, Carol and her husband, Peter, are expecting their first child in September, and Carol will be ceasing duty with my office on 11 August. I know she will not thank me for this, but I know every member would want to be identified with the sentiments I am about to express. Carol joined the Department of the House of Representatives as a parliamentary security attendant in May 1990, having served for a period with the New South Wales police. In January 1991, she was appointed as Speaker's attendant by Speaker McLeay. On his election as Speaker in May 1993, Speaker Martin reappointed her to the position, as did Speaker Halverson on his election as Speaker in April 1996. Speaker Halverson, recognising Carol's qualities, promoted her to the position of personal secretary in August 1997, and she continued to perform the duties of Speaker's attendant, a situation which continued under Speaker Sinclair when he became Speaker in March 1998. I had absolutely no hesitation in continuing this arrangement when I was elected to this office in November 1998.Carol, as we all know, is a quiet, unassuming and very diligent person who is totally committed to her work. She is the model of discretion, as all members who have dealt with the Speaker's office over the past 10 years will be aware. She has provided excellent support to five speakers, and I know that my predecessors and all members would join me in thanking her for her years of service to us and to the House and in wishing her and Peter all the best as they move into the new and exciting world of parenthood.Honourable members—Hear, hear!15:34:0018634McLeay, Leo, MPMr LEO McLEAY4I4WatsonALP00—Mr Speaker, I join with you in wishing Carol and her husband, Peter, and their about-to-be baby well in her—we hope—semiretirement. When I appointed Carol in 1991 she was the first woman to be the Speaker's attendant, and I think that Bob Halverson made a very good choice when he promoted her some years later. Carol, as everyone knows, is a person who is the soul of discretion and politeness. She certainly is an adornment to this chamber—I often think much more of an adornment than many of us are.Honourable members interjecting— 4I4McLeay, Leo, MPMr LEO McLEAY—In that case, than all of us. When I first appointed her, I thought she would have a long history in this job because she started out as a policewoman at Redfern Police Station. I thought that probably gave her the ability to handle Speakers a lot better than most others.Opposition member interjecting—4I4McLeay, Leo, MPMr LEO McLEAY—Unlike my colleague in front of me, who just said, `That was the first place I met her,' that is not true. I join with you, Mr Speaker, in wishing Carol, Peter and their child-to-be all the very best. Carol, I am sure all of us look forward to seeing your happy smile back here after the baby is born. I hope you will bring the baby back for all of us to see. Thank you very much for a job very well done.15:36:0018634Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPMinister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business10—Mr Speaker, I will briefly endorse those remarks. Carol has heard enough dreadful speeches over the years to not have to hear another.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I would have thought that a more polite endorsement of the Leader of the House would have been appropriate.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—Labor's endorsement is not something I yearn for. Carol, thanks for all your work, and thanks for your great patience, because there have been times when your patience has been sorely tested. Best of luck.15:36:0018634Martin, Stephen, MPMr MARTIN8I4CunninghamALP00—Mr Speaker, let me join in the well-wishes for Carol and her husband, Peter. As you indicated, I had great pleasure in appointing Carol to be part of my personal staff when I was the Speaker. She carried out those duties in a very professional manner but also in a very friendly manner. She has remained a friend ever since. I wish her every best wish for the future. As Leo said, it will be great to see you back here. Good luck!Miscellaneous1863415:37:0018634Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLPMinister for Financial Services and Regulation10—Mr Speaker, on indulgence, I rise today to pay tribute to Bill McLennan, who is retiring as the Australian Statistician tomorrow, 30 June. Bill has worked at the Australian Bureau of Statistics since 29 February 1960, when he was employed as a statistics cadet. In 1992 he was appointed Director of the Office of National Statistics in the United Kingdom—the first person from outside the United Kingdom to be appointed to that position. In 1995 Bill accepted the invitation to become the Australian Statistician and return to Canberra. I have had the pleasure of working with Bill since November 1998. During that time he has demonstrated a very strong commitment to his role and to developing the work and direction of the Australian Bureau of Statistics. Bill has put great emphasis on the professional development of the ABS staff. He leaves a strong institution which has a clear sense of its role and the skills to continue to perform that role effectively. He has provided a real focus for the international activities of the ABS, with a special and valuable emphasis on Asia, and is highly respected internationally. Bill's significant contribution to national and international statistics will be long remembered by the Australian people.On behalf of the House of Representatives I wish Bill and his wife Christine well and all the very best for retirement.Honourable members—Hear, hear!Miscellaneous1863515:39:0018635McLeay, Leo, MPMr LEO McLEAY4I4WatsonALP00—Mr Speaker, on indulgence, I draw the House's attention to the fact that Sue Game from the Nurses Centre is retiring today. Sue was one of the original nurses employed here. She has been here for 12 years. She has kept many of us healthy, and has always provided—Government members interjecting—4I4McLeay, Leo, MPMr LEO McLEAY—With many on the government side, it would not matter what you did to them you could not keep them healthy.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Chief Opposition Whip is reminded that he is speaking on indulgence.4I4McLeay, Leo, MPMr LEO McLEAY—I think it would be nice if we placed on the record our appreciation for the work that Sue has done in the 12 years that she has worked in the Nurses Centre here.Honourable members—Hear, hear!15:39:0018635SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I thank the Chief Opposition Whip for drawing the House's attention to the retirement of Ms Game and join him in the sentiments expressed to Ms Game. I know that not only all members of the House but also all members of the staff of Parliament House will want to be associated with those sentiments.Miscellaneous1863510000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—For the information of honourable members I present a statement of use of the advance to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, June 2000.Miscellaneous1863510000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—For the information of honourable members, I present a schedule of outstanding government responses to reports of House of Representatives and joint committees, incorporating reports tabled and details of government responses made in the period between 9 December 1999, the date of the last schedule, and 29 June 2000. Copies of the schedule are being made available to honourable members and it will be incorporated in Hansard.The schedule read as follows—RESPONSE TO THE SCHEDULE TABLED BY THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ON 8 DECEMBER 1999ABORIGINAL AND TORRES STRAIT ISLANDER AFFAIRS (House, Standing)Unlocking the future: The report of the inquiry into the Reeves review of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976The Government is considering the Report.COMMUNICATIONS, TRANSPORT AND MICROECONOMIC REFORM (House, Standing)Tracking Australia: An inquiry into the role of rail in the national transport networkThe Government response to the Report was tabled on 13 April 2000.Planning not patching - an inquiry into federal road fundingThe Government response to the Report was tabled on 13 April 2000.CORPORATIONS AND SECURITIES (Joint, Statutory)Matters arising from the Company Law Review Act 1998The Government response will be tabled as soon as possible.ECONOMICS, FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION (House, Standing)Review of the Reserve Bank of Australia annual report for 1997-98: Final ReportRegional Banking: Money too far awayThe Government response will be tabled in the near future.ENVIRONMENT AND HERITAGE (House, Standing)Review of the Department of Environment's annual report for 1997-98The Government response to the Report was tabled on 8 June 2000.FAMILY AND COMMUNITY AFFAIRS (House, Standing)What price competition? Report on the competitive tendering of welfare service deliveryThe Government response to Report was tabled on 9 December 1999.FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE (Joint, Standing)World debt: A report on the proceedings of a seminar 27 August 1999The Government is considering the Report.Bougainville: The peace process and beyondThe Government response will be tabled as soon as possible.Defence Sub-Committee visit to Defence establishments in Northern Australia,26-29 July 1999.The Government is considering the Report.Funding Australia's DefenceThe Government response is expected to be tabled later in the year.Australia and ASEAN: Managing ChangeThe Government response is expected to be tabled as soon as possible.Defence Subcommittee visit to Sydney Harbour foreshores Defence propertiesThe Government Response to the Report was tabled on 9 March 2000.Military justice procedures in the Australian Defence ForceThe Government response will be tabled as soon as possible.Visit to Bougainville, 15-18 March 1999 - Interim ReportThe Government is awaiting the Committee's final report and will respond at that time.Report on the loss of HMAS SydneyThe Government response is expected to be tabled in the Winter sittings.Australia's trade relationship with IndiaThe Government response is expected to be tabled as soon as possible.INDUSTRY, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY (House, Standing)A sea of indifference: Australian industry participation in the North West Shelf projectThe Government response to the Report was tabled on 8 December 1999.The effect of certain public policy changes on Australia's R&DThe Government response to the Report was tabled on 13 April 2000.LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS (House, Standing)Don't stop the music: A report of the inquiry into copyright, music and small businessThe Government response is expected to be tabled as soon as possible. Saving our census and preserving our historyThe Government response to the Report was tabled on 6 April 2000.The third paragraph of section 53 of the ConstitutionThe Government response will be tabled as soon as possible.In confidence: the protection of confidential personal and commercial information held by the CommonwealthThe Government response is being revised to take account of the Privacy Amendment (Private Sector) Bill 2000 which was introduced into Parliament on 12 April 2000. The Government response will be tabled as soon as possible.MIGRATION (Joint, Standing)Deportation of non-citizen criminalsThe Government response is expected to be tabled in the Winter sittings.Going for gold: immigration entry arrangements for the Olympic and Paralympic GamesThe Government response to the Report was tabled on 11 May 2000. port of Review of Migration Regulation 4.31BThe Government response to the Report was tabled on 15 February 2000.NATIONAL CAPITAL AND EXTERNAL TERRITORIES (Joint, Standing)Island to islands: Communications with Australia's external territoriesThe Government response will be tabled as soon as possible. NATIONAL CRIME AUTHORITY (Joint, Statutory)Third evaluation of the National Crime AuthorityThe Government response was considered by the Inter Government Committee on the National Crime Authority at its meeting in November 1999, however, consultation following that meeting has yet to be concluded. Subject to finalisation of this process, it is anticipated that the Government response will be tabled in the 2000 Spring sittings.Street Legal: The involvement of the National Crime Authority in controlled operationsThe proposals set out in the report raise complex issues of law and policy, which are under consideration by the Government. A Government response is likely to be tabled in the 2000 Spring sittings.PRIMARY INDUSTRIES, RESOURCES AND RURAL AND REGIONAL AFFAIRS (House, Standing)Adjusting to Agricultural Trade Reform: Australia no longer down underThe Government's response is expected to be tabled before the end of the Winter 2000 sittings.Managing Commonwealth Fisheries: The last frontierThe Government's response will be tabled before the end of the Winter 2000 sittings. The response will also incorporate the response to the report titled Developments in New Zealand Agriculture 1999- Re a visit to New Zealand, 16 June.Developments in New Zealand agriculture - Report of a visit to New Zealand, 16-19 June 1997See above.PROCEDURE (House, Standing)It's your House: community involvement in the procedures and practices of the House of Representatives and its committeesThe Government response will be tabled as soon as possible.RETAILING SECTOR (Joint, Select)Fair Market or Market Failure?: A review of Australia's retailing sectorThe Government response to the Report was tabled on 8 June 2000.TREATIES (Joint, Standing)Eighth Report The Government response will be tabled as soon as possible.Eleventh ReportThe Government response will be tabled as soon as possible.Twelfth Report - Australia-Indonesia Maritime Delimitation TreatyThe Government response will be tabled as soon as possible.Fifteenth ReportThe Government response will be tabled as soon as possible.Seventeenth Report - UN Convention on the Rights of the ChildThe Government response will be tabled as soon as possible.Nineteenth Report - The Fifth Protocol to the General Agreement on Trade in services and five treaties tabled on 30 June 1998A Government response is not required.Twentieth Report - Two treaties tabled on 26 May 1998 - the Bougainville Peace Monitoring Group Protocol and treaties tabled on 11 November 1998The Government response is expected to be tabled as soon as possible.Twenty-First Report - Five treaties tabled on 16 February 1999A Government response is not required.Twenty-Second Report - Five treaties tabled on 11 May 1999A Government response is not required.Twenty-Third Report - Amendments to the Schedule to the International Convention for the Regulation of WhalingThe Government response will be tabled as soon as possible.Twenty-Fourth Report - A seminar on the Role of Parliaments in Treaty MakingA Government response is not required.Twenty-Fifth Report - Eight Treaties tabled on 11 August 1999The Government response will be tabled as soon as possible.Twenty-Sixth Report - An agreement to extend the period of operation of the Joint Defence Facility at Pine GapThe Government response to the Report was tabled on 22 June 2000.Twenty-Seventh Report - Termination of Social Security Agreement with the United Kingdom and International Plant Protection ConventionThe Government response is expected to be tabled in the 2000 Winter sittings.Twenty-Eighth Report - Fourteen treaties tabled on 12 October 1999A Government response is not required.Auditor-General's Reports186381863810000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I present the following Auditor-General's audit report Nos 49 to 51 of 1999-2000 entitled No. 49—Performance audit—Indigenous Land Corporation—Operations and performance; No. 50—Performance audit—Management Audit Branch—Follow-up—Department of Defence, and No. 51 —Performance audit — Program management in the Training and Youth Division of the Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs — Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs.Ordered that the reports be printedDocuments18638NaN:00:0018638Reith, 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.Motion (by Mr Reith) proposed:That the House take note of the following paper:Schedule of Special Purpose Flights - July to December 1999 And Erratum.Debate (on motion by Mr McMullan) adjourned. Miscellaneous1863915:43:0018639Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPMinister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business10—Mr Speaker, on indulgence, for the information of members, there does not seem to be any doubt that we will be sitting tonight. At last count there were six bills that the Senate are yet to consider, all of which we would expect to come back here to be dealt with and all are time critical. We are certainly going to be here tonight—I do not think there is much doubt about that. I think the whips may make arrangements for a dinner break between 6.30 p.m. and 8.00 p.m. I do not know whether the Chief Opposition Whip is nodding, agreeing or what, but there have been discussions to that effect. People need to work on the basis that we will be here tomorrow. As to how matters will pan out, obviously if members of the Labor Party could use their good offices with their colleagues in the Senate you would have a better chance of getting home.Matters of Public Importance186391863910000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I have received a letter from the honourable member for Brand proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:The government's responsibility for imposing a tax change which will adversely affect the living standards of ordinary Australian Families and workers, including through its botched implementation.I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—15:44:0018639Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALPLeader of the Opposition00—With so much gravel rash across the government frontbench today, it is a great shame that the delightful nurse is leaving the precincts of this parliament because her services will be sorely needed for the next day or two. Those paroxysms of self-praise that we heard from this government reflect the fact that, if there is no-one else to blow your trumpet, you might as well blow it yourself. There is no-one else in this country blowing a trumpet for the government on this issue, at this time, knowing what is ahead of them with the implementation of this GST.That historical rewrite from the Leader of the House that we heard on the subject of the so-called 22-year commitment of the Prime Minister to the implementation of a goods and services tax—a value added tax—in this country would be a little more convincing if there had not been a little history between 1978 and now. That little history includes the 1996 election when the so-called honest and devoted commitment of the Prime Minister reflected itself in this way. I had occasion to refer to it in parliament yesterday and I will refer to it again here. I refer particularly to the following interview he had in Newcastle with Mickey, the 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 the GST.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...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.The problem for the Prime Minister is this: when the Prime Minister says it is good for families, they do not believe him. When the Prime Minister says it is good for small business, they do not believe him. When the Prime Minister says it is good for the country, they do not believe him because they no longer believe the word of the Prime Minister—it has been so grievously abused on so many occasions over the last three years. That crazed triumphalism of the frontbench on the government side during today's proceedings represents nothing more than that Monty Pythonperformance by the Black Knight. As he jumps around in that armour, waving swords, first one arm goes, then another arm goes, then the leg goes. `I'm really having a terrific time,' says the Black Knight. `I challenge you to fight after fight.' It had about as much rationale behind it as that. Of course, what it and so much of their question time performance over these last 18 months have covered is the fact that, when people go for detail, when people want to understand what is really happening to them with the GST, they get evasion. They are getting evasion from the government, they are getting evasion from the tax office, they are getting evasion from all those charged with the responsibility of implementing this tax. There are thousands and thousands of unanswered questions as far as small business is concerned and, as far as the general public is concerned, the answers that they are getting now from this government are causing them a great deal of concern.We have had the Treasurer missing from his responsibilities to run his Taxation Office as breaches of privacy have occurred affecting the records of thousands of people in small business. We have had a tax office coming up with a survey that showed that one-third of its officials could not answer the questions. We have had the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation, Joe Hockey, boasting that there are 2,000 people out there to answer questions for the ACCC. Those are merely price monitors, and we find out that those actually engaged in the enforcement of the issue of price gouging constitute 99. We have had one piece of botching after another. We have had the child-care arrangements botched so that over the next couple of weeks people are going to be charged up to $122 more for their child-care per week, per child, and they are expected to carry that. The centres, which operate on a knife edge, are expected to carry the consequences of that for the next couple of weeks.The problem is this, Mr Absent Prime Minister: so many people comprehend that what they are being sold here is a pup, that they are now the people who are responsible for collecting and paying the tax, they are the people whose needs and concerns ought to have been cared for and, as far as they are concerned, the Treasurer absents himself for a week. The Prime Minister—he does not join him in absenteeism, because the Treasurer is going to hang around for next week—absents himself for a week afterwards. This is extraordinary behaviour on the cusp of the introduction of a new tax system. It produces massive changes in the lives of people, and those who are responsible for it at the top, who are presiding over botch after botch, will not accept the responsibility of it by being able to keep themselves in this country for even just two weeks.One of the things that we are going to be doing during the next 18 months is ploughing our way through the implementation of this GST, getting to understand its ramifications for all Australian people. We will be getting to understand the ramifications of it for the elderly in this society who are getting a four per cent tick-up in the pension to deal with a 10 per cent GST, two per cent of which is effectively being withdrawn in March. We have a view that it is quite possible that this will not be a substantial enough recompense for them. We also note the situation of families because, when we have been able to get answers, we have seen, for example, that middle income Australian families, in a set of circumstances which probably apply to at least some 150,000, are going to be materially worse off because of the changes in the social security arrangements.Then we come to today. I want to go through some of these figures for the benefit of the House. They were alluded to by our health spokesperson, the member for Jagajaga. As much as the government would like the GST compensation package to be seen in isolation from the effect that we have seen on interest rates, in isolation from the effect that we have seen in the child-care area and in isolation from their other decisions and their other botches, ordinary Australian families, who will have to live it, will not see it in isolation. We have seen one of the campaigns of the government—the `run for cover' campaign, the `you will be devastated' campaign, `the health of your family will suffer if you do not join private health cover' campaign, which has been running alongside the `unchain my heart' campaign in relation to the goods and services tax. What do we find? I will take the figures for New South Wales—and, remember, we are going on minimal cover in each of these figures—even though the Victorian figures are much worse. If you happen to be a single person on $30,000 a year—and, remember, these are the people who have been cajoled most actively into the system—you get GST compensation of $16 a week, but the cost of that health insurance if you join a fund is $11. Let me go to dual income families with two children, again in New South Wales. We are dealing with an income split of $6,733 and children between the ages of five and 12. If they have a family income of $45,000 a year—and this is a very typical situation we are now dealing with—they get GST compensation of $29. The cost of health insurance for them is $26, so they now have $3, if they follow the government's advertising campaign, to pay for all the things that will happen in relation to the GST. Let me take another dual income family, again in New South Wales. In this case the family has teenage children. Let me take them on an income of $40,000 a year. Currently they will enjoy $20 compensation for the GST. The cost of their health insurance will be $26, so they will be net to the bad $6 due to the impact of the GST and the implications of it for them. Let me take them at an income of $45,000. They will have $23 in compensation for the GST. The cost of health insurance will be $26, meaning they will lose $3 because of the total effect of the movement between the two. Recollect that we are talking here about some 800,000 who are alleged to have joined—they have taken up the offer—private health funds. We are not dealing with a minor class of people here; we are dealing with 800,000 people. Then there is the situation being experienced by small business. They think that if they have a business number, that is the end of the story. No, it is not the end of the story. The story as far as small business is concerned is implementing the detail of the GST, on which they get no accurate advice from the Australian Taxation Office but face grave penalties if they fail in their performance over the next six to 12 months.When you start going through all of those areas relating to the compensation package, when you go through the confusion that is out there, particularly in those areas where they are facing enormous complexity in the tax, like those who are handling the situation with regard to food, and for families that are going to experience a totally new cost structure in their lives, particularly when they have additional children, and when you look at the situation of families as they confront the circumstances of going into private health cover and the position of pensioners who are not appropriately covered, what is the sensible course of action for an opposition? The sensible course of action for an opposition is to make absolutely certain that they have the clearest fix on each one of these issues as they prepare their roll-back of the GST.Do not think for one moment that we support a goods and services tax; but, unlike this government, we have some concern for the people who are responsible for implementing it and some concern for the people who will experience it. As we start to roll back the most unfair shift in the Australian tax burden ever—as we move to deal with that—we are going to make our decisions based on the fullest possible information that we can get. So do not worry about this. We are going to roll back your GST. In rolling back your GST, we are going to have an accurate fix on the costs, an accurate fix on the principal problems and a firm commitment to simplicity. We are going to take full advantage of the time that is available to us before the next election. Unlike those who have lied to the Australian people so persistently, we are going to produce a clear-cut, fully costed coverage of roll-back. But I can tell you one thing that we can undertake right now. We will not be rolling it forward. If the states ask for the rate to be raised or if the states ask for food to be included, we will say no. An easy enough question for the government to answer is: will they? If the states ask them for that, will they? No, they will not because they want the GST rolled forward. That is what they want—a GST rolled forward. We will be rolling it back, properly considered. We will be rolling it back, properly afforded. They will be at the next election without commitments on rolling it forward. It will be interesting to hear what the minister has to say about that in reply. (Time expired)15:59:0018642Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPMinister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business10—We have just heard the climax of one of the most contemptible campaigns ever run by an opposition in the history of the Federation. There is nothing more contemptible than a leader of the opposition who is opposed publicly to a policy which he knows in his heart of hearts is the right thing to do for this country. There is nothing more negative, there is nothing more opportunistic, there is nothing weaker, than a leader of the opposition who stands here opposed to a change to the tax system which on Saturday he is going to be publicly supporting. There is nothing more pathetic than a leader of the opposition who when Keating was running the Treasury was in favour of tax reform but now is opposed to it because he thinks there is a grubby vote in it. This is the politics of opportunism. This is the politics of doing what you think is good for the Labor Party and putting to the side the national interest. This is the political party that claims to be in favour of looking after workers but does not have what it takes to stand for a policy that actually will deliver real benefits to workers.As the new tax system comes into operation on 1 July it brings to a culmination a campaign of genuine reform of Australia's taxation system that has been going on for decades. I have been publicly supporting this campaign to fix up Australia's tax system for over 10 years. For me personally, when the new tax system comes into operation on 1 July it will be one of those occasions when you say to yourself, `Well, for all the ups and downs of politics, it is worth making a contribution when you know you have made your small contribution to ensuring that Australia has a better tax system.' It is not as if there has been an intellectual debate about whether or not this is a good idea. This has been a good idea for over 20 years. DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—Oh!WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition scoffs. Quite frankly, how pathetic. This is really the low of the low. He himself was a senior member of the former Labor government when that government at an earlier time was in fact in favour of this reform.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—I wasn't.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—You were a member of that government.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—I wasn't a member of it. Get your facts right.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—In 1985 you may not have been here, but you were a member of a Labor government that supported tax reform because they knew it was right. This is what Paul Keating had to say back in 1985:It is now well recognised that the Australian tax system is unfair. It is also widely appreciated that it encourages inefficiency and is extraordinarily complex. Clearly there is a need for action, for reform. We must stop dealing with symptoms. The tax laws are in need of radical surgery. We must commit ourselves to three propositions: the tax base must be broadened; the ideals of tax reform require us to commit ourselves to lower marginal tax rates; and we should attempt to use the tax system to solve every problem that looks too difficult to solve in some other way. There are three main advantages of consumption tax. First, it will allow a more rational indirect tax system than the current anomaly ridden wholesale sales tax, which has multiple rates, numerous exemptions and fails to tax the services sector. Second, it will enable us to generate tax revenues to provide for a major reduction in the marginal rates of income tax. No other tax has the same potential for this purpose. Third, it generates tax from those who will continue to evade or avoid income tax, and that provides a useful net dividend for distribution to the rest of the community.Those words said 15 years ago are still true. Some people ask whether the pace of change is too fast in Australia. I say it has been too slow. In fact, go back to the 1970s: it was quite clear we needed to reform the tax system. These fraudulent claims we have from the opposition that this system is not fair are easily refuted by the facts—facts which they themselves have publicly advanced. This is what I find so galling about this campaign. Even the Deputy Leader of the Opposition knows what a fraudulent campaign he is running. It is sickening to the body politic that you have a significant issue where we genuinely need change—and anybody who has ever looked at the tax system knows that fact—and you find somebody trying to score a cheap political point. It is really pathetic. When I was looking through some notes last night for what I might say today—I thought it was going to be a censure motion but they sort of ran out of puff during question time—I pulled this out of the Australian from back in 1996. This is what they said back in 1996:According to the bureau—that is the Australian Bureau of Statistics—the poorest 10 per cent of households were paying out as much as 14.2 per cent of their income as indirect taxes in 1984 when the comparable figure among the top 10 per cent of households was as low as 6.3.This is in respect basically of wholesale sales tax and other indirect taxes. People on low incomes were paying 14 per cent of their income in indirect taxes, but people on high incomes were paying only 6.3 per cent. That was 1984. Then it says:A decade later the lowest income group laboured under a more severe indirect tax burden, with 22 per cent of their income being paid out as indirect taxes in 1993-94.And at the top end, for the people on the high incomes, they enjoyed a reduced indirect tax impost at some 5.7 per cent of their household incomes. It says:The average indirect tax burden among all households had barely moved between the early 80s and the early 90s, rising only slightly from 8.3 to 8.5 per cent. So the total amount collected had not changed much, it is just that the people on low incomes were paying a lot more. It continues:The period under study stretches from before the former Labor government pushed for and then abandoned the broad-based indirect tax proposal in 1985 to the Coalition's failed 1993 election campaign bid for a new GST. During the period examined by the ABS, the overall burden of indirect taxes remained almost constant but its impact was shifted significantly to hit the pockets of low income households more severely.The Labor Party says this system is unfair. Let us stand back and look at the system we are getting rid of. This system we are getting rid of is not just unfair today but is becoming progressively more unfair on low income people. It is a regressive tax system. Just to highlight the inanity of Labor's campaign, having been in favour of this in 1985, when we advocated it in 1993 they opposed it. Then, after the election, what did they do? They had promised income tax cuts; that was their sort of populist push. They abandoned the income tax cuts and, having opposed the GST, they put up indirect taxes. In other words, over that 10-year period indirect taxation had become more regressive and when we tried to fix it the Labor Party ran a populist campaign against us and then they themselves made it worse again. That is one of the worst examples of political hypocrisy I have ever known. There are a lot of things the Labor Party say which I do not mind putting up with—it is part of the game, I suppose—but this was the lowest of the low. For the last 10 years they have known that this country needed sensible reform and they have just gone for the cheap political point every last time—the lowest campaign we have ever seen sustained in Australian politics. Even today the Leader of the Opposition starts with a sickening deception. Do you know what that deception is?DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—Like petrol won't go up?WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—You really are pathetic. You are a pathetic creature.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—Pathetic? The Prime Minister said it!WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—You really are one of the lowest we have seen as a shadow Treasurer, because you are not prepared to actually debate the issues. I will tell you why he was deceptive when he started today: he omitted to state a simple fact—that is, in the 1998 election campaign we went to the Australian people and said to them honestly, `This is what we're going to do.' DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—Honestly?WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—Yes, we told people what we were going to do.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—No, you didn't.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—We had the guts to tell people that this tax system needed to change for the sake of future generations. We had the guts to tell people that we should stop taxing our exports, because it was costing us jobs and meant that we were exporting jobs. We had the guts to tell people that you cannot run a tax system where the average person is paying 50 cents in the dollar for every hour of overtime. We had the guts to stand up and say that it is about time we stopped penalising Australian producers and giving a tax benefit to imports. In all my public career people have come up and said to me, `Why is it that great Australian manufacturing names have closed their operations and gone offshore and started importing stuff back into Australia?' One of the reasons which everybody has known—even the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has known—is that we have been crazy enough in this country to run a tax system that says, `If you are an importer, we give you effectively a tax advantage, but, if you want to give somebody a job in Australia, we are going to impose a tax disadvantage on you compared to imports.' No-one in their right mind would support that system except the Labor Party, because they think there is a cheap political point that they can make against a party advocating sensible reform.Today I want to pay tribute particularly to John Howard. You can go all the way back to 1978, when he was the Treasurer. He at least knew what had to be done and he was prepared to do something about it. He went to the cabinet and said that there ought to be a review of the tax system. Ultimately, the idea was rejected in 1979. But after the 1980 election he went again and said, `I think there ought to be a review of the tax system,' and he announced one. It was rejected in February 1981. But did he give in? Did he say, `Oh, well, I've been beaten so I'll just give up'? No. He knew it was in the country's best interests, so he persevered and in 1984 it was part of the coalition's policy. People often say that the 1993 Fightback policy was the first time anybody had advocated a new tax going into a federal election. That is not actually right; it was first advocated in 1984. The reason it was not a big political issue in the campaign in 1984 was that Hawkie was going to have a summit and he could not rule anything out. That is the reason it was not a big issue in 1984: he knew that it was an issue that they would need to address. When it came to the summit and the time leading up to the summit, what a contrast the behaviour of the Prime Minister was compared to the behaviour today of the opposition.DT4Crean, Simon, MPWI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—What he said back in 1985, when he had that political temptation which you have fallen for—which you have grabbed with both hands, I should say—when he was presented with the political temptation of running a scare campaign about a new tax on booties and the like, was this:I think the public is tired of automatic opposition.He recognised the scare campaign that was then available to us—I was here then—and he said:It is very easy to talk about a 15 per cent tax on babies' booties but parts of what the government has in mind are very much in line with what we have been advocating.And I do not mind saying that it was politically difficult for him not to run a scare campaign against Keating's proposal then, because there were some on our own side that were urging him to do it and were criticising him for the fact that he did not take a golden opportunity to make the most of his political opportunities. Why didn't he? Because he knew what the national interest was; he knew that this country one day would have to face the fact that we could no longer have a tax system that was introduced in 1930 as a temporary measure and which virtually every other country in the Western world—in fact, in the world, full stop—has since abandoned except Botswana and Swaziland. But Botswana has recently announced they are going to have a GST.DT4Crean, Simon, MPWI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—It may not be original but I tell you what: it is a reality. When you stand in a moment and when your deception starts, what you ought to say is, `I stand to speak on behalf of the Australian Labor Party and the people of Swaziland, who still think it is a good idea.' When you have your national conference at the end of July, the only people who will be advocating a wholesale sales tax will be the Labor Party and the Swaziland government. You ought to get a guest speaker out and get them to tell you how great it is and how keen you would be to go back to it. People like Neil Warren, David Voss and the small business consultative committee—many people in the community—have worked for this. They have worked for it because this is in the national interest. This is the biggest income tax cut in Australia's history taking billions of dollars off our businesses, which will mean more jobs and more investment. I am proud to be a member of a government that knows what is in the country's best interests, is prepared to make things happen and is prepared to make changes for the national good so that our children and grandchildren will grow up in an economy which is modern, which is competitive and which will give them a chance of a job and opportunities in the future. This opposition is a national disgrace, the worst opposition we have had since World War II. It deserves to be condemned. (Time expired)16:14:0018645Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—It has been another day of continuing farce and chaos on the GST—farce from France, and where is the Treasurer defending it? We saw him over at the OECD ringing his little bell to tell people who he was—`I'm Peter Costello; I'm Treasurer of Australia'—but where is he here? We have got a bell for him today, and we challenge him to come in. It is a bell with a dog on a tuckerbox—and well may it be, because it will be his epitaph. This is a Treasurer and this is a Prime Minister who are a disgrace to their office, because they have proposed a tax on which they have deceived people all around the country and they will not come into this place to defend it.We saw the Treasurer today say, `What do I have to do to get a question?' The answer is: don't go to Paris. Stay here. Don't expect to come back on this day and to be asked a question, when you were not here for a week to deal with the mess that you left. The mess you left began on Thursday night, as you were sitting in 1A sipping French champagne on the Qantas flight out, when you hand-passed your petrol decision to your Acting Treasurer, John Fahey—a decision which involved the Treasurer breaching his commitment to the Australian people. I will remind the House as to what that was in relation to the price of petrol: a guarantee he and the Prime Minister gave that the GST would not increase the price of petrol. This was the mechanism by which they were going to deliver it; this was the Treasurer on 25 November last year:... 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. Do you understand the words `same amount of tax'? On Thursday night on his way out of the country, the Treasurer reduced the excise by 6.7c a litre but put the GST up by 8.2c a litre. Some motorists will fill their tanks to capacity on Friday and will try to keep away from petrol bowsers until their tanks run out. But, come Saturday, when their petrol runs out every motorist in this country will be paying 1½c a litre on every litre of petrol purchased forever, courtesy of this government and its broken promise—a government that cannot be trusted, a government whose credibility is in tatters, a government whose Treasurer and Prime Minister will not come into this House.Today the continuing farce and chaos associated with this GST was evidenced by the fact that the government allowed privacy to be hacked in this country. On Saturday the GST will hack into families. Saturday is the beginning of the GST. John Howard wants you to think that it is the end of it, and we even heard the Deputy Prime Minister say that we will be out of time on Saturday in relation to the GST. Do not believe them: it is only the beginning. As it is the beginning, where will this courageous Prime Minister who deceived himself back into office be? He will be flying to London. So we have a Treasurer in Paris in the final week of implementation with chaos all around the place and a Prime Minister heading off to London—heading off for celebrations for our Federation which should be held here. We have a Prime Minister fleeing the country because of the mess that he has created. We got a little bit of a curtain-raiser today as to how this GST will apply from Saturday. The Prime Minister tried to organise a stunt in a liquor store in Canberra, of all places. We know he is fond of liquor stores because he has invested in a large new fridge for Kirribilli House, courtesy of the taxpayers, with a padlock on it. So he likes buying it but not sharing it, this Prime Minister of ours! He was at the liquor store today essentially to try to prove this point: when you buy liquor in a bottle shop, the price difference pre-GST and post-GST will be minuscule. There he was, going down the aisle and picking up ordinary workers' drinks like Johnnie Walker Red Label or Black Label whisky—I am not too sure which one it was in his case. He went past the wine of his staffer Mr O'Leary's brother, despite the fact that his office likes looking after brothers! The Prime Minister and his staffer are into brotherly love—fraternité, they call it in France, Treasurer. When the Prime Minister got the post-GST receipt, he said, `This looks good—it is $20 less.' The trouble is, in the first instance they had rung up the Johnnie Walker whisky twice. When that was taken account of, the price went up by $4. The Prime Minister's problem is that Johnny Howard got tripped up on the Johnnie Walker! What he proved today is what every Australian family will prove on Saturday and thereafter: the GST just does not add up for them. Just as it did not add up for the Prime Minister, the GST will not add up for Australian families.I issue another challenge to the Prime Minister today: is he going to turn up to a pub on Saturday with people drinking ordinary beer, which is going up between eight and nine per cent because the government have doubled the excise on beer? The government were not content with just putting it up on petrol; they have doubled it on beer. Will he be in the pub, showing how he has dishonoured that promise? His promise on ordinary beer was that it would go up by only 1.9 per cent; it is going up almost four times that, and people will know it on Saturday. But it is not the only thing they will know on Saturday, for which today was just the curtain-raiser. Come Saturday, this is how the GST will affect your first day. The papers will have GST added to them—in some cases, more than 10 per cent. When you go to that hole in the wall to get your cash out, you may find that the bank fees have increased—if not on Saturday, then subsequently. Drop the kids off at the local pool and you will have to pay more money to get them in. If you are dropping them off for music lessons, that will be copping the GST as well. If you have got the gardener coming in, then the GST is on that. The light lunch on the way to the afternoon entertainment will also have GST on it. Footy tickets have the full 10 per cent on them in Melbourne, and the movies have about the same.If they go on public transport, that is going up far more than the government ever let on. If you have the humble meat pie in the afternoon, that is going to be taxed and, if you have that beer, it is going up by four times what the Prime Minister said. On the way home, you pick up the video that has the GST on it and the takeaway food that cops the GST. You sink back into your chair at home and add it up, and you say to John Howard, `I'm not thanking you, Prime Minister.' You might remember that is what he said on the 7.30 Report on 8 February: `But in the end, the public will thank us for doing what is right for Australia.' Well, this tax is not right for ordinary working people, because the government has deceived them about it. I make this point: it does not stop on Saturday. As you are sitting back there, with the electricity and the gas on, the new GST meter is ticking over—because all those charges, whenever you have to pay the bill subsequently, will cop the GST. Electricity, gas, insurance and repairs on the family home are going to cop the 10 per cent. That is just people as consumers. What about small business? Saturday is not the end of it; it is just the beginning. For the rest of their lives, they will be John Howard's tax collectors. For the rest of their lives, they will be collecting the GST. And this from the Prime Minister who says, `It'll be all over Saturday.' This is why we have said this is an issue that will slow burn, because this impact will continue to be felt. What we have done to date is expose the deceit. It has been exposed on so many fronts that the government is too embarrassed to come in and defend it. Let no-one believe that this is an issue that is going to go away on Saturday. The sky may not fall in on Saturday. Chicken Little may survive, but it will be a slow cooking Chicken Little. If it is cooked and hot then it cops the GST but if it cools down it does not! So out with the thermometers to test where this is going, because the slow burn and the temperature check is going to be the basis upon which this community judges this government, a government that has deceived its way into office, that has made an unfair tax and created chaos in the process. It is a government that should be condemned for it. (Time expired)16:24:0018647Secker, Patrick, MPMr SECKER848BarkerLP10—What we have heard today from this carping Labor opposition is a bit like a dog between four trees, because it does not have a leg to stand on. The Labor Party know we need this tax reform and they have not had the guts to support a reform that we all know the country needs and demands. They have come in here, day after day, week after week and month after month, opposing what we all know will produce growth in our economy, fairness to all groups in Australia and a choice for all Australians. Will they get rid of it? Of course not, because they know it is the right thing for Australia but they will not admit it. Four Senate committees of this parliament that sat for four months each for a total of 16 months of inquiry into this tax reform showed that there was not one group of Australians, apart from the tax dodgers, that would be worse off or adversely affected—as this childish motion from the Labor Party suggests. In other words, every Australian group would be better off as a result of this courageous tax reform. Families will be better off, farmers will be better off and business will be better off. Yet the Labor Party, with no thought for the future of this country, no plan for the future and no idea where they are going, can only get up here under a weak leader to oppose what we all know is good for this country.As a new member of this parliament, it has been sickening for me to see the political games that the Labor Party plays in the name of opposition. As a new member of parliament, it has been sickening for me to see the hypocrisy and humbug shown by this Labor Party, not only on this issue but on many others before this parliament. The Labor Party has been a disgrace and will get its just deserts. We could all have played games on financial deregulation when we were in opposition but we did not, because we knew it was in the best interests of this country. We could have played games on tariff reform when we were in opposition but we did not, because we knew it was in the best interests of this country. We could have played games when the Labor Party proposed the GST in 1985 but we did not, because we were honest about what is good for this country. Yet here we have the Labor Party which, in opposition, plays games because it is opportunistic and does not care about the future of this country. The message I get from listening to the community is that they are sick of this Labor Party and frustrated with an outdated and unfair tax system and anticipate the arrival of a new tax system which will bring about real and beneficial changes.We all know that some prices will rise, some prices will fall and others will stay about the same. Do we ever hear about that from the Labor Party? Of course not. We all know that every Australian taxpayer will receive a tax cut to help them through the expected cost of living increase. Do we ever hear about that from the Labor Party? Of course not. We all know that we will be delivering the largest tax cuts in Australia's history—some $12 billion in tax cuts—for every taxpayer in Australia. Do we ever hear about that from the Labor Party? Of course not. We all know that and we also know that we will be delivering extra social security that outstrips the cost of living increase by at least another two per cent, making all those on pensions at least two per cent better off. But do we hear that from the Labor Party? Of course not. We all know that we will deliver up to $2,000 to self-funded retirees. But do we hear that from the Labor Party? Of course not. We all know that we will deliver $7,000 to first home buyers. But do we hear that from the Labor Party? Of course not. All we hear from the Labor Party is pink shirts, cereal packets and hot pies, without mentioning that those minor items benefit from the new tax system by ridding us of Labor's wholesale sales tax system that is embedded into the costs of both production and delivery. Here is the crux of those reforms, Mr Speaker. I can tell you and those sitting opposite that the people in country areas already know how delivery costs will come down in the country. We know that when 24c a litre comes off the cost of diesel it will result in cheaper transport costs for our goods that we produce and cheaper transport costs for all the products that we buy. The reduced transport costs will filter through our economy, and that will benefit all of us.The savings do not stop there. All registered businesses in Australia will get their fuel 10 per cent cheaper with their GST input credits. It is worth remembering that all business, all employees and all employers will benefit from this tax system. But it will not only be on their fuel. No longer will they have to pay Labor's 22 per cent wholesale sales tax on batteries, or Labor's 22 per cent wholesale sales tax on tyres, or Labor's 22 per cent wholesale sales tax on spare parts. The average truck rig now spends $1,700 a week paying Labor's wholesale sales tax. Most of that is saved under A New Tax System. Cars will be cheaper by getting rid of Labor's wholesale sales tax on cars—that is, a 22 per cent wholesale sales tax for the honour of buying a new car. From the time the metal is mined to the rubber for the tyres extracted, to the paint on the vehicles and the paperwork produced and so on, there are about 20,000 transactions in the production of a car. Labor's wholesale sales tax was imposed on most of these transactions. But that will all be removed now. This clearly shows how Labor's wholesale sales tax system is a tax on production and a tax on employment. We know that a tax on consumption, where people have a choice, is a much fairer system. We remove $11 billion of taxes off the shoulders of our exporters. We remove $4,500 billion of taxes off the shoulders of our farmers. We remove $3.5 billion in excise off the shoulders of our transport industry and $12 billion in personal income tax off the shoulders of our taxpayers. We know the average farm will be better off by at least $7,000 each year. I am proud to represent the farmers in Australia. I am privileged to represent many farmers in my seat of Barker. We know that the transport industry, which is so important to the economy in Barker and the rest of Australia, will benefit from these tax reforms. My electorate of Barker, which covers some 54,000 square kilometres, is the third most rural seat in Australia. Voters in my electorate will remember that the Labor Party wants to keep the present overtaxed regime for transport operators. They will remember that Labor wants to stop most Australians from receiving our tax cuts. They will remember that Labor wants to keep our overtaxed marine operators. They will remember that Labor wants to keep our overtaxed rail operators. They will remember that Labor wants to overtax our country citizens. They will remember that Labor wants to take away the increases in benefits that we will deliver to our less well-off citizens. They will also remember that Labor wants to stop us delivering cheaper food to all our citizens as a result of the cost savings and cheaper transport. Labor have become irrelevant to political debate in Australia. Labor have become the fairies at the bottom of the garden, a party without policy, a party without principles and a party without practical answers. The Labor humbug knows no end on this issue. They know that by the time we sit next, in August, this Labor humbug will account for nothing because Australia will wake up this Saturday and know that the sky has not fallen in. One wonders if the Labor Party in Australia asked their Labour counterparts in New Zealand why they introduced the GST system. Have they asked the Labour Prime Minister of New Zealand, Helen Clark, why she will not roll back the GST? Have the Australian Labor Party asked the British Labour Party Prime Minister why he does not want to roll back the GST equivalent, the VAT? Have the Australian Labor Party sent all their tax policy makers, if they have any, to Swaziland, the only country in the world that still wants to keep a wholesale sales tax system? Even their former like-minded colleagues in Botswana can now see the sense of a GST type system. We all know that the only labour party in the world that wants to roll back the GST is the Australian Labor Party. The Labor Party hate the GST so much that if they get the chance of government they will keep the GST. They conveniently forget that they condemn the Australian workers to high inflation, high interest rates, high unemployment and lower living standards. They also conveniently forget that they condemn the Australian worker to 23 per cent interest rates and 17 per cent housing loan rates. The outcomes from this government prove that we look after the worker far better than do the Labor Party, and we are proud of it. The outcomes from this government prove that we manage the economy and the worker's welfare, and we are proud of it. We are the only people in this parliament with the vision for the future, the courage to implement it and the people to support it. 10000Jenkins, Harry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Order! The discussion has concluded. Bills18649The following bills were returned from the Senate without amendment or request:Product Stewardship (Oil) Bill 2000Customs Tariff Amendment (Product Stewardship for Waste Oil) Bill 2000Excise Tariff Amendment (Product Stewardship for Waste Oil) Bill 2000Product Stewardship (Oil) (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2000Primary Industries Legislation Amendment (Vegetable Levy) Bill 2000Sales Tax (Customs) (Industrial Safety Equipment) Bill 2000Sales Tax (Excise) (Industrial Safety Equipment) Bill 2000Sales Tax (General) (Industrial Safety Equipment) Bill 2000Sales Tax (Industrial Safety Equipment) (Transitional Provisions) Bill 2000International Tax Agreements Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2000Bills18649R103518649Bill returned from Main Committee without amendment; certified copy presented.Ordered that the bill be taken into consideration forthwith.Bill agreed to.18649Bill (on motion by Mr Slipper)—by leave—read a third time.Committees18649186491864916:37:0018649Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration10—I move:That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to Parliament: Navy Ammunitioning Facility, Twofold Bay, NSW.The Department of Defence proposes to construct a Royal Australian Navy ammunitioning facility at Twofold Bay near Eden, New South Wales, in the electorate of the honourable member for Eden-Monaro, Mr Nairn, to support ammunitioning and de-ammunitioning of ships of the Royal Australian Navy. The proposed ammunitioning facility will provide for the Royal Australian Navy's long-term east coast ammunitioning requirements following the closure of the previous arrangements in Sydney Harbour in December last year. The facilities at Homebush closed to make way for the Sydney 2000 Olympics. The Commonwealth-owned port at Point Wilson is currently being used for interim ammunitioning of Royal Australian Navy ships until permanent arrangements are in place. Point Wilson would not be suitable for ammunitioning Navy ships in the longer term due to the additional steaming time from Sydney Harbour and the Navy exercise area and associated costs, and the requirement to upgrade the Point Wilson infrastructure. Point Wilson is nearing the end of its economic life and would require a considerable upgrade to extend its life for 30 years. The cost of upgrading Point Wilson was estimated to be $72.27 million compared with $40 million for the proposed facility at Twofold Bay. The Department of Defence investigated numerous locations on the east coast to find a site that is operationally and technically feasible and environmentally suitable. Following that investigation, a detailed proposal has been developed for Twofold Bay and an environmental impact statement has been completed. An environmental impact statement was prepared for the proposal to meet the requirements of the Commonwealth Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act 1974 and the New South Wales Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. The environmental impact statement was exhibited for public comment in November-December last year. A supplementary report to the draft environmental impact statement incorporating the issues arising from public submissions was submitted to Environment Australia. The environmental impact statement demonstrates that there are no environmental impediments to proceeding with the proposal and that the proposed facility can be constructed and operated so as to have minimal environmental impacts. The environmental impact statement has received clearance from the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, Senator Hill. The Twofold Bay site meets technical and environmental requirements and is operationally and economically preferable to Point Wilson. The wharf at Twofold Bay will be used by the Royal Australian Navy for between 45 and 70 days per year and will be available for commercial use the rest of the time. The state and local governments have indicated strong support for the proposal as commercial use of the wharf is expected to create employment opportunities in the Eden area. The main components of the facility are a wharf, jetty and a land-based depot. The New South Wales government is planning to develop an area adjacent to the jetty head for commercial stockpiles of timber products and other compatible industries should the proposal proceed.I would also like, in the chamber, to recognise the strong support for this proposal given by my colleague the honourable member for Eden-Monaro, Mr Nairn. The estimated out-turn cost of the proposal is $40 million and, subject to parliamentary approval, construction will start early in the year 2001 and be completed by early to mid-2002.In its report, the committee has recommended that this project proceed. The Department of Defence agrees with the recommendations of the committee and has advised that the recommendations set out in the environmental assessment report will be implemented. At this stage, I would like to thank the committee for its support and I commend the motion to the House.16:42:0018650Nairn, Gary, MPMr NAIRNOK6Eden-MonaroLP10—I also would like to speak in support of this motion for this particular project to be carried out at Twofold Bay in Eden in my electorate. Back in 1996 when I was elected as the member for Eden-Monaro, this project was going to Point Wilson in Victoria following a decision made by the previous Labor government. Many people from the region believed that Point Wilson was not the appropriate location for this particular facility. Certainly there has always been strong support for the project to be in the Eden region, a more sensible location given that all of the ships will be involved in ammunitioning and de-ammunitioning trials off the coast of New South Wales much closer to Eden than the very long distance that they would have to go to Point Wilson.Fortunately, in the way the parliament works here, major projects such as this are scrutinised by the Public Works Committee. That was done in this case. The Public Works Committee at the time—which was chaired by the now Minister for Forestry and Conservation, the member for O'Connor, Mr Tuckey, and the deputy chair, the member for Throsby, Mr Hollis—saw that Point Wilson was not appropriate. It was obvious from Navy support as well that a more logical location was Eden. The committee consequently reported that Point Wilson should not be the location for this project and that Eden would be a more appropriate location. Consequently, the Public Works Committee—now chaired by the honourable member for Pearce, Mrs Moylan, with the member for Throsby still a member but not the deputy chair any more—went through the processes of public hearings, et cetera. Also, a very extensive environmental impact study was carried out. Consequently, we had the report to the parliament a couple of days ago recommending that this project should proceed. There is very strong support for this project in the region; there always has been. It was seen as an appropriate project from the point of view of not only the Navy but also the community, which was very interested in a multipurpose wharf being constructed as part of the project. The wharf will be needed between only 45 and 70 days a year, as indicated by the parliamentary secretary in his motion. That means the wharf will be available for a very extensive part of the year for other, commercial, activities.A number of studies have been done prior to Defence making this decision. It is always very difficult in some areas to get new projects up when the facility needed for them is not there. The fact that this wharf can be built as part of the Defence facility will activate a lot more interest in the Eden area as a potential export location, and not only there, but right throughout the south-east of New South Wales and parts of Victoria. The nearest locations for a reasonable deepwater port are a long way to the north, in Port Kembla or Sydney, or a long way to the south, down from Melbourne. Having that multipurpose wharf is a great excitement for the region because it could stimulate all sorts of new activity.We have already seen a number of applications lodged under the Eden Region Adjustment Package—which was put in place after the closure of the Heinz cannery just one year ago—that look towards the potential of a multipurpose wharf. I think that is very exciting for the region. In fact, we announced last week some successful applicants under the Eden Region Adjustment Package, which was well received in this region. The announcement this week by the Public Works Committee and now this expediency motion in the parliament to get this project under way will be well received right throughout my electorate, particularly in the Eden region. I am very pleased that after four years of pretty hard work by a lot of people, we come to this day—0V5Slipper, Peter, MPOK6Nairn, Gary, MPMr NAIRN—Thank you, Parliamentary Secretary. I certainly have worked hard on this, but I have had great support from the community and many other people. I thank all the members of the Public Works Committee very much for their support on this. Defence have also done an excellent job in putting together this project. I congratulate them on it. It is a great day. We thank you very much and look forward to this project getting under way as soon as possible.Question resolved in the affirmative. 186511865116:48:0018651Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration10—I move:That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to Parliament: Defence Science and Technology Organisation Rationalisation Project, Melbourne.The Department of Defence proposes to rationalise and consolidate the Melbourne facilities of the Defence Science and Technology Organisation. The Defence Science and Technology Organisation is part of the Department of Defence. It conducts research and advises on the application of science and technology best suited to Australia's defence and security needs.The Aeronautical and Maritime Research Laboratory is one of the two major research laboratories in the Defence Science and Technology Organisation, and currently operates from a number of sites throughout Australia. Its two principal sites are both located in Melbourne—one at Fishermens Bend and the other at Maribyrnong. The current dual site arrangement presents significant operational and cost inefficiencies and also impacts on the quality and the efficiency of the research and development activities undertaken by the laboratory. This proposal will lead to a reduction in operational costs and enhanced effectiveness of the research program. At the same time, it will allow for the reduction in property holdings by a rationalisation to the Fishermens Bend site. The first main component of the project is relocation and consolidation of existing capabilities. The project includes new and refurbished facilities to relocate and to consolidate the following existing research activities: maritime platforms, combatant protection and nutrition, and science corporate management. The second is integrated technologies. The proposal also includes initiatives which result in integrated common technologies across the following areas: nuclear, biological and chemical protection investigation, mechanical testing and advanced composites fabrication. The third is other enhanced capabilities. The following enhanced capabilities are also proposed as part of the AMRL investment: new airframes and engines division research thrusts; large scale maritime and aircraft structures testing; on site conference capability; thermal testing; and structural component holding. The estimated out-turn cost of the proposal is $56.171 million. Subject to parliamentary approval, construction will start in the middle of the year and be completed some 2½ years later. In its report, the committee has recommended that this project proceed. The Department of Defence agrees with the recommendations of the committee. I would like to thank the committee for its support and to commend the motion to the House.16:51:0018652Roxon, Nicola, MPMs ROXON83KGellibrandALP00—I would like to speak on this motion as the recommendation of the committee to rationalise these two sites does significantly affect my electorate. The electorate of Gellibrand is home to the Maribyrnong site of AMRL. Certainly I am very sad to be speaking to this motion today because it does signal the end of a very long history that DSTO has had with the Maribyrnong site and with my electorate of Gellibrand. I am also sad because it does, of course, mean that there are large numbers of jobs that will be leaving my electorate, and that is something that has been ongoing through the Defence rationalisation. At times in the history of the electorate of Gellibrand there have been thousands of people employed by the defence department in various ways, and we will be sad to lose some of those last few jobs in the area. In these circumstances I would like to take this opportunity to publicly acknowledge those thousands of people who have worked over many years at the Maribyrnong site, particularly some of the absolutely great scientists who are known to have come from the Maribyrnong site and AMRL. I think it is appropriate that I take this opportunity to record our appreciation of their service.I am, however, aware that the committee has made a unanimous decision, which they regard as being in the best interests of the nation as a whole. While there will be some pain from the decision in my electorate, I know that a sensible recommendation has been made for the future of DSTO. I am very pleased that a number of recommendations I made in a submission to the committee have been picked up in the report of the committee, including a recognition of the great historical importance of this site and its significance within the development of defence in Australia, particularly within the area. I would note as well that the report does not link any rationalisation that will occur as a result of the government's acceptance of these recommendations to the sale of the site. There is no earmarking for use of the money from the future sale of this site. I think it is important for the future because, obviously, there will be a debate about how this site should be developed and where the proceeds or part of the proceeds of the sale should go.Just briefly, because I know we do not have a lot of time, it does mean that the question of the decontamination of the whole Defence estate at Maribyrnong and its future sale is growing closer. The specific recommendations that the committee picked up as a result of my submission and that of the city of Maribyrnong are that the extensive consultation required for the sale of such property should commence and that they consult widely with the community, with council and, obviously, with me as a representative of the area. But a very important recommendation I am pleased the government has indicated it will pick up is the encouragement of the defence department to engage a heritage architect to survey the historical, natural and indigenous aspects, including the industrial history, of this site. I urge the government to instruct the department to do this as quickly as possible because, although the sale of this site will not be for some time, significant planning is required and I think the Commonwealth has an extensive role to play in preparing the site for sale. We know that there is still one remaining organisation that employs a few hundred people at the site. That number will reduce over the coming months. I urge the government to take account of the view that the site as a whole has great significance, that it needs to be treated as a whole and that it undertakes the heritage study and a number of other issues that the committee has picked up as quickly as possible to make sure that, when the sale occurs, there has been proper consultation and a detailed process. Question resolved in the affirmative.186531865316:56:0018653Mr SLIPPER,MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration10—I move:That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, 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.The Department of Defence proposes to undertake a redevelopment in the technical area at RAAF Base Edinburgh, near Adelaide in South Australia. The most significant role for RAAF Base Edinburgh is to support the maritime patrol group, which operates the P3 Orion maritime patrol and reconnaissance aircraft. The base also provides guidelines technical support for the aircraft research and development unit. The proposed scope of works is in direct support of this role and comprises several elements.New facilities for the aircraft research unit, known as ARDU, are proposed. The role of this unit is to extend the capabilities of Australian Defence Force aerospace systems. Tasks undertaken are mainly in the advanced technology area and entail applied research, engineering development, test and evaluation and electronic warfare operational support. Many of these activities it undertakes are in facilities that were constructed in the 1940s. They are not suitable for the function or are remote from the aircraft hangar and are in urgent need of replacement. In addition, it is proposed to provide aircraft shelters for six aircraft, additional electrical power in an existing aircraft hangar, some additional workshop and shelter facilities and relocation of a test rig. The progression of this element of the works will enable the disposal of Defence property and would lead to efficiencies by co-locating the unit near its hangar and its client base.A new logistics facility is proposed. This will accommodate warehousing and administrative functions for procurement, stock control and other functions in support of defence units in the state of South Australia. The administrative area will accommodate some 72 personnel, and the warehouse will be some 6,300 square metres in area. The proposed new facility is to be constructed in the technical area of Edinburgh, where the high use clients are located. The facilities will replace an old, existing warehouse that is located off base and the controlling administrative facilities, which are also remote from the main client base. The provision of these facilities will reduce leasing costs and lead to efficiencies by the collocation of personnel and the facilities they use.New facilities are proposed for the Marine Patrol Logistics Management Squadron, which comprises some 142 personnel. This unit is responsible for the logistics management of the P3 Orion weapons system as well as aircraft life support logistics management for all Australian Defence Force life support systems. The unit is currently located in facilities constructed in 1942 and has expanded into temporary prefabricated buildings. These facilities are also remote from the technical area and their main client base, which includes personnel to be accommodated in the proposed new logistics complex. To gain the benefits of shared areas, it is proposed to co-locate this unit in a common logistics facility. An upgrade of the engineering services infrastructure, mainly in the technical area of the base, is proposed. The basic engineering services at RAAF Base Edinburgh date from the time each area was developed, generally in the 1940s and the 1950s. Although some improvements have taken place, the systems are in need of replacement as they have reached their capacity and are increasingly unreliable, and major repairs and replacement of deteriorated systems are necessary. Additional change rooms and ablution facilities are also proposed to address current shortfalls in the general technical area. It is proposed to demolish vacated facilities, many containing asbestos. These facilities are surplus to requirements. The estimated out-turn cost of the proposal is $37.7 million. Subject to parliamentary approval, construction will commence in mid-2001 and will be completed by April 2003. I commend the motion to the House.Question resolved in the affirmative.186541865417:01:0018654Mr SLIPPER,MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration10—I move:That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, 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.The Australian Bureau of Statistics proposes to fit out new leased premises at Belconnen, in the Australian Capital Territory. The Australian Bureau of Statistics is Australia's official statistical agency. Its mission is to assist and encourage informed decision making, research and discussion within government and the community. It provides a high quality, objective and responsive national service.The central office of the Australian Bureau of Statistics has been housed in the Cameron Offices complex at Belconnen in the Australian Capital Territory since completion of the building in the mid-1970s. More than 20 years experience as tenants in the building has revealed inherent limitations in building layouts, and shortcomings in the building fabric, services and amenities. A proposal to improve the short-term situation of the Australian Bureau of Statistics was developed and submitted to the Public Works Committee before the government decided to secure new accommodation for the ABS when selling Belconnen properties in the Commonwealth property estate for redevelopment by the private sector.In December 1997, my colleague the Minister for Finance and Administration announced that the Commonwealth would market test the refurbishment of the Benjamin Offices, the demolition of the Cameron Offices and the provision of new or refurbished accommodation for the Australian Bureau of Statistics. The Department of Finance and Administration made a public call for expressions of interest from potential purchasers and developers interested in purchasing the Belconnen and Cameron offices site, redeveloping the sites to provide modern office accommodation for existing tenants, or redeveloping the existing sites to provide facilities other than office accommodation in the Belconnen precinct.The outcome of a lengthy selection process was the acceptance by the Department of Finance and Administration of a development proposal that will include the partial demolition of the Cameron Offices and the construction of a new purpose designed building for the Australian Bureau of Statistics. The Australian Bureau of Statistics will be the sole tenant in the new building, with an initial lease term of 15 years and options to twice renew the lease for two further terms of five years. The proposal covers the fit-out of the leased premises as offices for the Australian Bureau of Statistics. Approximately 35,300 square metres of floor space will be fitted out to commercial office standards and the special operating requirements of the Australian Bureau of Statistics. The accommodation will provide the staff of the central office of the Australian Bureau of Statistics with a work environment that is more functionally effective and space efficient. The project developer has provided the Australian Bureau of Statistics with a guaranteed maximum price for the fit-out, based on the fit-out brief, of $22.8 million. Subject to parliamentary approval, this fit-out project will be fully integrated with the construction of the new building, under the management of the project developer, to maximise cost savings and to minimise construction time. Fit-out works will commence on site in December 2000 for completion in March 2002. I commend the motion to the House.Question resolved in the affirmative.186551865517:06:0018655Mr SLIPPER,MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration10—I move:That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, 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.The CSIRO proposes to construct a new research laboratory complex to be known as the CSIRO Energy Centre and to be located at Steel River Eco-Industrial Park at Newcastle, in the state of New South Wales. The proposed works will provide new research and support facilities for the CSIRO Division of Energy Technology, capable of accommodating a total of 110 research and support staff. Existing staff will transfer from accommodation at North Ryde and Lucas Heights, also in New South Wales, and new staff will be appointed to expand research activities. The research resources of the division are presently located on four sites in three states: North Ryde, New South Wales—the division headquarters; Lucas Heights, New South Wales; Pinjarra Hills, Queensland—the Queensland Centre for Advanced Technology; and Clayton, Victoria. The CSIRO proposes to terminate all of the division's operations at the North Ryde site and relocate all activities to the `centre'. Research associated with most of the pilot scale energy projects presently undertaken at Lucas Heights will also be relocated. The establishment of the CSIRO Energy Centre in Newcastle will provide a focal point for research excellence, particularly in the fields of cost competitive and environmentally acceptable coal production, sustainable energy—including energy storage and renewable energy—and the environmental impacts of energy, particularly those associated with greenhouse gas emissions.The CSIRO Energy Centre will provide a venue for collaboration between the CSIRO, universities—particularly the University of Newcastle—government agencies, resource companies and associated technology suppliers and providers in Australian energy industries. This centre will include chemistry and dry laboratories, equipment and instrument rooms, offices for management, administration and senior research staff, and other research related work areas. Amenities will include a display space highlighting advances in energy technologies, an auditorium, meeting rooms, library and a canteen. It will also incorporate large process bays. These are high, open-plan industrial type buildings for research conducted at a semi-industrial pilot scale. Research support areas such as stores, workshops and sample preparation areas will be provided. The proposed development will also include site works, roadworks, hardstands, car parking, engineering and communication services and landscaping. The CSIRO Energy Centre will uniquely demonstrate leading edge but commercially practical examples of reduction in building energy demand and environmentally realistic energy supply options. The establishment of the CSIRO Energy Centre in Newcastle will provide benefits to current and potential customers of CSIRO, to the Newcastle region and to CSIRO staff. Customer benefits of the relocation include: better access to world-class facilities for conducting research into energy generation using hybrid energy systems; closer collaboration with existing power generation and coal companies which are located in the Newcastle region; scope to demonstrate the capabilities of new energy technologies and how they can be integrated into existing energy supply systems; and the possibility of working with small and medium companies in a technology park environment at the Steel River site as these companies emerge to develop new products for the sustainable energy market. Benefits to the Newcastle region will be threefold. Economic benefits will consist of the initial construction cost of the buildings and the ongoing direct and multiplier benefits of the salary and operating cost of the division. Social benefits will arise from the jobs created during the construction phase and the injection of a trained work force into the region's growing knowledge economy. Environmental benefits will include the opportunity to demonstrate energy efficient building construction techniques and leading edge energy generation within the same complex. Community consultation with local councillors and residents has been continuous. A number of community presentations seeking input have been made and further presentations are proposed for August or September. Local councillors, led by the lord mayor, have been extremely supportive of the proposal. Staff benefits will include a new focused working environment and new capabilities, together with lower cost housing, reduced commuting times and increased amenity as a result of the regional environment. Formal consultation has taken place with all staff, the majority of whom are happy to relocate. There has been no vocal dissent from staff. The CSIRO has secured sufficient land on the Steel River Eco-Industrial Park to accommodate its anticipated requirements for the proposal and for further second stage development. The estimated turnout cost of the proposal is $28 million, of which $10 million will be provided as a grant by the New South Wales government. Subject to parliamentary approval, tenders are scheduled to be called in early 2001, with completion of the works by mid-2002.I commend the motion to the House.17:12:0018656Morris, Allan, MPMr ALLAN MORRISFI4NewcastleALP00—I would like to join with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration in offering my support for this motion to refer this matter to the Public Works Committee. Members will be aware that, in the wake of the termination of steel making in Newcastle, Newcastle's strengths in science and research are becoming more important and certainly more visible. The CSIRO decision to engage itself with the Newcastle community in the lead-up to this decision and the determination to locate their energy centre has been excellent. Newcastle provides a base for the power station industry in New South Wales and, therefore, largely the energy industry. The Newcastle university has extremely strong research skills in energy and related fields, as do other organisations—in particular, of course, the BHP's research centre laboratories. This provides a natural synergy for the CSIRO in establishing its new centre, and I am absolutely confident that this particular facility will have enormous national significance.CSIRO's submission to the Public Works Committee is comprehensive and highlights the matters raised by the parliamentary secretary. It particularly provides a focal point for research excellence in the field of environmentally acceptable fossil fuel research and development, sustainable energy and the environmental impacts of energy. The building will incorporate in a number of forms passive energy features for the conservation of energy, including: optimum orientation for heating and cooling; the maximum use of daylight; high efficiency artificial light fixtures; maximum use of natural ventilation; underfloor airconditioning and low velocity air plenum; variable speed pumps and fans; and dedicated energy management. It is estimated that the energy used by the building will be one-third to a half of that of a conventional building providing the same space. I think that demonstration in itself will be extremely important for the building and housing industries in the years ahead. The building will also incorporate a number of active energy systems ranging from fuel cells to wind turbines, photovoltaic arrays, natural gas turbine and battery power storage. The building will contain, as I have stated, a range of energy features to conserve energy and a range of energy generators of various kinds.The CSIRO, particularly Mr John Wright and his team, have been excellent in their liaison with my community and the broader community in the Hunter. This project has very strong state government support, as indicated by their financial support. It also has very strong community and local government support. The three tiers of government working together on this project have been laudable and it is a model which we hope to use in future. In referring the matter to the Public Works Committee, I offer committee members every encouragement to visit Newcastle, to examine the site where this facility will be located. Steel River site has great potential for our national development and this is the first major project going into that park. I am aware that the committee is hardworking with a great deal on its plate, but I am sure they would find a visit to Newcastle interesting. To allow the Newcastle community to express itself in a more formal and closer up sense on this project would be appreciated. It is with great pleasure and a great deal of optimism that I support this motion. I have every confidence in the committee in the work that lies ahead of it.186571865717:17:0018657Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration10—I move:That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Construction of mixed residential dwellings at block 87, section 24, Stirling in the Australian Capital Territory.The Defence Housing Authority proposes the construction of 50 mixed residential dwellings in the Canberra suburb of Stirling. The role of the Defence Housing Authority is to provide suitable housing to meet the operational needs of the Australian Defence Force and the requirements of the Department of Defence. The Defence Housing Authority satisfies Defence accommodation requirements by a mixture of spot purchase, direct leasing and development and construction.At present, Canberra is home to some 1,800 Defence families. Around 1,300 of these families are housed in Defence Housing Authority managed houses with the remainder of the requirement met by use of short-term leases and payment of rental allowance at additional expense to the government. There are few suitable established residences available for `spot' purchase in conveniently located suburbs and the rental market is very tight. The development and construction option is also somewhat constrained. Overall, land supply is limited, particularly in the established suburbs of Canberra.In recognition of the importance to Canberra of the Defence Housing Authority's investment in housing in the Australian Capital Territory, the ACT government agreed, in December 1999, to offer the Defence Housing Authority an undeveloped site in the suburb of Stirling. The land is well suited to this defence need. The proposal is to develop housing for Defence families in a quality urban design development. These residences will provide the level of amenity suitable for middle to senior ranking officers in a location that is ideally situated to support defence facilities in the ACT.The development will take the form of a subdivision of a site that will create 50 dwellings comprising a mixture of detached housing, townhouses and courtyard housing. The mix will cater for a range of group rank entitlements and provide a reasonable choice for families with different preferences and lifestyle requirements. The proposed project will have a positive effect on the local economy during the construction period, with up to 150 persons working directly on the site and many more off-site supplying material, plant and equipment. Construction of an additional 50 houses in Stirling will provide a boost for local businesses.This project will make a contribution to the ACT government's commitment to high quality urban renewal in the older areas of Canberra, where existing social and physical infrastructure would benefit from new families and quality housing. The estimated out-turn cost of the proposal is $11.5 million. Subject to parliamentary approval, construction is expected to commence in October 2000, with completion of the works by the end of June 2001. I commend the motion to the House. 17:20:0018658Ellis, Annette, MPMs ELLIS5K6CanberraALP00—It gives me pleasure to speak on this motion. I will take the opportunity to make a couple of important points in relation to the development. Whilst the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration has not made direct mention of the location of this development in relation to the co-location of Joint Services College in Weston, there is a very distinct connection between the two projects. I have had the pleasure of attending at least one public meeting that I can recall, conducted by the local Weston Creek Community Council earlier this year, where the issue was discussed. The potential for this particular project was outlined to the local community and related very directly to the co-location of the Joint Services College at Weston, a project which I have previously spoken about in this House and have welcomed very warmly from my electorate's point of view.I want to make a couple of points in a constructive way. In my opinion, as the local member, the development is very welcome. I know that discussions that have been held within the local community, in general terms, have been positive but I do need to note for the sake of those people who hold a particular position that there is a small number of local residents who have outlined some concerns, not about the project itself but about some ramifications that could be felt within the local region, particularly in the relationship to road safety and road access to the area. I know that this subject has been brought up in those local community meetings, with some gusto at times.I would like to point out to the parliamentary secretary—and I am sure it will be carried out—the need for the Commonwealth, through the Defence Housing Authority, to work in close conjunction with the ACT authorities to ensure that, wherever that responsibility falls, the costs lay and the need ends, those particular aspects of the project are attended to to allow a seamless and trouble free adoption of this particular project. It is welcome. Weston Creek, where Stirling is located, is an area that has been there for some years now, and the injection of families and economy through a housing development of this kind is obviously going to be very welcome. I know that the local schools in the area are not at all unhappy to see this happening. I am sure that it is safe to say with no risk that the local small businesses are also going to be very happy to see a project of this kind undertaken. I am sure that those people who are welcoming it, as I am, are doing it in the same light as they did when the Joint Services College announcement was made. I would like to reiterate that there are some, to us maybe minor but to the people who live there relatively major, considerations that need to be worked on in relation to road access and road safety. I do not know whether the Joint Public Works Committee are going to have the opportunity to visit the area to have a look at this project, but seeing as it is only just down the road I would like to encourage them to do so so that they can actually see the point that I am making.Putting that traffic issue aside, I think this is a very good project. It is going to offer an injection into the housing industry here in the post-GST rush period which may also prove to be quite timely as well, particularly when we consider that so many of our building industry people in the past year or two have been finding greener pastures in Sydney, where something big is happening in September. I would like to thank the parliamentary secretary for his advice of this issue to me earlier today. I acknowledge that quite happily. I do wish the project every success and I do look forward particularly to seeing a collegiate approach between the Commonwealth and the ACT government authorities in relation to all or any of those issues that I have raised that may be of concern to the local community. I would like to reiterate that this is a welcome project that we do encourage.17:25:0018658Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration10—I thank the honourable member for Canberra for her contribution. I want to assure her, as she in fact said, that there has been widespread consultation in the local community. The Stirling development proposals have been published in local newspapers and publicised in the Canberra Times, and public meetings have been held. The issues raised at the public meetings and subsequently have mainly concerned traffic arrangements, which are being addressed in conjunction with the ACT Department of Urban Services. There has been widespread consultation with large numbers of organisations, none of which are opposed to the development proposal. My understanding is that local residents have raised their concerns over increased vehicular traffic and the need for traffic calming arrangements on adjacent streets. These issues will be addressed in the design of the Stirling development and in conjunction with ACT roads and traffic section and ACTION. Question resolved in the affirmative.Adjournment18659Motion (by Mr Slipper) agreed to:That the House, at its rising, adjourn until Monday, 14 August 2000, at 12.30 p.m., unless the Speaker or, in the event of the Speaker being unavailable, the Deputy Speaker, fixes an alternative day or hour of meeting.Leave of Absence18659Motion (by Mr Slipper) agreed to:That leave of absence be given to every Member of the House of Representatives from the determination of this sitting of the House to the date of its next sitting.Committees18659186591865905:22:0018659Nehl, Garry, MPMr NEHLAE4CowperNP10I present the amended report of the Selection Committee relating to the consideration of committee and delegation reports and private members' business on Monday 14 August 2000. Report—by leave—adopted.The report read as follows—Amended report relating to the consideration of committee and delegation reports and private Members' business on Monday, 14 August 2000The Selection Committee has amended its determinations relating to the order of precedence and times to be allotted for consideration of committee and delegation reports and private Members' business on Monday, 14 August 2000. The amended order of precedence and allotments of time determined by the Committee are shown in the list.COMMITTEE AND DELEGATION REPORTSPresentation and statements1 PROCEDURE—STANDING COMMIT-TEE: Report on review of the Main Committee.The Committee determined that statements on the report be made —all statements to be concluded by 12.50 p.m.Speech time limits —Each Member —5 minutes.[Proposed Members speaking = 4 x 5 mins]2 EMPLOYMENT, EDUCATION AND WORKPLACE RELATIONS—STANDING COMMITTEE: Report on issues specific to mature-age workers: Age counts.The Committee determined that statements on the report be made —all statements to be concluded by 1.10 p.m.Speech time limits —Each Member —5 minutes.[Proposed Members speaking = 4 x 5 mins]PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESSOrder of precedenceNotices3J4Sawford, Rod, MPMr Sawford to move—That this House acknowledges the dangers of the marketisation of education in Australia and its potential to normalise inequality for families in rural Australia, for families with disabled children, for families with children with behavioural difficulties and for families of children in depressed socio-economic areas. (Notice given 4 April 2000.)The Committee determined that debate conclude by 1.30 p.m.Speech time limits —Mover of motion —10 minutes.First Government Member speaking —10 minutes.[Proposed Members speaking = 2 x 10 mins]The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.AE4Nehl, Garry, MPMr Nehl to move—That the House:(1) acknowledges the great need to help the Tibetan people cope with the devastating impact of Iodine Deficiency Disorders; and (2) applauds the AusAID program launched in Lhasa on 18 May 2000 which will transform the health profile of the Tibetan people. (Notice given 9 May 2000.)Time allotted —private Members' business time prior to 1.45 p.m..Speech time limits —Mover of motion —10 minutes.First Opposition Member speaking —5 minutes.[Proposed Members speaking = 1 x 10 mins, 1 x 5 mins]The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.UU5Horne, Bob, MPMr Horne to move—That a Standing Committee on Legal Affairs and Ethics be appointed to inquire into whether to permit human surrogacy in Australia and, if so:(1) under what terms and conditions surrogacy should be legalised; and(2) the legal, ethical, moral and religious framework by which legal agreements could be drawn up to allow human surrogacy to take place giving maximum legal safeguards to all people involved. (Notice given 8 December 1999.)Time allotted —30 minutes.Speech time limits —Mover of motion —10 minutes.First Government Member speaking —10 minutes.Other Members —5 minutes each.[Proposed Members speaking = 2 x 10 mins, 2 x 5 mins]The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.3K6Cameron, Ross, MPMr Ross Cameron to move—That this House:(1) acknowledges the significance of the Paralympic Games as the second largest sporting event in the world in 2000;(2) applauds the example of our elite paralympic athletes in keeping alive the best sporting traditions of honour, excellence and competition; and(3) records its appreciation to the people of the ACT and NSW for their generous support of the Paralympics throughout the 2000 Pollie Pedal bike ride from Parliament House, Canberra, to the Sydney Town Hall. (Notice given 7 June 2000.)Time allotted —remaining private Members' business time.Speech time limits —Mover of motion —10 minutes.First Opposition Member speaking —10 minutes.Other Members —5 minutes each.[Proposed Members speaking = 2 x 10 mins, 2 x 5 mins]The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.186601866005:22:0018660Lieberman, Lou, MPMr LIEBERMANXU5IndiLP10—I present the 17th report from the Publications Committee sitting in conference with the Publications Committee of the Senate.Ordered that the report be printed.Bills18660R106118660Bill returned from the Senate, with amendments.Ordered that the amendments be taken into consideration forthwith.Senate's amendments—(1) Schedule 1, item 3, page 5 (line 35) to page 6 (line 4), omit subsection (4), substitute:Exceptions (4) The rule in subsection (2) does not apply to a *business activity for an income year if: (a) the activity is a *primary production business, or a *professional arts business; and (b) your assessable income for that year (except any *net capital gain) from other sources that do not relate to that activity is less than $40,000. (5) A professional arts business is a *business you carry on as: (a) the author of a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work; orNote: The expression “author” is a technical term from copyright law. In general, the “author” of a musical work is its composer and the “author” of an artistic work is the artist, sculptor or photographer who created it. (b) a *performing artist; or (c) a *production associate.(2) Schedule 1, page 11 (after line 3), after item 3, insert:3A Subsection 995-1(1)Insert:professional arts business has the meaning given by section 35-10. 17:29:0018661Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration10—I move:That the amendments be agreed to.In the other place, the Australian Democrats moved an amendment to provide an exemption from the operation of the non-commercial losses measure included in the New Business Tax System (Integrity Measures) Bill 2000. The government supports that amendment. The exemption will apply to individuals carrying on a professional arts business whose assessable income from sources other than their professional arts business in that year is less than $40,000, excluding net capital gains.Debate interrupted; adjournment proposed and negatived.0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER—The $40,000 threshold for artists, as with that applying to primary producers, will not be indexed. The passage of this bill today will mean that important integrity measures recommended by the Ralph Review of Business Taxation, and accepted by the government, will become law. These integrity measures are part of the government's broader business tax reforms, which include capital gains tax cuts, company tax cuts, scrip for scrip roll-over relief and refunds of imputation credits.17:31:0018661Kerr, Duncan, MPMr KERRRH4DenisonALP00—On the last occasion this bill, the New Business Tax System (Integrity Measures) Bill 2000, was before the House, the Minister for the Arts and the Centenary of Federation, Mr McGauran, sneered at my comment that both he and I had been the subject of thousands of representations from artists who were concerned about the way in which these particular measures would affect those who quite legitimately were pursuing their interests as artists and who were not, under any plausible understanding of the nature of this legislation, the intended targets of its attempt to prevent the exploitation of loopholes for tax avoidance. The opposition made the point that artists in Australia occupy a particularly significant role culturally but they are not well remunerated. The average income that artists receive is less than $20,000. There are various figures that are canvassed. Some suggest that the average income of those who are professionally engaged in the arts is as low as something just over $10,000, but certainly it is less than $20,000. The inevitable practice of people seeking entry to the arts is that they are forced to take second jobs whilst they seek to obtain recognition within their profession. It is common for those who wish to be painters, artists, dancers, whatever you wish, to take jobs washing dishes, working in restaurants, tutoring in art schools—a range of different employment occupations—so that they can sustain their burning ambition to enter the lexicon of the Australian arts world and become recognised as a star within it. Many will not succeed, but that dream, that vision, is what sustains them and what sustains us as a community. Their success or failure either enhances us or diminishes us. This legislation, unamended, would have diminished Australia and would have diminished the way in which artists are entitled to the respect of their fellow Australians. The amendments that we foreshadowed we would be supporting when the bill came before the Senate are now passed. In these circumstances, of course, there was always a contest to claim credit for forcing the government into the backflip that it has now undertaken. I think it is proper to recognise that the first person to speak out loudly and publicly in relation to this matter was Senator Bob Brown. His representation on behalf of artists was important in terms of changing the public dynamics, but the suggestion by him at one point that Labor was uninterested in this matter I reject entirely. When you ask whether the Labor Party is in favour of artists, it is like asking whether a zebra has stripes, or whether a tiger has an appetite for flesh or is a vegetarian. Of course a tiger has an appetite for flesh. Is the Labor Party keen in supporting artists? Yes, of course it is. R36Albanese, Anthony, MPMr Albanese—Does a Liberal have family trusts?RH4Kerr, Duncan, MPMr KERR—It is the same issue. The Labor Party has always been the party that has committed itself to the importance of the arts, not only for cultural reasons in our community, not only for the vibrancy that they bring to our community but also because of the economic advantages which they lead Australia towards. As we increasingly become a knowledge based nation where education and the arts will contribute towards our economic success, the importance of the arts increases, not diminishes. The legislation as proposed by this government would have driven out of practice many people who we need to thrive in order that we are both a thriving community culturally and economically. In the end, the Democrats came to the party and moved away from the deal they had secured with the government on the GST and now seek their place in the sun also. Fine, and we all accept that that is in the nature of politics. The last people who should get any credit in this process are the government, whose minister sat at the table when this bill was being debated sneering at the representations that were being pressed on his party. They have been forced now in the Senate to a humiliating backdown, which we welcome. (Time expired)17:36:0018662Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration10—Very briefly, the honourable member for Denison noted that the average income of artists is less than $40,000 in many cases, and this will mean that they will benefit from the exemption that the government has agreed to. As I said earlier, the government is pleased that this bill will pass, including the provisions relating to artists.17:36:0018662Andren, Peter, MPMr ANDRENKL6CalareIND00—In supporting these amendments pertaining to artists, I want to draw attention to the debate in the other place on this particular legislation, the New Business Tax System (Integrity Measures) Bill 2000. In his contribution to the second reading debate on the bill in the Senate on Tuesday, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, Senator Cook, said, among other things:I want to say that the farming exemption here has some merit. But the objection I have to it is that it still allows wealthy lawyers, doctors or stockbrokers who have a hobby farm in the country valued in excess of half a million dollars or have assets other than their motor vehicles on their property in excess of $100,000 to escape the provisions of this bill. But struggling small farmers that do not meet that qualification are caught. There ought to be some regard for the equity element of that issue.I realise there are four hurdles over which those people have to jump, but during the same debate Senator Woodley, for the Democrats, also stated:As they stand, I am concerned these `integrity measures' will penalise many genuine small farming enterprises, but allow many of the `hobby farmers' they supposedly target, to continue to deduct farm-losses from off-farm income. Unfortunately, while at least some in the Labor Party and the Democrats now realise the problems inherent in this bill, here we have amendments not addressing those issues at all but addressing only the interests of artists by expanding them to the $40,000 off-farm income limit. While now acknowledging the flaws in the bill, both the opposition and the Democrats seem resigned to its passage. The Labor Party is resigned to passing it because it is apparently compelled to do so after signing on blindly to the Ralph package, signing on without even sighting this and the other integrity measures. Despite all the rhetoric and talk of country Labor, when this bill was debated in this place I do not recall one word from Labor raising concerns about the possible impact of this bill on regional communities, nor was there a word about its potential impacts on the environment—impacts I brought to the attention of the Senate committee a week or so ago and which were noted by Senator Watson, I think it was, as significant.I wonder whether any of the parties who have considered this have seen how many members of the genuine farming community work off farm—carting hay, harvesting, teaching, nursing, working in factories or whatever—pumping much of that money back into their properties. I asked the minister a question about this very issue yesterday and I have sent him details of one case, at his invitation, which quite clearly, in my estimation, shows that a genuine fourth generation—not third as I said—young farmer trying to get a property up and running so he can turn that into his full-time venture—almost going to sleep on the assembly line at the Uncle Ben petfood factory, I might say, while trying to generate the income flow to keep that property viable—is reliant on the tax write-offs—and not for a lifestyle purpose, as the hobby farmer buying a half a million dollar property at Bowral might enjoy in those shires that have those four per cent of properties that are over the half a million dollar valuation in Australia. So there are a huge number of people out there affected. There are rural supply businesses who have come to me with the sorts of figures that show how they expect to be severely impacted by this. There is a major environmental problem out there with serrated tussock in the tablelands. The irony of this is that this legislation, in my estimation, is going to assist purchasing for non-active involvement in farming by people coming out of tax avoidance situations in city employ. They are not doing a dashed thing about that serrated tussock problem on those properties, whereas one particular small property owner who has brought this problem to my attention has brought home to me that his part-time off-farm work is in fact a weed spraying business which generates more than the $40,000 a year and yet he, too, on his small property is, he believes, not able to meet the requirements of this. I realise there are start-up provisions in here for smaller operations, smaller orchards and so on. But, in terms of long-lasting farms run by third or fourth generation farmers, there is real concern that there are many people out there who are legitimate in their endeavours in primary production but are going to be wiped off the slate by this particular legislation. I would ask the minister at the table to respond to those points. In fact, I ask if there has been any response from the minister for agriculture's office on the particular case I drew to his attention yesterday.17:41:0018663Kerr, Duncan, MPMr KERRRH4DenisonALP00—There are a number of particular points that I should address simply to conclude. Firstly, there have been a substantial number of representations from artists seeking assurances that the amendments that we would be supporting would cover not just visual artists but the range of those in other creative activity—writers, musicians, performing artists and the like. The amendments actually do achieve that objective, and that is a very important objective. There have also been representations that the $40,000 limit that applies to the income level against which art losses could be written off should be indexed. That has not been picked up in this legislation, so obviously it will be important for a future Labor government to watch this carefully to see that the real value of this exemption is not eroded over time. That is a matter on which I am certain those in the artistic community will continue to make representations, to both the current government and to Labor, when it forms government after the next election.Finally, might I say that one of the disappointing ironies of this whole debate was that, on the same day that the Prime Minister spoke announcing the composition of a new council to look at the status of artists and to respond to the findings of the Saatchi inquiry—commissioned by the Australia Council into the way in which the arts were perceived by Australians—and indicating the importance of the creative enterprises to his government, outside there had to be a demonstration of those in practice in the arts who had not yet received any undertaking from the government that their concerns in relation to this legislation would be addressed. And I have no doubt whatsoever that, had it not been for the views of the alternative government—the Labor Party—indicating that we were proposing to support changes in this area and that there was a Senate majority that would force the changes that have now come forward, this government would never have moved from its initial position in relation to this legislation.The proof of the pudding was plain when the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, with no seeming regard to the irony of his position, belittled the number of representations that he had received in relation to this matter when the matter was before the House. The combined effect of the lobbying of those in the creative communities and the fact that there was a united front among the opposition parties—the alternative government, the Labor Party, and the Greens and the Democrats—forced the government to have this rethink. The government should get no cheer on this from anyone in the community. It is simply a recognition of the political facts of life that the Senate would not have passed its legislation in the form it proposed it. We welcome the fact that the legislation will be proceeding in its amended form, and we say to the government that it needs to listen much more carefully to the communities that will be affected by its tax legislation before it acts. This is just one more example of unintended, adverse consequences not being faced up to by a government that has not been prepared to accept that its legislative agenda is going to cost many millions of Australians dearly. Australians will pay dearly as the government seeks to introduce this destructive and stupid agenda of tax changes against the commitments it made prior to the last election. It was deceitful. A remedy has been achieved for this particular problem, but this legislation will do nothing about the larger damage to the arts community caused by the GST—additional costs that the arts community will bear and additional expenses that will be passed on to patrons of the arts. (Time expired)17:46:0018664Andren, Peter, MPMr ANDRENKL6CalareIND00—I want to add a few quick words to put on record my concerns. The regional impact of the New Business Tax System (Integrity Measures) Bill 2000 has not been properly considered, notwithstanding the amendments that we are considering here. As Treasury stated in the Senate committee inquiry, they have not looked beyond the integrity aspects of this bill. The environmental and social consequences were, it appears, a mystery to them. But a tax does not exist solely in an economy; it exists in a society—a society where people have planned their lives in reliance on the current arrangements. As I said, this concerns people who have been farmers over many generations; in fact, a fourth generation farmer has brought his concerns about this to me.The government has recognised that with the GST—but not, it seems, with these measures—people plan their lives on the proposed arrangements and so on. But, in this case, people are caught by an existing set of plans that involves their families and their off-farm income and that will mean that they will not qualify, they believe, under the so-called hobby farm arrangement. I also note that when the Prime Minister made his tour of regional Australia earlier this year he gave an assurance that from that point on all government policies would be tested for their regional impact prior to becoming law. I am not satisfied that this has happened in this case, particularly in reference to the points that I have been making. We may not be talking about megabucks, but we are talking about many people's lives, not only the lives of those in the primary sector but the lives of all those people who provide services to those currently accessing the deductions. I ask all members from regional areas this: when the property prices in your areas drop as a consequence of this, when your rural supplies stores come complaining about further drops in sales, will you tell them how you did not even read the bill, how you did not speak to the debate and how you just sat where you were told and let this slide through?17:48:0018664Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration10—In my earlier presentation, I pointed out that the government is pleased that New Business Tax System (Integrity Measures) Bill 2000, including the provisions relating to artists, will pass. I do not intend to comment further on the remarks made by the honourable member for Denison. The government's commitment in this area is well known, and we are particularly pleased with the arrangements which have been entered into and which will pass into law with the passage of this legislation.The bill before the chamber deals with the issue of non-commercial losses and is in line with the recommendations of the review of business tax. The review recommended the criteria which were included in the bill, and I note in relation to the contribution made by the honourable member for Calare that only businesses can offset their losses against other income such as wages and value. Farmers who are not in business do not have access to this. I might also say that, in recognition of the fact that many farmers work off farm while genuinely seeking to pursue farming, they will be exempt from the provisions where they have off-farm income of less than $40,000. The honourable member for Denison bleated about Australia's new tax system, which was voted for by the Australian people at the last election. In just about 30 hours time, this new tax system will come in. It is very important that all of us focus on the fact that the Australian people have voted for this. The government is implementing its mandate, and, come Saturday, there will be $12 billion of tax cuts, with over 80 per cent of Australians paying no more than 30 cents in the dollar. Labor's wholesale sales tax and a number of other taxes will be scrapped. There will be boosts in pensions and benefits. There will be compensation for retirees. In effect, Australia will be a whole lot better off come 1 July because we are the government which was prepared to do something that should have happened very many years ago. I commend the motion to the chamber.17:51:0018665O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr O'CONNORWU5CorioALP00—The New Business Tax System (Integrity Measures) Bill 2000 contains some provisions that will have an adverse impact on the rural sector. It is another example of the government bringing legislation into this House the implications of which have not been thought through clearly. I commend the honourable member for Calare for the work that he has done in alerting the farming community in his electorate—and across Australia—to the provisions of this bill and how they are going to adversely affect the farming community.KL6Andren, Peter, MPMr Andren—Why did you sign off on it?WU5O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr O'CONNOR—The simple explanation is this: this is a part of the government's taxation measures in total. We went to the Australian community at the last election opposing the GST and we made that opposition quite plain. When it came to the business taxation area, we have simply said to the government, `This is your work and at the end of the day you have to bear the responsibility for the implications involved with your legislation.'We have here a situation where the government has introduced measures that may well penalise genuine farmers who are forced, by the nature of their enterprises and the state of their industry, to seek off-farm income. We know that this is a government that has curtailed the opportunities of farmers, their spouses and their family members to obtain meaningful off-farm income, with the cuts to services that have taken place in rural and regional Australia since this government was elected. There has been a massive assault on rural and regional Australia. There has been a significant curtailment of stable job opportunities in those sectors of the rural and regional economy where farmers, their spouses and their family members could gain some meaningful work and be remunerated in a substantial way. Indeed, when you look at the structure of farming today in Australia you will see that this particular sector forms a very important part of the overall stability of rural Australia and plays a very important part in keeping people on their farms, until either those farms are restructured or better times appear in their industry.We can appreciate the arguments that have been mounted by the government because we know that in the past these sorts of measures have been used by some people in the community to minimise their tax. The government having brought this particular legislation into being must bear the consequence that it will curtail the opportunity of many people on farm to earn an off-farm income and keep their farming enterprises operational. It is very clear in the sum total of measures in the new tax package that the farming community is going to be adversely affected, both on the GST side and on the business taxation side. But I say to the honourable member for Calare and I say to the honourable members opposite: this is the government's own work and it will be held responsible for it by those people in the farming community that are caught in this legislation and by the rural sector generally.17:55:0018666Kerr, Duncan, MPMr KERRRH4DenisonALP00—Before I conclude, I should also recognise the important role that was played by a number of arts organisations in the campaign that secured passage of these amendments. Firstly, I understand the Australia Council made representations to the government, quietly behind the scenes, and unfortunately was not listened to. Then there were the public campaigns. They were sponsored in the first place by NAVA, the National Association of the Visual Arts, and they certainly drew together a large coalition of artists who were very concerned about the impact of the proposed amendments on their practice. This was enhanced by the work of the Arts Law Centre. The Arts Law Centre proposed a number of specific amendments and liaised with the various parties in the Senate and me to seek our support of those measures. A draft originating from the Arts Law Centre was finally the basis for the amendments we have before us today. Then there was the Australian Society of Authors and a number of other arts organisations of a traditional nature. A specific new organisation was established to fight this campaign, called WAAR. I think it is an acronym for Writers, Artists Against Ralph. I had better check that because I am doing this off the top of my head. They organised a number of rallies and people like Parr and Cullen, prominent Australian artists in the visual field, spoke at those rallies together with new and rising artists who will make their mark in Australia in the future because of the fact that this campaign was successful. Many of those people who were demonstrating in Sydney, Brisbane, outside the parliament here and in other capital cities would have been forced out of the industry but for the success of this campaign. Finally, I might say that the nature of this campaign demonstrates a subtle shift in the way that politics is conducted. If you had read the newspapers you would hardly have known that there was an issue of public importance in contention in the public sphere. These issues were mentioned a couple of times in the inner pages of some of our metropolitan papers. But if you were to simply judge the importance of an issue by the amount of publicity it received on television and radio and in the press, you would have thought that this issue was inconsequential. It was not. It was because this campaign was mounted through the Internet. We all received thousands and thousands of representations through that means. The network of interested parties, including these different organisations—NAVA, the Arts Law Centre, WAAR, the Australian Society of Authors—created through email, and the pressure they were able to secure through their collective working together, is an interesting thing for us to reflect on. We realise that there are new and novel ways in which the democratic process is actually working in our society.However, it does have some downsides. In a sense, this campaign was a subterranean one, and that took it out of the gaze of the larger public. Whilst I think this was an entirely beneficial and beneficent campaign, you can imagine a campaign with less noble motives also being conducted in a similar way. We should reflect on the fact that you can bring tremendous pressure to bear through modern communications without ever appearing in a substantial way in the free-to-air media or in the newspapers—the places where we normally get our news.I recognise and respect the work of those people. While this may not mark the first such occasion, as there may have been previous occasions when similar campaigns were conducted in this way, it certainly marks a coming of age of the campaigning impact of the new technologies. All the individuals associated with it should be congratulated. (Time expired)18:00:0018666Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration10—On a number of occasions I thought that this debate on the New Business Tax System (Integrity Measures) Bill 2000 was going to conclude. I found the thoughtful pontification by the honourable member for Denison on the democratic process at this late hour most interesting. Perhaps the honourable member may consider that he is being paid by the word.In conclusion, I want to stress that, as I have mentioned before, farmers with less than $40,000 in off-farm income will not be affected by the measure. This means that a farming partnership—for example, a husband and wife—could in each case earn $40,000 from off-farm work without having to meet any of the other criteria in the bill. The criteria in the bill are based on the Ralph review recommendations, and they include start-up provisions as well as criteria relating to turnover, assets and property. It should also be noted that the commissioner can take into account special circumstances which are beyond the control of the taxpayer, such as drought and flood. I commend the amendments to the chamber. Question resolved in the affirmative. Committees18667186671866718:02:0018667Somlyay, Alex, MPMr SOMLYAYZT4FairfaxLP10—As required by resolutions of the House, I table copies of notifications of alterations of interests and a statement of registrable interests received during the period 17 April 2000 to 28 June 2000.Bills18667S20918667Debate resumed.18:03:0018667Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr LAURIE FERGUSON8T4ReidALP00—As I indicated before question time, the Environment and Heritage Legislation Amendment Bill 2000 legislation seeks to legislate in relation to the 1996 protocol to the Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter. This stems from Australia's 1985 ratification of the London convention. The main aspects of the bill, as indicated before, are a search for alternatives, a new stress on technology to counter the need for dumping, and some recognition of the difficulties of island states such as Kiribati, Tuvalu and Nauru, which would find it very difficult to fully implement this change. The main fundamental alteration is the drift towards banning substances. Originally in the 1973 agreement there were various levels of warrants or permission for dumping. It has been understood in the interim period that a number of materials that were previously allowed cannot be diluted. There was a concept that some things would be diluted if you dumped them in the ocean, and so things like asbestos, car tyres, et cetera, were allowed. This legislation, and the protocol itself, turn the emphasis very strongly away from those specific dumping and general permits to say that essentially the materials that should be allowed to be dumped should be listed. The protocol speaks of dredge material, sewerage sludge, fish waste or material resulting from industrial fish processing, et cetera—ad nauseam. They are specifically listed, thus obviously implying that those not listed cannot be dumped.I will not reiterate at great length the Labor Party's main points of objection to this bill. We fundamentally support the need to initiate into Australian legislation the understandings of this convention, but Labor has stressed a number of points. The first point is the concern that, if we do not clearly delineate exactly what can be utilised for the construction of artificial reefs, that might provide a loophole. The second point is—and I notice that the member for Lowe very heavily concentrated on this in his contribution to this debate—the question of the precautionary principle. That says that essentially activities should be prevented where it appears that wastes are likely to cause harm, even if at this stage in the history of technological and scientific knowledge we cannot fully prove that it will be harmful. There should still be an emphasis on precaution, care and concern about possibilities, rather than, as this bill says—as I understand it—that the minister will make a decision as to whether it is specifically harmful. They are the main two emphases of the Labor Party's questioning of this legislation.I now turn to the contribution of the member for Rankin. He obviously has had a long-term involvement in environmental matters. He proffered the hope that in this area of environment we could perhaps be non-partisan and deal with these matters in an objective and rational fashion. I cannot be as confident as he is about the coalition's attitude and their search for genuine bipartisanship in this field. Even at a time when the National Farmers Federation and the Australian Conservation Foundation are coming together about the question of salinity and deforestation, I do not think we can have the same confidence in the government and its attitude. I particularly note a speech by Senator Hill on 30 March this year to the Financial Review's third annual emissions conference. At that conference, Senator Hill, who has had quite a few defeats in the government's engine room over environmental matters—most recently over his attempt to bring in triggers—was at pains to damp down the industrial push about the Kyoto protocol. The current Prime Minister has been doing his impersonation of Horatio Bottomley, running around with the flag in jingoistic fashion and relying on false nationalism, saying, `We are the strongest government in the world. We are going to preserve every job. We will take no cognisance of our international responsibilities. We will not worry about climate change.' He is not going to worry about emissions as long as he can run around and pretend to people that Australia can close its eyes and that he can claim, using that very false nationalism, that his preoccupation is with jobs.The problem now is that the government's ridiculous position, which has misled the public and industry, has reached a stage where some sectors of industry actually think that the government can further roll back the Kyoto protocol. In a speech on 30 March, Senator Hill stated:... the Howard government worked very hard to ensure that the Kyoto Protocol gave recognition to Australia's special circumstances.He continued to recommend ratification of the Kyoto protocol because if it failed another process would transpire and there:... would be no guarantee that this new process would take into account our national circumstances in the way we were able to achieve in Kyoto.Senator Hill was trying to get the message across that, just because the Prime Minister carries on about how strong his government is in ignoring an international crisis in climate change and the scientific evidence that has been marshalled around that matter, at the end of the day Kyoto cannot be rolled back any further and the heightened expectations of Australian industry getting their own way in an even more naked way will not happen.As I said, I cannot be confident, like the member for Rankin, that this government has much interest in environmental matters. At the next election, I am sure that we will not have the ACF wandering around forests hand in hand with Senator Kemp and Senator Hill.MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr Lee—What a horrible thought!8T4Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr LAURIE FERGUSON—A horrible thought, indeed. But I can assure you it will not be happening. Since the 1996 election, that close relationship has disappeared. It is a very sorry day that, while the ACF and NFF can get together, this government is totally repudiated by the Australian environmental movement. I noticed in the last budget figures indicated that there would be a very extreme and dramatic drop this year in environmental expenditure on oceans in all portfolios, from a figure of about $295 million to a figure of only $148 million in the next financial year. When this false nirvana of NHT money disappears, the situation will further deteriorate to a figure of only $81 million in 2002-03.So, whilst we recognise that this government is implementing the protocol and going in the right direction, the overall attitude towards environmental matters is clearly displayed by that funding level. So we have a government—I am afraid to tell the member for Rankin—that I cannot see moving in a direction of bipartisan support for environmental issues in this country. The evidence in regard to budgetary matters is pretty clear. Tying down the urgent environmental needs of this country to whether Telstra is sold is really typical of a very unfortunate attitude. We regard this legislation as going in the direction of recognising mounting international knowledge in this area. We should emphasise that this is the kind of cooperative international effort that some people, for base political reasons, often try to undermine.The fact is that this country needs these kinds of conventions on whaling and on a variety of other environmental issues. But, as we saw in the run-up to our recent election, some people just push for the lowest common denominator and denigrate international understanding and international agreements. We saw that particularly over the CROC which led, of course, to the parliamentary Treaties Committee revealing that people basically went out there and tried to fool the Australian public that we could not have international cooperation or agreement, et cetera. This bill is a very clear indication of what can be gained. It has come, as I say, from work commencing in 1971. It is an urgent need for this government to persuade a number of other countries in our region to come on board, because not only in this area but in immigration and a whole lot of other areas our region is probably the worst in the world for adherence and agreement to and ratification of these conventions. I commend the bill, with the qualifications on the issues of artificial reefs and the need for the precautionary principle.18:12:0018669Hall, Jill, MPMs HALL83NShortlandALP00—We on this side of the House welcome the Environment and Heritage Legislation Amendment Bill 2000 because it provides some protection for our fragile marine and ocean environment. This legislation is a step in the right direction, although it should have been a bigger step and it should have been taken sooner. The government launched its ocean policy in 1998 in the International Year of the Ocean. It has taken from 1998 until now to translate that policy into legislation. That is a long time. I would have thought it could have happened much sooner.The bill amends the Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Act 1981 to implement the 1996 protocol to the 1972 International Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter and it also amends the Sea Installations Act 1987. This legislation clarifies the Commonwealth's responsibility for regulating the construction of artificial reefs. It applies the act to exclusive economic zones, revises defence penalties and exemptions, and provides for some stronger penalties, which is good. Basically, it imposes tighter regulations on dumping at sea and defines artificial reefs. I have some concerns about these issues, in particular artificial reefs and the fact that the definition of artificial reef does not go far enough. That in itself could be used for dumping in the ocean things that should not be there, such as pollutants; a number of substances or items could be deemed to be being used to set up an artificial reef when in actual fact it is simply a case of disposing of some unwanted material.Over the years, we have come to realise just how important the ocean is to our environment. Our environment and the protection and preservation of it are essential if we as a country are to grow. We cannot separate environmental and economic issues. There are enormous costs to our community and the world as a whole if we degrade our environment. Australia is an island nation and the oceans are very important to our survival. So much of our lives revolves around the oceans. They are important for tourism, recreation and transport. Over the years we have moved from the `solution for pollution is dilution' idea to one where we realise that you cannot dump just anything in the ocean. We have accepted the fact that there are certainly some materials that should never ever find their way into our oceans. I think the legislation identifies those items quite effectively.One of the problems with this legislation is the absence of the adoption of the precautionary principle. It really worries me, and I think the government should revisit that matter. Whilst I commend the government for introducing this legislation, I do have some serious concerns. In its budget the government actually cut spending on the environment across all portfolios by $150 million. I believe environmental spending will continue to fall until 2004, when the Natural Heritage Trust funds run out. If the government has a true commitment to our environment, it would not be cutting funding to it. It is of great concern to me and to a number of people in the community.We cannot remove shipping from the threat to our oceans. One of the greatest threats to our coastal and marine environment comes from unseaworthy, unsafe foreign ships with unqualified and poorly trained crews. This government is moving to liberalise cabotage restrictions and the lowering of the application fees for unlicensed vessels engaged in Australian coastal trade. This poses a real threat to our oceans. The changes that this government is looking at bringing in through amendments to the Navigation Act really put the environment and the safety of our seas at risk. The government plans to make it easier for ships of shame, which my predecessor, Peter Morris, so ably and accurately identified in a report to this House, to operate in Australian waters. They are ships like the MV Erika. The Erika was a 25-year-old tanker that broke in two off the French coast on 12 December last year, spilling some 15,000 tonnes of thick, offensive and destructive fuel oil along 400 kilometres of the French coast, severely damaging fishing grounds, beaches, headlands and tourist facilities. It is a disaster that is still causing economic and environmental damage to coastal France. The Erika was registered under a shonky flag obtained in Malta, I think. The Erika had corrosion problems three years ago. It had concealed ownership and its sinking caused an uproar in France. These are the types of ships that the government will allow to operate along the Australian coastline. Imagine the damage it would cause to our beaches and to the Great Barrier Reef if the same thing were to occur here. I want to bring things into a local perspective. In the Shortland electorate we have the MV Wallarah, which carries coal from the Moonee colliery at Catherine Hill Bay to the port of Newcastle. I ask: what if the Wallarah was replaced with one of these ships of shame, a flag of convenience ship, taking coal from Catherine Hill Bay to Newcastle? If an accident were to occur think of the devastation and pollution that would cause to our beautiful oceans and to beaches such as Catherine Hill Bay, Caves Beach, Blacksmiths, Redhead—all those superb beaches along the coast. I think a failure to recognise the potential that ocean pollution can cause to our coastline by these ships is one area that the government needs to address. I had a look at the Lloyd's List of 27 June, which said:A grim winter off the Cape of Storms, with a capsize sunk in shallow water off Cape Town and every prospect that she will break up and cause serious local pollution from 1,300 tons of heavy oil in her bunker tanks. The South Africans will be getting somewhat tired of this growing casualty list off their coasts.This is happening throughout the world. It is happening because these ships are poorly maintained, are unseaworthy and have untrained crews. This government, far from moving to provide protection to our oceans, is moving away from providing that protection around the Australian coastline.In a survey of more than 200 Perth households, the strong view was that we need a coastal service that is serviced by Australian operated and owned ships rather than foreign owned ships, and that it was not in Australia's interest to have Australian ships replaced by these foreign ships. The people in the survey were not willing to place the control of these ships in foreign hands. The highest level of concern about these flag of convenience ships was the potential environmental threat that poorly maintained and crewed vessels present for the environment. These flag of convenience ships have been repeatedly shown to operate under extremely poor standards of seaworthiness, thereby jeopardising the marine environment. Appalling conditions exist for the crew, with consequences for their health and safety. The ships are poorly maintained and give out toxic emissions. Invariably they dump the kind of waste into our oceans that this legislation seeks to prevent.The ships are operated by Third World crews with questionable competency, which presents a serious threat to our marine environment. The protection of our coastal environment cannot be ensured through legislation in isolation. The government must address the shipping issue. It must strengthen, not weaken, the legislation affecting the shipping industry. The government is going soft on the inspection of foreign ships in its manic pursuit and persecution of seafarers and their families, and this is at the expense of our marine environment.In the few minutes that remain, I will concentrate on a local issue in the Shortland electorate. For those people who do not know it, the Shortland electorate is a coastal electorate situated between the ocean, Lake Macquarie and the Tuggerah Lake system and Munmorah Lake.MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr Lee—It's a beautiful electorate. 83NHall, Jill, MPMs HALL—A beautiful electorate, as my colleague the member for Dobell so aptly interjects. It is an area that he is very familiar with because our electorates are adjoining. Lake Macquarie has been under extreme pressure. It has been severely degraded, and sedimentation has been a problem. Industrial waste has been going into the lake, and there has been seagrass damage.In 1998 we had an environmental forum at Lake Macquarie. Out of that, Premier Bob Carr agreed to set up a task force. From that, all government departments and all interest groups in the area came together with the local councils of Lake Macquarie and Wyong to develop a plan to ensure the ongoing health of that lake. The Carr government has contributed many millions of dollars, and the only contribution that we have had from the federal government has been $500,000—on the eve of the last council elections—for some walkways around the lake. No prize for guessing why that was given! The area of Belmont Wetlands connects the ocean and the lake. Numerous appeals have been made to the federal government to commit some money to the restoration of that area and to ensure that we have a healthy ocean and a healthy lake within that area. So far, the government has failed to assist in any way.A number of Landcare groups are working in the area, and they have been feeling very discouraged in recent times. These Landcare groups work to restore the dunes. They work on the edge of the ocean and are involved in a number of ocean restoration programs in the area. They have been very discouraged recently because they have been forced to take out ABN numbers so they can accept donations of trees from industry groups and people in the community. If they do not take out an ABN number, they lose 48.5 cents in the dollar of the donations that are made to their group.These are not the actions of a government committed to the environment. These are not the actions of a government that wants a healthy environment or a government that wants to protect our environment. We all know just how important the protection of our environment is. We must ensure the protection of all of our environment—our land, our air and our oceans—because it is essential if we are to survive as a nation and a planet.The government is to be congratulated for introducing this legislation. Although it does not go far enough, and it fails to cover all the issues that impact on the health of our oceans and marine life, it is a step in the right direction. I sincerely hope that in the ensuing months the government does address the issues that I outlined in relation to the ships that they are encouraging to operate along our coastlines. I believe it is essential for our environment that this practice be discouraged and, if there are any amendments to the Navigation Act, that they strengthen the regulations rather than water them down.Sitting suspended from 6.29 p.m. to 8.00 p.m.20:00:0018671Lawrence, Dr Carmen, MPDr LAWRENCEXS4FremantleALP00—I want to speak tonight on the Environment and Heritage Legislation Amendment Bill 2000 because it is so critical to the future of Australia, to our people and to our industries. It is part of a suite of legislation that is designed to protect the marine environment, and is based on international protocols to which Australia is signatory.Our oceans, of course, know no boundaries. This is a truly global responsibility and, therefore, has to be taken extremely seriously. I guess the first question is: why do we need legislation of this kind? Firstly, because our marine environment, including the oceans, the seas and the adjacent coastal areas, are part of an integrated whole. We cannot look after one bit; we have to look after the lot. Our oceans are an essential component of our global life support system. Indeed, they are a positive asset, being a source of food for animals and people and a source of medicines, and they are important, too, in thermal regulation—just to mention a few functions they perform. Of course, the resources and habitats are very important for human settlements, development and indigenous peoples and local subsistence. Half of the world's population lives within 60 kilometres of a shoreline, and that could rise, we are told, to three-quarters by the year 2020. It is already higher in Australia. Some 86 per cent in 1991 lived within 60 kilometres of a shoreline, and that has rapidly increased in non-metropolitan Australia. So these are very significant problems for us. Our exclusive economic zone—otherwise known as our EEZ—is of vital importance because it allows states to manage and develop resources, particularly in fishing but in other areas as well, for their people. Our oceans are in a very bad way. They are treated as garbage dumps by a lot of people, whether that is from land sources, from the air in the form of gases and aerosol particles, or from dredging and shipping. Historically, the ocean has been seen as able to absorb those insults. We now know, of course, that it cannot. The current approaches to the management of coastal and marine resources show that we clearly do not have sustainable programs. Our oceans are being rapidly degraded and eroded in many parts of the world. This degradation results from a wide range of land and sea sources; indeed, land based sources contribute 70 per cent to marine pollution. Unfortunately we have no global scheme and few regional and national programs to address marine pollution from land based sources. Every bit of clearing, for example, contributes to it. The contaminants include things we are familiar with: sewage, nutrients, synthetic organic compounds, sediments, litter and plastics, metals, radionuclides, oil hydrocarbons and various other types of hydrocarbons. And we know that toxic chemicals accumulate in food chains. I am sure any of us could take a walk along a beach anywhere in this country and sadly find the refuse of our habitation. Activities on land, including human settlements, various forms of land use, construction of coastal infrastructure, agriculture, forestry, urban development, tourism and industry, contribute to the pollution of our oceans. Coastal erosion and siltation are of particular concern. We also need to be worried about the health effects, for instance, of algae poisoned seafood, which produces many illnesses and deaths. Untreated sewage, as we know, is a health hazard.As well as this land based degradation, there is a problem with sea based degradation, and that is what this legislation deals with. Maritime transport and dumping at sea cause problems for all of us. It is estimated that 150,000 tonnes of plastic are put into the ocean yearly from the fishing industry in the form of plastic net and line and there are also countless plastic containers washing up on our shores. In addition to that—something that is less visible—approximately 600,000 tonnes of oil each year from normal shipping operations alone ends up in our oceans and, on top of that, there is the land based pollution, accidents and illegal discharges. So that is a total of over three million tonnes of oil every year. We have seen in the last decade a substantial expansion of fisheries on the high seas. They now make up five per cent of total world landings. I think everyone would agree that our management of these international waters is inadequate in every respect—for example, some resources are overutilised and there is unregulated fishing, about which there has been a lot of publicity here in Australia. There is overcapitalisation—too many ships; excessive fleet sizes; vessels reflagging to escape controls, and I will talk a bit more about that in a moment. Further, there is insufficiently selective gear which picks up everything, not just the fish to be caught, unreliable databases and lack of sufficient cooperation between various states and nations, particularly for highly migratory species and stocks that straddle various regions. Where fisheries fall within a national jurisdiction there are still problems of overfishing, unauthorised incursions by foreign fleets and the ecosystem degradation that I talked about. Our coral reefs and other marine coastal habitats—for instance mangroves and estuaries—are under particular stress because, as we now know, they are vulnerable and sensitive to climate and atmospheric changes. Small increases in sea levels, for instance, have the potential to cause significant damage to small islands and low lying coasts, particularly in our region. We are also well aware of the fact that increased ultraviolet radiation from ozone depletion could affect our marine environments. We are not doing nearly enough about all of these problems. This legislation, I will acknowledge, makes a small contribution to dealing with these problems. As members would be aware, this bill amends the Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Act 1981. It implements the 1996 protocol to the 1972 Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter, sometimes known as the London protocol. It extends coverage to the exclusive economic zone. It revises offences, penalties and exemptions. All of these changes are welcome. However, there is one thing it does not do: it does not define dumping. From discussions with staff at the library it is quite clear that it is not included in the act and probably needs to be in due course. It is in the protocol but it is not clearly defined in this. It is a companion to legislation with controls discharge and dumping from ships, which is also very important. It does not include, as the other legislation does, oily waste discharge and disposal of sewage, garbage and food scraps. That is covered in the Protection of the Sea (Prevention and Pollution from Ships) Act 1983, which implements Australia's international obligations under the 1973 Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships and its 1978 protocol, MARPOL. All these things sound very worthy, but they fall far short of what is required. Interestingly, while making these laudable changes—signing up to conventions which the government purports not to like and passing legislation to give effect to them—at the same time they are undermining their own efforts and contributing to the problem by what is a very short-sighted shipping policy in Australia. We are seeing here right now, at the same time as this legislation is passing, the destruction of the Australian shipping industry: the axing of funding which made the merchant fleet competitive and legislation which revokes ILO conventions, permitting foreign vessels carrying out our coastal trade to do so without mandatory safety checks. It is replacing Australian ships by single voyage permits and increasing the proportion of ships under flags of convenience, which already dominate export trade. This is a serious problem not just for Australia but for the rest of the world.These conventions and enforcement in this legislation are only as good as the commitment and surveillance provided by the governments which ratify them. Otherwise, they are just so many words. They are also only as good as the capacity of governments to determine liability for breaches and their willingness to impose effective penalties. On all those fronts, not only this government is lacking but many other governments as well.In the case of our oceans, part of the problem is the proliferation of flag of convenience vessels, as they are known, which render such conventions effectively meaningless. Most members will be aware that flag of convenience ships fly the flag of a country other than the country of ownership. They are very attractive because they are cheap to register, there are low or no taxes, they can employ low paid labour and they avoid pollution and safety standards. So every time we hand over an Australian flag ship to a flag of convenience, we drop standards significantly. The number of these flag of convenience vessels has accelerated dramatically since World War II, particularly in the last 20 or so years. I think it is fair to describe the owners of these vessels as the buccaneers of the 20th and 21st centuries. It is a great global shame. The number of flag of convenience registers is growing, where there is no genuine link between the real owner and the flag of the vessel. That is contrary to provisions of UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. There are poor safety and training standards, if any. There are no restrictions on the nationalities of crews and that causes severe communication problems, and hence accidents. These registers are often not even run from the countries nominated. For example, the Liberian register is run from a United States company.There has been a significant increase in the number of these registers. In 1980, there were 11 registers; now there are 27 and more are interested. The vessels that are registered under these flags of convenience—and there is a lot of information available for those who care to look—pay minimum wages, in many cases starvation wages. There is no union scrutiny of wages and conditions. In many cases, they violate basic human rights. There are appalling living standards and working conditions for crews. Indeed, some have described them as `floating slave ships'. They are older than the average age of the world fleet and they break up more readily. They pose risk to life and limb. Most members might be aware of the fact that there are 2,000 deaths at sea a year and a lot of injuries, frequently without any compensation because you cannot trace the owners. Even when newer vessels are registered, they are often built to minimum standards and become structurally unsound more rapidly. Forty-six per cent of all losses at sea are due to just eight flag of convenience registers. A lot of this may be due to human error because the crews are overworked. It is quite clear from inspections that some do not even get enough food and clean drinking water. That is why some of them jump over the side and risk their lives. The Institute of London Underwriters report in 1994 said:Yet again the same flags account for losses well above their share of world shipping, Panama, Malta, Cyprus, St Vincent and Grenadines being the most significant.You will see that list or something like it come up year after year. These flags of convenience pose a significant threat to our environment, which this legislation and others like it in the suite can do nothing about. They are often involved in major break ups. In my own state, the Kirki and the Sainko Harvest threatened the coast of Western Australia with oil and superphosphate respectively. What goes on in international waters is out of sight of the regulators and there is nobody in these flags of convenience countries to care. While the international instruments which are worthy set a comprehensive framework for prevention, reduction and control of degradation of our marine environment from sea based activities, it all depends on flag states discharging their obligations and exercising effective control over vessels which fly their flag. Clearly, in these flags of convenience, they do not. Shipowners can get away with dumping various prohibited substances, breaches regarding ballast, oily bilge water, garbage and sewage, and they simply throw the dead cattle and sheep overboard. Prosecutions by either the host country or the country of register simply do not occur because these flags of convenience registers do not enforce regulations even when they are signatories. They do not have the resources to begin with. Our ability to enforce standards depends on adequate surveillance and willingness to prosecute. Even in a country like Australia, that does not happen as often as it should. To give a recent example, the Joint Spirit, a ship that docked in Adelaide, was photographed dumping waste over the side of the ship. This apparently included sewage bilge and engine room sludge. The local union representatives were approached by a sailor from the ship, a Chinese engineering student, who said he was specifically instructed to make pipe work modifications to enable the waste to be dumped in this way. He said the waste was dumped outside Adelaide's harbour about an hour before the ship docked. This ship is not old; it was only a couple of years old at the time of the incident. When it was inspected by AMSA, they said that they could find no evidence that there had been illegal dumping and cleared it to leave port. The sailor, brave man that he was, was threatened and had to stay in Adelaide fearing his life would be in danger because of the action he had taken. So not only did we not protect the environment; we did not protect the sailor.The Joint Spirit is a classic flag of convenience vessel, jointly owned, flying under Panama's flag. It had actually been to Australia before with a Filipino crew. On inspection they were found to be keeping two sets of books. The crew were not receiving proper wages, as was claimed. Because of Australian cabotage arrangements, when they were caught out they had to make back payments. What happened to the Filipino crew? They lost their jobs and they were replaced with a Chinese crew. They, too, were later found to have been underpaid and therefore needed back pay. It should not come as a surprise to us that such shipping operations would also be breaking every rule in the book as far as environmental controls were concerned. The dumping of waste in these cases is a cost cutting measure. They save the company the cost of having the waste removed and transported from the ship while in port, for example.Similarly, a lot of the larger ships failed to follow correct procedures for the dumping of bilge water in order to cut costs. They have to take on water to stabilise the vessel for ocean travel after off-loading their cargo. This water, called bilge, is supposed to be progressively changed over the voyage to prevent the transport of ocean life into new environments, where they may become a pest and threaten local ecosystems. We know that that has failed because we have a lot of those pests in our waters right now, and they are a threat to our fishing industry and to aquaculture. The changing of bilge actually requires the ships to slow down a bit—to lose time and, therefore, money. They are simply not doing it, and no-one is enforcing it. Some ships have been known not to change their bilge until reaching port, and then they simply dump it. That practice has been documented as the most likely cause of the outbreak of tiger mussel infestation in the port of Darwin, a mussel which is known to establish itself as a pest at the expense of the local environment. It has caused an environmental catastrophe in the Canadian lakes, for example. In the 1980s, a poisonous dinoflagellate was introduced through bilge waters into Tasmanian waters. This organism, when consumed by shellfish, turns into a deadly toxin for humans. We are not doing nearly as well as we think we are in these areas. The protection of Australian shipping, in my view, goes hand in hand with the protection of Australia's marine environment. We can turn our backs and say, `It doesn't matter. If these other countries, the flag registers, are not doing their job, that is not our business.' It is very much our business. Their flag of convenience system has been described as an institutionalised system for the negation of international law. It simply enables nations to avoid their responsibilities. It also poses a threat to the marine environment and to the sustainable utilisation of marine living resources and our fisheries in particular. Even the OECD agree—and they are always in favour of competition and driving down prices—saying that this creates unfair competition and distortion because it means that these companies can avoid reasonable and agreed standards for the pay and conditions of seafarers and for the protection of the environment. Of course it is cheaper to do that. Then they compete with the flag vessels of other nations, which have to meet these standards, and lo and behold they can do it more cheaply. There are some people who benefit from that in the short term, but in the long term none of us wins.What we have seen recently is a rapid increase in these flag of convenience vessels, particularly in unregulated international fishing. It is spilling into the fishing industry as well, driving out our fishing fleet and our capacity to earn a living. When governments such as this one—and there has clearly been an attempt to do this—sign up and legislate to penalise sea dumping and marine pollution, which we all agree should be done, and at the same time encourage and allow the proliferation of flags of convenience, they make a mockery of these agreements and laws. It is very cynical. We will not have a fleet. We can simply pass on all of these responsibilities to others. We can also stand by and not enforce them, and I suspect that that is happening in some cases as well.The granting of single voyage permits, which are only supposed to be supplied on occasions when there is not a suitable vessel available, increased from 421 in 1995-96 to 704 in 1998-99. All of our Australian flagships, our coastal ships, are required to fulfil high safety and environmental standards. Every time we push them into flags of convenience, they drop in standard. We cannot inspect every one of them every minute of the day. AMSA's random inspections cannot possibly be as effective on ships making these so-called one-off journeys as on Australian shipping lines. So we are forgoing very significant opportunities to improve our marine environment by handing over our coastal shipping and standing back and watching international shipping standards sink lower and lower and lower. No amount of legislation and no amount of treaty signing will substitute for a decent shipping policy.20:20:0018675Stone, Dr Sharman, MPDr STONEEM6MurrayLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage10—in reply—In summing up this debate that we have been having in relation to the Environment and Heritage Legislation Amendment Bill 2000, let me thank all of the contributors. While we have heard a lot of words, some of them indicate that members on the opposition side do not fully understand the content of the bill and the amendments. It was pleasing to hear of strong support for the government in what it is attempting to do to make sure that our magnificent economic zone and our marine environment are protected. The bill includes amendments to the Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Act 1981 and the Sea Installations Act 1987. Some of the items of the bill, which originated in the Senate, were amended by the Senate, and these amendments relate to the sea dumping act. I will go further into explaining why we have not necessarily supported all of those amendments that have come through to us from the Senate. I should add that, while the government is willing to support some of these amendments, there are others which we quite clearly cannot. As presented and read a first time in the Senate, the bill included an amendment to the sea dumping act to provide a limitation of liability in favour of the Commonwealth and officers exercising powers under that act for negligent acts or omissions exercised in good faith that may arise in respect of an authorisation under that act in respect of an artificial reef. This amendment was intended to address a risk that was identified in legal advice provided to the Department of the Environment and Heritage. That advice stated that an officer exercising powers under the act may be held liable in negligence for loss or injury incurred in respect of an artificial reef. Further, in circumstances where an officer was found liable, it would be incurred personally rather than on behalf of the Commonwealth.I note that this exemption, if enacted as was originally proposed, would have applied in respect of not all negligent acts or omissions but rather only those acts or omissions that were exercised in good faith. The Senate, however, with the support of the opposition and the Democrats, amended the bill by revising this provision to expressly provide that the exemption did not apply in respect of negligent acts or omissions. The government sees no point in having the Senate again consider the provision as originally proposed. However, the department has received further legal advice that, if the provision is enacted as currently proposed, there is a risk that it will be interpreted as providing an exemption in respect of some of the liability that may be known at law. Accordingly, and as the government did not intend to provide an exemption other than in respect of the identified category of negligence, the government proposes to further amend the bill to omit the proposed provision in its entirety. This will ensure that there is no uncertainty regarding the intention of the parliament in this regard, while giving effect to the Senate's intention in adopting the amendments as it did.With the support of the Democrats, the Senate also adopted an opposition amendment to the bill to revise the limitation governing the prescription of material as seriously harmful material. Under the amended sea dumping act, there will be a tiered penalty structure provided in respect of the primary offence provisions. The primary offence provisions will relate to unlawful dumping into the sea, incineration at sea, loading or dumping for incineration at sea, export for dumping or incineration at sea, artificial reef placements and conduct of a responsible person in circumstances where one of the above offences is committed. The penalty that may be imposed upon conviction for one of these primary offences will depend on the nature of the material used in the commission of the offence. Where the commission of a primary offence involved the use of seriously harmful material, the penalty that may be imposed will be up to 10 years imprisonment, a fine of 2,000 penalty units, which is currently approximately $210,000, or both. Where the commission of a primary offence involved the use of material that includes non-annex 1 material, that is, material that may not be considered for dumping under the 1996 protocol to the London convention, the penalty that may be imposed will be up to two years imprisonment, a fine of 500 penalty units, currently approximately $55,000, or both. In any case involving the commission of a primary offence, that is, where annex 1 material is used, or possibly where there is no evidence as to the nature of the material used, the penalty that may be imposed will be up to one year imprisonment, a fine of 250 penalty units, currently approximately $27,500, or both. Seriously harmful material would be defined in the act under item 15 to include radioactive material, which is currently defined in the act's section 4(1), and any other material prescribed by the regulations to be seriously harmful material. As the use of seriously harmful material in the commission of a primary offence may attract the most severe penalty that can be imposed under the amendment act, it was intended that only those materials that are likely to cause serious harm to the marine environment would be included in that category. Accordingly, the bill as presented and read a first time in the Senate included a provision to place a limit on the prescription by regulation of material as seriously harmful material. That proposed subsection basically provided that, before the Governor-General may make a regulation prescribing that material as seriously harmful material, the minister must be satisfied that the material is capable of causing serious harm to the marine environment. However, the member for Wills and the member for Lowe agreed with Senator Bolkus, who during the debate in the Senate claimed that this provision was inconsistent with the precautionary approach as enunciated in article 3.1 of the protocol. Article 3.1 of the protocol provides that in implementing this protocol contracting parties shall apply a precautionary approach to environmental protection from dumping of wastes or other matter whereby appropriate preventive measures are taken when there is reason to believe that wastes or other matter introduced into the marine environment are likely to cause harm, even when there is no conclusive evidence to prove a causal relation between inputs and their effects. So it is difficult to see how the provision as was proposed is inconsistent with this precautionary approach. It was saying that in respect of something that is already prohibited we will impose the harshest penalties in those cases where the impacts are the worst. There is no question that the precautionary approach has been adopted; the action is outright prohibited. There can be no greater exercise of a precautionary approach. We wish to determine the extent of the penalty to be imposed in the case of unlawful activities. Nonetheless, the Senate adopted the opposition amendment to this item. In short, the revised provision as presented to this House now provides that, before the Governor-General may make a regulation prescribing the material as seriously harmful material, the minister must apply the precautionary approach contained in article 3 of the protocol. This revised provision is, in the government's view, unclear and is an inappropriate application of the precautionary approach. Legal advice obtained by the department has indicated that this provision, if enacted, is likely to give rise to legal uncertainty. It is clear from Senator Bolkus's statement during debate of the bill in the Senate that in moving this opposition amendment he envisaged that the revised provision would allow the minister to authorise the prescription of material as seriously harmful material in circumstances where there was no scientific evidence that the introduction of that material into the marine environment would be detrimental. Leaving aside that the government questions the appropriateness of such a concept in these circumstances, the government is not convinced that such interpretation would necessarily prevail if this provision as currently proposed were left to a court to interpret. Therefore, to provide greater certainty the government is proposing further amendments to this item. Secondly, in line with Senator Bartlett's comments during debate of the bill in the Senate in which he put the idea of a compromise between the proposed tests, the government's amendments also incorporate the appropriate aspects of the precautionary approach as enunciated in article 3.1 of the protocol. The proposed new subsection 41(3) will thus provide that the minister must be satisfied that material is capable of causing serious harm to the marine environment before the Governor-General may make a regulation prescribing that material as seriously harmful. This new subsection is intended to ensure that only those materials capable of causing serious harm to the marine environment are prescribed as seriously harmful material, thereby potentially attracting the most severe penalties under the act when used in the commission of a primary offence. The proposed new subsection 41(4) is intended to broaden the scope of the test provided in subsection (3) by applying the identified relevant aspects of the precautionary approach as provided in article 3.1 of the protocol. It will grant the minister a greater discretion to recommend the prescription of material as seriously harmful material by allowing him or her to be satisfied that a material is capable of causing serious harm to the marine environment notwithstanding that there may be no conclusive evidence of a causal relationship between input of that material and serious harm to that environment. The proposed new subsection 41(5) is intended to require the minister to have regard to the identified relevant aspects of the precautionary approach, as provided in article 3.1 of the protocol, when considering whether to prescribe material as seriously harmful material. It will require the minister to have regard to the principle that material should be prescribed as seriously harmful if there is reason to believe that the material is likely to cause serious harm to the marine environment, notwithstanding that there may be no conclusive evidence of a causal relationship between input of that material into the marine environment and serious harm to that environment. It is the government's view that this amendment will overcome the legal uncertainty of the provision as currently proposed in the bill by providing a clear and appropriate test in respect of the prescription of material as seriously harmful material which also incorporates a precautionary approach.Many of the opposition speakers in this debate were also concerned about artificial reefs and their construction and the protection of the environment. The government does not intend to oppose in this House the amendments made by the Senate in respect of the definition of artificial reefs. However, it is important to address the misconception that the member for Wills and his Labor colleague in the Senate, Senator Bolkus, seem to have in respect of these amendments. Earlier in this debate, the member for Wills stated:The definition of artificial reefs should limit artificial reef placement to the dumping of controlled materials as defined under the legislation.And further:I note in relation to these amendments ... concerning the definition of `artificial reefs', that by not limiting the definition of artificial reef to a controlled substance a potential loophole exists to allow dumping of material other than that allowed under the protocol.The protocol excludes from the definition of dumping the placement of matter for a purpose other than mere disposal thereof, being a placement that is not contrary to the aims of the protocol. This is an exception that has been recognised in the bill. The definition of artificial reef placement which will be inserted by item (5) provides:Artificial reef placement means a placement of any controlled material into the sea for the purposes of creating an artificial reef, being a placement that is not contrary to the aims of the protocol.Accordingly, the placement of material which was deemed to be a placement contrary to the aims of the protocol—for example, on the basis that the introduction of that material into the marine environment would be severely detrimental—would amount to dumping under the amended sea dumping act. It is another proposition entirely, however—and one clearly not intended by the protocol—to say that it is only those materials within an annex 1 of the protocol—that is, only those materials permitted to be considered for dumping—that should be used in the construction of artificial reefs.Even so, the amendments by the Senate that substituted the term `controlled material' for `any matter or thing' in respect of references to `artificial reefs' will not, as the member for Wills has stated, have the impact of restricting artificial reef placements to only those substances permitted to be dumped under the protocol. As is clear from the bill and the explanatory memorandum, the terms `controlled material' and `any matter or thing' are both intended to include all substances that could possibly be dumped or placed respectively. It was intended that no substance or matter or structure or formation would fall outside the ambit of these terms. If a vessel were dumped at sea, it would be `controlled material' for the purposes of the sea dumping act. If instead that same vessel were placed for the purpose of creating an artificial reef, it would be `any matter or thing' for the purposes of that act. Accordingly the government concedes—and did so during the debate in the Senate—that the use of these terms in the manner originally proposed would not have had any real practical legal significance. Rather, the distinction was originally made, as was explained in the original explanatory memorandum, in an attempt to make it clear that the creation of artificial reefs and dumping are two entirely separate activities—the former not being prima facie within the ambit of the protocol, whereas the latter being so. In respect of the construction of artificial reefs, the government has not to date, under the London convention—and will not in the future under the protocol—allowed placement to occur as a means of subverting or frustrating the rules concerning dumping. On the contrary, the government will provide through this bill an appropriate legislative framework to ensure that that does not occur. Specifically, the definition of `artificial reef placement' in line with the protocol excludes as dumping activities contrary to the aims of that international instrument. The member for Fremantle was concerned that dumping was not defined in the act. Quite clearly, it is: dumping is defined in the protocol, and therefore the act. In fact, section 4(4) basically states that definitions in the protocol apply to the act, so she need not be concerned, and dumping is specifically defined in article 1.4 of the protocol. In conclusion, the member for Scullin requested confirmation that it was indeed the case that land based sources of marine pollution including end of pipe disposal did not come within the ambit of the protocol. That is in fact the case. It is only disposal from vessels, aircraft and platforms that that instrument deals with. This is a very important amendment bill. It is one that makes sure that we can have continued control over possible future contaminants and the harm that might come to our ocean environment. I commend this bill to the House.Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time.18679Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.20:36:0018679Stone, Dr Sharman, MPDr STONEEM6MurrayLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage10—by leave—I move government amendments Nos 1 and 2: (1) Schedule 1, item 77, page 26 (line 26) to page 27 (line 13), omit the item.(2) Schedule 1, item 78, page 27 (lines 16 to 20), omit subsection (3), substitute: (3) Before the Governor-General makes a regulation prescribing material for the purposes of paragraph (b) of the definition of seriously harmful material in subsection 4(1), the Minister must be satisfied that the material is capable of causing serious harm to the marine environment. (4) The Minister may be satisfied that material is capable of causing serious harm to the marine environment even though there is no conclusive evidence to prove a causal relationship between the input of the material into the marine environment and serious harm to the marine environment. (5) For the purposes of subsection (3), the Minister must have regard to the principle that material should be prescribed as seriously harmful material if there is reason to believe that the material is likely to cause serious harm to the marine environment even though there is no conclusive evidence to prove a causal relationship between the input of the material into the marine environment and serious harm to the marine environment.I table the supplementary explanatory memorandum.20:37:0018679Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSONUK6WillsALP00—In concluding the second reading debate, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage foreshadowed several things in the government amendments. Amendment 1 is to omit the item which deals with protection against legal action; the opposition had raised a concern in the previous debate that the exemption from legal action should not apply to negligent acts. Government amendment 2 omits a subsection and substitutes in its place a provision that, before the Governor-General can make regulations concerning the definition of `seriously harmful material', the minister has to be satisfied that the material is capable of causing serious harm to the marine environment. As the parliamentary secretary indicated, the government appears to be looking at a compromise outcome, one which is different from its original proposition but is also different from the amendment which we had moved which specified that the minister ought to follow the precautionary approach as set out in article 3 of the relevant protocol. These are quite complex amendments, and we appreciate the fact that the parliamentary secretary has provided quite detailed material in support of them. In those circumstances, I will be reserving the opposition's position concerning these amendments while we have the opportunity to consider them between here and the Senate so that we can arrive at a more detailed conclusion. Material has been put forward in support of the government's position. I think that both sides are anxious to ensure that there is appropriate protection against the kind of sea dumping and the damage to the marine environment that it causes. We are just as anxious as the government to ensure that there is not legal uncertainty as a result of the drafting of the legislation, so obviously we want to consider this issue and have a look at the words which the government has now used in these amendments.Amendments agreed to.Bill, as amended, agreed to.18680Bill (on motion by Dr Stone)—by leave—read a third time.Bills18680R102518680Message received from the Senate acquainting the House that the Senate does not insist upon its amendments disagreed to by the House.Bills18680Messages from the Governor-General reported informing the House of assent to the following bills:Family and Community Services Legislation Amendment Bill 2000Local Government (Financial Assistance) Amendment Bill 2000Health Legislation Amendment (Gap Cover Schemes) Bill 2000Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2000Transport Legislation Amendment Bill 2000National Health Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2000Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 6) 2000Miscellaneous18680Motion (by Mr Ronaldson)—by leave—agreed to:That standing order 103 (new business) be suspended for this sitting.Bills18680R1085BillsR108618680Debate resumed from 22 June, on motion by Dr Stone:That the bill be now read a second time.20:42:0018680Evans, Martyn, MPMr MARTYN EVANSN36BonythonALP00—The opposition takes the question of the greenhouse response of Australia very seriously. This is a matter which the world as a whole has had occasion to consider a number of times now, most recently in Kyoto. The opposition shares the concern that all Australians have for the environment, particularly over the very serious threat of anthropogenic change from greenhouse effects and the way in which that will impact on the global climate over the next several hundred years. This is one of the first major long-term climatic and environmental problems that the world has had to deal with, and obviously our response to it will be very important, not so much for our generation but for the generations to come, because climate change is a slow and insidious process which can have a cumulative effect on the climate over many years. Those who look for immediate changes in the climate, those who look for a clear and present danger, will be disappointed; they will not find the immediate signal that they seek. That does not mean that we should ignore this problem, because there are many long-term changes to the climate which will gradually change the way the climate responds, particularly to more serious and unique events. The average temperature is projected to change by only a few degrees over a matter of 50 to 100 years if we have a `business as usual' scenario. While that may at first seem like a relatively small change, given the changes we all experience from summer to winter and from Australia to, say, Europe or Canada, the reality is that, once you start to change those averages, the ways in which the climate responds in the context of more significant events, like serious storms, hurricanes, tornadoes, snow storms, droughts—which are of more concern to Australia—and long-term hot summers, also change. Those kinds of changes will occur in the long term, and we will see an increased frequency of those kinds of events as the average temperatures move up under greenhouse induced climate change. Of course, there is a very serious issue to be dealt with in public policy terms in response to that potential environmental change. My first comment in relation to this Renewable Energy (Electricity) Bill 2000 must be to express the opposition's concern that the government has taken so long to debate these matters internally and so long to present the legislation to the House that we are confronted in the House of Representatives with a situation where this bill was first introduced last Thursday. Today, a week later, the House is in the process of finalising its business and preparing to rise for a winter break period. The House of Representatives is therefore, at the request of the government, constrained to consider a matter of this seriousness within a period of a few days. In the context of the seriousness of this legislation and the impact that it will potentially have not only on the environment but also on the economy, these issues are far too important to be rushed through this House in a period of days. The opposition has had inadequate opportunity to deal properly with this serious legislation in the normal parliamentary way that we are given the courtesy of in the usual circumstances. Therefore, the comments that I will make this evening on behalf of the opposition will be to reserve our final position on this until the matter has arrived in the Senate, when at least we will have had a reasonable period to review the precise terms of the legislation, to consult with affected parties and to reach a proper decision within our own internal processes. I do not think this is unreasonable, given the detail that we are asked to grapple with and the stage the parliamentary sittings are now at. However, I do have a number of detailed comments in relation to the legislation. The fact is the concept has been around for quite some time now. Certainly, the public policy issues which are at large in relation to this debate have been discussed. We do not intend to oppose legislation, but the terms of our support for this bill will be conveyed to the parliament in the course of the forthcoming Senate debate.Kyoto was the first real attempt by the world community, in the sense of a legally binding treaty that nation states might sign up to and reach consensus on as to the public policy measures they would individually and collectively take, to address the greenhouse problem. But of course we do not yet know all of the science behind the greenhouse issue. This is one of the concerns we have to take into account when formulating a legislative response at this early stage of the scientific inquiry. It is very clear from the science that the CO2 concentration in the global atmosphere has been rising steadily since the Industrial Revolution. That is incontrovertible. The CSIRO and the Antarctic Division, with data from the Antarctic ice cores, and the Russians and Canadians, with the work they have done in the Arctic ice cores, have been able to take the research back many hundreds of thousands of years. They have detailed records from the trapped air within those cores of the CO2 concentration going back many hundreds of thousands of years—and we hope even further than that in the future. We are also able, from detailed studies of plant fossils and even air trapped in amber, to make predictions and assumptions about the CO2 concentration of gases in the air millions of years back. So we understand the way in which CO2 concentrations have changed over time. That is not in debate in the modern period of human history, and certainly there is ample scientific evidence to support the view that a greenhouse effect will achieve global warming. That is why we can all live on the planet now, why there is water vapour in our atmosphere, and liquid water in our oceans and when we turn on the tap at home. Without that greenhouse effect, this happy state of affairs would not prevail on the planet. A runaway greenhouse effect has the consequences that seem to prevail on Venus, for example, which has 600 degree Celsius temperatures at ground level and where molten lead would flow like water. I suspect that is not an outcome which any of us would wish for our own home in the solar system. Fortunately, even with business as usual under the greenhouse scenario, that is not an immediate prospect. But we can see where failure to accommodate a greenhouse policy will take the planet in the long term, and it is not in a very healthy direction. While the science remains undefined, not only is the risk of the adverse consequences, which many in the scientific and environmental community have spoken about, less than clearly defined but there is also increased risk from things like feedback loops. The North Atlantic conveyor belt in the North Atlantic Ocean, which conveys water and air temperature across Europe, might for example under some conditions of average temperature be induced to shut down. We might see a situation in which the Pacific water currents, which are very important for Australia's long-term climate and for the long-term health of our farming communities, under some circumstances of temperature change might be induced through a feedback mechanism to simply shut down and not start up again. There are adequate geological historical records to support these kinds of changes and feedback mechanisms, and we are far from certain about the way in which they will impact on the climate. The change could be either way, but it is a risk I suggest we really do not want to experiment with.The other issue is to what extent increased CO2 will promote plant growth and forest growth, locking up more carbon and acting as a natural carbon `sink', and to what extent it will promote plankton growth in the ocean, again locking up carbon in the long term, thus reducing through another feedback mechanism the long-term increase in CO2. These effects, particularly the feedback effects, can be very uncertain and so we have to take great care in public policy to ensure that we do not, through inattention now and lack of certainty now, lock the planet into a change that we will find much harder to reverse later. This also applies to the economics, of course, because if we make some changes now we can probably make them in a more gradual and less costly, even beneficial, way and ensure that later changes do not have to be so dramatic and cause such serious economic dislocation in communities around the world.We must not look at just CO2 because there are a total of six greenhouse gases, including methane and a number of the chlorofluorocarbons which were covered by the Montreal protocol. All of those gases contribute to global warming. Methane is a far more serious contributor to global warming than CO2 on a molecule by molecule basis but, because CO2 is generated by the burning of fossil fuels, obviously that is the major volume contributor to the greenhouse problem and that is the one which we would turn our attention to first. But we should not ignore the contribution of methane, particularly in Australia where we have a large number of farm animals and other animals who contribute through their daily activities to the methane problem. Obviously, that needs to be looked at as well, and there is some CSIRO research which I might speak of later which can address those kinds of questions.Given all of those implications both scientific and economic, we need to know a lot more about this problem when we take very significant decisions and make legal changes which impact on the economy and the quality of life of our constituents and indeed the world as a whole. We need to know exactly where the CO2 is coming from, we need to know in what proportions and we certainly need to know what the cost-benefit analysis is in relation to reducing CO2 from any of its potential sources. Quite clearly, if there are straightforward low cost ways of reducing CO2 emissions, those are the ways we should look to first. We should not look to the more expensive option first when we can make significant gains through modest changes which are of low cost. I think that is a very elementary proposition. However, it is not a proposition which comes through in this legislation. I think that is a serious flaw in the way in which the government has presented this bill and the associated explanatory memorandum. There is very little supporting material to really bring to the attention of the parliament and the people the view that the government has examined in detail what the implications are of each of the projected changes in CO2 or the mechanisms that the government is proposing and what contribution each of the alternative and renewable energies that the government is promoting by this legislation might make to CO2 reduction, what the cost per tonne of CO2 avoided would be in each of those cases and what the long-term economic analysis is in relation to the totality of this proposed change.We have had some difficulty lately extracting economic modelling from the government in the context of petrol price changes and the GST. Petrol is quite relevant to this legislation. Again the government refers extensively to economic modelling in the explanatory memorandum, but very little detail of that is provided. At one point it suggests that the cost of carbon dioxide per tonne avoided would be in the order of $90. If this is true and applies across the board to the proposal, that is very expensive carbon dioxide indeed. There are other ways of reducing CO2 which would cost far less than $90.We have to examine this legislation from the perspective of what it is setting out to achieve, what its objective is. That may seem a trite question. What this bill is meant to address might seem obvious to honourable members—and perhaps it is to the government—but I suggest it is not. The bill is simply looking at promoting renewable energy. That is the title of the bill and that is the straight effect of it. It provides a financial subsidy to renewable energy. It does not specify which forms of renewable energy. It is not biased in support of any of those forms of renewable energy and, indeed, it makes something of a virtue of that lack of bias. But it does not tell us what the CO2 changes will be as a result of this legislation. It would be impossible, given the lack of specificity in the proposal over any of its 10- or 20-year projected lifespan, to work out just what the CO2 benefits or costs would be. That is simply entirely lacking from this legislation. I think that is quite critical given that the sole purpose of this bill should be to ensure that less CO2 goes into the atmosphere as a result of Australia's economic and cultural activity over the next 10 or 20 years. That should be the objective of this bill. It should be titled the `CO2 reduction bill'. That would be a far more relevant title and one which conveyed the objective of the legislation and the reason for this community to sink so many hundreds of millions of dollars into this proposal. That would be far more communicative and it would set us all on the right track. The opposition fully support renewable energy. We all understand the benefits of solar energy, wind energy and hydro-electricity in Tasmania. I have been encouraged by my friend and colleague Sid Sidebottom, the member for Braddon, in recent months as to the value of Tasmania's hydro-electricity generation to the Tasmanian economy and the contribution that it can make to the Australian economy as a whole. It, of course, does not generate any carbon dioxide in the generation phase. There is the potential to improve that hydro-electricity generating capacity, generate yet more electricity, and connect that to the Australian grid as a whole and to do so in a way that generates no CO2. The member for Braddon is also very strong in his support, as I am sure he will tell the House himself shortly, of the proposed wind farms in Tasmania. Tasmania has that opportunity through its Hydro Electricity Commission and the fact that it is sited in one of the windiest parts of the world—I am not sure whether that is good for its tourism or not, but certainly some parts of Tasmania's mainland are subject to very substantial winds. Those places would be well suited to wind farm energy.Those are two very realistic propositions—wind energy in Tasmania and improving the efficiency of hydro-electricity generation in Tasmania and possibly in some modest way extending that hydro-electricity capacity. Does this bill favour those areas of renewable energy? No, not particularly. If you analyse the bill, the likely end result of this legislation if passed in its present form is support for biomass and the energy that can be generated from biomass. Why is that? Because biomass is the cheapest available renewable electricity generator. Given the technology neutral, market-driven approach of this legislation, that will lead directly to massive support and financial support for biomass. Has the government reached the conclusion that biomass is the best way to generate renewable energy in this country over the next two decades? Has the government decided that this will lead to the greatest enhancement of our technological capacity and of our manufacturing capacity and lead to the greatest potential for exports to other countries like the United States, Europe or developing countries? Has the government made this reasoned decision? No, I am afraid it has not. Sadly, that is entirely lacking from this proposition. Biomass is something that environmentalists often question. The reality is that it is a burning proposition: you have to burn or ferment biomass to produce energy. That often produces air pollution and it also produces carbon dioxide, but, hopefully, that is negated when the next round of crops are grown for the next round of biomass. While biomass has niche market potential, I would suggest to the House that it is by far the least likely contributor to an advanced, technological, export-driven economy for Australia in the year 2010 or 2020. Yet wind, solar or hydro-electricity might well be.The government is going to sink hundreds of millions—perhaps billions—of dollars into this. Analysis by the Electricity Supply Association of Australia, which computed the likely cost of this based on the penalty cost of $40 a megawatt hour, showed that the likely cost of this over the next 10 to 20 years would be of the order of $5 billion. That is the capital cost which people will have to sink into this kind of investment. Even the government admits to a direct cost over the next 10 years of some $250 million. It also admits that its figures are far from clearly defined.The consequence of this is that, under the kind of funding which the community will put forward for this legislation, we could have had specific and targeted investments in research and development for solar, wind and hydro-electricity improvements of the kind that I have spoken about. We could have had targeted investment in fuel cells or the ethanol substitution option. Those things will all be largely negated by the market because the market will, logically and properly, go for the cheapest available option—which, as I said, is biomass. We have no certainty that the most appropriate investments will be made in this context. The market will invest in the obvious way that the market should invest—in the cheapest proposition. Only society as a whole can direct investment into that which is likely to be to the best long-term advantage of the community as a whole. Renewable energy has a very long history throughout the world. It is not the first time that we have sought to support it through subsidies. Indeed, the United States have a history of quite massive support for different kinds of energy. Many honourable members would not support the massive investment by the US in nuclear power, for example, but that is only sustained by US government investment. The US have also invested heavily in solar, wind, biomass and a range of other renewable technologies. They have yet to get those to the point where the market will sustain them. There is no immediate prospect of that being the case.Unfortunately, these things are always just around the corner, and it can always be said that just a little more taxpayer support will push them over the edge and make them viable. I am quite sure that eventually wind energy, in the first instance, will be there—it is almost there and it has been almost there for quite a long time. Certainly hydro is already there; that is without question and we can make significant gains by increasing its efficiency—so that is taken as read. Some targeted investment in R&D might well push, say, wind generators over the edge into commercial viability, but a simple market based subsidy may not have that effect. In the interests of Tasmania and in the interests of those who want to see a high-tech manufacturing capacity in this context, we need to consider some different approaches. Solar is more problematic again in the immediate future. The reality is that we have reached some barriers at approximately 30 per cent conversion efficiency. Australians are at the forefront of this research. I visited the facility of those who won the Australia Prize some years ago. In this country, we have done some fantastic research both in low-grade solar water heating, which I think should be used much more widely in this country, and in photovoltaic cells, which convert sunlight directly into electricity but have a limited efficiency. At this stage, their efficiency is such that the cost factor is far too high.The other issue with renewables in this context is that, while the price of renewables has fallen as technology has improved and become more cost effective, so has the price of fossil fuels. So we have seen dramatic falls—subject to the price of oil going up and down, as we know, from time to time—but if one looks across the board at the fossil fuels we use to generate power, the price of coal and natural gas has declined, supply has increased and the known and probable reserves continue to rise. So, far from being in a position where these commodities are fast running out, the reality is that our reserves are becoming ever larger. Technology is continually improving the efficiency with which we burn those fossil fuels. The harsh reality is that as renewables have become cheaper and potentially more attractive, so traditional fuels have also become cheaper and technology has made them more attractive by reducing the pollution component from the fossil fuels that we now use.The prospect is that in the next 10 to 15 years we will even see zero emission coal plants. The prospect is that, again with some targeted investment in R&D, we will have coal plants that emit no nitrous oxides, no sulfur dioxides and which are particulate free—a very significant advance over what we have now. While it may seem absurd to speak of environmentally responsible coal, the reality is that that will be available to us in the near future. Given that the vast majority of our electricity is generated by coal and gas, and that this will be so no matter what happens with the government's legislation, even if it were fully taken up and fully used, the reality is that the vast majority of the CO2 from electricity generation in this country will still continue to come from coal and gas because they will remain far and away the most cost-effective generators of electricity.We should be looking at ways of making those sources more CO2 friendly and reducing the CO2 emissions—not only the nitrous oxide, sulfur dioxide and particulates but also, particularly in this context, the CO2 emissions—from those plants. While it is difficult to do with coal, the reality is that the shift to gas is a very important trend. Despite the billions of dollars which the United States has invested over the last few decades or longer in alternative and renewable energies, the one energy source which has emerged as the clear winner in the United States, and also in Australia in recent times, has been the once source of energy which the US government did not support—indeed, it even constrained it by price controls at the wellhead—and that is natural gas. The reality is that the use of natural gas in the United States and Australia is charging ahead. It is a good job that it is because gas is far less CO2 intensive than coal. It generates perhaps half the CO2 of a coal-fired power plant and does so with much less pollution. Clearly, the potential for natural gas is something that the whole system missed—which one has the potential to do when one supports energy from an ideological bias and not from a clear, scientific, environmental and close economic analysis of what the costs and benefits to society would be. That is an approach that I strongly commend to the House in this context.If one were to look at that, one would look, in the near term at least, at ways of improving the efficiency of our coal powered plants and at ways of using the very massive resources of both brown and black coal which this country has, and ensuring they are economically available to us. The future wealth of this country will depend very much on our ability to generate cost-effective energy. It makes no sense to take energy intensive applications like the refining of light metals in Gladstone—which I recently had the opportunity to examine—the aluminium and potential magnesium refining industries, because they are enormous users of energy and, therefore, generators de facto of CO2. If those plants were transferred to non-annex 1 countries—to, say, our neighbours in this region or Qatar or some of the other countries which have cheap supplies of natural gas, as we do—then certainly the world would not be the winner because the same or more CO2 would be generated and the same or more pollution would likely be generated and Australia's economy would be very significantly the loser. That is not an option I want to see from this kind of legislation. The reality is that exporting carbon in that way, because we are forced to make changes to the cost structure of our electricity generation, is far from effective. What much of this legislation ignores is the opportunity of sequestration. There is much debate in the global community at the moment about the extent to which carbon sinks and carbon emission trading and sequestration should be allowed to meet Kyoto objectives. If we allow unrestrained emissions trading, particularly with the former Soviet Union bloc countries, then the United States in particular will meet most of its obligations under Kyoto—if it were ever to sign up to them—by buying cheap permits from the former Soviet Union. It would not, in fact, reduce its own CO2 emissions, which is hardly a net benefit to the environment. These are the kinds of issues which we are forced to address but which this legislation and the government's analysis simply do not address. The other reality is to shift our energy generation economy towards gas—which I see as something the government and the parliament should in a bipartisan way support—and to promote our great natural gas industry from the Timor Gap and PNG from which, potentially, gas could come by pipeline down the east coast of Australia. There are, too, of course, the enormous fields of the North West Shelf and down the coast of Western Australia to the Gorgon fields, and many others of which, I am sure, our colleagues from Western Australia will wish to extol the virtues. I have had the pleasure of visiting the Western Australian fields on several occasions and I know they are extremely well managed. The activities of companies seeking to develop those fields—while they have their own commercial interests well at heart, I am sure, and the interests of their shareholders as the law requires—will benefit the global economy and the Australian economy, and we should allow them to do it. So what of the option of choosing an often discussed renewable energy, such as biomass, and supporting that? I am not opposed to biomass per se; one should not interpret my comments to be against biomass or against renewable energy, because I am not. Obviously, to the extent to which it can be properly utilised in the right context it makes great sense. In many cases biomass, because of its unique regional location, will make a contribution to regional economies which are not easily supplied from the national grid but have the availability of cheap and readily available bio-fuels and can take advantage of the heat that is co-generated along with the electricity. In those sorts of situations, we should indeed be taking advantage of biomass. But to mandate that across the whole economy at enormous cost to the economy as a whole, without looking at the alternatives which might well channel research and development funds into targeted investments in the most appropriate technologies, is very short-sighted. It is not a sensible response to greenhouse and not a sensible response to Kyoto, but merely a short-term, knee-jerk reaction by this government seeking political favour in a context where it sees that it needs green credentials.Unfortunately, in the final analysis, this is far from a green credential and it is far from an economic credential. I am very surprised that the business community have not addressed it more substantially because they and the work force of Australia are potentially the losers from this if costs are directed in the wrong way and if we do not take proper advantage of the technology which is available. So I say let us look very closely at this legislation over the next six to eight weeks. Since the government does not want to give the House of Representatives time to do it, let the Senate examine it closely, and let us— DK6Hockey, Joe, MPMr Hockey—We are doing it.N36Evans, Martyn, MPMr MARTYN EVANS—A week for legislation like this, Minister? I suspect you would not have been so relaxed if you had had to do the GST overnight. The reality is that this legislation does not precisely target what it should be targeting. What I want it to target is greenhouse gas reductions in the most cost-effective and environmentally appropriate way for this country. That is the target we should all be here to agree on and meet. Unfortunately, it is not the primary target of this bill, and I ask the government to reconsider that over the winter break so that we can have a more considered position when the parliament next has the opportunity to review this legislation. The opposition will support its passage this evening because that is the only reasonable thing to do, but we reserve our detailed response for the Senate. (Time expired)21:13:0018687Washer, Dr Mal, MPDr WASHER84FMooreLP10—The Renewable Energy (Electricity) Bill 2000 is part of a range of very worthy measures by the government in tackling the global problem of the greenhouse effect. The harnessing of renewable energies is a challenge that we must address now. Australia's commitment under the Kyoto protocol is a target of greenhouse gas emissions of just eight per cent above 1990 levels, which is effectively a 30 per cent reduction over this period to 2008-12 on current emissions projections.Naturally, after that deadline, we can expect even tougher targets on reducing greenhouse gases. Australia is a relatively small producer of greenhouse gases. The largest culprit is the United States; the next biggest is Russia and the other former republics of the Soviet Union; and the third biggest is all the developing countries combined. The latter is largely due to Third World slash and burn agriculture. I think this should always be taken into consideration when Australia enters into any agreements.It is of interest that ozone forms in the earth's atmosphere through the action of sunlight on oxygen. In the late 1970s, scientists working in Antarctica detected periodic loss of ozone in this layer above that continent. Similar studies have found a problem in the Arctic. The destruction of the ozone layer will aggravate our global warming problems because of the increase in solar radiation reaching the earth.So is there evidence of global warming? I guess that is the ultimate question. The answer is definitely yes. As the previous speaker said, as carbon dioxide and methane gas increase in the atmosphere, more radiated heat from the earth is trapped close to the ground. This forms the troposphere, close to the ground. If this is the case, the upper atmosphere would get less heat and would cool. The mesosphere, which is this upper atmosphere, is 50 to 90 kilometres up and has been cooling at a degree every year for the past 30 years—10 times faster than predicted. This cooling also occurs, albeit not as rapidly, in the stratosphere, where the ozone layer is. Global warming is occurring. The ice particles inside the polar stratospheric cloud form below negative 80 degrees Centigrade, speeding up the damage caused by the ozone depleting chemicals. Aggravating the whole effect are the rising world temperatures warming the tropical oceans, heating up the troposphere above and increasing the temperature difference between the tropics and poles. This speeds up the strong winter wind known as the polar night jet, which encircles the Arctic in the lower stratosphere, isolating this region even further and causing new rapid depletion of ozone above this region. We know this phenomenon also occurs in the Antarctic.Sceptics who need a little tangible evidence of the greenhouse effect should take a look at our neighbour Venus. This planet has nearly the same mass and the same size as Earth, and although it is closer to the sun, Venus has dense clouds so it actually absorbs less sunlight than Earth. The surface temperature on Venus, however, is a rather toasty 470 degrees Centigrade. This is caused by the huge amounts of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere—in other words, the greenhouse effect. This is what can happen to the Earth if there is an increase in greenhouse gases to this level. With an increasing population on our planet, we are pumping out more greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide into the atmosphere with the burning of fossil fuels and the destruction of forests. The actual figure is thought to be around seven billion tonnes of CO2 a year. As an aside, we often hear that the solution to reducing greenhouse gases is to plant more forests. This will help as long as the trees are growing, but then you have the problem of what to do with the fully matured ones. A fully grown tree will release CO2 into the environment disproportionately to its carbon trapping. A more efficient way of trapping CO2 is to plant more of what are known as C4, or carbon 4, type plants. These are plants like sugarcane and the grass family. We all know that plants use a process of photosynthesis to absorb light. But photosynthesis is actually quite inefficient. Normal forestry plants, for example, only absorb 0.2 per cent of light as chemical energy. C4 plants like sugarcane, however, are more efficient and around eight per cent of the light absorbed by the plant is preserved as chemical energy. This energy can then be used to trap CO2 with minimal release. I am sure the member for Kennedy will explain the biomass energy potential of this.YU5Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr Tanner—We are talking about the member for Kennedy and hot air, are we?84FWasher, Dr Mal, MPDr WASHER—Sugarcane.DK6Hockey, Joe, MPMr Hockey—CO2.84FWasher, Dr Mal, MPDr WASHER—Will you behave. The future will see if we can bio-engineer this into forestry to make C3 plants as efficient as C4. Electricity generation makes up the largest proportion of Australia's greenhouse gas emissions, and in the next 10 years it will make up 41 per cent of our total emissions. Renewable energy as a source of electricity, however, contributes little to the greenhouse effect. The Renewable Energy (Electricity) Bill 2000 and the associated Renewable Energy (Electricity) (Charge) Bill 2000 are just two of many greenhouse response measures that will help us meet our Kyoto commitments. This should result in the reduction of 5.5 million tonnes of greenhouse gases by 2010. The previous speaker did not know that. This measure will create an instant market demand for renewable energy while leaving it up to the various sellers of renewable energy to vie for business by being as competitive as possible.Under this legislation, wholesale buyers of electricity will be required to purchase additional renewable energy through trading renewable energy certificates. The number of certificates they must purchase will depend upon their projected market share of electricity purchases on liable grids. Their proportion of market share will then equate to their proportion of the target set for that year. The Australian target will reach 9,500 gigawatt hours of renewable energy by 2010. This is the equivalent to twice the renewable energy output of the Snowy Mountains hydroelectric scheme. If the buyer does not meet their particular target, they will be liable for a renewable energy charge. However, if the buyer is able to meet their shortfall over the next three-year period, they will be able to redeem that penalty. This approach is one of the first of its kind for a renewable energy scheme and represents around $2 billion in investment in renewable energy over the next 10 years.If the targets are met over the next 10 years, and this is a very significant point about this legislation, the amount of renewable energy used in Australia compared with fossil fuels would have gone from 10.5 per cent of all energy used in 1997 to 12.5 per cent in 2010. This is significant because, if this legislation is not passed, our consumption of renewable energy will in fact decline. A Renewable Energy Regulator, appointed by the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, will be created in order to oversee this scheme. This country already has many innovative sources of renewable energy, and it is worth noting that Tasmania, our smallest state, currently generates more than half of this nation's renewable energy.Companies are now investing in renewable energy sources in anticipation of energy certificates. Eligible renewable energy sources include solar—and Australia is still a world leader in solar technology, particularly in photovoltaics—wind, tidal, hydro, and biofuels such as landfill gas, biogas, biomass and waste by-products from agricultural industries. We are also world leaders. The Howard government has taken a leading role in greenhouse response programs, with funding commitments now totalling nearly $1 billion over the next five years. This includes a very worthy funding allocation from the budget of $21 million for greenhouse science and about $400 million to assist with the commercialisationand application of renewable energy technologies. There are challenges. As yet, wave energy conversion to electricity has not been commercially viable, but there are solutions. On the 20th of this month, the Howard government announced the funding of a feasibility study into the Derby Tidal Energy Project in my state of Western Australia. I know that the member for Kalgoorlie is speaking on this bill today, and this project would be situated in his electorate. His efforts so far on this project have been marvellous. Tidal power has been used for many centuries, through the effects of the sun and the moon upon the earth causing a gravitational pull which results in the tidal movements we observe. It was used to pump all of London's water supply until 1824. If you have ever visited the north-west town of Derby, you will know that they have some pretty amazing tides. In fact, its deep inlets and bays, coupled with tides of some 10 metres, makes it one of the best locations in the world for a power station.The proposed tidal power station would generate 48 megawatts with the double basin scheme—one with a high water level and one with a low level, providing power around the clock. The station would reduce emissions of carbon dioxide by 150,000 tonnes and would help Australia meet its Kyoto obligations by reducing emissions by two per cent by 2010. In fact, the station would supply 50 per cent of WA's needs to meet this agreement in power. The lake that will be created by the upper basin will promote such economic generating activities as tourism, aquaculture, fishing, and power generation for the mining industry. The $1 million commitment for the feasibility study from the federal government is a welcome indication that it is serious about harnessing renewable energy. It has the potential to put Australia at the forefront oftidal power technology, but we have only a small window of opportunity to get it right. I personally call on the Western Australian government to wait until this feasibility study has been completed before they make any commitment to a fossil-fuel substitute. The previous speaker, the member for Bonython, mentioned natural gas. Natural gas is terrific. In WA we have a problem—about 11 per cent CO2 comes out of that, and we need to reinject that. That is a problem.It is important when developing schemes like the renewable energy certificates to ensure that we offer quality alternatives to fossil fuels. If the tidal power station is built, it is estimated it would receive around $4 million a year from the renewable energy certificates that this legislation is creating. The incentives to invest and develop renewable energy in this country will be enormous. This bill also represents an incredible injection of jobs into rural areas, with estimates showing the potential for 10,000 jobs to be created around the renewable energy industry. The renewable energy certificates do not represent the least-cost method of reducing greenhouse gases in the short term but represent a long-term solution to support long-term high levels of emissions reduction.The United Kingdom's levy system on renewable energy has shown that, over time, the costs of generating electricity from a renewable energy source can be brought to levels comparable with traditional energy sources. By nurturing and encouraging our renewable energy base, the Australian economy will be better placed to respond to greenhouse targets which, in the future, will place greater emphasis on renewable energy sources. It is for this reason that I fully support this bill and commend it to the House. 21:27:0018689Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSONUK6WillsALP00—Around the world, increasing interest in renewable energy has led to significant investment and growth over the past decade. This interest in alternative energy sources has been driven by three factors. The first one has been the desire to reduce pollution. Much of the pollution which disfigures large cities in Asia, Europe and America has as its origin traditional fossil fuels—coal and oil. Secondly, there is concern that the non-renewable energy sources are being consumed at an unsustainable rate and will run out, or that at least their scarcity will send the price up in a way which attacks our present living standards—I guess motorists are already getting an insight into the future as the Saudi oil price per barrel keeps sneaking up. They certainly do not need any help by way of increased government taxation on petrol, as we have been discussing this week. Increasingly dominant, however, is national and international action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The problem has led to countries such as the United States, Japan, Germany and Denmark providing government policy support for renewable energy over the past decade. The resulting growth has been impressive. For example, the average global annual sales of wind turbines over the past six years have been 40 per cent. The photovoltaic market globally has averaged 25 per cent growth over the past five years, and even more impressive are the estimates of future growth. The United Nations has forecast that renewable energy will provide 30 per cent of the world's energy by the year 2025 and some 45 per cent by the year 2050. Shell is even bolder than the United Nations, predicting a 50 per cent share by 2050. Indeed, Shell is starting to put its money where its mouth is. In 1997 it established Shell International Renewables, with a budget of some $US500 million over five years. In 1999 it opened the biggest solar panel factory in the world in Germany.Australia is well placed to develop a world-class renewable energy industry, yielding benefits in jobs, regional development, economic growth, exports and, of course, the environment. So far, however, we have not pursued these opportunities with the sense of urgency necessary to get and stay in front of overseas competitors, such as Japan, Europe and the United States. With respect to specific opportunities for alternative energy industries, Australia has excellent credentials in the solar photovoltaic area. We have one of the world's best solar resources, we are located in the heart of the Asia-Pacific, and we have world competitive research and development and emerging new players in an established solar industry. Three of our solar research organisations are world leaders: the Photovoltaic Special Research Centre at the University of New South Wales, Pacific Solar Pty Ltd and Sustainable Technologies Australia Ltd. The manufacture of solar photovoltaic is considerable. The US solar industry predicts that the US market will grow to $2.5 billion within 10 years and that the European and Japanese markets will be similar in size. We have the potential to capture a good share of this growing market. We are the largest manufacturer of solar PV on a per capita basis in the world. Properly exploiting our competitive advantage in photovoltaics could make Australia a silicon valley of solar. There are examples of other countries also supporting their renewable industries. We can see, for example, Japan's New Sunshine Project, which provides a capital subsidy for around 30 per cent of the cost of a solar PV system. Japan is aiming for 4,600 megawatts of solar—which is 35 times what the entire global production was back in 1997—by the year 2010. Germany offers zero interest loans as part of the government's 100,000 Solar Rooftop program. The 10-year interest free loan, with no repayments in the first two years, amounts to a 38 per cent subsidy of the total cost of a solar PV system. The European Union collectively has a target of 500,000 solar rooftops by the year 2010. Similarly, in the United States, their Million Solar Roofs initiative offers tax credits against renewable energy equipment. Other options that are engaged in overseas include target setting, mandatory requirements for solar panels on new houses and other buildings, and allowing consumers to pay off on their electricity bill the cost of a solar panel, thereby getting around the disincentive of the up-front capital cost. The electricity cost savings mean that the solar panel pays for itself. One problem that does arise with all of this is the privatisation push for Australian power utilities. While that problem is not insurmountable, it does seem to me much more difficult for an electricity company that is geared to making profits for its shareholders to actually discourage people from using its product—much more difficult for the privately owned company than for a publicly owned authority.On the subject of wind power, one of the attractions that ought to be pointed out is its regional development potential. The United States Department of Energy has estimated that the government's goal of providing five per cent of the nation's electricity from wind by the year 2020 will provide $US60 billion in capital investment in rural America and $US1.2 billion in new income for rural land-owners. It will also provide 80,000 new permanent jobs and save 35 million tonnes of carbon dioxide. I think that the potential for rural and regional Australia is no less real. Australia has a high quality wind resource, with the best resources located in Tasmania, south-west Western Australia, Victoria and Central New South Wales. A wind turbine manufacturing facility opened in the Latrobe Valley last year, and that is expected to create 600 or 700 regional jobs over three years. Tasmania's Hydro Electric Corporation is developing a $114 million, 76 megawatt wind farm. These are precisely the areas—the Latrobe Valley and Tasmania—that have been worst affected by globalisation in recent times. It is noteworthy that the renewable energy industries require similar skills to the mining, manufacturing and conventional energy sectors—the sectors from which jobs have been disappearing. The country that has most effectively mobilised wind power has been Denmark. From zero at the start of the 1980s, Denmark's wind industry now has a turnover of $US1 billion, giving it 60 per cent of the world market. The industry employs 15,000 people in Denmark. In 1997 wind turbines were the country's fourth largest export commodity. This success has arisen from conscious government policy. From 1981 the Danish government set increasing domestic wind energy targets. Wind currently produces 10 per cent of Denmark's electricity, and the latest target is 50 per cent by the year 2030. The construction of wind turbines was supported by an investment subsidy which started at 30 per cent and was phased out during the 1980s. It has been replaced by a guaranteed payment for every unit of electricity generated from wind power set at a level to reflect its lack of pollution. There is also a rebate on electricity taxes. The United States has set a target of 5.5 per cent of government electricity use to come from wind power by the year 2010. Once again, I think that these are initiatives that Australia would do well to consider. A wind power industry which provides employment for steel manufacturers and electronic and engineering companies and which would require substantial apprenticeship and training programs would be a great national asset. I will also mention the area of liquid petroleum gas. Transport fuels are responsible for over a quarter of Australia's emissions of carbon dioxide—the most significant of all greenhouse gases. While solar and wind power are the most promising means of dealing with the contribution made by our electricity consumption to the greenhouse effect, the most advanced means for dealing with the transport fuels problem is through greater use of liquid petroleum gas. The Prime Minister's 1997 pre-Kyoto conference statement on climate change sought a 15 per cent improvement in motor car fuel efficiency by 2010 compared with business as usual. LPG vehicles have up to 15 per cent less carbon dioxide emissions than the equivalent gasoline powered car, and therefore have the potential, almost single-handed, to deliver the government's target—otherwise, it is hard to see how we would get there in the time frame available. Lowered greenhouse emissions are just one of three environmental benefits we can achieve from using LPG. LPG typically has around 20 per cent less ozone forming potential than the equivalent petrol fuelled vehicle and, accordingly, less tendency to generate photochemical smog. Photochemical smog, much of which is caused by emissions from transport vehicles, is strongly linked to asthma and other bronchial disorders. LPG has an even more impressive result for air toxics emissions—up to 80 per cent less. It is also claimed that LPG operates much more cleanly than petrol when the engine is cold. So, given the prevalence of short journeys in the city, the benefits of LPG may indeed be understated by those figures. LPG has made very solid inroads in Australia. Around half a million motorists use it, over 1,200 small businesses are engaged in LPG conversions, and virtually all Australian taxis now run on LPG. What remains needed is government commitment to promoting more LPG conversions, including rather closer price monitoring than we have seen so far from the Howard government. If we are serious about meeting our modest Kyoto commitments, we still need to deal with the up-front cost of LPG conversion, although the mechanism for doing this is not as obvious as it is for solar panels. To date, LPG has not made any inroads as a heavy vehicle fuel, for example, for buses and trucks. Having made those general observations, I turn to the provisions of the Renewable Energy (Electricity) (Charge) Bill 2000. This bill is intended to implement the government's decision in 1997 to introduce a mandatory requirement on electricity retailers and large users to source an additional two per cent of their electricity consumption by 2010. Electricity generation is the largest single contributor to Australia's greenhouse gas emissions. In 1997, it accounted for some 35.4 per cent of total emissions. Not only is it the largest contributor to emissions but it has one of the fastest rates in emissions growth. In 2010, it is expected, for example, to account for 41 per cent of emissions. The objective of the bill is to increase the contribution of renewable energy generation to Australia's electricity supply and help support the continued growth of a vibrant renewables industry in Australia.Whether it actually achieves this objective remains to be seen. There are doubts about its adequacy across the spectrum of stakeholders in this debate. It is therefore important that this parliament is used as a proper forum to get the legislation right. There have been many issues raised with the Labor Party by both industry and conservation groups regarding a range of concerns with the bill. We will be referring the legislation for review by the Senate Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts Legislation Committee to allow for appropriate parliamentary assessment of the legislation. We will determine our position on the legislation once we have had an opportunity to reflect on those concerns and to consider amendments.This bill was promised some 2½ years ago. It has been subject to internal government in-fighting which has led to the delay. The perennial divisions within the South Australian branch of the Liberal Party have been reflected in yet another Senator Minchin-Senator Hill `shoot-out' over this legislation. The measure we are talking about was first announced as part of the Prime Minister's statement back in November 1997 and formed an important part of the approach taken by the government in Kyoto. The emphasis placed on this measure in terms of our international credibility when it comes to a response on greenhouse should be put in some perspective.Other countries have set similar targets for increasing the contribution of renewable generation to their electricity supply. The European Union has pledged to increase their overall renewable energy contribution to 12 per cent. That is a 10 per cent increase over the current contribution. I mentioned before Denmark's performance in wind power. They have a target of 12 per cent of electricity supply to be generated from renewable sources by 2005 and 100 per cent by 2050. Last week, when Greenpeace were giving evidence to the Senate inquiry into climate change, they said that, in the 2½ years that we have been talking about how to implement a two per cent target, the Danes have increased their renewable generation contribution by some three per cent. That makes our two per cent target small, but as a target we would observe that it does represent a step in the right direction.The Labor Party supports market based approaches that encourage innovation and cost effectiveness. However, in establishing an appropriate framework for such a market based approach, we think it is essential that we do not disadvantage technologies that will be important in the longer term. We would think that this measure ought to be part of a larger overall strategy which uses both push and pull strategies, with appropriate levels of investment in research, development and commercialisation of technologies. The government's recently launched renewable energy industry action agenda represented a mix of such strategies, but was essentially a rehash of previous initiatives—virtually every measure announced by the government had already commenced. Many of these are part of the National Greenhouse Strategy or are already being pursued by industry and we would want to see a more visionary agenda from the government. The development of a renewable energy industry enjoys widespread support around the community, despite some lack of awareness and understanding of the current contribution of renewables and their relative impact compared with fossil fuel generated electricity. For example, according to research undertaken by the New South Wales Sustainable Energy Development Authority, most people in New South Wales identify solar and hydro before coal as the most dominant source for electricity generation. That same research indicated that over two-thirds of New South Wales consumers are interested in buying their power from environmentally preferable sources. These things indicate that consumers want green power and indeed that many think they are already getting it. The Carr government's Greenpower program, now operating nationally, has further demonstrated consumer demand for renewable energy. That voluntary program has resulted in considerable interest in renewable generation capacity, which provides a sound basis for further development to meet the additional 9,500 MWh target. Interim annual targets have already been set to reach the overall two per cent increase by 2010. One issue that has been raised is that, with existing renewable capacity, we are already over the first target set for 2001. That means that there could be less incentive to invest in new capacity in the first years of the legislation. That is an issue which might well be explored in the Senate review process. Another issue that ought to be examined closely is the level at which a penalty is set and the impact that that is going to have on the mix of technologies taken up under the measure. That is going to impact not only on whether we drive new, desirable technologies but also on where investment and job creation will occur. The sorts of technologies that result under this measure should impact across the geographic spread in terms of new investment and jobs.There should be regional benefits arising from this legislation. It is a pity, frankly, that the National Party sees fit to play a spoiler role within the government concerning issues of greenhouse when regional Australia could well be a winner from greenhouse abatement activity. I think the National Party representatives need to realise that renewable investment should mean jobs in regional Australia. Not only does greenhouse action offer positive benefits for regional Australia but greenhouse inaction has dire consequences for regional Australia. We saw the Senate inquiry into global warming being told very recently that CSIRO research shows water entering our rivers in the Murray-Darling basin could decrease by some 30 per cent by 2050, and we can expect an increase in the frequency and severity of droughts in south-eastern and eastern Australia. Given these things, we do have a number of concerns and we intend to canvass them in the committee process. We certainly think that there are some useful things that we can look at in terms of this legislation. We do have to understand how the challenge of climate change is going to impact on us and we do have to realise the opportunities of the future. We intend to work in terms of this legislation and our other opportunities to ensure that we do grasp and realise those opportunities of the future as well as respond to the challenge of climate change.21:47:0018693Haase, Barry, MPMr HAASE84TKalgoorlieLP10—I am very pleased to have the opportunity to stand and lend my support to the two bills under discussion this evening, the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Bill 2000 and the Renewable Energy (Electricity) (Charge) Bill 2000. It is a fact that the world's supply of fossil fuels will one day be exhausted through overexploitation by humankind, so I am always happy to support concrete measures which will contribute towards the lasting protection of our natural environment. The fossil fuels will not disappear during our lifetime, nor during the lives of the more youthful members of this House, but their supply will dry up sooner rather than later if alternative forms of energy generation are not encouraged and promoted by governments of today. These bills are vital elements of this government's push to create a competitive and sustainable renewable energy industry in Australia over the next 10 to 20 years. Over the long term, the government's efforts and initiatives to reduce the levels of Australia's greenhouse gas emissions may very well come to be regarded as the most significant achievement amongst a host of similarly notable successes. Future generations will, I believe, judge the Howard government as one of the most progressive and far-sighted in Australia's history, initiating as it has an array of much needed reforms in key socioeconomic areas. Taxation reform and health insurance reform immediately come to mind, but it remains my contention that the government's most enduring legacy will be the standard it has adopted to stimulate and encourage the development of a viable industry in the field of renewable energy generation.These bills will enable the government to place a legal liability on retailers and wholesale purchasers of electricity to strive to meet its mandatory renewable energy target. That target is the generation of an additional 9,500 gigawatt hours of new renewable energy by the year 2010, and retailers and wholesale purchasers will be required to contribute towards this proportionate to their market share of total purchases on liable grids. To allow for increased efficiency in the management of this scheme, the government has decided that the final target of 9,500 gigawatt hours will be reached in incremental stages between next year and the year 2010, with sales on grids of more than 100 megawatts installed capacity to be liable. Moreover, should substandard operators fail or refuse to comply with these objectives, the government will be able to impose financial penalties of $40 per megawatt hour for any shortfall in generation at each stage. Parties liable to contribute towards the mandatory renewable energy target will make their own arrangements as to how this is done in each particular instance. The Australian Greenhouse Office has provided a list of all eligible sources of renewable energy where that energy will be used for electricity generation or displacement. Those sources include solar power; wind power; the use of biofuels, such as landfill gas and biogas; and ocean, wave or tidal power. It is true that the government is asking industry to do more than it otherwise might have been prepared to do in this area, but we do not apologise for that given the necessity of greenhouse reduction through alternative forms of energy generation. Even though greenhouse emissions from this country account for less than two per cent of the worldwide total, this government is determined that Australia will play a leading role in the preservation of a healthy, natural environment for our children and their children's children. The mandatory renewable energy target is a small though integral part of the government's overall commitment to this. Of course, in outlining an initiative of this nature, the potential is always there for the more politically opportunist members of the opposition to claim that the government is not doing enough or that the government should be setting higher targets where the very important issue of greenhouse gas reduction is concerned. However, the fact is that the generation of 9,500 gigawatt hours of renewable energy will represent a major increase in this country's output of energy of that type. Generation levels in the year 2010 will actually be 60 per cent higher than they are today.The opposition also prides itself on the reputation it has obtained—completely unjustly, I would contend—that it is the friend of the worker. However, the cost to this country's work force of setting unrealistic targets for the reduction of greenhouse emissions over the short to medium term would be truly staggering. The Prime Minister, in his Safeguarding the Future statement to parliament in November 1997, correctly noted that energy intensive projects worth some $68 billion, mostly in export and manufacturing sectors, would be lost, along with the jobs of more than 90,000 workers in those areas, if the government was to approach this very serious issue in an unrealistic manner. It is also pertinent to point out that the government's dual focus of renewable energy generation as a method of reducing greenhouse emissions and of providing industry development will prove highly beneficial throughout this industry. The government has contributed $21 million to the creation of the Renewable Energy Innovation Investment Fund, as well as a further $10 million to showcase leading projects in areas such as tidal power, solar thermal power and photovoltaic technologies. This compares particularly favourably with the miserly $4.8 million spent by the Keating Labor government on its Renewable Energy Industry Program. This leads me to the development taking place in the Kimberley region of Western Australia, in the far north of my electorate of Kalgoorlie. All members on this side of the House, and, I suspect, most of the Western Australian members on the other side, will know of my support for Tidal Energy Australia in its bid to supply power to the towns of Derby, Broome and Fitzroy Crossing and to the other communities along the proposed 500-kilometre West Kimberley electricity grid. At this stage I must thank the member for Moore for raising this issue also. Tidal Energy Australia has submitted a proposal to the Western Australian state government outlining its aims to construct the world's first continuous tidal power facility at Doctor's Creek in King Sound, north of Derby. Tidal Energy Australia's proposal will allow for the construction of a 48 megawatt high basin-low basin project in what would be the largest renewable energy proposal seen in Australia to date. This project would provide enormous impetus to the government's agenda for a renewable energy industry, as its establishment would result in immediate savings of the 150,000 tonnes per year carbon dioxide emissions from existing diesel plants in the region. Its establishment would also greatly assist the Commonwealth in successfully attaining the greenhouse reduction targets which were agreed to at the Kyoto environment summit of 1997. As recently as last year, reports surfaced which suggested that greenhouse emissions from Western Australia alone were set to skyrocket over the coming decade, throwing doubt over Australia's ability to meet its targets.I might at this stage remind the opposition of the extraordinary work of the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, Senator Hill, who led the Australian delegation to Kyoto and succeeded in obtaining workable targets for Australia's greenhouse reduction strategy in the face of not inconsiderable opposition from the European Union. The damage to Australia's reputation as an innovator when it comes to the protection of the environment would be palpable should this country not succeed in reducing its greenhouse output by 2010.Returning to the Kimberley tidal power project, I should highlight the many benefits renewable energy generation will provide in associated sectors for rural and regional communities. Estimates show that 10,000 jobs could be created in regional Australia in both the renewable energy industry and associated industries as a result of the implementation of the 9,500 gigawatt hour target. As many as 30 per cent of these jobs would be in areas directly related to the generation of electricity. Tidal Energy Australia principals estimate that 500 new jobs would be created in the West Kimberley simply as a result of the construction of the Doctors Creek station. The investment in infrastructure for the generation of electricity through the harnessing of tidal power would also provide an ongoing stimulus to the economies of local communities after that infrastructure becomes fully operational. Here I am referring to the increased job opportunities which would open up in industries such as hospitality and tourism, as well as in technical and trade sectors, where opportunities to participate in the management and maintenance of the facilities would abound. And all these advantages say nothing of the very real possibility that the supply of power to remote and isolated centres could be made more reliable and economically sound. Tidal energy is not a new concept, having already addressed energy needs in France and Nova Scotia. However, the proposal for the West Kimberley is the first in the world providing continuous generation of power. The innovative technology demonstrated in such a worthwhile project would justify the confidence to construct a 500 megawatt station, providing the impetus to develop the Mitchell Plateau bauxite deposit. Low cost electricity is the key to alumina production, and clean renewable energy would fit with our Kyoto commitments. Located as the Kimberley is on the doorstep of Asia and being rich in resources, with the bonus of low energy cost, we have the potential to become a major manufacturing and population centre. This House last year endorsed a motion for Tidal Energy Australia's proposal to construct the Doctors Creek power station. That motion was moved by my colleague the member for La Trobe, well known as a long-time advocate of the benefits to be gained from this form of energy generation. My primary concern has always been to support initiatives which I know will benefit the population of the vast electorate of Kalgoorlie, so I have no hesitation in supporting the implementation of the two bills currently under discussion. For that reason, I wholeheartedly commend them to the House. 21:58:0018696Hall, Jill, MPMs HALL83NShortlandALP00—The Renewable Energy (Electricity) Bill 2000 and related legislation is another example of the government developing legislation that is going in the right direction, but it is too little and it has taken too long to develop. The legislation puts in place the requirement for high energy users, that is large buyers of energy, to source two per cent of their energy needs from renewable sources by 2010. This was the only mandatory commitment that the government made in Kyoto, and it still has not delivered. In 1997 it said that it was going to bring in this legislation. In 1997 it said that it was going to make it a requirement for high energy users. Here we are, halfway through 2000, and still no legislation has been enacted. It really shows what sort of a commitment this government has to this type of technology, renewable energy. It really is less than inadequate. It has taken 2½ years to get to this stage and now it really has to work hard: it is desperate to push it through the House because it has promised that it will be in place by 1 January next year.I believe that this government should have moved a lot faster and actually shown a real commitment to introducing this two per cent requirement. In the time that it has taken to develop this legislation, Denmark has put in place a three per cent renewable requirement. I find it hard to believe that it will be really effective because the levels of penalties included in the legislation are far too low. A number of companies will opt to pay the penalties rather than invest in the technology that is needed to really meet this renewable energy requirement. Also, those companies that do meet the requirement will definitely be more inclined to invest in the cheaper technologies—biomass, technologies that use sugarcane waste and waste from saw mills, plantation forests and even woodchips. I am sure that the minister for forestry is pushing that as an option because we could hardly call woodchips a renewable source of energy. We need legislation that is going to encourage a mix of technologies, not just a commitment to cheap options like biomass. We need legislation that will encourage companies to invest in wind, solar, tidal and all the other technologies that we have heard about here tonight. There should be a requirement to invest in technologies that are going to lead to long-term benefits and that are actually going to make a real impact in the energy industry and not opt for the short-term options that I believe this legislation will lead to.The electricity supply industry has made a commitment to renewable energy. In fact, Pacific Power has a strong renewable group and Energy Australia has a strong commitment to developing renewable energy technologies. Both these companies have a strong Hunter base and renewable energy projects in the region. The Hunter region as a whole has made a strong commitment to renewable and sustainable industries. The industry development centre in the Hunter is giving priority to the development of sustainable energy industries with clusters concentrated on the development of environmentally friendly commercial activities.One of the most innovative programs, and one that I would like to talk a little about, is run by Newcastle council. Australian Municipal Energy Improvement Facilities, which is a business unit of Newcastle council in the electorate of my colleague the member for Newcastle, is providing a service not only to the Hunter region but throughout the whole of Australia. The Hunter is an area that has really had to redefine the direction in which it is going and look at its whole industry base. With the closing of BHP and the downsizing of a number of heavy industries in the area, Newcastle council is showing some leadership and looking at embracing new industries and new technologies. One of those is the renewable energy technology. It is looking at picking up on the skills of all those highly skilled workers that have spent many years at BHP, workers that live in the electorates of Shortland, Paterson, Hunter and Charlton; all those very skilled workers will be able to be absorbed into all these new industries. They have even an established a centre to advise local councils throughout Australia on how to improve their energy performance. The AMEIF business unit of Newcastle council works with local government and the residential and commercial sector to deliver results that improve energy efficiency. Therefore, it is reducing greenhouse costs, lowering energy costs and creating jobs. As for some of the costs that it has delivered to Newcastle council, it has reduced its energy cost from $1 million in 1995 to $350,000. That is a saving of some $593,000. Newcastle council is sharing this information with councils, as I have already mentioned, throughout Australia. Councils within my electorate like those of Lake Macquarie and Wyong are linking into this knowledge base that has been developed in Newcastle. It is promoting local jobs and it is a real investment in the future of a region that has really had to take a very close look at itself, look at who it is, where it wants to go, ensuring that we are prepared to embrace all the new technologies of the future. This unit supports the New South Wales and federal governments and it has a number of local partners that it is working with.Many new projects have been fostered through this unit, and I can see that it will lead to real improvements in renewable energy and energy efficiency in the area. On Monday, 3 July there is going to be a special meeting in Newcastle, at which they are going to look at how the Newcastle-Hunter communities can work together to achieve new jobs and a healthy future through saving energy. The meeting will focus on renewable and sustainable energy options, and it shows that the Newcastle and Hunter regions are embracing the issue of renewable and new energy.I would like to turn to Energy Australia, which was the first company in Australia to introduce a `Pure Energy' renewable energy scheme. The scheme was introduced in 1996, and it was sponsored by the Carr Labor government, which had a real commitment to renewable energy. The `Pure Energy' scheme gives Energy Australia's retail electricity customers the option of having their energy needs met from a portfolio of renewable energy sources and zero or low greenhouse gas emitting energy sources, including solar, wind, hydro and landfill gases. As I mentioned, Energy Australia first trialed the scheme in August 1996. Michael Egan, the then New South Wales Treasurer and Minister for Energy, launched the project, and it was trialed on 50,000 households in the Newcastle-Lake Macquarie area. As I said, this was the first `green' power scheme of its type in Australia. Based on the successful trial, Energy Australia expanded the scheme, offering it to all of its 1.3 million electricity customers in Sydney, in the Hunter and on the Central Coast. Since then, the number of Pure Energy customers has grown steadily. Now Energy Australia is supplying Pure Energy to more than 14,000 residential customers as well as to a large number of commercial customers, including Stadium Australia, the Olympic Coordination Authority and SOCOG.In the relatively short time since the scheme began, Energy Australia has developed a comprehensive portfolio of renewable energy generators. One of these is the 600-kilowatt wind turbine on Kooragang Island. Located on the northern outskirts of Newcastle in the Hunter region, this turbine was commissioned in October 1997. It has been very successful, and it produces one million kilowatt hours annually, preventing the release of almost 1,000 tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere each year. The project cost a total of $1.5 million. This shows you how Energy Australia is committing itself to the philosophy of renewable energy. It is not giving lip service to it; it is making a real and genuine commitment to renewable energy. As well as that, Energy Australia has established the Singleton Solar Photovoltaic Power Station. This, too, has been very successful. Energy Australia believes that renewable sources of energy are not capable of meeting all the energy needs of people in the Hunter. It has a place alongside coal generated electricity, which also plays a very important role in our region. Skills used in one type of energy production are also used in the other. This shows that if a community, an area, a region, a state or a country has a commitment to do something, it can be achieved. I really do question the government's commitment in this area. I really feel that much more work needs to be done and that a far greater commitment, a real commitment, to renewable energy needs to be made by the government. The government makes a commitment and then it struggles to meet that commitment. It made a promise to introduce the two per cent requirement, and it looks like it is having difficulty keeping that promise. It has great difficulty even delivering the smallest change, the smallest improvement. If you make a commitment, you need to make a real commitment, like the one Newcastle Council made, like the projects I have told you about, like the one made by Energy Australia. It must be a commitment that is aware of technologies that exist, that complements them and that is a commitment for the future and for future technologies. The government needs to make the kind of commitment the Carr government has made in New South Wales—a commitment that has led to the development of new jobs, new technologies and hope for the future.22:13:0018698Katter, Bob, MPMr KATTERHX4KennedyNP10—I rise tonight to speak on the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Bill 2000. Some of us, from both sides of the House, went to listen to the Lavoisier group on global warming and CO2 in the atmosphere. The presentation by the scientist John Daly was certainly very impressive indeed. It was very hard to listen to Mr Daly without questioning the presumptions which underlie the proposal that is coming forward this evening. He presented a series of graphs on what he called `virgin sites'—that is, sites unaffected by urbanisation. An urbanised site, in contrast, has a huge warmth surrounding it. If you were driving to a big city from a country area—which I do on numerous occasions—on a clear night you can see the glow of the city for some 20 or 30 kilometres. Of course, that glow represents heat, so if your heat monitoring devices are within that glow—and most of the heat monitoring scientific sites throughout the world are—they are affected. He selected a series of sites that were not in those areas and also conformed to the very stringent requirements in the United States. He took the figures from the United States and from both of the polar caps. They indicated that the overall effect was probably a slight cooling rather than a warming.He indicated clearly that there undoubtedly was an increase in the CO2 in the atmosphere. There was no question about an increase in CO2, but he quoted another scientist, Dr Farquar, as saying that a doubling of CO2 has the same effect on plant life as a doubling of rainfall. In other words, it has a terrific beneficial effect as far as the growth of plants goes. Of course, CO2 is a food for plants. This correlates with a finding of the Australian Institute of Marine Science. The then director of the institute said that, whilst it is very difficult to get a clear impression of whether the seas are warming or cooling, if one had to make an assessment, the effect on the overall sea temperatures throughout the world would probably be a very slight cooling effect. But he said that it would be a very brave scientist that would commit himself to either a warming or a cooling. So I have to really question the scientific underpinning of what we are dealing with here. We have seen many of these fad sciences come and go over the last three decades in which I have been involved in public life.ET4Bevis, Arch, MPMr Bevis—Like the hydrogen car.HX4Katter, Bob, MPMr KATTER—I think there is hardly an inquisitive scientist in the world that does not consider that ultimately we will be running our motor vehicles on hydrogen. Whilst there may have been some humour and mirth at the mishandling of the promotion on the occasion in Queensland, there is no doubt that most intelligent commentators say that is where the basic thrust of hydrogen for our vehicles is. Let us judge the two per cent renewable energy source upon its merits. There is some merit in this approach. But, once again, I have to introduce this information: almost a fifth of the entire surface area of Queensland is underlain by coal—and I understand the same situation exists in New South Wales. So I really wonder whether those people that are in this House representing Queensland or for that matter New South Wales should be in the business of promoting energy that does not involve coal. If you say, `You are going to have coal-fired power stations, then you have to absorb the CO2,' for those who are not familiar with the technology at a power station, 98 to 99.9 per cent of the solid emissions can be collected by an electrolytic collector or a baghouse technology, so the solids can be dealt with fairly effectively, and the remaining problem of the CO2 emissions can be dealt with by the growing of trees, to put it at its simplest.It rather fascinates me when we come to the area of growing trees, because we constantly get lectured by all the fad scientists and trendy politicians. A lot of ministers in the various governments throughout Australia constantly lecture us on our loss of trees and tree clearing. I cannot speak for the rest of Australia, but in the area that I represent—in the northern half of Queensland—from Townsville to the Northern Territory border, most of the area is taken up by the `great inland treeless plain', some 600 kilometres wide, stretching from this side of Hughenden to the other side of Cloncurry. That inland plain is no longer treeless. In fact, heavy infestation of six million hectares by the Acacia nilotica tree has taken place, so where we once had grassland we now have very heavily timbered areas. That has occurred effectively in the space of about the last 12 years. In addition to that, in the area between Hughenden and Townsville, a large number of the stations around Charters Towers were called downs stations because they were open, rolling country. `Downs' is the term used where you do not have trees. Those stations were all called `downs' because they were effectively treeless when European settlement started in these areas. I do not want to go into the reasons why the ecology of the area has changed and they are now very heavily timbered properties, but the fact of the matter is that where we once had open grassland we now have very heavily timbered areas.Add together the area taken over by the Acacia nilotica tree and the natural growth of trees in these areas that were once downs country, and take into the account the huge bushfires that occurred from either mosaic burning by the first Australians or alternatively naturally occurring bushfires. One bushfire that started on the station next door to the station that I owned at the time burnt out some 80,000 acres of trees. That fire went on not for 40 kilometres but for 800 kilometres. I do not know how many trees were lost in that fire, but those trees are not now being lost. All of that area now is crisscrossed everywhere by firebreaks and there are people living there that fight those fires. The fires no longer have the incineration effect that takes out all of the trees. Put those three effects together. I do not want to go on too long on this particular aspect, but it does behove me to say that the reasons those downs stations—Burdekin Downs, Fanning Downs, et cetera—are now timbered is that there is water all over those stations and there are kangaroos and cattle that eat the grass down, so you do not have the huge fires that take out the trees. The grass competition is restricted by the animals and the trees are able to get away. They are not under the mosaic burning regime of the first Australians.In the top half of Queensland, which is about one-sixth the surface area of Australia, we have a massive increase in the absorption of CO2—not the opposite effect at all. On the coastal plain there was rainforest which, because it was fully grown, did not absorb much carbon dioxide at all. That land has been cleared. Each year in some 100,000 hectares along the coast of North Queensland 100 tonnes of carbon dioxide is taken out of the atmosphere per hectare and converted into cattle and human beings, because it becomes sugar that is absorbed into the body of human beings or it becomes molasses that is absorbed by the cattle. The rest of it is ploughed back into the soil these days because of our trash blanketing operations, and some of that does go back into the atmosphere. So we have a huge net CO2 sink that simply was not there before. So once again I question the premises underlying this. If we do ascribe to the theory that there is an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere—and everyone I know ascribes to that theory; and I would attribute that to some of the more industrialised countries and more urbanised areas, most certainly not the agricultural areas that country members of parliament represent—then let us have a look at the ethanol alternative. Other speakers have mentioned ethanol. It staggers the mind to understand why Australia does not have an ethanol regime. Of all the countries in the world that should have ethanol content in their fuel, this country should be first amongst them. I do not know what the situation is with all the countries, but at the last series of seminars I went to on ethanol it was said that, for example, Brazil, France, the United States and Canada all have significant amounts of ethanol in their fuel. It varies from 22 per cent in Brazil, and that is by law, down to smaller figures for the other countries. A very large number of countries on earth already have a mandatory regime of ethanol. A little-known fact in Australia is that, if you live in an urbanised city, a metropolitan area, of Australia, your chances of dying of a lung disease are twice as high as they would be if you had that lung disease in a non-metropolitan area of Australia. That is because of the exhaust emissions from motor cars. If we move to 15 per cent ethanol in petrol, you will get a much cleaner burn and part of that problem will be significantly diminished—but certainly not eliminated. So if we move towards a 15 per cent ethanol blend that will have a very good effect on the environment.The Brazilians are producing ethanol at this point in time for 25c a litre. We in Australia are currently paying oil companies around 35c a litre. It is an enormously attractive option at the moment just on that analysis alone. But if one considers that in 1986 the Queensland government was approached by Transfield on the basis that, when lead was taken out of petrol, very expensive additives had to be put back in to raise the octane level—the explosibility, if you like to use that expression—and if you use a 15 per cent ethanol blend, you would not need those additives. The analysis done by Wright and Killen of Texas and by Fluor Daniel of Texas—two separate leading authorities—said it ranged from being four per cent more expensive per litre to being two per cent less expensive per litre, depending upon a whole range of factors, but there was no significant increase in cost with a move to a 15 per cent blend.To the governments who charge excise duty, we would say, `Mr Government, take the excise off.' This government in their wisdom took the excise off ethanol—and we thank them most sincerely for taking the excise off ethanol; we hope that it will be kept off ethanol. This resulted in no loss to revenue because that imported oil—and in 15 years we will be importing all of our oil into Australia; most of it now is imported petrol—will be replaced by Australian product which is produced in a plant that employs a large number of people who pay taxes. So of the $1.5 thousand million a year that will suddenly come into existence with this 15 per cent content in our oil, $500 million will go into consolidated revenue as tax revenue immediately because one in every three dollars generated is taken by the governments of Australia in tax. So there will be no loss to revenue because we will have this replacement offset. I know it is not quite that simple and it is not quite as good as I am making it out there, but let us say that one-third of the excise can be removed.So now we have a flying start because at this point in time ethanol is cheaper than petrol. We have a second huge advantage in so far as the expensive additive—and I might add, it is a very nasty additive—can be removed and replaced with ethanol. We have the third advantage which is the flow of taxation into Australia that would not otherwise be there if this industry did not exist. Not only will that industry overcome part of the emission problems from our motor cars but on the figures that I have looked at initially—I have not been able to double-check this figure so I ask people to use it with care—that would require 60 million tonnes of cane per year. That would be 60 million tonnes of CO2 which would be taken out of the atmosphere every year. Even in 100 years time, the growth will only be 300 million tonnes. So one-fifth of the problem, even in 100 years time, would be addressed by the growth of sugarcane. In its natural state, Australia has few trees on the land. On a hectare of land there might be 50 or 60 trees at most. Because almost all of them would be fully grown, they would take very little carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere. If you suddenly put 100 tonnes of cane a year on a hectare there would be a huge difference in the carbon dioxide sink created by the growing of that sugarcane.In addition to all those benefits, because of the heat that is generated in a sugar mill in the creation of sugar and ethanol, each of the 29 or so sugar mills in Australia would be able to produce 50 megawatts of electricity. Even the smallest mill in Australia, the Rocky Point mill on the south coast, is producing a 50 megawatt output. The last time I looked, Queensland was producing 5,000 megawatts a year. That was its in-store capacity—so one per cent of that is coming from that tiny little south coast mill. If you have almost 30 mills generating 50 tonnes a year, you are generating some 1,500 megawatts of electricity per year. That should work out to about five per cent. I will not be too specific, but if each of those mills does what Rocky Point is now doing and if we are growing ethanol, that would double the amount of cane and would certainly result in an increase in the number of mills. There is no doubt that five to seven per cent of Australia's entire capacity would be generated from those mills and we would be more than meeting the two per cent target. We would be meeting that target standing on our heads. In addition to that, we would have created 30,000 jobs in Australia. In addition to that, we would be cleaning up the dangerous emissions in our cities. In addition to that, we would be providing half of our sugar producers with long-term contracts at acceptable prices, which is what we enjoyed in the great days of Doug Anthony—the father of the minister in charge of the House at the present moment.We have the opportunity to add enormously to the thrust that is coming through tonight via the ethanol alternative, which will provide cogeneration capacity—thus doubling the target we are talking about tonight. Whilst you may say that the two per cent is a small figure—I think it is an extremely high figure, frankly—it is giving the government encouragement and a pat on the back and the impetus that is needed to get private enterprise moving in that direction. We are telling the doers, shakers and movers out there, `We are on your side. We want you to head in this direction. We will do everything humanly possible to help you head in this direction.'The enormously exciting possibility of ethanol is before Australia at the present moment. Every other country is doing it. Surely, of all the countries in the world that should be doing it, this should be the country that does it most. We keep trying to produce half our agricultural production from the Murray-Darling system, which has only 20 million megalitres of water, and we have 120 million in the Gulf country alone. (Time expired)22:34:0018701Sidebottom, Sid, MPMr SIDEBOTTOM849BraddonALP00—I think we are going to need a bit more than renewable energy after waiting for two years and being at whatever hour we are at to deal with this, but we will do our best. On 28 April 1998, Australia signed the Kyoto protocol. This committed us to a target for national greenhouse gas emissions of eight per cent above 1990 levels by 2012. This is a 30 per cent reduction against current business as usual projections of greenhouse gas emissions. The protocol is an important and strategic decision towards globally reducing greenhouse gases, as well as contributing towards Australia meeting our agreed Kyoto targets. For this to occur we need to develop a number of measures and mechanisms which a number of speakers have referred to tonight to reduce emissions from the electricity sector—one of Australia's major contributors to greenhouse gas emissions. The Renewable Energy (Electricity) Bill 2000 aims to establish and administer a scheme to encourage additional electricity generation from renewable energy sources. It is a means, amongst others, to reduce national greenhouse gas emissions. The problem of greenhouse gas emissions in the atmosphere is at the heart of this nation's concern to do its bit to tackle this serious global problem. As the explanatory memorandum says on page 6: The balance of scientific opinion supports the view that there has been a discernible and tropogenic influence on the earth's climate as a result of increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. The governments of developing nations consider this issue of enough concern to warrant global action to arrest greenhouse gas emissions growth.Australia's total emissions are estimated to grow by around 28 per cent from 1990 to 2010. The 1997 figure of 431 megatonnes was already higher as a level of emissions than the 1998 agreed emissions cap for 2008 to 2012. Curbing and reducing emissions growth will require a variety of strategies, one of which is before us today. Electricity generation is the largest contributor to this country's greenhouse gas emissions at 35.4 per cent or 152 megatonnes of total emissions. ABARE predictions are that Australia's electricity consumption will grow by 1.7 per cent a year for the next 15 years. Obviously, curbing and reducing greenhouse gas emissions in this industry is crucial. This needs to tackle generators of fossil fuel emissions, improve current renewable energy generators such as mini hydro schemes and encourage a further take-up of renewables. The fact that further emission increases are expected in the future based on projections that coal will continue to be used as a fuel source means that a strategy mainly relying on increasing renewable energy does not tackle the fundamental issue—namely, curbing and reducing greenhouse gas emissions to meet our agreed targets of 1998.We need a comprehensive strategy to also make fossil fuel generators of electricity more environmentally efficient and effective in minimising the CO2 emissions levels predicted to account for 41 per cent of total emissions in 2010. The explanatory memorandum recognises this. On page 6 it says:There is not existing legislation currently in place which directs the electricity supply industry to reduce its emissions or derive more energy from lower greenhouse gas emitting sources, and it is unlikely that significant reduction action will occur without strong Commonwealth direction.It is worth noting that New South Wales has included an emissions reduction requirement for electricity retailers in New South Wales, although I must add that non-compliance penalties did not exist under this scheme. With this in mind, I wish to turn to the legislation and its intention to increase or accelerate the uptake of renewable energy in grid based power applications and to provide an ongoing base for commercially competitive renewable energy. In effect, the bill proposes a two per cent mandatory target for the uptake of renewable energy in power supplies. There are others, of course, who believe the target should be much higher, and again others who believe that it should be lower and that more priority should be put on achieving the Kyoto target by other means. Referral of this bill to a Senate reference committee will allow some of these points of view to be more comprehensively assessed. Apart from acting as an accelerator, the bill proposes an ongoing renewable energy base for the development of commercially competitive renewable energy, as well as contributing to the development of internationally competitive industries which could participate effectively in the growing Asian and world energy markets. Fundamentally, the bill proposes that electricity retailers and other large electricity buyers will be legally required to source an additional two per cent of their electricity from renewable or specified waste product energy sources by 2010. This measure guarantees a market of 9,500 gigawatt hours per annum of additional renewable energy by 2010, with interim annual targets being phased in from 2001. For my state of Tasmania, renewable energy products from wind and water are ideally placed to benefit from an emphasis on encouraging and promoting a greater take-up of renewable energy in power supplies, whether via this legislative strategy or other means. Tasmania provides, as other speakers have mentioned this evening, 50 per cent of existing renewables in Australia. In Tasmania, under the proposals of this bill, the Hydro Electric Corporation will be eligible to earn one renewable energy certificate, as detailed in part 2 of the bill, for every megawatt hour of new renewable energy generated. For example, energy generated from Tasmanian wind farms would be eligible to earn renewable energy certificates. In addition, existing renewable energy generators, such as the Hydro, will receive RECs, renewable energy certificates, relative to the baseline production level of 1997. Thus, efficiency upgrades of existing machinery or new minihydro schemes would be eligible to earn RECs. Tasmania's geographic location is perfect for weather systems that bring both wind and rain to the state, and both will be harnessed to generate electricity. Contrary to what the shadow minister mentioned tonight, the wind and the rain stop on the west coast and do not impede the rest of the state. Tourists will experience beautiful weather if they come to the island. Water will become the great storage cell for wind energy, creating a massive liquid battery. As I mentioned, Tasmania currently produces over 50 per cent of Australia's renewable energy, and nearly 100 per cent of its electricity is from renewable energies. Tasmania is a significant existing generator of renewable energy. We have 27 small to medium sized hydro-electric power stations producing over 50 per cent of Australia's renewable greenhouse-friendly electricity. In 1998-99, Tasmania generated 9,863 gigawatt hours of renewable energy. Preliminary estimates by Hydro Tasmania indicate that there may be up to 2,800 gigawatt hours of additional water and wind energy that could be developed within Tasmania within 20 years.The bulk of this new generation will most likely come from wind developments. As I pointed out in September last year in this House, the Hydro Electric Corporation of Tasmania believes that wind development in the state, particularly on the west and north-west coasts, will be the turning point for Tasmania in this century as hydro development was in the 20th century. The Hydro has already gained valuable experience in developing wind farms on King Island and has plans for extensive new developments in my electorate of Braddon on the beautiful north-west coast. In 1998 the Hydro established Tasmania's first wind farm, as I mentioned, at Huxley Hill on King Island, which is to the north-west of the Tasmanian mainland and also in my electorate of Braddon. It has three turbines with a capacity of 750 kilowatts. In its first year of operation, the farm saved the Hydro $400,000 in diesel fuel, reduced CO2 emissions by 1,900 tonnes and reduced reliance on diesel fuel by about 20 per cent. With the assistance of the Australian Greenhouse Office and its Renewable Energy Commercialisation Program, the Hydro is working on developing an integrated renewable energy system involving a mix of wind power, minihydro, pump storage, battery and inverter system, demand management and integrated system control. This will be an Australian first.In February of this year, the Hydro presented plans for a west-north-west wind farm at historic Woolnorth. This is in the vicinity of Cape Grim where we boast the cleanest air in the world. The plan is for a three-phase project over five to seven years. In all, something like 130- to 150-megawatt production is envisaged. In addition, other sites, including Marrawah in my electorate and Granville Harbour on the rugged west coast, are being considered. The average wind speed at Granville Harbour is 7.6 metres per second at a 30-metre height; on King island, it is 9.8 metres per second at the same height. I am led to believe that Marrawah could produce 350 megawatts and Granville Harbour 140 megawatts of power.There is great potential in the manufacture of wind technology in the state. This represents the opportunity for new industries in Tasmania in the form of blade manufacture and the manufacture of towers and plant assembly for wind turbines. In effect, technology transfer will generate jobs and, in Tasmania, this is most necessary and invaluable. Several options exist for developing a wind power manufacturing industry in Tasmania. Whatever option is chosen, manufacturing will have the obvious spin-off effects of greater employment, creation of local industry, reduction of equipment costs and an increase in the uptake of wind energy in Australia and the region. The exciting Basslink electricity scheme is the vehicle for Hydro Tasmania and the state to be a vital and competitive player in the Australian electricity market. New markets will be opened up for our renewable electricity and new opportunities for Tasmania. Basslink is Tasmania's bridge to the national electricity market and grid. The tyranny of distance will soon become the bridge of opportunity. We can sell and export our electricity and realise the peaking potential of our hydro facilities to a national benefit. Likewise, we can import energy. The bill is one mechanism which, if used effectively, will provide a stimulus and be part of the means of placing Australia at the forefront of wind and water renewable energy development.If members of the House would like to look at some of the submissions made by Hydro Tasmania, under the title of their booklet `Renewable Target', I will be more than happy to share it, particularly if they are interested in wind generation and plans for renewable energy along those lines. Tasmania is well placed to play its part in assisting Australia to reach its commitment to the Kyoto protocol. There are other policy options that have been adopted overseas to develop the renewable energy industry, or certain sectors of it, such as wind and water. No doubt some of these will emerge in more detail when this bill is sent off to the Senate references committee, where we can look at it in more detail and take on board a number of the options canvassed here tonight on both sides of the House.I did mention that other policy options have been adopted overseas. Some of these include capital subsidies for part of the initial cost of renewable energy equipment, exemplified in Japan; higher payments or tax credits for the electricity produced from renewables, and examples of that can be found in Germany; direct government subsidy to the industry itself, providing zero or low interest loans—for example, over 10 years, no repayments in the first two years and fast approval processes, as in Germany with their solar PV systems; policies that support renewable energy within government operations—for example, targets, installation of renewable energy equipment, et cetera, as stipulated by government and for government departments; mandatory requirements for renewable energy equipment in government departments; tax credits against renewable energy equipment, as in the United States of America; and, finally, national targets for the generation of electricity from renewable energy as a whole, or from particular renewable energies such as in Denmark.I will conclude by saying that I look forward to sharing with my Tasmanian colleagues, and particularly Hydro Tasmania, the uptake of even further renewable energies, the great benefits they can bring to Australia and our part in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and CO2 in the world. I am sure the world will be a better place for it, that greater jobs will be generated and that this planet will be fitter for our children and for their children in the future.22:49:0018704Kelly, De-Anne, MPMrs DE-ANNE KELLYFK6DawsonNP10—The Renewable Energy (Electricity) Bill 2000 and the Renewable Energy (Electricity) (Charge) Bill 2000 are a significant step towards a cleaner, greener Australia and demonstrate this government's strong and practical commitment to meeting our obligations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. In fact, these bills formed an important part of the original package of measures promoted by the government in the lead-up to the Kyoto negotiations. The bills encourage businesses to pursue actions they would otherwise be unlikely to pursue without the provided incentives. At the same time, responsible limits have been placed on the financial impact of those actions on businesses in the national economy. It is a market driven and flexible approach to encourage innovation for a better environment and it illustrates in a clear and unambiguous way how this government can work cooperatively with private enterprise to obtain a wider community and international benefit.Under these bills, the achievement of the mandatory renewable energy target will be facilitated by a certificate trading mechanism. It is an approach that is a first for a renewable energy scheme. The approach adopted will also support the most cost-effective response, with low-cost generators being able to sell their product to parties who may have only limited renewable energy potential in their area. Allowing certificate trade will also provide substantial flexibility in the achievement of the measure, with certificates generated in years of high yield being banked to guard against the possibility that lower than average generation levels may occur in a following year. It is envisaged there will be a substantial reduction in gases in the short term and the potential for a much greater reduction, obviously, in the longer term. Various estimates place the CO2 to be achieved through this measure between 5.5 million tonnes and seven million tonnes. It is certainly one of the largest single measures in the National Greenhouse Strategy and a major contribution towards meeting our Kyoto obligations. It is recognised that the electricity generation sector, as the largest contributor to Australia's greenhouse emission profile, must make efforts to reduce their greenhouse gas growth. The measures in these bills contribute significantly to that sector's greenhouse gas response strategies.The longer-term nature of the measure could see even more than the 9,500 gigawatt hours of electricity generated from renewable energy sources after 2010. The significance of 9,500 gigawatt hours is shown by the fact that this is more than twice the renewable energy output of the Snowy Mountains Hydro-Electric Scheme, or slightly more than the entire generation of Hydro Tasmania—with all due respect to the member for Braddon—which supplies most of the electricity for the state of Tasmania. This equates to a domestic electricity consumption for a city of some four million people, or about a 60 per cent increase above current renewable energy generation levels.The investment required is between $2 billion and $3 billion in the renewable industry up to 2010, so its significance and impact cannot be understated. The Minister for the Environment and Heritage, Senator Robert Hill, and the government have negotiated and achieved a remarkable outcome, and I am certainly pleased with the informed estimates that in excess of 10,000 jobs could be created, predominantly in regional areas, as a result of the implementation of the two per cent target. Up to 3,000 of these potentially could be directly related to energy generation. Certainly the economic benefits for regional Australia are exciting and, importantly, could well be ongoing.It is appropriate in this debate about the important issue of renewable energy that I raise a related subject. The government's Sugar Industry Task Force hosted a seminar here in Parliament House on 1 June on the ethanol industry in Australia. Ethanol is produced from renewable resources in Australia, predominantly wheat and sugar cane. The task force hosted this seminar, which attracted an impressive number of expert contributors, to inform itself—and, by extension, the government—of the current status and the likely future of the domestic ethanol industry. Currently some 110 million litres of ethanol are produced each year in Australia, with roughly 60 million litres from sugar cane and 50 million from starch. Of that, we consume approximately 42 million litres domestically.Ethanol has a wide application. It is used in the production of pharmaceuticals, food and beverages, chemicals, household methylated spirits, printing, paint and paint thinners, aerosols and cosmetics, and it is used in laboratories and hospitals. However, the real opportunity for growth is as an additive to fuel, with the suggested blend being anywhere between two per cent and 10 per cent. The current cost to supply ethanol into fuel markets in major capital cities has a variety of estimates, the highest being about 69c or 70c a litre. The Australian Biofuels Association said:Over the next three to five years, significant reductions in the cost of producing ethanol are anticipated due to technology advantages and innovation in the existing industry, and through the demonstration and commercialisation of new cellulose to ethanol technologies.There has been significant progress to date. In 1995 the government estimated the cost of delivering ethanol fuel into major city markets was 82c. Today, it is anticipated to be 69c to 70c a litre. This is certainly similar to cost trends in the United States, Canada and Brazil. However, there is an interest in the use of molasses. I must make a note that CSR use molasses for their ethanol production at Plain Creek, Sarina, which is in my electorate. This is predominantly used for alcohol production. Japanese sake comes from Queensland sugar cane, which I think is a wonderful irony, and trash from sugar cane is a by-product that is usually used as a covering on the soil. So there is a range of low-cost organic materials associated with the sugar cane industry that could be used to produce ethanol. I must mention renewable energy in this debate. The forecast, and the best estimate, is that Australia's oil reserves will most likely be depleted within 15 to 20 years. After that, we could well be exposed to a completely volatile international oil market and all that means for the cost and reliability of fuel. As I said earlier, ethanol and other renewable fuels can be produced from both sugar cane and starch. Understandably, the focus of the Sugar Industry Task Force was on sugar.The sugar industry is certainly going through a very difficult downturn at the moment because of poor seasons and weather conditions in the north and an oversupply of sugar worldwide from heavily subsidised producers. However, the industry sees the development of the domestic ethanol industry as a very positive move that could bring considerable financial benefits to the people and communities that rely on the sugar industry. At the seminar, the Mossman Central Mill, which is in Northern Queensland, said:Some new initiatives are desperately needed to restore the income of the sugar regions, who have seen their income fall from $2 billion in 1997 to about $1 billion in 2000. Without a new pathway, there will be severe disintegration along the coastal communities.Hypothetically, if all sugar mills in Australia not currently involved in ethanol production were to install a distillery to ferment their molasses, about 1,300 megalitres of ethanol could be produced annually.Mossman mill provided a scenario of a legally mandated requirement for anywhere between two per cent and 10 per cent ethanol blend in all domestic fuel. It pointed out that fuel through the nearby Cairns port totalled 240 megalitres of diesel and 180 megalitres of petrol in 1999, and that, with a 10 per cent blend, the Mossman mill could provide all of those local requirements. It is really quite staggering to think that the sugar cane farms adjacent to the port could provide at a modest 10 per cent blend all of the fuel needs for that busy, active northern port. The Mossman mill went on to say:The regular tanker service could backload ethanol to the oil refineries for blending in the cities, rather than taking on salt water ballast, which leads to other environmental problems along the Great Barrier Reef. Most sugar ports already have bulk storage facilities for handling molasses. If this molasses is to be converted to ethanol, then those port facilities could be similarly used for the ethanol.Given this hypothetically mandated 10 per cent blend, the Mossman mill believes it could be ready for full ethanol production in 2001 or 2002. The announcement by the government that it will not extend the fuel excise to ethanol has been very positively received by the biofuels industry and has relieved it of a major concern. The prediction is that over the next two to five years major advances are expected in the development and commercialisation of technologies for the production of ethanol both from traditional feedstocks and from cellulose from a wide range of non-traditional biomass feedstocks. This will further accelerate an ongoing process of technical innovation and reductions in the cost of production in the biofuels industry. As I have said, the benefits of a 10 per cent or even, at a minimum, a two per cent ethanol blend in petrol or diesel have been clearly documented.Evidence presented to the sugar task force seminar stated that the 1999 Australian passenger vehicle fleet comprised approximately 25 per cent pre-1986 vehicles using leaded petrol and 75 per cent post-1986 vehicles using unleaded petrol. When compared with the use of neat petrol, the use of a 10 per cent ethanol blend would have significant effects in regulated exhaust emissions. There would be a decrease in carbon monoxide of 32 per cent, a decrease of about 12 per cent in THC, and other significant decreases in non-regulated exhaust emissions, including butadiene, benzene, toluene and xylene. In the USA in 1999, more than 10 per cent of all gasoline contained ethanol, and fuel with a 10 per cent ethanol blend has been certified by the US Environment Protection Agency to reduce carbon monoxide emissions by up to 30 per cent. The benefits of an ethanol blend in domestic fuel are obvious: an increased domestic market for the currently depressed grains and sugar industries, an economic boost for regional and rural areas with its resultant boost to jobs improvement, a reduced reliance on imported oil, greenhouse gas emission abatement and improved vehicle efficiency. I commend these bills to the House and ask that the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, Senator Hill, who has demonstrated so clearly his strong commitment to renewable energy, take on board the strong case for nurturing and encouraging the domestic ethanol industry.23:02:0018707Jenkins, Harry, MPMr JENKINSHH4ScullinALP00—The Renewable Energy (Electricity) Bill 2000 puts into place a commitment that the Prime Minister made way back in November 1997. Comments have been made on behalf of the opposition about the length of time it has taken for the legislation to come before us, but it is an opportunity, as has been displayed by the debate, to canvass a lot of issues surrounding matters to do with climate change and, indeed, matters to do with renewable energy itself. From the outset, I think that is a healthy thing. It is interesting that, in the dying night of this session, there should be a debate such as this, where there have been quite a range of views canvassed. I think it has been assisted by the fact that the opposition has reserved its right on this piece of legislation. We believe that putting the bill up for public scrutiny through the Senate committee system will enable the true worth of the legislation to be tested. The range of views that have been given by opposition members in contributions to this debate indicates that there is ongoing debate on this as a policy issue within the Australian Labor Party. It is also of interest that this debate occurs at a time when there appears to be a degree of tension within the government over matters to do with climate change and, indeed, the way in which we may or may not be able to achieve the target that was set for us at Kyoto. I am on the record as saying that I thought Australia got a very good deal at Kyoto. Often when I say that some on the opposite side think that I am actually giving them a pat on the back. Well, I do it with a little bit of irony. I believe that we were very generously done by, given the fact that we were allowed a target that was some eight per cent over our 1990 level. I know that the argument is that that still represents a 30 per cent reduction in carbon emissions on business as usual. But if we compare it to other nations, we are at the upper end of the scale for being able to increase our levels of emissions. Many of the nations who have gone within the Kyoto proposals have to have reductions of their emissions of some eight per cent. As I have stated in other debates here, to put the level of reduction that we would need in context, it has been estimated that to get to the eight per cent level with the cut back from business as usual we would have to reduce emissions to something like the equivalent of 100 million tonnes. To put that into perspective, the evidence indicates that if we eliminated all Australian road transport, including private cars, this would in fact achieve a reduction of only 60 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent. So I acknowledge that this is not something that we can just expect to happen. That is why it is a bit disquieting that we have media reports of the type of debate that is happening at the cabinet level at the moment where it would appear that the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, Senator Hill, is fighting an uphill battle to put in place mechanisms that he believes would allow Australia to achieve this generous target. I find it a little disquieting and disappointing that, at this late stage, when we really have to see some action, this type of debate is building up. Mr Deputy Speaker, without wishing to involve you, as the member for Cowper, too much in this debate—10000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—I should hope not, Member for Scullin.HH4Jenkins, Harry, MPMr JENKINS—I will try to avoid it, but as I understand it, there was a fair degree of debate about this in the National Party. This is of interest to me because there is a variance of views on the way in which primary producers can be involved in helping Australia to achieve its Kyoto target. The basis of this is that there is a variance in what people say the science is. If we backtrack just a little, we all understand that there is a lot of discussion about the science of the so-called greenhouse effect and climate change, but I think we all agree that we cannot await definitive answers. We need to take action now because, if we find some 10, 20, 30 or 40 years down the track that some of the science that people want to suggest we disbelieve was true, we will have lost that time and never make the recovery. But there is solid evidence that by changes in the way in which primary production can prioritise what is happening on the land significant gains can be made towards the reduction of carbon emissions. I think that is a very important aspect. Internationally, it is interesting that there are many forces such as the Green parties of Europe that have some concern when one suggests that carbon sinks and the like are a very important mechanism overall in achieving the type of carbon emission reductions that we require. In fact, the European Union is really against the type of mechanisms that Australia is trying to put in place, which I think have the full support of this side of the House—they being emissions trading—and also trying to get mechanisms about and proper definitions of what are appropriate carbon sinks. Where primary production is going to play a key role is that, in things like agroforestry, we will be able to achieve a great degree of sequestering of carbon—the jargon term—through these plantations, which will be important. As I have indicated, the added advantage is that, by having this degree of reafforestation which would lead to the type of sequestering that we are talking about, it would also have other environmental benefits, for instance, in combating salinity and other forms of land degradation. The type of reafforestation that would also be of benefit against the greenhouse effect by the locking up of carbon is very important. I think we really should be looking at the opportunities that are there for us.That then goes to the notion of international emissions trading where we potentially have the opportunity to have other countries that are having difficulties meeting their Kyoto targets actually pay for the type of carbon sinks that Australia could put in place. I believe a lot of these mechanisms are very much a win-win situation. There are many that put the case that whilst there are small gains that can be made, if in fact the mechanisms of these two pieces of legislation that we are debating are successful—and we hold an open view about whether or not they are going to be successful—the actual effect overall is not all that great. This problem is not going to be solved by a single solution. Whilst I am of the ilk that supports Australia moving much greater than even the targets that are set by this piece of legislation about increasing our reliance on renewable energy sources, it alone is not going to be the thing that achieves the types of results that are required.We are obviously going to have to be smarter in the way in which we use a number of the fuels that will continue to be used. We also have to look at research and development which will continue to develop more efficient ways of converting those fuel sources into energy. We have to continue the debate, to continue to look at the type of ideas that have been proposed. My colleague the honourable member for Braddon has, of course, put a very good case, being a very diligent Tasmania member, that there is great potential in Tasmania for the development of a number of things which, in particular, go to the notions here under these pieces of legislation of renewable energy. Of course, Tasmania has been renowned for hydro schemes but it is now acknowledged that some of the turbines and the type of engineering used in those schemes could be much more efficient. We want to be sure, through the mechanisms allowed in these pieces of legislation, that we can be encouraged to look at the types of things that are required, whether they be smaller turbines or whatever. I heard the honourable member for Braddon mention the development of wind technology as a source. All these things should be looked at. For various reasons that arise at the end of sessions, I did not hear some of the contributions from the other side. I suspect the honourable member for Kalgoorlie might have touched upon tidal energy. In fact, I spoke in a short debate that we had last year on the proposal that is in his electorate. On that occasion, whilst I was trying to be careful in my comments, I noted that one of the problems is that while tidal energy has some attraction as a renewable energy, the proposal that people are looking at in Derby is problematic because it can have some very great negative environmental effects in that area. We are not just looking at notions on the basis that they are going to help in the reduction of carbon emissions and throwing away the environmental integrity of the proposals. We really have to be careful about the type of things we look at. Indeed, if we are to achieve the types of reductions that are required, it will require a global effort. That is why I believe that, if there is this debate occurring at cabinet level, it should be resolved because Australia needs to have a position that it can then put with great confidence in the international fora that are available. If there is some doubt about our commitment to what is a very generous target that was set at Kyoto, that will be very disappointing because there are many people on the international stage who want to find excuses to walk away from this notion. I noted in the media coverage of some of the discussion at the National Party conference that one of the things that was highlighted as being important in the international politics of climate change is the result of the United States election this year. That is very clear. If George W. Bush is elected, the international debate on matters such as climate change is going to change dramatically. That is very disappointing because a lot of the hard yards have been made, and we really need to see that the United States ratifies Kyoto and gets on with the job. If there is going to be a change of the political hue in the United States administration that is going to so upset the international balance in this debate, we have got a real problem.At the end of the day, one of the great advantages that Australia has is that we have a track record of being able to do the research to produce ideas that can contribute to carbon emission reductions. What we do not have is a very good track record on the development of those ideas. This fits nicely into the notion of Australia as a knowledge nation. What we really have to do is look at a commitment to the type of funding that is required to develop the types of proposals that Australian intellect can put in place and ensure that they are developed on-shore because this is a developing export market. That is clear if you look at any of the literature. Australia has a great deal to offer, and it has great potential in trading terms for Australia. It is one of the service sectors where we could dominate, but that will require government to give its commitment to the notion of reduction of carbon emissions under its policy of producing results on climate change, whether that be through a continuing Kyoto process—in the hopeful belief that the United States election outcome will not prevent that from happening—or whether we do it just because we are good at it. We should not be ashamed of making sure that we put in place mechanisms and we should ensure that, in the international market, we are out there selling these appropriate mechanisms.As I said, this has been an interesting opportunity that perhaps quite rarely arises in this place, because we are not actually deciding yes or no in this chamber tonight about this legislation; rather, we are actually floating a few ideas, discussing what might be achieved, discussing where the proposals of this legislation as they relate to renewable energy fit into the overall climate change debate and seeing what might come from a Senate inquiry into the legislation. Having said that, of course we have been lobbied by people who are acting on behalf of the renewable energy sector, and that is appropriate. I have no problem with indicating that I think this is a sector worthy of some support and worthy of some encouragement. But, at the end of the day, the opposition's position is: are these two pieces of legislation the most appropriate way of achieving the outcomes that were set out by the Prime Minister as far back as 20 November 1997 in his statement Safeguarding the future: Australia's response to climate change? That is what it is all about.It is not that we dispute the outcome. There are many environmental groups that say that aiming only for an additional two per cent of electricity generated from renewable or waste product sources is a very low target. I am quite happy to accept that that is probably the case and that perhaps we should be aiming for higher things. Some of the evidence that has been put in lobbying documents that have been bandied around is that, whilst we have been waiting for this debate to happen—that is, between the statement in 1997 and now with this piece of legislation—and whilst we are waiting to see what we are going to do, in Denmark they have increased the amount of energy from renewable sources by three per cent already. That is off a much higher base than we have been able to achieve. This is an area where we have to take some action. I hope that whatever problems there are at the cabinet table about the future direction that this present Australian government is going to take in achieving what we signed up for in Kyoto will be resolved because this is something we need government to show capital `L' leadership on to make sure that everybody understands what we are achieving. I accept that the government believes that this piece of legislation has the potential to achieve an outcome. There are other mechanisms around that can also achieve outcomes. Perhaps not enough credit is given to CEDA in New South Wales, which has been assisting organisations to be much more energy efficient and therefore contribute to the reduction in carbon emissions. Organisations such as that and the efforts of state governments should be acknowledged. The Greenhouse Challenge and other things at a national level are also important. I look forward with interest to what might be the outcomes of the Senate committee's investigation. I hope that, through that rigorous form of investigation, this legislation, if need be, is improved to ensure that this minimalist outcome of the legislation is achieved.23:22:0018710Andren, Peter, MPMr ANDRENKL6CalareIND00—Three years ago the Prime Minister, prior to the Kyoto climate change convention, said that we—that is, Australia—should never have got on board this particular truck in the first place at the Rio conference, and that those who put us aboard that truck did not understand that the national interest and economic implications of remaining on that truck were quite serious for Australia. We had the Business Council of Australia and other groups urging Australia to withdraw as a signatory to the framework convention on climate change. There was little serious consideration that renewable energy, and encouragement of clean coal technology and emission reduction from existing fossil fuel based power generation, could offer immense new economic advantages, particularly in rural and regional areas. As we know, the Australian government got essentially what it wanted at Kyoto, short of jumping off the truck. It was a concession by the rest of the world to the fact that this country is dependent on fossil fuel. There was an agreement that we would aim for a target of 108 per cent of our 1990 greenhouse gas levels by 2010; or, to be precise, between 2008 and 2012. It is important to note in the context of this bill that by the end of 1997 our greenhouse gas emissions stood at 111 per cent of our 1990 levels. In May this year the Minister for the Environment and Heritage was reported to have told cabinet that the 1998 levels would be 119 per cent of our 1990 levels, while the expert projection for 2010, the year we are aiming to be at 108 per cent, will in fact be 130 per cent, according to the latest estimates. It is therefore rather an understatement for the explanatory memorandum to this bill, the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Bill 2000, to proclaim that Australia faces a challenging task in meeting this initial target. Challenging indeed—so challenging that I would say the target was unattainable when set.Electricity generation is far and away our biggest contributor to greenhouse gas emissions at 35.4 per cent of total emissions. Renewables contribute just 10 per cent of our electricity supplies, with hydro by far the largest proportion of that, approaching something like 98 per cent. So the problem is obvious. Do we have the answer in these bills? I think not. It is sobering to note that this legislation aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by encouraging, through a variety of means, an additional two per cent of electricity production to be from renewable resources by 2010. The legislation brings into effect what the government describes as one of Australia's most strategic greenhouse response measures: legal requirement for large buyers of electricity to source more of their electricity needs from environmentally friendly, renewable fuel sources. Electricity retailers and other large electricity buyers will be legally required to source the additional two per cent of their electricity from renewable or specified waste product energy sources by 2010. So what is happening to produce that alternative energy? I doubt many would regard the burning of waste forest products in power station furnaces as representing a truly clean, green alternative energy source, but that is going to qualify as part of this two per cent. What innovative solar, wind and other sources of energy are really being developed? I went searching, and the outlook is more encouraging than I imagined. But it will not make much of a dent on that expected 20 per cent above 1990 greenhouse gas emissions expected by 2010. Forget the 108 per cent target—it has been reached before the ink is dry on the Kyoto agreement. What is happening out there to at least try to approach these targets? According to the Sustainable Energy Industry Association, $70 million has been invested in research and development in the past six months in anticipation of this legislation. The association is expecting $2 billion investment over the next 10 years. Other expert assessment is that $3 billion will be needed to meet the two per cent target. In my own area, Advance Energy has invested $18 million in a 14-tower wind farm near Blayney. It should be up and running by September, generating 10 megawatts—enough to supply the equivalent of all the households in Blayney shire, about 3,500. Advance also has a mini hydro scheme at Burrendong Dam and is planning another at Burrinjuck Dam, while it is also involved in a solar farm at Western Plains Zoo. Elsewhere, on the Atherton Tablelands and in Victoria, Western Australia and Tasmania, as we have heard, there are wind farm developments. It is estimated that six per cent of the New South Wales topography is suited to effective wind farming, and there is a growing interest in developing an industry capable of producing the blades and equipment needed to generate wind power and in fact generate jobs. I understand that General Electric is looking at possible wind turbine development in Australia. That is all very well and encouraging, and part of the potential massive economic boost renewable energy offers this country. To put our modest wind generation in perspective, it is interesting to note that Denmark generates 25 per cent of its renewable power from wind. We have a number of companies entering the biomass generation area, and things like sugarcane waste, sawmill waste, woody weeds and specifically grown energy crops have much potential, although some question the carbon neutrality of forest offcuts as fuel for power stations. Installation of solar hot water has seen a substantial increase in recent times. On top of state rebates, extra Commonwealth incentives in this area are available under this legislation. Currently 600 kilowatt of electricity generated by photovoltaic cells is available on the electricity grid. But it is all small fry given that about 15,000 times the nation's energy use falls on Australia as sunlight every day. I remember 20 years ago listening to an enthusiastic scientist from the University of New South Wales, whose name I have long forgotten, detailing the potential for tapping solar power in Australia and, sadly, as it turned out, expecting it to be a common form of power by the 1990s.The use of green power by consumers is rising rapidly, indicating there is demand for a vastly accelerated expansion of alternative energy development. There are 71,000 households currently buying green power, and that is rising by 4,000 households a month. As we know, there is also the development at various stages of geothermal, wave and tidal power. I know how passionate the member for La Trobe and, in fact, others in the House are about the potential of this industry in the Derby area of the north-west.My electorate has a rich coalmining history. Coal has been among our top export earners for many years. Unfortunately, in recent years the export prices struck by the big players like BHP have severely undermined the ability of the western fields to compete. But given a fair go, with fair access rates to rail transport and coal handling facilities, the western coal can compete with any in the world, and its miners are world's best. Yet coal is under enormous pressure. The growing international agreement that greenhouse gases must be dramatically reduced places coal under increasing pressure for overseas sales. Yet there are some developments that will greatly enhance coal's saleability. I am glad the government has offered a further $6 million for the ultraclean coal project. Research by the CSIRO shows the use of ultraclean coal with suitable turbines can reduce greenhouse by between 10 and 24 per cent compared with conventional coal powered stations. Given our own reliance—and that of Asia—on coal powered generation, this ultraclean coal will be an absolute necessity in the medium to long term. So, with the support of the government, White Industries, the CSIRO and Japanese interests, who I believe are also involved, hopefully the new pilot plant to be established at Newcastle will quickly move from pilot to full production and see the establishment of further plants along the coalfields of eastern Australia, generating a cleaner coal for a cleaner power supply. Details of this CSIRO development at Steel River in Newcastle were given earlier today by the parliamentary secretary in referring to the Public Works Committee the proposed CSIRO Energy Centre at Steel River. Ultraclean coal also has potential as a carbon reductant in the manufacture of silicon, similar to that proposed for the plant at Lithgow, and, of course, it has also been tested with positive results as a clean carbon source for use as an anode material for aluminium production, which could also be of significant benefit, assuming the proposed aluminium and silicon plants at Lithgow get under way.This is the first attempt by a federal government to reduce greenhouse emissions in any serious way. But there is no greenhouse trigger in the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, despite the wishes of the minister. I notice the Deputy Prime Minister has bagged this idea. He reckons the states should be the arbiters of such matters. Given my experience of state based environmental assessments, particularly through commissions of inquiry into several developments, and the attitude of the current and former Queensland governments to land clearance, I shudder to think of a state directed environmental outcome. While we can mandate increases like this in renewable energy, it seems crazy that we have no mandatory energy efficiency standards for commercial or residential buildings. Insulating, clagging, energy efficient building can contribute an estimated 30 per cent savings in energy use. It has also been estimated the so-called additional two per cent of the renewable electricity this legislation aims to mandate is in fact 9,500 megawatt hours, as shown in section 40 of the bill. According to my advice, this will be much less than an additional two per cent when one takes into account the rate at which electricity consumption is currently increasing. There is a very compelling argument that the two per cent target should be aimed at the latest technologies, such as wave power generation and wind power, to give these the investment kick-start they need to become competitive and large enough to succeed long term, not only here but internationally with export potential for the component parts and, in fact, the technology and intellectual property.I would now like to turn to making some broad comments about the issue of greenhouse emissions and global warming. As I mentioned earlier, I was intrigued by the recent debate within the government over the minister for the environment's call for a `greenhouse trigger' to be added to the new environmental laws. As I understand it, that trigger would require possible Commonwealth approval of projects that would result in greenhouse emissions of 500,000 tonnes or more of carbon dioxide over any 12-month period. Such a trigger would be added to the others already contained in the legislation. These include developments impacting on matters of national environmental significance, activities on Commonwealth land or the actions of Commonwealth agencies. As I said, the Deputy Prime Minister is of the view that it is not necessary or appropriate for the Commonwealth to effectively take over what he sees as the states' roles in the assessment and approval of major developments. He argues there are better, market based options for meeting Australia's Kyoto obligations and that a greenhouse trigger could deter investment in major wealth and job generating developments, especially in regional areas. But, while there may not be such a need for such a trigger if a `carbon trading' scheme were in place, as it stands one is not, and it looks like we could still be talking years before one gets off the ground. And at the moment the states have not shown a sufficient commitment to greenhouse gas reduction as an environmental issue. I say this with those two major projects proposed for the Central West in mind, a silicon plant and aluminium smelter for Lithgow. Both would be significant carbon dioxide emitters but, in all the environmental assessments that have been taking place, the issue of emissions does not seem to have been a major factor. We need the projects and we need the jobs but we also need to not create renewable electricity on the one hand and increase emissions on the other. There are ways of achieving a win-win situation, and it requires commitment from both government and industry developers. But the reality is that global warming is a national issue and the part that Australia must play in combating it is a federal responsibility. The states did not sign on to Kyoto; the Commonwealth did, and it is the Commonwealth's responsibility to now deliver on the generous emission levels we have been allowed. If that means increased federal responsibility, then so be it. But, if it can be achieved through agreements with the states and improving their environmental standards, then that should not be shunned. The risk is that the closer government is to the coalface, so to speak, the more likely it is to be persuaded by people with vested interests to allow developments which may not be in the best long-term interests of local communities, let alone the national interest. The closer to the coalface pressure, the more the temptation to cave in. In the absence of a fully fledged and effective carbon trading scheme and given the greenhouse increases we are recording, Minister Hill's proposed trigger is essential. I would go so far as to say that if we ever do get a carbon trading scheme up and running it may still be necessary to have such a trigger. I would also say that, rather than being a barrier to regional development, such a trigger could hold substantial opportunities for regional areas. I recall taking part in a conference in Bathurst shortly after the Kyoto protocol was signed. It was a conference that canvassed the opportunities for the central west of NSW that could arise from Kyoto. At that conference, there was much enthusiasm for the potential business and environmental benefits that could flow to central west areas if a national or international carbon trading scheme was set up. There was particular interest from the farm-forestry sector, which viewed such a scheme as a way of offsetting the start-up costs of plantings and addressing environmental problems such as salinity and erosion, while at the same time providing a continuing and growing revenue stream and reversing negative productivity in many parts of rural Australia. There was also enthusiasm for the sequestration potential of old man saltbush and its role in revegetating drier, saltier areas and providing drought resistant stock feed.However, even at that early stage, the enormous complexities and uncertainties involved in turning the concept into reality were clear to many. Since that time, a lot of work has taken place around the world. While many might be frustrated at the slow progress being made in setting up the trading scheme, it is clear from the Greenhouse Office publications that work is being thoroughly done. I hope that at the conference in November in The Hague we do establish a proper international carbon trading scheme. I presume we will still be on the truck, with suitable representation—not deputies brought in from the local embassy. That conference will hopefully decide on the implementation of an international emissions trading scheme. As far as I can see, the sinks issue is proving to be the spanner in the works of the whole carbon trading concept. Working out a reliable and consistent framework for regulating sinks around the world will make or break the proposed global system. How to handle sinks is the one factor that makes putting in place a carbon trading system far more difficult than the sulfur trading system used so successfully to help with the Northern Hemisphere's acid rain problem. In the case of sulfur, there was no realistic capacity for sinks, so the trading system was much simpler. While I welcome this measure as a step in the right direction, I am also aware of the immense challenges Australia faces even meeting the generous 2010 targets we have been given. With national electricity production continuing to increase at around three per cent a year for the next 10 years—even with an additional two per cent of energy to come from renewable sources—far more will have to be done. If Senator Hill is correct that greenhouse emission levels increased eight per cent from 1997 to 1998 and from 111 per cent to 119 per cent of the 1990 level, then clearly we have a long way to go before we even get close to meeting the target. I am confident that there are significant opportunities for Australia if such an international system is set up, particularly in terms of forestry developments in areas such as the one I represent. I am aware that, even in the absence of an international scheme, international companies have been putting money into forests in New South Wales to meet expected emission obligations. If an international scheme does not arise from The Hague meeting, I urge the government to look at the viability of setting up a domestic scheme. I was very impressed with the contribution to this debate of the member for Bonython, and I congratulate him on his clear and detailed understanding of the state of the art so far as renewable energy options are concerned and of the wider issues connected with global warming, carbon reduction and indeed methane reduction. I agree with his remarks that this bill is technology neutral and market driven, relying on the quicker, less expensive option of biomass in preference to long-term, substantial investment in more effective employment generating technologies such as wind and solar. But it is at least a start. So, given those reservations about the conservative nature of the targets contained in this proposed legislation, I commend these bills to the House and I am interested to see whether they will receive the scrutiny they deserve at an inquiry.23:41:0018714Stone, Dr Sharman, MPDr STONEEM6MurrayLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage10—in reply—In summing up the debate tonight, let me say that the two bills before the House, the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Bill 2000 and the Renewable Energy (Electricity) (Charge) Bill 2000, are the cornerstone of the government's commitment to increasing the amount of renewable energy used in generating electricity used by all Australians. They are part of a comprehensive, much larger package of commitment from this government. I want to thank all participants from both sides of the House for their contributions to this debate. It is an important piece of legislation, mandating the government's commitment to renewable energy and creating a market for new sources of renewable energy.No-one has denied the benefits of stimulating a renewable energy industry in order to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. Of course, the electricity generation sector is the largest single contributor to Australia's greenhouse gas emission profile. Emissions from this sector are also growing, which is why we must focus on curing the emissions growth related to our energy use. Our natural resources include, of course, abundant, high quality and low cost coal. Certainly, the member for Kennedy reminded us of that. Access to cheap coal has made a crucial contribution to the economy of this country. It has provided stable employment and low cost power for many Australians. However, it has worked against us in greenhouse gas terms. The low cost of coal in Australia has meant that many renewable energy projects have not been cost competitive. Renewable energy will simply not have an opportunity to be injected into the Australian market without some assistance, and the measures that are within this bill will produce the sorts of outcomes that are being sought today right around the world. These bills introduce a measure which will provide, in particular, a contribution to the renewable energy electricity supply in order to achieve our greenhouse gas reductions and to support the development of an innovative, domestic renewable energy manufacturing industry. The measure creates a guaranteed market for 9,500 kilowatt hours of renewable energy. We expect to be able to set a base for achieving the more difficult emission reduction targets in the future. I would like to respond to some of the points raised by members on both sides of the House in their debate contributions. For example, the member for Bonython suggested that we should dictate which technologies and fuels should meet the targets and that we should focus on low or least-cost options. The government do not believe we are in the business of second-guessing what renewable energy technologies might emerge or be stimulated by a measure such as this. Our strategy is to promote the development of a renewable energy sector that will give Australia longer-term abatement opportunities and options. Our government has fashioned a whole range of abatement measures. In fact, our total commitment amounts to over $1 billion over five years. This government's view is that the market should choose the technologies and fuels, not the government or a regulator. This measure is certainly not limited to a consideration of biomass, as a number of speakers on the other side seem to suggest. The member for Bonython was also worried that this is a high cost measure. I suppose that is why he was very keen that we confine ourselves to the low cost options. Let me explain to the member for Bonython that, at its peak in 2010, we may see increases in electricity costs of one to three per cent but we need to compare this with the 20 to 30 per cent price reductions for electricity to larger customers that have already been achieved in recent years through the energy market reforms we have championed. The member for Wills was concerned that we should promote solar energy use. Let me assure the member for Wills that, through the federal government's support for the commercialisation of renewable energy programs, $388 million is committed to renewable energy over five years and over $300 million of this is likely to go to solar technologies. For example, $31 million is for rooftop photovoltaic systems and up to $266 million for renewable remote area power supplies, most of which will use these photovoltaic cells. Some of the $56 million renewable energy commercialisation program will go into solar technologies. If the member for Wills is not familiar with these programs, he needs to do his homework.Major investments in wind power now occurring in Australia, notably in Tasmania and Western Australia, are anticipated in the bill. The members for Wills and Scullin both cited Denmark as having a standard of commitment that we should aspire to. We believe that, at the end of the day, Australia's renewable electricity will be putting countries like Denmark in the shade. Let me inform these members that we have legislated to set a target of 10.5 per cent rising to 12.5 per cent by 2010. Let me stress we have legislated for that target and it has already been achieved. Denmark currently has a take-up of just 10 per cent. If you look at who, at the end of the day, is likely to be assured of an outcome, clearly we are taking our international and domestic responsibilities somewhat more seriously. Let me also refer to the member for Wills's concern about LPG gas in the transport sector. Whilst that was somewhat off the topic, let me assist him by reminding him that LPG has full excise exemption. It is supported via a $75 million alternative fuels conversion program we have recently put into place, which also facilitates conversion of vehicles over 3.5 tonnes. It is eligible for grants under the Diesel and Alternative Fuels Grants Scheme. We are very much concerned about LPG gas in transport and we have made a considerable amount of effort in introducing programs which will stimulate further conversion to the use of LPG gas.The member for Shortland was concerned that the penalty is too low with this measure. In fact, the penalty was very carefully modelled. It caps risks to energy users but it provides significant stimulus to all renewables. Local government play their part in supporting renewable energies and any other possible aspect of home design or industry orientation. Local government has been pre-eminent in leading the community to understand better what our goals and targets are as a government. Local government is strongly supporting our greenhouse abatement strategies. We have had more local government authorities take up the Cities for Climate Protection program, which is supported by the federal government, than in any other country in the world. This bill will give regions new options for growth and development, which will be very good news for local government authorities. While the member for Shortland was in awe of the New South Wales Carr government's Green Power or Energy Australia scheme, let me remind her that it will produce support for only some 14,000 homes. That is very commendable, but I do not think we in the Commonwealth government should hold that particular example up and feel ourselves to be inferior. After all, if you consider what is proposed and what should be achieved through this measure, the scale of renewable energy that we have brought forward will dwarf Green Power. For example, 9,500 gigawatt hours will power some four million homes, compared with the 14,000 that we were asked to consider as a superior outcome. You can rest assured that the expectations of these measures are substantial. We had some people from the other side doubting that the effect of the measure would be significant. The member for Scullin, for example, said, `Will this really achieve a difference in this country?' I believe that seven million tonnes of CO2 equivalent by the year 2010 is a very significant gain in terms of us being able to meet our international and domestic targets. This measure is only one of a host of abatement measures that this government is implementing. I referred earlier to the $1 billion package that will be in place over the next five years. The member for Calare was concerned that there were no mandatory energy efficiency standards for residential or commercial buildings. I say to the member for Calare that just two weeks ago the Australian Building Codes Board, the body that manages the Building Code of Australia, agreed to a Commonwealth proposal to mandate energy efficiency standards for both residential and commercial buildings through the Building Code of Australia. This proposal is fully supported by all major building industry associations. We would be happy to help the member for Calare become familiar with that marvellous new breakthrough. We can brief him. The Australian Greenhouse Office is excellent. It is the only such office in the world—one that our federal government has put in place. They would be very happy to bring the member for Calare up to speed with that recent development.The Commonwealth has very carefully crafted this measure. It has taken two years of very close consultation with the industry. It is not something that has been rushed. It was never going to be possible to rush such an innovative and extraordinarily different measure. I remind you that this is a world first in the use of tradeable certificates for renewable energy. Therefore, it is innovative, it is at the cutting edge, it is proactive, and we believe that with the use of this measure we will be going a long way to setting a whole new standard for alternative and sustainable energy production internationally.In conclusion, as wind farms and solar energy panels proliferate, as things like the Pyramid Hill saltworks are set up, with its solar driven saline ponds generating energy into the future, as biomass is used, as landfill is tapped for energy production, this country is going to be substantially better off. I believe this bill will be applauded by all who come to see it passed tonight. I commend the bill to the House. Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.18716Bill (on motion by Dr Stone)—by leave—read a third time.Bills18716R108618716Debate resumed from 23 June, on motion by Dr Stone:That the bill be now read a second time.23:55:0018716Evans, Martyn, MPMr MARTYN EVANSN36BonythonALP00—It is not my intention to unnecessarily delay the passage of the Renewable Energy (Electricity) (Charge) Bill 2000 this evening. However, I think it is important to respond to one comment in the parliamentary secretary's second reading summation of the previous measure. She said that I had suggested that we should target particular technologies and pick winners. That was not what I said. If the honourable member had been listening to the debate she might have understood the thrust of my text, which was to direct our efforts to those technologies which will return the best outcome from an economic and CO2 avoided point of view. That will involve a range of technologies and, like all government research supported programs, it would be my anticipation that we would take proposals, examine those proposals from year to year and direct resources across a range of technologies and that we would see the returns come to fruition at some future point when that research was completed. Which technologies ultimately emerge from that range of available technologies is clearly a matter for the success of the scientists and engineers and, ultimately, the commercial operators concerned. Rather than choosing the specific technology, I believe we should support through research a range of technologies according to what has the best potential from time to time—as we do in a range of government supported research programs such as the START program and other programs favoured by the current government.In her earlier response, the parliamentary secretary did not canvass the range of issues which had been raised about some of the inadequacies in this bill and the way in which it will, or perhaps will not necessarily, target CO2 reductions. That is clearly the purpose of this legislation—at least what I understood to be the purpose of this legislation—as distinct from sponsoring renewable energy technologies. If this legislation is about renewable energy and not about CO2 reduction, then perhaps we should be so advised and the construction which the government has in the legislation would need to be totally reconsidered.If our objective is to target CO2 reduction, which I would have thought was the purpose of this legislation, then we need to focus our attention on those aspects of it and hear from the government—perhaps not this evening; I appreciate that—in the course of the winter break, in the course of the Senate committee hearings and, ultimately, in the course of the Senate debate itself. I think that aspect is the essential feature of this bill. All members of the opposition would strongly support reduction in CO2 by Australia. Obviously, that is the critical outcome here and one which we have every pleasure in supporting in full.We also understand the merits of renewable energy in the generic sense of that. I am sure that many of those technologies will, over time and with significant improvements in the technology, certainly come to play a significant part in our energy economy, but they can only do that if they are economically viable. In the long term, you cannot support energy generation technologies which are not economically viable. That is not a successful recipe for Australia's future growth.The difficulty with the technologies is not only this question of economic support and the available market. The problem is that the technology is not yet competitive. Solar is far more expensive and wind is a little more expensive than conventionally generated energy. The problem is a technological one and it will have a technological solution which the government should support through research and development efforts. If it simply supports it through a broader market, we could well find that the effort is channelled into supporting biomass, for example, which will do nothing to improve the technology of solar or wind energy or of those technologies which may well succeed in the future. Alternatively, it may well support solar water heaters, which would be a very good idea and something which I would support. I would have thought we would have found a better and more direct mechanism for that. While the opposition is not opposing these bills tonight and while the government has chosen not to respond to the issue of the timing of this legislation—EM6Stone, Dr Sharman, MPDr Stone—We have not rushed it.N36Evans, Martyn, MPMr MARTYN EVANS—No, the government has indeed not rushed it in the sense that it has taken two years to prepare the legislation, but it has then given the House of Representatives seven days to consider it—hardly an adequate course for such important legislation when the government admits that it took two years to draft the legislation. In that context, while we are certainly happy to permit passage of the bill this evening in a cooperative way, as is always my wont in these things, I believe that, over the next four to eight weeks, the government should address the issues that have been seriously raised in relation to this debate and take the matter further. Friday, 30 June 200000:00:0018718Stone, Dr Sharman, MPDr STONEEM6MurrayLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage10—Let me respond to the suggestions that the Renewable Energy (Electricity) (Charge) Bill 2000 is not about reducing our greenhouse gas emissions or our CO2. This bill deals with the renewable energy sector of the market and is part of a much more substantial billion dollar package which this government is directing to a whole range of ends, including research to try to identify how we are going to significantly reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. I repeat that this is a world first in terms of introducing tradeable certificates, which are going to encourage our biggest electricity sector to look at renewable sources. I certainly commend the bill to the House.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.18718Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.Bill (on motion by Dr Stone) read a third time.Miscellaneous1871800:03:0018718SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—The extended sittings of the House of Representatives gives me an opportunity this evening to respond to several non-controversial questions raised during question time over the past few sitting weeks. I regret that a number of the members who have raised these questions are not present. My office has attempted to notify them by phone, but on extended sitting we are not necessarily able to contact everybody as easily as we might like. I will ensure that every one of the members affected gets a copy of my response individually sent to them so that they can raise it on the resumption of the House, assuming that will be in August.Let me provide a detailed response to the questions that have been raised with me in the last few weeks. On 7 June the member for Page and the member for Chifley asked for my interpretation of standing order 144, rules for questions, and standing order 145, answers to be relevant, respectively. I replied that I would respond when I had an opportunity. The Standing Committee on Procedure has examined both of these matters on a number of occasions. I refer members, for example, to reports of the committee of November 1986, October 1993 and June 1995. There is more than sufficient advice available to the House if it wishes to proceed down a path other than its current one. As I have indicated to the House on a number of occasions, if the requirements of standing order 144 were to be observed stringently, there would be very few questions asked in the House that would be allowed to proceed to an answer. I propose to continue to exercise discretion in applying the terms of standing order 144.Standing order 145 relating to relevance continues to cause a degree of special interest by members. Members will be aware that I carefully note the substance of a question and require those answering the question to maintain a link to that substance. Where a question has a preamble or a quotation of some length, it is not, in my opinion, reasonable for a member to conclude with a short, sharp question and then insist that the answer be limited to the contents of the conclusion. Similarly, while all interjections are disorderly, they might invite a departure from the strict observance of relevance.On 8 June, the Manager of Opposition Business asked me about another minister answering a question asked of the Prime Minister or the Acting Prime Minister without any obvious indication that another minister was to answer. House of Representatives Practice indicates at page 505 that it is not unusual for the Prime Minister to refer questions addressed to him to the minister directly responsible. No direct statement, request or overt public action is necessary or required. In the same vein, the Prime Minister may add to the answer of any minister, but a minister may not add to the Prime Minister's answer unless requested to do so by the Prime Minister. The member for Melbourne asked me about any special rights the Leader of the House and the Manager of Opposition Business might have in relation to commenting on points of order. I indicated at the time, in relation to the incident to which the member for Melbourne referred, that I assumed that the Leader of the House was rising to a point of order. The Hansard record shows that this was the case. House of Representatives Practice indicates at page 277 that there are grounds for considering that a member taking a point of order shall not be interrupted by another member taking a point of order on the first point of order. It then goes on to suggest that there are occasions when a subsidiary point of order is justified. It has become the practice of the House to receive the second or more point of order before the first point of order is determined. An important consideration to keep in mind is that the chair may deliver a decision at any time after a point of order has been stated to the House. The chair has discretion to deliver a decision on a point of order whenever the chair feels in a position to do so.Finally, the member for Calwell asked me on 22 June about the publication of notices in Hansard. As the member for Werriwa pointed out on that day, Hansard contains the details of notices given on the day on which they are received at the table of the House. However, I indicated that I thought that the member for Calwell was suggesting that the notices should continue to appear in Hansard. Underlying the attitude of the House and the chair over many years has been the consistent aim of keeping Hansard as much as possible a reflection of what is actually said in the House. Notices of motion or of intention to present a bill are not normally delivered orally in the House unless (a) given during members' statement in the chamber or (b) expressing censure of, or want of confidence in, a member. Questions on notice are also published in Hansard, together with the answer, on the day on which they are answered. The appropriate location for the publication of notices as well as for other matters awaiting further House action such as orders of the day is the House Notice Paper. This is the most appropriate location for questions on notice until they are answered. This has been the practice of the House over a long period of time, and I would not propose that it be altered. I thank all honourable members for the points they have raised.QI4Price, Roger, MPMr Price—Mr Speaker, I apologise, but I thought I also raised a question about standing order 142. Is that, as you indicated at the time, a matter for further consideration?10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Yes, it is. The matters that I dealt with tonight were the ones I considered the least controversial. I wanted members to feel that they had not been excluded from some debate on any matter that they may want to further participate in. I will come back to the member for Chifley on his question under 142.Bills18719R109418719Debate resumed from 21 June, on motion by Dr Kemp:That the bill be now read a second time.00:05:0018719Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—The Higher Education Funding Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2000 does a number of things. It indexes all aspects of higher education funding. It also includes for the first time funding in the forward estimates for the year 2002. It makes a number of technical changes to the Higher Education Contribution Scheme and, in addition, reallocates some unspent funds. It also implements the budget announcement to introduce a system of bonded medical scholarships, and I will say more about that later. It provides $4 million per annum for the research infrastructure equipment and facility scheme for research funding and makes some changes to the SPIRT scheme, which also deals with university research. Finally, the bill implements a name change for Batchelor College.In summary, the bill implements the budget changes in the area of higher education. In the lead-up to this year's budget, the Treasurer claimed on the Sunday program that the budget would direct spending to `priority areas in health and also in education'. The problem is that, when we saw the budget delivered, it did not quite live up to the Treasurer's predictions. Education certainly did need to receive a bit of priority in this budget. On my figures, there is now a $3 billion education deficit because of cuts the Howard government has made since 1996. Let me briefly remind you of them, Mr Speaker. Almost $1 billion has been cut from universities. There have been cuts in funding for vocational education and training of $240 million. There have been higher HECS charges, which strip away from students almost $1 billion. The enrolment benchmark adjustment has so far cut about $60 million from federal funding to public schools right across the country, and that continues to grow. Finally, there have been cuts to student assistance of more than $500 million. There is a $3 billion education deficit because of cuts the Howard government has made to education across the board. In many cases, we are facing a real crisis in the area of research. Australia is the only advanced Western country where private business research and development is not only falling in real terms but also falling in nominal terms. In addition to a decline in private expenditure on R&D, we have public research declining because of the massive cuts the government has made in funding to higher education. Is it any wonder that a number of prominent Australians have called on the government to lift its research effort, particularly in our higher education institutions? Australians of the Year Peter Doherty and Gustav Nossal have been amongst the government's critics on this issue, calling for additional federal government funding for the national research effort. The Australian Research Council chair, Vicki Sara, has also made comments such as:The world is moving very quickly. Major investments are being made in many countries to develop competitive ideas and skills. We want to be world competitive, so there needs to be additional investment made in that research base.So there is a $3 billion education deficit because of the cuts the government has made to universities and TAFE, the $1 billion extra slug on students through the higher HECS charges, and the $60 million taken from public schools through the EBA and cuts to student assistance of more than $500 million. There has been a decline in Australia's national research effort because of the cuts that have been made. It causes me great concern that the government's cuts have seriously affected many university towns and communities in regional Australia. I understand the honourable member for Herbert will follow me in this debate. Let me draw to his attention the fact that James Cook University has lost $16 million because of the cuts the Howard government has made to higher education. I know my colleague the member for Werriwa was a frequent visitor to the James Cook University campus. There were no greater advocates for James Cook University's receiving a fair share of higher education funding than people like the former Labor member for Herbert, Ted Lindsay, and the member for Werriwa.0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMG4Lee, Michael, MPMr LEE—Not for long, I can assure you. Let me assure the House that the problem for the current member for Herbert is that the government of which he is part has cut funding for James Cook University by $16 million. If you go through the list, it is not just James Cook University that has been hit by these cuts. If you go through the list of universities outside the capital cities, it adds up to quite a sizeable amount. Charles Sturt University has lost $21 million, Southern Cross University has lost $11 million, the University of New England has lost $18 million, the University of Newcastle has lost $27 million and the University of Wollongong has lost $18 million. Deakin University in Victoria has lost $25 million and the University of Ballarat has lost $4 million. In Queensland, Central Queensland University has lost $13 million. I have already mentioned James Cook University losing $16 million. The University of Southern Queensland has lost $16 million, and in Tasmania the Australian Maritime College has lost $2 million. That is a reduction of $171 million from all of the universities not based in our capital cities.Is it any wonder that our universities in regional areas are feeling the pain of the federal government's cuts when you take such a massive amount of money from their budgets—$171 million taken from Australia's regional universities. In many cases it is the universities that are the real drivers of development in those communities. It is those regional universities that give local kids and mature age students their best opportunity to study for a degree, their best opportunity to get the skills that they need to get the high quality jobs of the future. It is this government's cuts of $171 million from our regional universities that will deny students in those communities the chance to study for a degree. It is the cuts of $171 million in regional universities, the cuts that this government has made in higher education, that will deny those communities the opportunities for economic development and new jobs. For that reason we were hopeful that, with the Treasurer predicting that education would be a priority in this budget, perhaps there might be a rabbit pulled from Peter Costello's hat on budget night. But in fact on budget night we had only an extra $17 million provided for new education initiatives in 2000-01. That is only an extra $17 million across all areas: early childhood education, schools, high schools, TAFE and universities. That basically equates to a pittance if you consider the amount that is provided for each Australian over the four years covered in the budget. If we look at the forward estimates, the new education commitments listed on Budget Paper No. 2, page 31, it lists only an extra $62.1 million being provided over four years for education or a measly 86c per person per year—less than the cost of a cheap biro being allocated for new spending initiatives. Mr Speaker, I am sure you understand that, if Australia is just to keep pace with the countries that we compete with, we have to make sure that we are investing more, not less, in education, training and research. When President Clinton announces billions of dollars being allocated for new research initiatives, when the Canadians announce 2,000 extra fellowships to encourage research in Canada, when Tony Blair announces an extra billion pounds for research in the United Kingdom and when the Europeans and the Asians are lifting their investment in education, training and research, Australia must ensure that it is also lifting its investment just to keep pace.On this side of the House, under Kim Beazley's plan for Australia to become a knowledge nation, we believe that we have to not only keep pace with our competitor countries but also get ahead of them. That can only take place in a country which is lifting its national investment in education, training and research. We can never make Australia a knowledge nation if the most the minister for education, Dr Kemp, can win from his colleagues in the battles for the budget is a measly 86c per person per year.The details in this budget are important. Before I get into some of the details I will touch on a number of anomalies that flow from the introduction of the government's new tax system. A number of questions were put to the Prime Minister in the lead-up to the budget about the impact that the new tax scheme will have on postgraduate researchers. This bill deals with higher education. Many people who are receiving scholarships for postgraduate research are being hit by the changes the government is making. Before the last election the Prime Minister guaranteed that no-one would be a loser under the GST. The government, knowing that many of Australia's postgraduate researchers received grants from the government, agreed to increase the grants under the APA program by four per cent. This would mean, the government argued, that they would be no worse off as the prices for all the goods and services that they use went up under the GST.The problem is that there are many other people who also receive grants to carry out postgraduate research and their grants were not increased by four per cent. There are many people who receive grants to carry out research from charities, benevolent trusts and universities—some of Australia's best researchers—who are going to be worse off because of the changes the government has made to the tax system. I am sure my colleague the member for Werriwa has received letters and emails from some of these postgraduate students who do not pay tax—they do not benefit from the tax cuts—and who will have to pay more because of the increase in the cost of clothing, transport and the goods and services that they need.It was those postgraduate students who were going to be worse off and, through questioning in this House, we forced the Prime Minister to admit they were going to be worse off. Because of that, the Prime Minister invented a new assistance scheme for postgraduate students—the GST assistance scheme. It was only in the budget that we found out that this generous government was going to give those postgraduate students—some of Australia's best researchers—the measly sum of $120 to compensate them for the GST for the rest of time. The Prime Minister knows that in no way whatsoever can a one-off payment of $120 compensate these postgraduate researchers for the higher costs of the GST that they are going to pay year after year. That is the first point to make about the GST. The second is that there are more than one million current and former students who are still paying off their HECS debts who are going to be hit by an unfair, retrospective slug because of the GST inflation spike. We all know that the inflation rate will basically double this year because of the effect of the GST. HECS debts are increased by the CPI and that means that in this year HECS debts will be indexed by the full inflation spike. That will cost the average student $700 because this government has not discounted the CPI increase by the GST inflation spike. If the member for Herbert visits James Cook University campus and explains to the students at that campus that his government is going to take $700, on average, off each of them to help pay for those Unchain my Heart Joe Cocker television ads, he will have a lot of explaining to do. It is so unfair that, in total, about $180 million will be ripped off those students because this government is going to allow that unfair, retrospective tax slug to be imposed on students around Australia with HECS debts.The minister for education made a number of claims about this when we raised this in the House. He said that, because of low inflation, a student with a HECS debt of $20,000 would have paid $1,200 less under the coalition. But the problem is that, until the coalition doubled HECS charges in 1997, it was not possible to have a debt as high as $20,000. The minister quotes the example of someone having a debt of $20,000 being, according to him, better off under the coalition, when no-one had a debt of $20,000 until the government doubled HECS charges in the infamous Vanstone budget of 1996. Dr Kemp also claimed that a recent graduate on $28,000 would be $762 better off because of the Howard government's tax cuts. However, after the coalition reduced the repayment threshold for HECS in 1997, this graduate, who is now repaying HECS at four per cent of her taxable income, or $1,120 a year, would, under the previous Labor government's 1996 threshold for HECS, be making no repayments whatsoever. So what is the effect of this? Despite the minister for education's claims and the examples he gives, because of this government, Dr Kemp has been responsible for this year's graduates having to cope with a doubling of the HECS charges every year, much earlier repayments of that debt, an increase of the HECS debts of up to $700 because of the GST inflation spike being included in the CPI this year and GST increases on new clothing, shoes, dry cleaning, software, bus and train fares and electricity and gas bills. These people do not need a PhD to work out that that $762 tax cut is long gone because of the doubling of the HECS charges, the early repayments of their debt, the increase in the HECS debt because of the GST inflation spike and the higher cost of goods and services because of the GST. We have to hope that the minister for education can go back and do some more work on those examples that he has quoted.One of the issues that I think we need to deal with in considering this legislation is that on many occasions in this House the minister for education makes claims about the great successes of the government's higher education policy.0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr Slipper—He is right.MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr LEE—The member opposite thinks he is right. I challenge the member opposite to consider some of the following facts. For example, the member opposite might believe the minister for education when he says things like this. This is a comment from Dr Kemp in a recent question time:This year the total number of domestic Australian students in higher education will be an estimated 464,700 equivalent full-time students ... The trouble with this is that this figure is 1,337 lower than the 1999 figure, and the minister seems to be boasting about reducing the number of Australian students at university. The second claim he made was that this figure was `a staggering 42,000 more students than in Labor's last year'. The problem for the minister is that in the five years from 1995 to 2000 enrolments grew by about 9.9 per cent, while in the last five years of Labor government, 1990 to 1995, enrolments grew at more than 19 per cent. So the minister is now boasting about halving the rate of growth in university places. I would suggest to the honourable member opposite that he look very carefully at the shonky figures that the minister for education often quotes at question time.One of the problems we have with this legislation is that it was introduced into this House only last week. I actually think it is an insult to the parliament that at 29 minutes past midnight in the House of Representatives we are debating legislation which is important for the future of higher education in Australia. The only reason that five members of Australian House of Representatives are in the chamber tonight at 29 minutes past midnight is that this government is seeking to fill in time in the House of Representatives while they are waiting for some of their more urgent bills to be debated in the Senate. The future of higher education in Australia in many ways will help determine Australia's future. Unless we are addressing the crisis that now exists in higher education, we are not going to ensure that Australians do have the opportunities to obtain postgraduate degrees and undergraduate degrees which will help give them the skills they need to get the high value, high wage jobs of the future.It was not that long ago that the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, in confidence in a cabinet submission to his colleagues, admitted some of the difficulties that Australia's higher education institutions now face. Last year we released a cabinet submission written by the minister which admitted in private what the minister had always denied in public. That cabinet submission contained admissions that the higher student-staff ratios, the less frequent lecture and tutorial contact, the persistence of outdated technology and the gaps in key areas of professional preparation had resulted in a perception of crisis in higher education. Dr Kemp's cabinet submission also admitted that eight institutions were operating at a deficit and that some regional campuses were at risk. So, having admitted that in October, you might have expected the minister to have brought forward proposals to his colleagues in the budget to address that crisis. The fact that he has declined to do so leads us to believe that the minister is just waiting for the opportunity to bring out his original plan from the bottom drawer of his desk; a plan to deregulate university fees at all universities, to bring in a system of voucher funding and to replace HECS with a system of real interest rate loans.The member for Herbert might shake his head, but he knows as well as I do that that is the plan that Dr Kemp, the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, took to cabinet last year. The only reason the Prime Minister tried to disassociate himself from the minister's plan for higher education was the massive public outrage about it. In fact, the only thing that was salvaged from last year's cabinet submission was the minister's plan to offer a modest increase in funding for higher education to those universities that will accept this government's pattern bargain for higher education.K26Latham, Mark, MPMr Latham—Blackmail!MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr LEE—The honourable member for Werriwa describes this as `blackmail'. I will not break the sub judice laws, but there is going to be a court case, initiated by the NTEU, to determine whether the minister has broken the law by offering this pattern bargain of an increase in funding to universities on condition that they meet certain industrial relations criteria. The point I make is that, to date, that is the only part of the secret, leaked cabinet submission that has been implemented. But I am sure the minister for education has that plan there in the bottom drawer.The bill also includes some funding for places for the bonded medical scholarships. We are entitled to ask: where is the detail on the bonded medical scholarships? The reason I have a particular interest in this is that this is part of the Labor Party's health policy that we put to the people at the last election. I remember a debate with the Minister for Health and Aged Care on the 7.30 Report in which he described this particular proposal as `unconstitutional', and yet here we have a budget in the year 2000 in which the minister for health claims credit for an initiative that he has stolen from the Labor Party. We do not mind the minister for health stealing the policies of the Labor Party; it is in fact one of the few wins that the minister for education had in the budget that was delivered by the minister for health. You have got to feel sorry for the minister for education when the only wins he has in the budget process are those that are won for him by the minister for health. We certainly believe that the bonded medical scholarships provide a good model for encouraging doctors to work in rural and regional Australia. It is also a model we are attracted to for other areas where there are difficulties in attracting skilled professionals; rural and regional Australia, for example. This proposal for the medical area will, we think, be a success. A number of other scholarships have also been proposed by the Labor Party recently which encourage more of our brightest students to take up a career in teaching. The proposal that I floated on behalf of the Labor Party is a mechanism to forgive HECS debts for students who receive our teaching excellence scholarships. At the moment, people who do a Bachelor of Education—YU5Tanner, Lindsay, MPMG4Lee, Michael, MPMr LEE—No, it is to help the government fill in time—to make sure that we are still here when the Senate finishes its work. The point I am making is that we need more of our brightest kids to consider a career in teaching. In particular, we need more of our brightest kids to consider a career in teaching in maths, science and IT, where there is a severe shortage looming.Professor Lawrence Ingvarson from Monash University has estimated that 25 per cent of the maths and science teachers in Victoria are not qualified to teach maths and science. This is not only unfair to the teachers but it is grossly unfair to the students and their classes. How can we expect kids to develop a love for maths and science and develop the computer skills they need if we do not have teachers who are properly trained to ensure they have an excellent education. It is those teacher excellence scholarships and investing in teacher professional development that give us the best chance to raise the quality of teaching in our classrooms across the country. My colleague the member for Werriwa is a very keen student on ways that Australia can lift the standard of teaching in schools in his own electorate, in my own state and across the country.The last area I wanted to touch on in the brief time left to me is the area of research. As I mentioned earlier on, Australia's private research is declining in nominal dollars. Our public research is declining because of the massive cuts the government has made to higher education. The government has released a green paper on research, a white paper on research, a new strategic plan for the Australian Research Council and an innovation summit—we have had all these things—but we have not had any meaningful increase in Commonwealth funding for the national research effort. What is the point of having white papers, green papers, new initiatives and summits if you cannot ensure that Australia is going to lift the quantity and the quality of the national research effort? It is going to require some innovative thinking on Australia's part if we are to ensure that we do better than we are today, but there is no way that we can ensure that the Australian medical researchers, the Australian industrial designers and the Australian computer software designers are coming up with the new intellectual property that is going to generate for Australia the royalty payments and the licence fees that can help meet the intellectual property deficit that we are going to face in many years to come.If we do not do something about lifting Australia's national research effort, then we will have to pay other countries more to use their inventions and their ideas. For these reasons, I wish to move the following second reading amendment: That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:“whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House:(1) notes with concern that the Government has failed:(a) to address the problems in universities which its own Cabinet submission identified, such as higher student/staff ratios, less frequent lecture and tutorial contact, the persistence of outdated technology and gaps in key areas of professional preparation, as well as eight institutions operating at a deficit, with some regional campuses at risk;(b) to respond to calls from academics, scientists and the business community to increase significantly higher education research funding; and(c) to produce legislation to implement its proposed changes to university research funding, due to start in six months, and legislation to make urgently-needed changes to the Education Services for Overseas Students Act; and(2) calls on the Government to immediately address each of these major issues.K26Latham, Mark, MPMr Latham—I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.Debate (on motion by Mr Lindsay) adjourned.Bills18725The following bills were returned from the Senate without amendment or request:New Business Tax System (Alienated Personal Services Income) Tax Imposition Bill (No. 1) 2000New Business Tax System (Alienated Personal Services Income) Tax Imposition Bill (No. 2) 2000Compensation Measures Legislation Amendment (Rent Assistance Increase) Bill 2000Excise Amendment (Alcoholic Beverages) Bill 2000Customs Amendment (Alcoholic Beverages) Bill 2000Bills18725R106018725Bill returned from the Senate with amendments.Ordered that the amendments be taken into consideration forthwith.Senate's amendments—(1) Page 2 (after line 8), after clause 3, insert:4 Report on operation of Act (1) As soon as practicable after 30 June 2002, the Commissioner of Taxation must prepare a report on: (a) the operation of this Act; and (b) the amounts of revenue collected under the provisions of this Act for the 2000-2001 income year and the 2001-2002 income year; and (c) a comparison of the amounts mentioned in paragraph (b) with the estimated financial impact published in the explanatory memorandum to the New Business Tax System (Alienation of Personal Services Income) Bill 2000 and two related bills, together with an explanation of any differences between the revenue collected and the estimated financial impact. (2) Copies of a report prepared under subsection (1) must be laid before each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the completion of the report.(2) Schedule 1, item 3, page 4 (line 9), omit “Integrity Measures”, substitute “Alienation of Personal Services Income”.(3) Schedule 1, item 3, page 20 (line 25), omit “you”, substitute “the individual referred to in that section”.(4) Schedule 1, item 3, page 24 (line 20), after “entities”, insert “(other than *associates of the individual that are not individuals)”.(5) Schedule 1, item 3, page 24 (lines 27 to 30), omit paragraph (2)(a), substitute: (a) the entity engages one or more other entities to perform work, other than: (i) individuals whose *personal services income is included in the entity's *ordinary income or *statutory income; or (ii) *associates of the entity that are not individuals; and (6) Schedule 1, item 3, page 27 (line 21) to page 29 (line 12), omit subsections (3) to (7), substitute:Matters about which the Commissioner must be satisfied (3) The Commissioner must not make a determination unless satisfied that, in the income year during which the determination first has effect, or is taken to have first had effect: (a) the individual meets either or both of the following tests: (i) the employment test; (ii) the business premises test; and (b) the individual's *personal services income is for producing a result; and (c) the individual is required to supply the *plant and equipment, or tools of trade, needed to perform the work from which the individual produces the result; and (d) the individual is, or would be, liable for the cost of rectifying any defect in the work performed. (4) The Commissioner may refuse to issue a determination if, having regard to the common law principles about such matters, the Commissioner is of the view that the work is being undertaken in an employee-like manner.(7) Schedule 1, item 3, page 30 (line 35), omit “*personal services income is”, substitute “*ordinary income or *statutory income, that is an individual's *personal services income, is income”.(8) Schedule 1, item 3, page 31 (line 6), at the end of subsection (5), add: ; and (d) 80% or more of the individual's personal services income could reasonably be expected to be, or was, income from the same entity, or from the same entity and that entity's *associates.(9) Schedule 1, item 3, page 31 (line 20), omit “subsection (3)”, substitute “paragraphs (3)(a) and (b)”.(10) Schedule 1, page 33 (after line 8), after item 3, insert:3A At the end of subsection 104-70(2)Add: ; or (d) paid from an amount that is *personal services income included in your assessable income, or another entity's assessable income, under section 86-15.3B At the end of section 104-135Add: (7) You also disregard a payment that is *personal services income included in your assessable income, or another entity's assessable income, under section 86-15.(11) Schedule 1, item 22, page 36 (lines 9 to 21), omit the item.(12) Schedule 1, item 26, page 38 (line 3), after “for”, insert “the entity from”.(13) Schedule 1, item 26, page 37 (lines 26 and 27), omit “or the 2001-2002 income year”.00:41:0018726Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration10—I move:That the requested amendments Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 be made.These are government amendments moved and accepted in the Senate. In the interests of time, I will not elaborate further on them at this stage.00:41:0018726Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—This is an important piece of legislation because it involves an agreement with the government in relation to the whole business tax package. This component, the alienation of personal services income, is an important measure on anti-avoidance, and it squared the equation in the overall package so far as the revenue neutrality test was concerned. I do not want to take a lot of time tonight, and we note that the government have accepted the amendments that they have moved. But there were important amendments moved in the Senate—which were supported in the Senate and have come here—which we think have strengthened the bill and which significantly reinforce what the Ralph inquiry recommended in this context. As well, they give stronger effect to the revenue neutrality test, because the transitional period which the government have allowed has resulted in circumstances in which less revenue than was previously claimed in the agreement with us would have been obtained.The amendments that the government are not agreeing to advance the position. We support those amendments. All it essentially needs is for the government to support them, in accordance with their agreement with us, and to give effect more fully to the Ralph recommendations. Unfortunately, the government are not prepared to accept them here. We recognise that point. Rather than waste time debating it here, we think the matter should go back to the Senate and hopefully be resolved satisfactorily as soon as possible. Question resolved in the affirmative.00:44:0018727Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration10—I move:That requested amendments Nos 1 and 13 be not made.Firstly, the government rejects outright amendment No. 1, which would have seen a report on the operation of the act. We simply are unable to accept that. With respect to the Senate's request for amendment No. 13, which would reduce the period of prescribed payment system declaration from two years to one year—applying only to the 2000-01 income year—the government does not accept that amendment.The government has had regard to the fact that payers under the prescribed payment system are currently subject to withholding arrangements and are specifically recognised as contractors under the tax laws. The exclusion of PPS contractors for two years removes the compliance burden from the new rules that contractors in the PPS face in transferring to the new tax system. The government has also had regard to the logistics of the commissioner being able to process a potentially large number of requests for individual determinations for the 2000-01 income year. The government does not agree with the suggestions of the Australian Democrats that the transitional period should be reduced to one year. The main business tax reforms are proposed to start on 1 July 2001, making that an unsuitable time to ask the PPS entities to also cope with alienation changes. 00:46:0018727Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—As to the reporting period, we cannot understand the logic of a government that signed up with us saying that the agreement that they were implementing would deliver in full in accordance with the press release of the Treasurer back in November of last year. If the argument is correct that the legislation enacted after the transitional period delivers in full, there should be no difficulty at all in the government accepting reporting to demonstrate that those targets are being met—no reason at all. We have heard no argument from the government as to why they are not prepared to accept a report that requires them to more specifically state how they honour their agreement.On the question of the transition period, this is the area that goes fundamentally to their failure on the revenue neutrality front. There have been no convincing arguments as to why the transition period needs to be the length that they argue. Again, without debating the point here, we think it is a matter that should get back to the Senate for consideration as quickly as possible, as indeed the issue of the tests which we believe, if the government were being genuine about its agreement both in accordance with the Ralph review and its commitment to us, they should be prepared to accept.This is a circumstance in which the government reached an agreement with us. They have not been prepared to enter into any discussions with us as to why they cannot meet these points. That is disappointing, given the spirit of bipartisanship with which we entered these discussions around these issues. Given the arrogance with which the government, and the Treasurer in particular, treat this parliament and given the fact that the Treasurer has been in Paris for the last week and has flown back in no doubt jet lagged because we could not get through to his office when we tried to understand what the effect of these amendments were tonight, we think it is better to have it sent back to the Senate as quickly as possible to try to get some commonsense because we are not getting it in this chamber.00:48:0018727Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration10—We reject the suggestions that the Treasurer is arrogant. It is particularly interesting that as the Treasurer was in this chamber today the opposition could not think of one question to ask him. Question resolved in the affirmative.00:50:0018728Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration10—I move:That requested amendment No. 6 be not made, but that in place thereof, the amendments circulated on behalf of the Government, be made.Further amendments—(1) Schedule 1, item 3, page 28 (after line 33), at the end of subsection (5) add:; and (d) 80% or more of the individual's personal services income could reasonably be expected to be, or was, income from the same entity, or from the same entity and that entity's *associates.(2) Schedule 1, item 3, page 29 (line 12), omit “subsection (3)”, substitute “paragraphs (3)(a) and (b)”.The government does not agree to the Senate's requested amendment No. 6, which would replace the government's criteria with a test requiring the contractor to satisfy either the employment test or the business premises test, and the further grounds income for producing a result, supplying the equipment or tools of trade, and liable for the cost of rectifying defects. In addition, the commissioner could refuse to issue a determination if he considers, having regard to common law principles, that the work is done in an employee-like manner. Most contractors who get 80 per cent or more of their income from one source would not satisfy the criteria proposed by the Senate amendment. Further, the commissioner could effectively reconsider the whole matter of whether the individual is conducting a personal services business without having regard to any criteria laid down in the bill. The amendments also exclude the unusual circumstances criterion in the bill which allowed a contractor to obtain a personal services business determination if, but for those circumstances, they would have met one of the tests for a personal services business. This test was important to allow contractors who normally contract with the public at large but who take a long-term one-off contract to be considered as conducting a personal services business. The amendments by the Senate to the grounds for a personal services business determination have been proposed only for individuals seeking determinations. No amendments have been proposed for personal services business determinations for entities. The government assumes that this is a drafting oversight and, if not fixed, will lead to vastly different treatment for when income is received by an entity. The government framed the further grounds income for producing a result, supplying plant and equipment or tools of trade, and liable for the cost of rectifying defects as an alternative basis for the determination. In some industries contractors do not work in a way that would satisfy the criteria. As the Senate's amendment would require the further grounds to be met in all cases as well as either the employment or business test, contractors in those industries would be unable to get a determination.The government moves two technical amendments to replace Senate request No. 6 which will confirm that the Commissioner of Taxation may make a personal services business determination only under the further grounds—that is, income for producing a result, being required to supply the plant and equipment or tools of trade, and liable for the cost of rectifying any defects in the work—where an individual receives 80 per cent or more of his or her personal services income from one source. This wording change is consistent with the scheme of the alienation provisions as set out in the diagram in proposed section 87(5).00:53:0018728Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—We do not disagree with the technical amendments that the government is making. We do not support its rejection of the amendment proposed by the Senate. I have made reference to that before. There is no point wasting time in this chamber with a government that is not prepared to honour its agreements with us. But let us hope that we can get some sense out of the Senate and get it back here finalised.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills18729R103618729Bill returned from the Senate with an amendment.Ordered that the amendment be taken into consideration forthwith.Senate's amendment—Schedule 1, item 34, page 27 (line 19), omit paragraph (b).00:55:0018729Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration10—I move:That the amendment be disagreed to. The amendment removes the proposed restriction on who can charge a fee for giving taxation advice on behalf of a taxpayer. That restriction, which limits the right to charge for taxation advice to registered tax agents with certain exceptions, was imposed to ensure that persons with relevant qualifications were able to charge for taxation advice. Further, we do not believe that the bill as drafted will prevent professional bodies and industry organisations that are not registered tax agents from charging a fee for service for giving advice to their members on taxation law and tax related matters.00:55:0018729Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSONUK6WillsALP00—The opposition will not oppose the course of action that the government has embarked on in this case, but we do so on the understanding that the government will make a statement explicitly indicating that peak bodies, professional associations and the like will be able to provide the advice and will not be excluded by the bill. We think that it is important that peak associations—the National Farmers Federation, the AMA, the national tax and accountants body and other peak associations—are able to provide the advice referred to in the legislation. So it is important that that arrangement be there. We accept that the government has made undertakings of this character and, therefore, on that basis, do not intend to insist on the amendment which was made by the Senate.Question resolved in the affirmative.00:57:0018729Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration10—I present the reasons for the House disagreeing to the Senate amendment, and I move:That the reasons be adopted.The amendment removes the proposed restriction on who can charge a fee for giving taxation advice on behalf of a taxpayer. That restriction, which limits the right to charge for taxation advice to registered tax agents with certain exceptions, was imposed to ensure that persons with relevant qualifications were able to charge for taxation advice. Further, the House does not believe that the bill as drafted will prevent professional bodies and industry organisations that are not registered tax agents from charging a fee for service for giving advice to their members on taxation laws and tax related matters.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills18729R105318729Bill returned from the Senate with amendments.Ordered that the amendments be taken into consideration forthwith.Senate's amendments—(1) Schedule 2, items 27 to 34, page 77 (line 21) to page 78 (line 27), omit the items.(2) Schedule 2, items 37 to 42, page 79 (lines 3 to 30), omit the items.(3) Schedule 2, item 43, page 80 (line 1) to page 91 (line 36), omit the item.(4) Schedule 2, items 44 to 47, page 92 (lines 1 to 24), omit the items.(5) Schedule 2, item 49, page 93 (line 2) to page 96 (line 25), omit the item.(6) Schedule 2, item 49A, page 96 (line 26) to page 97 (line 18), omit the item.(7) Schedule 2, item 50, page 97 (line 19) to page 98 (line 29), omit the item.(8) Schedule 2, item 51, page 98 (line 30) to page 100 (line 35), omit the item.(9) Schedule 2, item 52, page 101 (line 1) to page 102 (line 12), omit the item.(10) Schedule 2, item 62, page 103 (line 24), omit “27 to 43 and 49 to 53”, substitute “35, 36 and 53”.(11) Schedule 2, item 62, page 103 (lines 26 and 27), omit subitem (5).(12) Schedule 2, item 84, page 114 (lines 6 to 20), omit section 320-20. (13) Schedule 2, item 84, page 114 (line 21) to page 115 (line 2), omit section 320-25.(14) Schedule 2, item 84, page 124 (lines 14 to 24), omit section 320-90.(15) Schedule 2, item 84, page 124 (line 25) to page 125 (line 7), omit section 320-95.(16) Schedule 2, item 84, page 138 (lines 27 and 28), omit paragraph (f).Schedule 2, item 84, page 139 (lines 14 and 15), omit paragraph (f).00:59:0018730Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration10—I move:That the amendments be agreed to.It is not a matter of surprise that the government's preferred position is to have the bill passed in its entirety. However, the government recognises that, due to the positions taken by the Australian Democrats and the Labor Party in the other place, this is not possible. Therefore the government, reluctantly, is prepared to support the amendments. By moving these amendments the Australian Democrats are responsible for reducing revenue by an average of $70 million per annum over the next five years. I just want to make that very clear to the House: the Australian Democrats and Labor have gone soft on capital gains tax, at a cost to the revenue of $70 million a year. The government is well aware of concerns raised about the segregation method and indicated its willingness to offer an alternative method.The superannuation industry was prepared for us to get on with consultations to formulate this alternative method, with a view to limiting compliance costs. Instead of allowing passage of the bill, the Australian Democrats and Labor have decided to block taxation changes that would have removed the ability of taxpayers to eliminate capital gains tax through planning the time of superannuation asset disposals. Who now can take seriously Labor's rhetoric about acting tough on tax? Let us remember that it was the Labor Party that brought in the special capital gains tax provisions in 1988 that currently apply to complying superannuation funds to tax capital gains accrued in the accumulation phase. This bill was merely trying to apply these Labor Party capital gains tax provisions to tax capital gains accrued in the accumulation phase when the asset is transferred to the pension phase, an anomaly recognised by the industry. But, as I said at the outset, I am moving that the amendments be agreed to.01:01:0018730Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSONUK6WillsALP00—Far be it from the Labor Party to make an honest man of the Prime Minister but I do have to draw to the attention of the House the Prime Minister's address to the nation this evening. He said:... the capital gains tax has been virtually halved, with special provisions for those in small business who've worked hard all of their lives and want to retire on the proceeds of their effort and hard work. The fact is that, if this bill had gone through in the way the government proposed, it would have made a nonsense of the Prime Minister's address to the nation this evening. Indeed, Senator Watson, Liberal Party chair of the Senate committee inquiring into this legislation, indicated to the Senate that this bill works contrary to the government's oft promoted capital gains tax exemptions provided to small business. Senator Watson pointed out that small businesses would be disadvantaged compared with those who did move assets into a superannuation fund and who held those assets individually, pointing out that an individual small business taxpayer can take advantage of either a 15-year ownership capital gains tax exemption or the $500,000 capital gains tax rollover exemption for small businesses who use the sale of their business to retire. Indeed, Senator Watson's view was supported in evidence by Peter McDonald, the National Director of Superannuation Australia. This was not opposed or refuted by Senator Kemp when the matter was put to him by Senator Watson.So Labor is making an honest person of the Prime Minister concerning the issue of capital gains tax in relation to superannuation, taxation and taxation change as proposed by the government, where what it has wanted to do is require the segregation of assets supporting pension payments. Let me make the point that the government's handling of this legislation has been absolutely disgraceful. In the first instance it has engaged in selective consultation with the life insurance representatives. They have left out everybody else involved in providing superannuation. As a result, the only people who have supported the government's bill are the life insurance representatives. Everybody else—corporate superannuation funds, industry superannuation funds, do-it-yourself superannuation funds, ASFA, the financial planning association, the certified practising accountants—has opposed this government's measure. Secondly, they bring forward a complicated piece of legislation and say, `This is going to apply from 1 July this year,' and it comes on for debate today—well, it is now actually Friday—a day or so before it is due to take effect, which makes it impossible to get the legislation right in time. All the evidence to the Senate committee suggests that we can come up with a superior agreed outcome but what it means is that income stream providers are now operating in an uncertain environment. Assuming the representations from life offices on this point are not simply a device to try to secure passage of the legislation, that is a serious issue.So we have a situation where Senator Kemp said that he would address the complexity of the bill, that he hoped to work out a solution, that it is a complex issue. But what he wanted to do was to put the parliament in the situation of passing the bill first and sorting it out later. We and the Australian Democrats said, `Look, that is not good enough. It is unsatisfactory and not a tenable situation.' We have rejected it. We hope that the government will now go and consult with the whole of the industry—not just selective consultation with a few—and come back with a better alternative, which must certainly be available to it. If the government wants to have a debate about retrospective capital gains tax, by all means let us have that sort of debate. If it wants to have a debate about capital gains tax on the family farm, let us have a debate about that; if it wants to have a debate about using superannuation taxation to impose an effective death duty, let us have a debate about that; if it wants to create a new layer of complexity which will needlessly disadvantage industry and corporate funds, by all means, let us have a debate about that; and if it wants to discourage income streams, let us have a debate about that. But we hope that the government will now go back to the drawing board, consult genuinely across the board and come up with a more superior piece of legislation than it has done so far. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bills18731The following bill was returned from the Senate without amendment or request:Environment and Heritage Legislation Amendment Bill 2000Bills18731R107318731Bill returned from the Senate with amendments.Ordered that the amendments be taken into consideration forthwith.Senate's amendments—(1) Schedule 1, item 6, page 3 (lines 20 to 23), omit subsection (2A), substitute: (2A) In deciding whether to make a declaration under subsection (1) or (2) in relation to a person and an area, the Minister is limited to considering factors that are relevant to achieving the objects of this Act.(2) Schedule 1, item 19, page 8 (after line 8), after subsection (5), insert: (5A) If a former provider has been given notice of a requirement under subsection (2), the ACA may, in writing, direct the former provider to comply with the requirement or with specified aspects of the requirement. (5B) The former provider must comply with the direction. (5C) In deciding whether to give a direction under subsection (5A), the ACA must consider whether the requirement made by the notice given to the former provider is reasonable.(3) Schedule 1, item 34, page 9 (line 26) to page 10 (line 3), omit the item, substitute:34 After subsection 26A(2)Insert: (2A) In deciding whether to make a declaration under subsection (1) or (2) in relation to a person and an area, the Minister is limited to considering factors that are relevant to achieving the objects of this Act.(4) Schedule 1, item 49, page 13 (after line 23), after subsection (5), insert: (5A) If a former provider has been given notice of a requirement under subsection (2), the ACA may, in writing, direct the former provider to comply with the requirement or with specified aspects of the requirement. (5B) The former provider must comply with the direction. (5C) In deciding whether to give a direction under subsection (5A), the ACA must consider whether the requirement made by the notice given to the former provider is reasonable.(5) Schedule 1, page 13 (after line 31), after item 51, insert:51A After paragraph 32(1)(a)Insert: (aa) the plan addresses the needs of people with a disability; and(6) Schedule 1, page 13 (after line 31), after item 51, insert:51B At the end of section 32Add: (3) In this section:disability has the same meaning as in the Disability Discrimination Act 1992.(7) Schedule 1, item 70, page 16 (line 23), omit “Note:”, substitute “Note 1:”.(8) Schedule 1, item 70, page 16 (after line 27), after the note, add:Note 2: The Minister is obliged to get advice from the ACA about proposed determinations and some variations of determinations—see subsection (1F).(9) Schedule 1, item 70, page 17 (after line 25), after subsection (1E), insert: (1F) Before deciding whether to make or vary a determination under subsection (1A), the Minister must: (a) direct the ACA to give the Minister advice about the proposed determination or variation; and (b) consider the ACA's advice.However, this rule does not apply to a variation of a determination if the variation is of a minor technical nature. (1G) The ACA must comply with a direction under paragraph (1F)(a). (1H) Subsection (1F) does not, by implication, limit the Minister's powers under section 486 of the Telecommunications Act 1997 (which deals with public inquiries). (1J) If: (a) the Minister has received advice under subsection (1F) about a proposed determination or variation; and (b) the determination or variation is not made in accordance with the advice;the Minister must: (c) publish his or her reasons for departing from the advice in the Gazette within 14 days after making the determination; and (d) cause copies of his or her reasons for departing from the advice to be laid before each House of the Parliament within 5 sitting days of that House after making the determination.01:07:0018732Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration10—I move:That the amendments be agreed to.The government agrees to the amendments to the Telecommunications (Consumer Protection and Service Standards) Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2000 made by the Senate. The amendments made by the Senate facilitate the operation of the act by clarifying a number of procedural issues. The bill supports the government's commitment to provide untimed local calls to consumers in extended zones. It supports the commitment made by the government at the last election. The bill also commences the process of reforming the delivery of the universal service obligation, a process which the government will continue later this year with further legislation. The tender for the provision of untimed local calls is a significant issue for those people in remote Australia currently liable to pay timed rates for all telephone calls they make. The tender process will be thorough and rigorous. It will ensure the successful tenderer has an ongoing commitment and a demonstrated capacity, both financial and technical, to deliver services to customers in remote Australia. 01:08:0018733Smith, Stephen, MPMr STEPHEN SMITH5V5PerthALP00—The opposition has no difficulties with the amendments so far as they go, but regrettably in the other place the best amendments that were moved in respect of this legislation were not supported. They were opposition amendments which sought to break the nexus that the government had inextricably chosen between the successful tender of the $150 million extension of local calls to remote areas and that winner of the tender automatically becoming the regional universal service provider. I asked a question in this place during the second reading debate and the government has still not put out a qualitative reason as to why there is a difference in approach in this matter and for the pilot programs, which this legislation also sets the scene of. In those instances the government's policy correctly is that a regional universal service provider will be chosen but Telstra, if it is not chosen as a regional universal service provider, must operate in that market as a safety net of last resort. On the relevant department's own evidence to the Senate committee, that does not apply in respect of the successful tender of the $150 million extension of infrastructure for local calls in remote areas, and the government leaps automatically to the nomination of that successful tenderer being the regional universal service provider. That is wrong in principle, and I dare say that in the fullness of time we will live to regret it.Amendments agreed to.Bills18733R103818733Bill returned from the Senate with amendments.Ordered that the amendments be taken into consideration forthwith.Senate's amendments—(1) Govt (1) [Sheet ER232] Clause 2, page 1 (line 11), after “137,”, insert “137A,”.(2) Govt (1) [Sheet ER235] Clause 2, page 1 (after line 11), after subclause (1), insert: (1A) Subject to subsection (1B), items 134A to 134D (inclusive), 136A, 136B, 136D to 136J (inclusive), 139A, 139D and 139E of Schedule 1 commence on a day to be fixed by Proclamation. (1B) If items 134A to 134D (inclusive), 136A, 136B, 136D to 136J (inclusive), 139A, 139D and 139E of Schedule 1 do not commence under subsection (1A) within the period of 6 months beginning on the day on which this Act receives the Royal Assent, they commence on the first day after the end of that period.(3) Govt (2) [Sheet EK215] (As amended by Opp)Schedule 1, item 2, page 3 (lines 7 to 11), omit the item, substitute:2 After paragraph 3(1)(a)Insert: (aa) to promote the availability to audiences and users throughout Australia of a diverse range of datacasting services; and2A After paragraph 3(1)(b)Insert: (ba) to provide a regulatory environment that will facilitate the development of a datacasting industry in Australia that is efficient, competitive and responsive to audience and user needs; and2B After paragraph 3(1)(f)Insert: (fa) to promote the provision of high quality and innovative content by providers of datacasting services; and(4) Dem (1) [Sheet 1827] (Moved in amended form) Schedule 1, page 3 (after line 11), after item 2, insert:2A At the end of subsection 3(1)Add: ; and (n) to ensure the maintenance and, where possible, the development of diversity, including public, community and indigenous broadcasting, in the Australian broadcasting system in the transition to digital broadcasting. (5) Govt (1) [Sheet ER227] Schedule 1, page 5 (after line 23), after item 17, insert:17A At the end of section 18Add: (2) A multi-channelled national television broadcasting service (within the meaning of Schedule 4) is not an open narrowcasting service.(6) Dem (3) [Sheet 1827] Schedule 1, item 20, page 6 (line 2), omit “6 MHz or”.(7) Govt (3) [Sheet EK215]Schedule 1, item 23, page 7 (lines 15 and 16), omit “commencement of this section”, substitute “designated time for the licence area”.(8) Govt (4) [Sheet EK215] Schedule 1, item 23, page 7 (line 34) to page 8 (line 1), omit “commencement of this section”, substitute “designated time for the licence area”.(9) Govt (5) [Sheet EK215] Schedule 1, item 23, page 8 (line 5), omit “commencement of this section”, substitute “designated time for the licence area”.(10) Govt (6) [Sheet EK215]Schedule 1, item 23, page 8 (line 11), omit “commencement of this section”, substitute “designated time for the licence area”.(11) Govt (7) [Sheet EK215] Schedule 1, item 23, page 8 (line 27), omit “commencement of this section”, substitute “designated time for the licence area”.(12) Govt (8) [Sheet EK215] Schedule 1, item 23, page 10 (line 21), before “the licensee”, insert “if the licence area for the licence is wholly outside a remote licence area (within the meaning of Schedule 4)—”.(13) Govt (9) [Sheet EK215] Schedule 1, item 23, page 10 (line 27), omit “2004.”, substitute “2004; and”.(14) Govt (10) [Sheet EK215] Schedule 1, item 23, page 10 (after line 27), at the end of subsection (18), add: (c) if any part of the licence area for the licence is within a remote licence area (within the meaning of Schedule 4)—the licensee will commence to provide the commercial television broadcasting service concerned in SDTV digital mode (within the meaning of Schedule 4) by the time that is notified in writing to the licensee by the ABA, being a time that is not earlier than the date determined by the ABA in relation to the remote licence area as mentioned in subclause 6(6A) of Schedule 4.(15) Govt (11) [Sheet EK215] Schedule 1, item 23, page 11 (after line 30), at the end of section 38B, add:Designated time (26) In this section:designated time, in relation to a licence area, means: (a) if the licence area is wholly outside a remote licence area (within the meaning of Schedule 4)—the commencement of this section; or (b) if any part of the licence area is within a remote licence area (within the meaning of Schedule 4)—the time determined by the ABA in relation to the remote licence area for the purposes of this paragraph.(16) Opp (39) [Sheet 1823]Schedule 1, page 17 (after line 25), after item 57, insert:57A After section 216CInsert:216D Review of Schedules 4 and 6 (1) As soon as practicable after 1 January 2003 and before 1 January 2004, the Minister may cause to be conducted a review of the operation of Schedules 4 and 6. (2) The Minister must cause to be prepared a report of a review under subsection (1). (3) The Minister must cause copies of a report to be laid before each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the completion of the preparation of the report.(17) Opp (40) [Sheet 1823] Schedule 1, page 17 (after line 25), after item 57, insert:57B After section 216DInsert:216E Review of streamed Internet, audio and video content (1) Before 1 January 2002, the Minister must cause to be conducted a review of whether, in the context of converging media technologies, streamed audio and video content obtainable on the Internet should be regarded as a broadcasting service. (2) The Minister must cause to be prepared a report of a review under subsection (1). (3) The Minister must cause copies of a report to be laid before each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the completion of the preparation of the report.(18) Govt (1) [Sheet ER234] Schedule 1, page 19 (after line 20), after item 69, insert:69A After paragraph 7(1)(o) of Schedule 2Insert: (oa) the licensee will comply with any regulations made for the purposes of clause 36B of Schedule 4 (which deals with the accessibility of domestic reception equipment);(19) Dem (4) [Sheet 1827] (Moved in amended form) Schedule 1, page 19 (after line 20), after item 69, insert:69AA After subclause 7(2A) of Schedule 2Insert: (2B) Each commercial television broadcasting licence is also subject to the condition that the licensee will provide information to another commercial television broadcasting licensee or a datacasting licensee: (a) in a timely manner; and (b) at no cost; and (c) in a form (and accompanied by any necessary digital systems information) that reasonably enables its inclusion in an electronic program guide;if required to do so by that other licensee for the purpose of compiling information for an electronic program guide.(20) Govt (1) [Sheet EK217] Schedule 1, item 69AA, subclause (2B), omit “or a datacasting licensee”.(21) Govt (2) [Sheet EK217] Schedule 1, page 19 (after line 20), after item 69, insert:69B Before subclause 7(3) of Schedule 2Insert: (2C) Each commercial television broadcasting licence is also subject to the condition that the licensee will provide information to a national broadcaster (within the meaning of Schedule 4): (a) in a timely manner; and (b) at no cost; and (c) in a form (and accompanied by any necessary digital systems information) that reasonably enables its inclusion in an electronic program guide;if required to do so by that national broadcaster for the purpose of compiling information for an electronic program guide. (2D) For the purposes of the application of subclause (2B) to information provided to a commercial television broadcasting licensee, electronic program guide has the same meaning as in subclause 6(24) of Schedule 4. (2E) For the purposes of the application of subclause (2C) to information provided to a national broadcaster, electronic program guide has the same meaning as in subclause 19(24) of Schedule 4.(22) Govt (12) [Sheet EK215] Schedule 1, page 20 (after line 8), after item 73, insert:73A Clause 2 of Schedule 4 (definition of broadcasting transmission tower)Omit all the words after “used”, substitute:to supply: (e) a broadcasting service by means of radiocommunications using the broadcasting services bands; or (f) a datacasting service provided under, and in accordance with the conditions of, a datacasting licence.(23) Govt (2) [Sheet ER227] Schedule 1, page 20 (after line 22), after item 76, insert:76AA Clause 2 of Schedule 4Insert:multi-channelled national television broadcasting service has the meaning given by clause 5A.(24) Govt (13) [Sheet EK215] Schedule 1, page 20 (after line 22), after item 76, insert:76A Clause 2 of Schedule 4Insert:national radio broadcasting service means a national broadcasting service that provides radio programs.(25) Govt (3) [Sheet ER227] Schedule 1, page 21 (after line 13), after item 79, insert:79A After clause 5 of Schedule 4Insert:5A Multi-channelled national television broadcasting service (1) For the purposes of this Schedule, a broadcasting service is a multi-channelled national television broadcasting service if: (a) the service provides television programs; and (b) either: (i) the service is provided by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation in accordance with section 6 of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Act 1983; or (ii) the service is provided by the Special Broadcasting Service Corporation in accordance with section 6 of the Special Broadcasting Service Act 1991; and (c) the service is transmitted in digital mode using multi-channelling transmission capacity; and (d) the only programs delivered by the service are programs to which subclause (2) applies; and (e) the service is promoted as a service that is distinct from any other broadcasting service provided by the Corporation concerned; and (f) the service is neither a subscription broadcasting service nor a subscription narrowcasting service; and (g) the Corporation concerned has given the Minister a written notice electing that this subclause apply to the service; and (h) if the Corporation concerned transmits the service in a particular coverage area: (i) the Corporation transmits another broadcasting service in that coverage area; and (ii) the other service is a national television broadcasting service; and (iii) clause 19 applies to the other service during the simulcast period for that coverage area. (2) This subclause applies to the following television programs: (a) a program (including a news bulletin or a current affairs program) that deals wholly or principally with regional matters; (b) an educational program; (c) a science program; (d) a religious program; (e) a health program; (f) an arts-related program; (g) a culture-related program; (h) a financial, market or business information bulletin; (i) a program that consists of: (i) the proceedings of, or the proceedings of a committee of, a Parliament; or (ii) the proceedings of a court or tribunal in Australia; or (iii) the proceedings of an official inquiry or Royal Commission in Australia; or (iv) a hearing conducted by a body established for a public purpose by a law of the Commonwealth or of a State or Territory; (j) a public policy program; (k) a foreign-language news bulletin; (l) a program about community-based multicultural or indigenous activities; (m) a children's program; (n) a history program; (o) a program that: (i) is produced by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation; and (ii) deals with international news (including analysis of items of international news); (p) a national program about rural affairs; (q) an information-only program; (r) a stand-alone international social documentary; (s) a stand-alone social documentary that is produced by the Special Broadcasting Service Corporation; (t) a subtitled foreign-language program; (u) an occasional stand-alone drama program; (v) incidental matter. (3) In this clause:drama program has the same meaning as in section 103B.educational program has the same meaning as in Schedule 6 (disregarding subclauses 3(2) to (7) (inclusive) of Schedule 6).financial, market or business information bulletin has the same meaning as in Schedule 6.foreign-language news bulletin means a news bulletin the audio component of which is wholly in a language other than English (for this purpose, disregard minor and infrequent uses of the English language).incidental matter means: (a) advertising or sponsorship matter (whether or not of a commercial kind); or (b) a program promotion; or (c) an announcement; or (d) a hosting; or (e) any other interstitial program.information-only program has the same meaning as in Schedule 6 (disregarding subclauses 4(2) to (7) (inclusive) of Schedule 6).public policy program means a program that consists of a lecture, speech, debate or forum, where: (a) the lecture, speech, debate or forum deals wholly or principally with one or more matters of public policy; and (b) there is no editing of the substance of the lecture, speech, debate or forum; and (c) if there is any analysis, commentary or discussion about the substance of the lecture, speech, debate or forum—the analysis, commentary or discussion has a balanced presentation of points of view.subtitled foreign-language program means a subtitled program the audio content of which is wholly in a language other than English (for this purpose, disregard minor and infrequent uses of the English language).(26) Govt (2) [Sheet ER232] Schedule 1, page 22 (after line 11), after item 85, insert:85A At the end of subclause 6(3) of Schedule 4Add: ; (n) the objective that, in allotting channels under the scheme or a digital channel plan, the ABA must have regard to: (i) the need to plan the most efficient use of the spectrum; and (ii) the other relevant policy objectives of the scheme.(27) Govt (3) [Sheet ER232] Schedule 1, page 23 (after line 21), after item 86, insert:86A Before subclause 6(6) of Schedule 4Insert: (5D) For the purposes of paragraphs (3)(ha) and (n) and (5B)(c), in determining the most efficient use of the spectrum, the ABA is to have regard to: (a) the need for spectrum to be made available for allocation for the purposes of the transmission of datacasting services under, and in accordance with the conditions of, datacasting licences; and (b) such other matters as the ABA considers relevant.(28) Opp (3) [Sheet 1823] Schedule 1, item 91, page 24 (lines 11 to 14), omit paragraph (c), substitute: ; and (c) ignore any digital program-enhancement content (as defined by subclause (14)); and(29) Govt (15) [Sheet EK215] Schedule 1, item 91, page 24 (after line 14), after paragraph (c), insert: (ca) ignore a particular item of category B digital program-enhancement content (as defined by subclause (15)), so long as the licensee does not transmit simultaneously any other item of category B digital program-enhancement content; and(30) Opp (4) [Sheet 1823] Schedule 1, item 91, page 24 (lines 21 to 23), omit “was scheduled at least one week before the start of the designated event”, substitute “is a regularly scheduled news program”.(31) Opp (5) [Sheet 1823] Schedule 1, item 91, page 24 (lines 32 and 33), omit “the other television program”, substitute “the regularly scheduled news program”.(32) Opp (6) [Sheet 1823] Schedule 1, item 94, page 25 (line 14), omit “Category A digital”, substitute “Digital”.(33) Opp (7) [Sheet 1823] Schedule 1, item 94, page 25 (line 15), omit “category A”.(34) Opp (8) [Sheet 1823] Schedule 1, item 94, page 26 (line 7), omit “category A”.(35) Opp (9) [Sheet 1823] Schedule 1, item 94, page 26 (line 13) to page 27 (line 15), omit subclauses (15) to (19).(36) Opp (41) [Sheet 1823] Schedule 1, item 94, page 27 (line 29), omit “a digital”, substitute “a uniform digital”.(37) Opp (42) [Sheet 1823] Schedule 1, item 94, page 27 (line 31) to page 28 (line 3), omit paragraph (24)(a), substitute: (a) a schedule of the television programs provided by: (i) the commercial television broadcasting service transmitting the matter; or (ii) all of the commercial television broadcasting services and all of the national television broadcasting services; or(38) Govt (16) [Sheet EK215] Schedule 1, item 107, page 31 (line 13), after “licences”, insert “or for the purpose of the transmission of national radio broadcasting services”.(39) Govt (4) [Sheet ER232] Schedule 1, page 31 (after line 13), after item 107, insert:107A At the end of subclause 19(3) of Schedule 4Add: ; (n) the objective that, in allotting channels under the scheme or a digital channel plan, the ABA must have regard to: (i) the need to plan the most efficient use of the spectrum; and (ii) the other relevant policy objectives of the scheme.(40) Govt (5) [Sheet ER232] Schedule 1, page 31 (after line 13), after item 107, insert:107B Before subclause 19(6) of Schedule 4Insert: (5A) For the purposes of paragraphs (3)(ha) and (n), in determining the most efficient use of the spectrum, the ABA is to have regard to: (a) the need for spectrum to be made available for allocation for the purposes of the transmission of datacasting services under, and in accordance with the conditions of, datacasting licences; and (b) such other matters as the ABA considers relevant.(41) Govt (4) [Sheet ER227] Schedule 1, page 32 (after line 3), after item 110, insert:110A Before subclause 19(8) of Schedule 4Insert:Multi-channelled national television broadcasting services (7B) This clause does not apply to a multi-channelled national television broadcasting service.(42) Opp (10) [Sheet 1823] Schedule 1, item 112, page 32 (lines 8 to 11), omit paragraph (c), substitute: ; and (c) ignore any digital program-enhancement content (as defined by subclause (14)); and(43) Govt (18) [Sheet EK215] Schedule 1, item 112, page 32 (after line 11), after paragraph (c), insert: (ca) ignore a particular item of category B digital program-enhancement content (as defined by subclause (15)), so long as the national broadcaster does not transmit simultaneously any other item of category B digital program-enhancement content; and(44) Opp (11) [Sheet 1823] Schedule 1, item 112, page 32 (lines 18 to 20), omit “was scheduled at least one week before the start of the designated event”, substitute “is a regularly scheduled news program”.(45) Opp (12) [Sheet 1823] Schedule 1, item 112, page 32 (line 30), omit “the other television program”, substitute “the regularly scheduled news program”.(46) Opp (13) [Sheet 1823] Schedule 1, item 115, page 33 (line 11), omit “Category A digital”, substitute “Digital”.(47) Opp (14) [Sheet 1823] Schedule 1, item 115, page 33 (line 12), omit “category A”.(48) Opp (15) [Sheet 1823] Schedule 1, item 115, page 34 (line 2), omit “category A”.(49) Opp (16) [Sheet 1823] Schedule 1, item 115, page 34 (line 8) to page 35 (line 10), omit subclauses (15) to (19).(50) Opp (43) [Sheet 1823] Schedule 1, item 115, page 35 (line 24), omit “a digital”, substitute “a uniform digital”.(51) Opp (44) [Sheet 1823] (As amended) Schedule 1, item 115, page 35 (lines 26 to 31), omit paragraph (24)(a), substitute: (a) a schedule of the television programs provided by: (i) the national television broadcasting service transmitting the matter; or (ii) all of the commercial television broadcasting services and all of the national television broadcasting services; or(52) Govt (5) [Sheet ER227] Schedule 1, page 36 (after line 16), after item 115, insert:115A After subclause 20(1) of Schedule 4Insert: (1A) Subclause (1) does not apply to a multi-channelled national television broadcasting service.(53) Opp (1) [Sheet 1823] (As amended by Govt (6) [Sheet ER227]) Schedule 1, item 123, page 38 (lines 9 and 10), omit the item, substitute:123 Clause 35 of Schedule 4Repeal the clause, substitute:35 Simulcasting requirements (1) If there is a simulcast period for a coverage area, a national broadcaster must not broadcast a television program in SDTV digital mode in that area during the simulcast period for that area unless the program is broadcast simultaneously by the national broadcaster in analog mode in that area. (2) Subclause 19(8) applies to this clause in a corresponding way to the way in which it applies to paragraph 19(3)(c) of this Schedule and subclause 19(7) of this Schedule. (3) This clause does not apply to a multi-channelled national television broadcasting service.(54) Govt (3) [Sheet EK217] Schedule 1, page 38 (after line 10), after item 123, insert:123A Before clause 36 of Schedule 4Insert:35A Provision of electronic program guide information (1) Each national broadcaster must provide information to a commercial television broadcasting licensee: (a) in a timely manner; and (b) at no cost; and (c) in a form (and accompanied by any necessary digital systems information) that reasonably enables its inclusion in an electronic program guide;if required to do so by that licensee for the purpose of compiling information for an electronic program guide. (2) Each national broadcaster must provide information to the other national broadcaster: (a) in a timely manner; and (b) at no cost; and (c) in a form (and accompanied by any necessary digital systems information) that reasonably enables its inclusion in an electronic program guide;if required to do so by that other national broadcaster for the purpose of compiling information for an electronic program guide. (3) For the purposes of the application of subclause (1) to information provided to a commercial television broadcasting licensee, electronic program guide has the same meaning as in subclause 6(24). (4) For the purposes of the application of subclause (2) to information provided to a national broadcaster, electronic program guide has the same meaning as in subclause 19(24) of Schedule 4.(55) Govt (2) [Sheet ER234] Schedule 1, page 38 (after line 14), after item 125, insert:125A After Part 3 of Schedule 4Insert:Part 3A—Accessibility of domestic reception equipment36B Accessibility of domestic reception equipment (1) The regulations may provide that a designated person must not: (a) provide domestic reception equipment; or (b) enter into an agreement, arrangement or understanding in relation to the provision of domestic reception equipment;unless the equipment is accessible by: (c) each commercial television broadcasting service; and (d) each national television broadcasting service; and (e) each datacasting service provided under, and in accordance with the conditions of, a datacasting licence. (2) In this clause:designated person means: (a) the holder of a commercial television broadcasting licence; or (b) a national broadcaster; or (c) the holder of a datacasting licence; or (d) the holder of a datacasting transmitter licence.reception equipment means equipment that is capable of receiving either or both of the following: (a) a television broadcasting service transmitted in digital mode; (b) a datacasting service provided under, and in accordance with the conditions of, a datacasting licence.36C Compliance by national broadcasters A national broadcaster must comply with any regulations made for the purposes of clause 36B.Note 1: For compliance by holders of commercial television broadcasting licences, see clause 7 of Schedule 2.Note 2: For compliance by holders of datacasting licences, see clause 24 of Schedule 6.Note 3: For compliance by holders of datacasting transmitter licences, see section 109A of the Radiocommunications Act 1992.(56) Dem (24) [Sheet 1827] Schedule 1, item 126, page 43 (line 37) to page 44 (line 15), omit paragraphs (2)(b) and (c), substitute: (b) the objective that, after the end of that 2-year period each national broadcaster is required to transmit at least 20 hours per week of high-definition television programs in HDTV digital mode in a coverage area on the HDTV version of the national television broadcasting service concerned. (57) Govt (7) [Sheet ER227] Schedule 1, item 126, page 44 (line 30), omit “23(8).”, substitute “23(8); and”.(58) Govt (8) [Sheet ER227] Schedule 1, item 126, page 44 (after line 30), at the end of subclause (4), add: (c) that service is not a multi-channelled national television broadcasting service.(59) Govt (9) [Sheet ER227] Schedule 1, item 126, page 47 (line 16), omit “23(10A).”, substitute “23(10A); and”.(60) Govt (10) [Sheet ER227] Schedule 1, item 126, page 47 (after line 16), at the end of subclause (4), add: (c) that service is not a multi-channelled national television broadcasting service.(61) Dem (25) [Sheet 1827] Schedule 1, item 126, page 48 (line 1) to page 49 (line 10), omit clause 37L, substitute:37L High-definition television programs (1) For the purposes of the application of this Division to a commercial television broadcasting licensee, a high-definition television programis: (a) a television program that was originally produced in a high-definition digital video format; or (b) a television program that: (i) was originally produced in a non-video format (for example, 16 mm or 35 mm film) that was of equivalent picture quality to a high-definition digital video format; and (ii) has been converted to a high-definition digital video format; where the conversion has not resulted in a significant reduction in picture quality. (2) For the purposes of the application of this Division to a national broadcaster, a high-definition television program is: (a) a television program that was originally produced in a high-definition digital video format; or (b) a television program that: (i) was originally produced in a non-video format (for example, 16 mm or 35 mm film) that was of equivalent picture quality to a high-definition digital video format; and (ii) has been converted to a high-definition digital video format; where the conversion has not resulted in a significant reduction in picture quality; or (c) a television program that: (i) was originally produced in a standard definition digital video format; and (ii) has been converted to a high-definition digital video format; or (d) a television program that: (i) was originally produced in an analog video format; and (ii) has been converted to a standard definition digital video format; where the converted program was subsequently converted to a high-definition digital video format.(62) Govt (6) [Sheet ER232] Schedule 1, item 130, page 50 (after line 14), after subclause (2), insert: (2AA) Standards under subclause (1), to the extent that they deal with application program interfaces, must be directed towards ensuring the achievement of the policy objective that, as far as is practicable, those interfaces should be open to all providers of eligible datacasting services.(63) Govt (7) [Sheet ER232] Schedule 1, page 50 (after line 28), after item 131, insert:131A Subclause 39(5) of Schedule 4Insert:application program interface has the meaning generally accepted within the broadcasting industry.(64) Govt (19) [Sheet EK215] Schedule 1, page 51 (after line 5), after item 134, insert:134A Clause 42 of Schedule 4After “a broadcasting transmission tower” (wherever occurring), insert “or a designated associated facility”.134B Clause 42 of Schedule 4Omit “tower, and the site of the tower, for the purpose of installing or maintaining a transmitter for use in transmitting television broadcasting services in digital mode”, substitute “tower or facility”.134C Clause 42 of Schedule 4Omit “tower, and the site of the tower, for the purpose of installing or maintaining a transmitter for use in transmitting datacasting services in digital mode”, substitute “tower or facility”.134D At the end of clause 42 of Schedule 4Add:• The owner or operator of a broadcasting transmission tower must provide: (a) the holder of a commercial television broadcasting licence; or (b) a national broadcaster; with access to the site of the tower.• The owner or operator of a broadcasting transmission tower must provide a datacaster with access to the site of the tower.(65) Govt (20) [Sheet EK215] Schedule 1, page 51 (after line 13), after item 136, insert:136A Clause 43 of Schedule 4Insert:designated associated facility has the meaning given by clause 43A.136B Clause 43 of Schedule 4 (definition of facility)Omit “or a line”, substitute “, a line or an electricity cable or wire”.(66) Govt (21) [Sheet EK215] Schedule 1, page 51 (after line 13), after item 136, insert:136C Clause 43 of Schedule 4 (definition of television broadcasting service)Repeal the definition.(67) Govt (22) [Sheet EK215] Schedule 1, page 51 (after line 13), after item 136, insert:136D After clause 43 of Schedule 4Insert:43A Designated associated facilities For the purposes of this Part, a designated associated facility means any of the following facilities: (a) an antenna; (b) a combiner; (c) a feeder system; (d) a facility of a kind specified in the regulations;where: (e) the facility is, or is to be, associated with a transmitter; and (f) the facility is used, or capable of being used, in connection with: (i) the transmission of a television broadcasting service in digital mode; or (ii) the provision of datacasting services in digital mode.136E At the end of clause 44 of Schedule 4Add: (3) For the purposes of this Part, giving access to a designated associated facility includes: (a) replacing the facility with another facility located on the same site and giving access to the replacement facility; or (b) giving access to a service provided by means of the designated associated facility.136F After clause 45 of Schedule 4Insert:45A Access to designated associated facilities (1) This clause applies to a designated associated facility if the facility is situated on, at, in or under: (a) a broadcasting transmission tower; or (b) the site on which a broadcasting transmission tower is situated.Television broadcasting services in digital mode (2) The owner or operator of the designated associated facility must, if requested to do so by the holder of a commercial television broadcasting licence (the access seeker), or a national broadcaster (also called the access seeker), give the access seeker access to the facility. (3) The owner or operator of the designated associated facility is not required to comply with subclause (2) unless: (a) the access is provided for the sole purpose of enabling the access seeker to use the facility, or a service provided by means of the facility, wholly or principally in connection with the transmission of the access seeker's television broadcasting service in digital mode; and (b) the access seeker gives the owner or operator reasonable notice that the access seeker requires the access.Datacasting services in digital mode (4) The owner or operator of the designated associated facility must, if requested to do so by a datacaster (the access seeker), give the access seeker access to the facility. (5) The owner or operator of the designated associated facility is not required to comply with subclause (4) unless: (a) the access is provided for the sole purpose of enabling the access seeker to use the facility, or a service provided by means of the facility, wholly or principally in connection with the provision of datacasting services in digital mode; and (b) the access seeker gives the owner or operator reasonable notice that the access seeker requires the access.Compliance not technically feasible (6) The owner or operator of a designated associated facility is not required to comply with subclause (2) or (4) if there is in force a written certificate issued by the ABA stating that, in the ABA's opinion, compliance with subclause (2) or (4), as the case may be, in relation to that facility is not technically feasible. (7) In determining whether compliance with subclause (2) or (4) in relation to a facility is technically feasible, the ABA must have regard to: (a) whether compliance is likely to result in significant difficulties of a technical or engineering nature; and (b) whether compliance is likely to result in a significant threat to the health or safety of persons who operate, or work on, a facility situated on the site; and (c) if compliance is likely to have a result referred to in paragraph (a) or (b)—whether there are practicable means of avoiding such a result, including (but not limited to): (i) changing the configuration or operating parameters of a facility situated on the site; and (ii) making alterations to a facility situated on the site; and (d) such other matters (if any) as the ABA considers relevant.Issue of certificate (8) If the ABA receives a request to make a decision about the issue of a certificate under subclause (6), the ABA must use its best endeavours to make that decision within 10 business days after the request was made.Exemptions (9) The regulations may provide for exemptions from subclauses (2) and (4). (10) Regulations made for the purposes of subclause (9) may make provision with respect to a matter by conferring on the ACCC a power to make a decision of an administrative character.136G After subclause 47(1) of Schedule 4Insert:Access to designated associated facilities (1A) The owner or operator of a designated associated facility must comply with subclause 45A(2) or (4) on such terms and conditions as are: (a) agreed between the following parties: (i) the owner or operator; (ii) the access seeker (within the meaning of that subclause); or (b) failing agreement, determined by an arbitrator appointed by the parties.If the parties fail to agree on the appointment of an arbitrator, the ACCC is to be the arbitrator.136H At the end of subclause 48(4) of Schedule 4Add “, to the extent to which the Code relates to the provision of access under clause 45 or 46”.136J After subclause 48(4) of Schedule 4Insert: (4A) The owner or operator of a designated associated facility must comply with the Code, to the extent to which the Code relates to the provision of access under clause 45A.(68) Govt (8) [Sheet ER232] Schedule 1, page 51 (after line 20), after item 137, insert:137A After clause 59 of Schedule 4Insert:59A Reviews before 31 October 2000 (1) Before 31 October 2000, the Minister must cause to be conducted a review of the following matters: (a) whether the ABA has sufficient powers to allow the most efficient use of the broadcasting services bands spectrum (including for the purposes of promoting the availability to audiences and users throughout Australia of a diverse range of datacasting services provided under, and in accordance with the conditions of, datacasting licences); (b) if those powers are insufficient, what additional powers should be provided for in laws of the Commonwealth. (2) The Minister must ensure that, in the conduct of a review under subclause (1), provision is made for: (a) public consultation; and (b) consultation with national broadcasters; and (c) consultation with holders of commercial television broadcasting licences. (3) The Minister must cause to be prepared a report of a review under subclause (1). (4) The Minister must cause copies of a report to be laid before each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the completion of the preparation of the report. (5) For the purposes of this clause, in determining the meaning of the expressions datacasting service and datacasting licence, it is to be assumed that all of the amendments made by the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Digital Television and Datacasting) Act 2000 had commenced at the commencement of this clause.(69) Opp (46) [Sheet 1823] Schedule 1, page 51 (after line 20), after item 137, insert:137AA Subclause 60(1) of Schedule 4Omit “31 December 2005”, substitute “1 January 2005”.Note: The heading to clause 60 of Schedule 4 is altered by omitting “31 December 2005” and substituting “1 January 2005”.(70) Dem (31) [Sheet 1827] Schedule 1, page 51 (after line 20), after item 137, insert:137AB Paragraph 60(1)(b) of Schedule 4Repeal the paragraph, substitute: (b) whether paragraph 7(1)(m) of Schedule 2 (which deals with simulcast requirements for commercial television broadcasting licensees) should be amended or repealed;(71) Govt (1) [Sheet EK218] Schedule 1, page 51 (after line 20), after item 137, insert:137B Paragraph 60(1)(d) of Schedule 4Repeal the paragraph.(72) Opp (47) [Sheet 1823] Schedule 1, item 138, page 52 (line 5), omit “the regulatory”, substitute “the competitive and regulatory”.(73) Opp (48) [Sheet 1823] Schedule 1, item 138, page 52 (lines 14 and 15), omit “(if any)”.(74) Opp (49) [Sheet 1823] Schedule 1, item 138, page 52 (line 24), after paragraph (i), add: ; (j) the conditions that should apply to commercial television broadcasting licences on or after 1 January 2007 for the provision of commercial television broadcasting services.(75) Dem (33) [Sheet 1827] Schedule 1, item 138, page 52 (line 24), after paragraph (i), add: ; (k) the viability of creating an indigenous television broadcasting service and the regulatory arrangements that should apply to the digital transmission of such a service using spectrum in the broadcasting services bands.(76) Govt (1) [Sheet DW212] Schedule 1, page 52 (after line 24), after item 138, insert:138A After subclause 60(1) of Schedule 4Insert: (1A) A review under subclause (1) of a matter referred to in paragraph (1)(h) or (i) is to be conducted on the basis that, if the licence referred to in subparagraph (1)(h)(i) or (i)(i) is a commercial television broadcasting licence, the licensee should, on and after 1 January 2007, be treated in the same way as persons who held commercial television broadcasting licences immediately before that date, in relation to: (a) the duration of related transmitter licences; and (b) fees under the Television Licence Fees Act 1964.(77) Govt (2) [Sheet EK218] Schedule 1, item 139, page 53 (after line 8), after clause 60A, insert:60B Review before 1 January 2006 (1) Before 1 January 2006, the Minister must cause to be conducted a review of the content of any regulations made for the purposes of paragraph 6(3)(c) of this Schedule (which deals with the duration of the simulcast period). (2) The Minister must cause to be prepared a report of a review under subclause (1). (3) The Minister must cause copies of a report to be laid before each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the completion of the preparation of the report.(78) Dem (R32) [Sheet 1862] (Moved in amended form) Schedule 1, page 53 (after line 8), after item 139, insert:139AA After clause 60A of Schedule 4Insert:60C Review before 1 January 2002 (1) Before 1 January 2002, the Minister must cause to be conducted a review of the regulatory arrangements that should apply to the digital transmission of community television broadcasting services using spectrum in the broadcasting services bands and how access to spectrum should be provided free of charge. (2) The Minister must cause to be prepared a report of a review under subclause (1). (3) The Minister must cause copies of a report to be laid before each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the completion of the preparation of the report.(79) Govt (23) [Sheet EK215] Schedule 1, page 53 (after line 8), after item 139, insert:139A Paragraph 61(1)(c) of Schedule 4Insert “, 45A(6)” before “or 46(5)”.(80) Govt (24) [Sheet EK215] Schedule 1, page 53 (after line 8), after item 139, insert:139B At the end of paragraph 62(1)(c) of Schedule 4Add “or (10A)”.139C At the end of paragraph 62(3)(b) of Schedule 4Add “or (10A)”.(81) Govt (25) [Sheet EK215] Schedule 1, page 53 (after line 8), after item 139, insert:139D Subclause 62(5) of Schedule 4Insert “, 45A(6)” before “or 46(5)”.139E At the end of clause 62 of Schedule 4Add: (9) An application may be made to the AAT for a review of a decision of the ABA to refuse to issue a certificate under subclause 45A(6). (10) An application under subclause (9) may only be made by the owner or operator of the designated associated facility concerned.(82) Govt (26) [Sheet EK215] Schedule 1, item 140, page 53 (line 22), after “a range of”, insert “innovative”.(83) Opp (19) [Sheet 1823] Schedule 1, item 140, page 55 (lines 1 to 6), omit the definition of current affairs program.(84) Govt (27) [Sheet EK215] Schedule 1, item 140, page 55 (after line 6), after the definition of current affairs program, insert:declared Internet carriage service has the meaning given by clause 23B.(85) Opp (22) [Sheet 1823] Schedule 1, item 140, page 56 (line 6), omit the definition of news bulletin.(86) Opp (21) [Sheet 1823] (As amended) Schedule 1, item 140, page 56 (after line 6), after the definition of news bulletin, insert:news or current affairs program means any of the following: (a) a news bulletin; (b) a sports news bulletin; (c) a program (whether presenter-based or not) whose sole or dominant purpose is to provide analysis, commentary or discussion principally designed to inform the general community about social, economic or political issues of current relevance to the general community.(87) Opp (23) [Sheet 1823] Schedule 1, item 140, page 57 (lines 6 to 18), omit subclause (1), substitute: (1) For the purposes of this Schedule, an educational program is matter, where, having regard to: (a) the substance of the matter; and (b) the way in which the matter is advertised or promoted; and (c) any other relevant matters;it would be concluded that the sole or dominant purpose of the matter is to assist a person in education or learning, whether or not in connection with a course of study or instruction.(88) Govt (29) [Sheet EK215] (As amended by Opp) Schedule 1, item 140, page 58 (line 6), omit “about any or all”, substitute “, or directly-related comment, about any of a wide range of matters, including but not limited to any”.(89) Govt (30) [Sheet EK215] Schedule 1, item 140, page 58 (line 18), omit paragraph (b), substitute: (b) enable and/or facilitate the carrying out and/or completion of transactions;(90) Govt (31) [Sheet EK215] Schedule 1, item 140, page 58 (lines 19 and 20), omit “little or no emphasis on dramatic impact or entertainment value”, substitute “not a significant emphasis on dramatic impact or entertainment”.(91) Govt (32) [Sheet EK215] Schedule 1, item 140, page 60 (after line 2), at the end of clause 5, add: (3) For the purposes of subclause (1), disregard any English language subtitles or captioning. (4) A bulletin referred to in subclause (1) may include discussion, commentary or analysis in relation to the items included in such a bulletin.(92) Opp (28) [Sheet 1823] Schedule 1, item 140, page 62 (line 22), omit paragraph 13(1)(b).(93) Govt (33) [Sheet EK215] Schedule 1, item 140, page 64 (line 7), omit paragraph (b).(94) Govt (34) [Sheet EK215] Schedule 1, item 140, page 64 (after line 25), at the end of clause 14, add: (5) If, because of subclause (2) of this clause, a datacasting licensee can transmit matter without breaching the condition set out in subclause (1) of this clause, the condition set out in subclause 16(1) does not prevent the licensee from transmitting that matter. (95) Opp (30) [Sheet 1823] Schedule 1, item 140, page 64 (line 29), omit paragraph (1)(a), substitute: (a) a news or current affairs program;(96) Opp (31) [Sheet 1823] Schedule 1, item 140, page 64 (lines 32 and 33), after “bulletin” (wherever occurring), insert “or program”.(97) Govt (36) [Sheet EK215] Schedule 1, item 140, page 65 (line 30), omit “presenter-based bulletin”, substitute “bulletin (whether presenter-based or not)”.(98) Opp (34) [Sheet 1823] Schedule 1, item 140, page 65 (line 31) to page 66 (line 24), after “bulletin” (wherever occurring), insert “or program”.(99) Govt (37) [Sheet EK215] Schedule 1, item 140, page 66 (line 1), omit “presenter-based”.(100) Govt (38) [Sheet EK215] Schedule 1, item 140, page 66 (line 7), omit “minutes.”, substitute “minutes; and”.(101) Govt (39) [Sheet EK215] Schedule 1, item 140, page 66 (after line 7), at the end of subclause (2), add: (c) the bulletin is not combined with one or more other bulletins in such a way that the bulletins together constitute a bulletin longer than 10 minutes; and (d) having regard to: (i) the nature of the bulletin; and (ii) the circumstances in which the bulletin is provided; it would be concluded that the licensee did not intend that the bulletin be combined with one or more other bulletins in such a way that the bulletins together constitute a bulletin longer than 10 minutes.(102) Govt (40) [Sheet EK215] Schedule 1, item 140, page 66 (after line 15), after subparagraph (ii), insert: (iia) the bulletin is a compilation of items, the subject of which is the same or directly related, and is not longer than 10 minutes;(103) Govt (42) [Sheet EK215] Schedule 1, item 140, page 66 (lines 22 and 23), omit paragraph (a), substitute: (a) introductory or closing segments, or both, spoken by a host, or an anchor presenter, who is visible on the screen; and(104) Govt (43) [Sheet EK215] Schedule 1, item 140, page 66 (after line 24), at the end of clause 16, add: (5) If, because of subclause (2) or (3) of this clause, a datacasting licensee can transmit matter without breaching the condition set out in subclause (1) of this clause, the condition set out in subclause 14(1) does not prevent the licensee from transmitting that matter.(105) Govt (44) [Sheet EK215] Schedule 1, item 140, page 67 (after line 24), after clause 18, insert:18A Genre conditions do not apply to advertising or sponsorship material The conditions set out in clauses 14 and 16 do not prevent a datacasting licensee from transmitting advertising or sponsorship material.(106) Govt (45) [Sheet EK215] Schedule 1, item 140, page 68 (line 2), after “Internet carriage service”, insert “(other than a declared Internet carriage service)”.(107) Opp (1) [Sheet 1860 Revised] Schedule 1, item 140, page 68 (after line 6), after clause 20, insert:20AA Genre conditions do not apply to certain content copied from the Internet (1) The conditions set out in clauses 14 and 16 do not apply to the transmission of matter if: (a) the matter is content that has been copied from the Internet; and (b) the content is selected by the datacasting licensee concerned; and (c) there is in force an exemption order under subclause 27A(1) in relation to the transmission of the matter. (2) In determining the meaning of the expressions television or television program, when used in a provision of this Act, subclause (1) is to be disregarded. (108) Opp (53) [Sheet 1823] Schedule 1, item 140, page 68 (after line 6), after Division 1, insert:Division 1A—Electronic program guide condition20A Electronic program guides For the purposes of this Division, an electronic program guide is matter transmitted using a digital modulation technique, where the matter consists of no more than: (a) a schedule of programs provided by a broadcasting service or a datacasting service; or (b) a schedule covered by paragraph (a) and either or both of the following: (i) items of factual information, and/or items of comment, about some or all of the program in the schedule, where each item is brief and in the form of text; (ii) a facility, the sole purpose of which is to enable an end-user to select, and commence viewing, one or more of the programs in the schedule.20B Condition relating to electronic program guides (1) Each datacasting licence is subject to the condition that the licensee will not transmit an electronic program guide except in accordance with the following rules: (a) a licensee may transmit an electronic program guide containing information about the programs transmitted by the licensee; (b) if a licensee transmits an electronic program guide containing information about any programs transmitted by a commercial television broadcasting service or a national television broadcasting service, the licensee must transmit equivalent information about programs transmitted by itself and by each other commercial television broadcasting service or a national television broadcasting service.(109) Govt (4) [Sheet EK217] Schedule 1, item 140, at the end of clause 20B, add: (2) Subclause (1) does not require a datacasting licensee to transmit information about programs transmitted by a commercial television broadcasting service unless the commercial television broadcasting licensee concerned has requested the datacasting licensee to transmit that information. (3) Subclause (1) does not require a datacasting licensee to transmit information about programs transmitted by a national television broadcasting service unless the national broadcaster concerned has requested the datacasting licensee to transmit that information.(110) Govt (46) [Sheet EK215] Schedule 1, item 140, page 69 (after line 5), after subclause (8), insert:Condition does not apply to incidental or background audio content (8A) The condition set out in subclause (1) does not apply to the transmission of audio content that is incidental to, or provided as background to, matter displayed on the screen.(111) Govt (47) [Sheet EK215] Schedule 1, item 140, page 69 (line 9), at the end of subclause (9), add “(other than a declared Internet carriage service)”.(112) Opp (2) [Sheet 1860 Revised] Schedule 1, item 140, page 69 (after line 9), at the end of clause 21, add:Condition does not apply to certain content copied from the Internet (10) The condition set out in subclause (1) does not apply to the transmission of matter if: (a) the matter is content that has been copied from the Internet; and (b) the content is selected by the datacasting licensee concerned; and (c) there is in force an exemption order under subclause 27A(1) in relation to the transmission of the matter.(113) Govt (48) [Sheet EK215] Schedule 1, item 140, page 70 (after line 10), after clause 23, insert:23A Audio content condition does not apply to advertising or sponsorship material The condition set out in clause 21 does not prevent a datacasting licensee from transmitting advertising or sponsorship material. (114) Govt (49) [Sheet EK215] Schedule 1, item 140, page 70 (after line 10), after Division 2, insert:Division 2A—Genre conditions: anti-avoidance23B Anti-avoidance—declared Internet carriage services (1) If: (a) the whole or a part of a datacasting service provided under a datacasting licence consists of an Internet carriage service; and (b) one or more persons enter into, begin to carry out, or carry out, a scheme; and (c) the ABA is of the opinion that the person, or any of the persons, who entered into, began to carry out, or carried out, the scheme did so for the sole or dominant purpose of avoiding the application to the licensee of Division 1 or 2;the ABA may, by writing, determine that, for the purposes of the application of this Schedule to the licensee, the Internet carriage service is a declared Internet carriage service. (2) The person, or any of the persons, referred to in paragraphs (1)(b) and (c) may be the licensee. (3) A determination under subclause (1) has effect accordingly. (4) In this clause:scheme means: (a) any agreement, arrangement, understanding, promise or undertaking, whether express or implied and whether or not enforceable, or intended to be enforceable, by legal proceedings; or (b) any scheme, plan, proposal, action, course of action or course of conduct, whether there are 2 or more parties or only one party involved.(115) Govt (3) [Sheet ER234] Schedule 1, item 140, page 70 (after line 21), after paragraph (c), insert: (ca) the licensee will comply with any regulations made for the purposes of clause 36B of Schedule 4; (116) Opp (3) [Sheet 1860 Revised] Schedule 1, item 140, page 74 (after line 19), at the end of Part 3, add:Division 4—Exemption orders for content copied from the Internet27A Exemption orders in relation to content copied from the Internet (1) If the ABA is satisfied that: (a) matter is proposed to be transmitted by a datacasting licensee; and (b) the matter is content that is proposed to be copied from the Internet; and (c) the content is proposed to be selected by the datacasting licensee; and (d) if it were assumed that clause 20A and subclause 21(10) had not been enacted: (i) any breach of the conditions set out in clauses 14 and 16 and subclause 21(1) that would arise from the transmission of the matter would be of a minor, infrequent or incidental nature; or (ii) the transmission of the matter would not be contrary to the purpose of clauses 14, 16 and 21;the ABA may, by writing, make an exemption order in relation to the transmission of the matter. (2) If the ABA receives a request from a datacasting licensee to make an exemption order in relation to the transmission of matter by the licensee, the ABA must use its best endeavours to make that decision within 28 days after the request was made.(117) Opp (54)[Sheet 1823] Schedule 1, item 140, page 87 (line 30), after “16”, insert “, 20B”.(118) Opp (55)[Sheet 1823] Schedule 1, item 140, page 89 (line 10), after “16”, insert “, 20B”.(119) Opp (56) [Sheet 1823] Schedule 1, item 140, page 89 (line 20), after “16”, insert “, 20B”.(120) Govt (1) [Sheet DW210] Schedule 1, item 140, page 92 (lines 14 to 25), omit subclauses (2), (3) and (4), substitute: (2) An order must not be made under paragraph 15(1)(a) or 15A(1)(a) of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 in relation to an eligible decision if: (a) the order has the effect of suspending the operation of the eligible decision for more than 3 months; or (b) the order and any previous order or orders made under the paragraph concerned have the combined effect of suspending the operation of the eligible decision for more than 3 months. (3) An order must not be made under paragraph 15(1)(b) or 15A(1)(b) of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 in relation to an eligible decision if: (a) the order has the effect of staying particular proceedings under the eligible decision for more than 3 months; or (b) the order and any previous order or orders made under the paragraph concerned have the combined effect of staying particular proceedings under the eligible decision for more than 3 months. (4) If: (a) a person applies to the Federal Court under subsection 39B(1) of the Judiciary Act 1903 for a writ or injunction in relation to an eligible decision; and (b) an order could be made staying, or otherwise affecting the operation or implementation of, the eligible decision pending the finalisation of the application;such an order must not be made if: (c) the order has the effect of staying, or otherwise affecting the operation or implementation of, the eligible decision for more than 3 months; or (d) the order and any previous order or orders covered by paragraph (b) have the combined effect of staying, or otherwise affecting the operation or implementation of, the eligible decision for more than 3 months. (5) If: (a) a person applies to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for review of an eligible decision; and (b) an order could be made under subsection 41(2) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 staying, or otherwise affecting the operation or implementation of, the eligible decision;such an order must not be made if: (c) the order has the effect of staying, or otherwise affecting the operation or implementation of, the eligible decision for more than 3 months; or (d) the order and any previous order or orders covered by paragraph (b) have the combined effect of staying, or otherwise affecting the operation or implementation of, the eligible decision for more than 3 months.(121) Govt (50) [Sheet EK215] Schedule 1, item 140, page 93 (after table item 2), insert: 2Athat an Internet carriage service is a declared Internet carriage servicesubclause 23B(1)the licensee(122) Opp (4) [Sheet 1860 Revised] Schedule 1, item 140, page 93 (after table item 4), insert: 4Arefusal to make an exemption orderclause 27Bthe licensee(123) Govt (9) [Sheet ER232] Schedule 1, item 140, page 94 (after line 21), after subclause (2), insert: (2A) Standards under subclause (1), to the extent that they deal with application program interfaces, must be directed towards ensuring the achievement of the policy objective that, as far as is practicable, those interfaces should be open to all providers of eligible datacasting services.(124) Govt (10) [Sheet ER232] Schedule 1, item 140, page 95 (before line 1), before the definition of conditional access system, insert:application program interface has the meaning generally accepted within the broadcasting industry.(125) Opp 58 [Sheet 1823] Schedule 1, item 140, page 95 (line 16), omit “2004”, substitute “2003”.(126) Opp 59 [Sheet 1823] Schedule 1, item 140, page 95 (line 17), omit “2004”, substitute “2003”.(127) Govt (2) [Sheet ER235] Schedule 1, item 142, page 96 (line 31), omit “items 75 and 137”, substitute “an item that commences under subsection 2(1) or (1A)”.(128) Govt (51) [Sheet EK215] Schedule 2, page 102 (after line 3), after item 13, insert:13A After section 100BInsert:100C NBS transmitter licences—authorisation of radio broadcasting services (1) If: (a) an NBS transmitter licence is or was issued to a particular national broadcaster; and (b) the licence authorises the operation of one or more specified radiocommunications transmitters for transmitting a national television broadcasting service in digital mode using one or more channels;the licence is also taken to authorise the operation of the transmitter or transmitters concerned for transmitting national radio broadcasting services in digital mode using those channels. (2) In this section:national broadcaster has the same meaning as in the Broadcasting Services Act 1992.national broadcasting service has the same meaning as in Schedule 4 to the Broadcasting Services Act 1992.national radio broadcasting service means a national broadcasting service that provides radio programs.national television broadcasting service means a national broadcasting service that provides television programs.NBS transmitter licence means a transmitter licence for a transmitter that is for use for transmitting, to the public, a national broadcasting service.(129) Govt (11) [Sheet ER227] Schedule 2, page 102 (after line 3), after item 13, insert:13B Before section 101Insert:100D NBS transmitter licences—authorisation of multi-channelled television broadcasting services (1) If: (a) an NBS transmitter licence is or was issued to a particular national broadcaster; and (b) the licence authorises the operation of one or more specified radiocommunications transmitters for transmitting a national television broadcasting service in digital mode using one or more channels; and (c) the national broadcaster provides, or proposes to provide, another national television broadcasting service; and (d) the other service is a multi-channelled national television broadcasting service;the licence is also taken to authorise the operation of the transmitter or transmitters concerned for transmitting the multi-channelled national television broadcasting service in digital mode using those channels. (2) In this section:multi-channelled national television broadcasting service has the same meaning as in Schedule 4 to the Broadcasting Services Act 1992.national broadcaster has the same meaning as in the Broadcasting Services Act 1992.national broadcasting service has the same meaning as in Schedule 4 to the Broadcasting Services Act 1992.national television broadcasting service means a national broadcasting service that provides television programs.NBS transmitter licence means a transmitter licence for a transmitter that is for use for transmitting, to the public, a national broadcasting service.(130) Govt (4) [Sheet ER234] Schedule 2, item 25, page 108 (after line 21), after paragraph (f), insert: (fa) a condition that the licensee, and any person so authorised, must comply with any regulations made for the purposes of clause 36B of Schedule 4 to the Broadcasting Services Act 1992; (131) Govt (11) [Sheet ER232] Schedule 2, item 25, page 108 (after line 25), after paragraph (g), insert: (ga) a condition that the licensee, or any person so authorised, will transmit a datacasting service during the whole or a part of each day in the period: (i) beginning on the commencement referred to in paragraph (g); and (ii) ending immediately before 1 January 2007; (for this purpose, disregard a particular day if, in that period, there are fewer than: (iii) 180 days; or (iv) if the ABA, by writing, notifies a greater number of days—that greater number of days; on which there has been no transmission of a datacasting service under the licence);(132) Govt (12) [Sheet ER232] Schedule 2, item 25, page 109 (after line 5), after subsection (1), insert: (1A) The ABA must not notify a longer period for the purposes of paragraph (1)(g) unless the ABA is satisfied that there are exceptional circumstances that warrant the longer period.(133) Govt (13) [Sheet ER232] Schedule 2, item 25, page 109 (after line 5), after subsection (1), insert: (1B) The ABA must not notify a greater number of days for the purposes of paragraph (1)(ga) unless the ABA is satisfied that there are exceptional circumstances that warrant the greater number of days.(134) Govt (14) [Sheet ER232] Schedule 2, item 35, page 113 (line 2), after “(g),”, insert “(ga),”.(135) Govt (15) [Sheet ER232] Schedule 2, item 36, page 113 (line 13), after “(g),”, insert “(ga),”.(136) Govt (16)[Sheet ER232] Schedule 2, item 36, page 114 (line 7), after “(g),”, insert “(ga),”.(137) Govt (2) [Sheet DW210] Schedule 2, item 36, page 114 (line 33) to page 115 (line 9), omit subsections (2), (3) and (4), substitute: (2) An order must not be made under paragraph 15(1)(a) or 15A(1)(a) of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 in relation to an eligible decision if: (a) the order has the effect of suspending the operation of the eligible decision for more than 3 months; or (b) the order and any previous order or orders made under the paragraph concerned have the combined effect of suspending the operation of the eligible decision for more than 3 months. (3) An order must not be made under paragraph 15(1)(b) or 15A(1)(b) of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 in relation to an eligible decision if: (a) the order has the effect of staying particular proceedings under the eligible decision for more than 3 months; or (b) the order and any previous order or orders made under the paragraph concerned have the combined effect of staying particular proceedings under the eligible decision for more than 3 months. (4) If: (a) a person applies to the Federal Court under subsection 39B(1) of the Judiciary Act 1903 for a writ or injunction in relation to an eligible decision; and (b) an order could be made staying, or otherwise affecting the operation or implementation of, the eligible decision pending the finalisation of the application;such an order must not be made if: (c) the order has the effect of staying, or otherwise affecting the operation or implementation of, the eligible decision for more than 3 months; or (d) the order and any previous order or orders covered by paragraph (b) have the combined effect of staying, or otherwise affecting the operation or implementation of, the eligible decision for more than 3 months. (5) If: (a) a person applies to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for review of an eligible decision; and (b) an order could be made under subsection 41(2) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 staying, or otherwise affecting the operation or implementation of, the eligible decision;such an order must not be made if: (c) the order has the effect of staying, or otherwise affecting the operation or implementation of, the eligible decision for more than 3 months; or (d) the order and any previous order or orders covered by paragraph (b) have the combined effect of staying, or otherwise affecting the operation or implementation of, the eligible decision for more than 3 months.01:11:0018753Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration10—I move:That the amendments be agreed to.The Senate today has passed the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Digital Television and Datacasting) Bill 2000 with approximately 140 amendments. The Senate has agreed to amendments which will enhance the role of the ABC and SBS in the digital era. In particular, amendments to the Broadcasting Services Act and the Radiocommunications Act will provide for the national broadcasters to transmit a multichannel national television broadcasting service, which will allow them to provide additional channels with a wide range of classes of programs.An amendment is also proposed to ensure that the transmitter licences for transmitting national television broadcasting services in digital mode will also authorise the transmission of national radio broadcasting services. This amendment responds to a recommendation of the report of the Senate Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts Legislation Committee inquiry into the bill and will allow the ABC and SBS to extend the coverage of their radio services.The amendments will also change the provisions in the bill relating to HDTV material provided by the ABC. Specifically, they remove the requirement for national broadcasters to provide any material originally produced in an HDTV format when meeting the 20 hours per week quota of HDTV provided for in the bill, thereby allowing them to meet the quota entirely from `upconverted' material. The Senate has made amendments to the provisions in the bill relating to program enhancements. The amendments remove the provisions in the bill relating to category B digital program enhancements and limit the extent to which a sporting or other designated event may overlap with a following program to situations where the following program is a regularly scheduled news program.Amendments are also made relating to electronic program guides. Together, they will have the effect that, if a commercial or national television broadcaster transmits any free-to-air broadcaster's EPG other than its own, that broadcaster must transmit all free-to-air broadcasters' EPGs. Similarly, if a datacasting licensee transmits the EPG of any commercial or national broadcaster, it must transmit the EPGs of all other free-to-air broadcasters if those broadcasters request it. In addition, the amendments require that commercial and national television broadcasters must make available the information needed to compile EPGs to each other, if required to do so. The amendments made in the Senate make a number of changes to the regulatory regime for the introduction of datacasting services in proposed new schedule 6 of the BSA.Changes are made to several of the program definitions in the bill. The definition of `education program' has been broadened to remove the requirement that educational programs be linked to a course of study or instruction. This responds to a recommendation in the report of the Senate Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts Legislation Committee inquiry into the bill. Amendments are included to clarify that an information program can include factual information or directly related comment about a wide range of matters, can facilitate the carrying out and completion of transactions and must not have a significant emphasis on dramatic impact or entertainment. The definition of foreign language news bulletin has been amended so that such programs can include English language subtitles or captioning and may also include discussion, commentary or analysis. Amendments have been made which have the effect of moving current affairs programs from category A television programs to category B television programs. This will have the effect that datacasters may provide news and current affairs programs which comply with the provisions relating to category B programs. The requirement that an extract from a category A television program not be `fully self-contained' is removed, as is the requirement for a 10-minute news bulletin to be `presenter based'. There are also amendments which clarify that if a program is allowed as a category A program it is also allowed as a category B program and vice versa. This will ensure that datacasters are not at risk of providing programs under one category which are then deemed to be in breach of the other. The package of amendments includes an anti-avoidance provision to deal with the possibility of a licensee entering into contrived arrangements, through multiple datacasting licences, to avoid the operation of the 10-minute news bulletin rules. Anti-avoidance provisions to prevent Internet carriage services being used to circumvent the genre and audio content conditions are included in the bill. (Extension of time granted) However, amendments will allow the ABA to exempt content provided by a datacaster from the datacasting genre rules where that content has been selected and copied from the Internet and where the ABA is satisfied that any breach of the rules arising from the transmission of the matter would be of a minor, infrequent or incidental nature or the transmission of the matter would not be contrary to the purpose of the genre rules in clauses 14, 16, 20 and 21 of schedule 6. Amendments will extend the types of news and related programs which may be accessed from an on-screen menu, including to allow presenters such as an on-location journalist. The amendments clarify that the genre and audio content conditions do not apply to advertising or sponsorship material and ensure that the audio content conditions in clause 21 of schedule 6 do not apply to the transmission of audio content that is incidental or provided as background to the matter displayed on the screen. The amendments insert provisions which strengthen the `use it or lose it' provisions to ensure that datacasting transmitter licensees continue to provide a service and do not simply commence and shut down the service and hoard the spectrum. Licensees must commence transmitting within one year of the licence being allocated and may only be `off the air' prior to 2007 for a cumulative total of 180 days unless there are exceptional circumstances. The amendments also modify provisions which deny the ability of courts and the AAT to stay a decision with provisions which allow them to only stay the decision for three months. The decisions relate to imposition or variation of licence conditions, remedial directions and suspension and cancellation of datacasting licences and proceedings relating to suspension or cancellation of datacasting transmitter licences. The amendments encourage efficient allocation of spectrum so that there will be greater availability of channels for datacasting. In making or amending the commercial and national television conversion schemes, the ABA is required to have regard to the need to plan for the most efficient use of spectrum and to take into account the need for spectrum to be made available for allocation for purposes of the transmission of datacasting services. A statutory review is to be conducted before 31 October 2000 to determine whether the ABA has sufficient powers to allow the most efficient use of broadcasting spectrum, including for promoting the availability of datacasting services. The amendments also make a number of changes to the provisions relating to statutory reviews. The completion date of all the reviews currently required under subclause 60 of schedule 4 has been brought forward from 31 December 2005 to 1 January 2005, except for the review into the length of the simulcast period. This review must be completed by 1 January 2006. Amendments bring forward the timing of the datacasting and HDTV quota reviews which were to be conducted by 1 January 2004—the completion date is now 1 January 2003. Changes are also being made to the reviews of arrangements to apply to datacasting transmitter licences after 2007. The review into the regulatory arrangements applying to the use of such licences after 1 January 2007 is also to address the competitive arrangements that should apply to those licences. The amendments also require that the review be conducted on the basis that there should be equitable treatment between those using datacasting transmission licences to provide commercial broadcasting television services and incumbent broadcasters. The amendments introduce a number of new reviews. These include: a review, by 1 January 2002, of the regulatory arrangements that should apply to the digital transmission of community television broadcasting services using spectrum in the broadcasting services bands and how access to spectrums should be provided free of charge; a review, by 1 January 2002, of whether, in the context of converging media technologies, streamed audio and video content available on the Internet should be regarded as a broadcasting service; a review, by 1 January 2004, into the conditions that should apply to the provision of commercial television licences on or after 1 January 2007 for the provision of commercial television broadcasting licences; (Extension of time granted) a review, by 1 January 2005, into the viability of providing an indigenous television broadcasting service, and the regulatory arrangements that should apply to the digital transmission of such a service.The access rights currently provided in the BSA relating to transmission towers and sites are amended to ensure that access can be obtained to certain associated facilities at a transmission site which will be needed to provide digital television or datacasting services. The provisions in the bill relating to the allocation of a third commercial television licence to one or both of the existing licensees have been amended to reflect the later commencement of digital television services in remote areas. An amendment is made to require that any part of the spectrum determined by the ABA to be available for the transmission of datacasting services must be seven megahertz. Provisions are introduced which allow regulations to require that, if datacasters and broadcasters provide viewers with reception equipment, that equipment must be accessible to other service providers. The amendments also require that technical standards relating to transmission, which deal with application program interfaces for datacasting, do so on the basis that these interfaces should be eligible for all datacasting service providers. There are also a number of other technical amendments and minor modifications; for example, to the objects of the BSA. The government has decided to accept the amendments made by the Senate to the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Digital Television and Datacasting) Bill 2000.01:23:0018755Smith, Stephen, MPMr STEPHEN SMITH5V5PerthALP00—There are 137 amendments to the government's Broadcasting Services Amendment (Digital Television and Datacasting) Bill 2000 which have been effected by the Senate. Regrettably, some of the most important amendments proposed to the Senate, which would have established a workable framework and definition of datacasting, were rejected by the Senate at the urging of the government, so the main part of this piece of legislation is the establishment of a datacasting regime. Many of the amendments go to ameliorating the worst effects of the government's restrictive regime, and time will tell whether the restrictions which the government has imposed are so restrictive that we will not see a viable new datacasting industry emerging in this country.The second group of amendments goes to multichannelling for the ABC and SBS. I was pleased that from opposition I was able to effect 98.5 per cent of our policy to enable the ABC and SBS to multichannel. There are restrictions which the government, in its slavish devotion to content, program and genre distinctions, has required but, on the best advice of the ABC and the SBS, these enable the ABC and the SBS to effect whatever programs they currently have in mind for multichannelling. They are unable to multichannel generally in the content of sport, drama, national news and some other areas. They are, of course, able to effect these programs on their primary channels. This is a great day for the public national broadcasters, being the first of our terrestrial TV broadcasters to be authorised to, in digital format, multichannel. The review processes which have been effected by the Senate, most of those on the recommendation of the opposition, will see an orderly and early review across the range of this piece of legislation. Time will tell whether the experience and uptake of HDTV and SDTV will see the fulfilment of the framework legislation established by the parliament two years ago. With 137 amendments in what are always, firstly, contentious public policy issues but also highly technical and detailed areas, it does require a big effort. Very many of the amendments in the end were done by agreement between the government, the opposition and the Democrats—after the government had been belted around with a baseball bat for a significant period of time to bring them to their senses, but that is by the by. In a technical area such as this, the long parliamentary process was aided and assisted by the professional conduct not just of government officers, opposition officers and Democrat officers but also of the officers of relevant agencies and departments and officers from the various parts of the media and broadcasting industry, whether that be prospective datacasters, free-to-air commercial broadcasters, the subscription television industry or the national broadcasters. Whilst it had its moments as a parliamentary and legislative process, apart from the outcome, it was a delight.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills18756R104018756Bill returned from the Senate with an amendment.Ordered that the amendment be taken into consideration forthwith.Senate's amendment—(1) Schedule 1, page 3 (after line 14), after item 3, insert:3A Section 3 (definition of national broadcaster)Repeal the definition.3B Paragraph 6(b)Repeal the paragraph, substitute: the transmitter licence is held by the holder of a commercial television broadcasting licence.13:28:0018756Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration10—I move:That the amendment be agreed to.I will be much shorter on this bill. The Senate has agreed to an amendment to provisions of the Datacasting Charge (Imposition) Act 1992 to exempt the national broadcasters from the provisions of the act, thereby exempting these broadcasters from the datacasting charge. The government has decided to accept the amendment made by the Senate to the Datacasting Charge (Imposition) Amendment Bill 2000.13:28:0018756Smith, Stephen, MPMr STEPHEN SMITH5V5PerthALP00—We support the amendment. It is another of victory for the national public broadcasters, at the instigation of the opposition.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills18756R109418756Debate resumed.01:30:0018756Lindsay, Peter, MPMr LINDSAYHK6HerbertLP10—In speaking to the Higher Education Funding Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2000 this morning with 22½ hours to go to the new tax system for Australia, I would like to begin my address to the parliament tonight by responding to some of the matters raised by the first speaker to this bill, the member for Dobell. Some considerable time was spent talking about universities and, in particular, the university in Townsville-Thuringowa, James Cook University. There were a number of points made there. There were some suggestions that the former member for Herbert may be a better member in relation to delivering for James Cook University. I would acquaint the House with this: for some 25 years the university fraternity wanted a medical school at James Cook. The former Labor member kept promising a medical school for James Cook University. I am pleased to be able to take the credit for delivering a medical school for James Cook University when the former member was unable to do so. The member for Dobell should note that particular achievement. The member for Dobell indicated that this government had cost James Cook University some $16 million. The member for Dobell did not take into account the amount of money that this government has provided to allow the medical school at James Cook to proceed, to fund 60 places this year for the medical school, to fund the capital cost of the medical school—that is millions of dollars. Also, the member for Dobell did not take into account that at a time of James Cook's greatest need, when they needed an extra 450 places, it was me who delivered 450 extra places for James Cook at an annual recurrent cost of about $9 million. No other university in the Commonwealth of Australia received extra places. James Cook University did. When the member for Dobell was indicating that there may be some disquiet at James Cook, he was clearly unaware that while he was speaking the President of the Student Association of James Cook was listening to the debate in this parliament. I certainly saw no dissension from Mr Ryan Haddrick who was listening to the debate. I think that says volumes for the way that James Cook has been well looked after by this government.I would like to discuss the importance of this bill for tertiary students and the wider institutions they attend. The bill is delivering on the government's promises. As stated in the past, the coalition government are very firmly committed to higher education in Australia. We will increase undergraduate places; we will encourage more autonomous, flexible and responsible universities; we will support the current HECS system; and we will maintain the current structure of tertiary education. University fees will not be deregulated and vouchers will not be introduced, despite the assertions of the member for Dobell. The current system of government subsidies and funded places will remain. There will be no additional loan system or real interest rate attached to the current HECS system. We certainly will explore ways of enhancing lifelong learning opportunities and we will focus on ensuring high-quality university teaching and world-class research. We will lay the foundations of future success in tertiary education by focusing on improving literacy in schools. The minister's literacy and numeracy program has been highly successful and will go on to be a success of that visionary program that Dr Kemp introduced into Australian schools.The coalition government is committed to reaching these objectives. Budget 2000-01 outlined the government's commitment to providing an additional 100 new medical places each year. This initiative was warmly received at my university, James Cook, because it will see more practising doctors in rural and regional Australia. My home town of Townsville-Thuringowa will also reap the benefits of this initiative because the James Cook University will have a number of additional places for undergraduates for its medical school under the scholarship program. While it is expected that the 100 places might be divided equally among the medical schools in Australia, I would put to the parliament and to the minister that I think there is a special case for more students to go to James Cook. With the Northern Australian medical program and the linkages that are currently being proposed between James Cook University and the Northern Territory University, with the support of the minister, I think we can justify perhaps 20 of those 100 places going across Northern Australia, linked into the James Cook medical program and the NTU medical program. I will certainly be pushing very hard to see that. I know that those who understand why the government has put this particular program in the Higher Education Funding Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2000 will be strongly supportive of these extra places going to the James Cook University's medical school for the benefit of Northern Australia.This initiative will improve medical services not only across the Top End but also in other regional areas. The coalition has answered the call from regional and rural Australia with a program that will ensure excellent medical attention to anyone who needs it, no matter where they might be in the Commonwealth. How is this possible? As an incentive under the scholarship program, students will be required to practice for at least six years in a rural or regional area after completion of postgraduate training. They will be required to contribute to society as a result of the government's contribution to them. Those with whom I have spoken are very supportive of the government's initiative in this regard. Apart from this proactive commitment, the coalition government is committed to improving health services in other ways. This bill delivers part of the government's $562 million country health budget package, which is the largest effort by an Australian government to redress the historical imbalance between rural and city health. The bill will also provide additional funding of $62.8 million over three years for the Strategic Partnerships with Industry Research and Training Scheme from the year 2002. We are committed to maintaining funding levels for higher education. This year universities will receive over $5.7 billion from the government. We will continue to help universities help themselves—and that is an important point. There will be an additional $16.3 million for the Research Infrastructure Equipment and Facilities Scheme. That is also pretty good news for James Cook University. This university has a world-leading marine science facility and a facility in geology, or earth science as it is called these days, which is arguably as good as anything in the world. In addition, in Townsville James Cook has the best standards lab in Australia. This particular research funding will certainly support the Australian scientists and geologists at a world-class level.I am also pleased to be able to report tonight that this week I have had Professor Bill Lavery here in Canberra. He is the new Professor of Information Technology at James Cook University. He and I have been working on a project to attempt to secure some support for James Cook, which currently has a very significant problem in relation to its restricted access to the outside world via the Internet. Currently the AARNeT facility—the Australian Academic Research Network—which was the basis of the Internet in Australia when it first established, has its points of presence only in the capital cities of this country. That means that capital city universities are able to connect to the Internet at extraordinarily high speeds. They are able to connect at speeds of 155 megabytes per second. Currently James Cook's connection to the outside world is two megabytes per second. By 9 o'clock in the morning that pipeline to the Internet is chock-a-block with data—overloaded. Professor Lavery and I are moving heaven and earth looking for government support to try to get that particular blockage unblocked. I am determined that, one way or another, we will find a way to make sure that James Cook is not inhibited. We can help not only the Townsville campus but also the Cairns campus and the Mackay campus at the same time. I have given a very strong commitment to the university that I will do whatever I can to assist in that process.The previous Labor government locked tens of thousands of qualified students out of university by funding only government-set enrolment targets. Labor discriminated against Australian students by denying them the right to pay fees and to do their course of first choice—a right Labor gave to foreign students, puzzlingly enough. Labor's HECS scheme was unfair because students in courses with lower income prospects or lower costs paid the same amount as those in courses with higher income prospects or higher costs. The coalition government has increased access to universities for young people. In 1999 university enrolments reached a record high under coalition policies, with 45,166 more students in 1999 than in Labor's last year in government—an eight per cent increase.Universities can offer fee paying places to undergraduates, so the capable students who would otherwise miss out can now enrol in their course of first choice. There was some deep suspicion about that particular policy, but the reason for the suspicion never materialised: there have not been situations where you get this so-called fees for degrees. Universities that I know have maintained their standards, and I think it has been a great outcome. Certainly at James Cook University there is every will to try to attract as many full fee paying students as possible but also maintain its standards and take on the non-full fee paying students. The unmet demand for university places has certainly been slashed under coalition policies, and that is very welcome. We offer graduates voluntary tests so that employers, universities and students can have a common assessment of student liabilities. We are pursuing a strategy of increasing total university resources by encouraging private funding of universities. With respect to a faculty that I am aware of—the science faculty at James Cook—a good proportion of its income comes from outside sources, from the private sector. I am certainly pleased and proud to be able to say that my son is an honours graduate from that particular faculty. He is currently doing a PhD from that faculty over in Canada. I am certainly very proud of him. His involvement with the university allows me an insight into the first-class quality teaching available at that particular faculty, and the dedication of the staff in providing that first-class academic environment is to be warmly applauded.The strategy of increasing university resources with access to the private sector gives universities access to larger amounts of revenue and increases their independence. That is an interesting point: it increases their independence. In James Cook's case, that has been very good. The total annual income is up $900 million since 1995, Labor's last full year. Also, the Australian Awards for University Teaching have helped give greater status to university teaching. We have implemented a new policy and funding framework for university research which will help to keep our best and brightest Australian researchers, and their ideas, in Australia. Total research funding for higher education is up from $399 million in the last year of Labor to $447 million in 1999. That is not a bad increase. Finally, the number of university students from overseas continues to increase, despite economic difficulties in some of our key markets. It is interesting that the greatest number of students from the United States—you would probably know that I would want to tell you—are at James Cook University. That is because of the very great interest in tropical marine science, in which we lead the world. Of course, it helps to have the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority and the Australian Institute of Marine Science co-located in Townsville, so we are currently building a centre of excellence, in this country and in the world, in tropical marine science in Townsville. All in all, it is an outstanding show of support for tertiary students and for the higher education sector in general. It has been my privilege to support this bill tonight—or this morning. I think this may be the latest time that I have spoken in the Australian parliament.K26Latham, Mark, MPMr Latham—Don't make it worse.HK6Lindsay, Peter, MPMr LINDSAY—Thank you, Member for Werriwa. I am certainly looking forward to 22 hours from now, when we see the introduction of the new tax system for Australia. I will be very proud to see that.01:47:0018759Latham, Mark, MPMr LATHAMK26WerriwaALP00—The member for Herbert obviously gets his kicks in funny ways if he is hanging out for events in 22 hours time. I had prepared copious notes on the inadequacy of higher education policy in general terms. I had planned to address issues on both sides of the chamber, but something more important has come up.I am going to take my lead in this debate from the member for Moreton. He gave one of the finest speeches in this place on higher education in an earlier debate when he addressed the problems with the teaching of journalism in Australia's universities. It was a fine speech, and I am pleased to follow in his footsteps. The member for Moreton, Mr Hardgrave, used examples to make his point, and I want to do the same. Too few journalists are taught the benefits of diligence and thoroughness. This is a problem in our universities and in the teaching of journalism in higher education in this country. Of course, there are some exceptions to this rule. I think most honourable members would agree when I point to the diligent and thorough reporting of the likes of Michelle Grattan and Malcolm Farr, in our very own press gallery—regrettably, almost unexplainably empty at this hour. They check their facts until they drop and, as practising politicians, we welcome this. Unfortunately, there are plenty of examples of how not to undertake journalism and plenty of examples of the problems with the teaching of journalism in higher education. To make this point, we just need to look at the recent example of the reporting of events in this parliament. I refer, of course, to the disorderly conduct which followed question time on Wednesday of last week. In the Sydney Morning Herald on Tuesday of this week, Gerard Henderson, who is well known to people in the chamber—particularly the Minister for Employment Services—reported on this particular incident and made two terrible mistakes. The first was that he said that the employment minister was suspended from the House because of his `sanctimonious windbag' expletive.In fact, the minister was suspended from the House not because of any accusation levelled against the Leader of the Opposition but because of his decision to turn and move in a rather menacing fashion towards the opposition benches. Gerard Henderson has got it wrong. He is too lazy to check the Hansard, which clearly makes this point. He is too lazy to report on these matters first hand and too lazy to know what is going on in the national parliament.His second error relates to my good self. He makes the claim that I made a speech in the adjournment debate last Thursday. I did no such thing. I made my contribution regarding journalists' ethics the previous night in the Wednesday adjournment debate—again an instance of Gerard Henderson being too lazy to check the Hansard, too lazy to check his facts and too lazy to know what is going on in the national parliament. For a pedant, he sure makes a lot of errors. For someone who prides himself on picking other people apart, he sure makes a lot of errors. One would normally expect, when it comes to reporting on the Minister for Employment Services, that a Santamaria protege would be accurate in reporting the actions of another Santa protege. Unhappily, Santa's little helpers are no longer helping each other. This highlights the problem in higher education in this country in the teaching of journalism. The member for Moreton has made this point.EZ5Abbott, Tony, MPMr Abbott—Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. Far be it from me to interrupt the flow of the member for Werriwa's rhetoric, but I think it is important that we debate the bill, and the bill has very little to do with journalistic standards.10000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—I thank the minister. I have been listening very carefully to the contribution from the honourable member for Werriwa. He has been talking about the need for improvements in higher education in the teaching of journalism and he is illustrating his case with examples. There is no point of order.K26Latham, Mark, MPMr LATHAM—I am pleased to move in the footsteps of the honourable member for Moreton who on numerous occasions has made the same point on higher education legislation. We need to lift the standards of journalism and the best way to do that is to improve the teaching of journalism in Australian higher education.There is more than one Henderson in the journalistic game. There is also Anne Henderson. It raises the question of what it is about the Henderson family that produces so many basic errors of fact. Some time ago, I reviewed Anne Henderson's book Getting Even. I have the book here. I must say I am tempted to echo the words of my former colleague Ros Kelly: the only thing I can endorse about this book is the cover. It has nice photographs on it of the members for Lindsay, Dickson and Gellibrand and also Senator Stott Despoja. The only thing I can endorse is the cover of that book. I certainly cannot endorse the number of errors. I found 30 errors in the book, once Anne Henderson challenged me to take up further research about these problems. Mistakes were made with respect to the female franchise in Australia, the number of women who stood at the 1903 election, Joh Bjelke-Petersen, the New Zealand Labour Party, Margo Kingston, the electoral margin in Dickson, the 1975 coup d'etat, a number of members in the New South Wales parliament—it just goes on and on and on. So many errors have been made. There is even an error relating to an interview with our good friend Christopher Pearson, well known to members in this place. There were so many errors—30 in total. That is a remarkable and, indeed, shameful error-prone book produced by Anne Henderson. It is very hard to understand how these pedants are so error prone in their own work. It reinforces the point, made so well by the member for Moreton in previous debates, that we need to lift the standard of the teaching of journalism in Australian universities. I notice that this particular problem regarding events in the chamber last Wednesday extended to that normally reliable journal the Sydney Daily Telegraph. Piers Akerman made the point:Mr Abbott was tossed out after he called Mr Beazley a sanctimonious windbag.Again, that is a straight error of fact, and anyone going to check the Hansard record would see that. The problem is that Mr Akerman has been too lazy to check the Hansard, too lazy to report on parliament first-hand and too lazy to go to the facts to get a proper understanding of what has happened in the national parliament. The truth was that the minister was suspended for other reasons. It had nothing to do with his accusation on the Leader of the Opposition. Mr Akerman then went on to point out that I levelled some remarks at different journalists in the adjournment debate last week. He writes:It was just the sort of parliamentary behaviour that he—meaning me—had become so critical of by the end of the week.In fact, I was not critical of that sort of parliamentary behaviour. My criticism was of parliamentary behaviour that was outside the standing orders. My contribution in the adjournment debate on Wednesday last week used language that was within the standing orders. In fact, the Speaker, who was in the chair, saw no breach of parliamentary standing orders and certainly no need to take any action. Again, that was a basic error of fact by Mr Akerman. Again, he was too lazy to check the Hansard, too lazy to find out what was going on in the national parliament and too lazy to lift the standard of journalism in this country. I make the point made consistently by the member for Moreton.EZ5Abbott, Tony, MPMr Abbott—Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. You have extended a fair degree of tolerance to the member for Werriwa, but his remarks have nothing to do with the bill before the House. He is really guilty of being a sanctimonious humbug, frankly. I think he should be called back to the subject of the debate. 10000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—I thank the minister. In calling the member for Werriwa, I am sure he will be speaking about the content of the bill in great detail.K26Latham, Mark, MPMr LATHAM—According to Mr Akerman and Mr Henderson, the minister would be thrown out for such language. That was the error in their initial report. The fact that no action has been taken against the minister just confirms the nature of their mistake. As the member for Moreton has suggested, this House should diligently monitor the standards of the Australian media. This is an important issue in the public interest. On this legislation, we do need to lift the standard of teaching of journalism in Australia's universities.I have noted with interest the extensive commentary and strongly held views of Laurie Oakes regarding the disorderly behaviour which followed question time on Wednesday last week. What Mr Oakes's viewers and readers should appreciate is that he was not present for this incident. He was not in the press gallery above the chamber and therefore did not witness the full scale and series of events. In fact, in my 6½ years in this place, I have never seen Mr Oakes in the press gallery above the chamber. He is the Norm of Australian politics: he never watches in person, only on television. He is too lazy to lift up his lard and walk to the other side of the parliamentary building. The Packer organisation's chief political reporter has no appreciation of the House of Representatives first-hand.This again makes the point that in Australia's universities journalists should be taught to be more diligent and more thorough and to lift themselves up and report on matters first-hand. This is a basic standard. I know the member for Moreton has expressed the concern on a number of occasions that this standard has not been met in the universities. Indeed, laziness is the weeping sore of Australian journalism. I have pointed to several instances of this laziness tonight. I have mentioned Laurie Oakes, Piers Akerman, Gerard Henderson and Anne Henderson, and last week I had cause to draw the House's attention to the laziness of Jack Waterford in his appalling column on Greg Wilton in the Canberra Times last Saturday week. This is an appalling standard in the Australian media. Journalists think that they have made it in their profession when they no longer have to do research first-hand or report on the parliament first-hand. It is a problem that should be corrected by the way in which journalism is taught in our universities. I can only endorse the way in which the member for Moreton has consistently raised this matter in higher education bills. Of course, this House cannot legislate against laziness, but it should be willing to enact privacy legislation to guard against the wilful slurs and errors which arise from lazy journalism. I could give other examples, as the member for Moreton has in the past. But I think on that one incident last week, which was a very high profile incident in the press—the suspension of the Minister for Employment Services and the subsequent reporting—I have proved that journalistic standards leave a lot to be desired in this country. Some very senior people do not go to the trouble of checking the Hansard, checking the facts and understanding what actually went on. The minister was not suspended for anything he said to the Leader of the Opposition; he was suspended for moving towards the opposition benches in a menacing fashion. I congratulate you, Mr Speaker, on the action you took. I wish your efficiency in these things were reflected in the efficiency of the Australian media and journalistic reporting. I wish it were reflected in the efficiency and standards of the teaching of journalism in Australia's universities.In my remaining remarks I would like to join with the member for Dobell in levelling criticism against the government for its higher education funding cuts. This is causing enormous distress and loss of services at the University of Western Sydney, which serves my own electorate. The government should be condemned for its cost cutting to higher education at a time when throughout the Western world nations are investing more in higher education. The University of Western Sydney has had cost pressures placed on it and, to its great credit, it has responded in a sensible fashion. It has decided it can no longer afford its federated structure. Under the leadership of Vice-Chancellor Jan Reid it is moving to a unitary structure. This has been forced on it by the federal government. There is a massive reorganisation of the university under way. While this would not necessarily have happened in different financial circumstances, the fact that that reorganisation is moving forward under sensible planning and sensible leadership is indeed a credit to the Vice-Chancellor, Jan Reid.So I support under these difficult circumstances the decision to move from a federated to a unitary structure at the University of Western Sydney. I support the vision of the university leadership in trying to apply as much of their work as possible to regional development issues, to equity issues, to trying to lift students from disadvantaged suburbs into higher education. That university now has the leadership and direction it needs to achieve each of those goals.One of the most exciting aspects of the university's development is the establishment of the Whitlam Institute. This is something that I raised some time ago with Minister David Kemp, but he did nothing about it. In this country we should replicate more the American practice of establishing, in their case presidential, in our case prime ministerial, libraries. Gough Whitlam has generously decided to donate his papers and prime ministerial material to the University of Western Sydney. The university of course covers the great arc of electorates and areas that Gough represented in his 26 years in the House of Representatives, right through from the Sutherland region to Campbelltown and then north to Toongabbie and Blacktown.So the catchment of the University of Western Sydney broadly takes in the catchment of the seat of Werriwa through the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s. It is so appropriate that Mr Whitlam would decide to donate his papers to the University of Western Sydney and they responded with the establishment of the Whitlam Institute and, we hope, the forthcoming Whitlam prime ministerial library to be located in the Parramatta district. There has been a fundraising committee established. Researchers have been notified. I believe that the institute will find an excellent focus on urban and regional issues, on welfare issues, on the whole question of new geographies in the labour market. The whole issue of urban policy—which is one of Gough's great legacies, of course—will find new expression and new relevance in the work of the Whitlam Institute under the coverage of the University of Western Sydney. As someone who has been fortunate enough to have followed Mr Whitlam into the seat of Werriwa, I have been very delighted indeed to be part of the organisation and urging for the Whitlam Institute. I look forward to an ongoing role with that fine body. In particular, I would like to see it, along with other research groups in the university, develop Australia's leading expertise in urban and regional policy. I understand that recently the Australian National University has downgraded its urban policy unit. It is not going to give so much priority to that research area. So there is a gap in our national research framework, and that would be ideally filled by the University of Western Sydney. The region has experienced enormous population growth, enormous urban and planning issues in recent decades. It really is an excellent laboratory for this sort of higher education research. The fact that this can be conducted under the coverage of the Whitlam Institute, remembering the great legacy in this policy area of Gough Whitlam, is something that is very good for the region indeed.These things are happening despite the government's funding cuts. Some universities, particularly the one which serves my electorate, are finding innovative ways to of doing better with less. But the point is, of course, that they could do so much more work if they had more resources from the federal government. This is not an area where our universities should be expected to do more with less. They really do need an increase in federal government resources so they can fully fund their research institutes, so they can increase their student numbers and so they can increase their tertiary participation rates from disadvantaged suburbs. The fact that these things are not happening is a shame on the nation, and in particular a shame on this government.The government has, indeed, a strange set of priorities when a member such as the member for Herbert can say in his concluding remarks on a higher education bill that he looks forward to a new indirect tax coming into place in 22 hours time. Would it not be great if members could stand up in this place and say quite truthfully that they look forward to Australia having the best higher education sector, the best universities in the world, the best research, the best undergraduate teaching and the best student participation? Shamefully, we cannot say those things in this parliament because the government has the wrong set of priorities. The only thing members opposite can say is that they look forward to this French socialist 1960s tax coming into place in 22 hours. What we should be talking about is Australian higher education excellence coming into place for the coming century. It is a bad set of priorities indeed on the part of the government and one which, according to every indicator, goes against it in the public sphere. One hopes that when elections are called in 15 months time the Australian people will punish the government severely for this inappropriate set of priorities.02:06:0018763Macfarlane, Ian, MPMr IAN MACFARLANEWN6GroomLP10—I will say right from the outset that I look forward to Australia's tertiary institutions leading the world. A little later in my speech tonight I will actually outline a tertiary institution that is, in fact, one of the leaders, if not the leader, in the world. So I do not accept the member for Werriwa's comments. I do aspire to the same thing that he aspires to, as all Australians do: we aspire for Australian institutions and Australian students to be the best. But Labor keeps peddling this story that the coalition government has cut funding. Mr Speaker, you know as I do that, in fact, funding increased in real terms between 1996 and 1999, and it will increase further in the period 1999 to 2002. As well as that, funding per fully funded student place has also increased since 1996. We can spend a lot of time being distracted, and for a person who claims to be so committed to tertiary education and the promotion of it, the member for Werriwa spent very little time on that subject. I thought you, Mr Speaker, and the Deputy Speaker before you, were extraordinarily lenient to the member for Werriwa in terms of relevance. The Higher Education Funding Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2000 is about increasing the number of doctors in regional Australia. Regional Australia is a passion of mine—I am not ashamed of that. It is an area in which I grew up. We aim through this bill to deliver 100 new medical places, beginning in 2001, for students holding bonded scholarships. It is part, of course, of a $562 million country health project—a fantastic allocation in this year's budget, an allocation which is unprecedented and builds on the $200 million provided two years ago. It is part of one of the biggest, if not the biggest, rural packages ever handed down in a budget by any government—a $1.8 billion allocation to regional and rural Australia across a number of areas but, as we are discussing tonight, most poignantly in the areas of regional health and regional provision of doctors. This allocation is aimed at improving the level of tertiary education. When we combine that with the issues relating to regional Australia, the government is rightly proud of its initiatives to assist communities in rural, regional and remote Australia to turn around what has been a challenging, even dark, period in their economic and social history. This government has been ably assisted by the rise in strong leadership from within those communities—leaders who have identified the needs of their communities; in typical bush spirit, harnessed the spirits of those communities; and, through innovation and dogged willpower, sought a new and better future. Those leaders will include our regional universities. Most city based Australians would be surprised at the expertise, capabilities and innovation of universities outside the metropolitan areas. These universities are often the largest employers in the region and in my electorate of Groom and in my city of Toowoomba they are far and away the biggest employer, employing some 1,200 people in full-time positions. These universities inject tens of millions of dollars into regional towns, educate and train people to serve the bush and are treasuries of national and international leadership in scholarship, research, development and in the productivity alliances of government and industry.This leadership is no better demonstrated—and I am not biased at all—than in the electorate of Groom and in the city of Toowoomba. Like so many regionally based universities, the University of Southern Queensland has risen from humble beginnings—it used to go under a completely different name, the Darling Downs Institute of Advanced Education—some 30 years ago to not only be a leader in regional Queensland but also be a national and international leader in exporting education to the world and in the field of distance education. This is the university in Australia that is expanding our concept of e-commerce. We are familiar with e-retailing, e-share trading and e-banking and we can add e-education, a vital but overlooked e-commerce component being pioneered in Toowoomba. This is not a revolution; this is an `e-volution'. This university has the rest of the world paying attention to its ability to take education and training to where people live and work throughout Australia and right around the globe. It is a pathfinding new way of enabling people to learn in their own time, in their own place and in their own style, without requiring people, especially in the bush, to disrupt their lives, leave their families and go to brick and mortar universities—or perhaps, should I say, the sandstone universities of the big cities.USQ is the future—I have seen it and I know it works. I will explain it in a little more detail. The defining characteristic of the University of Southern Queensland is that, of its 19,000 students, nearly 75 per cent do not occupy the campus. They study where they live. Through its innovative distance education program, including through the Internet, USQ—as it is affectionately known—comes to students. Most of them are mature age people working in metropolitan, regional and rural Australia and wanting professional development and workplace upgrades without disrupting their families, their lives and their lifestyle. Last year, this university was awarded not one but two prestigious international prizes of excellence for being the world's best dual-mode university. This means that it was the world's best at providing people with flexible alternatives to having to go on campus to study. Mind you, USQ also provides quality on-campus education. These awards were made by the International Council for Open and Distance Education, a peak body representing distance education providers from 130 countries worldwide and backed by UNESCO. While talking about awards, I should also mention that the university is a national export winner. Surprising everyone, including the New South Wales Premier, Bob Carr—and he has had a few surprises lately—USQ Vice Chancellor, Professor Peter Swannell, arrived in Sydney last October to claim two prizes at the national multicultural marketing awards organised by the New South Wales Ethnic Affairs Commission. The awards were in recognition of this regional university's ability to provide a world-class university experience to people from a variety of cultural backgrounds. Remember: this is a regional university from Toowoomba that was rated the best in the world and the best in Australia for its commitment to serving people from all cultural backgrounds. Necessity is, as they say, the mother of invention and, faced with competition from bigger metropolitan universities, 25 years ago USQ developed its niche strength as a provider of distance education. Now it services thousands of students in Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane and Canberra and beyond and has one of the largest enrolments of students studying offshore of any Australian university.Like the rural and regional communities it serves, USQ turned to self-reliance born of a commitment to exporting, innovation and entrepreneurialism to safeguard its economic future. Twenty-five years later, the time of USQ has definitely arrived. Governments around Australia should take notice of how this university operates and serves the community. We are looking for better ways to grow our regional and rural communities. I suggest USQ provides a model that works and can be applied across Australia. It provides flexibility to communities where the pursuit of quality education, lifelong learning, strong family life, hard work and ambition are priorities.As a university which comes to the people, USQ has developed a multimillion dollar infrastructure to deliver education on campus, by post and over the Internet. Students receive study guides and other printed material, CD-ROMs and audio tapes, which are supported by an extensive network of liaison officers. These are people who live throughout the regions and metropolitan areas and who provide practical support to distance students. In this model, students can attend live lectures and tutorials in a study centre or by video and phone conferencing. The USQ campus at Wide Bay provides a dramatic example of how the latest technology can be utilised to take education to the people where they live and work. Speaking of technology, the University of Southern Queensland has taken up the challenges and opportunities posed by the revolution in telecommunications. As Senator Alston can attest to, as a result of his visit to USQ this year, being regional can be a distinct advantage in exploiting the benefits of new technology. If ever there were an example of why Australia must continue to pursue telecommunications reform, the University of Southern Queensland is it.USQOnline is the university's program of undergraduate and postgraduate courses delivered wholly over the Internet. Students around the world enrol, study, access reading material and communicate with their lecturers and fellow students—all on the Net. Global online education is estimated to grow to $US6 billion in the next few years. Australia, through the successes of programs such as USQOnline, currently has a market advantage. We are a world leader in this field. Wasn't that what the member for Werriwa was asking? However, the rest of the world is catching up, and I have been informed that, over the next few years, it is possible that prestigious universities in Europe and the USA will compete online with Australian universities for students in all countries, including those in Australia and particularly those in regional Australia. Australia must nurture its export strengths in distance and online university education. We must also advance our leadership in online workplace and professional development. This has immense potential for our regional communities and as an export earner. Through its business arm, INDELTA, the University of Southern Queensland partners private and public bodies in the online delivery of training courses to the workplace. Recently, I read in the Sydney Morning Herald—I do not often read that paper—that INDELTA had been engaged by the global finance and insurance company Zurich to provide online professional training to the company's financial advisers throughout Australasia to upgrade their professional qualifications. Regional and rural business operators are also getting their first e-commerce experience through INDELTA. A system of e-commerce portals acts as an incubator for individual small businesses to join together and test the waters of the e-commerce ocean. In the not too distant future, many a regionally based commercially successful performer will look back on this as the beginning of their global e-commerce business empire.USQ is a university poised to take advantage of the next wave of communication technology—the provision and export of learning opportunities through digital television and datacasting—and excellent legislation was carried today by the government. I could go on further about USQ's regional and rural focus: its niche research and development record of linking with industry to develop practical outcomes; a reputation for professional agricultural engineering; its record of educating and training students to live and work in regional and rural Australia; its work in educating remotely located Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders; and, its commitment to providing practical support to people from a variety of disadvantaged backgrounds who have not studied, are disabled, or who need writing and language skills, aimed at enabling them to pursue university education and realise the ambitions and new directions.I will close on another example of USQ's commitment to technological innovation, and its commercial entrepreneurialism. The two are connected. In the search for new space age materials, fibre composites have been identified as having great potential. Their qualities of strength and lightness are already used in boat and aircraft building and sporting equipment. I am sure people have used a tennis racquet containing carbon fibre. USQ is using fibre composites to build bridges to the future, literally. Professor Gerard Van Erp leads USQ's fibre composites program and has been very successful in attracting industry support for his research and development of fibre composites for the engineering and construction sectors. Australia, through the University of Southern Queensland—and where is the member for Werriwa?—is acknowledged as a world leader and innovator in this field. Just as steel and concrete revolutionised the construction industry, so fibre composites will take the industry to a new level of sophistication. Bridges, pathways, trucks, construction girders, railway sleepers, even indoor ski slopes can be made stronger and lighter than with conventional materials.The days have gone when universities can depend on the public purse to totally fund their operations and, contrary to what the member for Werriwa says, they accept that challenge. They understand the responsibility they have to find extra sources of funding. In the interests of developing a self-reliant university sector, our government has encouraged universities to become innovative, to develop industry and community links, and to explore exporting opportunities in order to supplement government income. USQ, of course—and I am still not biased—is a success story in this area and points the way to a successful future. It should be noted that the university is the lowest publicly funded university in Australia and has been put into this position by what I believe to be an unsatisfactory and disadvantaging policy by successive past governments. In fact, this university should be rewarded with a revised funding model that rewards universities which are commercially entrepreneurial—such as USQ—with regional funding and special regional headquartering. I have mentioned USQOnline. This program is delivered through global web infrastructure developed by the company NextEd Ltd. This company comprises international venture capitalists who came to the University of Southern Queensland because they identified it as the best in its field—hear those words, member for Werriwa. USQ, through INDELTA, is a financial partner in NextEd and aims to commercially profit from the company's expertise in putting the course programs of education providers around the world, including other universities, online.USQ was the first Australian university to establish a campus in Europe, in partnership with its communities, and last year the USQ European Studies Centre in the German city of Bretten was opened. This followed an approach from the Bretten City Council. It is no wonder that the Australian government has chosen the profile of USQ, and specifically USQOnline, to display at the Australian pavilion in Expo 2000 in Hanover. I had the pleasure of unveiling a poster which is displayed there. USQ is the only Australian university on display at Expo 2000. I am sure this House will congratulate USQ on its many successes.I have often spoken to Vice-Chancellor Professor Swannell who, I must say, is one of the world's most forward thinking and best communicators in the Australian university sector. His proposals for a new funding model for our universities is certainly food for thought for all members. Professor Swannell is urging the Commonwealth to look even harder at rewarding quality, self-sufficient and efficient universities which undertake entrepreneurial activities with a view to generating private income. According to the vice-chancellor, this would come in the form of seed funding for innovative income-generating projects. Practical support of this sort would, in turn, enable universities such as USQ to invest in additional innovation and would result in even less reliance on the public purse. What better example is there of a university being innovative, a leader, internationally competitive and at the forefront of international teaching than the University of Southern Queensland? This is the sort of university that this legislation hopes to promote and I commend it to the House. (Time expired)02:27:0018767Mossfield, Frank, MPMr MOSSFIELDMK6GreenwayALP00—In speaking to the Higher Education Funding Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2000 I rise to support the amendment moved by the shadow minister, the member for Dobell. The purpose of the bill is to amend the Higher Education Funding Act 1988 in a number of ways: to adjust grants for funding year 2001 for price movements, to set the maximum grants available for funding for the year 2002, to vary the maxima for operating grants for the years 1999 and 2001 to reflect revised estimates for the Higher Education Contribution Scheme, and to provide additional funding for measures announced in the 2000-01 budget concerning research programs and university places for students on bonded medical scholarships. The debate on higher education funding is an excellent opportunity to examine the record of this government and this minister. If a report card was being issued, this minister would surely receive an F and the government as a whole, at best, a D minus. The report card of the minister, Dr Kemp, would make very interesting reading, I am sure. Next to maths would be the comment `Has some trouble with basic arithmetic' and, in the general section, `Cannot or will not play with other children. Needs to learn to share.'I begin by asking a philosophical question. Why do democracies exist? How do they come about and to achieve what purpose? One of the main reasons the general population wanted a say in how their state was governed, the main reason that people took control of government—and sometimes by force—was because they wanted their children to receive an education. Prior to democracies existing, education was the provision of the rich, the nobility—those who could afford to pay. Illiteracy amongst the general population was extremely high. There was no such thing as a public school, despite the title being used in England. People took control of government in order to be able to provide a decent, funded public education system. This is something that has been fought for for centuries. Public education is a basic tenet of democracy. It is why democracies exist. Without it, democracies die. Indeed, the minister in his second reading speech said as much when he stated: A strong university system is essential to providing Australians with the skills and knowledge required to build a prosperous, democratic society.My question to the minister is: why are you cutting funding to the university system? How can you make a strong system if you are reducing the funding available? Without public funding, our universities become, and indeed are, small, elitist institutions where the average Australians could never think of going and only those with a capacity to pay could be part of the system. This is why the bills that concern education funding are vitally important. They are basic to our way of life and our system of government.Higher education grants are legislated for calendar years within a rolling triennium framework. There are many different types of grants available, though the biggest slice by far is the operating grants for higher education institutions. There are two sources of funding for these operating grants. The first is the Commonwealth government and the second is the students themselves. The main way a student can pay his or her share is through the HECS system, either upfront or later on through a levy on their fortnightly pay packet. Of course, if you are rich enough and do not have the marks to qualify for university through the normal channels, you can simply buy your way in. In other words, rich kids get two bites of the cherry: if they do not get there on their merits, they get there on their money, thus creating an inequality of opportunity.As parliamentarians, we often rely on the Bills Digest, prepared in an unbiased way by the Parliamentary Library to inform us of the details of each piece of legislation. I would like to thank the Parliamentary Library for providing me with the draft of the Bills Digest for this piece of legislation early this week. The library put in a great effort to produce this digest in the way that it did. This bill was introduced to the House last Wednesday, 21 June, and we are expected to debate it today. This government has operated with unseemly haste this past fortnight, with legislation being introduced one day and debated the next. As it is now past 2.30 a.m., I seek leave to continue my remarks when we return.Leave granted; debate adjourned.House adjourned at 2.32 a.m. (Friday) until Monday, 14 August 2000, at 12.30 p.m., in accordance with the resolution agreed to this day.Notices18768The following notices were given:MP6Baird, Bruce, MPMr Baird—to move:That this House:(1) commends the Australian Tourist Commission (ATC) in its recognition of the benefit of the Sydney Olympic and Paralympic Games for Australian tourism and for the $12 million four year program it has put in place to maximise the tourist potential of Australia; and (2) notes the ATC's plans to: (a) generate additional publicity for Australia by hosting additional media; (b) work with major Olympic sponsors on joint promotional programs; (c) assist with National Olympic Committees' official tour operators; and (d) work with international broadcasters who have rights to the Games. 2000-06-29—————Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl) took the chair at 9.40 a.m.Statements by Members187691876918769Gibbons, Steve, MPMr GIBBONS83XBendigoALP00—A few short weeks ago the member for Ballarat was on his feet in the adjournment debate singing the virtues of the Ballarat AFL side which claimed a victory over the Bendigo side. I am delighted to say that last Saturday the tide turned. I use the word `tide' very loosely. In fact, the Bendigo Football League gave the Ballarat team a sound thrashing, and it was well deserved.This is probably one of the explanations for the look of absolute bewilderment and astonishment on the face of the member for Ballarat. The other explanation is that the game was contested in probably the most appalling weather conditions you could imagine for the Ballarat side. It was actually a fine, sunny day. That made it very difficult. Of course, this caught the Ballarat team completely off guard. They are used to playing and training in Ballarat by splashing about in that swamp over there that they call the city oval. Could you imagine trying to play football in Lake Burley Griffin or, worse, maybe even in Lake Wendouree? That is what it is like trying to play football in Ballarat. In fact, it is rumoured that Ballarat footballers develop webfeet early in their careers. Obviously, they were at a distinct disadvantage in the freak conditions that prevailed on that particular day.I am delighted to inform the House of that magnificent victory. I congratulate the Bendigo team and, in particular, Mr John Walsh, the league chairman, and my good friend the team coach, Mr Neville Massina, as well as all the players and officials for what was a great victory. I am delighted we turned the tables on our archenemies, Ballarat. Bendigo is always the premier city. I know the honourable member for Ballarat will be in this place very shortly to try and refute that argument, but I do not think it is possible for him to do that. I congratulate the team. It has really put the Bendigo side on the map. I think Bendigo will only go on in leaps and bounds. Every time we meet in the city of Ballarat, provided those freak weather conditions of a nice fine sunny day prevail, the Bendigo team will always triumph. When the Ballarat squad comes over to Bendigo and enjoys the Bendigo weather of bright sunny days, which is normal for Bendigo, we will beat them again. I congratulate the team and thank them very much.1876918769St Clair, Stuart, MPMr ST CLAIR84BNew EnglandNP10—I rise today to congratulate the New England Institute of TAFE, based in Tamworth in my electorate, and its partner the Toomelah Cooperative Ltd for winning the Prime Minister's Award for Excellence in Community and Business Partnerships 2000 on Monday night. This award recognises and showcases examples of leadership in business and community connections that provide solutions to those in need and ensures the social and cultural vitality of the Australian community. This recognises that the two groups have coupled the energy and creativity of community organisations with the expertise and innovation of the business sector to achieve mutual goals. The Prime Minister's Awards for Excellence in Community and Business Partnerships are an integral part of the Howard-Anderson government's commitment to supporting community and business organisations working in partnership for the benefit of the Australian community.The Euraba paper mill at Boggabilla in north-west New South Wales—which is in the electorate of Gwydir, the electorate of the Hon. John Anderson, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Transport and Regional Services, and which is adjacent to my electorate—commenced commercial production in May 1999. Established under the guidance of production manager Karen Backus and Boggabilla TAFE arts and media teacher Paul West, and with financial assistance provided by the Toomelah Cooperative, the mill employs nine senior Gamilaraay women to produce unique handmade Australian paper from waste cotton rags and other natural fibres for both national and international markets. After only one year, the project has already proved commercially successful, with orders from a range of corporations. The project aims to provide a sustainable alternative to generational welfare dependence and also to provide employment, training and technical expertise and opportunities as well as to promote tourism and reconciliation. Through his involvement in the project, Paul West has been awarded a Churchill Fellowship to investigate indigenous paper making enterprises in Egypt and Ecuador and their relationships to Western training and marketing facilities in the UK and North America. The information gained and networks developed will be used to benefit the paper mill.This was a great effort to win this award. I would like to encourage more joint ventures between business and community groups throughout regional and rural Australia and, in particular, within my electorate of New England. This partnership has shown great initiative to develop such a strong success in such a short period of time. I would like to once again congratulate the New England Institute of TAFE and the Toomelah Cooperative Ltd for winning the Prime Minister's Award for Excellence in Community and Business Partnerships 2000.1877018770Zahra, Christian, MPMr ZAHRA84HMcMillanALP00—I would like to make a statement in relation to my being misrepresented. I sought leave yesterday to make some remarks but I am very keen to get them into the record, so I will use this opportunity.In a media release dated 30 June—which, as I said yesterday, is amazing considering that today is 29 June—the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Liberal Senator 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 policies 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. This is not true and I can demonstrate this easily.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 started only in April this year. Secondly—and anyone who can read, watch television or listen to the radio could have told Senator Troeth this—because I am 27 years old, I do not have to make a decision in relation to taking up lifetime health cover until I am 31. This makes a mockery of Senator Troeth's suggestion that I have somehow sought to benefit from the government's lifetime health cover policies.My family and I have long been associated with the Yallourn Medical and Hospital Society, which is a community-run, not-for-profit health fund that has operated in the Latrobe Valley for more than 70 years. Last year I joined Yallourn Medical not because of the government's ham-fisted, bullying advertising campaign but because I wanted to show my support for a widely respected, not-for-profit health group which does good work in my electorate.I have spoken to the CEO of Yallourn Medical and he has told me that he is aghast that information relating to my support for his health fund has been used to score cheap political points. Maybe next time Senator Troeth will get someone with two or more brain cells to explain to her her own government's policy before she issues public statements impugning my reputation and attributing motives to my actions which are demonstrably untrue. Senator Troeth should be ashamed of herself. 1877118771Ronaldson, Michael, MPMr RONALDSONXT4BallaratLP10—It is always a pleasure to follow the member for Personal Explanations, who spends most of his time talking about himself rather than his electorate of McMillan. Today I would also like to talk about the member for Bendigo. Bendigo had a lucky win last weekend—and I do acknowledge that and congratulate them. What they have not done, though, is scoop the pool at the Victorian Tourism Awards, basically because people go to Bendigo only if they are lost, then they move on very, very quickly.I would like to congratulate a number of my constituents who did win awards at the 16th annual Victorian Tourism Awards. The Ballarat Wildlife Park was a very big winner in winning the regional attractions award, and I congratulate Greg Parker, managing director of the park. Montrose Historic Cottage and Eureka Museum won the heritage and cultural tourism award for the second year in a row. Last year they went on to win the national, which was very good. Indeed, Laurel Johnson, a good mate of mine, said:We are chuffed. It is absolutely amazing when you consider we are up against the big guys in the industry.Other local winners included Daylesford's Lake House in the tourism restaurant category. I encourage anyone who is going to Daylesford to go the Lake House; it is a sensational meal in a sensational town. The Grampians Pioneer Cottages received an award for unique accommodation, John Dalton from the Ararat Rural City Council was a winner in the individual tourist industry employee category and the Ballarat Goldfields Holiday Park received a merit in the camping and caravan parks section.While I am talking about great people coming out of a great area, I would like to congratulate Jennifer Kelly, who this week was a finalist in the Telstra 2000 business women's awards. Jen Kelly is a great person, and it was great for her to be in that area. I would also like to talk very briefly about another terrific group in my electorate, the Stawell Gymnastics Club. They received $3,000 through the Rural Communities Program which will go towards purchasing further equipment for the organisation. The club was formed by a group of voluntary committee members whose aims are for children to have fun, develop skills, interact socially and learn lifelong abilities. Congratulations to the Stawell Gymnastics Club and to all those people from the Ballarat area who received awards under the Victorian Tourism Awards and to Jen Kelly, who I think is a shining light for regional women. She runs her own agency in Ballarat and is a woman who has great respect in Ballarat and throughout Victoria. Congratulations to all those people.1877118771Hatton, Michael, MPMr HATTONLN6BlaxlandALP00—There are two days to go until the implementation of the government's GST, but there are already victims. On 15 June this year I received a letter from Miss Robyne Hobson, the area coordinator of the Campsie/Lakemba Area 4 Neighbourhood Watch. It states:Dear Mr Hatton,I am writing to inform you that Campsie/Lakemba Area 4 neighbourhood watch group has decided to close. The decision to close has been brought about by the GST.After seeking advice from the Australian Taxation Office, we recently applied for an ABN. However, in addition to the issue of an ABN, we have now also been registered for GST, and have been given a tax file number. Our ABN application stated that we are a community service organisation, but we have been registered as an unincorporated organisation. Of course, we could appeal—at $505 on each count. This (and every other) neighbourhood watch group is run by volunteers. We have been prepared to contribute much time and effort to try to bring benefits and improvements to our community, and to help reduce the incidence of crime.However, with the imminent arrival of the GST, we now find the additional burden of complying with the GST—in terms of accounting and reporting—are most unreasonable—particularly for a group run by volunteers. We have come to the place where we have said: “Enough is enough!”Consequently, at a meeting held last night, it was resolved “that this neighbourhood watch group cease to function by the end of June, 2000, and that action be taken to wind up the group's affairs before then”.I don't know whether it was the intention of the federal government to cause the demise of volunteer-run groups, but surely this will be the outcome for many such groups as they try to come to terms with the GST. The details of the GST are very complex, and most volunteer-run groups do not have the time nor the skills to comply with all that the GST demands. I understand, even at this late stage, that the rules are still being written and rewritten. Where does this leave volunteer-run groups—who do not have access to free GST seminars, tax office rulings, industry updates, etc.?Maybe the Labor opposition can use this information to try to make the government see the consternation the GST is causing. Rather than unshackling people, I believe the GST will shackle people even further. Perhaps the difficulties for volunteer-run groups under the GST can be addressed when Labor comes into office.We are sorry that our neighbourhood watch group has ended in this way, but we needed to move quickly, otherwise we would have been caught in the endless paper chase called “the GST”.Thank you for your help, and representations made on our behalf, over the past three years. (Time expired)1877218772Gash, Joanna, MPMrs GASHAK6GilmoreLP10—Last Thursday I received a call from Minister Bruce Scott. `How would you like to join me for an exercise off the coast—in your electorate—Jo?' he asked. `Great,' I said. `When?' That was the start of what was an excursion into the world of Navy defence. Within 24 hours I was on my way to Fairbairn in Canberra where my first encounter with an HMAS Albatross Sea King was enacted. I knew I would be okay, though, because we were piloted by a couple of local heroes, Commander David Gwyther and Lieutenant Commander Murray Lindsay. `Here, Jo, wear a flying suit as we'll be cold,' I was advised. Sure, but they just do not make flying suits the size of this MP. Just as well I had worn my winter woollies!We all got on board—Minister Bruce Scott, Mr Brad Fallen, Commodore Rowan Moffit and Lieutenant Sean Leydon. Within minutes we were flying over the Gilmore electorate and it was a sight to behold: beautiful country, pristine beaches, estuaries and rivers. We really do have it all. Then it was on to Kiama, where we met up with HMAS Sydney, which, together with HMAS Brisbane, was in the midst of war drills together with the Black Hawks and Learjets of Albatross. We landed on board the Sydney with absolute precision, had a quick inspection of the radar section and the ship and crew, and then it was on to the Brisbane further out to sea. Inside the Sea King, I was given another brief explanation to remind me of what was to happen. However, nothing really prepared me for what lay ahead. I had had no time to think when the door opened and I was told to move to another seat. The next minute the minister had gone—disappeared out of the helicopter. Then it was my turn. With my arms outstretched, the harness was slipped over my head, under the arms and clipped onto the hook, and I was told to sit in the open doorway. `It's okay, ma'am, the clips are quite safe,' I was assured. Next minute, I was given a shove and I was out the door. In my panic, I almost succeeded in taking the officer with me—and he had no harness or clips. Seriously, it was a great thrill to be hoisted above the Brisbane and lowered into the arms of the many personnel below who I do not think believed that they were seeing a pollie hanging by a thread! We had lunch on board with all the crew, and what a fine bunch they were. I was so proud of the individual achievements, as they were in explaining every detail of the ship. Minister Scott spoke to them all, heard about their highs and lows and wanted to know all about their families and the issues that affected them as members of the Navy Defence Force.Then, guess what? It was time to prove it in reverse: what goes down, must come up. You guessed it—this time I was to be winched to the top. Dangling on a rope, swinging in the breeze, I was finally dragged back into the Sea King. What a day. What a tremendous crew. And how brave they were to have someone like me there—a complete novice who does not know starboard from port, but who now understands a turboboiler and the conditions associated with operating it.I `dips me lid' to you all. Australians have every reason to be proud of our Navy. Thank you, Minister, for what I thought was to be a ride to see the ships and instead, for me, was a whole new experience. Suddenly, being a pollie was not so bad.10000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—In accordance with standing order 275A, the time for members' statements has concluded.Bills18773R103518773Debate resumed from 1 June, on motion by Mr Ruddock:That the bill be now read a second time.09:57:0018773Melham, Daryl, MPMr MELHAM4T4BanksALP00—The Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill (No. 3) 2000 will remove an anomaly in the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 in relation to schedule 1 land. Currently, the act allows the Governor-General to grant title to a contiguous Aboriginal land trust to a public right of way on land not contained in schedule 1 of the act that has ceased to exist. The anomaly arises as no such procedure allows the grant of such lands if they are contained within schedule 1 of the act.This amendment bill will correct that anomaly by allowing the minister to recommend to the Governor-General grants to such lands contained in schedule 1. The amendment is technical and uncontroversial in nature. It has the support of the Labor Party because it has resulted from a process of negotiation involving indigenous and non-indigenous stakeholders, a process which resulted in the informed consent of all parties concerned. That informed consent followed consultation between the Northern Territory government, the Central Land Council and two Aboriginal land trusts involved with the issue. All parties arrived at an agreement and, as part of that agreement, the Central Land Council and the Northern Territory government wrote to the government requesting this amendment.Such agreements as this amendment bill has resulted from are the preferred way for moving forward on indigenous issues generally. Negotiations do not always lead to solutions, but are vital in any process where a balanced solution is sought.I was pleased to hear the minister in his second reading speech on this bill illustrate the government's new-found commitment to `assist in achieving negotiated outcomes in respect of the land rights act'. That is in Hansard of 1 June 2000, at page 15,818. He went on to set the benchmark for his government regarding consultation with indigenous Australians: The government has the assurance of all parties to the negotiations that representative views of all Aboriginal people concerned have been obtained and their wishes taken into account.The government must apply its own benchmark to any of its intended future amendments of the land rights act. We on this side of the House, as an effective opposition, have no choice but to ensure the government lives up to its own benchmark. The government already has on the record the views of Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory concerning their land rights act. They are happy with its operation generally and do not want any change to it without their informed consent. It is their act; a piece of Commonwealth legislation that has successfully returned land to its traditional owners.The minister has given the government's new-found commitment to consultation and taking into account indigenous views. In the past, the government has gone out of its way to ignore the views of indigenous Australians. This has been most evident in its treatment of native title, indigenous heritage protection, the stolen generation and a number of other issues that go to the centre of indigenous life. The opposition welcomes the minister's commitment to indigenous consultation and assures the government we will be keeping it accountable for that commitment. We have pleasure in supporting the bill before the House.10:00:0018774Lieberman, Lou, MPMr LIEBERMANXU5IndiLP10—I have pleasure in speaking in support of the government's initiative. The Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill (No. 3) 2000 allows disused public roads to be included in the adjacent Aboriginal Land Trusts at Hermannsburg and Haasts Bluff. In passing, I mention the beautiful pottery on exhibition from the Hermannsburg community in Parliament House. It has attracted a lot of attention and it is well worth looking at.The bill corrects an anomaly in the act and shows the government's continuing commitment to improving the Northern Territory Aboriginal Land Rights Act where necessary. It is particularly pleasing for me, as chairman of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs, that the government is demonstrating in a very practical way its intention to bring the parties together on such issues. Under previous governments of other political colour—the same colour as that of the shadow minister who just walked out—issues went through lengthy legal proceedings before the courts costing millions of dollars before they were resolved. Those wasted millions could have been targeted to better improve the prospects of young Aboriginal people in education and they could have addressed health, unemployment initiatives and training. It is very refreshing to see the commitment of Minister Herron and the Howard government to resolve issues where possible by sitting down with the various interested parties. In fact, 99 per cent of issues can be resolved with goodwill and trust between people.This is not a new-found initiative of the government, and I very much regret the previous speaker's cynicism in that regard. It is, in fact, a deep commitment that the government has had since it was elected a little over four years ago. There are many demonstrations of it. In fact, this is not the first amendment bill that I have spoken on in this place where land has been transferred by agreement. I did it just a few months ago. This morning I looked at a media release by Senator John Herron dated 9 June 2000. This mentioned the return of 4,450 square kilometres of cattle station in the Northern Territory to its traditional Aboriginal owners in a ceremony which the minister presided over at Heartbreak Hotel in the remote Gulf country. The community was very pleased to see that happen. On 21 February 2000 the very same minister announced the return of the romantic never-never country—immortalised in Jeannie Gunn's literary classic We of the Never Never—to the traditional owners. The ceremony was held on 23 February 2000. Incidentally, it is almost a century since that wonderful classic book We of the Never Never was first published. The Howard government has demonstrated its commitment to respond to traditional owners and to facilitate the transfer of traditional land to the traditional owners, land they have used and enjoyed uninterrupted for centuries. We saw this commitment demonstrated so wonderfully in that ceremony. It is fair to say that the minister demonstrated in the most practical way his determination to deal with issues regarding the future of land councils in the Northern Territory when he decided to refer the report of John Reeves QC on the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act to my committee. The minister specifically charged the committee with the responsibility of consulting with Aboriginal people and non-Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory about the recommendations in the Reeves inquiry. The minister made a deep commitment, which has been demonstrated to be sincere and accurate, that he would not make decisions on John Reeves's wide-ranging recommendations until after he had received the report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs and after that committee had comprehensively consulted with the affected communities in the Northern Territory. That is a very obvious illustration that the government is not acting unilaterally. In fact, it is pausing and consulting with all the affected players, including the Northern Territory government, on major issues to do with the Northern Territory. That is quite different from what was represented by the shadow minister a moment ago.The recommendations of the committee were contained in a report which was tabled a few months ago called Unlocking the future: the report of the inquiry into the Reeves Review of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976. That report accepted many of the recommendations of John Reeves but rejected very strongly many others, and those recommendations are being considered now by the government. As chair, I particularly appreciated the contributions of members from all political parties—including the next speaker, the member for the Northern Territory—to what was a very vigorous and interesting inquiry. The recommendations from government and non-government members of that committee were generally unanimous. There were two or three very substantial issues on which the members did not agree but, because the members wished to put a report to the parliament which would help government and the communities, they agreed that each view on those key issues would be contained in the report. It was the unanimous decision of the committee that the views of both the non-government and government members should be in that report. The committee unanimously recommended that both views would be put to the people for consultation and for them to respond to those substantial issues. I think it is a very good example of how effective the parliamentary committee system is in Australia. On very passionate issues—and the member for the Northern Territory is understandably very passionate on many issues to do with his electorate—members can put their views yet work together constructively under an agreed set of principles. That is just what we did. We agreed on a set of core principles before we embarked on analysing each issue. Those core principles were a guide and assistance to all of us because we kept going back to them. We said to ourselves, `We cannot agree necessarily on a particular issue, but we are united on the core principles of equality before the law, equal rights, respect for property rights, harmony and all of those things. If we are all agreed on those, let us go back now to the issue where we have disagreement and test it against those core principles.' We did that and I think it has been very helpful. It has not solved all the problems—there is never a simple solution to some of these things—but I think it has shown a way forward. As a member of the government I was very troubled by some of the recommendations of John Reeves. Those concerns are reflected in the report. For example, Mr Reeves recommended in good faith—he is a very good man whom I admire for his courage—that the management of the freehold land—for that is what it is—of the Aborigines in the Northern Territory and the rents and income from those lands be transferred into a central controlling body made up of the Northern Territory government, Commonwealth government representatives and representatives of the traditional owners of the land.Just pause and step back from that. Whilst he meant it in good faith, because he was concerned about the effectiveness of how some of the rents are applied for the benefit of Aboriginal people—which is a separate issue— where in Australia could you go to, say, a non-Aboriginal community of freehold owners and say to them, `By the way, we do not like the way you use all the rents you get from your farms, your shops, your motels and your office buildings, so we are going to take control of those rents and take the decision making process out of your hands and put it in the hands of a central body which knows better than you'? I know he put it forward in good faith, because he was trying to address some of the urgent issues of disadvantage of Aboriginal people, and he thought that if we could channel all the money in a targeted way the problem would be solved.In my humble view, one of the great problems with the way in which the affairs and interests of Aboriginal people have been managed in Australia by well-meaning non-Aboriginal parliamentarians is that they have supplanted the right of Aboriginal people to make their own decisions. In fact, they have put the Aboriginal people into a mode where they have to rely too much on government and on welfare. The human spirit develops and handles issues and problems better if the responsibility for those decisions is primarily your own and not someone else's. Mr Reeves wanted to do that and the committee strongly recommends against that; it is just not right.The committee did, however, recommend that the management of income from Aboriginal freehold land through the land councils should be made more accountable and transparent, and that the granting of money from freehold land for programs should be on a targeted basis and subject to performance measures so that accountability on the ground would be better measured. The committee also recommended that advice be obtained from the Commonwealth Grants Commission, for example, on how to better manage the allocation of substantial funds through royalties and the like for the benefit of the Aboriginal people. Those recommendations I am sure are being considered by the government and by the Aboriginal community.One of the trailblazing recommendations we made—contrary to Mr Reeves, who said there should be 18 separate land councils—was that the Aboriginal people who own the land should make the decision about how many land councils they want. After all, it is their freehold land. If they want 30, fine; if they want five, fine—we should not impose the number on them arbitrarily. In fact, one of our recommendations was indeed revolutionary. We even had the temerity to say that, furthermore, if a group of Aboriginal owners and their community decide they do not want to manage their land through a land council, they should be able to opt out and adopt a different system of community management—for example, the local government community method that we are so familiar with in other parts of Australia. We were quite bold in saying that, but it seems so obvious: if you own the land and it is freehold land, why should the government impose the model of management? Why should there not be a range of choices for the owners to choose from?I would wager—and I am confident of this—that, if Aboriginal people are given the opportunity to make a choice and to evaluate, they will respond very well. Like all other communities in Australia, they will occasionally make mistakes—you have to have the right to make mistakes to get on in the world—and they will learn from them. It is far better than the present system which, while well meaning, requires Aboriginal people to actually wait for the orderly management of issues through statutory bodies which have to respond to ministers and, in many cases, to get the permission of ministers to go forward and do things. Another recommendation that I was very keen about—and I thank the committee for their full support—related to our wish that the management of land through the traditional Aboriginal approach involving trusts be assisted by their being able to grant long-term leases to individual Aboriginal people. For example, in Canberra an Aboriginal family could obtain a 99-year lease over an area of land and go to a bank or building society and apply for a housing loan, so that they could get a loan and build their own house. Rather than relying on the statutory public housing system to provide housing for Aboriginal people, why not give them the right to do that? I have spoken to quite a lot of traditional Aboriginal people and they like that idea. They think it is great. When we visited Bathurst Island and met with the Tiwi people—fantastic people—they were putting into operation that principle over their traditional land. They were looking at granting long-term leases, not only for housing for individual families but also for commercial enterprises. So an Aboriginal family with a small business could go to a bank and get a loan for their workshop. Why? Because they had a long-term lease over the workshop which therefore provides security that they can borrow against. Under the present system, they are inhibited from doing those sorts of things because the title that they have is a right to occupy, and the traditional ownership system says that they can do so. But it is not an identifiable, targeted right; therefore it is not one that can be borrowed against.We put those ideas forward. I hope that, after consultation, the government will be able to come to an agreement and bring in amendments to the act which will facilitate that sort of approach. There are lots of opportunities. This bill is another concrete example of the government's good management and positive approach to assisting Aboriginal people to manage from the ground up, to free them of the shackles of the lawyers—albeit a worthy profession—to get them out of the courts and around the table, and to diminish the role of government in their everyday affairs. I wish the bill a speedy passage.10:17:0018777Snowdon, Warren, MPMr SNOWDONIJ4Northern TerritoryALP00—I am pleased to contribute to this debate on the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill (No. 3) 2000, which effectively involves a land swap—a deal between the Northern Territory government and the Central Land Council on behalf of the Ltalaltuma Land Trust to do with land around the Tnorala reserve in Central Australia. I will make some comments about the contribution by the previous speaker, the member for Indi, shortly, but I want to deal with this question of agreement. The fact is that until recently the Northern Territory government has been the cause of most, if not all, of the litigation which has occurred over land rights matters in the Northern Territory. The previous speaker, the member for Banks, talked about the federal government having a role in this matter; fortunately for me, I have a bit of a corporate memory in relation to these issues and a lot of involvement in them. I say to the member that he is not only ill-informed but clearly needs to understand the history of land rights in the Northern Territory and the role which conservative governments in the Northern Territory have played which has caused division in the Northern Territory community over land and Aboriginal issues generally. That invariably has caused land claims to be sent to the Federal Court or to the full High Court where, in most cases, the Northern Territory has lost. The Northern Territory government has used money which has been made available to it from the federal purse to pursue this litigation, at great cost to the Northern Territory community. The previous speaker correctly pointed out that this money would have been far better spent on providing infrastructure, educational services, health, housing, et cetera. But this was a decision freely made by the Northern Territory CLP government—a conservative government. The Chief Minister of that government for some time was Shane Stone, who is currently President of the Liberal Party of Australia. I suggest to the previous speaker that instead of railing about what governments at the federal level have done, what he ought to understand is that most of the intransigence over issues to do with land and land rights in the Northern Territory is a direct result of the stupidity, arrogance and obdurate nature of the CLP government in the Northern Territory over many years. That is a matter of fact and a matter of record.In this particular instance, we have a road swap. Let me put it on the record that this was not an initiative of John Herron but an initiative which arose out of a discussion and arrangements between the Central Land Council and the Northern Territory government. Indeed, I have in front of me copies of the correspondence between the Northern Territory government, through Denis Burke, the Chief Minister, and the Hon. John Herron, and a copy of a letter from David Ross, who was then acting director of the Central Land Council, to John Herron, pointing out that they jointly requested that the act be amended to accommodate an arrangement which they had freely entered into. This was not an initiative of John Herron or the federal government.What it is about is a need to improve road safety. The Northern Territory government sought to improve road safety, to upgrade a road and to improve user amenity around Tnorala. To do this it needed to realign the Namatjira Drive and to open an access road from the realigned Namatjira Drive to Tnorala reserve. But that required access to Aboriginal land. So they agreed to a land swap: effectively, Aboriginal land was made available for that purpose and then, on the other side of the coin, the Territory government agreed that:(a) the Redundant Namatjira Alignment;(b) to the extent that the Existing Tnorala Access was not included in the deed of grant of the Land—that road, and(c) the Katapata Road,should be closed and granted to a land trust or land trusts for the benefit of Aboriginals entitled by Aboriginal tradition to the use or occupation of that land, with the intent that the roads referred to should be granted to the Land Trust that holds the contiguous Aboriginal land.In effect, what we are doing here this morning is giving that agreement some life and completing the loop by ensuring that that land is transferred to the land trust or land trusts.I was interested in the other statements which were made by the previous speaker. I will not take much of the Main Committee's time, but I do think it is necessary to respond to some of them. I must say that I note his support for the idea that Aboriginal people should be able to make their own decisions. I note his support for the unanimous view expressed in the report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs. The very first recommendation of that report—which, as he properly pointed out, was unanimous—was that there should be no amendments to the land rights act without the informed consent of Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory.In this instance we have an amendment to the land rights act which is with the informed consent of those people whom it affects. But the view of the previous speaker is clearly at odds with the view of the person who is currently sitting next to him in this chamber. Last night, when we were discussing an issue to do with the tabling of the report of the Joint Committee on Native Title and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land Fund, the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Reconciliation raised very serious questions, from his point of view, about this whole question of informed consent. I say to the minister that he should read both reports and understand where they are coming from. I suggest to the minister that he should adopt the view, at least insofar as this issue is concerned, of the person who is currently sitting next to him in this chamber. He might like to have a discussion with him about why it is important that Aboriginal people should have the right to determine what happens on their land. I note that the previous speaker referred to the right of Aboriginal people to determine what sort of management should happen on their land. What he needs to know, again by virtue of what is happening currently in the Northern Territory, is that the Northern Territory government has embarked on a process of seeking to promote the idea that local governments on Aboriginal communities should be amalgamated. That is being taken to the point, I am informed, where these communities have been told that, unless they adopt an approach in this regard which is okayed by the Northern Territory government, it will be forced upon them.That directly flies in the face of the view which has been expressed by my friend who spoke before me. I would say to him that he should see and understand the contradictions in what he said. The people at the bottom of this process of causing division over issues to do with Aboriginal land have invariably been conservative governments, both here and in the Northern Territory—but particularly in the Northern Territory. Here we have an instance where I am informed, reliably, that Aboriginal community leaders have been told that, unless they agree with this approach of the Northern Territory government, it will be imposed upon them. I say to the member that that flies directly in the face of the view he has expressed here this morning, a view which I support. You cannot have it both ways. I would say to the government that they need to go away and have a discussion amongst themselves and perhaps counsel their friends in the Northern Territory conservative government about the way in which they should be dealing with these issues.There is a clear conflict of views between those people in the government who clearly support, as evidenced by this unanimous report, the idea of informed consent and those in the government, such as the minister, who clearly do not. There is a clear contradiction of views between the views of the government members who say that Aboriginal people should be able to decide how to manage their affairs and their land, and those of the Northern Territory government who clearly say that they should have the right to determine how governance is managed on Aboriginal land. They are just two examples of contradictions. I know you have an interest in this area, Mr Deputy Speaker, and you would understand that I am saying that you cannot straddle both sides of the street. In this instance I suggest that there are some members of the government who are very precariously situated on a very thin strand of wire and it may have some implications for them at some time in the future.Let me conclude by saying that this is an important thing we are doing this morning. It is far more important than I think we give it credit for. I do want to say to those people who are involved in this arrangement that it is important that the public acknowledge that this is an arrangement entered into freely by parties where there is an exchange of land. The intent of this exercise is to ensure that the general public gets access to what has hitherto been Aboriginal land for the purposes of road alignments, and that land which used to be for road alignments becomes Aboriginal land. I recall the days of very tormented discussions with members of the Northern Territory government when I was an employee of the Central Land Council. The Northern Territory government would come to a meeting and ministers would give undertakings about what it was they were prepared to concede or deliver, and invariably it did not happen. No sooner had you walked out the door than the deal had changed. I hope that we have moved on to new and better things. I am pleased that the previous speaker supports the unanimous recommendations of the committee of which he was chair. I hope that those recommendations are picked up by the government and that the minister at the table will understand the import of them and, before he seeks to comment on them, might actually read them.10:29:0018780Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK0J4BerowraLPMinister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Reconciliation10— in reply—I thank the members for Banks, the Northern Territory and Indi who have contributed to the debate. Can I just say that the government is proud of its record in returning land to Aboriginal people. Since we came into office there have been 12 land claims settled. This is an average of three a year and it is one of the highest rates since the enactment of this legislation. Even more impressively, about half of these were achieved through negotiation and agreement without the need for costly legal processes. The main purpose of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill (No. 3) 2000 is to give effect to the Tnorala road swap agreement which was recently made between two Aboriginal land trusts—Hermannsburg and Haast's Bluff—and the Central Land Council. Under the agreement the Northern Territory will acquire the land that adjoins two public roads passing through two land trusts. In exchange each of the land trusts will be granted land title to adjoining land which contains disused public roads.The land council has given an assurance that it has identified the relevant traditional owners affected by the proposal. The proposals were subject to a series of consultations and, in November, the Northern Territory Department of Transport and Works and the traditional owners agreed about the construction of new roads in the area and the closure of others. This agreement is reflected in the road swap agreement before us. The land rights act requires that land over which there is a public road be excluded from land grants. It also provides specific procedure for granting of land where the road is closed. This procedure under the act as currently drafted applies only to land granted under section 11 of the act; that is, the land that has been granted as a result of a hearing before a land commissioner. It is an anomaly in the act that, if land has been granted as a result of an agreement reached without a formal hearing—land included in schedule 1 under section 10—adjoining land where a public right of way once existed cannot be included in the grant even where the right of way ceases to exist. This bill will correct that anomaly.The bill includes an amendment to the land rights act to ensure that land may be granted to Aboriginal land trusts holding land granted under the agreement and included in schedule 1 under section 10 of the act in the same way as land granted under the land claim hearings process conducted under section 11 of the act. The amendment will have the additional benefit of enhancing the efforts of the Northern Territory government and land councils to achieve resolution of land issues by means of written agreement rather than prolonged and costly disputation. That reflects the government's continuing commitment to assist in achieving negotiated outcomes and to improve the act for the benefit of all parties.I said previously that we have an outstanding record of returning land to Aboriginals. I am pleased to note that two more land grants are expected in August. I believe we will have an outstanding record in indigenous affairs generally. We have consistently demonstrated our commitment to addressing disadvantage suffered by indigenous people by delivering improved outcomes in health, housing, education and employment. In 2000-01, we will again expend a record amount—$2.3 billion—in targeted indigenous assistance programs. We are working with indigenous people to build a better future, economic independence and self-empowerment. Land is an important feature of that, and this bill will contribute to continuing effective and efficient administration by the government of the land rights act. I want to thank the opposition for their assistance in ensuring the quick passage of this bill through this chamber and to thank members for their contributions. These matters need the agreement of both sides to achieve that outcome. In this case it is useful because the opposition, presumably, coincidentally come to the same view as us that this is the appropriate outcome. I do not imagine they would be agreeing to it if it was not, nor the facilitation if they were not of that view.There was a discordant note injected by the honourable member for the Northern Territory, who is no longer here to hear any response. He suggested there was some disagreement between the member for Indi and me. When I spoke in another chamber, I was talking about native title legislation. Here we are dealing with Northern Territory land rights legislation that was implemented by the Fraser government, which is operational and which we want to ensure operates effectively to produce beneficial outcomes for indigenous people. We seek to do so cooperatively. But cooperation requires exactly that. You need to come together and produce an agreement. If you cannot get agreement, what then happens? Presumably, the view of the member for the Northern Territory—and I am not sure what he means by the term `informed consent' in this context—is this: if you don't give me what I want, you do not get agreement.There will be no progress in relation to the implementation of land claims and there will be less progress under the Northern Territory land rights legislation if that is the approach that is taken. Governments ultimately have to be able to produce a resolution of these matters. It is not in the interests of indigenous people to have these issues forever unresolved, nor is it in the interests of the Australian people to have these issues forever unresolved. Of course, in the native title legislation what we were seeking to do was to introduce certainty to the outcome after we had been involved in negotiations over very long periods of time.XU5Lieberman, Lou, MPMr Lieberman—And before title was granted.0J4Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK—Absolutely. The fact is that in relation to the native title legislation we now have a workable scheme. The test is not for us in the government; the test is for the opposition. The scheme provides a basis for the state governments to be involved and we have procedures for Queensland which the Queensland government, a Labor government, has developed. We do not know whether the Labor Party at the federal level is going to support the scheme developed by their colleagues in the state of Queensland or whether they are going to seek to knock it off. Of course, if they do knock it off, ultimately it leads to further disadvantage to indigenous people. It means delay. It means that issues are not resolved. It produces uncertainty. That is the test.The opposition spokesman who addressed this issue a little earlier was on the Sunday program many weeks ago. It was one of the more memorable Sunday programs—I think I should get the video and replay it almost every week. It was the plaintive voice saying, `But Laurie, Laurie, let me off. Don't press me on these issues anymore.' All Laurie was asking was, `If you are, in principle, opposed to native title legislation because it allegedly breaches racial discrimination legislation, then in government—if you ever get there—you are going to have to do something about it. It is something on which you are expected to have a policy.' 83NHall, Jill, MPMs Hall—We have and we will.0J4Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK—You don't, and I suspect you won't. 10000Crosio, Janice (Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER)Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. J.A. Crosio)—Direct your comments through the chair. 0J4Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK—The policy at the moment is that we are going to discuss these issues. The member for the Northern Territory who spoke earlier might tell me we are going to get informed consent from indigenous people. The question is: if you do not get consent to what you propose, are you proposing to give all that they require, which means a veto forever and a day in relation what happens to Aboriginal land or native title? If that is your position, you really need to state it. If that is what your policy is about, you need to state it. 10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MadamMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER—Sitting in the chair, Minister, I do not have to state anything.0J4Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK—No, Madam Deputy Speaker, I was not asking anything of you, I do not think. I was talking about the opposition.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MadamMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER—No, you were saying, `You will have to.'0J4Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK—And I should not refer to the opposition in that way—as `you'. My colleagues in the opposition need to think very clearly about where they are going. Some members of the opposition produced a report which was tabled yesterday in the House of Representatives. In that report they gave expression to the non-policy, and the recommendations spelt that out. `Let's sit down and have a talk about it.' Not, `We see this as being wrong in principle and it has to be amended and we know what amendments are required to address what we believe is racial discrimination.' It did not say that. Of course, the opposition do not want to say that and we know why they do not want to say that; it is because, at the end of the day, they do not want a policy on this issue. They want to be able to oppose what is there but offer no solution, no future directions.Well, you will not be able to get away with that. The people of Australia will know. The plaintive cries, `But Laurie, but Laurie,' will not carry the day. This goes to the issue that was raised here. At the end of the day, does informed consent mean a veto—that is, that you can do nothing if one group is not prepared to negotiate? We are prepared to sit down and negotiate; we are prepared to sit down and talk; we are prepared to negotiate reasonable solutions. They can be achieved as they have been in this legislation. It is a model. But if it cannot be resolved then the legislation ultimately needs to provide a basis for resolution, and that is what is required in the native title legislation. I thank honourable members for their cooperation in relation to this legislation. I thank the opposition for their support, even though they could not resist the occasional barb, and I commend the bill to the House.Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Ordered that the bill be reported to the House without amendment.Committees187821878218782Debate resumed from 5 June, on motion by Mr Wakelin:That the House take note of the paper.10:41:0018782Hall, Jill, MPMs HALL83NShortlandALP00—This report by the Standing Committee on Family and Community Affairs is, I believe, a landmark report. All members of the committee were committed to presenting a strong report that recognised the problems experienced by indigenous Australians and which, hopefully, would put in place some strategies, some strong recommendations, that would help to resolve the problems and lead to a better future for indigenous people in our country. The chair of the committee was very even-handed and committed to the way in which this report was written, and worked hard to see that we got a consensus report, as did all members of the committee. This was my first experience of working on a committee in this place, and I was really impressed by the dedication, not only of members of the committee but of the secretariat that supported the committee. I mention in particular Jim Kennedy, who was very instrumental in writing the report and who has been with the committee through two parliaments. Jim was seconded from OATSIS. I mention also Bjarne Nordin, who left the committee just before the report was completed.When we think of the health of indigenous Australians, we cannot separate it from the social issues that impact upon indigenous Australians. Only 2.6 per cent of indigenous Australians, around 10,000 people, are older than 65 years. It is really sad to think that, before the age of 65, 97.4 per cent of the indigenous population will die. I believe that is an indictment on our society. Other indicators that show the level of disadvantage of indigenous people in Australia include the fact that the population—and this links with the fact that very few people are over the age of 65—is much younger and is growing at a much faster rate. Twenty-three per cent of all indigenous Australians are unemployed. If it were not for the CDEP, that figure would be 34 per cent. More than half of those aged between 20 and 24 are unemployed and 60 per cent of indigenous Australians earn less than $12,000 a year.These are all really important health indicators because we are finding, more and more, that there are a number of social determinants that establish the health of people. The figures that I have read out show how disadvantaged indigenous Australians are. It is going to be imperative for these issues to be addressed if the health of indigenous Australians is to improve.We need to look at the issues of housing and nutrition. In 1996-97 it was estimated that there were 12,000 homeless indigenous people. Seven per cent lived in dwellings with more than 10 people living in them. During the committee inquiry, we visited a number of areas and to say that the housing was second rate is really underestimating the situation. It is unacceptable that we live in a country where people are still living underneath and between sheets of corrugated iron. In those dwellings there is not one family but two or three. I do not see how, as a society, we can allow that to continue.There are some very good recommendations in the report in relation to housing. I urge the government to embrace this report and to accept the recommendations, because some of those recommendations could really change the direction in which we are going. Poor nutrition leads to the diseases that are so common in the indigenous population—diseases of the circulatory system, respiratory diseases, diabetes and cancers. Once again, poor nutrition is a symptom of poverty, a symptom of a society where people are living either in remote communities where they cannot access good quality food or in metropolitan and urban areas where they are forced to buy poor quality food because they can afford nothing else.It is important to state here that the majority of indigenous Australians live in cities. We think about indigenous people living in remote areas in the Northern Territory, but 28.5 per cent of all indigenous Australians live in New South Wales. The largest proportion of indigenous Australians live in Sydney, followed by Brisbane and the northern part of New South Wales. The one thing that is constant is that they all have the same level of health: they all die earlier than white Australians and they all suffer from the same diseases. Until we recognise the fact that it is not just an issue in remote and rural Australia, we will not be able to come to terms with the fact that it is an issue that impacts on all indigenous Australians.The first thing we, as a nation, must do is help indigenous Australians heal. We must make a commitment to reconciliation. We must recognise the culture of indigenous Australians. Indigenous Australians are a people who have had their culture ripped from them. They are Australians whose culture has been undermined. They are Australians whose culture has been torn apart. The importance of land in that culture needs to be recognised. It needs to be recognised that to be a whole person, to be able to be a healthy person, you must have a healthy base to build on: you must know who you are, what you are and where you are going. Once you establish those facts then, as a group of people and as a person, you can move forward. As a nation, we need to recognise that. In the little time I have remaining, I would like to talk about the very important recommendations of the report. We need to make a greater commitment to the framework agreements and to community control, because it is through community control that indigenous Australians will be able to say in which direction they want their community and their health programs to go. A lot of duplication currently takes place. A lot of areas are not properly funded. We need to make sure that funding given to communities has some security attached to it so that a community knows that they can plan for the future and that, if they commit to a program, to a direction, that program will receive long-term funding.Another important recommendation is for Aboriginal people to have a voice in cabinet through the minister, and that needs to happen as a matter of priority. The issues of employment and education also need to be addressed—and addressed urgently. Education, employment and the creation of opportunity will ensure that indigenous people will have the economic ability to enjoy good health. The gap between people who have and have not is growing in Australia and, as the most disadvantaged people in our community, indigenous Australians are in the worst position. I implore the government to pick up the recommendations of the committee. I thank those who were involved in this report for their dedication.10:51:0018784Quick, Harry, MPMr QUICKAV5FranklinALP00—Like the previous speaker, I am delighted to be able to speak in taking note of the report entitled Health is life: report on the inquiry into indigenous health. In my mind, the report is a visionary blueprint for dealing with probably one of the most complex issues that faces Australia today—the appalling track record of governments, both state and federal, in dealing with the complex issue of indigenous health. As the honourable member before me said, this has been a real labour of love for committee members. The report has taken 2½ years across two parliaments, and most members of the committee have almost dedicated their lives to ensuring that this report—170 pages in total, with 126 pages of text and 44 pages of appendices—sees the light of day.Madam Deputy Speaker, you know that I rarely speak ill of those opposite, but I want to place on the record a concern I have that government members in this place are not—to my mind, anyway—really giving of their best when it comes to committee work. I am involved in a couple of committees—one on family and community affairs and the other on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander affairs. It worries me that for members opposite the electorate takes precedence over committee work. In the three terms during which I have had the privilege of serving my electorate, I have come to the realisation that, despite what members think, constituents appreciate the fact that, when members are away from this place, they spend some time dealing with complex issues which transcend individual electorates. In the presentation of this report, we are coming up with initiatives that will benefit people in not only my electorate but also the other 147 electorates in this country. Having said that, I would like to quote from Professor Ian Ring's submission to the committee during the taking of evidence. He said:A way needs to be found of harnessing a national effort for a very complex range of issues in a very complex system of government. In the circumstances only the Commonwealth can provide the necessary leadership and coordination. The first recommendation we made in this visionary blueprint was recommendation 1, which reads:The Commonwealth accept that it has the major responsibility for the provision of primary health care to Indigenous Australians:the Commonwealth must assume responsibility for developing, in collaboration with the States and Territories, an efficient, coordinated and effective mechanism for the delivery of services and programs which impact on the health and well-being of the Indigenous population.Without a Commonwealth responsibility, we will have exactly the same thing happening as we have seen since the very first report, almost 23 years ago, by this House. We will see, as the previous speaker, the member for Shortland, spoke about when she highlighted the appalling statistical evidence, that our indigenous brothers and sisters are being short-changed beyond belief. It is interesting to note that in our report we highlight just what has happened in other countries—for example, New Zealand, Canada and the United States—in their endeavours to deal with this very complex issue. The word `holistic' is mentioned countless times throughout this report, and that is done for a very good reason. Indigenous people have a concept of health that is not like that of Anglo-Saxon non-indigenous Australians. On page 67 of our report there is a quote from the National Health Aboriginal Strategy Working Party which encapsulates this holistic approach:Health is not just the physical well-being of the individual but the social, emotional and cultural well-being of the whole community.And there is a quote from Tracker Tilmouth on page 35 of the report which says:We also have a belief that health is achievable only when the people who suffer the greatest disadvantage have ownership and control of the process and the programs that are directly related to it.As I have said, this is a complex issue, but one that I believe is resolvable both in the short and long term. It is complex because of our federated state. We are endeavouring to impose a medical model on a race of people whose boundaries transcend state boundaries and whose cultural beliefs are not the same as ours. It is also a complex issue because we have a vast number of players involved in delivering services. We have got the Commonwealth government, the state and territory governments and local government; we have got the various arms of the medical profession—GPs, specialists, nurses, Aboriginal health workers; and we have got the hundreds and hundreds of indigenous communities themselves.It is further complicated because we have three different groups that we are trying to concentrate on. There are those in the very remote areas of Australia whose needs and wants and aspirations, while basically those of all indigenous people, are, to my mind, different from those of people who are closer to Western society, the people I call the fringe dwellers—those who are living on the outskirts of large cities in Western Australia, New South Wales, South Australia, Queensland and the Northern Territory. Then we have another group of people who, although part of the indigenous community, have different problems and yet have greater access to the range of services. Yet, as the previous speaker said, the health outcomes are all the same, and these are for the urban dwelling indigenous people of Australia.Those of us who have been on this committee for the last 2½ years have seen, as I have often said, the good, the bad and the ugly of indigenous communities and the problems they face. As I said earlier, it is a solvable problem; it is a long-term solvable problem. It is probably going to take 20 years. I honestly believe this wonderful document, Health is life: report on the inquiry into indigenous health is a blueprint. I would like to think the minister himself is busily pouring over it during the six-week break while we are away. According to my reckoning, he has got three months to come up with a government response to our 35 recommendations. The good thing about our report is that it is a bipartisan report. It reflects an honest belief by all members of the committee that we are, as federal legislators, responsible in the end for what is happening to our indigenous brothers and sisters. One of the complexities about the whole issue to date is that the buck does not seem to stop anywhere. The Commonwealth, state and local governments and the medical profession have had the opportunity to shift responsibility and the consequent funding requirements needed to ensure that the indigenous people have been getting the best of medical services.In this fine report, we deal with a whole range of issues: housing and infrastructure services, training of medical workers, the Commonwealth's responsibility, framework agreements, nutrition, education, health professionals. It is a very fine report. I hope the minister, when he comes up with his response, acknowledges that this whole issue of indigenous health can be solved. It is not one of the impossible tasks. It is one that all governments need to acknowledge as one of the great shames of our current Australian society. We are entering the Centenary of Federation, 100 years of federal government. As members of this House and as the general community read some of the horrifying statistics that are enclosed in this document, we must all accept some of the shame and responsibility for what has happened. In a spirit of bipartisanship, the medical profession, local, state and Commonwealth governments need to take on board our 35 recommendations. They must not duckshove responsibility. They need to accept it in the terms of our recommendations. When we leave this place and look back, we will be able to honestly say—as I know all members of this committee have said in private and, in some cases, publicly—that this was one of the finest reports not only from the Standing Committee on Family and Community Affairs but from this whole parliament.Finally, I commend the report. I compliment Jim Kennedy who was seconded from OATSIS to be the guiding spirit to the committee members. I congratulate all the people across Australia who gave up their time, energy and effort to make submissions. I pay a tribute to the workers who probably will never read my comments and the comments of the rest of us here. I would like to think there is a warm and fuzzy feeling in their stomachs today. These dedicated people in some of the most rural and remote areas of Australia are doing service that would shame and embarrass most of us. With those few words, I am very proud to take note of this report. 11:04:0018786Jenkins, Harry, MPMr JENKINSHH4ScullinALP00— It is a pleasure to have the opportunity to speak to the motion to take note of this report of the Standing Committee on Family and Community Affairs entitled Health is life: report on the inquiry into indigenous health. I place on record some thanks that were unable to be stated when the report was tabled. I place on record my appreciation of the work done by the secretariat of the committee. In particular, all committee members would like to place on record our thanks to Jim Kennedy who, as an officer of OATSIS, was seconded to the inquiry. He gave generously of his knowledge and experience. We also appreciated his comradeship along the way.Another person from the secretariat I would like particularly to thank is the previous secretary, Bjarne Nordin, who has left the services of the Department of the House of Representatives. He was the original secretary when the committee was first put in place when we reorganised the House of Representatives committee system. Bjarne was involved in a previous inquiry into this matter by a House of Representatives committee some 20-odd years ago. So, for Bjarne as an individual, it was a revisiting of an issue. I know that he, like the committee, was driven by a desire to try to get things right, to put in place a set of recommendations that would mean that we would not have to return to inquire as to what has happened. We also acknowledge the efforts of the other people in the secretariat who provided administrative support, because it was a long inquiry. We thank the present secretary of the committee, Trevor Rowe, for his patience as we tried to finalise the report. At the time of the tabling of the report in the House, I briefly thanked all those who assisted the inquiry. There are so many people that it is very difficult to mention individuals. They gave generously of their experience. For some, it was very difficult to share what this issue meant to them, because it was something that was very spiritual. Much of what they were sharing with us came from within. I want to take this opportunity to highlight the assistance that we received from two people in particular. One of those is Puggy Hunter, the chair of NACCHO, the National Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisation. He shared a lot of his experiences with us. I think that was very important in assisting committee members to have an understanding of the issues involved in the inquiry. The other person whose help I want particularly to highlight—and this is more because of how she assisted me in a personal sense to understand the issue—is Dr Ngaire Brown, the indigenous health adviser to the AMA. I think indigenous Australians should be very proud of what Dr Brown has achieved. She would not perhaps look upon her efforts in that way because she is a very modest person. She goes about her work with great professionalism and does not look for any special credit. On this occasion it is appropriate that we highlight her particular assistance to the inquiry. As I said, I have named only two people, but there are so many people who could be named who gave so much assistance to the inquiry.The basis of the health status of indigenous Australians is highlighted by the report and has been highlighted in contributions today. I do not want to go over that. I simply say that, however the comparison is made with respect to the health status of indigenous Australians, whether it be between those that live in an urban situation and those that live in a remote situation, the health status of indigenous Australians is appallingly worse. That is what drives our desire that, out of this inquiry, we see some positive action.The other matter that I want to highlight briefly is that the report not only talks about improving relationships between the different spheres of government but also emphasises the importance of involving the communities themselves in determining what is really required in indigenous health. In order to make sure that that happens, we must build the capacity of the communities to help themselves. I want to share with the Main Committee a quote by somebody who is involved with a community that has had some great success and which is now used as a great model. That person said to the inquiry:I believe we, the Tiwi people, have taken 20 years, and our capacity building has been mainly through the developments of people that have an interest in our island. We have had a lot of learning experiences and most of them were through mistakes. I think you would agree that each mistake that we make has made the Tiwi people stronger in regard to controlling our land.That was said by Marius Puruntatameri, who is a member of the Tiwi Health Board. That statement he made to the inquiry is very important, because often there is a lot of criticism because people can quite easily see things that go wrong. But what Marius was definitely indicating was that indigenous people, given the opportunities, can achieve. They understand when they have done something wrong or it does not work. They do not need to be patronised and told that these things have happened. They are continually learning. If we look at the environmental health program Tiwi For Life, if we look at the Tiwi Island's involvement in case management, the point is that they are achieving, and they provide a very good example of what can be achieved by a community when it is given the opportunity. Another program that I particularly want to highlight is one that emphasises that there are aspects of primary health care and of the environment in which indigenous people live, and that there are mechanisms that can assist in improving that environment. I refer to the scheme that is conducted by the Ngnampa Health Council on the AP lands in South Australia. Mr Deputy Speaker, you will have to excuse my appalling pronunciation of this health review: the Uwankara Palyanku Kanyintjaku, which thankfully is known as the UPK, which is much easier to remember. The UPK was about an assessment of the conditions within the community. It decided that there were certain essentials that the community required. When I read out the list, you will think, `This is very simple.' But the point is that it has been put down; it has steps that give the community a chance to monitor the process; it sets the path for what they have to do.They look at improving the health status through the washing of people, clothes and bedding, removing waste, improving nutrition, reducing crowding, separating dogs and children, controlling dust, temperature control, and reducing trauma. But, for each of those, the community has been trained to monitor itself and, where possible, to take remedial action with the assistance of professionals. A lot of what has been done by Ngampa Health is in that model. They have professional health workers who are trying to assist the community to achieve things. For instance, they are adapting a form of care for their elderly that is appropriate to their community. They are examples of the ways in which we can see the way forward in indigenous health.Another thing I want to highlight from the inquiry is that we place emphasis on the importance of Aboriginal health workers. Aboriginal health workers have to be recognised because they are doing valuable work; they need to be recognised by being given status. That is one of the things that is always of concern. There are cultural considerations because sometimes the most appropriate person to become the health worker does not have sufficient status within the community. But that is for the community to work out. The Aboriginal health workers have to be assisted with their training. It has to be recognised by the other health professionals that they have a very proper role, that they have an important role. I hope that the highlighting of their role within the report will lead to that greater recognition.Finally, I wish to highlight particularly one other recommendation from the report that relates to the setting up of the Independent National Council for Indigenous Health Affairs. It is something that might be the circuit breaker in not requiring us to come back for further inquiries. I unashamedly say that this could be an important vehicle for informing the public about indigenous health status and for making sure that governments and the public at large have their eyes on this as an important policy matter. It should be a lobby; it should be an advocate for indigenous health. It is not a body designed to take away the responsibility for direct action from communities themselves. I believe it will ensure that, importantly, non-indigenous Australians do not forget that we have a requirement to make an effort to improve Aboriginal health.As the honourable member for Franklin has acknowledged, this is a long-term thing but we have to see progress. We cannot see this, as measured by whatever indicators we use, as being a static thing—that as the health of the general populace goes up, the health status of indigenous people still lags behind. We want those two lines to come closer. As others have said, this is an important report. I hope honourable members outside the committee will use it as something that assists them in an understanding of the position of indigenous health.I conclude by saying that—and it is not a political statement—it was clear from the inquiry that one of the things that underpinned the need to advance indigenous health is to do with the relationships within the Australian community between indigenous and non-indigenous peoples. I wish to highlight recommendation 2 which says: Australian governments continue in their earnest attempts to conclude a meaningful reconciliation with indigenous Australians.11:17:0018789Nelson, Dr Brendan, MPDr NELSONRW5BradfieldLP10—It is hard to know where to begin. Here we are in the Main Committee, with half a dozen members of the parliament, discussing what I consider to be the single most important health issue facing the nation. I would firstly like to acknowledge and thank all the members of the committee. Whatever political party and whatever electorate they came from, everybody worked in a spirit of goodwill on this. I would also like to thank the secretariat and the Australian taxpayers, who financed our investigation. They, of course, deserve more thanks than anybody else.In one of my trips to the Northern Territory in 1994, I went to Yuendumu, a community about 300 kilometres north-west of Alice Springs. I met a fourth-year Dutch medical student who was doing an elective. I asked her, as you might, `Why did you choose to come to Australia to do your elective?' and she said, `I wanted to see medicine practised in a Third World environment.' It seemed an indictment on us that a young person living in a European country would travel to Australia to see what she thought of and described as Third World living conditions. Throughout the course of this inquiry, and certainly in my other experiences with indigenous Australians, you cannot help but feel that may be true. I did some work with World Vision in Tanzania, Kenya and Zimbabwe in 1995 and, even in the slums of Nairobi, those people, with the exception of those with AIDS, do far better than indigenous Australians, despite all the resources that successive governments have given to them.I turn to another more recent experience at the other end of the spectrum. I had the privilege of being able to assist Minister Peter Reith, the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, on the indigenous employment strategy. We sat in a hotel room in Melbourne with about 50 CEOs of the top companies in Australia, each of whom, to their credit, had committed themselves to supporting indigenous employment initiatives. We went around the table and each described how their company could assist in the employment of Aboriginal people. The CEO of Anglican retirement villages and nursing homes said as an aside, quite legitimately, `At some point, all of you in this room might need the services that we provide.' So when it came to my turn, I made the observation that the reason we were there to encourage indigenous employment was because most Aboriginal people will not live long enough to need the services that they provide.The circumstances which underwrite this report, and the people whose lives we shared and touched as we went to these communities, who so freely and willingly told us in constructive terms what we ought to do, can be summarised by the fact that, in our country, indigenous Australians have a life expectancy which is 15 to 20 years less than will be enjoyed by my children. To put that into perspective, that equates to countries like Haiti, Ghana, India and Papua New Guinea. Our nation is unique amongst developed countries in that we have not made any inroads at all into reducing the difference in life expectancy between Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and non-indigenous Australians. For that, I think all of us stand condemned, despite the significant efforts undertaken by governments of all political persuasions.An Aboriginal baby that is born today still has only a one in three chance of living to the age of 65 and, despite significant advances in the last quarter of a century, is three times more likely to die in the first year of life. An Aboriginal man who is my age—I am 41; my kids think I am half dead—is 10 times more likely to die than I am. Half of those premature deaths can be attributed directly or indirectly to the consequences of alcohol abuse. One in three Aboriginal people will suffer from diabetes. If Aboriginal Australians in the Top End of Australia had access to the same health care that any of us expect, one in five would be under the care of a renal physician. That is just one small snapshot of what underwrites this report. There are some recommendations in particular which deserve support. I strongly support the member for Scullin who spoke before me with respect to the proposal for an independent national council for indigenous health affairs. What we are trying to do is to embrace the Prime Minister's vision of practical reconciliation. The real issue in reconciliation is: why is it that a baby that is born in an Aboriginal community today has, as I said, only a one in three chance of living to the age of 65? That is the real issue. This takes the model for the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation, which has made substantial gains over the last decade, and applies that to Aboriginal health. So you bring people who have respect and expertise from a whole range of disciplines in Australian society—from business, societal health, administration, Aboriginal people—and you give them the resources and the political support to be advocates for seeing that proper programs are supported by governments of all persuasions to advance improvement in Aboriginal health.Recommendation 6 is that the minister with responsibility for Aboriginal affairs go into cabinet. Just imagine for a moment, Mr Deputy Speaker, that all Australians, wherever we live, all basically had the same expectancy of life and the same health outcomes. Just imagine for a minute that, within six months, we arrived at the position we now have for Aboriginal people. We would declare a state of emergency. The Commonwealth would be taking over state responsibilities, we would have all sorts of people out there trying to advance an improvement in this. Instead of that, we languish, despite the good things that have been done by the present government and the previous one, and we are still not making the progress that we ought to. So one of the recommendations is to put into cabinet the minister who is responsible for Aboriginal affairs, including the health of Aboriginal people; as well as to provide an annual report to the parliament and to give the emphasis to this area that it deserves and that I think most Australians want.One of the other pivotal recommendations in this report is recommendation 25. I am at times accused by some of my colleagues of being an idealist. I take that as a compliment. I think once you lose your idealism you are irrelevant. I am accused at times of wearing my heart on my sleeve. Again, I tell my kids that they ought to behave that way. I am convinced that the thing that is killing Aboriginal people is welfare. It is the way that we deliver resources to Aboriginal people which is destroying them. I remember going to Maningrida. It would have been in 1993, I suppose. I was getting on the plane to leave when I turned to the chairman of the Aboriginal council and said—they were just getting things together to deal with alcohol, petrol sniffing and all sorts of problems which I will not repeat—`Was it always like this?' Upon reflection he said, `No, it wasn't. We used to have a market garden here. We used to build our own dwellings. They were fairly modest. Most of the problems we have here now were not here.' I asked, `What happened?' He said, `When Mr Whitlam got in he started sending money.' That is a very good example of very good intentions on the part of the Whitlam government—and on the part of other governments, including ours—to send resources to people living in completely different circumstances from that which we enjoy.If you fly across Central Australia at night, you see a whole lot of blinking lights down on the ground. I remember the first time I saw them I said to the person who was with me, `What is that down there?' We were in the middle of nowhere and there were all these flashing lights on the ground. I then realised that they were televisions. People who are living in a community that does not have water that meets basic World Health Organisation standards of acceptability are watching television—with the same advertising and materialistic imagery that my kids are receiving on the upper North Shore of Sydney. And then once a fortnight, with good intentions, we send in resources for those people by way of individual income support payments Recommendation 25 picks up on the things that Noel Pearson, to his credit, has been talking about—that is that, if we really want to turn around Aboriginal health, apart from the very good recommendations in this report, we need to change the way in which resources are delivered and managed by Aboriginal people in their own communities; that if an Aboriginal community is prepared to volunteer to do so and if there is $25,000 a fortnight, for example, going into a community in the form of income support payments, then the community agrees that it manages most, if not all, of those resources on behalf of the people in that community. It is a bit like a development program where the community then sets its own objectives for one-, three- and five-year development for educational outcomes, immunisation rates, the design and building of housing, and reticulated water and sewerage programs. The contract that the Commonwealth enters into with those communities is to actually deliver more resources to them. It is not about cutting back money; it is about delivering more money but ensuring that the people themselves have control of it. The assistance we provide is by way of engineers or architects who help them to design their own dwellings.If you go to Aboriginal communities, you will find that the ones that are really looked after are those where the Aboriginal people themselves have built and painted their own dwellings and organised their own health service. They are the models we need to start to embrace. We ought to have the courage as a society to say that a young Aboriginal woman who lives in Arnhem Land who, at the age of 15, has two children and drinks a third to half a cask of wine a day and plays cards might as well be living in a different world, let alone in a different country from the one that we live in. I say that as a person who has the greatest commitment—in fact, if you go back to my maiden speech you will see it—to do something about this issue. That was one of the reasons I came into parliament and, if it is the last thing I do, I will do it. We have to have the courage to step outside the square. You do not impose these models on any community: if no Aboriginal community in Australia wants to do it, it does not happen. But if there are five who do, we ought to be prepared to do it and let it happen.The other thing that I would like to support is the concept of reconciliation, in recommendation 2. Pauline Hanson was a lightning rod for the grief and anger that many of us feel about changes in our country we neither understand nor, in some cases, want. But, under Mrs Hanson's concern—to put it politely—about resources given to Aboriginal people, there is a critical question that remains to be answered: why, despite impropriety, greed and nepotism in the management of Aboriginal resources in many parts of Australia, have contemporary governments decided that the circumstances of these people are so great that we have established and maintained specific programs for them? It goes back to where I started, in terms of a snapshot of the health of these people.If we are going to improve and lift the health, living conditions and, frequently, existential despair of indigenous Australians, we have to understand our past. We have to understand what happened, why it happened and the impact that they had on us as much as we had on them. That is what reconciliation is about. It is not about assigning blame, it is not about contemporary generations feeling a sense of guilt. It is that we have a shared history, whether we like it or not. It is interesting that Thomas Jefferson said that the relationship between non-indigenous North Americans and the American Indians would need to be built on respect and fear, because he knew that North America would be built on the sacrifices of the indigenous North Americans.It seems today that much of our relationship with indigenous people is built on fear, but much less respect. We can deliver all of the resources we like into Aboriginal Australia—as we should—but unless people feel good about themselves, about the way they relate to one another and the way they relate to us, if not the rest of the world, then it is an exercise in futility. Very subtle but powerful forces influence the way any of us feel about ourselves. We could have hot and cold running teaching hospitals—as my colleague from Parramatta has suggested some people might want in country areas—and all of that, but if any of us have poor self-esteem, if people do not feel a sense of goodwill towards themselves, how can we expect their lives to improve in any meaningful sense? I commend the report to the Main Committee. I despair that our priority is such that we are stuck in this little room talking about this, albeit with goodwill from both sides of the parliament. One day, perhaps, our priorities as a nation will change, and perhaps some of the Aboriginal leadership will start to focus a little bit of its attention away from things like treaties to some of the recommendations in this report, because these are just as important as the things that they are arguing for—and perhaps more important.Debate (on motion by Mr Neville) adjourned.Adjournment18792Motion (by Mr Neville) proposed:That the Main Committee do now adjourn.1879211:33:0018792Jenkins, Harry, MPMr JENKINSHH4ScullinALP00—Anyone who is from Victoria knows the huge impact that electronic gaming machines have had on our state. In the nine short years since 1991, Victoria has gone from the state that spent the least on gambling to the one that spends the most.The effect of these machines is not the same across the board, unfortunately. They disproportionately hit people from lower socioeconomic backgrounds. For example, the City of Whittlesea, which is in my electorate, has three times the Victorian state average of gaming machines. The residents of Whittlesea, a city with a population of approximately 100,000, put the staggering amount of $64 million through these machines last year. It is estimated that the losses of problem gamblers account for 20 to 30 per cent of total losses. Problem gambling affects the individual, their family, their job and their home. But it affects the local community too, in lost economic opportunity to traders and in dealing with the effects of problem gambling through support services.Last year, as part of his campaign to give himself a human face—perhaps as part of the long haul to his ultimate leadership bid—the Treasurer decided to focus on the evils of gambling and the distress and misery it was causing local communities. However, despite this concern and rhetoric, nothing was really ever done about problem gaming, and I suspect that nothing really will or perhaps can be done by the Commonwealth. In that void though it is pleasing to see that some local governments have taken up the issue and are displaying great leadership after seeing the economic and social devastation that problem gaming is causing.The City of Whittlesea in my electorate has worked with local welfare and community support organisations and local gaming venues to produce a local charter for responsible gaming. The local charter is a voluntary agreement between these parties and sets out a range of initiatives that will promote responsible gaming and limit the occurrence and negative impact of problem gambling. The main objectives of the charter are to ensure that gaming venues provide their services in a responsible manner in safe, pleasant and healthy environments. It provides the opportunity for continuing dialogue through the responsible gaming forum, a forum comprising gaming venues and local welfare organisations, about how gaming is impacting on the local community. The signatory gaming venues commit to regular participation in the forum and to responding to issues raised by the local community members about gaming. The charter contains a number of practical measures for gaming venues to comply with, such as a policy of encouraging large payouts by cheque and offering a broader range of leisure activities at the venues other than just gaming. Appropriate signage encouraging people to take a break from gambling is to be displayed on or near the electronic gaming machines. Where complimentary refreshments are offered, as is common at a lot of gaming venues, it is required that the signatory venues provide it in an area away from the machines to encourage breaks. The charter also concentrates on informing gaming venue staff about the issues surrounding problem gambling and requires senior staff to attend information sessions with local problem gambling support services so that they can make referrals to these support services when required. The venues are required to support self-exclusion agreements where people who believe that they have a gaming problem can voluntarily request that they not be admitted to venues. This can be to a specific venue or to all the venues in the City of Whittlesea. The local charter is a local community response to the devastation caused locally by problem gambling. I commend all the parties involved in its formulation and I hope that it will be a success in dealing with some of the problems that I have outlined. I feel that this charter can be a model for other local communities and I would encourage them to examine it and to formulate something appropriate to their community to deal with this complex and perplexing issue.1879311:38:0018793Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLEKV5HinklerNP10—In a fortnight significant for its tragic events—the sad departure of our colleague, Greg Wilton, the death of our greatest poet, Judith Wright, and the unspeakable events surrounding the Childers backpacker fire—another equally profound event has touched the people of the Gladstone district in my electorate of Hinkler, and that was the untimely death of Reginald Gabriel Tanna—Reg Tanna, as he was known to his friends—CEO of the Gladstone Port Authority.It is hard to describe the shock and dismay that this caused to those who loved and admired him so widely in the Gladstone community, to say nothing of his loving family. I had the privilege of knowing Reg Tanna, first at school at the Christian Brothers in Warwick where he was some years ahead of me, and then the privilege was renewed some years later as Gladstone's local member. He was the son of Malek and Mary Tanna and brother to seven children, five of whom survive him. They were a hardworking family in the very best traditions of the Lebanese and Australian ethic, establishing their Warwick fruit and vegetable business in the days of the Depression. Reg excelled at primary school and the brothers recommended that he be sent to Nudgee College in Brisbane, where he emerged as dux in 1951. Other academic successes followed and he graduated with honours in civil engineering at Queensland University in 1955. Reg never forgot the sacrifice his family made and nothing gave him greater pleasure than to renew family contacts, as I readily remember when the Gladstone coal facility was named the R.G. Tanna Coal Terminal in his honour in 1994. I remember the thrill of some of his family being there on that day.Reg was CEO of the Gladstone Harbour Board and Port Authority for 34 years. It would not be an exaggeration to say that he grew up with the port authority and it developed under his able and highly focused vision. The wider development of Gladstone, now the powerhouse of central Queensland industry, was dependent on an efficient port and the ever changing and increasing demands made it necessary that this port moved with the times. Reg Tanna was equal to that challenge, and it is now Australia's fastest growing port. Few sections of Gladstone life escaped his caring attention: Lions, Blue Nurses, Hibiscus Gardens Hostel, the Red Shield Appeal, TAFE and the Central Queensland University Advisory Committee. As well, he was a devotee of the local tennis association. He was honoured in the honours list of 1991 with the Public Service Medal.We have reflected in the last fortnight on the unfulfilled dreams of many, especially of our colleague Greg and of those young people at Childers. In Reg's case, it was no less so. He was actually within weeks of his retirement—the retirement that he and his wife, Norma, so eagerly anticipated. But, then again, he had a deep faith and would have seen his Maker's higher purpose. Reg never missed his Sunday Mass, regardless of where he was anywhere in the world.My own memory of Reg Tanna was of a gentle, humble and caring person whose sense of fellowship was all embracing, regardless of your station in life. I can well remember him leading the songs and the Christmas carols at the port authority's annual Christmas party—hardly the role you would think for the CEO, but nevertheless the one he always took on. My thoughts go out to his family: to his wife, Norma, his children, Catherine, Michael and Tony, and to his extended family in Warwick, especially his brothers, with whom I grew up.1879411:42:0018794Crosio, Janice, MPMrs CROSIO7T4ProspectALP00—On Sunday, 25 June, we had in my community the blessing and opening of the new and refurbished school buildings for the Patrician Brothers College, Fairfield. The first school began in Fairfield in 1953 with 170 pupils in years 4, 5 and 6. From six classrooms in 1953 the school has grown to 50 classrooms with over 1,400 students ranging from years 5 to 12. This college has always operated as a regional school with designated feeder parish schools.The college has, through its teachers and students, built an excellent relationship with the local community as well as excelling in the academic and sporting fields. It has strong links with the local business community and offers one of the broadest vocational education programs in the state of New South Wales. I congratulate Brother Bernard Bulfin and his team of dedicated teachers. It has not been easy over the last six years, with the rebuilding of the college, to have a construction site and school functioning in one and the same area.I, along with many invited guests, attended last Sunday's opening. Parents, students, both past and present, as well as many community people, applauded when Bishop Geoffrey Robinson blessed the buildings. Senator Helen Coonan represented the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, Dr Kemp. It would have been appreciated if her briefing had at least acknowledged that the building work had commenced prior to this government taking office.The new buildings have provided a unique environment and I know the college will continue to go from strength to strength. The project has been developed and completed through the work of the Fairfield Cluster of Catholic Schools Management Committee, led by Father Raymond Gatt, a truly remarkable man. They have worked very dedicatedly over these last six years. There was on the day a presentation to 11 people who have given more than 365 years to education and service. I believe their names should be placed on the record of this parliament. They are: Ron Borg, 27 years; Wayne Burns, 26 years; Kevin Bourke, 46 years; John Cusack, 28 years; Laurie Cassar, 34 years; Vince Lourey, 36 years; Roberta Goehner, 30 years; Pat Smith, 28 years; Robert Turnbridge, 25 years; Brother Richard Doheny, 40 years; and Brother Bernard Bulfin, 45 years. That is a truly remarkable achievement, not only in education but also in service. In the time I have I would like to commend this school. In 2003 we will see 50 years of continuous education that has been provided from what was a dream many years ago. We had never seen a college of such wonderful dedication achieve it. I would like to put on the record the first five lines of the statement the staff of Patrician Brothers College made together in 1995. It said:Patrician Brothers College, Fairfield is a Catholic school community of staff, students and parents working together through supportive structures and a relevant curriculum to provide a sound education, aiming for excellence and catering for the needs of the whole person.The College provides a safe environment whereby our culturally diverse community is nurtured, the individual presence of each person is valued and the sense of belonging and hope is fostered.There are another four paragraphs just as equally binding I could go on with, but I do not have the time to do that. I just want to commend that also to the House. As far as Fairfield Patrician Brothers go, we in our community particularly are very proud of them. I think it could not be said any better than in the words of the last verse of their school song that the boys were so proudly singing on Sunday. The verse goes:Blue and blue the colours of FairfieldBlue and blue, we delight in our past;St Patrick is the strength of our CollegeForever this spirit and our hearts will hold fast.Congratulations for what they have achieved. I congratulate all of those wonderful people whose names are too numerous to mention for their work, finance gathering and coming together to give voluntarily of their time to raise the money when they did not meet the budget. I would like to mention the Commonwealth government's just under $5 million, and the $12 million it took to complete the complex from the Catholic education funding.More importantly, I would like to congratulate the community spirit within that area over these last six years of rebuilding. It is really something to witness and enjoy. I understand there are certain building and design architects going around now looking at how complexes can come together through design and showing a precedent on how this has come about. All of these buildings have now formed a wonderful pattern with an internal courtyard where the school, as a whole, can gather and attend assemblies or important events like the one last Sunday. I am certainly very proud to have represented this school over all of my political career. More importantly, I am very proud to have a school of such calibre nurturing the students who are going to be our future leaders. I can only say to those teachers, `Keep up the good work. We acknowledge your work, even though at times you may feel frustrated in what you are doing. More importantly, the boys that you have taught in the past and those you will teach in the future certainly appreciate the dedication and the education that they receive at Fairfield Patrician Brothers College.'1879511:47:0018795Bishop, Julie, MPMs JULIE BISHOP83PCurtinLP10—As a clearer picture is now emerging of the outcome of the parliamentary elections held in Zimbabwe last weekend, I take what I trust is an appropriate opportunity to report on my recent participation in the Commonwealth observer group. The Commonwealth had made public earlier last month its deep concerns about the situation in Zimbabwe, referring to the ongoing violence, loss of life, illegal occupation of property, failure to uphold the rule of law and political intimidation in the run-up to Zimbabwe's parliamentary election. After securing an invitation from the president of Zimbabwe for Commonwealth observers to be present, the Commonwealth formed an advance team of six, comprising representatives from Malawi, Ghana, Trinidad-Tobago, New Zealand, Canada and Australia. I attended from Australia. A much larger team was formed to arrive on 9 June and to stay until next weekend. It included Senator Sandy Macdonald who is part of that group still in Zimbabwe. The mandate of the observer group was to consider the various factors impinging on the credibility of the electoral process as a whole and to determine in its own judgment whether the conditions existed for a free expression of will by the electors and if the elections reflected the will of the people. This meant that the Commonwealth team had to examine not only how the elections were conducted on the polling and counting days last weekend but also the pre-election period and the climate in which the election was staged. The advance team was able to observe the pre-electoral processes, including stages of the campaigns of candidates from the ruling Zanu PF party and the main opposition party, the MDC, as well as the independent candidates. I was deployed with Mr Shyley Kondowe, the director of the Malawi Institute of Democratic and Economic Affairs. We travelled to Manicaland, which is to the east of Harare around the town of Mutare near the Mozambique border. Then we moved onto the province around the town of Masvingo to the south of Harare. We met with a wide range of Zimbabweans, from electoral and party officials to representatives from civil society to farmers and farm workers. We met with war veterans; we attended rallies; we met with people from all walks of life. We were not hindered in our tasks in any way. I felt that all Zimbabweans we encountered welcomed the presence of the Commonwealth observers.On occasions I felt that our presence had a positive, calming influence on the rather tense environment. I recall one day when my Malawian colleague and I sat in on a meeting of several hundred war veterans and supporters who had invaded farms in the Honde Valley and surrounds and a group of commercial farmers. Much of the meeting was conducted in the Shona language, but the atmosphere was highly charged and the exchanges between the two groups were rather agitated. At one point in the meeting, the war veteran leader, a man adorned in bike chains, suddenly broke into English and announced that there were two Commonwealth observers at the back of the hall. He invited us to address the meeting. Mindful of the fact that we were there as observers and not as participants, we tried to resist the invitation but there was insistence. As I was manoeuvring my Malawian colleague to the front, he was nudging me forward. I found myself addressing a rather eclectic group on the strong relationship between Commonwealth nations, the ties between Zimbabwe and Australia and emphasising that our presence as international observers was in order to report on whether the pending election would be in the spirit of the democratic principles held dear by Commonwealth countries. I did not exactly get a standing ovation, but the tension did seem to melt away and we were all invited to morning tea by the local school teacher, the farmers and the war veterans. So it was quite an experience.Sadly, though, we did find serious shortcomings in the election preparations, particularly in relation to the integrity of the voters roll and the voter registration process that had been undertaken. The Commonwealth observer group will be publishing a report in the next few days. The chairman of that observer group, General Abubakar, issued an interim statement last night in which he indicated that the report will draw attention to the inability of a substantial number of electors to cast their ballots, inconsistencies in polling day procedures and the like.More important are the concerns as to the nature, the duration and the scale of politically motivated violence and intimidation. I certainly observed examples of this in varying degrees. As a member of the observer group and as a member of our parliament, I also deplore such intimidation and violence. One can only conclude that the incidents of violence did have an impact, as did the intimidation, which prevented open campaigning in some areas, notably by opposition parties. We should be greatly encouraged by the seemingly high voter turnout on the two polling days. The results indicate a significant shift in the development of democracy in Zimbabwe. There are demonstrable signs of hope for a brighter democratic future. 1879711:52:0018797Rudd, Kevin, MPMr RUDD83TGriffithALP00—Today in the Senate a report on the Brisbane Airport Corporation master plan has been tabled. I take the opportunity to thank Senators Woodley, Mackay, Gibbs and Quirke for their excellent efforts on that report. Unfortunately, I can be less generous about the contribution of Senator Mason from the Liberal Party. In fact, I describe the tabling statement used by Senator Mason earlier this morning in the Senate as extraordinary in its level of insensitivity to the legitimate interests of tens of thousands of residents of inner Brisbane affected by the Brisbane airport.Furthermore, on the one hand, Senator Mason's statement says that the Senate inquiry was a waste of time, a waste of the Senate's resources, politically driven and unnecessary. On the other hand, in the text of the Senate report, the bulk of which the government has signed up to, we find an extraordinary range of fundamental criticisms and attacks on the process over which the government has presided in putting together the Brisbane Airport Corporation master plan. On the one hand, the Liberal Party are saying that this Senate inquiry into the Brisbane airport is a waste of time and resources. On the other hand, they are saying in the text of the report, which they have supported, that there are major deficiencies in the consultation process, major deficiencies in terms of the non-provision of draft flight paths to the Brisbane community and major deficiencies in terms of the proper examination of runway alternatives. I do not think Senator Mason knows precisely whether he is Arthur or Martha on the Brisbane airport issue, nor does the Liberal Party.He raised three charges this morning in his extraordinary statement to the Senate. Firstly, he said that this inquiry is politically driven. If that is the case, there are 10,000 people in the suburbs of inner Brisbane who have signed petitions against the Brisbane Airport Corporation master plan. There are more than 4,000 registered objections against this master plan. There are hundreds of people who have provided written and other submissions to the actual Senate inquiry itself.That does not constitute political motivation. The bottom line is that you have a fundamental groundswell of community support for a look at the issues at stake in something which is going to fundamentally affect people's quality of life.His second charge is about the operation of section 94(5) of the Airports Act. The Senate inquiry clearly demonstrates that when it comes to the operation of the provisions of the act in that category, if an approved master plan exists and it recommends a particular runway option, there is no way in God's heaven that a subsequent major development plan can recommend a runway option which is incompatible with that advanced in the master plan for that particular airport. Yet Minister Anderson, the federal transport minister, said precisely that when he issued his February 1999 approval of the Brisbane Airport Corporation master plan. He said that runway alternatives could be examined at the major development plan stage. The Senate inquiry report and the legal advice which it obtained fundamentally disproves that proposition. The third extraordinary claim by Senator Mason this morning in his tabling statement was that it was hypocritical of local members such as myself and Mr Swan to raise concerns about the Brisbane Airport Corporation and the proposed construction of a parallel runway because the problem had not yet arisen, that in fact there is a way to go and that the construction of the proposed runway is a long way off. What I would say to Senator Mason is that the Brisbane Airport Corporation in its master plan says that it needs this new runway capacity by the year 2006. There is a three- to four-year construction timetable for a runway. That means that we are barely a year or two away from fundamental decisions being taken about the commencement of this construction. That is not a hypothetical concern. It is a real-time concern for hundreds of thousands of Brisbane residents in terms of the impact on not just their quality of life but their property values as well. The bottom line is this: we are elected to this parliament to represent the interests of our people—10,000 people who have registered their objections through a petition, 4,000 who have articulated their fundamental concerns through their signing of submissions to the Brisbane Airport Corporation itself and those in their hundreds who have written submissions to the Senate inquiry as well. These are real people in the suburbs of Brisbane who have a real and legitimate concern about their future. My job as an elected member is to argue their interests. Mr Swan's job as the member for Lilley is to argue the interests of his constituents as well. That is what we will have done in this exercise. That is what we will continue to do until we draw our last breath. We will not faintly be intimated by this extraordinary statement of arrogance by Senator Mason on behalf of the Liberal Party that these concerns should not be reflected through a properly conducted inquiry of the Senate, which has just concluded.1879811:57:0018798Somlyay, Alex, MPMr SOMLYAYZT4FairfaxLP10—Honourable members will be aware of an important inquiry undertaken in 1997 by the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade into the wartime sinking of the HMAS Sydney in November 1941. Its report on the loss of the Sydney released last March acknowledged that unanswered questions remained in relation to the mystery surrounding Australia's worst naval disaster. The committee also concluded that further research and rational debate into the loss of the Sydney should continue. It is in the spirit of that conclusion and also as a token of respect to those families and people affected by this tragic wartime loss that I speak today. In particular, I would like to place on record the considered views of my constituent Mr Ian Nicholson of Yaroomba in Queensland who has taken a special interest in this matter. Ian told me that he was interviewed for entry into the Royal Australian Navy at the time that Sydney was reported missing off the coast of Western Australia. As with many others, the loss of a gallant ship and all its 645 crew members left an indelible mark on him and ever since then for almost 60 years he has sought an explanation for the disaster. In Ian's words he believes that, `It is as important as ever that this matter is publicly recorded to at least counter the unreliable German claims and to help ease the grief and hurt that many of the Australian next-of-kin, their families and descendants suffer.' During his long and distinguished career in the Navy, Ian acquired a wealth of knowledge about the operational procedures of that wartime period, particularly in communications in which he specialised. Ian was twice appointed director of naval communications and had various sea postings, including commands of two of the RAN's guided missile destroyers, before he retired in the rank of commodore. So he is well qualified to comment on one of the findings of the inquiry that he finds most contentious, which is that the Sydney probably did not break radio silence. This is a significant point to Ian and also for others aware of wartime procedures. No signals from the Sydney indicate to Ian that she must have been convinced of the professed identity of the German warship that she was intercepting before coming to close quarters. This means that the German warship Kormoran must have deliberately enticed the Sydney to draw close by masquerading as an allied merchant ship called the StraatMalakka. To have done this, he says, the Kormoran must have known the secret call signs of the allied merchant ships. While I understand the committee did consider this point, it was later discounted because of lack of any documentary evidence, and that clearly was the proper course for it to take. Ian Nicholson feels, however, that the committee took a too-academic approach to its inquiry, with only a professor of history assisting and not one or more experienced naval advisers with knowledge of wartime organisation and procedures. In particular, he is concerned at the committee's consideration of what he considers to have been impossible communication capabilities for that period. It is a shame that the inquiry could not look further into the question of call signs because I think that, on the balance of probabilities, it could well have been what occurred. In Ian's view, only such an intelligence coup can explain why Sydney did not break radio silence to check the merchant ship's identity and why other security alert measures were not activated.Ian also reports that this explanation is supported to a large extent by the official British naval historian, Captain S.W. Roskill, who in later years stated that the Germans held some of our secret call signs in 1941, and this was brought to the attention of the committee. However, there can never be absolute proof of this explanation, just as it can never be absolutely refuted by any documentary evidence. It is clear that we do not know the whole story yet, and maybe we never will. However, it is important that every scrap of intelligence continues to be diligently added to our existing storehouse of knowledge in relation to this matter, which is why I have spoken today on behalf of Ian Nicholson.Notwithstanding that we do not have closure of this matter, it is also very important that our future generations know of the bravery of the Sydney's captain and its crew. I therefore join with Ian in commending the committee on its recommendations that HMAS Sydney memorials be erected in honour of these brave Australians.Main Committee adjourned at 12.03 p.m.Answers to Questions in Writing18801The following answers to questions were circulated:18801(Question No. 1146)114618801Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 15 February 2000:Has his Department or the National Road Transport Commission given consideration to all new vehicles, including sedans and station wagons, being supplied with beepers similar to those equipped to vehicles such as buses and trucks which are activated when vehicles are reversing.18801Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:The issue of whether to mandate the fitting of audible reversing alarms to all vehicles was raised with the Federal Office of Road Safety (FORS) and the National Road Transport Commission (NRTC) in 1995 and was put to the consultative body that assists with development of the Australian Design Rules (ADRs) for Motor Vehicles and Trailers. The consultative body comprises relevant Federal, State and Territory regulatory authorities as well as representatives of industry and consumer groups. They reviewed data provided by the Victorian Coroner of fatalities caused by reversing vehicles between the years 1988 to 1993. There were 17 occurrences in this period and all involved heavy vehicles or forklift trucks. Eight of these cases involved trucks that were fitted with audible reversing alarms.The consultative body noted that the problem was predominantly a heavy vehicle issue and that nearly half of the occurrences involved vehicles that were fitted with audible reversing alarms. It was concluded that audible reversing alarms did not appear to be particularly effective in preventing accidents. The NRTC and FORS decided not to proceed with the proposal for mandating audible reversing alarms. Since that time, no new evidence has been presented to suggest that the issue should be re-examined.18801(Question No. 1300)130018801Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 4 April 2000:(1) Has his attention been drawn to claims by the Automotive Association of Australia that the funding of roads of national importance continues to be at the expense of the national highway system.(2) Do Budget papers from 1995-96 to 1999-2000 show that funding for the national highway system component of the total expenditure on roads has decreased while funding for roads of national importance has increased.(3) According to Budget estimates, will funding for roads increase by $27 million, or 1.7% over the period 1996/97 to 1999/2000 while the Consumer Price Index will increase by 3.2% over the same period; if so, will there be a real decline in federal road funding.18801Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) I am aware of claims along these lines made by the Australian Automobile Association.(2) The Budget papers do not show funding for the National Highway and the Roads of National Importance separately.The amount expended on the National Highway varies from year to year according to the need for investment in new capacity and maintenance requirements and within the Government's overall funding priorities.The Government, in response to calls from the community to broaden its road responsibilities, has instituted the Roads of National Importance program to fund important links off the National Highway. The Government has provided additional funds to meet its commitments to the Pacific Highway, the Great Western Highway, the Pakenham Bypass, Geelong Road, Main Road 92, the Mt Keith to Wiluna Road, the Mitchell Freeway and the Gladstone Port Road. Of the $1,240 million allocated to current RONI projects, $980 million is additional funding.(3) Due to changes in the Government's spending priorities, additional funding was provided to the roads program in 1999-00. Total Commonwealth road funding in all categories was $1,597.3 million in 1996/97. The estimate for 1999/2000 is $1,652.9 million. This represents an increase of $55.6 million, or 3.5% over the 1996/97 figure. 18802(Question No. 1437)143718802Hollis, Colin, MPMr HollisDH4ThrosbyALP00 asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 13 April 2000:(1) Is he able to say whether the UN sponsored referendum on the self determination of Western Sahara due to be held in July 2000 will proceed.(2) Has his attention been drawn to the US Department of State 1999 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices released on 25 February 2000.(3) Has he made appropriate representations to the Government of Morocco concerning the human rights abuses outlined in the report referred to in part (2).(4) Will Australian Government Ministers receive, formally or informally, Polisario Front representatives who do not hold Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic positions.18802Downer, Alexander, MPMr Downer4G4MayoLPMinister for Foreign Affairs10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) The UN-sponsored referendum on self-determination for Western Sahara, which was to have been held in July 2000, has been delayed. The United Nations Secretary-General stated in his Report on the Situation Concerning the Western Sahara of 6 December 1999 that the problems posed seem to allow little possibility of holding the referendum before 2002 or even beyond. The conduct of the referendum, to indicate the wishes of the population of Western Sahara on the question of independence or incorporation into the Kingdom of Morocco, is the responsibility of the UN Mission for the Referendum in Western Sahara (MINURSO). On 24 February 2000, the United Nation's Security Council extended MINURSO's mandate for a period of three months, until 30 May, to allow the Secretary-General's special envoy to review' existing impediments and identify solutions to achieving an early, durable resolution of the long-running dispute. MINURSO's inability to resolve a range of outstanding issues (comprising agreement on the voter appeals process, protocols for repatriation of Saharan refugees, and security conditions required for voting) has stalled the referendum to date.(2) The Minister for Foreign Affairs is aware of the US Department of State 1999 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices released on 25 February 2000.(3) The Australian Government remains committed to the promotion and protection of human rights internationally and as such is concerned over the human rights situation in the Western Sahara. The Government has made representations to the Moroccan authorities on individual cases of alleged human rights abuses in the Western Sahara. These representations were made via a longstanding arrangement whereby Amnesty International “Urgent Action” cases are considered and, where appropriate, pursued by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade on behalf of the Amnesty International Parliamentary Group. The Australian Embassy in Paris, which has responsibility for Morocco, has made representations to the Moroccan authorities on these cases and will continue to do so where appropriate. Human rights issues more generally are also raised with the Moroccan authorities during the Embassy's scheduled visits to Morocco.(4) Australian Ministers do not usually receive, formally or informally, representatives of either the Polisario Front, a West Saharan liberation movement, or members of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, as Australia does not recognise either as the legitimate government of the Western Sahara. Australia considers the Polisario Front to be representative of an important body of West Saharan opinion, but does not regard it as the sole representative of the West Saharan people. Australian Parliamentarians and officials may meet Polisario representatives informally.18802(Question No. 1545)154518802Gillard, Julia, MPMs Gillard83LLalorALP00 asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 11 May 2000:(1) Has a timetable been set for the disposal by the Commonwealth of the site of the RAAF Base Williams at Point Cook; if so what are the details.(2) Has the Defence Estate Organisation (DEO) defined a heritage precinct for RAAF Base Willams; if so, (a) which buildings at, and features of, RAAF Base Williams are included in the heritage precinct, (b) what guidelines have been used by the DEO in its definition and (c) what expert advice on heritage matters has been considered in its definition. (3) Is the entire site of RAAF Base Williams on the Register of the National Estate and classified by the Australian Heritage Commission as historic; if so, on what basis has any part of the site been excluded from being part of the heritage precinct defined by the DEO.(4) Does the heritage precinct defined by the DEO include (a) the runways, (b) the Parade Ground of 1930, (c) the War Memorial of 1938, (d) the RAAF Chapel, (e) Building 95, the Waterplane hangar of 1915, (f) Building 2 10, the aeroplane hangar of 1914, (g) Building 104, the battleplane hangar of 1917, (h) the hydroplane and seaplane jetty dating from 1916, (i) Building 488, the single officers quarters erected in 1914, (j) Buildings M004-006, MO 10 and M026, (k) Building MO 11, married quarters, erected in 1915-1916, (1) Building 18, the former Single Officers' Mess dating from 1918, (m) Building 23, the Single Officers' Quarters of 1918, (n) Buildings 24 and 27-29, single officers quarters of 1929-1939, (o) Buildings 41, 42 and 46, airmen's quarters, 1928-1939, (p) Building 33, the new Officers' Mess of 1937, (q) Building M027-M028, CO's Married Quarters of 1937-38, (r) Building 87, the Base Squadron Headquarters of 1929, (s) Buildings 91 and 92, the Aeronautics Schools of 1922 and 1939, (t) Buildings 93 and 96, the Air Navigation School and Wireless School erected in 1939, (u) Building 101, the seaplane hangar erected in 1927, (v) Building 100, the seaplane squadron headquarters erected in 1938 and (w) the one and two storey weatherboard houses of the Vernacular Style employed by the Commonwealth between 1914 and 1939.(5) If a heritage precinct has been defined, what (a) protection from demolition or inappropriate renovation and (b) guarantee of public access to the buildings within the heritage precinct does inclusion in the heritage precinct provide after the property is disposed of by the Commonwealth.(6) If any of the buildings or features referred to in part (4) are not included in the heritage precinct defined by the DEO, what protection do such buildings or features have from demolition or destruction after RAAF Base Williams is disposed of by the Commonwealth.(7) What consultation process has there been with serving or retired members of the RAAF regarding the definition of the heritage precinct by the DEO.(8) What consultation process has there been with local or State Government regarding the definition of the heritage precinct by the DEO.(9) What consultation process has there been with the Australian Heritage Commission, the Australian Council of National Trusts or the National Trust of Victoria regarding the definition of the heritage precinct by the DEO.18803Moore, John, MPMr MooreEI4RyanLPMinister for Defence10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Yes. Point Cook has been identified in the Defence Reform Program (DRP) for disposal in the medium term (2001-2006).(2) to (4) Point Cook has been listed on the Register of the National Estate (RNE).Although not all buildings, infrastructure or features are listed, many are of heritage significance. A heritage study was undertaken of Point Cook by Australian Construction Services in 1994, and this will be provided to a qualified heritage consultant for further review as part of the disposal process. The product of this review will inform judgements by Defence on heritage issues associated with the site. In arriving at final decisions on heritage values, Defence will consult widely with the Australian Heritage Commission (AHQ and other interested stakeholders.(5) and (6) Defence has obligations, under the Australian Heritage Commission Act (1975), to ensure the protection of the National Estate (`...those places in the natural, historic, Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander environments which have aesthetic, historic, scientific or social significance, or other special value, for present and future generations'). This includes liaison with State heritage authorities regarding the possible registering of sites of heritage and environmental significance under State legislation where a property is transferring from Commonwealth ownership. This will be pursued with Heritage Victoria. The extent of public access will be a matter for the future owner. However, it is anticipated that there will be at least some form of access to any heritage precinct due to its heritage link to the birthplace of the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF).(7) At this stage there has only been consultation within Defence.(8) None. Although this aspect will be addressed as part of any disposal process, as local and state authorities will be responsible for land planning issues once the property is no longer owned by the Commonwealth. (9) There has been preliminary consultation with the AHC. As part of the disposal process, the department is required to provide a Section 30 referral under the AHC Act (1975). The heritage study will include consultation with the relevant heritage authorities.18804(Question No. 1292)129218804Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr Kelvin ThomsonUK6WillsALP00 asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 3 April 2000:(1) Does the Portfolio Budget Statement for the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) for 1999-2000 state that the value of the ATO's holding of land and buildings will progressively be reduced over the next 3 years from $3,022,000 to $2,948,000.(2) What are the changes in the ownership of land and buildings that result in this reduction.(3) With respect to other accommodation for the ATO, for (a) 1996-1997, (b) 1999-2000 and (c) 2000-2001 (i) what is the total expenditure on rental or leased accommodation, (ii) what sites does the ATO rent or lease, (iii) are any sites that the ATO is renting, leasing or owns currently unoccupied or not in active use for current activities of the ATO; if so, which sites, and (iv) is the ATO entering into any new leases for accommodation whilst holding unoccupied accommodation.18804Costello, Peter, MPMr CostelloCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—The Assistant Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:(1) Yes. (2) The reduction is due to depreciation on staff houses over the 3-year period.(3) (i) The total expenditure for rental or leased accommodation, including rent and outgoings, is as follows: (a) 1996-1997: $175,324,320, (b) 1999-2000: estimated at $172,080,000 and (c) 2000-2001: estimated at $180,495,000(ii) (a) 1996-1997: refer to Attachment A (b) 1999-2000: refer to Attachment B and (c) 2000-2001: variations to the ATO's property portfolio include vacating two sites on lease expiry and the acquisition of a number of additional leases to meet the needs of Tax Reform.(iii) (a) 1996-1997: unoccupied space existed in five locations for more than six months in the following sites: (1) 15 Lake Street, Cairns, QLD, (2) 55 Gordan Street, Mackay, QLD, (3) Vic Pde & Cambridge St, Rockhampton, QLD, (4) 36-38 Conway Street, Lismore, NSW and (5) Sutton Street, Cannington, WA. Of the 21,000 square metres at Cannington, 1,065m2 was unoccupied space and 635m2 was sub-leased.Space in a number of sites was not in use for activities of the ATO due to being identified as surplus to requirements. Space at the following sites were sub-leased under commercial arrangements: (1) Sutton Street, Cannington, WA, (2) Cnr William & Francis Street, Northbridge, WA, (3) Cnr Pulteney & Flinders Streets, Adelaide, SA, (4) 190-202 Collins Street, Hobart, TAS and (5) Computer Centre, Battye Street, Bruce, ACT. The term of these sub-leases coincides with the expiry of the ATO leases.(b) 1999-2000: unoccupied space existed in two locations for more than six months in the following sites: (1) 2-14 Meredith Street, Bankstown, NSW and (2) 1230 Nepean Highway, Cheltenham, VIC.The ATO continues to sub-lease space previously identified as surplus to requirements which cannot be used for current activities of the ATO in the following sites: (3) Sutton Street, Cannington, WA, (4) Cnr William & Francis Street, Northbridge, WA, (5) Cnr Pulteney & Flinders Streets, Adelaide, SA, (6) 190-202 Collins Street, Hobart,TAS, (7) 1230 Nepean Highway,Cheltenham, VIC, (8) 100 Broughton Street, Geelong, VIC and (9) Computer Centre, Battye Street, Bruce, ACT. The term of the sub-leases coincides with the expiry of the ATO leases.(c) 2000-2001: The unoccupied space referred to at (iii) (b) (3) to (9) will continue to be sub-leased during 2000-2001.(iv) (a) No additional space was leased while holding unoccupied accommodation in 1996-1997. (b and c) No new leases will be entered into while holding unoccupied space. While a number of additional leases are envisaged, space previously identified as surplus in Bankstown and Cheltenham will be occupied by ATO staff. ATTACHMENT AAUSTRALIAN TAXATION OFFICE SITES 1996-97567 Smollet Street, Albury, NSW 26402-14 Meredith Street, Bankstown, NSW990 Whitehorse Road, Box Hill, VIC 3128Ann Street Tower, 232 Adelaide Street, Brisbane, QLD 4001Terrica Place, 140 Creek Street, Brisbane, QLD 4000Chandler Building, 40 Cameron Avenue, Belconnen, ACTSutton Street, Cannington, WA, 6107Casselden Place, 2 Lonsdale Street, Melbourne, VIC, 3000Zenith Centre, 841 Pacific Highway, Chatswood, NSW 2067Zenith Centre, 821-843 Pacific Highway, Chatswood, NSW 20671230 Nepean Highway, Cheltenham, VIC 3192284 Highett Store, Highett, VIC, 3190Gympie & Banfield Streets, Chermside, QLD14-16 Mason Street, Dandenong, VIC, 3175100 Brougham Street, Geelong, VIC, 3220SASFIT Building, 190-202 Collins Street, Hobart, TAS, 700054 Cameron Street, Launceston, TAS 725012-22 Woniora Road, Hurstville, NSW 22206-20 Gladstone Street, Moonee Ponds, VIC, 3039No 5. Store, 2 Beachley Street, Tottenham, VIC, 3012Computer Centre, Battye Street, Bruce, ACT, 26172 Constitution Avenue, Canberra City, ACT, 2600Canberra Centre Tower, Cnr Akuna & Bunda Sts, Civic, ACT, 2600Custom Credit House, Akuna Street, Canberra City, ACT, 26009-11 Huddart Court, Mitchell, ACT, 2911Health Insurance, 134 Reed Street, Tuggeranong, ACT, 2900235 Darby Street, Cooks Hill, NSW, 2300266 King Street, Newcastle, NSW, 2300175 Scott Street, Newcastle NSW, 2300Cnr William & Francis Street, Northbridge, WA, 6003Commonwealth Offices, 2-10 Macquarie St, Parramatta, NSW, 2150121-125 Henry Street, Penrith, NSW, 2740Cnr Pulteney & Flinders Street, Adelaide, SA 5000Centrepoint, 100 Market Street, Sydney, NSW 2000 369-385 Wattle Street, Ultimo, NSW 200755 Gordon Street, Mackay, NSW 4740Beaumont Building, Vic. Parade & Cambridge, Rockhampton, QLD255 Stanley Place, Townsville, QLD 481036-38 Conway Street, Lismore, NSW 24803 Short Street, Southport, QLD 42152221-2223 Logan Road, Upper Mount Gravatt, QLD 412281-95 Waymouth Street, Adelaide, SA, 5000Panell Kerr Forster, 9 Parsons Street, Alice Springs, NT 870Construction House, Cnr Briggs & Mitchell Streets, Darwin, NT 800Cnr Burelli & Auburn Streets, Wollongong, NSW 2500ATTACHMENT BAUSTRALIAN TAXATION OFFICE SITES 1999-2000567 Smollet Street, Albury, NSW, 26402-14 Meredith Street, Bankstown, NSW45 Prospect Street, Box Hill, VIC990 Whitehorse Road, Box Hill, VIC, 3128280 Adelaide Street, Brisbane, QLD345 Queen Street, Brisbane, QLD140 Creek Street, Terrica Place, Brisbane, QLD, 4000 (L13-20, Pt L24))Chandler Building, 40 Cameron Avenue, Belconnen, ACTSutton Street, Cannington, WA, 6107350 Queen Street, Melbourne, VIC, 3000Casselden Place, 2 Lonsdale Street, Melbourne, VIC, 3000 (L1, L32-36)1230 Nepean Highway, Cheltenham, VIC, 31924-10 Jamieson Street, Cheltenham, VICBuilding 1, Banfield Street, Chermside, QLD (1st & 2nd Floor)Gympie/Banfield Streets, Chermside, QLD766 Gympie Road, Chermside, QLD280 Thomas Street, Dandenong, VIC, 3175 (L1-7)14-16 Mason Street, Dandenong, VIC, 317566 Foster Street, Sale, VIC, 3175100 Brougham Street, Geelong, VIC, 322049-51 Cattley Street, Burnie, TASSASFIT Building, 190-202 Collins Street, Hobart, TAS, 7000102-104 Cameron Street, Launceston, TAS54 Cameron Street, Launceston, TAS, 725012-22 Woniora Road, Hurstville, NSW, 222012 Butler Road, Hurstville, NSW23 MacMahon Street, Hurstville, NSW2 Meyers Street, Bendigo, VIC6-20 Gladstone Street, Moonee Ponds, VIC, 3039Computer Associates House, 10 National Circuit, Barton, ACTComputer Centre, Battye Street, Bruce, ACT, 261751 Allara Street, Canberra, ACT2 Constitution Avenue, Canberra City, ACT, 2600SAP House, Cnr Akuna & Bunda Streets, Canberra City, ACT, 2600Shop 1, Ethos House, 28-36 Ainslie Avenue, Canberra City, ACT, 2600Custom Credit House, 38 Akuna Street, Canberra City, ACT, 26009-11 Huddart Court, Mitchell, ACT, 2911Health Insurance Building, 134 Reed Street, Tuggeranong, ACT, 2900235 Darby Street, Cooks Hill, NSW, 2300266 King Street, Newcastle, NSW, 2300291 King Street, Newcastle, NSW75-77 Lord Street, Port Macquarie, NSWCnr William & Francis Streets, Northbridge, WA, 6003Commonwealth Office, Cnr Kite and Lord Place, Orange, NSW2-12 Macquarie Street, Parramatta, NSW, 2150132 Marsden Street, Parramatta, NSW121-125 Henry Street, Penrith, NSW, 2740Cnr Pulteney & Flinders Streets, Adelaide, SA, 5000Lemon Grove Centre, 427-442 Victoria Avenue, Chatswood, NSW33 Herbert Street, St Leonards, NSW201 Pacific Highway, St Leonards, NSW477 Pitt Street, Sydney, NSW, 2000Centrepoint, 100 Market Street, Sydney, NSW, 2000369-385 Wattle Street, Ultimo, NSW, 2007Suite 1, 17 Macalister Street, Mackay, QLD88 Abbott Street, Cairns, QLDUnit 2, 5 Miller Street, Cairns, QLD34 East Street, Rockhampton, QLD255 Stanley Street, Townsville, QLD, 4810Commonwealth Centre, 62 Woondoona Street, Bundaberg, QLD16 King Street, Grafton, NSW72 Nerang Street, Southport, QLDCondamine Centre, Bell Street Mall, Toowoomba, QLD2221-2223 Logan Road, Upper Mount Gravatt, QLD, 412281-95 Waymouth Street, Adelaide, SA, 5000Jack Nelson Centre, 16 Hartley Street, Alice Springs, NTConstruction House, Cnr Briggs & Mitchell Streets, Darwin, NT, 800Cnr Burelli & Auburn Streets, Wollongong, NSW, 250018808(Question No. 1486)148618808McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, upon notice, on 9 May 2000:(1) What were the major recommendations of the Review of Service Entitlement Anomalies in respect of South East Asian Service 1955-75.(2) Will the Government implement the recommendations.18808Scott, Bruce, MPMr Bruce ScottYT4MaranoaNPMinister for Veterans' Affairs and Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The Report of the Review had a total of 53 recommendations, the major recommendations being:. the service of the naval component of Far East Strategic Reserve (FESR) between 1 July 1955 and 31 July 1960 be treated on the same basis as all other FESR service thus granting them qualifying service and recognition for the award of the General Service Medal (GSM) with clasp Malaya and Australian Active Service Medal (AASM) Malaya and the Returned from Active Service (RAS) Badge;. all ADF members who served in FESR be eligible for the Australian Service Medal (ASM) with FESR clasp on the same basis as applying to the seagoing naval component of FESR;. Radio Operators at Kranji and Chai Kang on loan to Commander-in-Chief Far East Station (CINC FES) from 11 May 1960 to 5 June 1962 be allotted and thus qualify for the appropriate medals and repatriation benefits;. official uniformed war correspondents and artists attached to 2 RAR be awarded the AASM 45-75 with clasp Malaya; . the criteria for the AASM 1945-75 with clasp Malaysia be amended to include the service of HMAS Vampire during the Indonesian confrontation;. service on the Thai/Malay borderfrom 1 August 1960 to 27 May 1963 be considered “warlike” and personnel concerned be eligible for the appropriate medals and repatriation benefits;. RAA and RAAF members be allotted for period 17 August 1964 and 30 September 1967 in respect to service on Malay Peninsula and Singapore and Confrontation with eligibility for appropriate medals and repatriation benefits;. ADF personnel seconded to Royal Malaysia Armed Forces during the period of Confrontation be retrospectively allotted with eligibility for appropriate medals and repatriation benefits;. service by ADF personnel on secondment to the Royal Malay Armed Forces be eligible for the ASM with clasp FESR;. the Australian Army Air Dispatch personnel attached to the British Army 55 Air Dispatch Company Royal Army Service Corps (RASC) or the Miscellaneous Australian Detachments Unit of the Far East Land Force (FARELF) during the relevant military campaigns be allotted and eligible for appropriate medals and repatriation benefits;. service with FESR at the RAAF base in Ubon Thailand from 26 June 1965 until 31 August 1968 be classified as “warlike” and be eligible for appropriate medals and repatriation benefits; . ADF personnel attached to Thailand on Exercise OBSERVER after 31 August 1968 until November 1968 should be classified as on “warlike” service and be eligible for appropriate medals and repatriation benefits;. the Australian Civilian Surgical and Medical Teams operating in Vietnam during the Vietnam conflict be deemed as performing qualifying service for repatriation benefits;. RAAF nurses attached to Aero Medical Evacuation Flights to and from Vietnam during 1964 to 1973 be awarded the Vietnam Medal;. QANTAS air crew on ADF chartered QANTAS flights to and from Saigon during the Vietnam conflict be given “designated civilian” status and be eligible for the AASM with clasp Vietnam;. merchant mariners who served on the ships Jeparit and Boonaroo during voyages to Vietnam be eligible for full repatriation benefits;. the ASM with clasp `Special Operations' be awarded to Defence Force Radio Operators and Radio Mechanics attached to the Australian Embassy in Vientiane, Laos, between 1959 to 1964; and . ADF Medical personnel deployed to East Timor during the 1975 Civil War be awarded of the ASM with an appropriate clasp.Full detail is contained in the report which is publicly available. (2) In the last Budget the Government announced that eligibility for qualifying service would be granted to: . about 1800 Royal Australian Navy personnel who served with the Far East Strategic Reserve during the Malayan Emergency; . RAN radio operators who served at Kranji Wireless Station and RAF Base Seletar in Singapore between 11 May and 31 July 1960;. ADF members who served on the Thai Malay border immediately after the Malayan Emergency, between 1 August 1960 and 27 May 1963;. Army and Royal Australian Air Force personnel who served on the Malay Peninsula and in Singapore during the Indonesian Confrontation; . members of the ADF seconded to the Royal Malaysian Armed Forces during the Confrontation; . personnel who served at RAAF Base Ubon in Thailand between 26 June 1965 and 31 August 1968; and . merchant mariners who served with RAN personnel on HMAS Boonaroo and Jeparit during the Vietnam War.In addition eligibility for disability pensions will be extended to some 1500 veterans who served aboard HMAS Sydney, Vampire, Parramatta and Yarra in Borneo during the Indonesian Confrontation. These veterans are expected to be able to apply for benefits from 1 January 2001.In respect of awards, eligibility for the Australian Active Service Medal 1945-75 has been extended to:. RAN personnel who served with the Far East Strategic Reserve (FESR) during the Malayan Emergency. These personnel will also be eligible for the Naval General Service Medal; . official, uniformed war correspondents and war artists who served with ADF personnel during the Malayan Emergency; . ADF personnel awarded the General Service Medal 1962 with Clasp `Brunei' for service during the Indonesian Confrontation; . RAN personnel serving in HMAS Vampire during the Indonesian Confrontation; . ADF members serving on the Thai Malay border immediately after the Malayan Emergency, between 1 August 1960 and 27 May 1963;. ADF members seconded to the Royal Malaysian Armed Forces during the Indonesian Confrontation; . Australian Army Air Dispatch personnel serving with 55 AD Coy RASC or `Miscellaneous Australian Detachments unit of FARELF'; . personnel who served at RAAF Base Ubon in Thailand between 26 June 1965 and 31 August 1968; and . QANTAS crew members who served on RAAF charter flights during the Vietnam War from 1964-73. Eligibility for the Australian Service Medal 1945-75 will be extended to: . Australian Army, RAAF and land based RAN personnel who served with FESR for periods of 30 or more days after the Malayan Emergency; . RAN radio operators who served at Kranji Wireless Station and RAF Base Seletar in Singapore between 11 May and 31 July 1960; . ADF members on secondment to the Royal Malaysian Armed Forces after the Indonesian Confrontation; . ADF members detached for duty in the Australian Embassy in Laos between 1959-64, and . ADF medical personnel who served in East Timor during the civil war in 1975.Eligibility for the Vietnam Medal has also been extended to RAAF nurses who served on Aero Medical Evacuation flights during the Vietnam War between 1964-73.18810(Question No. 1492)149218810Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr Kelvin ThomsonUK6WillsALP00 asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 9 May 2000:(1) How many businesses are under investigation by the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) for non-payment of Superannuation Guarantee payments.(2) What is the usual time taken to respond to notifications of non-payment of superannuation guarantee.(3) When was the ATO first notified by workers or their representatives from the Wide Bay Brickworks concerning unpaid Superannuation Guarantee levy for them.(4) What action did the ATO take after receiving that notification.18810Costello, Peter, MPMr CostelloCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—The Assistant Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:(1) There are currently around 15,500 businesses under investigation by the ATO regarding Superannuation Guarantee (SG) compliance. This number includes the ATO's actions following up individual Employee Notifications plus industry and regional projects on high risk SG compliance areas. The number also includes employers surveyed under the ATO's annual SG compliance project.(2) The ATO aims to initially respond to all notifiers within 28 days of the receipt of an Employee Notification of Insufficient Employer Contributionsform. The response contains an acknowledgment letter explaining the ATO's process in dealing with the notification. (3) The ATO was first notified by workers from Wide Bay Brickworks concerning unpaid SG via an Employee Notification of Insufficient Employer Contributions form received on 17 September 1997. (4) The ATO is unable to disclose information on the specific action that was taken regarding Wide Bay Brickworks due to privacy and secrecy provisions. However, I am advised that this matter was promptly dealt with.As information on the receivership of this company is now on the public record, the ATO can confirm that a proof of debt has been lodged with the Receivers and Managers to ensure that the superannuation entitlements are covered. The ATO has also sent standard liquidation letters to all notifiers listed in the records.18810(Question No. 1530 and 1535)1530 and 153518810O'Byrne, Michelle, MPMs O'Byrne84SBassALP00 asked the Ministers for Foreign Affairs and Trade, upon notice, on 11 May 2000:(1) Does the Minister's Department administer any Commonwealth funded programs for which community organisations, businesses or individuals can apply for funding in Tasmania; if so, what are the programs. (2) Does the Minister's Department advertise these funding opportunities; if so, (a) what print media outlets have been used for the advertising of each of these programs and (b) were these paid advertisements.18811Downer, Alexander, MPMr Downer4G4MayoLPMinister for Foreign Affairs10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) AusAIDYes, the Australian Agency for International Development (AusAID) administers the Government's overseas aid program and provides many funding opportunities for businesses, community organisations, and individuals located in all Australian States and territories. AusAID awarded around 1,600 contracts in 1998-99, of these the value of those awarded in Tasmania was $2,474,934.75 million.Australian companies and individuals are engaged to manage and deliver most of the Government's aid activities. These include activities in the health, rural development, professional training, food aid, infrastructure, governance and education sectors. The nature and duration of the activities can vary from short-term consultancies for designing or reviewing activities to major implementation contracts.Several other AusAID-managed programs provide funding opportunities which the Australian community can access. These include: regional initiatives with the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN), the Youth Ambassadors Program, Non Government Organisations (NGOs), and the administration of the Australian Development Scholarships Program.(2) Business opportunities are normally advertised in the national print media, usually `The Australian', and where appropriate, other state and regional newspapers. In addition, some opportunities are also published in the Commonwealth Gazette and on AusAID's Internet Site (www.ausaid.gov.au). AusAID pays for all advertisements. The Youth Ambassadors for Development Program places young Australians on development projects to exchange skills with local counterparts overseas. This program has been advertised in the print media throughout Australia. In Tasmania these advertisements were placed in `The Examiner' and `The Tasmanian', and also on Radio stations TTTFM and 7LA.To access Government funds through the NGO schemes, Australian NGOs need to be accredited with AusAID. In general AusAID does not advertise NGO funding opportunities in local media. Accredited NGOs are informed directly when funding rounds occur. However, information about how to apply for accreditation and funding rounds are provided on AusAID's Internet website. Also, the Australian Council for Overseas Aid (ACFOA) often provides information relating to AusAID's NGO program to member organisations.Further information, including specific details about contracts awarded to Tasmanian companies and individuals last year is available in the “Business Participation Australia's Aid Program 1998-99” booklet which is available from AusAID.Australia-China Council(1) The Australia-China Council (ACC) fosters people-to-people relations between Australia and China. It receives $636,000 pa from the Parliament and is supported by a Secretariat based in the East Asia Branch of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade in Canberra. The objectives of the Council are to promote Australia's national interests in China through furthering a greater awareness of Australia as a technologically sophisticated, multicultural, open and liberal society, oriented towards Asia; and to build a greater awareness of China in Australia, with particular emphasis on customs, cultural and ethical values, business priorities and contemporary issues.The Council supports activities in the areas of education, business and culture. Most of the Council's resources are dedicated to on-going programs. The Council does occasionally consider funding proposals for activities relevant to its objectives from community organisations, businesses and individuals. The Council welcomes opportunities to partner private organisations in its activities.(2) Information on the ACC's activities is made available through its web-site (www.dfat.gov.au/acc). Advertisements have been placed in DFAT's publication Asialine. Paid advertisements have occasionally been placed in the Weekend Australian.AustradePrograms and grants provided to community organisations, businesses or individuals in Tasmania:Export Market Development Grants (EMDG) - EMDG scheme is available to aspiring and current Australian based exporters that meet the eligibility criteria specified in the EMDG Act 1997. The grants are designed to assist export marketing efforts through a rebate of up to 50% of eligible export promotional expenditure incurred. Export Access Program - Austrade manages delivery of the Export Access Program to assist small and medium sized enterprises in developing the marketing aspect of their export capability. Successful applicants receive assistance from designated service providers who receive funding through Austrade. Austrade does not make payments direct to successful applicants.Austrade advertises funding programs in print media.EMDG - A number of advertisements are placed in the Hobart Mercury and the Launceston Examiner leading up to 30 June (closing date for registration) and 30 November (closing date for applications).Export Access Program - Austrade has advertised during 1999-00 in the Australian Industry Group Exporters Guide and Marine Industry News.(b) All were paid advertisements.18812(Question No. 1551)155118812Price, Roger, MPMr PriceQI4ChifleyALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 11 May 2000:Further to question No. 1550 (Hansard, 20 June 2000, page P16520), has action been taken by his Department in relation to the recommendation that the provisions of the Sydney Airport Curfew Act that provide for the transfer to a Badgerys Creek airport of those freight operations which currently occur during the curfew hours at Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport should be reviewed and the review should be based on an assessment of the environmental and economic costs and benefits of transferring those operations to a Badgerys Creek airport; if not, why not.18812Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:The Government is currently considering how best to meet Sydney's future airport needs. The recommendations on the Badgerys Creek Environmental Impact Statement made in September 1999 by the Minister for the Environment and Heritage are being taken into consideration.18812(Question No. 1553)155318812Price, Roger, MPMr PriceQI4ChifleyALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 11 May 2000:Further to question No. 1552 (Hansard, 20 June 2000, page P16520) concerning the recommendation that Australian Standard AS2021-1994 should be reviewed having regard to the applicability of the standard to communities affected by a new airport and to communities subject to a significant change in the noise environment as they would be if a major airport was to be built at Badgerys Creek, has he taken action to review the standard; if so, when will the review be finalised and adopted; if not, why not.18812Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10— The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:The Government is currently considering how best to meet Sydney's future airport needs. The recommendations on the Badgerys Creek Environmental Impact Statement made in September 1999 by the Minister for the Environment and Heritage are being taken into consideration.18812(Question No. 1581)158118812Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 30 May 2000:(1) Has he received signed copies of the return section from a United Firefighters Union of Australia pamphlet outlining concerns with the direction of aviation fire fighting services; if so, how many.(2) What action has he taken in response to the campaign.18813Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. Eighty-six (86) to end May 2000.(2) No action is required from me at this stage. The Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) is working to finalise by the end of June 2000, the safety regulatory framework for the entry and exit provisions and minimum safety standards for rescue and firefighting service providers. CASA issued a Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) in February 2000 to enable and encourage industry feedback on the proposed regulations and the responses are presently being evaluated by CASA. The Union's comments will be considered by CASA in that context.18813(Question No. 1587)158718813Latham, Mark, MPMr LathamK26WerriwaALP00 asked the Minister for Finance and Administration, upon notice, on 31 May 2000:Futher to my question No. 473 (Hansard, 1 June 1999, page 5731), what progress has the Government made in using social capital indicators in the performance measurement for Commonwealth agencies, as part of the move to accrual budgeting systems in the 2000-2001 Budget.18813Fahey, John, MPMr FaheyHQ5MacarthurLPMinister for Finance and Administration10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:The evaluation and reporting of performance is an important facet of the government's accrual budgeting framework.Ministers and agencies have the primary role in determining desirable outcomes, the outputs necessary to achieve them, and developing indicators of performance. There is an implicit recognition of elements of social capital in a number of agency's indicators. For example, an important dimension of the effectiveness indicators identified by the Department of Family and Community Services is community capacity as revealed through community skills, knowledge, leadership, partnerships and networks.18813(Question No. 1590)159018813Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 1 June 2000:(1) When will the Foreign Investment Review Board (FIRB) prepare a report on the proposed sale of Ansett shares to Air New Zealand.(2) At what stage is the report.(3) Who will make a decision on the recommendations made by the FIRB.18813Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:On 13 June 2000, the Treasurer and I announced the Government's approval of the purchase by Air New Zealand of 100% equity in Ansett Holdings Limited. The Government's approval is subject to Air New Zealand meeting a number of conditions that ensure Ansett's continuing competitive presence in the Australian airline industry. Those conditions are set out in the joint statement of 13 June.18813(Question No. 1605)160518813Latham, Mark, MPMr LathamK26WerriwaALP00 asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 6 June 2000:(1) Did Australia accede to the 1979 UNESCO Convention on the Recognition of Studies, Diplomas and Degrees concerning Higher Education in the States belonging to the Europe Region on 6 August 1986.(2) To what extent are Australia and New Zealand sharing or contemplating membership of UNESCO and Council of Europe conventions on education.18813Downer, Alexander, MPMr Downer4G4MayoLPMinister for Foreign Affairs10— The answer to the honorable member's question is as follows:(1) Yes.(2) Australia will sign the Joint UNESCO/Council of Europe Convention on the Recognition of Qualifications Concerning Higher Education in the European Region, 1996 (known as the Lisbon Convention). The Executive Council (ExCo) approved on 15 December 1999 Australia's signature of the Convention. My Department will shortly draw up and complete an appropriate instrument of full powers to enable Australia's Deputy Permanent Delegate to UNESCO to sign the Convention on behalf of Australia, subject to ratification. My Department has been informed by DETYA that they are not aware of whether New Zealand is also contemplating signing the Lisbon Convention.18814(Question No. 1606)160618814Latham, Mark, MPMr LathamK26WerriwaALP00 asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 6 June 2000:What were the (a) names, (b) positions and (c) qualifications of the persons who represented Australia at the World Education Forum in Dakar on 26-28 April 2000.18814Downer, Alexander, MPMr Downer4G4MayoLPMinister for Foreign Affairs10— The answer to the honorable member's question is as follows:Australian representatives to the World Education Forum were Ms Susan Pascoe, delegation leader, and member of the Australian National Commission for UNESCO (Ms Pascoe is President of the Australian College of Education, and Coordinating Chairperson (Curriculum and Support Services) of the Catholic Education Office in Victoria); Mr Robin Davies, Counsellor, Development Cooperation, Australian Delegation to the OECD, Paris; and Dr Geoff Masters, Executive Director, Australian Council for Educational Research (ACER), and member of the Australian National Commission for UNESCO's Education Network. Other Australians were engaged in a working capacity by UNESCO for the World Education Forum. These included Professor Colin Power, former UNESCO Deputy Director-General For Education, Dr Warren Mellor, UNESCO Senior Programme Specialist, Global Action Programme on Education For All, and Professor Malcolm Skilbeck, former Deputy Director General for Education, OECD, Paris, and former Vice-Chancellor of Deakin University.18814(Question No. 1617)161718814Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 7 June 2000:(1) Has the government conducted cost-benefit studies on the proposed very high speed train link between Sydney and Melbourne; if so, will it make the studies public.(2) How many jobs will the project create (a) in the construction phase and (b) on an ongoing basis.(3) What estimates does the government have for the potential of the project to improve Australia's export opportunities.18814Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) No. The Commonwealth, New South Wales and ACT Governments are in the process of assessing a Sydney-Canberra Very High Speed Train project proposal.(2) See 1.(3) See 1.18814(Question No. 1626)162618814Theophanous, Dr Andrew, MPDr TheophanousQJ4CalwellALP00 asked the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, upon notice, on 8 June 2000:(1) Is he able to say what has been the response in the ethnic communities and the ethnic media to a new agenda for a multicultural Australia as promulgated by the government in December 1999.(2) Has there been a response from the mainstream media and from Australian mainstream institutions to the new agenda; if not, is he able to say why not.(3) What resources has the government put in place to promulgate the objectives as set out in the new national agenda for multicultural Australia.(4) What appropriations were included in the 2000 Budget to promote the objectives of the New National Multicultural agenda. 18815Ruddock, Philip, MPMr Ruddock0J4BerowraLPMinister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Reconciliation10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) The response from the ethnic communities and ethnic media to the government's multicultural policy statement, A New Agenda for a Multicultural Australia, has been positive. To date, over 10,000 copies of the New Agenda have been provided to institutions across Australia, and demand remains fair.(2) Coverage of the New Agenda in the mainstream media has been limited. Coverage is likely to increase as the Council for Multicultural Australia becomes fully operational. As far as I am aware, the response from mainstream institutions is positive.(3) The Council for Multicultural Australia will assist the government in implementing the New Agenda. In doing so, it will work with Commonwealth departments and agencies, other levels of government, the private sector and the wider community. An Inter-Departmental Committee on Multicultural Affairs has also been established, chaired by my department, to work with other Commonwealth agencies to advance the New Agenda. It aims to provide a better coordination of multicultural policy at the Commonwealth level and to develop joint ventures and partnerships on multicultural policy and programs between Commonwealth agencies.(4) It is expected that, in addition to existing resources directed to multicultural affairs, $1 million per year will be expended to implement the New Agenda. For 2000-2001, these costs will be absorbed by my portfolio.