2000-11-063917REPS2212902000-11-06—————Mr SPEAKER (Mr Neil Andrew) took the chair at 12.30 p.m., and read prayers.Privilege2212912:31:0022129Hawker, David, MPMr HAWKER8H4WannonLP10—Mr Speaker, I would like to raise a matter of privilege.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Can I indicate to the member for Wannon that I am conscious of the concerns he has and I recognise the obligation he has to raise the matter at the earliest favourable opportunity. I thought it may in fact suit the procedure of the House if, rather than taking up private members' business now, we were to proceed to this matter at the conclusion of question time. Committees22129221292212912:32:0022129Hawker, David, MPMr HAWKER8H4WannonLP10—On behalf of the Standing Committee on Economics, Finance and Public Administration, I present the report of the committee entitled Review of the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority: who will guard the guardians? together with the minutes of the proceedings.Ordered that the report be printed.8H4Hawker, David, MPMr HAWKER—This report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics, Finance and Public Administration reviews the performance of the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority since it was established two years ago. It is based on the committee's public hearing with APRA's CEO, Mr Graeme Thompson, and other representatives, held on 4 September this year. APRA is a new regulator, created as a result of a change in the focus of financial regulation from sector based regulation to risk based regulation following the Wallis report. APRA has assumed the regulatory responsibilities of 11 separate agencies to form a single prudential regulator for the whole of the financial services sector.In its report, the committee concludes that APRA has successfully navigated this transitional period, and work towards establishing the new regulatory framework for Australia's financial institutions is progressing well. In particular, APRA has made considerable progress in removing regulatory barriers to competition between similar deposit taking institutions through the development of harmonised prudential standards; developing a regulatory framework for new financial conglomerates; improving the prudential framework for general insurance companies, which is widely regarded as being out of date; and developing a regulatory approach to new financial products such as smart cards and credit derivatives. APRA has also put considerable resources into establishing effective working relationships with its fellow regulators. In addition, APRA plays a leading role in many international regulatory bodies such as the International Association of Insurance Supervisors and the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision.The committee's qualified tick of approval is generally supported by the industries being supervised which consider that the transition to the new regulatory framework has been smooth with a number of modest achievements. However, the committee found that there are still a number of major problem areas that need to be addressed and, accordingly, the committee has made recommendations on two of these. The first relates to making it easier for employees over the age of 65 to remain in a superannuation fund. Currently, regulations of the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act require these people to inform their superannuation funds of their employment status on a monthly basis. The committee consider this to be excessive, so we have recommended that the regulations be relaxed.The second recommendation relates to the collection of statistics on banking. APRA is now responsible for the collection of financial institutions statistics and is currently reviewing the statistics collections it has inherited from previous regulators. As the closure of bank branches remains a major concern for the community and parliament, the committee has taken the opportunity presented by APRA's statistics review to recommend that APRA provide yearly statistics on the location and level of face-to-face banking in Australia. The committee believes this will be critical to monitoring the community's access to banking services. In addition to these recommendations, the committee has indicated in the report that it will closely monitor APRA's performance in a range of other areas, including, first, overcoming the restrictions on capital raising that apply to mutual institutions, such as credit unions; secondly, improving the current system for levying financial institutions by measuring APRA's actual cost of supervising individual financial institutions and answering claims of overcharging on some levies; and, thirdly, increasing the acceptance and understanding of APRA's risk based approach to supervision of financial institutions.The report notes that APRA has been fortunate to be established in a benign economic climate. Its performance is yet to be tested in a less benign economic situation. The House economics committee has a well-established commitment to ensuring that those who oversee Australia's financial system are properly accountable. This first report on APRA's performance should be seen in this context. The committee expects to deliver a similar report on APRA annually. This regular review will fit well with the committee's biannual review of the Reserve Bank. Together they will form a comprehensive accountability mechanism for those organisations that safeguard Australia's financial system.Finally, I would like to thank the staff of the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority, especially the CEO, Mr Graeme Thompson, and the secretary, Ms Thea Rosenbaum, for their excellent assistance and cooperation in undertaking this review. I also thank all committee members, particularly the deputy chairman, the member for Chisholm, and the secretariat, in particular Mr Kevin Bodel and Ms Bev Forbes, for their contributions to this inquiry. I commend the report to the House. (Time expired)12:37:0022130Burke, Anna, MPMs BURKE83SChisholmALP00—I also rise today to welcome the first review of the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority. The appearance of APRA before the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics, Finance and Public Administration is one of the major elements of the authority's accountability to the federal parliament. APRA commenced operation on 1 July 1998 as the single prudential regulator of all Australia's financial institutions. It was a major plank flowing from the Wallis review. Interestingly, APRA defined itself to the committee by what it is not:We are not responsible for policing competition in financial markets, for standards of disclosure about products and services or for how banks and others handle customer complaints and disputes. We are not responsible for fees, charges or interest margins, or for the representation of financial institutions in particular regional areas.This is most interesting as it is becoming increasingly more difficult to find who will accept responsibility for policing outrageous fees and charges imposed by banks and to protect what is left of face-to-face financial services. It seems no-one is going to accept responsibility for these issues of public importance. APRA's willingness to appear before the committee and to take further questions is to be commended and I thank them for their time and interest. To most, the prudential regulation of our deposit taking institutions would not appear fascinating stuff, but ask any Victorian who had money in Pyramid if they saw it as important and you would probably get a different answer. The bringing together of all ADIs—authorised deposit-taking institutions—under one umbrella has ensured that there are no longer first- or second-class ADIs. All have the same regulation and APRA has been working on harmonising regulations across all financial institutions. APRA acknowledged that it had not been easy establishing a new authority, especially the bringing together of two different institutions with widely different cultures.Two issues which I wish to address have been raised as areas of concern by the financial industry—staffing and the new levy structure. A levy structure was imposed by the current government when APRA was established. Financial institutions were most concerned with the lack of input to this process and a subsequent inquiry was held to review the levy structure. The structure of the levies is meant to reflect the actual cost of supervision of particular entities based on a percentage of assets with a maximum cap of $1 million for any institution. Whilst the levies are based on the cost of supervision, a recent report by the ANAO found that APRA could not account for the administrative cost of the particular levies. In April 1999, the umbrella Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia estimated that superannuation funds were paying about 40 per cent of the running costs of APRA while ADIs were paying 16 per cent. In addition, based on asset value, large ADIs currently pay significantly less than any other institution towards the cost of running APRA. This difficulty, combined with the impact on conglomerates which pay a levy based on the number of licences they hold while they are supervised as one entity, makes the basis of the current levy structure difficult to justify. The impost of fees on small superannuation funds versus the four big banks and the net effect on individuals' retirement funds is something that needs to be further explored. The review of levies in 2003 is welcomed by the committee.The issue of staff is something that has been raised not only by staff members at APRA but also, most notably, by clients of APRA. One senior individual in the super industry put it to me like this: by far the most frustrating and disappointing aspect has been its inability to retain decent staff who know anything about super; all the knowledgeable officers have left and this has a real and dramatic effect on service levels. It means that now you cannot get appropriate compliance advice out of it and its officers prefer to work on audit checklists rather than develop policy initiatives for Treasury. APRA policy has always been directed out of Treasury and recently this influence has been stronger than ever and we have been concerned that the policy direction has not been consistently applied. Generally, responses are prompt but, because of other problems, only to routine queries. For anything a little complex—super equalling complexity—you just do not get a response.I will now quote from a statement by AMP's Kevin Casey at a recent Senate inquiry:While the regulators understood the law and were very well intentioned ... they do not have a great feel for the financial system they are overseeing.He went on to say:The AMP was finding regulators applying more black letter law and less `feel' for practical issues.Combined with reports from staff about the rock bottom-level of morale and the massive staff turnover, staffing is a serious issue that APRA needs to address. APRA's recent annual report talked about how it wanted to bring together numerous sets of terms and conditions. This is why it has gone for individual contracts—AWAs! For those who do not realise, I am being ironic. I do not see how you are going to get a uniform set of terms and conditions through individual contracts. I think that the impost of AWAs on staff has led to many leaving and to a lack of workplace democracy and rock-bottom morale in the workplace. Finally, I would like to thank all those involved in producing the report. It was difficult generating a lot of interest in APRA. I particularly thank Kevin Bodel. (Time expired)12:42:0022131Gambaro, Teresa, MPMs GAMBARO9K6PetrieLP10—I would also like to speak to the report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics, Finance and Public Administration entitled Review of the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority: who will guard the guardians? APRA came into effect on 1 July 1998 as a result of combining 11 separate regulatory organisations into one body. It was created as a result of a change in the focus of financial regulation from sector based regulation to risk based regulation. The establishment of a new regulatory entity to undertake prudential regulation of the financial system was a recommendation of the Wallis committee. At the time of inception, APRA was provided with comprehensive powers in its area of responsibility, including the licensing of financial institutions and making standards on prudential matters in relation to approved deposit taking institutions, superannuation funds and insurance companies. It is not responsible for policing competition in financial markets, standards of disclosure regarding products and services or how banks and other customer complaints and disputes are handled—as the member for Chisholm alluded to in her speech. In gauging the success of APRA as part of its annual review by the Standing Committee on Economics, Finance and Public Administration, its performance, on the whole, has been very good. As per the first aim of the Wallis committee's recommendation for a new prudential regulator, APRA has reduced supervisory costs for regulated industries through administrative economies from $56 million in 1997-98 to an estimated $51 million in 2000-01. It was achieved at a time when financial institutions had increased in size by 35 per cent. In addressing the second and third aims of the Wallis committee's recommendations for a harmonised approach to supervising risk, and a flexible approach to dealing with structural change in the financial system, the committee found that APRA had encountered some difficulties. These included changes in the structure of the finance system, such as the growth in the number and complexity of conglomerate institutions, with different risk profiles; restrictions on the classes of debt and equity that may be issued by mutual institutions, such as credit unions; and changes in the supervision of the superannuation industry.As a risk based prudential regulator, APRA's focus is how financial institutions control the risk in their activities in order to maximise the likelihood that they will be able to honour their obligations to their depositors and shareholders. Two areas of focus for APRA in the last year have been substantially completing a review of prudential standards for conglomerate entities and the harmonising of prudential standards for approved deposit taking institutions such as banks, building societies, credit unions and friendly societies. The principal problem for APRA is how to measure and manage risk across a diverse set of activities. It is currently in the second stage of a review of the regulatory framework for conglomerates. New prudential standards across ADIs came into effect on 1 October 2000 and APRA intends to undertake a second stage investigation to ensure that they address all significant risks facing ADIs. Prior to APRA becoming a supervisor for the superannuation industry, the Insurance and Superannuation Commission handled all regulatory activities in this area. Under the current situation, prudential supervision resides with APRA, disclosure and market conduct with ASIC, and the development of new legislation with the Department of the Treasury. Evidence provided during the review indicated that the separation of responsibilities with other financial regulatory bodies still requires a great deal of work. APRA recognises the need to work closely with other regulatory agencies to minimise duplication and inconsistency and to promote much greater cooperation. This is the key to the success of the current regulatory structure and the committee will monitor these relationships. From the perspective of superannuation funds, APRA's risk based approach is considered far too intrusive and the committee's recommendations and investigations into APRA's supervision of the superannuation industry found that there was a need for APRA to take on a more educative role and that far more resources should be allocated here. As part of its restructure, previous members had mentioned that a number of inexperienced staff have left the organisation and there appears to be a noticeable impact, particularly in the superannuation and insurance industries. In turn, a number of internal management and organisational issues have arisen. However, following some investment in learning and development activities, APRA now believes it has adequate staff numbers with professional people and that morale is high. The report demonstrates that APRA'S transition to a new regulatory framework has been smooth and its performance good. There is scope for improvement and APRA is pursuing measures to enact these. It is fortunate that APRA was born in a favourable economic environment. However, the committee will continue to review APRA's progress with regard to regulatory reform of the financial services sector. 12:49:0022132Southcott, Dr Andrew, MPDr SOUTHCOTTTK6BoothbyLP10—Market failure can have four sources: anticompetitive behaviour, and we have the ACCC responsible for that; market misconduct, and ASIC is responsible for that; asymmetric information, and APRA is responsible for that; and the broader financial system, for which the Reserve Bank is responsible. It is important that we do have good coordination between the four regulators. The United Kingdom and Japan have gone a different way. They have a separate regulator—for example, the Financial Services Authority in the UK. The United States is more like us, with different regulators, including the Federal Reserve, the SEC and so on. Examining other countries' prudential regulation is similar to examining their central bank arrangements. Every country has a different arrangement and every country believes it has the best. But for Australia's system good cooperation is essential between APRA, the Reserve bank, ASIC and ACCC, and the committee did mention that in its report. The functional separation of the consumer protection and prudential regulation role came from the Wallis inquiry of 1997. APRA was established on 1 July 1998, but this is the first time the Standing Committee on Economics, Finance and Public Administration has provided parliamentary oversight of APRA. The financial system inquiry recognised that the distinction between banks, building societies, insurers and superannuation funds is blurring and that a twin peaks model based on function would be an improvement. While overall the financial system was in good shape, reinsurers suffered a $3 billion loss and APRA took a close look at the reinsurance industry and monitored closely the emerging exposures. In the area of banks, banks continue to maintain a capital ratio of 10 per cent, which is what it has been for the last two years. It is above the standard minimum ratio of eight per cent and banks' asset growth has been 11 per cent. Building societies and credit unions again have growth of five per cent. In the area of insurance, solvency has been well above the statutory minimums and, as I mentioned, reinsurance recorded losses of $3 billion. In the area of capital adequacy, since 1988 capital adequacy has been based on the Basel accord. Last year the Basel committee released a new capital adequacy framework which is based on minimal capital requirements, supervisory review and effective market discipline. This seems a good improvement. 10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Order! The time allotted for statements on this report has expired. Does the member for Wannon wish to move a motion in connection with the report to enable it to be debated on a later occasion? 22133Hawker, David, MPMr HAWKER8H4WannonLP10—I move: That the House take note of the report.I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted. 10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—In accordance with standing order 102B, the debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting. The member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed. Private Members' Business221332213312:51:0022133Gambaro, Teresa, MPMs GAMBARO9K6PetrieLP10—I move:That this House:(1) recognises that the restaurant and café industry makes a significant contribution to the Australian economy, having an estimated gross profit of $3.3 billion and employing over 188 000 Australians;(2) acknowledges the contribution the restaurant and café industry makes to Australia's tourism income, with visitors spending an average $328 on food during their stay in Australia; and(3) recognises the importance placed on the apprenticeship scheme by the Government, increasing the positions available in traineeships, and noting its beneficial impact for training in the restaurant industry.I am very pleased to move this motion today. The restaurant and cafe industry makes a significant contribution to Australia's economy, having an estimated gross profit of $3.3 billion and employing over 188,000 Australians. This motion also recognises its significant impact on the Australian tourism industry. Visitors spend, on average, $328 on food during their stay in Australia. The restaurant and cafe industry is also an employer of young people. The restaurant industry makes a significant contribution to apprenticeships and traineeships. I speak to this motion today from many aspects, not the least being that my family business has been involved in the food preparation industry for some 50 years. I have a very high regard for the thousands of restaurateurs and cafe owners in the Petrie electorate and throughout Australia who have maintained the high levels of professionalism and service that have ensured that Australia has one of the best industries in the world. You have to be a certain type of person to be a restaurateur. You have to put in long hours, service and dedication. Many families also contribute to what makes a really great restaurant. There are no half measures in this business. You get only one chance to deliver a truly superb meal. From the time a reservation is made, the service given by the maitre d, the food waiter and the drink waiter, the excellence of the cuisine, the ambience of the restaurant and the level of attentiveness by the owners all determine what sort of a restaurant experience you will have.There are approximately 20,000 restaurants, cafes and caterers providing this service. Australians, according to ABS figures in 1998, spend nearly $1,000 per head eating out each year. The industry is a major employer and over 188,000 people work in restaurants and cafes. Many of these are young people aged between 15 and 19 years of age. In fact, they make up 20 per cent of this work force. The industry, contrary to belief, is rather a skilled one and, according to ABS statistics, 70 per cent of employees fall within associated professional, intermediate clerical and tradesperson classifications. The restaurant industry has been growing since 1982 and the number of restaurants in Australia has grown by 150 per cent. The restaurant and cafe sector is predicted to grow at around 4.2 per cent annually until 2001, according to ABS figures. Because the industry is so labour intensive, it employs a large number of young people. It is a major contributor to the tourism industry and contributes billions of dollars in exports each year.In 1985 and 1986, two decisions had an adverse effect on the industry. The first occurred on 19 September 1985 when the government under the stewardship of Treasurer Keating announced that income tax deductions would no longer be available for business related expenditure from that date onwards. This was followed by the introduction in 1986 of fringe benefits tax. All business related entertainment expenses were subject to FBT. At the time, I was closely involved and quite active with the Restaurant and Caterers Association Queensland, along with Nick Tsminas of The Ox restaurant in Redcliffe, Francis Dominech of Baguette restaurant and Geoff Harrower of Harrowers restaurant. At that time, the Restaurant and Caterers Association Queensland put up a great fight under the leadership of Paul Dever and its 374 members at the time. We lobbied and fundraised, we had delegations and I was part of a delegation that came to Canberra. I will never forget our slogan: `Don't let Keating stop you eating'. The white paper on tax reform advocated a major crackdown on fringe benefits claimed on entertainment expenses. It also advocated a tax on employers in respect of non-cash fringe benefits to employees. The paper said that the greatest difficulty arose in areas of entertainment expense where, it claimed, a good deal of business entertainment tended to be done on a reciprocal basis and was often undertaken for predominantly social reasons rather than business purposes. The only really effective way of counting deductions for private entertainment was to ban deductions of this kind. The white paper went on to say that it recognised that a measure of this kind would also mean that in a number of cases deductions would be denied for genuine business expenses. This disadvantage had to be weighed up against the need to maintain respect for the tax system and pursue overall tax equity in the face of practical impossibility of preventing abuse in the area.There is no doubt that there were abuses of entertainment expenses, but I also experienced, in my restaurant life and when I went to work for a hotel chain, many legitimate business meetings and contracts that were signed over the restaurant table. To say that dining out with clients is a totally pleasurable experience and not worthy of a deduction is a total fallacy. Throughout my corporate life in sales and marketing, I frequently had to entertain large corporate clients. It was a necessary part of my job, but an area that was by no means a perk of the job. It was an important part of doing business, not a privilege. Small companies around Australia use restaurants as their boardrooms. These small to medium enterprises do not have the expensive boardrooms. They do not have the huge dollars to spend on promotions and promotional activities or huge marketing budgets. The introduction of FBT changed the face of the restaurant industry. I saw many good restaurants that had been trading for many years lose their very valuable clientele overnight. When you look at it on a wider basis, many industries were affected: the wine companies that sold to restaurants, the fruit and vegetable wholesalers, the meat wholesalers, the small bakery down the road that supplied the dinner rolls, the gelati seller, the chocolate supplier, the dessert manufacturers, the laundry supplier, the flower seller and the manufacturers of industrial cleaning products. The industry already operated on small margins and it was crushed even further. A survey covering 20 per cent of restaurants in Brisbane's CBD in March 1985 to March 1986 by Howarth and Howarth Services, commissioned by the Restaurant and Caterers Association Queensland, found that there had been a 23 per cent drop in the number of meals served, a 15 per cent drop in turnover and a 7.4 per cent drop in payroll. On the introduction of this Keating fringe benefits tax, BRW-KPMG Hungerfords surveyed 220 company chief executives and asked the following question: `How are you responding to the Keating tax package?' Of the respondents, 76 per cent indicated that they would reduce the value of spending on entertainment regardless of Keating's views on the business lunches at the time. The business lunch is an age-old tradition of settling disputations, cementing deals, gathering company information and extending business networks. It is not a time-wasting taxation rort. The restaurant industry today is just as valuable to youth employment as it was then. As a government, we need to look at FBT and review the current arrangements as they exist. The industry is a great generator of jobs—jobs that require traineeships and apprenticeships and provide entry level positions to a large number of young workers as well as providing greater skilled opportunities. Employment conditions are flexible and meet the demands of both women and students. I employed many young university students who are now practising professionals in medicine, engineering, teaching and marketing. Many valued the development of people skills they acquired when working in the industry, financing their way through university by waiting on tables. Modelling by the University of Newcastle estimated that 9,000 new jobs could be created by allowing a 50 per cent entertainment deduction, and this would generate a reduction in Austudy benefits and a multiplier effect in increasing revenue from increased restaurant turnover. FBT makes up only six per cent of fringe benefits payments. Lower unemployment, lower business costs and a more efficient economy would result. The industry is extremely labour intensive and requires workers with diverse skills and training. The highest percentage of young people aged 15 to 19 years and 20 to 24 years are employed in this industry and the work experience and training provided to these young people is very important.I would like to acknowledge locally Nick Tsminas of The Ox restaurant and Sandy and Michael Smith of Mosaics restaurant for the fine work and guidance they provide to apprentices in the Petrie electorate. There are many fine establishments in the Petrie electorate: Morgans Restaurant at Scarborough; Mama's; The Ox at Margate and Mosaics, as I have mentioned; Tulio's; Carseldine Garden World Cafe; Top Nosh Cafe; Treasure House; Oriental Bangkok; and Rossinis—just to name a few of the rich and wonderful restaurants that weave a gourmet tapestry in my electorate.This industry and its future depend on a workable business and leisure sector participation. It is time that the government had another look at FBT and allowed a 50 per cent deduction for business entertainment expenses, which are not currently deductible. I would be very interested to work with Treasury to look at some of the figures that would be involved. I believe that the multiplier effect in the generation of jobs and the effect on the economy would be far greater. The industry can continue to grow if 50 per cent deductibility is introduced. The Bell report Time for business found, after extensive consultation with the business community, `the majority of such meals are offered within genuine business context for the reasons of business benefit'. Taxing relaxing, a report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Banking, Finance and Public Administration, endorsed that. I commend the industry to the House. (Time expired)10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Is the motion seconded?13:01:0022136Emerson, Craig, MPMr EMERSON83VRankinALP00—I second the motion. The member for Petrie is genuinely concerned about the restaurant and catering industry in Australia and it is true that her father and her family have been involved in that industry for some time. Michael Gambaro runs very famous restaurants in Brisbane, best recognised for their mud crabs. According to the industry itself, there are 20,000 restaurants and cafes in Australia, 4,887 caterers, 16,000 fast food and takeaway outlets, 6,637 hotels and 3,284 clubs. The industry employs 137,000 people. By any measure it is an important industry, so I was bemused that the member for Petrie would come into the House and say, `We need relief from fringe benefits tax.' This is an important industry and vital to the future of young people, who are often employed as apprentices in the industry. I checked the voting record of the member for Petrie when the goods and services tax was introduced into this place by the Treasurer. Lo and behold, the member for Petrie voted for it. The member for Petrie votes for a tax on the restaurant and catering industry in this country and then comes into the parliament and says, `Oh, we need tax relief. We need relief from fringe benefits tax.' I put it to the member for Petrie that she should have thought of that when she came in to vote for the goods and services tax, because it applied a 10 per cent impost on the restaurant and catering industry.I have had the opportunity to look at some work by Professor Dixon and Maureen Rimmer of the Centre of Policy Studies regarding the economic impacts of the GST on various industries. Among the major losers from the imposition of the GST are entertainment and hotels. That is an early indication of the likely impact of the GST on those industries. I also point out that Professor Dixon and Ms Rimmer estimate that, as a result of the imposition of the GST in the form of the Howard-Democrat deal, the long-term change in living standards for Australia, when you include the very large compliance costs associated with the GST, is negative. The member for Petrie voted for a tax that will actually reduce Australian living standards. The member for Petrie and other members of the government might say, `That's that Professor Dixon and Maureen Rimmer, who don't seem to be very firm advocates of the GST.' I will now turn to some evidence from someone who is an advocate of the GST, and that is Chris Murphy from Econtech. He prepared a report on 24 August last year, after the GST had been legislated and after the deal with the Democrats. It was after the Ralph review had produced its report. This report from an advocate of the GST said:Household spending on Accommodation, Cafes and Restaurants services will be subject to GST of 10 per cent. Furthermore, spending by foreign tourists will also be subject to GST, unlike other exports. Production in this industry will be lower because higher prices will reduce demand. Accommodation, Cafes and Restaurants suffers a greater fall in production from ANTS II than from ANTS I—that is, from the Howard-Democrat deal compared with the original GST package. They really made a fine mess of it. They did a deal with the Democrats that imposed an even greater penalty on accommodation, cafes and restaurants. The report continued:This is because the tax cuts are smaller under ANTS II, and lead to smaller reductions in costs. The production loss increases from 1.8 per cent to 2.3 per cent.The review went on to point out that the Ralph measures do nothing for the restaurant and cafe industry because they reduce the company tax rate but abolish accelerated depreciation. It said: Overall, more tax will be paid by the Accommodation, Cafes and Restaurants industry.That was after it was legislated. But the government had fair warning. The same author, Mr Chris Murphy, in a report in September 1998, which was before the last election, produced his estimates of the production effects of the GST package. Among the biggest losers are accommodation, cafes and restaurants. And which of the states lose most under the GST? There is Queensland, right up there with the main losers from the GST package. As I say, I am quite bemused that the member for Petrie would come in pleading with the Treasurer for tax relief for the restaurant and cafe industry when in fact she was one of the people who voted to apply an impost in the form of the GST. Again the government had fair warning of this. I do not imagine that the member for Petrie was privy to this information, but not only did Chris Murphy of Econtech produce this analysis publicly just before the last election; he produced it quite a way before the last election, in the form of advice—modelling—to the Treasurer. You might remember the famous statement of the Treasurer to the National Press Club when he was asked a question about the employment effects. He said, `Look, we've done a lot of modelling.' In fact, Treasury had done no modelling at all, but it had commissioned someone to do some modelling, and his name was Chris Murphy. That modelling was very detailed. I refer to a table in which Chris Murphy looked at production effects and the employment effects of the GST package. Accommodation, cafés and restaurants were amongst the biggest losers, with a 1.1 per cent decline in production and a 2.2 per cent decline in employment. If we go to very detailed tables so we can have a precise look at meal preparation and presentation in restaurants—we are right on the money here—there was an employment decline of three per cent, a reduction of 1.8 per cent in production quantity and a 4.8 per cent reduction in the value of production from that particular industry. This is an industry that the member for Petrie is championing here, asking for special tax relief and relief from fringe benefits tax; but it is one of the biggest losers from the GST package.Let us come forward to more recent developments. I refer here to a survey by Morgan and Banks. You might recall, Mr Deputy Speaker, that last week in the parliament the Treasurer was chortling about a Morgan and Banks survey indicating that more than 90 per cent of businesses did not favour GST roll-back. Of course, if the question had been, `Do you favour making the GST simpler?' I would think an overwhelming majority of businesses would support making the GST simpler. How many businesses say, `No, we like it just as it is. It is very complex and that is how we love it'? I do not think many businesses would have that view because there are very substantial compliance costs associated with the GST. So we had the Treasurer chortling about how the Morgan and Banks survey had vindicated his position. You may also recall, Mr Deputy Speaker, that the Treasurer and Prime Minister said after the date of implementation of the GST, in the first few days after 1 July this year: `Hasn't it been terrific? Hasn't it really gone very smoothly? We are very proud of the GST.' Another Morgan and Banks survey was released over the weekend which has some incredibly telling results in it. The key question asked was: `How has the GST impacted upon your organisation's profitability?' Only 5.9 per cent said it had increased profitability, but 94.1 per cent of respondents to the Morgan and Banks survey said the GST had reduced their profitability. If we have a look at some of the industries relevant to this debate, in the food sector 93.4 per cent of respondents said that the GST had reduced their profitability and in tourism 96.1 per cent said it had reduced their profitability. If we look at how it has affected small business, businesses with fewer than 20 employees, 92.7 per cent said it had reduced their profitability. So we have compelling evidence of the actual impacts of the GST, and the actual impacts are very adverse. Remember the Treasurer's prophetic statement, `I don't think anyone will go to the wall as a consequence of the GST.' He said that in Perth on 18 May. Right at this moment, businesses are going to the wall as a result of the GST, and the reduction in profitability that has been reported by 94 per cent of businesses is a forerunner of further bankruptcies as a result of the GST. Today we have located a report from the restaurant and catering industry itself, and the results of that survey are that almost half of the surveyed businesses say that GST implementation has cost them more than $5,000. So that is a measure of the compliance costs. More than 30 per cent of them anticipate difficulties with the business activity statement. So much for a streamlined new tax system for a new century. The member for Petrie was one of the members on that side who voted for a new tax on the restaurant and catering industry and she has the temerity to come in here and say, `Look, we need tax relief for the restaurant and catering industry.' She should have thought of that when the legislation was going through, and she failed to do so. (Time expired)13:11:0022138Baird, Bruce, MPMr BAIRDMP6CookLP10—It is my pleasure to support the motion from the member for Petrie, an outstanding member of this House and someone who has shown real leadership in terms of tourism. She is one of the key members of the Friends of Tourism group and she takes an ongoing interest in the various tourism related matters in this House. The restaurant and catering sector of the tourism industry is one of its most significant, employing hundreds of thousands of people across Australia. It is quite a significant part of the tourism industry not only in terms of domestic tourism but also in attracting international visitors to our country. It was particularly interesting to hear the member for Rankin talk about the GST on restaurants. Is this part of the roll-back program in that we will have the two Rs, roll-back on restaurants? Unless he says that this industry will be part of the roll-back, on what grounds is he talking about it? You people come in here and take a stand on those things. You had 13 years to display your credentials, and what did you do for the restaurant industry? You put the whole FBT program on it. Look what happened to the industry after that. Have a look at how employment fell dramatically across the restaurant and catering industry, and they still have not fully recovered from the impact of your policies when you were in government for 13 years. There was no other relief, just a tax that went directly to their heart. So we hear the talk about the roll-back, but the fact is that when you were in government you were the ones who put a tax right on the restaurant industry.I am very pleased to support the motion from the member for Petrie because we have in the restaurant industry in Australia professionalism, great competence and great skill as the restaurant industry has moved to a new level in terms of the special Australian brand, which is a fusion of culinary delights from various parts of the world, particularly Asia and Europe. That has worked very well. In fact, the editor of the American Express magazine which goes across the world said that Australia can now boast amongst the finest restaurants in the world. That is so when we look at some of the outstanding examples we have across the country, in every state. The most recent ABS figures show that in June 1999 there were 12,845 restaurants and cafes around Australia employing 152,000 people, which is very significant and is obviously one of the reasons why the member for Petrie has come into this House reflecting interest in that sector. They have a combined 1,057,000 seats available for the consumption of food on the premises and around 52 per cent of restaurants and cafes are licensed to sell alcohol. We also have the Australian innovation, the BYO, which has been well received. During 1998 and 1999 businesses in the restaurant sector generated nearly $7.2 billion in income. As the member for Petrie has outlined, gross profits represent $3.3 billion, which is very significant these days. It shows the importance of the restaurant and catering sector to the Australian economy.There is no doubt that the restaurant and cafe sector is a vital part of Australia's overseas industries and that the employees of cafes and restaurants are in fact the very face of Australia to the international visitor. As part of that, the government has recognised this sector in terms of new apprenticeships—275,000 new apprenticeships in training around Australia, many of them involved in hospitality and many of them involved in the burgeoning restaurant and catering sector. The industry itself has played a very significant part in terms of the economy, the $7 billion of overall income and the jobs generated—150,000. In terms of the establishments, the overall impact on the economy is very significant. I agree with the member for Petrie that some areas of taxation need to be reviewed to look at the long-term future and viability of this most important sector in the Australian scene and a vital part of the growing international tourism, given we now have four million international visitors every year coming to Australia. One of the reasons for that is the vibrant restaurant sector. (Time expired)13:16:0022139Gibbons, Steve, MPMr GIBBONS83XBendigoALP00—I rise to speak on this motion, having had some eight years of experience in this very industry as an industrial officer, so I know it very well. As my colleague the member for Rankin has pointed out, restaurant and catering industry facts and figures show that there are 20,000 restaurants and cafes in Australia, 4,887 caterers, 16,000 fast food and takeaway outlets, 6,637 hotels and 3,284 clubs. As he also pointed out, employment-wise that means 137,000 people employed in restaurants and cafes and about $1.1 billion spent on wages and salaries by restaurants and cafes. The retail and commercial food services market is worth some $18 billion annually and the restaurant and cafe sector makes up $6 billion of the market. Australians spend just under $1,000 per head on eating out each year, so you can see it is a vitally important industry.My region of Bendigo has some 91 hotels, 76 restaurants and 55 cafes. A town called Heathcote, about half an hour from Bendigo, is very important in this particular debate for reasons which I will outline in a minute. It offers some very fine tourist facilities. I refer to the Bank Cafe, which is a former National Bank building, one of the many banks that have closed in regional Australia. A very entrepreneurial couple have converted it into a very fine cafe, restaurant and conference centre, and it is well worth a visit. We also have a whole range of very fine wineries in Heathcote. The Emeu Inn Restaurant offers fine dining with international cuisine. It specialises in local wines, has won an award for its wine list and has been recommended in the AgeGood Food Guide. There is a whole range of other very interesting tourism attractions in Heathcote.The reason I have chosen to mention Heathcote is that it happens to be geographically in the centre of Victoria. It is halfway between the bay and the river. That, in normal circumstances, would position it very well for tourism. There is one big problem: nobody can afford to put the petrol in the car to drive there because of the government's GST. That is having a major impact on tourism not only in Heathcote but all over Australia. I would like to know what research the minister for tourism has commissioned on the impact on regional tourism of the skyrocketing petrol prices and the GST. If she has not had any research undertaken, I would like to know why, and I would call on her to commission such research, research that she needs to have to advise the government on the effects of the GST and inflated petrol prices on regional tourism.I am very concerned, as are most people in the industry all around Australia, about the impact of the GST, especially with the inflated petrol prices, on tourism in regional and country Australia. The steep price of petrol is a direct deterrent to motorists travelling into country areas to see a vast range of tourist attractions and venues that Australia has for people to see outside its capital cities. The John Howard GST on petrol is a dead hand on regional tourism. As I said in a speech in the House in August, the national tourism industry estimates that regional tourism is the backbone of the nation's $70 billion tourism industry. The Australian Tourist Commission's figures show that regional tourism provides 430,000 jobs and attracts 68 per cent of domestic travellers, not to mention 28 per cent of international travellers. Indeed, only in August the House was applauding the $12 million the Australian Tourist Commission was investing over four years to maximise— 10000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. The member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.22140Motion (by Ms Worth)—by leave—agreed to:That so much of the Standing and Sessional Orders be suspended as would prevent Notice No. 2, private members business, given by the member for Werriwa and accorded priority for this sitting, being moved in his absence by the member for Oxley.13:20:0022140Ripoll, Bernie, MPMr RIPOLL83EOxleyALP00—On behalf of the member for Werriwa, I move:That this House:(1) recognises the potential of Internet democracy as a way of fostering greater public participation in politics and rebuilding public trust in democratic processes;(2) notes the US experience in conducting elections through Internet voting, plus the development of mass participation in Internet polls;(3) notes the strong interest of the Australian Electoral Commission in the development of Internet voting; and(4) recognises the need to reform representative democracy and create a charter of issues and governmental responsibilities determined by direct democracy. I have the great privilege of speaking to this motion. I think it is very relevant to today. Probably the first thing you realise when you research the subject of Internet democracy and electronic voting is that the concept is not as new as you might think, and it is certainly not possible to cover the subject in 10 minutes. There is a range of examples of experiments and first times that have fuelled speculation that the future might be one of interactive voting and online democracy. While I believe the electronic superhighway will play a role in the future of democracy and how we vote, no-one can be sure of the form or manner it will take and when that might happen.There is always potential to foster participation in public democratic processes, in particular in countries where voting remains voluntary. In the US, where voter turnout is as low as 35 per cent and particularly where minority group turnout is in even lower numbers, any change to a system that will bring about a more complete participation must be beneficial. E-voting could become part of the process that enhances participation by offering alternatives to traditional methods. However, the steps to be taken to develop confidence and useability may be much more complex, but the journey has already begun.Excitement about the move to e--voting, particularly in Arizona and Alaska as the first real ballots, opens the door for what are the first steps in online democracy. The Arizona primary held in conjunction with traditional voting in March of this year is heralded as the first legally binding Internet election, but the first e-vote really took place in Alaska in January as a straw poll. What both of these examples demonstrate is that e-voting is possible and on a grand scale. The voter turnout, though, for both of these events was disappointing. The Alaska straw poll managed only 35 out of the possible 4,430 votes, a percentage of 0.8 per cent. The Arizona primary reached about 4.2 per cent, which is 35,000 out of the 843,000 registered voters who were all sent their PINs by mail to enable participation.While the low voter turnout might shock some about the potential for greater participation, the even lower rate for young people will further complicate the argument. Less than one per cent of the e-votes cast in Arizona were from people 25 years and under. There are a number of issues that must be addressed for this system to be used either independently or in conjunction with traditional methods. The Australian Electoral Commission, which currently uses computer technology to carry out much of its work, is looking closely at developments overseas. Whatever form future elections might take, there are a number of issues that are inescapable to its success, particularly in Australia. Regardless of the texts on this issue, it is clear that everyone at least agrees on the base for moving in this direction. Issues of authentication, integrity and secrecy, defence against attacks, accessibility, security, transparency and reliability underpin the features that are required in our current system and the features that will be essential to the acceptance of this new technology. In the Arizona primary ballot, eligible electors were sent a PIN by traditional mail about three weeks before the ballot in which electors had three days to cast their vote. E-voters could visit one of two sites and vote by entering their PIN followed by either their social security number or their date of birth to complete the verification process. The rest of the process is technical, but did have some problems with system failure and time-outs due to heavy traffic on the sites. The Australian Electoral Commission, on its web site, lists services that it will be unable to provide online in 2001. In particular they are inspection of rolls and voting, but it does spend considerable space describing e-voting and related issues. One could argue that e-voting will be cost effective as the technology and its broader use enables wider access. There is also the potential for elections to be spread over a number of days and to replace the postal vote system and absentee voting by mail. If any change is to come, it must be able to cope with a public tired of allegations of rorting and potential fraud. A system that will be acceptable to the community and have the confidence of the electorate must at least be able to cope with, if not offer greater protection from, fraud and corruption. At the end of the ballot it must be accepted by all as a true democratic representation of the will of the people. The potential for e-voting need not be restricted to general elections but also could enhance union ballots and other ballots conducted by the AEC. The positives to work towards greater participation and electronic democracy are issues at the cutting edge. No system is so perfect that reform could not make it better. For Australia, participation in voting is not a major problem, as voting is compulsory, but greater participation might come in the form of making voting more accessible, more equitable and more convenient. Reform and direct democracy are becoming part of everyday language. Citizen initiated referenda and calls for greater levels of direct democracy appear to be the way of the future. The idea of electronic town hall meetings and the use of technology to enhance current voting systems could see electors deciding issues directly and in time frames previously unheard of.The questions that would arise out of such new found decision making power for the people might be the role of executive government itself. Parliamentary terms could be set to four years, fixed, with a greater role to be played by ordinary citizens. If anything, this type of approach would give greater power to those willing to inform themselves and to play their part in stemming the power of government, in particular that of the executive. Voting needs to become more a civic culture done not to escape a fine but to contribute and participate. The downside to this increased participation could be more emotive decision making rather than the so-called `good for the country' arguments. While there is no doubt that often government must make decisions that are unpopular but absolutely necessary for the nation, there are also many other times that decisions are made based on party political ideology and as a means to an end. Greater participation could reverse some of this trend. Internet voting would also give people with disabilities, people who work on weekends, the infirm, the aged, families and many more individuals greater choice in democracy and enhance the voting process itself.Whatever the future holds, the desire of individuals to have a say and effect political change is without doubt growing internationally. For Australia, electronic voting or Internet voting is still some time away. The many issues of security, privacy and reliability of any electronic system or whether it would represent a real alternative to current paper systems are yet to be realised. The last few years have demonstrated the power of the Internet with more web sites and electronic forums dedicated to politics and democracy. Political parties, such as One Nation, which capitalised on the access of the Net, were very effective in spreading messages far and wide. A growing number of uncontrolled sites that preach hate and intolerance are also being used to disseminate information to areas that were previously impossible to reach. The future of e-voting and electronic democracy may be closely linked to the growth of single issue parties, international environmental movements and the like. These groups that have issues based not on traditional country borders are already well versed in global lobbying and international political pressure. The challenge for us as legislators is not so much to decide when e-voting or electronic participation will happen but to put in place rules and allow debate that will govern the operation when it does come about. Australians will one day have the option to vote via the Internet. How that system will look and who will control it will be far more important than the system itself. Anyone who may be a sceptic about the future need think only of globalisation and the disintegration of concepts of nation state, the mobility of capital and the global movements based on single issues. The highway is deemed as the single greatest invention of the 20th century in the development of the world. The Internet superhighway may be the single most important development of the 21st century leading to changes not yet considered possible.What we have before us today is a motion that talks about where we might be in maybe not five or 10 years time but probably in 50, 80 or 100 years time. I do not think anybody doubts that in 100 years the current system of voting by paper will have changed. What we have to do now is start giving serious consideration to those changes that will definitely happen at some time. As I said earlier, we have already seen those changes taking place in America. Those first few examples indicate what will lead the great changes and where we will see Internet democracy go. The fear that I have is that if we do not have the right systems in place to control what happens with Internet democracy—and by that I mean controlling to some extent how the Internet is governed and run—Internet voting and Internet democracy might not be fully realised because of fears of corruption and unreliability. This is an issue that the parliament should be looking at and that people should be debating. Lastly, I would like to say that, if you would like to cast your vote on this very important issue, simply visit www.bripoll.com.au, my web site, and have your say online.10000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Is the motion seconded?83LGillard, Julia, MPMs Gillard—I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.13:30:0022142Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVECK6MoretonLP10—I would like to congratulate the member for Oxley. I am not certain that they were all his words—perhaps the member for Werriwa gave him a great deal of it.83ERipoll, Bernie, MPCK6Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVE—He assures me that they were his words, and I accept that assertion. He is the first and only Queensland Labor MP to speak out against electoral fraud and to express some concern about it. I think this motion before us is very important, and the contribution of the member for Oxley should be analysed closely. In the motion before us and in the speech of the member for Oxley is an admission that greater identification is needed to ensure the integrity of the electoral process. In regard to this proposal for Internet voting, he has suggested a personal identification number. I would ask that he use his new-found concern about electoral fraud to infect others within his political party, because we have a grave problem in this country and it is going to cost hundreds of millions of dollars to repair. The circumstances of this are being outlined in the Shepherdson inquiry in Queensland. The Queensland Shepherdson inquiry stands as a ready example of why the Australian Electoral Commission, if they were to undertake Internet voting, would have a very big job on their hands. The worst thing about it is that the state parliaments controlled by the Australian Labor Party around this country are doing nothing about electoral reform to beat electoral fraud. In 1998 this House and the Senate combined to put together a report on this issue. Ultimately it passed the Senate, although Labor spoke strongly against it. They did all they could to stop it—in fact, Senators Faulkner, Ray and Sherry worked strongly against the reforms. One of the things they were upset about was that $3.9 million in annual costs may be incurred to ensure the integrity of the electoral process. But it is going to cost hundreds of millions of dollars to get all Australians to prove their identity to re-enrol. The Queensland Premier wants to go to an election quickly—any excuse will do—but he cannot go to an election until the entire Queensland electoral roll is completely redrafted. It is easier to enrol to vote in this country than it is to hire a video from Video Ezy. That is an absolute outrage when you consider the way the Australian Labor Party have been working in Queensland to undermine the honesty of the electoral process. Yesterday on the Sunday program, Mr Beattie said he was a reformist of the Labor Party, but he is not being an honest broker. He might have done something 20 years ago, but he missed a couple of things in the intervening period, one suspects. In fact, consider what Terry Gygar, the former state member for Stafford in the Queensland parliament, found after the 1984 by-election, which returned him to Queensland parliament. He won the seat back after the late Denis Murphy, Peter Beattie's godfather in reform, retired due to ill-health. Terry Gygar found that people were enrolled to vote in hollow logs. There were parks where people were enrolled to vote. The Australian Labor Party were rorting the rolls back in 1984.Over the weekend, the Courier-Mail proved its worth yet again in exposing the fact that a foot soldier in the 1987 federal election participated in this orgy of voting. A then 16-year-old girl said that she had got her jollies by voting 14 times in the 1987 election in the seat of Fisher, which saw the then member for Fisher—the current member for Fisher, Peter Slipper—lose the seat by a few hundred votes. I think that this particular process now opens up the door to a lot of grave questions. I am optimistic that the Australian Labor Party are going to suffer the curse that they deserve to suffer for having used dead people to vote for them for generations. They deserve a curse as a result of this despicable action. The fact that Mr Beattie is now trying to hide behind some jurisdictional circumstance, by saying that it all should be reported to the federal police because the federal election is now in focus, is a disgrace. The rolls are exactly the same, and he knows that.UK6Thomson, Kelvin, MPCK6Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVE—It is disgraceful that they are going to take a point of order on this issue.UK6Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr Kelvin Thomson—Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The fascinating thing in all of this is that the honourable member is referring to events that he alleges occurred in 1984 and 1987—well before the advent of the Internet and the proposals which are the subject of this resolution.10000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—There is no point of order.CK6Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVE—Members of the Australian Labor Party are finding that their own branch members feel so badly about this fraud that at the next federal election they are only going to vote for you once! That is how badly they feel about each of you blokes. You can take as many points of order as you like, but the fact of the matter is that you are defending a corrupt process.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—The chair is not defending it. There was no point of order.CK6Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVE—The member for Wills is defending a corrupt process. He knows that in this place there are members from Queensland who have been directly involved in electoral fraud. (Time expired)13:36:0022143Gillard, Julia, MPMs GILLARD83LLalorALP00—Before moving on to the motion, let me say that the last thing you can ever take seriously is a member of the coalition from Queensland seeking to lecture you on corruption. Does the name Joh Bjelke-Petersen remind you of anything? Perhaps all of you would like to come and tell us very clearly the degree of political support you had for him when he was in office.CK6Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr Hardgrave—I rise on a point of order. I feel that that is a reflection upon me, and I ask the member to withdraw those comments. To try and suggest some sort of corruption as being the motivation for my contribution here is an outrage. 10000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—The decision as to whether anything is unparliamentary rests with the chair, and I decline to take action as you request.83LGillard, Julia, MPMs GILLARD—I will now turn to the motion, which was of course left untouched by the previous speaker in this debate. This motion is actually about the effect of the Internet on our societal structures and particularly on our political structures. This debate was thrown into sharp relief by the very highly publicised book Vote.com by Dick Morris. Dick Morris is an enthusiast for this new technology and he paints a very seductive vision of the Internet enabling a return to direct democracy. He says: Two hundred years ago, Thomas Jefferson had to shelve his vision of a direct democracy in which people made their own decisions at town meetings. The twin challenges of vast distances and limited communications made it necessary for us to select special people to go to places like Richmond, Albany, Harrisburg, Atlanta, and Washington, D.C., to make decisions for us. Now we are about to reclaim the power Jefferson would have given us. Through the technology of the Internet, we have overcome the logistics that defeated Jefferson. Again we can move in the direction his vision would have led—towards direct democracy.Of course, that is a very broad vision of where the Internet could take us, and one that could be countered, I think, by that 1970s movie The Rise and Rise of Michael Rimmer, where an individual takes over absolute power by, first of all, appealing to people's instincts for direct democracy and then troubling them with so many referendums so often that ultimately they give him absolute power rather than be troubled again. I think between these two contrasting visions lies something like the truth about the way in which the Internet will affect our democratic structures.Of course, before we can move forward and actually say, `Let's consider things like Internet voting; let's consider more of our political discourse occurring on the Internet,' the fundamental thing we need to do is to address the digital divide in Australia. Currently in Australia, including access through home and work, about one-quarter of Australia's population has access to the Internet. Disproportionately, those with Internet access are located on Australia's eastern seaboard. Despite the government's much vaunted Networking the Nation program, remoteness remains a considerable barrier to accessing the Internet. In addition, we face the situation where the digital divide means that groups of lower socioeconomic status, that have lower income levels, are less likely to have Internet access. Clearly, if we are going to use the Internet as a diagnostic tool for assessing public opinion through Internet polling, we need to address this digital divide; otherwise, inherently, the sample we will get will be a biased one. If we are to countenance moves from attendance ballots to Internet voting, obviously we must have universal access to the Internet so all Australian voters can continue to cast a vote in the way they do now.In terms of applying the Internet to our politics, much is said about the new enthusiasm for politics that could be harnessed through the Internet. But I think here, too, we have to be practical. While it is easier for people to participate in political discourse and gain political information through the Internet—they can do that from their very own homes—I think it is somewhat overstated to suggest that thousands of people who currently pay no regard to public affairs, who do not read the newspapers and do not watch the news, are somehow going to become switched on to politics just because the medium has changed. I think the challenge of switching people on to politics is much more fundamental.I do agree with the final section of this motion: that the challenge of switching people on to politics could in part be addressed by us debating with the electorate a role for government now that the role of nation-states has changed as a result of globalisation. Through that process we could perhaps reinvigorate some aspects of our democracy. I note that this motion calls for this to be done through a direct democratic voting process. Of course, that could be the end process of what would need to be a very long community debate. As we move, as I know we will, to further debates about the republic, I trust we will debate that as well. (Time expired)13:41:0022145Thompson, Cameron, MPMr CAMERON THOMPSON84CBlairLP10—In rising to address this motion before the House today, I want to refer to an article by Stephen H. Wilestrom in Information Technology and You called `Click and be counted'. In that article Mr Wilestrom refers to some points that need to be guaranteed before Internet voting can become a reality. They are: authentication—that the system must be able to determine that online voters are who they claim to be; privacy—having authenticated voters, the system must then forget their identity to preserve the secrecy of ballots; security—ballots must be safe from electronic tampering; and equity—steps must be taken to ensure equal voting opportunity for those who lack home computers or Internet access. Those are the steps that need to be satisfied before we can get into the realm of Internet voting, but they are also the steps that need to be satisfied before we can be sure that the system of voting that we have today is actually sound and secure. As the member for Moreton pointed out in his speech, the revelations recently in Queensland prove that that is not the case: we do not have authentication; we do not have privacy; we do not have security; and we do not have equity. Since the election in 1987, where Michael Lavarch won the seat of Fisher, there have been four Queensland state elections, four Commonwealth elections, 15 Queensland by-elections and three Commonwealth by-elections. People in Queensland today are worried right down to the toes on their feet and concerned that each one of those elections has probably to some extent been rorted by people in the Labor Party in Queensland abusing the system, abusing the Commonwealth electoral roll and endeavouring to win elections for their own purposes regardless of the vote of the people of Australia. The article in the Courier-Mail, which has been referred to a couple of times already, referred to activities that happened in 1987. The Courier-Mail, quoting a party insider, said:The insider said he and other party supporters had cast numerous votes for Mr Lavarch and other ALP candidates at state and federal elections by illegally impersonating people. The Labor insider, a member of the 1987 campaign team, said the voting rort involved first compiling the names of voters who had left the Fisher electorate, but were still listed as enrolled there. He said supporters then cast votes in those names on polling day.CK6Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr Hardgrave—Shame!84CThompson, Cameron, MPMr CAMERON THOMPSON—It is certainly outrageous. The Courier-Mail went on:You find that people have obviously moved on somewhere to another area, he said. Those names are underlined and on polling day those campaign workers who are in on the rort divide the names and give each of them a vote. The workers regarded as too straight to get involved would never hear about it.That is an outrageous scam. If we are ever to move to Internet voting, I hope that it is going to perform better than that.In the time that remains to me, I want to bring to light another case of exactly the same thing. I want to speak about the electorate of Dickson and the by-election in 1993—the by-election that followed the federal election—in which Dr Bruce Flegg missed out on being voted into the seat of Dickson by 0.2 per cent. 10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 1.45 p.m., the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 101. The debate is adjourned, and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting and the member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed at a future date.Statements by Members221452214513:45:0022145Sidebottom, Sid, MPMr SIDEBOTTOM849BraddonALP00—I congratulate the Commonwealth and Tasmanian governments on reaching agreement today on the issue of genetically modified organisms and the right of a state or territory to decide on the appropriate level of protection for its environment and its primary industries. Tasmania has always maintained that it should have the right to decide whether GMOs are released in the state and on what basis. Tasmania prides itself on its clean, green, quality image and believes that, with its geographical isolation, it can extensively market itself to the rest of the world as a premium producer of premium products, whether they contain GMOs or are GMO free. It is Tasmania's contention that, as a specialised food producing state, it is crucial that it be able to guarantee consumer confidence in the status of its produce, especially if the produce is marketed as GE free; that is, Tasmania's contention is that it should be able to maintain its comparative advantages. The Tasmanian government called for the option of opting out of the national regulatory framework outlined in the Gene Technology Bill 2000. However, as I argued earlier in the debate on the bill, it is crucial that there be a consistent, strong national regulatory regime. On the other hand, there is potential within the regime for the regulator to be compelled to accept state and territory viewpoints to prevent the release of GMOs within their jurisdictions and to establish GM-free zones. The Senate inquiry recommended the strengthening of this provision in the bill, and the agreement between Tasmania and the Commonwealth today on this very important point gives effect to this sensible course of action. It also preserves the integrity of the national regulatory system, it forms the basis for Tasmania signing the gene technology intergovernmental agreement, on which the scheme is to be based, and it maintains Tasmania's right to protect its environment, its markets and its marketing image. (Time expired)2214613:47:0022146Bartlett, Kerry, MPMr BARTLETT0K6MacquarieLP10—Today salt is being rubbed into the wounds of Western Sydney motorists. The toll on the M4 motorway has been raised today by 60c—from $1.60 to $2.20—which is a rise of 37 per cent. This is an outrageous extra slug on motorists. For those commuting daily, this imposes an extra burden of $24 a month. The blame for this extra burden lies squarely at the feet of Premier Carr and the New South Wales Labor government. Before the 1995 election, Mr Carr cynically promised the abolition of the toll on the M4, yet the dust had hardly settled after the election when he arrogantly reneged on that commitment. Now motorists have to cough up an extra $24 a month. This would not have happened if Mr Carr had kept his promise.The other promise made by Labor to Western Sydney motorists in 1995—broken just as arrogantly—was in regard to Windsor Road. Labor promised that Windsor Road would be upgraded to four lanes within its first term of office, yet virtually nothing has been done. Day after day, Hawkesbury motorists face frustrating, agonising congestion on Windsor Road. Commuters are suffering and businesses are suffering. It is simply not fair that motorists in Western Sydney have been treated with such contempt by the New South Wales Labor government. It is time that the Labor Party gave residents of Western Sydney a fair go.2214613:48:0022146O'Byrne, Michelle, MPMs O'BYRNE84SBassALP00—I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the organising committee of Reclaim the Night in Launceston. Every year Reclaim the Night sees millions of people worldwide rallying against violence against women. Reclaim the Night aims to make the links between the structure of our society and violence. It shows us how violence is linked to power, and how it controls people in so many spheres of life—at home, at work, in the wider community and globally.The Australian Bureau of Statistics, in its 1998 special article Violence against women, found that in the 12 months prior to the survey, 490,400 women had experienced a violent incident. That is almost 500,000 lives shattered—500,000 women having had their basic human rights violated. These figures do not take into account the countless numbers of women and children living in fear of violence and having their whole lives controlled by that fear. Australians must take a stand and say to the world that women's rights in Australia and around the world are of critical importance.Reclaim the Night must be viewed as part of a continued campaign against violence both here and internationally. This year we saw the involvement of Business Against Domestic Violence, which was a very exciting part of the campaign and provided a chance for our business leaders to say no to violence. I congratulate the Reclaim the Night committee for its fabulous work in organising a very well-attended festival. 2214713:49:0022147Billson, Bruce, MPMr BILLSON1K6DunkleyLP10—I rise in my role as patron of the Frankston and District Junior Football League to report on another sensational season—3,800 young people from the Frankston district area forming 141 teams to play junior footy, supported by the volunteer efforts of parents, club organisers and officials right around the greater Frankston area. Even in the under-9s and under-10s, 15 per cent of the young people participating were girls, so both girls and boys are picking up Aussie Rules football as a team sport and enjoying the health benefits of being involved in these sorts of projects.This season also marks the end of a terrific term as president by Mrs Suzy Smith, the first female president of the Frankston and District Junior Football League. After three years as president and three years as secretary, Suzy is having a much deserved break. Bob Adams, the Senior Vice-President, has been there for two years in that role, one as Junior Vice-President. Ian Andrews, who was previously the president and more recently the secretary, is also retiring, so you will see a new group of officials coming through the Frankston and District Junior Football League to continue its period of growth and expansion in the greater Mornington Peninsula area.The winners for this season were: the Under-11 Gold Premiership winners, Edithvale Rovers; Under-11 Blue, Frankston YCW; Under-12 Gold, the Pines; Under-12 Blue, Mount Eliza Blue, Under-13 Gold, the Bayside Sharks; Under-13 Blue, Langwarrin Blue; Under-14s, Mt Eliza; Under-15s, the mighty Seaford Tigers Yellow team; and the Under-16s, Seaford Black. Another great year! All the best to Frankston and District Junior Football League. For those members of the executive not continuing, thank you for your efforts and achievements.2214713:51:0022147Mossfield, Frank, MPMr MOSSFIELDMK6GreenwayALP00—I rise to congratulate Nerida Meyer-Gleaves, from the Blacktown-Maryong Girl Guides group, on achieving her Silver Endeavour and B-P awards. I had the honour of presenting Nerida with her Silver Endeavour badge last Saturday. Nerida is 13, quite young for a Girl Guide to achieve such a prestigious award. She has taken two years to complete the various tests associated with this Silver Endeavour award. These include sporting activities, in particular tennis and equestrian; many outdoor activities such as camping and first aid; leadership, where Nerida not only had to provide effective leadership but was judged by her group on her leadership qualities; faith awareness, where Nerida not only studied other religious faiths but had to put into practice what she preached by trying to befriend another girl her age whom she had not been particularly friendly with, something we all find difficult. At the last report, Nerida had not quite succeeded in this task, but she is still persevering.Nerida is a great role model for the youth of Greenway, and I wish her and the Blacktown-Maryong Girl Guides group all the best for the future. As part of my electorate duties, I enjoy very much my work with local Scouts, Guides and Brownie groups. It is pleasing to see young people such as Nerida involved in character building activities, as these young people are our community, business and political leaders of the future.2214713:52:0022147Hawker, David, MPMr HAWKER8H4WannonLP10—Last Friday, I did something that I am sure all honourable members would really love to have the opportunity to do, and yet miss out on, that is, I opened a new bank branch in Colac, in the electorate of my good friend the member for Corangamite. The Bendigo Bank has not only opened a new branch but built it from the ground up. How is that for commitment? I think that sends a very strong message to people in rural and regional Australia that we now have one bank that is committed to helping people in the country. The Bendigo Bank deserves all the credit it gets for the work it is doing not only in opening new bank branches but also with the community banks. As the person who chaired the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics, Finance and Public Administration inquiry into regional banking, it is a great pleasure for me to see this happening, and it was a great pleasure to open this new branch. Not only is it a commitment directly; the Bendigo Bank have made it very clear they are undertaking to provide a range of services to people in the country. They are also looking, very importantly, at the issue of how to ensure that a greater proportion of the superannuation levy taken from all salary and wage earners in the country comes back to the country, because too much of it is going straight into the financial centres of Sydney and Melbourne. So, Mr Speaker, we have a new bank branch, and I had the honour of opening it. 2214813:54:0022148Cox, David, MPMr COX83UKingstonALP00—The Minister for Aged Care shows little interest in improving the legislation committed to her administration. In June I raised with her a problem with section 26-2 of the Aged Care Act that does not permit subsidies to be paid where resident classification assessments are submitted late. I drew to her attention the case of the Vales Aged Care Facility, which had transferred from one side of Adelaide to a modern facility, formerly a private hospital, that would comply with the new accreditation standards. The 68 nursing home beds, including a secure dementia facility, were greatly needed in Morphett Vale. In the three months after the new facility opened, the provider had to employ 90 staff, admit 65 residents and complete 60 resident classification scale assessments, in comparison with the operational requirements of a normal three-month period, on which the Aged Care Act is based, where a provider would perhaps select one new staff member, admit five new residents and complete no more than 10 resident classification scale assessments. The consequences for the provider of not submitting the assessments on time were the loss of $61,000 in subsidy. Given the focus that the minister purports to put on improving the quality of care in Australia's nursing homes, it would seem reasonable to amend the legislation to take account of the considerable demands on providers when undertaking major upgrades of their facilities. In these circumstances, it is more important that resident classification scale assessments are done properly than that they are submitted within the normal operational time frames. The minister has written to me declining to take any action on this matter.2214813:55:0022148Lloyd, Jim, MPMr LLOYDIK6RobertsonLP10—I rise today to congratulate the Spencer public school and the community of Spencer on very significant centenary celebrations which were held on Saturday, 4 November to celebrate 100 years of public education at the Spencer school. Spencer is a very small community on the Hawkesbury River, and the school itself is quite small. Today I would like to take the unique opportunity of reading into the Hansard the names of the entire school population—in only 90 seconds that is not going to be a mean feat because the school has only 10 students. The captain is Ryan Ballard; the vice captains are Laura Murphy and Joel Bell; and Sean Murphy, Megan Connelly, Ryan Thompson, Robert Curran, Nathan Woodbury, Erinn Thompson and Sam Bevan make up the rest of the school body. So as you can see, it is a very small school. In fact, four generations of the Woodbury family have been educated at that school. It is a very important part of the history of the Hawkesbury River. We talk locally on the Hawkesbury River about the river kids. We have three small schools—Mooney school, Brooklyn school and Spencer school—where the river kids are educated. I believe the children who attend small schools—such as my children did at the Mooney school, with 28 pupils—have a different sort of education. In my view, they have a better education in small schools. It is much more community focused and they go on to do great things. I said in my speech at the centenary celebrations that river kids can do anything they put their minds to, and I think a reflection of what was achieved on Saturday is an indication of that. (Time expired)2214913:57:0022149Gerick, Jane, MPMs GERICK83WCanningALP00—I am very pleased to rise today to congratulate the recipients of the Commonwealth Awards for Senior Australians which were held in Canning on the Saturday before last. Enid Reibel, Kurt Drazic, Joan Rudd, Rona Panos, Len Danby, Marion Higgins, Walter Robinson and John Davies all work hard to improve the quality of life for those of us living in Canning. I am sure that other members would have the same experiences that I do in that, when you go around to visit many of your community groups, you find the same band of volunteers working hard to improve the community for those with whom they share it. In fact, when we said we were going to have this ceremony, the first thing one of my community groups did was ring to say, `Please, can we do all the catering for you?' That was the Hills Home Help Group, just another group that is working hard, staffed solely by volunteers, to improve the life of people in Canning. To each one of those recipients, I say thank you very much and congratulations; you should be very proud of the work you have done.2214913:58:0022149Gambaro, Teresa, MPMs GAMBARO9K6PetrieLP10—I rise today to draw to the attention of the House the plight of the Jeffcoat family and their beautiful three-year-old daughter Meggan. Meggan is, unfortunately, suffering from a rare heart defect and has had some 11 operations. Last week, the Jeffcoats were still awaiting advice from Prince Charles Hospital. Basically, the surgeons there have said that there is nothing more they can do for her. There is an operation available in the United States, and they are waiting to hear from a Californian surgeon, but it comes at a cost of $200,000. I want to take this opportunity to congratulate McNallys and also the Northside Chronicle for the fine work they are doing in publicising the fact that the Jeffcoats need so much financial assistance. I am going to do everything I can to ensure that they have items that can be auctioned, which will provide some much-needed funds. To see the face of Meggan Jeffcoat in the Northside Chronicle would bring a tear to any person's eye. She is a beautiful, vital three-year-old. As her father said, it is so sad to see that she tires so easily and that all that is needed is a life-saving operation. I hope that the Jeffcoats receive all the financial assistance from the wider community that they need. Once again, I want to thank the community newspaper for bringing their plight to the fore.2214913:59:0022149Irwin, Julia, MPMrs IRWIN83ZFowlerALP00—While some businesses in Australia make donations to charities and community organisations, most donations are made to large groups. Very little trickles down to the smaller community organisations, where funds are desperately needed. In New South Wales, however, licensed clubs have a long history of supporting local issues. Clubs provide much-needed help for many organisations that cannot raise these funds on their own. The Mount Pritchard Community Club in my electorate is a great example of the generosity of local clubs to non-profit groups in the area. The Mounties, as it is better known, recently announced its donations for this year. Thirty groups and organisations will share more than $380,000: 11 local schools and preschools, government and Catholic, will share $97,000, to be used for resources and much-needed sun shading; health services at Liverpool Hospital will receive $98,000; and $160,000 will be provided to community organisations providing counselling and support services.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 2 p.m., in accordance with standing order 106A, the time for members' statements has concluded.Questions Without Notice221492214914:00:0022149Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister in his capacity as Minister for Transport and Regional Services. Have you seen the call by the Central Council of the Queensland National Party for a freeze on the February fuel excise indexation? Have you also seen the comments by the Queensland National Party leader, Mr Rob Borbidge: `The Central Council has expressed a point of view and we would expect our federal members to respond accordingly'? Deputy Prime Minister, when Queensland National Party members vote tonight on this issue of vital importance to regional Australia, will you allow them to back the Central Council's resolution or will you insist that they be heroes at home but cowards in Canberra? 22150Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—I thank the honourable Leader of the Opposition for his not altogether unpredictable question. I understand the concern of people in rural, regional and remote areas about the high cost of fuel. I have repeatedly said that we are very keen to ensure they understand that not only do we understand it but we have been active in seeking to address that concern where it is real. The National Party party room has clearly indicated its support for the government's position. We do not believe a freeze is the solution to this very difficult problem which arises fundamentally and primarily and overwhelmingly from very high crude prices internationally and some subsequent downstream effects from very low prices during much of the nineties, inasmuch as refining capacity is limited and even the capacity to move oil around the world in tankers is down at the moment. Those are the fundamental causes of the problem at present.When it comes to being heroes in this place and cowards out there, let me ask those opposite: have they actually been out there—has anyone in the ALP been out there—saying, `We in the ALP did not want you in rural and regional Australia to have all the excise taken off road'? Have they been out there saying that? Have the heroes opposite been out there saying, `We would not negotiate with the government over the removal of 24c a litre on heavy transport fuel'? Have they been out there telling their constituency that? Have they been out there pointing out that they had nothing to do with $500 million that we put in to ease the country-city differential or that they opposed the GST, which of course is rebatable on fuel? Have those heroes opposite been out there reminding people that when it comes to discretionary one-off increases in excise—Government members interjecting—4K4Mr ANDERSON—Have they! Let me start the question again: have they been out there referring to their 5c a litre increase, which they promised they would not implement in the 1993 budget—DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—Who told them it wouldn't go up?4K4Mr ANDERSON—They do not like this, Mr Speaker. They really do not. Their record is absolutely appalling. So let me ask it again: have they been out there pointing out that in 1993, when they had promised no new taxes, big personal tax cuts and that we did not need a GST, they put 5c a litre extra on—DT4Crean, Simon, MP4K4Mr ANDERSON—They really do not like it. They put an extra 5c a litre on unleaded and 7c a litre on super. Have the heroes been out explaining that? No, they have not. The reality is that they do not want anybody out there knowing that they opposed the removal of $2.2 billion in fuel excise burden on the Australian economy. They do not want anybody knowing that. The fact is that the motion, along with some others, reflected very real concern out there. I am advised that in Parkes, for example, that came from people worried about the cost of getting their children to school. It needs to be put into some perspective. In the last budget, we dramatically improved the cost of accessing education for people in rural and remote Australia. For example, we even removed the assets test on substantial benefits under Family Allowance. I make those points because it brings me to the points of indexation: for every dollar that inflation brings in in extra indexation through fuel, alcohol and tobacco, as is now known, we have to find $2.50 in indexation of benefits that we pay out. That, too, is something that has to be kept in mind. That leads to the next and obvious point: our maintenance of careful budgetary strategy in managing the economy properly is very important indeed. As a group of rural people in my electorate said the other day, `We don't like high fuel prices, but if there is one thing we do not want you to do it is to go back to the ALP's sloppiness in economic management and give us high interest rates again.' The government's position on this is the result of concern for rural people. The evidence for our concern is quite real. It is there for those who want to be honest about it, and our position remains. 2215114:07:0022151Forrest, John, MPMr FORRESTNV5MalleeNP10—My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Would the Prime Minister advise the House of any recent developments in dealing with Australia's growing problem of salinity and water quality? Prime Minister, does the government remain committed to putting in place real and practical measures to tackle the damaging environmental problems of salinity, particularly of the nature which impacts on my division of Mallee?22151Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I thank the honourable member for his question. I am very pleased to inform the House that, at the meeting on Friday of the heads of Australian governments, unanimous agreement was reached to embrace the plan put to that meeting by me on behalf of the Commonwealth government. This represents the most comprehensive attempt ever in the history of this country to tackle what is arguably the most serious long-term environmental challenge, and that is, the degradation of our soil through the process of salinity and the impact that it has not only on the quality of soil and the potential for economic growth and development but also on the quality of our water. At least 2.5 million hectares, which is five per cent of cultivated land, is currently affected by dryland salinity. This could rise to 12 million hectares, or 22 per cent, of cultivated land at the current rate of increase. This would have significant economic, social and environmental consequences for our country.The Commonwealth put on the table a plan to inject $700 million of additional new money into tackling the problem, and I am pleased to say that all of the states of Australia have joined the Commonwealth proposal. They will match us on a dollar for dollar basis. I thank the states, across the party political divide, for the approach that they have taken. There are 20 priority catchment areas which have been identified by the federal government's task force. We have asked our officials to go away and prepare a heads of government agreement, to be signed before the end of the year, to put in place the elements of the strategy. I think this does represent an historic commitment by the governments of Australia to tackling a serious long-term national problem. These are the sorts of long-range views that governments ought to take in the national interest, and I am glad that the premiers responded in such a positive way to the Commonwealth government's initiative.2215114:09:0022151Byrne, Anthony, MPMr BYRNE008K0HoltALP00—My question is addressed to the Deputy Prime Minister in his capacity as Minister for Transport and Regional Services. Minister, do you recall this morning telling ABC Radio listeners that you will not act on fuel tax because `we just cannot afford a break-out in inflation'? Isn't it a fact that the weekend proposal of the Central Council of the Queensland National Party would reduce fuel prices and, therefore, ease pressure on inflation? Deputy Prime Minister, if you really want to avoid a `break-out in inflation', why won't you support your own party's proposal to reduce petrol prices?22151Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—Under us, inflation is at very low levels. In contrast to the inflationary regime that those opposite reigned over, fuel excise, under indexation, has risen at very slow rates indeed. When the Labor Party was in power in this country, fuel excise rose by around 5c a litre or so every year on the back of inflation.Government member—Five per cent.4K4Mr ANDERSON—I beg your pardon: around five per cent. We then had discretionary rises over and above it. Our objective is to keep inflation low. That is one of the keys to ensuring that indexation on fuel does not produce the sorts of increases that it did under Labor.2215114:11:0022151Thompson, Cameron, MPMr CAMERON THOMPSON84CBlairLP10—I address my question to the Prime Minister. Has the Prime Minister's attention been drawn to allegations of electoral fraud during the 1987 federal election campaign in the Queensland division of Fisher? Does the government propose to do anything in response to these serious allegations? 22152Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—The answer is that I have—as I imagine all honourable members have—had my attention drawn to it. Let me say at the outset that they are nothing more than allegations. I have no reason to believe that they are anything other than allegations. Incidentally, I share the concern expressed about them by the Queensland Premier. Today I have asked the Minister for Justice and Customs, Senator Amanda Vanstone, to request the Australian Federal Police to investigate the allegations. I imagine in relation to that I will have the enthusiastic support of the Queensland Premier.In addition, I have written to the Queensland Premier—and I will table a copy of that letter when I finish my answer—drawing attention to and sharing the concerns that he expressed over the weekend regarding the allegations and informing him that I have asked the Minister for Justice and Customs to initiate an Australian Federal Police inquiry. I informed the Queensland Premier that, should it become apparent that cooperation with the Australian Federal Police is not forthcoming, this government is of the view that his government should give urgent consideration to the scope for referring these latest allegations to the Criminal Justice Commission for inclusion in its current inquiry.I am aware of remarks made by the Queensland Premier yesterday that this is not really a matter that is suitable for the Shepherdson inquiry. I ought to point out to him that the Commonwealth and the states do operate joint electoral rolls and that the Shepherdson inquiry, as everyone knows, is currently examining matters relating to inappropriate conduct concerning electoral rolls in the state of Queensland. I therefore hold the view that, in the case of expanding the terms of reference of the Shepherdson inquiry, the reasons are quite compelling. I have further said to the Premier of Queensland that, if his government is unwilling or unable to agree to the course of action outlined in my letter, the Commonwealth itself will be obliged to consider its own powers in relation to conducting an inquiry into these allegations. I table the letter.2215214:15:0022152Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Given the number of members on your back bench, including the members for McEwen, Herbert, Riverina, Dunkley, Makin and Hume, who have called in their electorates for petrol tax relief, will you allow them to vote for Labor's amendment to eliminate the GST inflation spike from the February indexation adjustment, or is it just another case of them saying one thing in their electorates but something else in Canberra? 22152Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—The government's position in relation to this matter is very well known. Honourable members interjecting—ZD4Mr HOWARD—It is a very good answer. It is a well and truly road tested answer. I make the point to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition that petrol prices are very high at the moment because the world price of crude oil is high. That is the fundamental fact, and that was something that I pointed out to the premiers. The premiers came to Canberra last Friday and they had quite a lot to say about this issue outside the meeting, and they had something to say about it inside the meeting, but at the end of the day the argument that I put was that the current petrol price is overwhelmingly due to the world price. I do not like it any more than the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. Of course my colleagues do not like it. I understand that. I have had extensive discussions with so many of them about it. Those discussions go on, because this is a consultative, inclusive government. If you are a backbencher in this government you do not have to borrow a Sherman tank to get to see the Prime Minister, which seemed to be the case that applied under former governments, particularly the one that this one replaced. Can I say to all of you that I do not like these high prices any more than anybody else, but they are overwhelmingly due to the world price of oil. The cheap opportunistic behaviour of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition contributes nothing to the betterment of human understanding of the problem. 2215314:18:0022153Georgiou, Petro, MPMr GEORGIOUHM5KooyongLP10—Would the Treasurer inform the House of recent surveys on the implementation of the new tax system. What do these surveys indicate about attitudes to alternative tax policies? 22153Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I thank the honourable member for Kooyong for his question. I was very interested to read the SundayTelegraph on Sunday. It reported a Morgan and Banks survey which had been released last Tuesday, embargoed for Wednesday. The finding in that was that many firms had absorbed some part of the GST and had reported that it had affected their profitability. That was quite consistent with the lower than expected CPI effect of the new tax system and quite consistent with what the government always expected business to do—that was to apply the GST and to make allowances for the savings which would take some time to flow through. That was very good for consumers. Not to be outdone, the old Deputy Leader of the Opposition pounced on this as if it were the best thing that had ever been announced and he has been at it ever since, including saying that this meant that businesses would become unviable and that that would affect employment. He said to David Koch this morning: If profitability is affected, as this survey shows it is, then that affects their viability and that has implications for employment.David Koch asks the perfectly reasonable question: Well what sort of threat do you think it poses to unemployment figures? What could we see them go up by?If 95 per cent of business was unviable and the unemployment rate now is 6½ per cent, what would it go to—11½, 14½, 15½, 18 per cent? This is the answer he gave: Well, one cannot speculate about that. All we have been saying right along is this. So he is predicting massive unemployment arising from the GST when he is being interviewed by David Koch. He was being completely deceptive because, at the same time that it released that survey, Morgan and Banks also released the survey on employment intentions from the same group of respondents. Here is what the Morgan and Banks' employment intention for business, including small business, reported on Tuesday of last week: `Australia wins gold again', `Record breaking result for job market', `At last, ACT job market on the up'. Another one: `Gold gold, gold—Olympic effort for New South Wales job market'. And `Sun shines on Queensland job market', `South Australian employers break record in Olympian job effort', `Victorian job market set to soar'. Remember, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is quoting Morgan and Banks as saying that unemployment is going to rise. These are the releases that Morgan and Banks actually put out. Let us keep going: `Jobs still high on the agenda for Western Australian bosses', `IT industry breaks all records', `Legal firms break records again', `Engineering jobs wired', `Financial services sector jobs on the money' and `Small business predict record job boom'.So here is a man who will go out on a Sunday and follow it up on a Monday claiming that no less than 10 or 11 or 12 of those press releases indicate that unemployment is on the rise. This is completely deceptive, completely false, the kind of false claim that we are getting used to from the Australian Labor Party. There was a third survey with Morgan and Banks that came out last Tuesday, which the Deputy Leader of the Opposition also chooses not to rely upon, because Morgan and Banks went ahead and asked another question. They asked this question: `What do you think of the policy of roll-back?' Morgan and Banks in that same survey—again left out of the Sunday Telegraph on Sunday—answered as follows:A special question formulated for the Morgan & Banks Job Index released today clearly shows that business does not support the ALP proposals to roll back the GST... A resounding 90.5% of businesses indicated—that it should not be put in place.WF6Danby, Michael, MPMr Danby—This is repetition.CT4Mr COSTELLO—He says it is repetition. Since that had been reported, since the Deputy Leader of the Opposition was out making the totally false accusation that the GST would cost jobs notwithstanding some 10 press releases, he was asked the question by David Koch this morning also: Koch: The same Morgan and Banks survey says business does not want that.That is, roll-back. It continues:The GST is hard. They have to get used to it, but they don't want to go through any more changes.Remember, 90.5 per cent. What do you think the Deputy Leader of the Opposition said? He said:Crean: What is the alternative?Koch: A proposition that you have put up is to roll back the GST. The same Morgan and Banks survey says that business does not want that.Crean: But the survey on that point, David, I think asked the wrong question.Oh, it is the wrong question to ask about an ALP policy, isn't it! That is the wrong question, because there aren't any. The question that was actually asked, by the way—this is the wrong question, this is the question you should never ask—is: `Does business support the ALP proposal for the roll back of GST?' That was obviously a skewed question, wasn't it? 90.5 per cent of people said no. Here he was, out there on Sunday, completely misrepresenting all of the evidence on employment. He is asked one question on his policy, he gets a 90.5 per cent fail rate, and that is the wrong question to be asking. No wonder it is the wrong question to be asking, because if the answer ever has anything in it to do with Labor it is a pretty silly question to ask—a very silly question to ask!2215414:25:0022154Smith, Stephen, MPMr STEPHEN SMITH5V5PerthALP00—My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister, Leader of the National Party and Minister for Transport and Regional Services. Is the Deputy Prime Minister aware that NDC, a fully owned subsidiary of Telstra, plans to shed at least 400 of its staff, 315 in rural and regional Australia, very many from National Party electorates? Has the government advised Telstra of the Prime Minister's Nyngan declaration that a red light would flash in the Prime Minister's office whenever cuts to the regions were being contemplated? Deputy Prime Minister, what action have you taken to enforce the Prime Minister's Nyngan declaration, to save these jobs in rural and regional Australia?22154Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—I thank the honourable member for his question. Of course, they always fudge a little around the words, because the Nyngan declaration clearly went to the intent of preserving services, which we have—Opposition members interjecting—4K4Mr ANDERSON—And I want to make this point. You are not interested in this. The reality is that you do not want to focus on services because we have done more in the last couple of years to increase services in rural Australia that you did in 15. In relation to NDC, let me make a few points. While Telstra is partially government owned, it is an independent corporation and its board and management are responsible for the day-to-day running of that organisation. It is in the context of the board's responsibilities to ensure the company is run in a manner that is in the best interests of its shareholders—that is point one—and that includes decisions about employment matters such as staffing levels. Network Design and Construction Ltd, NDC, is a wholly owned subsidiary of Telstra. It is responsible for design and construction of the Telstra network. I note that, in terms of services out there, $500 million a year—just on the standard telephone network—is being expended at the moment to meet new residential and business demand in regional areas. As I say, it does compete on the open market for work from other carriers. I am informed by Telstra that NDC is intending to reduce its staff base from around 6,300 to 5,900 nationally over coming weeks. All but 12—seven in Perth and five in Adelaide—of the 400 staff affected are voluntary reductions. They are not forced lay-offs, and most of NDC's contracts in Telstra and other works are for work in metropolitan areas, with a lower proportion from rural and regional areas.The other point that I want to make, which anybody genuinely interested in this whole question of rural employment and rural opportunities would acknowledge, is that when it comes to telecommunications the secret is not how many people work for any one given institution at any one time; it is about world-class telecommunications allowing rural and regional Australia to access, if you like, and participate in the emerging industries through what some people euphemistically call `the new economy'. When it really comes to grappling with that issue, it was we, not you, who put in place the Besley inquiry; it was we who through that process have not only had identified the weak links in telecommunications in rural and regional Australia but have given a commitment that we will fix them. You didn't. It is we who have addressed such things as the CSG, the customer service guarantee, that have been put in place by the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts. All the way through, the evidence is that it is we on this side who take the need for telecommunications at world-class levels in rural and regional Australia seriously, not you. 2215514:29:0022155Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question again is to the Prime Minister. I refer to your 1996 election promise to cut small business red tape in half by the year 2000. Have you seen the latest edition of the Business Review Weekly, which states:During the 1996 federal election, Prime Minister John Howard promised small businesses he would halve their paperwork and red tape. He lied. What Howard meant was that by 2000, the paperwork of most small-business owners would double ... and that small-business owners would have less time to spend running their businesses and more time filling in forms. Prime Minister, why have you broken your promise to cut red tape by half?22155Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I do not accept the charge made either in the article or by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. I have not, as it happens, read that particular article. I would, however, take the opportunity of reminding the House of the many changes that we introduced as a result of the investigation into administration of small business carried out by Mr Charlie Bell, then the managing director of McDonald's. I would also point out to the House that there are many beneficial improvements in relation to industrial relations reform—and there would have been a lot more if we had not been obstructed in the Senate by the Australian Labor Party and by others. No matter what yardstick you use, the conditions for small business in Australia are infinitely better now than they were in March of 1996.5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMullan—They've never had it so good.ZD4Mr HOWARD—No, I am not possessed of the arrogance that would ever lead me to make such a statement as that, but there are some people opposite who clearly are. Employment levels are much higher, interest rates are lower, the taxation system is better, the industrial relations system is better, productivity is higher, real incomes are higher, and employers and employees are better off. That is a menu of achievement that the Labor Party can only dream of.2215514:32:0022155Causley, Ian, MPMr CAUSLEY4K6PageNP10—My question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Transport and Regional Services. Would the Deputy Prime Minister advise the House of benefits which have flowed to operators and users of regional transport from the Diesel and Alternative Fuel Grants Scheme. Has the scheme acted as a buffer against rising world oil prices?22155Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPMinister for Transport and Regional Services10—I thank the honourable member for his question. The House will recall that the Diesel and Alternative Fuel Grants Scheme reduced the excise rate on diesel used in heavy transport in regional Australia by 17.8c per litre from July this year. This excise cut, together with input tax credits from the GST, delivers a reduction in road transport diesel costs of at least 24c a litre. 84GWilkie, Kim, MPMr Wilkie—Why is diesel so expensive then?10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Swan!4K4Mr ANDERSON—Did you hear that? The member for Swan—I assume it was over there—asked why diesel is so expensive. I would have thought we had got the message over quite clearly as to why that was. I am glad those opposite guffaw, because I want to make a simple observation. Diesel is the major transport fuel used in Australia, and if the ALP were in power prices would be very, very much higher than they are now. That is a simple statement of fact. They find it funny. What a great sense of humour! The fact is that, whilst fuel price increases may in one sense have masked the effect of these reductions, they have not removed their benefit. In fact, they may have increased their importance. The ACCC's survey shows that country diesel prices rose by, on average, 16.1c a litre across Australia between June and the last week in September, ranging from a low of 14.9c in Tasmania to a high of 17.3c in country Western Australia. In every state and territory the increase in the pump price was less than the diesel fuel grant. In other words, the diesel fuel grant has fully offset the average price increases over the last three months. In fact, when the additional GST input tax rebate is taken into account, the effective cost of diesel to regional transport operators at the end of September was still, on average, less than they were paying in June. DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—They don't believe you.4K4Mr ANDERSON—Let me find an example. The member for Hotham says, `Oh, they don't believe you.' He is not interested in facts. But I want to put one right before this House that cannot be denied. It is a simple fact—not a matter of conjecture or speculation, just a fact. In Western Australia, where diesel prices at the end of September averaged 113.3c—very high—the effect of GST input credits and the diesel fuel grant would bring the cost of that fuel down to 85.2c a litre, which is more than 10c a litre less than it was before the tax changes were introduced. CT4Costello, Peter, MPMr Costello—What would it be if Labor were in government?4K4Mr ANDERSON—The Treasurer raises the important point. There are people all over the country listening. They will not get the message from the heroes opposite; they are not going to go out there and tell them the truth. I just want to spell this out. If Labor were in power, if Labor's policy were in place, the heavy transport industry in Western Australia would be paying not the current 85.2c a litre but 113.3c. That is what they would be paying. That is a simple matter of fact. Laugh it off all you like, but there is the fact for the Australian users of heavy transport.2215614:36:0022156Schultz, Alby, MPMr SCHULTZ83QHumeLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. Is the minister aware of plans to roll back the new tax system? How would this affect communities in rural and regional Australia, particularly farming families?22156Truss, Warren, MPMr TRUSSGT4Wide BayNPMinister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry10—I thank the honourable member for his question. Presumably he, like me, noticed a report in the paper over the weekend that Labor have decided to dust off their roll-back policy. It is a little bit surprising. It certainly gathered a lot of dust, because the Leader of the Opposition has not even used the word for over four months. It is especially surprising that they are going to dust off the policy since the Deputy Leader of the Opposition does not even think anybody should ask questions about it; any question should be out of order. After all, 90.5 per cent of the people do not want it. Nonetheless, somebody in Labor has decided to dust it off, it seems—and it will certainly be a dusty document. I am not quite sure which chapter they are going to dust off. What have farmers and people in rural and regional Australia got to look forward to in relation to the dusted-off roll-back? I am not sure what Labor are going to roll back. There is $1 billion worth of tax cuts for farmers and the rural sector in the new tax system. How much of that is going to be rolled back? I have noticed with interest that the opposition have been interested today in fuel taxes. So, presumably, one of the things they are likely to roll back is the situation in relation to fuel tax rebates. After all, Labor voted against all of those tax rebates. They voted against the diesel fuel rebate, they voted against the alternative grants scheme, they voted against giving rebates on GST for farm and business users and they voted against the $500 million scheme to subsidise petrol and diesel in regional and rural areas.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr Beazley—When did we do that?10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition knows there are other forms of the House. The minister has the call. GT4Mr TRUSS—They voted against all those things. That is what we can look forward to: a roll-back of the rebates, which means higher fuel prices. That is what is on page 1 of the dusted-off roll-back, without any doubt. Presumably they are also going to roll back the income tax cuts which have meant that nearly three-quarters of all primary producers will be paying 20c in the dollar or less income tax this year. Are Labor going to wind back that tax, or are they going to wind back the concessions that were made in relation to asset tests on the youth allowances for farmers and small businesspeople? Is that the sort of thing that is going to be wound back? I think what they will be winding up, irrespective of what they do on roll-back, will be interest rates, because their spending policies will put pressure on the government deficit, and that certainly will mean higher interest rates.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—What is your position on petrol prices?GT4Mr TRUSS—As the honourable member interjects, let us look at where Labor stand on this question of fuel prices. No-one on their front bench has ever denied that Labor policy is still as expressed by the honourable member for Dickson, that fuel rebates are a subsidy on pollution. Is that where your roll-back is going to come: a roll-back in the benefits that have flowed on to businesses, particularly in rural and regional areas? 90.5 per cent do not want there to be roll-back. I notice that Rob Bastian said this morning that small businesses do not take roll-back seriously because they do not know what it is. I think it would be better if Labor left the dust on it, but the reality is that they cannot do that because it is a Labor election promise to roll back the GST. It is high time that they levelled with the people and told us what they are going to cut, what the circumstances are going to be and what changes are going to be made, so that people can then make an intelligent decision about whether roll-back is a good idea or whether it is not.2215714:41:0022157Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr FITZGIBBON8K6HunterALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister, and I refer him again to his broken election promise on small business red tape. Prime Minister, have you seen the following comments of Mr Rob Bastian, who is, of course, the chief executive officer of the Council of Small Business Organisations of Australia? Mr Bastian said:The BAS—that is, the business activity statement—takes a hell of a lot of work to finish.He also said:The paperwork burden is just getting worse.Prime Minister, haven't you now broken your promise to cut small business red tape by half by the year 2000?22157Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I have already rejected that allegation, and I do so again.2215714:42:0022157Elson, Kay, MPMrs ELSON6K6FordeLP10—My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Would the Prime Minister advise the House of the views of state governments concerning the funding of private schools?22157Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I thank the honourable member for Forde for that question. Friday was a very good meeting, a very interesting meeting, not only in relation to the huge progress that we made in relation to salinity and water quality policies but also for the revealing attitude demonstrated by the premiers—right across the political divide—towards the funding of independent schools under the government's new formula. Perhaps I can best summarise the attitude of the meeting by quoting very briefly from the transcript of the joint news conference. I think joint news conferences are quite a good innovation after Premiers Conference meetings. It tends to bring about a certain level of cross-candour. In answer to a question I had this to say:I don't think it would be, to adopt the Premier's phrase—I was referring to the Premier of New South Wales—unfair of me to say also that nobody criticised the new funding formula for independent schools—nobody criticised the new funding formula, not for independent schools. The next contributor to the dialogue was the Premier of Queensland, Mr Beattie. He had this to say:The Prime Minister is quite right.Let me repeat that:The Prime Minister is quite right.That was the Premier of Queensland. He said:In fact, I made the point that we didn't want to see one cent go out of any private schools.The reality is that the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Dobell were left like shags on a rock by their Labor Party colleagues. Not one of your Labor Party colleagues criticised the government's independent schools formula. They, along with the independent school leaders, regard it as a fair, just and equitable formula, and the fact that none of them were willing to criticise it, none of them were willing to argue for any change, leaves you without any credibility in relation to your argument.2215814:45:0022158Ellis, Annette, MPMs ELLIS5K6CanberraALP00—My question is to the Treasurer. Have you seen this letter from an accountant to the tax commissioner, Michael Carmody, about your business activity statement? I quote from it:The calculation page is extremely cumbersome and across Australia will result in a huge amount of unproductive time ... You should [also] be aware that in a number of instances the calculation page does not produce the known correct figure. Your staff have admitted to me that they are aware of this problem and that the figures should be `fudged' or `manipulated' to achieve the correct figures.Treasurer, if your own tax office is telling people that your tax system does not work unless they fudge the figures, how can small businesses have any confidence in it?22158Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I am asked a question about whether I have seen a letter from a member of the public to the tax commissioner.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—Sent to you.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The question has been asked and the Treasurer has the call.5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMullan—But it was sent to you.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Manager of Opposition Business!CT4Mr COSTELLO—I am sorry, but the question said from an accountant to the tax commissioner—that is what it said.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—Copied to you.CT4Mr COSTELLO—Hang on; that was not said in the question.Opposition members interjecting—CT4Mr COSTELLO—How would you know that if you had not written it for the member?Honourable members interjecting—CT4Mr COSTELLO—Oh! Isn't that a problem?Honourable members interjecting—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The House will come to order.Honourable members interjecting—5K6Ellis, Annette, MPCT4Mr COSTELLO—How come all the frontbench know the details in your own independent question without notice? It wouldn't have been written for you by the tactics committee? `No.'7T4Crosio, Janice, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Prospect! The Treasurer has the call.Honourable members interjecting—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—If it is necessary for me to require someone to leave the House in order for members to believe that the chair in fact wants the rules enforced, I will be very happy to oblige.CT4Mr COSTELLO—As regards the business activity statement, can I make this point. The business activity statement is a mechanism for collecting at least seven withholding operations from the tax office: goods and services tax; company tax, now known as pay as you go; prescribed payments system; fringe benefits tax; reportable payments system and a host of others. All collapse down on to one form.The second point I make is this: the Labor Party support the PAYG system. To have a PAYG system, you need a BAS return. It is the point that I made before the last election. When the Labor Party jumped up and said, `We're in favour of PAYG,' I made this point. I think you now understand what I was saying. To have a PAYG system, you needed a BAS; you needed a reporting system which was required for GST without the GST. That is, to run a PAYG system you have to get sales and expenses for the quarter. As it turns out, the sales and the expenses for the quarter allow you to calculate GST. But, if you did not have a GST, to run a PAYG system you would still have to have a BAS. The point I made before the last election was that the Labor Party, by supporting PAYG, supported a BAS whether or not they had a GST—a whole system premised on a GST, which they adopted the tail end of and which required the BAS accounting retirements. As the first quarterly BAS is being returned by 11 November—which has been an extension of time, and an additional extension of time for those agents who lodge 50 per cent of their requirements, together with an assurance from the Commissioner of Taxation that those who honestly and genuinely fill them in will not be subject to penalties—it being the first return, of course people will have to get used to it. We have never made any pretence about that. Will the sky fall in? The sky will no more fall in than it did with the 1 July prophecies about the sky falling in. We have seen these kinds of scare tactics all along. The problem for the Labor Party is this: you cried wolf. You cried wolf on 1 July: you said that the world was going to end, and it did not. Then, lo and behold, after the consumer adjusts to the GST, what do the Labor Party then say? They are in favour of keeping the system! After small business adjusts to the BAS, what will the Labor Party say? Let me make this prediction: if a Labor Party ever got elected, do you think the BAS would be withdrawn? Would it?Government members—No.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr Reith—Silence!CT4Mr COSTELLO—Absolute silence from the Labor Party. Again, here we have the time honoured tactic of the Labor Party— `Whilst we can complain, whilst we make false accusations, whilst we will do everything we can to try and besmirch and cause confusion, would we ever do anything about it? No.' The difference between the government and the Labor Party is not that the Labor Party would abolish the BAS; that is not the difference. It is not that the Labor Party would abolish the PAYG system; that is not the difference. It is not that the Labor Party would abolish GST and reintroduce wholesale sales tax; that is not the difference. The difference between the government and the Labor Party is that one political party in this country can lead and the other can only follow.Honourable members interjecting—CT4Mr COSTELLO—It can only follow. The Labor Party never had the guts to do tax reform. They said that if it were introduced they would repeal it. Now they want to keep it—because all they can ever do is follow; they can never lead.5K6Ellis, Annette, MPMs Ellis—Mr Speaker, I seek leave to table a copy of the document sent to Michael Carmody and copied to the Treasurer.Leave not granted.2215914:51:0022159Nugent, Peter, MPMr NUGENTUT4AstonLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Is the minister aware of calls for justice in non-government schools funding? What is the minister's response? Is he aware of alternative policies in relation to non-government schools funding?22159Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPMinister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—I thank the member for Aston for his question. The Labor Party has at last indicated what amendments it intends to introduce to the government's schools funding legislation. I think it is fair to say that, following that embarrassing press conference at which the member for Dobell could not even remember what ERI stood for, the Labor Party's policy has been universally condemned. The Association of Christian Schools has said:The existing ERI—which does not stand for expenditure resource index; it stands for education resource index. The member for Dobell might like to remember that—system of funding non-government schools lacks transparency, has a flawed methodology and does not deliver justice. The National Council of Independent Schools Association said about the Labor Party's amendments:They are based on no research, no analysis of the impact of the proposed amendments, no consultation with schools or their peak bodies, no understanding of how the old ERI funding schemes locked schools into the wrong funding category. This proposal by Labor is arbitrary and unfair.The Independent Schools Association went on to remind the Labor Party that independent analysts from KPMG exposed the ERI as being shot through with flaws. KMPG said:The ERI fails to meet most of the tests of an effective indicator of need.And this is what the Labor Party wants to use as the basis for school funding. It is worth remembering the words of Dr Peter Tannock, the Chair of the National Catholic Education Commission, on 18 October:... under the legislation, additional funding will flow to many small and struggling non-government schools serving needy communities. This is a highly commendable outcome. The NCEC recommends that the Commonwealth parliament pass the legislation as soon as possible.Peter Crimmins, the Executive Officer of the Australian Association of Christian Schools says:SES funding—socioeconomic status, not State Emergency Service, for the benefit of the member for Dobell—will deliver justice to Christian schools serving Australia.Under Labor's proposal, the Warwick School of Total Education in Queensland, which is a school assessed as serving a community needier than the average parish school but which happens to be in category 1, would have its funding frozen by the Labor Party at $1,161 per student, while Birchgrove community school in New South Wales, which is assessed as serving one of the most well-to-do communities, would continue to receive $5,100 per student. That is an example of the injustices which are perpetuated by the appalling policy announced by the Labor Party at that embarrassing press conference. As the National Council for Independent Schools said, the SES model is the best and fairest system so far devised for funding non-government schools. It deserves a fair go. This government will restore justice to funding for non-government schools. The Labor Party has nothing to offer but injustice.2216014:56:0022160Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister aware that the September quarter consumer price index of 3.7 per cent—on which you have publicly congratulated yourself—translates to 4.1 per cent for the bottom 20 per cent of households, four per cent for pensioners and up to 4.4 per cent for the unemployed? Prime Minister, is it not the case that your GST is severely punishing the most vulnerable in our community?22160Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—Even for the standards of the opposition, that is an extraordinary piece of flawed logic. It is not a question of congratulating myself or congratulating the government; it is a question of congratulating the community. Once again, the community has demonstrated something I have always believed: if you put a proposition to the Australian public and argue it, if that proposition is in Australia's interests and is fundamentally fair, the Australian community will get behind it. The new tax system has been embraced by people far more than the Labor Party hoped and prayed would be the case. The Labor Party really wanted it to be a disaster so that they would surf to victory. Every member who sits opposite must still remember the words of the Leader of the Opposition at the caucus meeting in December last year when he said: `Don't worry about alternative policies. We are going to surf to victory on the back of public discontent in relation to the new tax system.' That is the politics of cheap opportunism. Oppositions can play that game, just as they are playing the politics of cheap opportunism in relation to petrol, DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—Oh, yeah! What, your broken promises?10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is warned. ZD4Mr HOWARD—But, in the end, the reality of a situation and the reality of good policy will find you out. The GST implementation has gone better than I thought it might and far better than the Labor Party hoped it would. I thank and congratulate the people of Australia for embracing so wholeheartedly a long needed, much needed and very beneficial reform for the future of Australia's economy.2216114:59:0022161Southcott, Dr Andrew, MPDr SOUTHCOTTTK6BoothbyLP10—My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Would the Treasurer advise the House of the results of October automotive retail sales released by the Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries?22161Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I thank the honourable member for Boothby, and I acknowledge his interest, as a South Australian, in the car industry. Can I inform the House that the Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries has released its retail report, which is known as VFACTS. It showed that for October 2000, industry volume of 67,642 new vehicles is up by 6,386 vehicles or 10.4 per cent on October of the year before. The October 2000 market was an all-time record for October. This follows on from other recent sales figures: for July, up by 26 per cent on the previous year; for August, up by 21 per cent; and, for September, up by 13.5 per cent. For the September quarter, sales were up 17.3 per cent, which is good news for motor vehicle sales. One of the main reasons for that is that cars became cheaper under the new tax system. There will be further good news when input tax credits start coming in for business; it will become cheaper still for business to buy cars. Of course, if tax reform had been defeated, Australians would still be punished by having higher car prices—including families, who would be paying more for cars under Labor Party policy.Members of this House will recall that there were many Labor Party members who said that the price of cars would never fall—another one of those claims that the Labor Party was prepared to falsely put out until the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission found that prices fell by six per cent with the introduction of the new tax system. The member for Kingston was one of those, confidently predicting on 5DN that people had been told erroneously that the price of cars would fall—the vigneron himself. The opposition spokesman for industry claimed on 8 May that it was a myth that cars would be cheaper after the GST. But the prize for the falsest accusation was won by none other than the Leader of the Opposition. The Leader of the Opposition told the Australian people on 4 June 1999: I don't believe any prices are going to fall when the GST comes into play.None! They are out this week talking about the BAS: `The world's going to fall in!' We will see if the world is still here next Monday. They were out before 1 July 2000 saying that everything was going to be put out of the reach of everybody. The question now is: under roll-back, will the price of cars be going up or down? It is a very good question. Under roll-back, what will happen to the price of cars? It is a pretty obvious question. The Leader of the Opposition is absolutely committed to roll-back, so he could possibly tell us what the tax treatment of cars will be under roll-back. I cannot believe that, having fought the GST as long and as hard as he has, he has not actually come to grips with what he intends to do about it. I keep saying in this House that the last time he mentioned roll-back in relation to tax policy was 19 July 2000, when he was speaking to the AMWU conference in Newcastle. They always tell the truth when they are down at the union conferences! This is what he said:I can tell you today that we won't be moving a millimetre from our stance of rollback ...Government members interjecting—CT4Mr COSTELLO—No, he did not say, `We won't be moving a millimetre towards roll-back.' It was, `We won't be moving a millimetre away from our stance of roll-back.' If you are not moving a millimetre, announce what you are going to do with the taxation treatment of cars, tell us how much it is going to cost, tell us what is going to happen to the price and, most of all—this is what the people of Australia really want to know—tell us how you are going to fund the roll-back, what the increase in income tax is going to be, what the increase will be as against the budget and where that is going to end up in relation to interest rates. This is a totally populist opposition which can do only one thing if it wants to get a shred of credibility: come out and announce your policy, tell people what you have in mind and don't run away from your own policies. 83UCox, David, MPMr Cox—Mr Speaker, I ask the Treasurer to table the full transcript of the interview with me from which he quoted.Leave not granted. 2216215:04:0022162Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN2V5LilleyALP00—My question without notice is directed to the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister aware that St Vincent de Paul in a letter distributed to all MPs said:There are huge and growing disparities in income levels. Unless we arrest this slide, we will develop into two separate nations, one with little human dignity and pride—and that is hardly the Australian way. Prime Minister, given this, are you aware of the legislation that has just passed the Senate that will allow around 30,000 wealthy individuals who hide assets in private trusts or companies to continue collecting social security benefits until 2002? Why are you giving these individuals a two-year period of grace, while battling job seekers and families are regularly forced to account for every cent of their benefits within 14 days?22162Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—The answer to—3K6Cameron, Ross, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Member for Parramatta! The Prime Minister is being denied the right to be heard by your interjection.ZD4Mr HOWARD—It's all right. It was a very good interjection. I don't mind being denied—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—As the Prime Minister is aware, the occupier of the chair does not have an opportunity to determine whether interjections are good or bad.ZD4Mr HOWARD—It had a great deal of resonance with me, and he can come to Bennelong any time he likes! The answer to the first part of the question is: yes, I am aware of that letter circulated by the Society of St Vincent de Paul. I share with them and many other organisations a concern about gaps that exist within Australian society. Some of those gaps are things that can be effectively addressed by governments. One of the best ways of addressing gaps between different groups in Australian society is to generate more jobs. The greatest thing you can do for a low income family on welfare is to ensure that mum or dad or both have a job. There are now 840,000 more people in work as a result of the policies of this government than there were when we came to office. As to the second part of the question, yes I am aware of that legislation. My understanding is that what that legislation has done is, in fact, to tighten the eligibility. I also understand that it tightens an eligibility that has existed for some time. I will check my understanding, but I have an idea that it is an eligibility that may well have obtained when the Labor Party was in office.CT4Costello, Peter, MPMr Costello—Only for 13 years.ZD4Mr HOWARD—Oh, only for 13 years. I will check to see if that is right because I do not claim to carry all these details around in my mind and if I am wrong I will be only too ready to acknowledge it. But if my understanding is correct, what the member for Lilley is saying is, `It is okay for the Labor Party to allow something like this to go on for 13 years but because you, who have come in and decided to make it fairer, do not make it fairer straight away and you allow a year for people to adjust, you are wrong and the Labor Party is right.'2V5Swan, Wayne, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Lilley is defying the chair. ZD4Mr HOWARD—In Queensland they used to call him a political strategist. Maybe there were other reasons. If he applied the logic to his campaigning that he applied to that question, no wonder they lost so many seats a few years ago.2216215:08:0022162Lloyd, Jim, MPMr LLOYDIK6RobertsonLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Would the minister update the House on how the Howard government has made Medicare stronger? Is the minister aware of recent comments concerning Medicare and the future of the Australian health care system? 22163Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4CaseyLPMinister for Health and Aged Care10—I thank the honourable member for his question. Since coming to government in 1996, we have addressed a number of chronic problems with Medicare, rather than relaxing into smug complacency as the Labor Party was prepared to do. We have addressed the issue of chronic underfunding of our public hospitals. We have addressed the open-ended nature of the Medicare rebates. We have addressed issues of chronic illness, which Medicare previously did not. We have also addressed the issue of private health insurance, which was an integral part of the original formulation of Medicare.It is estimated that this year the Commonwealth government is putting an extra $1.3 billion into public hospitals over and above 1997-98, which was the last year of Labor's health care agreements. So over a five-year period funding in real terms will go up around 25 per cent—an unprecedented increase in public hospital funding to the states. In terms of the open-ended nature of Medicare outlays, we have signed agreements with general practice, pathology and radiology. That means that 60 per cent of Medicare is now effectively under a soft cap and manageable in agreements with the profession. This is a major achievement that gives government some control of outlays and some control of quality. In relation to chronic illness, Medicare allowed Australia to be 68th in the world for childhood immunisation, with a completed childhood immunisation rate of 53 per cent. This has now been fixed, and enhanced primary care item numbers mean that Medicare can look at preventative issues and chronic illness in a way it never has before. But probably our biggest success has been with private health insurance. We have addressed a 15-year decline in private health insurance and brought it back to levels over 40 per cent to give the public some real choice. It is interesting, though, that this being the government's greatest achievement, it is very hard to find out where Labor stands on this issue. Six weeks ago we did have a statement at a doorstop but we have had no subsequent press release, no follow-up statement and no clarification of any outstanding issues. We found out why on the weekend in the Sydney Morning Herald. Alan Ramsey, when talking about the steamrolling of the shadow minister for health, the member for Jagajaga, stated:There was a deal of wink, wink soft soap as well to dampen dissent. That is, look, the first essential is for Labor to get back into government. Once there, well, then Labor can redress some of these issues. The issue Mr Ramsey is talking about is the roll-back of the 30 per cent rebate by the Labor Party. We know the Labor Party has never supported the 30 per cent rebate. The shadow minister for health put out 31 press releases which were highly critical of it. The Labor backbench has made comments—for example, the member for Swan talked about it as one of the most offensive packages of legislation ever seen in this nation; the member for Sydney—`hardly money well spent'; and the member for Paterson—`We've seen one of the greatest bits of waste in this country that has ever been presented to it by an irresponsible government.' Yet this is an issue that the Labor Party simply cannot clarify itself on. It thinks it can sneak along until the next election, sneak back into office and then roll back the 30 per cent rebate. The fact is, very simply, the public will not allow the Labor Party to do this. The Labor Party has no credibility whatsoever on private health insurance, and it stands condemned for its obfuscation on this issue.2216315:13:0022163Roxon, Nicola, MPMs ROXON83KGellibrandALP00—My question is to the Minister for Community Services. I refer the minister to his media release last week which claimed that only one Centrelink office in Australia is referring people to charities because of Centrelink staff shortages. Minister, are you really asking us to believe that St Vincent de Paul's serious concerns about Centrelink's referrals to charities are based on the practice of just one Centrelink office? Minister, will you now repeat your claim to the House?22164Anthony, Larry, MPMr ANTHONYXJ6RichmondNPMinister for Community Services10—The opposition has taken a press release totally out of context. I never said that. Indeed, Centrelink, like the former Department of Social Security since the 1970s, has a policy of referring people to charitable organisations. That was at the request of charities. The reason for that is to ensure that those individuals who are suffering hardship have exhausted their Commonwealth entitlements. A reference letter is generated to those charities to ensure that those entitlements are exhausted. Most people are referred to charities at times of hardship, maybe because of a crisis. Indeed, February is a very busy time for charities, when expenses hit families after Christmas. Requests are usually for food vouchers or other items. Centrelink does provide an enormous amount of assistance, in particular emergency payments and crisis payments. Where you get your lines from is totally incorrect, but I suspect that you are referring to a regional office that had a visiting service a few years ago. Centrelink has established a fully-fledged office in a regional centre which now has five employees, where previously no employees were provided by the former Department of Social Security.2216415:15:0022164Lindsay, Peter, MPMr LINDSAYHK6HerbertLP10—My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Would the minister inform the House of the steps the government has taken to assist the Solomon Islands government to establish the International Peace Monitoring Team, IPMT, called for in the Townsville peace agreement on 15 October this year? Minister, how soon will Australian personnel be on the ground in the Solomon Islands?22164Downer, Alexander, MPMr DOWNER4G4MayoLPMinister for Foreign Affairs10—I thank the honourable member for Herbert for his question and acknowledge the great interest he has shown in the whole issue of the Solomon Islands over the last few months. On 15 October, the Townsville agreement was signed. It was an important step towards resolving the problems of the Solomon Islands. Subsequent to the Townsville agreement, the New Zealand foreign minister, Mr Goff, and I sent a joint team to Honiara to investigate how best we might help with the Solomon Islands proposal to set up an International Peace Monitoring Team.Today I announced that the Peace Monitoring Team will be led by an experienced officer from my department, Mr Simon Merrifield. He departs for the Solomon Islands tomorrow. Four Australian team members, one from Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and four from Department of Defence—five altogether—are already on the ground preparing for the arrival of their colleagues. The bulk of the monitors will arrive on Thursday, 9 November to ensure they are there well before the 14 November deadline for the weapon surrender set by the Townsville agreement. By 11 November, there should be 30 Australians and New Zealanders on the ground. The first full rotation of 49 Australian and New Zealand peace monitors will be in the Solomon Islands by early December. The peace monitors will be drawn from the Australian Federal Police, from the New Zealand police and defence forces and from Australian and New Zealand government departments. The Australian Defence Force will provide logistics support for the mission.The international monitors will support the indigenous Solomon Islands Peace Monitoring Council and its network of peace monitors. Their role will be to oversee the disarmament process and to raise community confidence. The Australian and New Zealand monitoring team will be completely neutral, having been deployed at the invitation of all of the main parties to the ethnic tension and in line with Australia's policy of supporting indigenous solutions to the Solomon Islands conflict. I am sure all members of the House will join me in wishing the monitors well in their very important assignment.Honourable members—Hear, hear!ZD4Howard, John, MPMr Howard—Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.Privilege2216415:18:0022164Hawker, David, MPMr HAWKER8H4WannonLP10—Mr Speaker, I would like to raise a matter of privilege.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Wannon had indicated this earlier in the day, and I suggested that this would be a convenient time. You may proceed. 8H4Hawker, David, MPMr HAWKER—I wish to raise a matter of privilege concerning the Defence Subcommittee of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade. The 6 November edition of Time magazine contains an article which deals with matters presently under consideration by the subcommittee. I table a copy of the article. It is a matter of great concern that the article appears to reveal confidential information—information of great sensitivity to the subcommittee's present work. I raise this matter now and, in accordance with the requirements of the House, I will have the matter considered further by the subcommittee and the Joint Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Matters of privilege are always of enormous moment to the House. I thank the member for Wannon in his capacity as chairman of the committee for indicating that he will take the matter further. I await his report on behalf of the committee.Questions to the Speaker221652216515:19:0022165Murphy, John, MPMr MURPHY83DLoweALP00—On 7 September, question No. 1957 directed to the Attorney-General concerning the movement records and travel rorts of former senator Mal Colston, appeared on the Notice Paper in my name. Also on that day, question No. 1959 was directed to the Minister for Aged Care, concerning the number of complaints made against nursing homes in my electorate of Lowe and how many spot checks had been done on nursing homes in the electorate of Lowe over the last few years. Mr Speaker, it is 60 days since those questions were asked. I would be grateful if you could follow these matters up under standing order 150.22165SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I thank the member for Lowe and will follow up as the standing orders provide.Personal Explanations2216515:20:0022165Mrs HULL,MPMrs HULL83ORiverinaNP10—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?83OMrs HULL,MPMrs HULL—Grievously.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Please proceed.83OMrs HULL,MPMrs HULL—During question time, the member for Hotham made the statement that `the member for Riverina has called for petrol price relief'. It is on the record publicly that I oppose any freezing of excise. It is no secret that I have called for increases due to indexation to be put into a roads and infrastructure trust fund in order to repair and replace decaying, ageing roads and bridges.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Riverina has indicated where she has been misrepresented.15:21:0022165Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALPLeader of the Opposition00—I claim to have been personally misrepresented and seek to make an explanation.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Does the Leader of the Opposition claim to have been personally misrepresented.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—Yes I have, by Minister Truss.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition may proceed.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—Through the course of question time, Minister Truss directed his remarks at me and said that I voted against all his tax rebates—the diesel fuel rebate, the alternative fuels grants scheme, the rebates on GST for farm and business users and the $500 million scheme to subsidise petrol and diesel in rural and regional Australia. Those accusations are completely false. Like all my colleagues, I voted for all those compensation measures. We considered them inadequate, and we voted against the GST. Those measures followed the passage of the GST, and we supported them all.Questions to the Speaker221652216515:21:0022165Crosio, Janice, MPMrs CROSIO7T4ProspectALP00—I have a question to you, Mr Speaker. Under standing order No. 150, I ask that you write to the Prime Minister requiring an answer to question No. 1134, which was submitted on the Notice Paper on 15 February 2000, and question No. 1415, to the Prime Minister, on 10 April. I also seek answers to question No. 1658, to the Minister for Employment Services on 22 June, and question No. 1860, to the Minister for Aged Care, submitted on the Notice Paper on 28 August. 22166SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I will follow up the matters as the standing orders allow.2216615:22:0022166McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN5I4FraserALP00—Mr Speaker, I seek your clarification concerning the response given by the Treasurer to the request from the member for Kingston for the tabling of the transcripts of the document from which he was quoting. I was not aware that the Treasurer had claimed that the document was confidential or that he was not quoting from the document which, as I understand it, are the only two grounds on which he can decline to table a document. I wonder whether there is a new interpretation or whether there was some other reason why you did not insist upon its being tabled.22166SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I will follow up the matter with the Treasurer now that the Manager of Opposition Business has made this request. My understanding is that the Treasurer indicated to me that in fact he had quoted from only a portion of the extensive transcript and that the transcript was part of a number of documents he had, including confidential ones. I will raise the matter with the Treasurer and will report back to the Manager of Opposition Business.2216615:23:0022166Cox, David, MPMr COX83UKingstonALP00—Mr Speaker, I just wanted to ask you to make sure that, if the Treasurer is going to provide the transcript, he provides the full transcript.22166SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I will follow up as the standing orders require.2216615:23:0022166O'Byrne, Michelle, MPMs O'BYRNE84SBassALP00—Mr Speaker, under standing order No. 150, would you follow up with the Attorney-General the answer to question No. 1953, submitted on 7 September, with regard to the Federal Magistrate position in Launceston?22166SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I will follow up as the standing orders require.221661The ClerkThe Clerk—Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate ministers:22166111K6BillsonTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled:Whereas the 1998 Synod of the Anglican Diocese of Melbourne carried without dissent the following Motion:That this Synod regrets the Government's adoption of procedures for certain people seeking political asylum in Australia which exclude them from all public income support while withholding permission to work, thereby creating a group of beggars dependent on the Churches and charities for food and the necessities of life;and calls upon the Federal government to review such procedures immediately and remove all practices which are manifestly inhumane and in some cases in contravention of our national obligations as a signatory of the UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.We, therefore, the individual, undersigned Members of the St Peter's Anglican Church, Mornington, Victoria 3931, petition the Senate in support of the abovementioned Motion.11Mr Billson1K6Mr Billson (from 11 citizens).2216615CE4O'KeefeTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled:Whereas the 1998 Synod of the Anglican Diocese of Melbourne carried without dissent the following Motion:That this Synod regrets the Government's adoption of procedures for certain people seeking political asylum in Australia which exclude them from all public income support while withholding permission to work, thereby creating a group of beggars dependent on the Churches and charities for food and the necessities of life;and calls upon the Federal government to review such procedures immediately and remove all practices which are manifestly inhumane and in some cases in contravention of our national obligations as a signatory of the UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.We, therefore, the individual, undersigned Attendees at the Ecumenical Service at the Uniting Church, Riddells Creek, Victoria 3431, petition the Senate in support of the abovementioned Motion. 15Mr O'KeefeCE4Mr O'Keefe (from 15 citizens).2216733WI4ReithTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled:Whereas the 1998 Synod of the Anglican Diocese of Melbourne carried without dissent the following Motion:That this Synod regrets the Government's adoption of procedures for certain people seeking political asylum in Australia which exclude them from all public income support while withholding permission to work, thereby creating a group of beggars dependent on the Churches and charities for food and the necessities of life;and calls upon the Federal government to review such procedures immediately and remove all practices which are manifestly inhumane and in some cases in contravention of our national obligations as a signatory of the UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.We, therefore, the individual, undersigned Members of St Mark's Anglican Church, Dromana, Victoria 3936, petition the Senate in support of the abovementioned Motion.33Mr ReithWI4Mr Reith (from 33 citizens).2216718WI4ReithTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled:Whereas the 1998 Synod of the Anglican Diocese of Melbourne carried without dissent the following Motion:That this Synod regrets the Government's adoption of procedures for certain people seeking political asylum in Australia which exclude them from all public income support while withholding permission to work, thereby creating a group of beggars dependent on the Churches and charities for food and the necessities of life;and calls upon the Federal government to review such procedures immediately and remove all practices which are manifestly inhumane and in some cases in contravention of our national obligations as a signatory of the UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.We, therefore, the individual, undersigned Attendees at the Ecumenical Service at the Dromana Uniting Church, Dromana, Victoria 3936, petition the Senate in support of the abovementioned Motion.18Mr ReithWI4Mr Reith (from 18 citizens).22167509583YHH484GHoare;Jenkins;WilkieTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House the extremely high price of petrol and other fuels and the increase in the amount of tax on fuel due to:The Government's failure to keep its promise that the price of petrol and other fuels would not rise as a result of the new tax system, by reducing the excise by the full amount of the GST;The fuel indexation increases on 1 August 2000 and 1 February 2001, which will be significantly higher than usual because of the inflationary impact of the GST; andThe charging of the GST on the fuel excise, making it a tax-on-a-tax.Your petitioners therefore request the House to:Hold the Government to its promise that its policies would not increase the price of petrol and other fuel;Support a full Senate inquiry into the taxation and pricing of petrol;Consider the best way to return the fuel tax windfall to Australian motorists.159Ms Hoare83YMs Hoare (from 159 citizens),133Mr JenkinsHH4Mr Jenkins (from 133 citizens) and4803Mr Wilkie84GMr Wilkie (from 4,803 citizens).2216778KL683MAndren;PlibersekTo the Honourable the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.We the undersigned citizens of Australia draw to the attention of the House the anger felt by many women and women's organisations and individuals at the decision of the Federal Government to not sign the Optional Protocol to the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW); the Federal Government's decision to not participate in the various UN Human Rights Committees and the decision of the Federal Government to amend the Sex Discrimination Act 1983 without consultation with or respect for the wishes of affected groups.Your petitioners therefore request that the House require the Federal Government to reconsider and to make any further decisions only after the Government has held consultations with those citizens likely to be affected by such decisions or as the result of consultations with women's organisations. 42Mr AndrenKL6Mr Andren (from 42 citizens) and36Ms Plibersek83MMs Plibersek (from 36 citizens).22168179N363J4Evans;SawfordTo the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in this present Parliament: the humble Petition of the undersigned electors and residents of South Australia.Respectfully show that the transport, burying or storing of nuclear waste in South Australia could damage our environment, health and image. Your petitioners therefore ask that your Honourable House will:Do all it can to prevent South Australia becoming the dump for any nuclear and radioactive waste from the rest of Australia and the world.145Mr EvansN36Mr Evans (from 145,658 citizens) and34Mr Sawford3J4Mr Sawford (from 34 citizens).22168225ET4BevisTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.The petition of certain citizens draws to the House the issues confronting the Australian nation with respect to Nursing Home funding. We believe that the Federal Government has put lives at risk by cutting funding to Nursing Homes. The crisis over the Riverside Nursing Home is an indictment of aged care minister Bronwyn Bishop and the federal government. `Self-regulation' of the nursing home industry has left elderly people prey to profit-mongers who care only about the bottom line.We thereforeCall for the resignation of Bronwyn Bishop.Demand that Nursing Home funding be increased.225Mr BevisET4Mr Bevis (from 225 citizens).22168191983SBurkeTo the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.The petition of Australian students, and other concerned voters, brings to the attention of the House, our desire to change policies relating to the non-payment of Rent Assistance to students receiving Austudy Payment. This is felt to be a particularly unfair and discriminatory practice, especially against mature-aged students, returning to study.Your petitioners therefore pray that the House heeds our wishes and allows students receiving Austudy Payment the same benefits and rights as other benefit recipients.1919Ms Burke83SMs Burke (from 1,919 citizens).221681175CK6HardgraveTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws the attention of the House to the following matters concerning the World Trade Organisation.The Uruguay Round Agreements and the establishment of the World Trade Organisation were proclaimed as a means of enhancing the creation of global wealth and prosperity, promoting the well-being of all people in all member states and encouraging sustainable development.We believe, however, that in the past five years, the activities of the WTO have contributed to the concentration of wealth in the hands of the rich few, an increase in poverty for the majority of the world's population and the proliferation of unsustainable patterns of production and consumption.The Uruguay Agreements have functioned principally as a means of prising open markets for the benefit of transnational corporations at the expense of national economies and national sovereignty, workers, farmers, women and children, and the environment.In addition, the rules, regulations and procedures under which the WTO operates are undemocratic, non-transparent and non-accountable and have served to marginalise the majority of the world's people.We, the undersigned, oppose any further negotiations on liberalisation, especially those which will bring new areas under the WTO regime, such as investment, forestry, government procurement, competition policy and services (especially health and education).Your petitioners therefore request the House to support:a moratorium on any new issues and any negotiations which expand the scope and power of the WTO, anda comprehensive, open and in-depth review of the existing agreements. Such a review should address the WTO's impact on marginalised communities, development, democracy, environment, health, human and animal rights, labour rights and the rights of women and children. The review should be conducted with civil society's full participation. 1175Mr HardgraveCK6Mr Hardgrave (from 1,175 citizens).2216953HX4KatterTo the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:Considering that many people in Australia suffer chronic skin disorders which require them to outlay large amounts each week to treat or relieve conditions such as eczema or psoriasis;Considering further that the entire range of products used to treat these conditions have been exempt from sales tax but that, with a GST, some only will be GST-free;Therefore, your petitioners request that the Parliament request the Minister for Health to determine, pursuant to section 37-48 of the A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Act 1999 that all goods registered on the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods as safe and efficacious for the treatment of dermatological conditions be GST-free.53Mr KatterHX4Mr Katter (from 53 citizens).22169110MG4LeeTo the Honourable Speaker and Members of Parliament of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.We the undersigned request that the Government make all residential rentals GST free including rental on sites paid by residents of relocatable and mobile home villages or parks.The GST on site fees unfairly discriminates against residents living in relocatable and mobile home villages or parks. The Government promised that no-one would pay GST on rent and this is an anomaly which allows village/park owners to charge GST on site fees.Your petitioners request that the House of Representatives do everything in their power to make rental on sites GST free.110Mr LeeMG4Mr Lee (from 110 citizens).22169175PG6MacklinTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.The electors of the NSW Electorate of Richmond comprising the Tweed region draws to the attention of the House their deep concern and disappointment about the abolition of the Commonwealth Dental Health Program by the Howard Government in 1996.The abolition of the Commonwealth Dental Health Program has left pensioners and many people with no means of receiving affordable, preventative dental health care.We, the undersigned, ask the House of Representatives to re-establish the Commonwealth Dental Health Program immediately.175Ms MacklinPG6Ms Macklin (from 175 citizens).22169128I4MartinTo the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in ParliamentThe Petition of certain electors of Australia draws the attention of the House to the unfair burden the GST will place on charitable organisations, particularly:the increased administrative costs to charities of GST compliance that will force these organisations to reduce service delivery to people in need;the imposition of the GST on fundraising activities that will reduce funds available to help provide additional services to people in need, and;increasing the running costs of many smaller charitable organisations by forcing them to pay the GST on goods and services they buy.Your petitioners therefore request the House to amend the GST legislation to remove charitable organisations from the GST net.12Mr Martin8I4Mr Martin (from 12 citizens).22169198I4MartinTo the Honourable the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives assembled in ParliamentThis petition of the undersigned draws to the attention of the House that under current legislation the GST will not be included on dockets and that consumers will not know how much GST they are being charged, or whether they are being charged correctly.Your petitioners therefore request the House that when a business provides a consumer with a receipt or docket issued in respect of a taxable supply the receipt or docket must separately include:(a) the price of the goods or services excluding the GST;(b) the amount of the GST; and(c) the total price including the GST.19Mr Martin8I4Mr Martin (from 19 citizens).22170228I4MartinTo the Honourable the Speakers and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in ParliamentWe the undersigned call on John Howard, Prime Minister to honour his promise that petrol would not rise because of the GST. This is another act of betrayal by the Howard Government to the people of regional Australia.Your petitioners therefore request the House to bring our concerns to the Prime Minister and ask that he keep his promise and cut the price of petrol.22Mr Martin8I4Mr Martin (from 22 citizens).22170257883KRoxonTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in ParliamentThe petition of certain citizens of the State of Victoria draws to the attention of the House of Representatives that we, the undersigned, call upon the Honourable Bronwyn Bishop to take action to substantially increase the amount of home-based services offered to frail elderly residents, and residents with disabilities.The current crisis situation in the provision of these services to the frail elderly and disabled in the Municipality of Hobson's Bay is of great concern.Your petitioners request that the government provide an immediate bridging grant of $500,000 to the Hobson's Bay Council to meet the current funding shortfall in the provision of service.2578Ms Roxon83KMs Roxon (from 2,578 citizens).2217042846J4SciaccaTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in ParliamentThis petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House that the Federal Government's closure of the Wynnum-Manly Medicare office at Brisbane, QLD in 1996 has caused great hardship to the many members of this community.Your petitioners therefore request the House immediately reopen the Medicare office previously furnished at Wynnum.4284Mr Sciacca6J4Mr Sciacca (from 4,284 citizens).2217076IJ4SnowdonTo the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives assembled in ParliamentThe petition of certain citizens of Australia draws the attention of the House to the unfair and inequitable gender biased administration of Family Breakdown Services, whereby Families in Breakdown are provided services differently and unequally according to the gender of the parent. These services are discriminatorily promoted and provided as free services to mothers but unequally or not at all to fathers, thus discriminating against fathers and their children. This injustice is creating unnecessarily exaggerated disruptions to family and children's lives. Such services are (1) Domestic Violence Strategies targeting only fathers whilst ignoring Australian and world-wide social science research, supported by other family service, crime and medical statistics that overwhelmingly reveals mothers are equally violent family members. (2) Family Crisis Centres that do not accommodate fathers with children who are in similar circumstances as mothers with children that are accommodated, and (3) restraining orders issued exparte against separating fathers as an administrative routine, without adequate investigation or reason about the fathers behaviour ever requiring such services. (4) Only fathers and their children are subjected to these administrative distortions and humiliation as in (1), (2) and (3) above.Your petitioners therefore pray that the House will henceforth have all aforementioned Family Breakdown Services administered, according to proper statistical facts to fathers as to mothers without fear or favour of gender, and according to their true family needs so as to avoid over servicing vexatious allegations.76Mr SnowdonIJ4Mr Snowdon (from 76 citizens).22170575HV5WakelinTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in ParliamentWe the undersigned citizens of Australia draw to the attention of the House that Australians will not tolerate entry of illegal immigrants.The Australian government's message to the world that Australia does not accept illegal immigrants is clearly not working due to the temporary visas given.Your petitioners therefore request the House to reconsider the Refugee Law and our obligation to the International Law.And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.575Mr WakelinHV5Mr Wakelin (from 575 citizens).22171407V5WilliamsTo the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in ParliamentThis petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House.Our Commitmentto the equal value and rights of citizens who have a disability and of their families and carers, acknowledging our collective responsibility as members of a civilised society to ensure their rights and needs are met.Our Expectationthat our elected representatives will allocate adequate public funding to ensurethat our fellow citizens with disabilities are provided with the care and support they needthat families and carers of Australians with disabilities receive the support they need to maintain their caring roleOur Concernthat at least 25,400 Australians with profound or severe disabilities have critical unmet needs for accommodation support, respite support, and constructive day programsWe respectfully urge the House to Exercise National Leadershipto assure the rights of Australians with disabilities and their families and carers and to resolve the national crisis in disability services bymaking an immediate funding allocation of additional $294 million to resolve the backlog in unmet need for disability support services, anddeveloping a planning process to ensure the ongoing funding of disability support services for Australians with disabilities and their families and carers according to their individual needs.40Mr Williams7V5Mr Williams (from 40, 000 citizens).Petitions received.Private Members' Business221712217115:27:0022171Charles, Bob, MPMr CHARLESOT4La TrobeLP10—I move:That this House encourages the Australian research and development community, both public and private, and the motor vehicle manufacturing industry to move as rapidly as possible to embrace the emerging hydrogen economy and to place Australia at the forefront of the development of hydrogen as an energy carrier to replace carbon and commends General Motors for its “HydroGen 1” hydrogen fuel electric car. For as long as we have had a developed civilisation, human beings have used carbon for energy in order to produce heat, light and power. Energy from carbon is derived from three sources: coal in a solid form which produces both electrical energy and heat; carbon in its liquid form as petroleum products, such as gasoline to power motor vehicles and diesel for energy production; and carbon in its gaseous form, which is largely natural gas, or CH4, and has largely been used to produce energy but, increasingly, is being used in some large motor vehicles.Our carbon reserves are finite—that is to say there is only so much carbon in the form of coal, oil and natural gas available in the world. It took thousands of years to develop those resources and reserves, and by burning them we are consuming them in literally hundreds of years. We cannot replace them easily because that carbon is deposited by a process of photosynthesis: sunlight converts the carbon dioxide within the leaves of trees and plants essentially into sugar, which then forms matter that ultimately decays and, through thousands of years of both overburden and pressure, ultimately forms what we know as coal, oil and gas. So we cannot get this resource easily, and we keep burning it up. It seems to me that we are going to have to find a better way to power the world than by using carbon. In future millenniums, carbon will be needed by those who follow for plastic, carbon fibre and a whole range of new materials that today we cannot even imagine. Scientists and engineers will dream up uses that we cannot imagine for this solid, liquid and gaseous carbon. But one thing I can tell you is that, if we burn it all up, we cannot get it back for thousands and thousands of years. So we do not do those who will follow us any favours if we continue to consume the lot. Gradually we will move to a hydrogen economy. Most thinking engineers and scientists or anyone involved in the energy field knows this to be a truism. We will not for very much longer continue with the carbon economy as an energy carrier; we will gradually move to hydrogen. We will do that with hydrogen either in gaseous or in liquid phase. Hydrogen accounts for more than 80 per cent of all the matter in the universe. Most of it is buoyant gas that occurs naturally and escapes through the earth's atmosphere into space. The rest is bound up in chemical compounds. Industry produces hydrogen for a variety of purposes, usually by obtaining it from fossil fuel—the source of more than 99 per cent of the hydrogen produced worldwide. Virtually all of this hydrogen is used in the chemical industry as a feedstock. A small proportion is used in hydrogen fuel cells that have helped power the US space program for a decade. There will be some in the broader community who are listening to this debate today who might ask: what is a fuel cell? My advice is that a fuel cell consists of two electrodes sandwiched between an electrolyte. Oxygen passes over one electrode and hydrogen over the other, generating electricity, water and heat. Hydrogen fuel is fed into the anode of the fuel cell. Oxygen, or air, enters the fuel cell through the cathode. Encouraged by a catalyst, the hydrogen atom splits into a proton and an electron, which take different paths to the cathode. The proton passes through the electrolyte. The electrons create a separate current that can be utilised before they return to the cathode, to be reunited with the hydrogen and the oxygen in a molecule of water. The fuel cell system, which includes a fuel reformer, can utilise the hydrogen in any hydrocarbon fuel from natural gas to methanol, and even gasoline. Since the fuel cell relies on chemistry and not combustion, emissions from this type of system would still be much smaller than emissions from the cleanest fuel combustion process.The first fuel cell was built in 1839 by Sir William Grove, a Welsh judge and gentlemen scientist. Serious interest in the fuel cell as a practical generator did not begin until the 1960s when the US space program chose fuel cells over riskier nuclear power and more expensive solar energy. Fuel cells furnished power for the Gemini and Apollo spacecraft, and still provide electricity and water for the space shuttle.On 19 June of this year, an article by Simon Mann in the Age talked about the HydroGen 1, which I mentioned in my motion to this House. In his article he says:General Motors' “HydroGen 1”, the first road-going, hydrogen-fuelled electric car, is a long way from mass production. But it is the first test car of its type—combining fuel-cell technology with pure hydrogen—not methanol or gasoline but pure hydrogen—to prove itself on the road. Its vital statistics compare favourably with a 2.5 litre diesel engine: nought to 100kmh in 16 seconds, a top speed of 140 kmh, and a range of 400 kilometres per tank of fuel. The car drives like an automatic but without the sort of gear ratios that characterise conventional vehicles. It accelerates more smoothly. It's quieter. And it's pollution free.So promising is its “green” car that GM now expects that by the end of the decade 10 per cent of new cars will be thriving on a combination of fuel-cell and hydrogen. By 2025, the figure could be a quarter of the world's car market, which is tipped to double to 1.6 billion vehicles by around the same time.... ... ... ...“This is the only energy carrier that will be able to satisfy the need for a lasting reduction in carbon dioxide emissions despite a steady increase in the number of motor vehicles on the roads,” says Erhard Schubert, co-director of GM-Opel's Global Alternative Propulsion Centre. “This is because it reacts electro-chemically in the fuel cell to yield water.”Not pollutants—water. The article continues:Dr Schubert says the great potential of fuel-cell cars is that it will one day be powered on hydrogen derived from renewable energy sources such as hydro-electric, wind or solar power.The French writer Jules Verne once described water as “the coal of the future”. “Today we know just how right he was,” says Dr Schubert.... ... ... ...As a further demonstration of its growing confidence, GM will use the vehicle as the pace care for Sydney's Olympic marathon in September.And it did do so. Fritz Vahrenholt, a board member of Deutsche Shell AG in Hamburg, said:The Royal Dutch/Shell Group established the Shell Hydrogen Co. this year. “Hydrogen is going to be the most important energy carrier in the 21st century ... In the long term it is going to replace oil and gas. For an energy company like Shell, it is important to take part in the development effort early on, in order to establish a leading position in the hydrogen business. International companies in the vehicle business involved in fuel cell research and development are Chrysler, General Motors, Ford Motor Corporation, BMW, Daimler Benz, De Nora S.P.A., Peugeot, Citroen, Renault, Volkswagen, Volvo, Xcellsis, Zevco, Toyota, Mazda, Nissan, Honda, Daewoo Motor, Hyundai and Mitsubishi. In Australia we have the company Ceramic Fuel Cells Ltd which is aimed at the mid-size industrial fuel cell market to produce electrical power. It is aimed in the range of 25 to 200 kilowatt hours. It is expected to be available in 2003.It is time for the research community in Australia to embrace the hydrogen economy, to get to work in serious time on how we release hydrogen from oxygen molecules in water, how we transport hydrogen and how we compress it, and to garner information about international efforts at realising fuel cell potential for transportation. It is critical to our further scientific development that we use clean power from tidal energy and from hot dry rocks to power our fuel cell car. (Time expired)10000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Is the motion seconded?84THaase, Barry, MPMr Haase—I second the motion.15:38:0022173Horne, Bob, MPMr HORNEUU5PatersonALP00—I support the member for La Trobe and congratulate him on bringing this matter to the attention of the House. Given the state of the United States economy and the recent comment attributed to the Chairman of the US Federal Reserve, Alan Greenspan, that the remarkable run of economic growth in his country appears to have its roots in advances in technology, in Australia right now, with the price of fuels as they are and the Australian dollar being in the doldrums, we should be demanding that our Treasurer in particular understand the importance of energy and its cost to the world of the future.Before I address the real nature of this private member's motion before the House today, let me state that the world is being held to ransom by a ruthless cartel of oil producers and processors. We cannot blame them because they control the most widely used source of energy for vehicles and industry. They have a diminishing resource and an increasing demand. They do not even have to market their product. Would such a cartel be interested in developing an alternative fuel for internal combustion engines? The answer is no. Why? Because they would be creating a competitor to their existing product. But here in Australia we are different. Our currently productive oil fields have a life expectancy, based on current rates of extraction, of about four to five years. Known reserves extend that out to between 10 and 15 years. But after that we are thrown onto the list of countries totally dependent for liquid hydrocarbon fuels on imported product. As we approach that date, we cannot expect mercy. We will not get it. Fuel prices we are paying now are only an entree to what we will be paying unless we look for an alternative.The amazing fact is that there are alternatives. Other forms of energy exist that are both feasible and sustainable. The member for La Trobe outlined just one. The problem is that they are not controlled by the energy cartel and, therefore, they are not promoted. Personally, I have been promoting ethanol as an alternative—an easy step for industry to take because it can be blended with existing fuels and used in existing internal combustion engines. We also have scientists that have developed the technology. The suggestion in the motion today—and I am proud to support it—is a little more radical in that it is encouraging a break from tradition. It is a quantum step forward using a new technology.It is not that the hydrogen cell is new. I am sure that most of us can remember a science experiment when we were in junior high school where our science teacher passed an electric current through some water with a little acid and we got one gas that was two times the quantity of the other and he used this to tell us that water was H2O and you had two parts of hydrogen to one of oxygen. If he was a particularly brave science teacher, he might have held a lighted taper to the hydrogen and we would have seen that gas that had been produced from water burnt with a hot flame. That is the secret about what we are debating today and how to harness that energy. The amazing thing about this substance as a fuel is that no carbon is involved in the equation of burning hydrogen: no greenhouse gases are produced by burning hydrogen. The added beauty is that there are no carcinogens—just water. Too simple to believe? Why haven't we been using it, commercially at any rate? Once again, it is about energy. The production of hydrogen by electrolytic processes is an endothermic reaction and it requires the input of energy to liberate the hydrogen. Then there is the burning of the hydrogen, or the generation of electricity using the hydrogen—an exothermic reaction. It is a case of getting the balance right.There are a couple of variations on this theme. You can have a completely enclosed cell—the sort that our colleague was talking about that was built way back in the 19th century but not developed until the 1960s. It was so successful that the United States used it in rocket technology and space exploration. It is still using it today. As a matter of fact, the United States government has 30 such cells still in use. I believe that the space shuttle that brings astronauts back to earth is currently employing one of these cells. That in itself is an indication of why Australia should be investing money in this sort of technology.Australian scientists have shown for a long time that we can match it with the world, but they need encouragement. Last week, in a speech I made on legislation that went through this House—I was very happy to speak on it—one of the pieces of information I used was to show that in the past four years investment in technology in this country by private enterprise has dropped by 20 per cent. That is a tragedy. With high fuel prices, with the Australian dollar low and with our oil reserves dwindling, it is an ideal time for our government to show leadership and to encourage industry to invest. This is a government that has a self-admitted windfall profit from the current fuel taxing regime. I would suggest to the Prime Minister and the Treasurer that they should immediately invest. I can understand the preoccupation with the fiscal surplus, but I have always argued, and will continue to argue, that if some of that surplus is spent in developing new technology or providing infrastructure it is not expenditure but investment and should be regarded as such. Continuing down the path of time, we know we are going to run out of liquid hydrocarbons, and we know we will have to replace those fuels. They are not simply going to fall off a shelf. The process of replacing them will take time, it will take investment, and it will take finetuning. That is why we need to start today. Tomorrow will be too late. We have to be competitive with the world. We know that. We have to be self-sufficient in energy. Energy is the name of the game. Whoever controls the energy of the world will eventually control the world—I have no doubt about that—because we are such major consumers of energy. I am very pleased to support this private member's motion. I hope that it leads on to something far more advanced, something far more constructive, by the government. As I indicated in my initial opening comments, it is up to the government to show leadership. Industry is pulling away from investing in new technology, but the amazing thing is that Australians are some of the greatest users of new technology in the world. We sit back and we allow the United States to develop new technology and then we step in and buy it. With an Australian dollar priced at US50c, it is costing us far more than it was 12 months ago. I hate to think what it might be costing us in years to come. I believe that Australia can do it. The member for La Trobe believes that Australia can do it. All we have to do is to convince Australian industry to get out there and do it. 15:48:0022174Haase, Barry, MPMr HAASE84TKalgoorlieLP10—It gives me a great deal of pleasure to rise to support this motion of the member for La Trobe. It is a timely debate, following as it does on last week's visit to parliament by eminent scientists to highlight the need for ongoing research in all fields. Australia is well placed with fossil fuels by comparison with many other countries, but the use of these fossil fuels in every case contributes further to destructive greenhouse gases. Australia is well placed with many sites suitable for wind turbines and solar power generation. The northern coast of Western Australia experiences exceptional tidal movement—in the Kimberley region, some 11 metres. The problem to date with renewable energy, however, has been storage. Another problem we as Australians have is finding a solution to the problem of the two per cent renewables target set by the federal government as part of our response to the Kyoto agreements. A solution can now be achieved by conversion to and storage of hydrogen. The conversion of water to hydrogen and oxygen by electrolysis using clean renewable energy is the most effective means of combating increasing world atmospheric pollution. As an energy source for motor vehicles using fuel cell technology, it offers a solution to the looming crisis of maintaining the transportation of people and products with an ever decreasing supply of comparatively dirty fossil fuel. Professor Peter Newman of the Institute for Sustainability and Technology Policy from Murdoch University states, `In the next decade global oil production will peak, as for each barrel of oil discovered four are now consumed.' As an energy carrier, hydrogen is as easily handled as natural gas. Any gas reticulation system could be utilised to take non-polluting energy to more populous centres. Mr Erhard Schubert, coordinator of General Motors' Global Alternative Propulsion Centre, said that fuel cell power was the only energy source able to satisfy the world's need for a lasting reduction in carbon dioxide emissions despite a steady increase in the number of motor vehicles on the road. He also warned that zero emissions mobility was possible only if large-scale hydrogen production was possible through renewable sources. Quite obviously, there is nothing to be gained by utilising liquid hydrocarbons to split water into hydrogen and oxygen to then use as a supposed clean energy source because we have already created the atmospheric pollution. I am pleased to report that the Western Australian Department of Transport, in cooperation with Daimler and BHP, are keen to introduce hydrogen fuel cell powered commuter buses. In line with this, the Western Australian government is considering a potential clean renewable energy source that is proposed in Derby, Western Australia. With the capacity of nearly 100 megawatts of output, it would provide ample power for the immediate and future needs of the West Kimberley. The outstanding significance of this project, however, is the opportunity to prove up the total process with a secure supply contract with Western Power.Further north, along the Kimberley coast, geographic features provide perfect locations for similar installations with a design capacity for 500 megawatt plus. With this clean, renewable electricity and an ample supply of clean fresh water, the potential exists to produce hydrogen to feed into pipeline infrastructure to major population centres. The options for hydrogen use require a great deal of long-term forecasting of economic, environmental and energy constraints and opportunities. The potential exists to share distribution facilities across this nation. (Time expired)15:53:0022175Murphy, John, MPMr MURPHY83DLoweALP00— Whilst I have great respect for the member for La Trobe, I wish to speak against the motion because the main problem in producing hydrogen is that it takes a very great deal of electrical energy to produce, and there are environmental consequences as a result of greenhouse emissions. If one could produce hydrogen without any adverse environmental effects, I would be supporting the motion. In a few weeks, the governments of the world will convene in The Hague to discuss the implications of the latest findings on global warming and climate change. In a leaked report, the respected UN sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has warned that the effects of global warming caused by human activities are now starting to have significant effects on the world's weather. Over 70 million people living in low lying areas of Bangladesh and China are at risk of storm surges and flooding. Where will these people go if they are drowned out of their houses? Perhaps they will embark for Australia's somewhat drier shores. In the last two years, we have seen massive flooding and mudslides in Venezuela and Mozambique, devastating hurricanes in the Caribbean and Orissa, India and inextinguishable forest fires in Greece and the western United States. Climate scientists have repeatedly warned that the earth's climate is warming up due to increasing levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, yet the Howard government argues that Australia is a special case and should be allowed to release even larger quantities of pollution. As I have stated before in this House, this government's policies are not based on evidence and the best advice but, rather, on opinion and prejudice together with the pleadings of uninformed special interests. The evidence that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has presented is virtually unassailable. I will detail some of the evidence here, since it seems that the government's advisers have not been allowed to present data that does not correspond to official prejudice. Firstly, there is no doubt that carbon dioxide gas present in the atmosphere traps outgoing infra-red radiation and directly heats the atmosphere. This is a measurable effect and has been understood for over 100 years. Secondly, large-scale burning of fossil fuels like coal or oil or natural gas is adding carbon dioxide to the existing concentration in the atmosphere. This concentration can be measured, and the ratio of different isotopes proves that a portion of the increase is coming from the burning of fossil fuels. Thirdly, the overall atmospheric temperature directly affects the intensity and frequency of weather processes such as cyclones and heatwaves. The increasing frequency of these destructive events can be correlated with the measurable increase in atmospheric temperature. The government continues to argue that any measures that may be required to reduce Australia's carbon dioxide emissions would either be too expensive or cause unnecessary disruption to our way of life. With this attitude, it is no wonder that the inhabitants of the small Pacific island nations who are at risk of being washed out of their homes by rising sea levels and devastating hurricanes have no time for Australia's position. I would like to refer members of the government to a recent statement by the British environment minister, Mr Michael Meacher MP. In a column in the Manchester Guardian on 31 October, Mr Meacher said:Climate change is not some trendy intellectual scenario for the distant future. It is with us now.This statement was made in the wake of disastrous storms and floods that killed at least seven people and caused unprecedented damage to railways in the West Country.While the government may wish to forget about events on the other side of the planet, it still has to face the issue of fuel prices, a topic that is in fact directly linked to the problems created by carbon dioxide emissions. I say this because, as I have previously reported, the fuel consumption figures for Australian vehicles are at the bottom of the list of OECD countries, at 8.9 litres per 100 kilometres. In fact, the thermal efficiency of most Australian vehicles is no more than about 15 per cent. This means that 85 per cent of the energy in the fuel is wasted by these cars and for every dollar a motorist puts into the fuel tank only 15c is actually used to move the vehicle.While the Prime Minister argues about fuel prices with the premiers and claims that there is nothing he can do, the best answer, which is getting the manufacturers to improve the designs of their engines, is put in the too-hard basket. The low fuel efficiency of our vehicle fleet contributes directly to our increasing greenhouse gas emissions and gives the lie to the government's pleading of Australia as a special case. Put simply, the lower the fuel efficiency, the more fuel a vehicle has to burn and the greater the emission of greenhouse gas. Anybody who lives in our larger cities knows that the volume of traffic is an ever growing problem. People are crying out for a viable alternative to the pollution spewing cars and trucks that jam the streets, yet the only viable alternative, new railways, does not seem to have much federal public funding support. Despite the fact that electric railways are perhaps five times as energy efficient as road transport, the federal government has not provided one single cent for new railway construction. The government's position on greenhouse gases is completely untenable and Australia risks becoming a pariah state. 10000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. 2217715:58:0022177Crosio, Janice, MPMrs CROSIO7T4ProspectALP00—I move:That this House:(1) Congratulates the countries of Argentina, Austria, Belgium, Benin, Bolivia, Bulgaria, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cuba, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Finland, France, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Iceland, Indonesia, Italy, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Mexico, Namibia, The Netherlands, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, The Philippines, Portugal, Senegal, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Thailand, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Uruguay and Venezuela for being signatories to the Optional Protocol to the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW);(2) Recognises the CEDAW as the only woman specific human rights mechanism at the international level;(3) Recognises that the Optional Protocol to the CEDAW is a major step forward in realising Governments' commitments with regard to women's human rights;(4) Recognises that the Optional Protocol to the CEDAW creates procedures for the United Nations to promote the enjoyment of human rights to all women and the world-wide elimination of discrimination against women;(5) Recognises that signatories to the Optional Protocol to the CEDAW reject all forms of injustice and systemic discrimination suffered by women world-wide;(6) Recognises that the Optional Protocol provides a significant opportunity for women who have suffered from discrimination to seek justice through the United Nations;(7) Expresses concern at the significantly diminished role Australia is playing in the negotiations of the Optional Protocol to the CEDAW and the low priority given to the Optional Protocol by the Howard Government;(8) Calls on the Howard Government to take an active role in the negotiation process and to promote a speedy ratification of the Optional Protocol; and(9) Calls on the Howard Government to have Australia become a signatory to the Optional Protocol to the CEDAW.In moving the motion, I would like to start by saying I welcome the debate on women's rights and make mention of the fact that, like most issues which need proper consideration by this government, this debate has been a long time coming. The issue of women's rights and this government's refusal to sign the optional protocol of the United Nations Convention for the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women is something that will haunt this government and will continue to tarnish Australia's reputation. I am hopeful that opening this debate is the first step for this government towards making an undeniable and firm commitment to rejecting all forms of discrimination against women wherever and whenever they occur. However, I would like to say from the start that the Prime Minister's refusal to allow Australia to become a signatory to the optional protocol is an outright disgrace. During the 13 years that Labor was in power, between 1983 and 1996, Australia took on with vigour the challenge, through the committee system of the UN, to become a leader and to reject injustice and blatant discrimination against women.Australia was once a leading player in the negotiations and formulation process and worked with the United Nations to form CEDAW. Australia signed CEDAW in 1982, and in 1995 led negotiations to create an optional protocol that would strengthen it. Australia, in its second periodic report to the CEDAW committee, on 31 January 1994, argued strongly for the case for raising the awareness of women's rights both within Australia and worldwide through the United Nations. Australia identified areas of women's rights on which CEDAW should focus. These included the representation of women in public life, policy making and senior executive positions in the government and corporate sectors. Australia argued for the eradication of barriers which prevent equal access for women to these positions in society. Australia also argued that CEDAW should recognise domestic violence and that that violence against women was a violation of human rights and a form of discrimination against women. Australia argued that CEDAW should focus on eradicating discrimination suffered by disadvantaged groups within a nation—such as indigenous women, migrant women, women of non-English speaking background and women with disabilities. Discrimination and violations of human rights among these groups of women often lead to high infant mortality, low life expectancy, high unemployment, a high incidence of domestic violence and a high incidence of homicide.It was these kinds of initiatives which led Kofi Annan, on his recent visit to Australia, to state that Australia was a model nation of the United Nations. The editorial of the Melbourne Age on Monday, 9 October stated many of the injustices and discrimination suffered by women which were included in a recent UN report. According to the Age, this report stated such shocking statistics as four million girls and women, mainly on the Asian continent, being sold into prostitution or slavery each year, and reported injustices such as in the Middle East, where up to 5,000 women are killed every year in what they call `honour killings'. If we are a model nation of the UN, let us lead from the front and not from behind. Let us continue this leadership role and show, both to other countries in our region and to other members of the UN, that we do care. Being a model nation should mean that we believe discrimination against women in all its forms should be eliminated, even if much of this discrimination and disadvantage to women does not occur on our shores. Australia should condemn the existence of discrimination against women and support avenues such as this optional protocol, which will help to eradicate it.This government has made no secret of the fact that it is embarrassed and angered by criticism from the United Nations Human Rights Committee over the government's decision not to overturn mandatory sentencing legislation in the Northern Territory. Even members of the government's own backbench agree that mandatory sentencing in the Northern Territory should be overturned, but still this government, in its characteristically stubborn way, has refused to overturn this piece of legislation. Instead this government has pushed for what it calls `reform' of the United Nations committee system. No-one can deny Australia's right as a member of the United Nations to suggest reform of the committee system. However, I want to talk about the manner in which this government has gone about arguing for reform. Reforms need to be achieved by firm, consistent diplomacy, not through what we have seen so far from this government, which is non-cooperation with the UN and self-assessment of domestic policies. The international and universal rights of women should not be used as a political pawn by the Howard government to defend its own policies that are criticised by the UN. It may be true that countries like Australia are judged more harshly than some others, partly because higher standards are expected from such a well developed and democratic country as Australia. However, this is the standard we have set for ourselves through the active role previous Australian governments have played in the UN. The Australian government is expected, both by the electorate and by the international community, to live up to this standard. By refusing to sign the optional protocol and by witnessing the diminished role the Howard government is playing in the negotiation process, it is quite clear that we are not living up to this standard. The optional protocol is an avenue for creating international law. It provides an opportunity for women to make a complaint to the United Nations if the domestic mechanisms of law have been exhausted or, in many cases, do not exist in their countries. At the International Women's Conference in Beijing in 1995, the leaders of the world's nations confirmed that women's rights are human rights. They are one and the same. They are universal. This confirmed that women's rights are not confined to a particular nation, religion or culture. The conference ensured that women's rights are recognised as worldwide universal human rights. Declaring this also means that to deny women their rights is a breach of human rights. At the Beijing conference, Australia, with its representatives from the former Keating government, called for a speedy entry into force of the optional protocol and also called on members of the United Nations to consider ratifying the optional protocol as quickly as possible. This optional protocol will protect rights enshrined in CEDAW. These rights cover such issues as health, education, marriage, pregnancy, family relations, human rights, equity before the law, and the right to participate equally, with equal rights and status, in all areas of public and civil rights. The terms of the optional protocol are broad. It acknowledges women's rights—again I repeat this—as human rights. It encourages all governments to take active and continuing steps to advance women's status and women's rights, economically, politically, socially and culturally. The point should also be made that the optional protocol does not create new rights for women but only includes the rights that are already enshrined in the CEDAW proposal to which Australia was a signatory in 1982. That was 18 years ago. It is a sad reflection of this government's arrogance and backward thinking logic that Australia will not now be a signatory of the optional protocol. The Prime Minister has argued that a developed, democratic country like Australia already adequately protects human rights and the rights of women through such things as antidiscrimination and equal opportunity legislation. If this is the case, Prime Minister, let us not close our doors to the international community. Let us proudly open them, sign and ratify the optional protocol and make a statement which says to the Asia-Pacific region, to the United Nations and to the international community that we are Australia, we reject all forms of discrimination against women wherever they occur and we believe women should have the right to fight gross injustice and violations of human rights through the avenues of the United Nations. This country has made much progress in antidiscrimination and equal opportunity legislation, but I believe we must now show other nations that we are there and show them examples so that they can follow our lead. We must take a leading role in the optional protocol development. There is so much for Australia to gain by signing the optional protocol to CEDAW. The optional protocol will show to our regional neighbours that Australia recognises that women's rights need to be protected and that Australia is a country which believes women should have the right to take their complaints to the UN if they feel their human rights are being breached. There is nothing for Australia to gain by being stubborn, arrogant and complacent and by not signing this protocol. Time is running out for this government to sign the optional protocol, which will come into effect on 22 December 2000. To date, the optional protocol has 62 signatories, and 11 of these countries have ratified it. If this country continues to flounder about arguing the case for reform of the UN committee system and continues to use the argument of national sovereignty against UN criticism of domestic policies, Australia will miss the boat.In conclusion, I say: Prime Minister, let us not the miss the boat on women's rights. Australia has been a leader on women's rights. If you look at issues such as women's suffrage, equal employment opportunity, antidiscrimination and maternity leave for Australian women, Australia has always been a pioneer and has played a leading part. Women's rights are human rights. They need to be protected both within Australia and around the world. Women should not be denied the right to take their complaints to the United Nations for international consideration. Australia's reputation needs to remain as a leader rather than as an objector on the issue of human rights. Prime Minister, advance Australia forward through CEDAW. Don't drop the ball on all the remarkable progress Australia has achieved in the past on women's issues. Women have come so far forward during the 20th century. Let us not have Australia's reputation go down. (Time expired)10000Jenkins, Harry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Is the motion seconded? 83ZIrwin, Julia, MPMrs Irwin—I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.16:08:0022180Gash, Joanna, MPMrs GASHAK6GilmoreLP10—I rise today to speak to the motion moved by the member for Prospect, and I take great delight in speaking on this motion because I am utterly opposed to the implied criticism of this government's position in relation to the optional protocol to the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. Once again we see the Labor opposition downplaying Australia's record in the eyes of the world. Never, ever do we hear a positive move for the Australian people to associate with. All we ever hear is negativity, doom and gloom, when we, the citizens of Australia, are proud of our country's reputation and will defend it against all those who try to make us seem inferior.Let us look at the reasons for the optional protocol. The first aim is to improve on and add to existing enforcement mechanisms for women's human rights. Australian woman, unlike those of many Third World countries, are not left unprotected. For that we can thank the women of our country who went before us, along with the rest of Australian society. There is no need for additional enforcement mechanisms in Australia. We are well provided for by our sex discrimination legislation, and many avenues for appeal exist in the judicial system and through our administrative process under the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commissioner—a total separate identity away from political barriers and influence. Of course, Australian woman still have the protection of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women itself. In the event that the will of the people changes in respect of any cultural norm relating to the specific rights of women, there is the well-known and oft-trodden path to legislative change as determined by Australia and its people.The second aim is to improve states' and individuals' understanding of CEDAW. Before the time of the original introduction of the Sex Discrimination Act there was, and there still is, wide debate of the issues which will, I am sure, continue well after we have gone. Along with ongoing gender equity programs in schools and other training institutes, relevant information is available in the media, from all government agencies and from women's organisations both state and federal. I do not believe that signing the optional protocol would have any benefit, and it may in fact create weaknesses and discrepancies in our current system.The third aim is to stimulate states to take steps to implement CEDAW. As outlined above, Australia has already met the requirements of most articles under the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. In fact, our current legislation is constantly under review by all levels of government and human rights groups to determine loopholes or weaknesses. The Howard government has already identified a need to amend the Sex Discrimination Act to protect the rights of pregnant and breast-feeding women—something the previous government failed to do.The fourth aim is to stimulate changes in discriminatory laws and practices. As outlined earlier, there is stimulation enough to continually monitor any discriminatory impact on our current legislation and practices. Our Australian women are empowered and totally free to raise these issues in every forum possible, with considerable influence and with good positive results. In fact, our Country Women's Association branches throughout Australia regularly meet to discuss and debate any issue of concern to women in rural and regional areas. And, as I am sure everyone in this chamber can testify, women have not been slow to let their elected representatives know their feelings.The fifth aim is to enhance existing mechanisms for the implementation of human rights within the United Nations system. Australia's strong human rights record is widely acknowledged around the world, including by the United Nations. We have a strong record of support and protection of women's rights. Australia has a world-class regime of legislation and institutional mechanisms to protect women against discrimination. The government in its review of the United Nations treaty system has found substantial weaknesses to which we certainly do not want to become a party. Australian standards are high in comparison to many other countries. The sixth aim is to create greater public awareness of human rights standards relating to discrimination against women. Australia has again played a leading role in supporting women's human rights in the work of the United Nations. This government supports the Beijing platform for action and will actively be implementing the Beijing Plus Five outcomes document. I acquaint the House that it was the United Nations Division for the Advancement of Women that presented Beijing Plus Five, which was a special session of the General Assembly entitled `Women 2000: gender equality, development and peace for the 21st century', held from 5 to 9 June 2000 at the United Nations headquarters in New York. The Beijing declaration and platform for action were adopted at the Fourth World Conference of Women from 4 to 15 September 1995 by representatives from 189 countries. I know a number of women from my own electorate who attended that meeting. The platform reflects a new international commitment to the goals of equality, development and peace for all women everywhere. It then builds on the commitments made during the United Nations Decade for Women from 1976 to 1985, including at the Nairobi conference, and continues on related commitments made in the cycle of United Nations global conferences held in the 1990s. The platform identifies the following 12 critical areas of concern for women's advancement and empowerment: poverty, education and training, health, violence, armed conflict, economy, decision making, institutional mechanisms, human rights, media, environment and the girl child. The platform for action defined strategic objectives and spelt out the actions needed to be taken by governments, the international community, non-government organisations and the private sector. Five years after Beijing, the special session in June 2000 provided an opportunity for all concerned to share and compare experiences, to renew old commitments, to make new ones and to examine obstacles encountered, as well as good practices in implementing the platform for action.Let us examine the plight of Australian women in relation to these 12 critical areas of concern, being for women's advancement and empowerment. Employment is one of the ways to escape the net of poverty. It is a fact that more women are in paid employment now than ever before—68.5 per cent of working age women, aged 15 to 64, were in the paid labour force in September 2000, second only to our record high in August this year of 66.2 per cent. I remind the member for Prospect that is more than under any other previous government. Female employment grew by 410,000, more than 11 per cent, between March 1996 and September 2000. No, they were not all part-time, casual or seasonal jobs. In fact, the split was roughly fifty-fifty. Of the extra 410,000 jobs, 210,200 were full-time and 202,300 were part-time jobs. Unemployment in September 2000 was at an equal record six per cent for the second time this year—the first time was July 2000. This was the lowest rate in decades for women and was considerably lower than when it was eight per cent in March 1996, after 13 years of Labor.However, still not satisfied with its efforts, this government then focused on women wanting to return to the work force after an absence: for example, to have and to care for children—another choice this government supports through financial incentives. We recognise that many women choose to take a break from the work force and may have initial difficulty in finding their way back. Hence the federal government has provided $24 million for its return to work program. This will assist particularly women re-entering the work force, after a break of two years or more as parents or carers, by helping them identify their advantages and also opportunities to train in areas of interest.Speaking of education, women now make up 58 per cent of students commencing undergraduate degrees at university. The most heartening figure for me, someone who was required to leave school at 15 to assist the family budget, is the proportion of women in postgraduate studies. This has risen from 43.5 per cent in 1996 to 52.7 per cent in 1999, which shows just how successful our strategies have been in redressing the previous imbalance. The figure is always increasing under this federal government's guidance—through the New Apprenticeships program. Training and employment are not enough to ensure empowerment, although they certainly go a long way to help. Domestic violence has systematically been used to keep women powerless. In some countries that has been one of the cultural norms. In Australia we recognise that violence against women is unacceptable—in all its forms. To highlight this government's commitment to finding better ways of preventing domestic violence, we have spent $50 million on such a program. Education programs in schools are already teaching that this kind of behaviour is not the norm and is not acceptable. Nowhere have I heard or seen the opposition applaud our stance on greater financial support for child care or for the flexibility that it provides.I have demonstrated some of the practical ways in which this government has addressed the possibility of gender inequality inherent in our institutions. Our women are professional in their workplaces and are positive in their attitudes. In fact, there is now a growing percentage of women on boards as directors, both in the government and non-government sectors. Women are logical and most of these women are now in the work force, as I have said. I serve this country with great pride, pride in knowing that we stand for all things good, including the right to vote without the use of guns and the right to speak freely, to think freely and to make objection if treated unfairly. We live in a democratic society because our forebears, both men and women, fought so hard for those rights. (Time expired)16:18:0022182Irwin, Julia, MPMrs IRWIN83ZFowlerALP00—I rise to speak in support of the motion by the member for Prospect. I am pleased to do so because the member for Prospect has considerable experience of the world and has a mature sense of judgment. It is a pity that the member for Gilmore is not like Janice Crosio and the next woman I am going to speak about, Dame Beryl Beaurepaire. This is about all women in Australia and the world. Can't you stand up for all women?Dame Beryl Beaurepaire, the very model of a liberal, one of the leaders of the delegation that signed the convention in Copenhagen in 1980, shares the member for Prospect's concerns that this government is letting down the world's women. This government does not share the maturity of the member for Prospect and of Dame Beryl. The government has acted out of immaturity because the UN convention machinery has been critical on the issue of the rights of Australia's Aboriginal people. We can expect that because higher standards are expected of our liberal and enlightened society. To pick up the bat and ball and refuse to play anymore is plainly childish and immature. Other nations look to Australia, as Australia's Sex Discrimination Commissioner, Susan Halliday, points out. It is not just about us: women in the Asia-Pacific region depend on a bit of leadership from Australia.The government's aim—to knock the UN until it smartens itself up—has been criticised by the Australian Council for Overseas Aid, because it gives comfort to those who commit human rights abuses. It flies in the face of what the optional protocol is all about. Australia had a big hand in this. The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women was signed by a Liberal government. This Liberal government must finish its work in this important area of human rights. There are three billion women in the world and 70 per cent of them are poor. Women in some countries are burnt or disfigured because of dowry demands. They are murdered when they are judged to have brought dishonour on their families for as little a crime as being out after sunset. They are subjected to circumcision practices for no good reason other than narrow cultural beliefs about denying women their sexuality. They are subjected to genital mutilation to ensure their chastity until marriage, again as a tradition without religious basis, and virgins are purchased to bring good fortune to a business deal, a superstition leading to exploitation.Each year about four million women and girls are sold into sexual slavery. It is an export market which appears to be growing. Female babies are made to disappear at birth because they are less valued than male children. They are aborted, murdered, or are starved and neglected until they die because they are females. Widow burning is still practised. Women are denied education in some cultures, are denied contraception and are forced to live in ignorant poverty with large families and inadequate or no maternity facilities. As Joan Sheldon, the former Queensland Liberal Party head and current shadow minister for industrial relations, said on the ABC: It sends particular messages, particularly to countries overseas where in some of those countries women are terribly discriminated against, they have no rights whatsoever. So it is important that the powerful and democratic nations of the world show by at least signing these sorts of protocols that they think this sort of discrimination should be eliminated.Joan Sheldon, a Liberal state member, is one of millions of women in Australia who are greatly concerned about the government's actions. The feeling of these women was put clearly by Dr Jocelynne Scutt, Tasmania's Anti-Discrimination Commissioner, in the Sunday Age of 3 September 2000:In the 1980s, Australian women coaxed, cajoled, prompted and persuaded successive Australian governments to make significant contributions to the international community's debates and achievements on women's rights.The women who led this push were strong, wise, persistent.Most of them are still around, and those who aren't have left behind a legacy that's not forgotten.Of one thing John Howard and his government can be sure. These bold, brave women are on hand for the new millennium. And there are thousands—no millions—more around now. Women don't forget our struggles so easily.I heartily agree. Women in Australia have come a long way, but we still have a long way to go. Women will remember the actions of this government at the next election and the comments of the member for Gilmore, who I believe is in a marginal Liberal seat, and there are a lot of women voters there. At the next election, the women of Australia will elect a decent government, a Beazley Labor government. (Time expired)16:24:0022183Kelly, De-Anne, MPMrs DE-ANNE KELLYFK6DawsonNP10—I rise to speak on the motion moved by the member for Prospect. I have a great deal of regard for the member for Prospect. I have worked on quite a number of matters with her in the parliamentary processes. I also share the concerns that she has raised about women worldwide—uneducated, abused, degraded, prostituted against their will and, in many other countries, enslaved. I noted the comments of the member for Fowler about maturity and messages, but I will get to that shortly. While it is absolutely appropriate that the member for Prospect raise the very real concerns about the situation that many women worldwide face, that is not reflected in a knee-jerk reaction to the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women and the ramifications in Australia, and I would like to go through those now.I am a member of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, so I have a very keen appreciation of and interest in how government looks at international treaties. The reality is that we have moved a long way in the last few years in Australia. I think most Australians are very concerned and interested in what parliaments do about international treaties, protocols, conventions and the like. They want to be involved first of all in public inquiries and then in having a say, and that is right and proper. The parliament is for the people. If they wish to be included, they should be, and we have ensured that they are. I think we should also respect their view of international treaties.Concerning the domestic progress in human rights, there is a disjointed view that in some way CEDAW is going to change the situation in Australia. The United Nations treaty system is, at best, flawed. There are any number of examples of that. I recall recently the furore in United Nations committees over mandatory sentencing in Australia. In this address, I do not care to canvass the rights and wrongs of mandatory sentencing but simply point out that that was a state decision. The United Nations Committee on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, CERD, which attacked Australia on these matters, was made up of China, Cuba, Egypt and Guinea, described by the international human rights watchdog, Freedom House, as countries that are not free. Two other members of that committee—Pakistan and Russia—are described as only partly free. The reality is that UN committees do not reflect the view in Australia that Australians have of a democratic system. We are right to condemn worldwide the many perpetrators of abuses against humanity, whether they be against women or other powerless individuals. In many cases, the victims are unable to elicit actions against those perpetrators. There is no doubt, as the member for Prospect has said, that that is absolutely deplorable. The UN committees have to get a result and, unfortunately, they look for soft targets. They look to member nations of the United Nations such as Australia.10000Jenkins, Harry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Order! The time allotted for private members business has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. The honourable member for Dawson will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.Grievance Debate22184Question proposed:That grievances be noted.2218416:28:0022184Kerr, Duncan, MPMr KERRRH4DenisonALP00—Before I commence my speech, I have sought leave from the minister at the table, the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, to table a letter to the Director of Public Prosecutions and its attachment. I seek leave to table the document and have it incorporated in Hansard.10000Jenkins, Harry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Is there any objection to leave being granted? There being no objection, leave is granted for the tabling of the document.RH4Kerr, Duncan, MPMr KERR—Despite the public's faith in politicians having been damaged recently—again by claims of extravagant allowances, rorts, improprieties and cover-ups—the truth, which is rarely portrayed by a media hungry for scandal and disgrace, is that most of our politicians, from all sides of politics, are hardworking, honest public servants. They do not abuse the privileges which come with their position, nor do they set out to improperly profit from their positions. It is the exception, not the norm, when a politician is identified as a blatant abuser of parliamentary allowances or entitlements. Yet it does happen.Rarely, but sometimes, a politician is identified as being corrupt, self-serving or grotesquely greedy. Not stupid or foolish or negligent or incompetent—adjectives aptly describing Reith, the Prime Minister's fallen star—but occasionally a politician is criminally, fraudulently and unjustifiably greedy. And when this is alleged, justice demands that this person be brought to answer before a court of law, just as we would expect any other citizen charged with a crime would be. There is a perception in the community that, while the Howard government has zero tolerance for welfare recipients who fill in their forms incorrectly and for workers who misuse company entitlements, at the same time politicians are not called to account for the criminal misuse of parliamentary entitlements, defrauding the Commonwealth and defrauding the taxpayer.The decision to allow former Senator Mal Colston to avoid facing his day in court, however conscientiously made at the time, has become a major contributor to this perception and must be reviewed. The legacy of the last two years of Mal Colston's political career is a blight on the Australian political landscape. He was a man out to get all he could from the system, a man who turned political office into a family money-spinning business and who left politics under a cloud of anger, vitriol and disrepute, a man whose first action on leaving parliament was to write to the Remuneration Tribunal to ask for a free lunch. It was not enough that he and his wife had gold pass travel for the rest of their lives; when they were on a train, the cost of their trip covered by the taxpayer, they wanted a free lunch, too—and dinner and breakfast—at the taxpayer's expense, of course.The Mal Colston travel rorts affair embroiled the Prime Minister in allegations of political double standards and vote buying, the Senate in allegations of contempt and political interference and the Australian political system in perceptions of snouts in the trough. When Mal Colston's final Senate term expired, he had been charged and indicted with 28 counts of fraud under section 29D of the Crimes Act 1914 of the Commonwealth. Each count carried with it a maximum jail term of 10 years. The charges were laid after more than seven months of allegations, scandals, cover-ups, lies, claims and counterclaims. The charges against Colston related to 44 occasions from 1990 to 1996 where it was alleged that he had claimed up to $300 travel allowance a night for overnight stays in Canberra, Melbourne and Sydney when, in fact, he was at his home base in Brisbane; and they related to allegations that he, breaching government directives, gave his frequent flier points to his two sons for around the world trips. It might be arguable as to whether the latter matter constitutes an offence—the issue of who is the owner of frequent flier points, and the entitlement of the government to give binding directions on that issue, has yet to be authoritatively determined—but the other allegations, if true, are simple examples of corruption. Colston has always claimed his innocence. At law he is entitled to that presumption. But he has never produced any evidence that is consistent with that claim, apart from a letter from a former staff member claiming that she was responsible for false travel allowance claims—a letter which she later revealed was a complete fabrication on the part of Colston. Seen in that light, it was also a contempt of parliament and an attempt to cover up a crime. Despite having many opportunities, Colston has never—not to this parliament when he was a member, not to the court during his committal hearing and not to the media to whom he has given interviews—said anything to suggest that he is anything other than what he was charged as: a fraudster who knowingly and wilfully exploited his position to benefit illegitimately at the expense of the Australian people.Today, more than three years after he was charged with fraud, he has still not had to face trial. Unless the DPP or the Attorney-General change their minds, he never will. On 5 July 1999, the Director of Public Prosecutions decided not to proceed with his prosecution on the grounds that Colston was not fit to stand trial and that there was no likelihood that he would become fit to stand trial. The decision was made on the basis of independent medical reports, which the Attorney will not release to the public, and medical reports submitted to the DPP by Colston's lawyers. It is now apparent that the DPP's decision to discontinue was based on a mistake of fact.There is no denying that Colston has cancer. By his own account, he has a very rare form of pancreatic cancer on which very little research has been done and about which very little is known. But by his doctor's 1998 and 1999 accounts, he should be well and truly dead and buried. But he is not. In fact, it appears that he has been surprisingly well and is mentally and physically active. He was not supposed to see the end of 1998, but he is set to see out the first year of the new millennium. Colston lives at home with his family in Chapel Hill, Brisbane, and it is reported that he is building a pool in his front yard. He has been seen in the audience of The New Price is Right and has also been seen dining out, shopping and visiting Canberra. Media reports tell us that he spends most of his time at home, reading the papers and watching TV, in the company of his family—from all accounts, a lifestyle that many hardworking Australians aspire to.And he is far from being a mental couch potato. He is capable of writing letters to the Senate in response to speeches made by Senator Ray. He is capable of writing letters to the editor of the Courier-Mail warning against the reintroduction of television licences. He is capable of giving interviews to the Australian claiming that he wished he could have had his day in court so that he could have cleared his name. He is capable of travelling to Canberra to thank the staff of the Senate travel department for all their help over the years—the irony of it! He did not write or phone to thank them; no, he travelled here at taxpayer's expense. And he is capable of sitting in the audience of a television program aptly named The New Price is Right. If Mal Colston is capable of all these things, then he is capable of standing trial for serious and multiple fraud against the Commonwealth. If he is found guilty of the charges, his illness would be an important mitigating factor in sentencing. However, it should not be a barrier to justice being done. The interests of justice require that Colston be made to answer the charges against him. If, as he continues to maintain to all those who will listen, he is in fact innocent, he should be given the chance that he claims he seeks to have his name cleared. The Australian government, correctly, has felt no compunction about exploring the possibility of seeking a review of Spanish court decisions not to prosecute, decisions apparently made on the basis of mistakes of fact regarding Skase's health status. The Australian Director of Public Prosecutions has not dropped the charges against Skase. This correctly reflects the sentiment of the Australian community that people charged with such matters should not be allowed to get away with evading the courts on what appear to be spurious health grounds.The Commonwealth's prosecution policy allows the Director of Public Prosecutions to reverse a decision not to proceed to trial in circumstances where the decision was affected by a mistake of fact, and it is in the interests of justice that the decision be reversed. I have today written to the Director of Public Prosecutions, Mr Damian Bugg QC, enclosing a detailed submission as to why the Colston case should, consistent with the prosecution policy of the Commonwealth, be recommenced. That is the document that was tabled at the commencement of this grievance debate. I commend to this House and to the government the opportunity to reflect on this matter. It is one which has done the Australian community a disservice in terms of the perception it has given the members of the public of the work of parliamentarians, and it is an issue which I believe needs to be revisited by the Director of Public Prosecutions.10000Jenkins, Harry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Order! Before I call the honourable member for Blair, at the outset, the honourable member for Denison asked for certain documents to be tabled and incorporated. The incorporation in Hansard will depend on whether they are inside or outside the guidelines set by the Presiding Officers.2218616:37:0022186Thompson, Cameron, MPMr CAMERON THOMPSON84CBlairLP10—In question time today the Prime Minister tabled a letter that he has forwarded to the Premier of Queensland, Mr Peter Beattie. In that letter he covered the issues surrounding allegations of electoral fraud reported by the Courier-Mail. In the letter from the Prime Minister to the Premier of Queensland, Mr Peter Beattie, the Prime Minister finished up by stating:If the government of Queensland is unable or unwilling to agree to the course of action outlined—that is, that these allegations reported in the Courier-Mail be forwarded to the Shepherdson inquiry and be investigated by the Shepherdson inquiry—then the Commonwealth government will be obliged to consider its own powers in relation to conducting an inquiry into these allegations.Those allegations that have been put forward by the Courier-Mail are very serious and they certainly warrant investigation by the Shepherdson inquiry, as proposed by the Prime Minister. I certainly would urge the Premier of Queensland to respond to that compelling evidence and to have the allegations investigated by the Shepherdson inquiry. If the comments made by the source quoted by the Courier-Mail are indeed true, then a smear is being cast not only over that one election in 1987, which involved the division of Fisher, but also all those many elections run in Queensland from 1987 to the current day. It is a horrifying prospect. In that period there were something like 15 state by-elections, three Commonwealth by-elections and four state elections. There were Commonwealth elections in that period as well. That should be a serious concern for all members. In my earlier contribution today I spoke of other allegations that have come to my notice, and these concern the division of Dickson, which was subject to a by-election in 1993. The Liberal Party candidate there was Dr Bruce Flegg and the Labor Party candidate was again Mr Michael Lavarch. That was 7½ years ago. That by-election campaign occurred as a result of the death of a candidate during the earlier federal election campaign. I have spoken to Dr Bruce Flegg about what occurred during that campaign and he reiterates almost exactly the kinds of circumstances that occurred in 1987. The things reported in the Courier-Mail and attributed to that Labor insider could be referred to again in relation to what Dr Bruce Flegg observed during the 1993 campaign—because they were at it again. On that occasion we had paid union officials moving through the electorate, carrying the electoral rolls and going from door to door checking the enrolment of people. This was conducted week in and week out. It was an ongoing solid campaign. Dr Flegg said to me that it was so comprehensive it appeared from their perspective that it covered every elector in the whole of the division of Dickson. At that time Dickson covered much of the area that is Blair today. While Dickson today is in the northern suburbs of Brisbane, communities such as Rosewood in my very own electorate were then part of Dickson. To have those people doorknocking around Rosewood with an electoral roll is an ominous sign for democracy in this country and certainly for any claim that the Labor Party might endeavour to put that it is free from corruption or allegations of corruption as published in the Courier-Mail on the weekend. But there they were in 1993: union officials going from door to door in the seat of Dickson checking people's enrolments, just as the Labor insider reported it in the Courier-Mail. On the day of the election, as it was noted in 1987, the Labor Party cars appeared and officers started going around those country areas. They were seen in Rosewood. These cars carried groups of people who leapt out of the car at one polling booth, went inside, voted, leapt back into the car and went to another polling booth and were seen to vote there as well. This is the allegation from 1987 as portrayed by the Labor insider quoted in the Courier-Mail, and here is the allegation again with respect to 1993. In that election the seat of Dickson was won by Mr Lavarch by 0.2 per cent—a couple of hundred votes. According to the Labor insider, there would have been no problem for that number of votes to have been cast in this corrupt, questionable and criminal way. So it was occurring across that electorate in 1993 in much the same area that would have been covered by Fisher in 1987, and it is the same candidate—Mr Michael Lavarch.This is something that has to be rooted out. It has to be tracked down, and every single person who was involved in these exercises—the people who were noted going from door to door by Bruce Flegg and his supporters—have to come forward and account for themselves. The people who were in those cars, moving from polling booth to polling booth and casting their votes, have to explain what they were doing there. Was it legitimate? As far as we can see, if we follow the Courier-Mail and its sources, a very serious question has been raised.As the Labor Party foot soldier—the `insider' as he was called by the Courier-Mail—said, `If eight workers each came up with 45 names in Fisher, as it was in 1987, it could have been enough to rort the election. According to the reporter in the Courier-Mail, `Since our first conversation, the insider said that he cannot be certain Lavarch would have won the seat unaided.' If that were the case in 1987, it certainly would have been the case in 1993. And yet exactly the same thing is happening all over again.This is something that should send a shiver down the spine of all Queenslanders. I do hope that Mr Beattie responds to the comments by the Prime Minister and enables a very early resolution of these questions. Were the people in those cars acting improperly? Were the people who went door to door gathering those names acting as a precursor to some kind of electoral rort? We need to know that because, when next an election is held in Queensland, people are entitled to have their vote count and not to have someone come in over the top with some orchestrated campaign to steal the election. This is the kind of thing that is alleged in places like Peru. We send observers to watch elections in places like South Africa and Zimbabwe—to observe that this does not happen—and yet these allegations are occurring right here in our midst. The Prime Minister is entirely correct to say that, if the Queensland government will not act, then it is important that the federal parliament act. Questions have been raised not just about Queensland members but also about federal members. Mr Michael Lavarch was the federal Attorney-General. I cannot imagine a more terrible allegation. I am sure that Mr Lavarch, who has maintained his innocence, is as horrified about the whole process as I am. From the perspective of Queensland, it is a shame that these things have occurred. (Time expired)2218816:47:0022188O'Byrne, Michelle, MPMs O'BYRNE84SBassALP00—Since 1989 Tasmania has been in receipt of a wheat freight subsidy. The subsidy was introduced by the then Labor government. This subsidy provides support for the pork industry, the stockfeed industry, chicken growers and baking industries. These industries are vital to Tasmania because they directly and indirectly impact on around 1,600 Tasmanian jobs. That might not mean a lot in metropolitan Sydney, but it means an awful lot in rural Tasmania. In 1994 the Labor government extended the funding for a further five years at a rate of $2.7 million per year. Funding was also provided for the upgrade of handling and storage capacity on a dollar-for-dollar arrangement with the state government. The industry believed that it would have security until 1999, which was a pretty reasonable position for it to take—after all, it was the subject of an agreement between state and Commonwealth governments.Discussions had taken place with the Tasmanian Department of Primary Industry and the Tasmanian Grain Elevators Board to work through the issues of the scheme. Then then minister, Mr Anderson, signed up to further improve handling and storage facilities. One can assume that all of these negotiations took place in good faith, but in August 1996 the Treasurer simply ignored that five-year agreement—he ignored the negotiations of his colleagues and slashed the level of funding. Funding for the program was reduced to $1.2 million. The cut-off date for the scheme of June 1999 was looming. There was no provision made for the extension of the scheme in the 1998-99 budget. The budget papers stated that the scheme was to be terminated as a contribution to the government's fiscal target. The Treasurer, Mr Costello, ignored the negative economic consequences for Tasmania of the ending of the scheme, clearly indicating his government's lack of regard for Tasmanian jobs and industries.During the last federal election, the federal government made only vague commitments to continue with the scheme. It was obvious that it intended to walk away from it. The industry's response was predictable—they fought for the survival of their industries and for the government to either publicly commit to the future of the scheme or to publicly abandon it. The government dealt with the self-induced crisis by committing to the scheme. Suddenly claims emanated from ministers' offices that there had never been an intention to scrap the scheme. I imagine we were supposed to believe it was just carelessly overlooked.Once through the election, the federal government planned yet another assault on the scheme. In a media statement on 19 February last year, the then agriculture minister, Mr Vaile, stated that the Wheat Freight Subsidy Scheme would continue for only a 12-month period from July 1999. He said that the scheme would continue only until the government's new tax package was operating. It is clear to everyone, including the National Party and Liberal Party members in regional seats, that the new tax system has been an absolute disaster for the bush. The cost of doing business and the cost of living in regional Australia is rapidly escalating, not declining. Business cost structures are going up, not down.Let us look at petrol and diesel prices as an example. Petrol costs are well over one dollar in most areas in Tasmania. Diesel prices on Flinders Island have been at more than $1.20 per litre. It obviously became clear to the government that the tax package, rather than replacing the benefits flowing from the scheme to Tasmanian businesses, would only make things worse. So the Vaile plan to end the scheme was replaced with a review. However, there is little doubt the Howard government will abandon this scheme if it gets half a chance. I fear the government will look to this much delayed review of the scheme for that chance. The industries that rely on this important scheme, and the Labor Party, were rightly concerned that the review would be designed by the federal Treasury with a simple financial outcome in mind rather than good industry policy. We still do not know what form that review will take. We do not even know when it will be. The review was due to commence in August. We are now into the second week of November, and there are still no details of the terms of reference. We still do not have any indication of a timetable for the review, and we do not know who will conduct it. We do not know what opportunity there will be for those directly affected industries and other interested parties to have proper input into the review process. It is vital that the chicken industry, the stockfeed industry, the baking industry and the pork industry be given an opportunity to have input into the process. I understand that officers of the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry should oversee this review, but the ever lurking figures of Treasury officials will probably never be far behind.The review should, if focused on the interests of Tasmania, have regard for the following issues—and please, Minister, pay attention. Proper account must be taken of the impact of the scheme on our economy and those directly affected industries. Grain handling infrastructure must be properly considered. There should be a review of the roles of both the state and federal governments and any impact of any changes to the Bass Strait transport infrastructure. And there must be a look at changing the funding from a financial to a calendar year basis. What we need now are two things: an assurance that the budget papers will include funding for the scheme to give some level of security for the industry, which does have to renegotiate its shipping contracts; also, some information is needed regarding the process of review.As the government commences work on the 2001-02 budget, it does so in an increasingly uncertain economic climate. There continues to be downward pressure on the Australian dollar and that means an increasing upward pressure on interest rates. There is now clear evidence that the GST is hurting businesses badly, and things can only get worse. The Morgan and Banks poll shows that nearly 95 per cent of businesses have found that the GST has hurt their profits. Petrol prices are basically out of control, and the government's response is simple: `It's not our fault'. With all these economic negatives running against the government, I am concerned that the Treasurer, Mr Costello, will feel the need to pander to the money market in this budget. That is bad news for this important scheme in Tasmania.If the Howard government, under pressure from the Treasurer, terminates the Tasmanian Wheat Freight Subsidy Scheme, a number of things will certainly happen. Bulk wheat shipments to Tasmania will stop and any wheat imported to the state will be shipped in via containers. It will become cheaper to import processed products rather than to import wheat and process it in the state. So we can say goodbye to our value adding. The federal government, by that one action, would transfer hundreds of jobs in bulk grain storage, handling and transport, in animal feed milling and flour milling and in poultry and pigmeat, egg production, abattoirs and other process activities from Tasmania to the mainland. There will be a reduced demand for Tasmanian grains as processors move from Tasmania, resulting in fewer opportunities for Tasmanian farmers. The increased cost of stockfeed in times of drought, as we have experienced recently in Tasmania, will have a severe impact on the state's grazing and dairying industries.There is one very positive action that the government can take with regard to this legislation to ensure industry security and, therefore, job security. It is an action that we on this side of the House would be only too happy to support—that is, it could enshrine the Tasmanian wheat freight subsidy in legislation. We are all aware that that will not mean the subsidy will exist forever. There may in the future be better ways to approach the issue of ensuring that value adding industries in Tasmania do not have to suffer significant freight cost disadvantage. What it would mean is that we would not have to depend on the whims of Treasury, who may see this scheme as an easy touch. The scheme would, quite rightly, become the responsibility of the federal parliament. As I have already pointed out, a proper review process would have reference to the impact of the scheme on our economy and those directly affected Tasmanian industries. A proper review would fully consider issues regarding grain handling infrastructure. A proper review would have appropriate regard for the roles of both state and federal governments and Bass Strait transport infrastructure. And a proper review would seek to address the change of funding from a financial to a calendar year basis. The government must outline the process for review and, frankly, it must do it now. We are months down the track from when this review should have commenced. The government is putting industry on hold at a time when they are crying out for certainty. The viability of the industry and the security of the jobs of hundreds of Tasmanian workers depend on this government doing its job in actually reaching the targets and aims it sets for itself.The Tasmanian Wheat Freight Subsidy Scheme is not in any way a drain on the government's coffers, but it is an incredibly vital scheme for Tasmania. We are a small community and the potential for damage to our small economy is huge—lost jobs and lost industries. The government must therefore give all those industries and the people they employ an assurance that the scheme will continue. The government must give some indication that it understands, however belatedly, the needs of Tasmania and the needs of those very important industries. These industries employ up to 1,600 Tasmanians directly or indirectly in bulk grain storage, handling and transport, animal feed milling, flour milling, poultry, pig meat, egg production, abattoirs and other associated process activities. These are vital for the Tasmanian economy and they are vital for Tasmanian jobs. I urge the minister to pay attention to this issue. I urge the government to set out what the terms of reference for the review will be and to actually get started on it.2219016:56:0022190Baird, Bruce, MPMr BAIRDMP6CookLP10—I am pleased to rise today to speak in this debate on the issue of volunteering. It is an issue that has emerged at the forefront of people's consciousness over the very successful period of the Olympics and the Paralympics and, with next year being the International Year of the Volunteer, it is appropriate for us as a federal government to consider how we should respond. I am very pleased to see that Minister Newman has announced very significant funding, in the order of $2½ million, which will enable each electorate to have some $5,000 to spend on supporting various volunteering programs. One of the great features of Australian life is the extent to which we have volunteers throughout our community. In fact, the range of volunteers is quite amazing. The last comprehensive survey of volunteers was in 1995, and it showed that 19 per cent of the civilian population aged 15 years or over at that time did some sort of voluntary work. Approximately 2,639,000 people were in some type of volunteer role. Rather interestingly, the highest level of volunteering was in the ACT, with 26 per cent of the ACT involved in volunteering. There are more females involved than males.The range of areas in which volunteers are involved is extensive. The number one area in which volunteers are involved is a formal organisation, the scout movement, which includes the Guides, Brownies and Cubs. The number two area is the surf clubs. In my own electorate of Cook we have four magnificent surf clubs and the extent to which they are staffed by volunteers, both to man patrols and to look after swimmers during the year, is very commendable. The number of surf clinics they hold, teaching young people from throughout the western suburbs as well as within the Sutherland shire, is extensive as well. There are sporting clubs generally, such as Rotary, Apex and Lions clubs. There is assistance to disabled groups. We have the Rainbow Club in my area, which assists people whose intellectual or motor function disablement affects their ability to swim. In Australia generally, there are church groups, guides in art galleries and even within the parliament here there are groups of volunteers to show people around the building. There are bushfire fighters in the country fire services and the remedial reading helpers that go to schools. Meals on Wheels provides a very significant service to the older members of our community. Hospital aged care volunteers and the Pink Ladies assist the trained nurses, sisters and matrons in hospitals in a whole range of tasks.We have various charitable groups assisting in a whole range of ways in our community. St Vincent De Paul, the Salvation Army and Mission Australia are charitable groups that go out night after night to provide shelter, meals and blankets for people on the streets. The Wesley Mission is involved in similar types of programs for those who have various emotional problems and for senior citizens in our community who are without housing. For those involved in drug programs there is suicide watch and counsellors through Lifeline. We have the state emergency services, St John Ambulance and parents and friends who assist in the running of schools. We have had the recent emergence of the Clean-up Australia campaign where volunteers go out on a Sunday and clean up their environment. The extent of voluntary work in Australia is unbelievable. When visiting other countries around the world we think of the impact our Australian volunteer movement could have on those countries.In terms of my own role in the New South Wales Olympic bid—and I am glad to see the member for Hume here, who was also involved in it—when we were looking at what the Olympics could do for Sydney and Australia, we never quite anticipated the impact of the volunteers at the Olympics. I have talked to some of the IOC members who voted for Sydney and their highest commendations were for the venues that we provided—how outstanding they were compared to other Olympics; the crowd support—regardless of whichever team was playing and whether it was an Australian team or not, the crowd supported the teams playing, and that impressed the IOC enormously; and, finally, the volunteers. The IOC member from Ireland said to me that, in speaking about the success of the games in a broadcast to Ireland, he said it was the spirit of the volunteers more than anything else that impressed him about the Sydney Games and that it was the key defining feature of the Olympics.Never before have the Olympic Games had so many volunteers—40,000 volunteers were way in excess of the number used in previous Olympics. I think the training carried out by TAFE also contributed to the success of the volunteers. It was done over three days. The first training day was locational, the second training day was on crowd control and the third training day was on relationships with the public. Of course, the volunteers were always cheerful and efficient. They carried out their important roles, whether it was checking for security or whatever, with a minimum of fuss. They did not succumb to the officialdom routine where people are given a little power and they abuse it. They did their job with great courtesy and a great sense of cheerfulness. Many people saw that in the way the volunteers operated, and they were terribly impressed. So, if there was one key defining feature of the Olympic Games, it was the volunteers. The volunteers came from all walks of life. There were people whom I knew who are doctors, lawyers, teachers, accountants, police inspectors, engineers and, of course, housewives and retirees who were out there involved in it all and loving it.So the question now is: how can we tap into this vast resource? The Olympics have demonstrated that these people have an enormous amount to offer and that they want to contribute to the greater good. Only last Friday I heard the managing director of Touraust, which runs Chifley and Country Comfort Hotels, say that he would like to get a list of all of the volunteers in Sydney and offer them jobs as part of the hospitality team in hotels. We could use the volunteers in our international airports to greet people when they arrive, or use them downtown in our major cities to provide advice to tourists on how to get around our cities. There is no doubt that the Olympics and Paralympics have focused us on the whole question of voluntarism in Australia. My colleague Kay Elson said that in her electorate recently she put on a morning tea for volunteers with the Prime Minister and had some 1,100 people accept the invitation, some 700 of whom will be going at another time. Of course, part of the success was that the Prime Minister came and gave recognition to those people who contribute to the wider community on such a selfless basis. Four types of volunteer organisations account for nearly 80 per cent of all the volunteer hours worked. They are welfare and community groups, which account for 24.4 per cent; sport and recreation groups, which account for 24.1 per cent; religious groups, which account for 16.3 per cent of the community; and education and training groups, which account for 14.1 per cent. As to where we go from here, perhaps a guidebook could be issued across Australia as to where volunteers can be used, the criteria that are needed for volunteers in the various services, how they can apply, and application forms so that positions can be centrally filled. Perhaps a volunteers web page would be useful, with all the various groups listed underneath as subsets. It would also be an opportunity for some of our retired people to get some self-fulfilment and to realise that they have an enormous amount to contribute.In relation to the government's support for next year's International Year of Volunteers through its small grants programs, I would like to commend Minister Newman for the grants of $5,000 to local communities to assist and encourage volunteers to contribute to their communities in the wide range of activities in which they are currently involved. The Olympics showed what volunteers in Australia can do. I believe next year we have the opportunity to show the flame of volunteerism in Australia, which has been a great success in the past and will be so in the future.2219217:06:0022192Sciacca, Con, MPMr SCIACCA6J4BowmanALP00—Today I wish to bring to the attention of the House a few matters that I have come across in my electorate of Bowman. Firstly, I would like to raise matters relating to the government's incessant push for a predominantly private health system. The basis for this move is the government's preconceived notion that the private system will in some way cure all the ills of the public system. To this end, the government has redirected funds to its Lifetime Health Cover scheme—funds which, in my opinion, could have been better spent on improving our public system. My thoughts on this issue are strengthened when I talk to many of my constituents in Bowman who tell me that they have felt rushed into private health cover without any great knowledge on the issue. This, I suspect, is a symptom of the government's expensive and aggressive advertising campaign. One recent case that highlights the deficiencies of the private health insurance system involves my constituent Mrs Hazel White of Wellington Point. Recently Mrs White was required to undergo cartilage replacement surgery in her shoulder. This entails the placement of a Synvisc viscose supplement in her shoulder. I am told that this is quite a common form of treatment for sporting injuries in the shoulder and in the knee. The extent of the injury is such that she now requires this surgery every nine to 12 months. However, at a cost of approximately $444.50, and combined with the costs of the treatment which accompany the surgery, including injections every three months, this is quite an expensive process for Mrs White. As Mrs White is in top level private cover, she expected her health insurance would assist in meeting the costs of the treatment. I am told she has been in top cover for more than 20 years and in this time has rarely made a claim. However, I was surprised to learn that Mrs White cannot claim this procedure on her insurance. Quite understandably, she is left wondering why she bothers with private health insurance when it deserts her when she needs it the most.A similar case involves my constituent Ms Lyn Schmidt of Manly and her mother who is battling against a progressive illness. Ms Schmidt cares for her mother at home in an attempt to improve her mother's quality of life. As part of her mother's treatment, Ms Schmidt is required to employ the use of an oxygen concentrator. Ordinarily, a patient would be hospitalised if they reached the stage that they needed this equipment regularly. However, as Ms Schmidt's mother wants to remain at home, the family agrees that they should do all that is possible to fulfil this wish. The cost of the concentrator is $325.85 per cylinder, of which approximately $116 is refunded by the private health insurer. That is a gap of almost $200, and these cylinders are replaced frequently. Again, this is a case where the patient has been in top level private health insurance for over 20 years. Both of the cases I have mentioned suggest to me that private health insurance is failing in its obligations to its long-term members. Where is the sense in paying the huge amounts of money needed for insurance when the insurance companies fail to meet their obligations to long serving clients? In this context, the government's support for our private insurance system seems somewhat curious. If private health companies are unwilling to accommodate long serving, `blue ribbon cover' clients, how might we expect them to treat the flow of new basic cover clients who were scared into private health insurance by the government's misleading advertising campaign?I remain unconvinced by the government's approach in this regard. It is obvious to me that an insurance company, whose primary motive is the bottom line, will have less of an interest in ensuring a universally accessible and affordable health system than a government would. Only a public body such as Medicare, with its focus on improving the health system rather than deriving profits, has the ability to meet these basic requirements. This is what makes the government's redirection of funds to encourage private health insurance all the more troubling. Medicare, not private health insurance, should be the focal point of any federal government strategy in relation to health and aged care. In this sense, I am proud that the opposition is proposing to ease the burdens on our public system by bolstering Medicare and introducing schemes such as Medicare after hours, which aims to alleviate the pressure on public emergency and aged care facilities.I also want to raise a problem which exists in the small business community and amongst accountants in this country—that is, the effect that the new taxation system is having on small business in particular. I mention one gentleman, a certified practising accountant in my electorate of Bowman, in Cleveland, by the name of Campbell McCart of McCart and Co. I suggest that he would be one of many hundreds of accountants throughout this country that are suffering a similar problem. In a letter to me dated 2 November 2000 he stated—and with his permission I read this letter to the House:Dear Sir,Re: EXTENSION TO LODGE BAS/IASAs per the attached letter to the ATO—that is, the Australian Taxation Office—we have written asking for an extension to lodge.We are sure you are aware of the pressure and stress that we as Accountants are currently working under.We request that you contact the ATO on our behalf and request an extension to lodge on behalf of our clients and ourselves. Presently, we believe the ATO does not fully understand the increase in workload and difficulties that the introduction of GST has brought to accounting practices.We acknowledge that we will not be able to meet the current deadlines. Accordingly, our clients who are members of your electorate will have penalties and interest charges imposed on them by the ATO.He then forwarded a copy of a letter which he had written to the taxation department, addressed to the Deputy Commissioner of the Australian Taxation Office, stating:Dear Sir,RE EXTENSION TO LODGE BAS/IAS RETURNSWe hereby request that you grant our firm an extension to lodge the attached list of clients to the 15/12/2000. That these clients have no penalties or interest charges applied. We consider our request is not unreasonable based on the following reasons. (A) GST has increased our workload greatly and we are having difficulties meeting our lodgement dates with our normal work. GST has swamped us with the extra work it requires from us in assisting our clients. Our firm in the past has always had an acceptable lodgement program with the ATO.(B) With the limited resources available we have been working six days a week since January. The effect of this is that our staff and myself are beginning to get burnt out. I am sure the ATO is aware of the demands that has been placed on practitioners.He went on to state at the end:I look forward to you favourable response as I am sure you are aware of the difficulties involved.He has also given me the names of a number of small businesses in my electorate. Naturally, I will not read them out, but I do say this: what Mr McCart is complaining about quite legitimately is something which has been felt all around Australia. There is no doubt that it does not matter what sort of a business you are in. Small business has the extra burden of having to do these things. People want to conduct their businesses and they do not want to have to worry about filling out forms. Most of them are going to the accountants. One would normally think the accountants would be happy about that because there is a lot of extra money to be made, but the reality is that most of the accountants I speak to are very dirty about what has happened. It is not a question of politics—who you support and who you do not support. Obviously more thought had to go into the transitional period of the introduction of the GST. What Mr McCart is saying is simply: `Look, I'm not going to be in a position, like many other people, to be able to do exactly what the letter of the law says.'Naturally, thousands of taxpayers and people in small businesses across Australia will be affected by this problem. Every time I have ever had anything to do with the Commissioner of Taxation, in Brisbane and elsewhere, or with the staff of the Australian Taxation Office, they have always bent over backwards to try to help. They are a bunch of caring people up there. Perhaps he can use that same care in dealing not only with the request of my constituent but also, I am sure, with the thousands of others who are writing to him with the same request. A lot of care needs to be taken and a lot of compassion and understanding need to be shown to make sure that people who are in this position, particularly small businesses, do not end up not only having to cop the GST and find the money and make sure that they keep their cash flow going but also having to lodge the returns and do all the paperwork, when essentially it is not part of the core business that they undertake. So I ask the Taxation Office to look sympathetically at the request of my constituent, Mr McCart, and at the requests of the small businesses and people on behalf of whom he acts. I hope that a lenient and compassionate attitude can be taken in these first stages of the implementation of the goods and services tax. 2219417:16:0022194Schultz, Alby, MPMr SCHULTZ83QHumeLP10—Once again I rise in the grievance debate, as I did on 21 June in 1999 and also in the adjournment debate on 26 August 1999, to talk about an issue that is of real concern to wool producers and sheep and lamb producers in the electorate of Hume and, indeed, right across New South Wales and around Australia. That issue is ovine Johne's disease and the effect that ovine Johne's disease is having on the lives of these producers. In that debate on 21 June 1999, amongst other things, I made the comment that I had serious concerns about the `poorly handled, deteriorating fiasco that is the OJD problem in Australia'. Also in that grievance debate speech I raised the issue of a number of families that were in positions which placed enormous mental and financial stress on them and, more specifically, which placed a very real and ongoing financial imposition on them that nobody seemed to care about, particularly the New South Wales state Department of Agriculture. In that grievance debate speech in June 1999 I referred to a Tarago family who had had to live on a child's Austudy allowance to survive after their sheep had been detected with ovine Johne's disease and who had had a five-year quarantine placed on their property. I also talked about another constituent who underwent a faecal pool test. The owner was told that the outcome would not change their status of ovine Johne's disease, but that was an absolute lie. They ended up having a ovine Johne's disease status placed on their property, effectively shutting them down. I then came back into this parliament on 26 August and talked once again about the issue of ovine Johne's disease and how it was affecting people and destroying their lives. In that adjournment debate speech I raised the issue of the way the New South Wales state government bureaucrats had ignored the statutory powers vested in the states specifically for the control of notifiable and other transmissible diseases and forced farmers and their veterinarians into common law agreements. They had removed safeguards and protection available under statute from farmers and their veterinarians, leaving them open to arrogant, and clearly nonsensical, direction from the state. I also referred to the extraordinary conduct of the state government, which had meant that retribution or punishment is feared by many people who might otherwise give evidence and that these individuals face the complete loss and destruction of their farming business or, in the case of veterinarians, the loss of their right to practise. The issue, unfortunately, has not lessened. In fact, the problems of ovine Johne's disease have been further compounded. On numerous occasions I have tabled various examples of families who are emotionally and financially ruined by the disease. I have spoken about unfair tactics by the New South Wales state government in their handling of the disease and the way the federal government seems to wash its hands of all responsibility on this issue. More recently I referred to correspondence which was forwarded to producers outlining the need for a voluntary payment of $100 by each producer to help support the Ovine Johne's Disease Program, otherwise known as the `ovine Johne's disease levy'. Aside from the hilarity of the attempts by the state government to make producers feel as if it were voluntary, the levy itself is a sombre and very real example of the state government's continuing attempts to make producers pay for the disease. Either the state government thinks property owners are fooled by the use of the word `voluntary' in the context of a payment that is actually compulsory or they are making a mockery of the situation. Both the national Ovine Johne's Disease Program and the New South Wales management program have been criticised, and for good reason. Part of the problem with the state government's approach to this disease is that they keep changing the rules and, for some producers, these flippant changes of heart are having very real, very negative impacts on unsuspecting property owners. Recently, a very well-known family in the Yass district have been fined by the Department of Agriculture for failing to volunteer information to the Department of Agriculture which would create massive problems for other people. I would like to quote from a Town and Country Magazine article on this issue, from the week commencing 23 October this year. It was written by a well-known local identity who has the interests of rural people at heart, Mr Leon Oberg. He writes:The Privett family of Glenleigh Merino Stud at Yass is looking at every option including an appeal to their fines in Goulburn Local Court for two counts of failing to tender information required by NSW Agriculture.The stud's principal, Graham Privett, was fined $5000 on each of those counts in Goulburn Local Court a week ago.The outcome has stunned most sheep breeders.Mr Privett told Town and Country Magazine while there have been talks with a high profile Queen's Counsel with an interest in the sheep industry, an appeal would cost at least $25,000.He said the stud had already forked out $38,000 on the court action in addition to the cost of lost business and “the enormous stress involved”.The story started when the Privett family had their stud sheep voluntarily tested for Ovine Johnes Disease in 1998. One sheep out of 476 allegedly tested positive.Mr Privett refused to tell the Department who he had already sold sheep to.“Glenleigh” was given “infected” status, meaning the family could no longer sell livestock to other merino breeders unless their flocks too had the disease. Here we have a situation where a well-known, respected family that has been in wool breeding for merino stock for many decades have been effectively put out of business because of the ovine Johne's disease suspect status on their flock, as a result of highly suspect testing procedures, and when they were threatened with legal action to disclose the names of people that they had sold stock to and refused to do so were immediately, through the bureaucratic process, subjected to further stress and economic and financial penalty by having their case taken to the court under prosecution through the New South Wales Department of Agriculture.Finally, I say to the federal government: if you think that this matter is an isolated one and if you think that it is going to go away and disappear, it is not. If we do not do something to assist people like this well-respected grazier in the Yass district, then we are going to see more and more people being subjected to what he has been subjected to as a person trying to protect his industry and protect others. I am pleased to see that there has been a call from local producers to not pay their $100 so-called voluntary levy but to make that levy available in a pool to assist Mr Privett and his family obtain the finance needed to appeal the process and the decisions that have been imposed on him as a producer who has been subjected to the farcical situation of having his property declared ovine Johne's disease infected and effectively had his living and his right to trade and to continue to be a well-respected producer of fine wool in the Yass district taken away from him as a result of the heavy-handed and overzealous way in which the Department of Agriculture sought to make him an example of what they will do if people buck the system. (Time expired)2219617:26:0022196McLeay, Leo, MPMr LEO McLEAY4I4WatsonALP00—This weekend marked the fifth anniversary of the assassination of the former Israeli Prime Minister, Yitzhak Rabin. It is timely to reflect on recent events in the Middle East. Since the visit in September to the al-Aqsa mosque by Ariel Sharon, a former Israeli defence minister and currently leader of the Likud Party, we have all seen shocking images of violence erupting in Jerusalem and the Palestinian territories. These clashes continued this weekend, invariably between Israeli troops and young Palestinians. Approximately 200 people, mostly Palestinians, have been killed and thousands injured. With Rabin's assassination by, as I would remind the House, a right-wing Israeli nationalist, he achieved martyrdom status. Who knows how events would have unfolded if he had not been killed at that crucial time during an election rally? No doubt Benjamin Netanyahu would not have become Prime Minister of Israel and then started derailing the peace process. I would remind the House that early in the 1990s there were secret negotiations organised by the Americans, in Oslo, between representatives of Rabin and Yasser Arafat, which resulted in the so-called Oslo accords under which the Israelis agreed to transfer territory in the West Bank and Gaza to Palestinian control in return for a wide-ranging peace deal. These agreements were ratified by the Israeli Knesset and the Palestinian legislative assembly. Rabin's murder in 1995 interrupted this process, which has struggled to survive ever since. And now we have this awful situation where young teenagers armed with stones are pitted against young soldiers in tanks firing machine guns.Last year I visited the Middle East and experienced first hand what it is like to be in this atmosphere of hatred, persecution and oppression. You have only to go through some of the checkpoints to see what is like—checkpoints between the Gaza Strip and Israel and between the West Bank and Israel. Palestinians are humiliated and harassed as a matter of course. The overwhelming Israeli military presence is a constant psychological pressure. You do not have to be an Arab to experience the unpleasant atmosphere; you just have to be there. I personally found it disturbing that so many Israelis carry weapons. I saw settlers with guns in the old city of Jerusalem. So many of these settlers are fanatics who have moved to Israel in comparatively recent times but want to go back to some notion of the biblical land of Israel. More often than not they are funded and otherwise supported by people who do not live in the Middle East. For example, Australia's Joe Gutnick has funded housing for Israeli settlers in Hebron—a large Arab city for hundreds of years. To allegedly protect these settlers, 20 per cent of the city of Hebron is closed off and patrolled by Israeli military. Imagine the resources that have to be diverted to ensure the safety of these people. Surely they do not have to live there, and it is a deliberate provocation on the part of many of these settlers, intended to upset the Palestinians and cause trouble. Indeed, to go to the mosque in Hebron you have to go through a metal detector. You have to declare whether you have any guns on you. This is supposed to protect the Palestinians from the Israelis, because it was a deranged settler who murdered a number of people while they were at prayer in that mosque. But the people who are Palestinians have to go through the metal detectors. I might give you some facts about Hebron to prove my point. In terms of population, it is the largest Arab town on the West Bank. There are over 405,000 people in the Hebron district, and nearly 120,000 in the city itself. There are 400 settlers in Hebron, protected by 2,000 Israeli soldiers. Overall, settlers represent less than seven per cent of the population of the Palestinian territories and less than three per cent of the population of Israel. Yet their needs—you could say demands—are always heard loud and clear, while the plight of the Palestinians is largely ignored.What do we and the rest of the world see most often in the newspapers or on television about this conflict? What is the line we are fed nearly all the time? We are continually told that Israel, the regional superpower, is in a state of siege. But who from? Rock throwing adolescents and children? The media say that the Palestinians are unwilling to participate in the peace process and that they are being uncooperative and unreasonable. But even senior Israelis admit that Arafat wants peace. Even when we see photographs and television footage of a father trying to protect his young son from bullets, which, tragically, soon found their mark, we are told that the Palestinians virtually asked for it by being in that place at the wrong time. The story is twisted and manipulated. But in the end the truth remains: the helpless boy was gunned down and his father was wounded, not to mention the ambulance officer who was trying to reach them, who was also wounded. Surely the soldiers could have held their fire for the few seconds it would take for the boy and his father to get out of the line of fire. You would expect that soldiers of a democratic state would not be operating under rules of engagement that allowed them to shoot children and ambulance drivers. I would certainly expect that no soldiers of our state ever operated under those rules of engagement.There are two sides to every story, and to my mind the Israeli version is not the only one. Nor is it the correct one. This dispute is not just about the claims or needs of Israelis. It is about the Palestinians also—people who have lived in this part of the world for thousands of years and who should be able to continue to live there without harassment and persecution. That is what it is: it is persecution and extreme provocation that has driven the Palestinian people to take the drastic steps that they have recently taken. Many of them feel that they have been driven to the point where they have nothing to lose: not even the thought of possible death deters them. I am told by journalists who have been there that young people in these demonstrations who are injured or wounded are taken to hospital and returned to the front line. What has driven them? You have only to look at the statistics to see how unbalanced the conflict is: since September, 200 people killed, thousands wounded, almost all of them Arabs. And some of these Arabs are Israeli citizens. This is a country that is turning its guns on its own citizens. I mentioned the compelling image I saw last week on the television of a teenager throwing rocks at a tank firing a machine gun. To me this image—this bizarre reversal of the David and Goliath story—exemplified the problem. Why is all the sympathy in the West with the tank driver? Why aren't we all asking what has driven this young person to such desperation that he would engage an armed battle tank with stones? On the weekend Shimon Peres said he believed Yasser Arafat wanted peace. It is time that the Israeli government honoured the memory of Yitzhak Rabin by stopping the killing and starting the peacemaking. 2219817:34:0022198St Clair, Stuart, MPMr St CLAIR84BNew EnglandNP10—I rise today to speak about Australia's taxation system and the need for incentive within that system. The National Party has always believed in the principle of reward for effort. This is in contrast to the Labor Party, who ditched any claim to the old ideal of a fair day's pay for a fair day's work when they defended and supported the behaviour of the waterfront union for decades. But I will not dwell on the failings of the Labor Party, because that would take far longer than the time I have available today.We must ensure that, when people work hard to receive greater rewards, they are not unfairly penalised by the taxation system. This government has already successfully undertaken the biggest overhaul of our taxation system since Federation, and that reform process was motivated by a need to make the tax system fairer for everyone in this country. However, there remains the question of inequity between city and country areas. This inequity has always existed, and rural people have—begrudgingly but they have—accepted slightly lower levels of service and so on, because they know they will never catch up to developments in the so-called `big smoke'. The gap between city and country has grown to be more than a gap and is rapidly developing into a chasm. Thus there needs to be a mechanism to acknowledge the differences and there must be greater incentive for people to live and work outside the major cities. Through the zone rebate system, the government already recognises that people living in remote areas are at a disadvantage. According to the Australian Taxation Office, zone rebates are given in recognition of the disadvantages that taxpayers are subject to because of the uncongenial climatic weather conditions—that means either very, very hot or very, very cold—the isolation and the high cost of living in comparison to other areas of Australia.However, this applies to many parts of regional Australia that are currently not eligible for the zone rebate. Also, rebates are a relatively ineffective means of compensating people for the disadvantages they face in country areas. I would like much greater scrutiny of the concept of zoned taxation as a system of encouraging working people and businesses to set up and remain in the bush. If the decision of the nation as a whole is to retain our regional populations and therefore have towns and cities spread across this wonderful nation, we need to back that decision with some sort of positive incentive scheme. We are talking here about changing a system where country based working people and particularly country businesses could get more money in their bank accounts from lower taxation.Regional tax zoning would be the ideal incentive for a full revival of our small towns and country communities, not only in my electorate of New England or the electorate of the member for Parkes but all over regional Australia. Ideally, zoned taxation could mean a reduction of PAYE tax for country workers and a lower rate of company tax for business as an incentive to live and work in the country. I do recognise the fact that both company tax and PAYE tax have been reduced substantially from 1 July. I am very excited about the concept of zoned taxation, particularly as it could benefit New England, and I am giving the concept my full support. It is important to note that this is not some left-field proposition that has no standing in any other sphere of government activity. Many issues are dealt with in terms of zones or within similar frameworks. Government programs of many shades are targeted at specific community sectors, so there is no shortage of precedents in this matter. The ways in which support can be provided to rural and regional Australia are twofold. We can have support programs and the like, many of which have made a valuable contribution to a great many communities, and I am obviously not calling for any reduction in that support. There have been many important announcements since this government was elected in 1996. Most recently, John Anderson, Leader of the National Party, unveiled the $90 million Regional Solutions Program to boost opportunities in regional Australia. This program targets regional and rural communities experiencing economic and social disadvantage, including high levels of unemployment and inadequate services. Flexibility is the key to the Regional Solutions Program. The program allows communities to identify and implement development opportunities that meet their specific needs, allowing them to find local solutions for local problems. This is a direct response to concerns of the Regional Australia Summit delegates that one-size-fits-all programs will not meet local needs in regional Australia. The program builds on other successful government initiatives such as the Rural Communities Program and the Rural Plan Initiative, and will assist regional communities to meet some of the challenges identified not only at the Regional Australia Summit but at the recent Northern Australia Forum. These programs return some of the tax dollars collected from regional Australia, which is only fair and just. Like all people living and working in the country, I am grateful for these wonderful programs and the many other programs I have not mentioned here today because time does not permit. But we cannot rest on our laurels, because there is much to be done to repair the immense damage of 13 years of Labor neglect and their deliberate sabotage of regional economies. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, groups of people of low socioeconomic status tend to be over-represented in smaller towns and geographically isolated locations. This is because it is more difficult to travel a couple of hundred kilometres, with no public transport, to the next town in a search for work than it is to jump on a train in the city.At the Regional Australia Summit, the Australian Council for Infrastructure Development Chief Executive Officer, Mr Dennis O'Neill, presented a paper that said bush communities are not as well served as their city cousins when it comes to basic infrastructure of water, telecommunications, airports, power, gas, road and rail. Social infrastructure—health, education, aged care, policing and community services—is also stretched. He said more work is needed to identify the status of current infrastructure stock and to distinguish between needs and wants. Mr O'Neill said the private sector has the capital, the innovation, the managerial capacity, the skills and the will to deliver, but there are barriers. While he did not specifically refer to taxation zones, he did say there needs to be greater incentive built into the tax system to encourage the growing role of private infrastructure and provide for co-funding between investors and local, state and federal governments. This will happen only when there is a clear financial incentive for the private sector to invest outside large metropolitan areas.The Western Research Group, which has a charter of working to develop the western NSW economy, has recently called for the establishment of enterprise zones. A report from this group states that there is an imbalance between the prosperity of metropolitan areas and the disadvantage experienced in regional areas. To quote their report:This regional imbalance is the result of the failure of regional markets to provide employment and investment opportunities comparable to metropolitan markets. Europe and the US have had some success in addressing their regional problems through the use of Enterprise Zones, which create new employment, business and investment in regional areas with the use of special tax incentives. This report develops the enterprise zone index as a measure of regional disadvantage. The application of an enterprise zone policy, under specified assumptions, creates a fiscal saving for the federal government. Each individual that is transferred from unemployment to employment improves the bottom line of the federal budget. The fiscal saving grows with the increase in the enterprise zone employee's wages. Given that a successful enterprise zone would reduce unemployment, decrease regional disadvantage and improve the bottom line of the federal budget, it is a policy tool that should be investigated in greater depth. A more comprehensive index could be developed to select disadvantaged areas of rural and regional Australia. A model of tax incentives could also be developed with a range of measures to be used in a pilot enterprise zone. This would allow an estimation of the actual benefits and costs of enterprise zones and how effective tax incentives are in stimulating private enterprise. An effective enterprise zone policy could be used to correct market failures and promote regional balance. Enterprise zones promote the partnership of government, business and regional communities in an effort to shape the market outcomes for the national objectives of full employment and economic growth, the report said. These are goals that are totally consistent with my goals and those of the National Party, and I will be urging my colleagues to examine the concept in greater detail. (Time expired)10000Andrews, Kevin (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Andrews)—The question is that grievances be noted.Question resolved in the affirmative.Committees222002220010000Andrews, Kevin (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Andrews)—I have received advice from the Chief Government Whip that he has nominated members to be members of certain committees.Motion (by Mr Abbott)—by leave—agreed to:That: (1) Mr Nairn be discharged from the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters and that, in his place, Mr Pyne be appointed a member of the committee, and(2) Mr Pyne be discharged from the Standing Committee on Procedure and that, in his place, Mr Nairn be appointed a member of the committee.Bills22200The following bills were returned from the Senate without amendment or request:Patents Amendment (Innovation Patents) Bill 2000Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2000Criminal Code Amendment (Theft, Fraud, Bribery and Related Offences) Bill 2000Health Insurance Amendment (Rural and Remote Area Medical Practitioners) Bill 2000Family and Community Services (2000 Budget and Related Measures) Bill 2000Bills22200R116522200Bill received from the Senate, and read a first time.Ordered that the second reading be made an order of the day for the next sitting.Bills22200R116822200Debate resumed from 2 November, on motion by Mr Hockey:That the bill be now read a second time.upon which Mr Crean moved by way of amendment:That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: “whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House, noting the serious impact of the taxation regime on Australian households, calls on the Government to remove the effect of the GST from the fuel excise indexation adjustment in February 2001”.17:47:0022200Wilkie, Kim, MPMr WILKIE84GSwanALP00—On Thursday, prior to the interruption of this debate, I raised an issue regarding taxpayers called Absolute Homecare, who had applied to the replyin5 service, which was supposed to give a written ruling regarding various issues within five days of a taxpayer actually raising them. I noted at the time that these particular taxpayers had raised an issue with the ATO on 23 July 2000 and had still not had a reply three months later, even though they were supposed to have something in five days. Well, the taxpayers have had a win. I am pleased to report today that I have had notification that the Absolute Homecare people have received their ruling. Well done to the ATO for getting that prompt reply to the Absolute Homecare people!On Thursday I also touched on the impact of the GST on the housing sector. But the GST is also impacting on the commercial property market. We now have confirmation that projects in Western Australia have been put on hold or seriously jeopardised because of the impact of the GST. This means jobs in construction have been lost and investment in regional Australia has also been lost, all because of the GST. Again, this impact comes about specifically because of the GST: these projects—major projects in Kalgoorlie, one in Busselton and another in Bunbury—are all on hold because of a specific ruling on the GST. The ruling is that, where investors buy individual apartments and then lease them to hotel operators to be used as commercial accommodation—that is, as hotel rooms—these units will be treated as residences rather than as commercial properties. This is the case even though the properties cannot be used as a residence, either under the agreement with the operator or under the zoning laws of the areas concerned. This means that the GST associated with the purchase is not available as a credit to the purchaser, hence threatening the viability of the developments. This anomalous result has arisen because of the law introduced here by the Treasurer. The Taxation Office has made rulings consistent with the law, and it is appropriate that this matter be raised now while we are looking at the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 8) 2000 second reading amendment. I would like to quote from a letter that I have received from the Kareelya property group, who are involved in these sorts of developments in Western Australia. I will be making some comments as I go. It says:GST—Commercial Residential PremisesApplication of GSTR 2000/20 to Strata Titled HotelsThe issue by the Australian Taxation Office (the “ATO”) of GST Ruling GSTR 2000/20, firstly as a draft ruling in April 2000 and then as a final binding public Ruling on 21 June 2000, has created unprecedented concern for the developers of purpose built strata titled tourist hotels and resorts across Australia, particularly those located in regional areas.This Group, like many others, is affected by the Ruling and it is therefore appropriate for me to outline the detrimental effect the Ruling will have on tourism based investment and job creation in regional areas generally, and the particular effect it is having on at least 4 development projects this Group has under way in Busselton, Bunbury, Kalgoorlie and Geraldton.Currently we have under development the following projects in regional Western Australia:an 88 strata titled unit/bungalow resort style hotel in Busselton;a 76 strata titled apartment, business traveller oriented, resort style hotel in Kalgoorlie;a mixed hotel, residential and commercial development involving the construction of in excess of 120 hotel suites in Bunbury; anda 40 unit serviced apartment and 100 room hotel development in Geraldton.All up, these developments represent capital expenditure exceeding $130,000,000—that is right, $130 million—in regional Western Australia. The projects under way are being developed either wholly, or substantially, as managed investment schemes regulated under the Managed Investments Act 1998. In essence, investors are invited to acquire strata titled units/apartments in the developments and by doing so they acquire interests in the relevant managed investment. In these hotel developments, the owners lease their strata titled units to a Responsible Entity licensed by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (in this case, Kareelya Investments Limited) who appoints a separate hotel operator to manage all the units in the particular development as a complete hotel. Under this type of arrangement, the Responsible Entity/Operator pools the income, shares the expenses and distributes the net income back to the owners in predetermined proportions.There is a restriction on residence, which is very important. The letter says:It is a common feature of these hotels that the owners cannot reside in their units because of State Planning Commission and local council zoning and town planning conditions imposed on the developments. The units must be used only for short stay accommodation. It is therefore clear that an owner cannot `reside' in his unit, within the normally accepted common usage and meaning of that word. In every case the strata units are currently, or will be, marketed as investment properties and every owner purchases one in the clear knowledge that he can never use it as a place of residence. In addition, investors purchase their units on the basis that they may enter into a lease with the Responsible Entity of the managed investment scheme for up to 8 terms of 10 years, so that all the units in the development can be operated as a complete hotel. An owner cannot unilaterally withdraw his unit from the hotel income-pooling scheme and operate the unit independently from the Responsible Entity. Concerning the structure of the investment, the letter states:When purchasing a strata title unit in one of the developments, the owner benefits from the terms of the various contractual documents that govern the ownership of his unit and its participation in the income-pooling scheme. These documents usually include a Constitution and Compliance Plan for the Scheme, as well as a form of income-pooling agreement or profit share lease. These documents, particularly the income-pooling agreement or profit share lease clearly, set out the terms under which the owner leases his unit to the Responsible Entity/Operator and to determine, to some extent, whether the supply by the owner of his unit will be a taxable supply for GST purposes, rather than an input taxed supply.They had GST advice before they proceeded and the letter says:Based on proper professional advice, this Group took the view that the types of strata units offered for sale in the developments were clearly commercial residential premises. This is a view that was adopted by virtually all, if not all, other developers offering similar type products. As a result, the Scheme documents we had prepared for our Schemes on this basis and did not seek to rely on very specific provisions in the GST law that may have reinforced the fact that the owners would make a taxable supply when they leased their units to the Responsible Entity of the Scheme. The units were then sold on that basis. The letter continues:The release of the GSTR 2000/20 has now created considerable uncertainty with regard to our developments and, no doubt, with regard to many other developments as well. In GSTR 2000/20 the ATO has ruled that the units acquired by investors in these types of developments will be regarded as `residential premises' and not `commercial residential premises' for GST purposes. As such, the owners will not be entitled to GST input tax credits for any GST included in their purchase price. This will have a significant effect on the marketability of this type of investment, particularly those located in the regional areas of WA in which this Group is operating. It is important to note that an owner of residential premises (such as a house) who rents his premises direct to a tenant is not required to pay GST on the rent he receives. Correspondingly, the tenant does not pay GST on the rent that he pays to occupy those premises. In this situation, it is appropriate that the owner is not entitled to GST input tax credits for the GST included in his costs, including the purchase price of the house. This should be contrasted with the situation of the owner of a strata titled unit in a hotel. In this situation, the tenant of the owner's unit, being a guest in the hotel, must pay GST in his room charge yet the owner cannot obtain input tax credits for the GST included in his costs. This gives rise to a situation where GST is borne by both the supplier (the owner) and the recipient (the guest), rather than only by the end consumer which should be the result and which is the whole foundation—apparently— of the GST.The problem is basically one of legislation. The legislation does not adequately cater for this situation. If the legislation is not amended quickly, then clearly it will lead to an anomalous situation. The letter continues:On the one hand, a hotel owner who owns all the units in a strata title hotel will be entitled to input tax credits for the GST included in all his costs, thereby ensuring that all GST associated with the supply of accommodation is borne by the hotel guests. This should be contrasted with the situation in a hotel comprised of strata titled units owned individually by different owners where only some of the GST associated with the supply of accommodation will be borne by guests. This is because the owners will also bear some of the GST cost which relates to the GST included in their costs including the purchase price.It is interesting to note that the practical application of the ATO's Ruling will mean that a development which comprises the construction of a residential premises (strata titled units) because the units will be sold to individual investors, changes to commercial residential premises when those units, without any change in character, ownership and use, are aggregated together and operated collectively as a hotel. This surely is not a result that was intended in the drafting of the GST legislation.In relation to the legislative solution, the letter goes on:While we believe that the problem may be overcome through the use of long-term leases, this is not the best solution because some uncertainty will still remain. This will still be so even if a private ruling is sought from the ATO on the effectiveness of the 50-year lease approach. The tourism property development industry requires far more certainty than is currently available if it is to continue to make investment, create jobs, bring new projects on stream and sell strata titled units in those projects to investors. What is really needed is a legislative solution through amendment to the GST law to bring within the scope of commercial residential premises, the type of strata titled units that are sold to investors on the basis that they will form part of a purpose built hotel, motel, inn, hostel or boarding house.I am informed that the changes necessary to amend this legislation in this respect are very simple. Of course, they would have to be very simple in order for the government to understand them and even to comprehend them. Unfortunately, the government has refused to act. To return to the letter, Brett Jackson, the Director of Kareelya, states in his conclusion:This group has been a strong supporter of investment and commitment to the development of hotels in regional Western Australia. This commitment has already led to many millions of dollars of investment, as well as the future investment involved with our current projects. It is unquestionable that this investment will create significant economic activity and job creation in regional Australia at a time when there are widespread calls for greater commitment to regional Australia. In the absence of any change to the Ruling, which appears unlikely, based on the subsequent privately rulings issued by the ATO, or legislative amendment, the detrimental effect on our industry will be significant. It is most likely that the ATO's Ruling, if maintained, and in the absence of a legislative amendment to make the position of individual strata title of hotel property owners unequivocal, will inhibit investment in tourist infrastructure in regional Australia.I am informed that the group contacted people at the `highest level of government'. When they contacted the highest level of government, they were told, `Yes, we believe you have a case and we are quite happy to follow this up for you. We believe that an amendment should be made to the legislation.' We are yet to see it. As far as I can see, absolutely no action has been taken whatsoever. I am also informed that this group and others approached the ATO and discussed the matter with one of the assistant commissioners. The advice given was that they also believed that the ruling was unfair and was based on legislation that needed to be changed but that it was not up to the ATO to change the legislation; it is a responsibility of government. However, it is affecting this particular group. What are the coalition members doing for the people in regional Western Australia? Look at Bunbury and Busselton: obviously both of those developments should be of interest to the member for Forrest. I have not heard the member for Forrest say anything whatsoever in relation to this matter, nor have I seen him do anything for these particular developments. And then we have Geraldton, which is in the electorate of the Minister for Forestry and Conservation, the member for O'Connor. I suppose it would be very hard for the minister to get off his logging truck, to do anything except bulldoze old-growth forests and to achieve something worth while for his local community, but it is high time he did. As an ex-Geraldton resident, I know that Geraldton needs a development of this sort, and it is high time the minister supported those people.Then we move on to the development in Kalgoorlie. I am informed that the group did see the member for Kalgoorlie—I am not sure if they have seen the members for Forrest and O'Connor. The member for Kalgoorlie promised them in all sincerity that he would act on their behalf and deal with their issue. But, to my knowledge and certainly to their knowledge, the member for Kalgoorlie has done nothing. It is not like we are talking about a small issue that involves a small number of people—which I believe would be equally important. We are dealing here with projects in regional Western Australia worth a staggering $130 million. To date the government and the members representing the areas where those developments are occurring have done nothing. I call on the government to act now: amend this legislation and remove this burden from this vitally important sector of our business community.18:03:0022204Rudd, Kevin, MPMr RUDD83TGriffithALP00—The Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 8) 2000 is an important piece of legislation because it goes to the heart of the credibility of the Treasurer's attack on roll-back. The Treasurer is critical of Labor because, four months after the introduction of the new tax system, Labor have not yet produced a detailed breakdown of what we mean by the term `roll-back'. My response to that would be: if the Treasurer were interested in the substance of the issue and the logic of our position, rather than delivering simply another rendition of a third-rate piece of parliamentary melodrama as if he were still debating in the Carey Baptist Grammar School debating society, he would recognise the following points. The first is that it would be fiscally irresponsible for us to provide detail on this measure until we have some sense of the likely full-year effect on revenues occasioned by the introduction of the GST and by the taxation changes brought about as a consequence of that tax. The second concerns the adequacy of the compensation package afforded to low and fixed income earners. There is continuing uncertainty as to the full-year inflationary impact of the changes which have been brought about as a result of the GST package. Government members have already seen in their various electorates the debacle of the pensioner savings bonus. As for the government's completely premature triumphalism about the first round of inflationary numbers post July, I think it will be very interesting indeed to see the full flow-through effect of the fuel price hike on the cost of goods and services and the impact of the end of cost absorption by the small business sector in particular, given an emerging body of anecdotal evidence that at the moment a lot of small businesses are engaging in a post GST competitive shakeout. That is, there are a whole lot of small businesses out there in Australia currently absorbing costs, existing on the basis of extended lines of bank credit, hoping that their competitors fall over before they do, before engaging in cost clawback against consumers. My view on this question is that it is something on which the Treasurer had best `watch this space' rather than triumphantly proclaim that the inflation genie has been well contained within the bottle, because that is premature enthusiasm indeed—more on this a little later.A third reason, going to the logic of why Labor has yet to enunciate its detailed elements of roll-back, concerns the precise long-term impact of the compliance burden on small business occasioned by the introduction of this package. When we talk about the compliance burden, we are not talking about simple questions such as registering for an ABN. We are not just talking about BAS compliance. We are not just talking about monthly and quarterly instalments, nor are we just talking about the calculation of input tax credits for refund purposes. We are talking about the entire burden which small businesses face in terms of the time and money they spend in complying with the new arrangements which have been imposed on them by government. Let us take just one piece of commentary on thatthe piece in today's Financial Review by Jason Clout titled `Refund claims could spark audits':The Tax Office has been auditing monthly BAS lodgers if they claim a substantial refund. This is despite its repeated stance of taking a lenient approach with the GST in its early days. The small business sector is concerned that a major tax crackdown is looming as the Federal Government struggles with a Budget cost blowout. A spokesman for the Tax Office confirmed it was contacting businesses which claimed large refunds. But he said the contacts were part of the ATO's checking procedures rather than a full-blown audit. `We are calling and in some cases visiting the business if they claim a large refund,' the spokesman said. The checking program was necessary because credit claims were a major fraud risk, he said. The Tax Commissioner, Mr Michael Carmody, has said countries that introduce a GST-style tax often have to deal with inflated input tax credit claims. Large claims for sales tax refunds would also be scrutinised. The ATO spokesman declined to nominate the audit threshold, although some accountants believe a claim of $5,000 will trigger an audit. Ms Anna Carabao, tax partner at William Buck, said any business which claimed a large refund could `expect a knock on the door'. `It's hard to even get the ATO to hand over a refund. One of our clients has waited for more than a month to get their money back,' she said. Mr Clout's report in today's Financial Review provides nothing but cold charity and scarce comfort for small businesses as they look at how the ATO is going to be administering their refund claims against the first round of BAS declarations.But it does not stop there. We have heard in this parliament the Treasurer scoffing at our comment made often in this place that what in fact the government will face on the GST's implementation is a slow burn. What we have had in contrast is, I think, a comprehensively stupid observation from the Treasurer that the GST has been one undiluted implementation triumph. The skies have not fallen in but neither did Labor predict that the skies would fall in. What we have detected, however—and small business are shouting this from the rooftops—is that across small business and across the country at the moment we have emerging a massive hole in the roof. And who has belled the cat on this issue most recently? We heard the Treasurer in the parliament last week trumpeting a recent report by Morgan and Banks on just how wonderfully the government's package had gone down. Obviously the Treasurer did so prior to examining closely the Morgan and Banks job index poll which was published in yesterday's Sunday Telegraph. It is a document which is worthy of some quotation of itself. The article is titled `Profits Dive' and is on the front page of yesterday's Sunday Telegraph. It says:Nearly 95 per cent of Australian businesses say the GST has hurt their profits. A poll to be released today of almost 6000 small, medium and large employers has found overwhelming dissatisfaction with the GST on the four-month anniversary of its introduction.The poll, conducted by the Morgan & Banks Job Index, is the first comprehensive report card on the GST from a business perspective.The Morgan & Banks survey found 94 per cent of businesses nationwide believed their profits had suffered.`It's costing people money,' Morgan & Banks director Ian Burns confirmed. `A lot of companies spent an absolute bomb implementing it.' `There's also the ongoing cost of administration.'The hardest hit industries, according to the survey of 5877 employers nationally, are the utilities, chemical and oil, education and engineering sectors.The overwhelming majority of businesses surveyed indicated they had experienced a downturn in profitability because of the GST,' Mr Burns said.And 94.4 per cent of businesses with more than 20 but fewer than 200 employees said they had been badly affected.That is not the Australian Labor Party speaking; that is Australian business speaking. That is 6,000 Australian firms speaking, firms which have had to cope with the first quarter of the implementation impact of the GST package, as polled professionally through Morgan and Banks—Morgan and Banks being precisely the authority which the Treasurer quoted with gay abandon in this place last week as providing him with some sort of collateral underpinning for the overall implementation effect of the package.TLAB8 goes to the heart of this compliance issue. When you look at its detail, TLAB8 is itself roll-back incorporated. The Treasurer daily seeks here to amuse—I think unsuccessfully—his backbench with our position on roll-back. Yet at the same time he rolls into this parliament, in this single piece of legislation, another 188 items of roll-back, adding to the 1,462 items of roll-back already rolled through the parliament since the passage of the principal ANTS bills—a grand total of how many? One thousand, six hundred and fifty roll-back items. On this question the Treasurer is the roll-back kid. He is the author of roll-back incorporated—a roll-back executed with all the coherence, system and intellectual rigour, I have to say, of a very large bowl of spaghetti. What is the method in the 1,650 amendments so far before the House? Where is the method in the madness? Where is the rigour in the overall Costello schema of roll-back? It is very hard to find, really. If there is a central organising principle it seems to me to be something along these lines: get in the door to the Treasurer's office quick smart, particularly if you are from an organised lobby group, or get to the `Costello for Prime Minister' group as quickly as possible and, whacko, Bob's your uncle. That seems to be the only coherent and consistent principle that I can detect in the various elements of roll-back that we have seen rolled through this chamber in the last several months. This, of course, opens up the broader question of what sort of Treasurer we are dealing with in this parliament. We have a Treasurer who lampoons roll-back when enunciated by Labor but who himself is roll-back incorporated. We have a Treasurer who lampoons a 72c dollar under Labor as some sort of national disgrace, but he thinks a 52c dollar under his stewardship as Treasurer just requires a little bit of market tweaking—the odd after-dinner speech in New York and Washington is designed to fix that up, squeezed in between the rigours of a Hudson River cruise with, it seems, a failed Republican candidate. We have a Treasurer who says that gross debt under Labor was a recipe for hauling in the IMF to fix up the economy. Yet, under the Liberals, where we have gross debt vastly in excess of that, under his watch as Treasurer, it is, from his perspective, just a bit of extra loose change. We have a Treasurer who solemnly tells us now that he has a solemn policy never to comment on the currency. But I seem to recall that this same Treasurer set off a medium-level currency crisis a couple of years ago—in a fit of hubris after meeting the chairman of the Fed, Alan Greenspan—when he revealed to the media contents of what was supposed to be a confidential briefing from the chairman of the Fed. International currency markets now buckle their seatbelts every time our Pete goes to New York or to Washington, because if there is a major central bank near, and a major currency under discussion, who knows what the impact is going to be. Someone from New York said to me recently that whenever our Treasurer Costello goes to New York, the dealing rooms have a Costello alert, which rings so that appropriate hedging can be undertaken and no-one finds themselves short as a result of any unauthorised briefing which the Treasurer might provide to the media or others after any confidential meetings. We see all these elements of what the Treasurer has been up to—saying one thing and doing another—right across the breadth of economic policy, yet we are supposed to take this Treasurer seriously. What sort of Treasurer are we dealing with these days? What does he stand for? The Treasury portfolio would have to be, after the prime ministership, the most important portfolio across the whole of government. There have been doubts cast on this score for quite some time, going right back to the Treasurer's days as shadow Treasurer—back in those halcyon days when we had the dream team of Downer and Costello. Do we all remember that, or is it just a bad part of our collective memory?83LGillard, Julia, MPMs Gillard—It was a nightmare.83TRudd, Kevin, MPMr RUDD—It was in fact, as my colleague the member for Lalor said, more than a dream; it was a nightmare. I would like to read from a report from the Sydney Morning Herald—five years old but, I think, worthy of some recount this evening—by Karen Maley. It is all about the Treasurer's performance prior to taking his position on the Treasury bench. Karen Maley writes:Economics is not a difficult subject. It does not require the sustained intellectual effort needed for, say, Wittgenstein's Tractatus Logico Philosophicus or Hegel's Phenomenology of the Mind. In terms of conceptual difficulty, it is child's play compared with particle physics or molecular biology. And, although some argue that the arguments employed in economics are implausible, no-one claims that they are incomprehensible. Why, then, has Peter Costello been so mediocre as shadow Treasurer?The article goes on:Nor can Costello argue that it's the fate of shadow treasurers to be dismissed. After all, his immediate predecessor in the job, Alexander Downer, won widespread acclaim for his performance ...That is an interesting reflection on history. I seem to recall contemporaneously that it was probably right. It goes on:... Costello appears to believe that economics is merely another, slightly more sophisticated, form of name-calling, and that the main challenge in being shadow Treasurer is to come up with fresh forms of abuse for the Government. This insightful article goes on:The trouble with this behaviour is that few believe that Costello has actually taken the time to sit down and work out any solutions for our economic problems. His sole purpose is to bag the Government—the Keating government—and his interest in the subject seems to evaporate as soon as he has delivered his tightly-scripted lines in front of the television cameras. He's the meretricious actor ... Indeed, Costello has given absolutely no indication that he has any deep-seated beliefs on the subject. Behind the glib lines there is a worrying lack of sincerity. He's very much the barrister from central casting who, having flicked through his brief, puts in a polished performance, boots the other side, and collects his fee. But, he'd happily do the same for the other side if they were paying his fee.I seem to recall his earlier time in Young Labor and where he went from there. As I said, that was written some five years ago but, I think, it has an uncanny resemblance to the performance we see on the other side of this chamber on the part of the Treasurer today. In fact, when we see the Treasurer perform on economic and tax policy questions today, we usually see two types of delivery. We see type A, which I would describe as pre-rehearsed derision, for those of us on this side, but then we see the type B performance, which I would describe as mock sincerity and concern—a type I do not think the parliament has really seen, at full throttle at least, since Andrew Peacock's really serious look—making us all want to ask: one day would the real Peter Costello stand up and tell us what he actually believes in?When talking about leadership politics on the other side of this chamber, it is interesting to look at the Treasurer and the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. When it comes to the minister for workplace relations, we might not like what he stands for on industrial relations—the destruction of organised labour—but at least we know that is what he stands for. When the Treasurer stands up and gives us a rendition of tax policy or economic policy in the broad, it is, frankly, very hard to pick exactly what constitutes his overall policy framework. In fact, five years on, the article to which I just referred seems to resonate and ring true.The core of TLAB 8, which we have before the parliament now, goes to a number of Costello's individual roll-backs. It goes to an increased capacity to cancel GST registrations, changes in the manner in which tax debts are offset against GST refunds, an increased capacity to revoke monthly tax period elections, and many more such changes. Let us look at just a couple of those. One of my Neighbourhood Watch groups recently approached me with concern about how they had become inadvertently caught up in the GST-BAS cycle. They had mistakenly applied for GST registration at the time that they had applied for their ABN. As a result, this particular Neighbourhood Watch, which does a very fine job on the south side of Brisbane, was recently required to submit a BAS. Its income for the first quarter was the princely sum of $94. After taking into account what the Neighbourhood Watch had concluded as an input tax credit, they concluded, based on advice from a part-time accountant who had given them some assistance, that they may be liable for a GST of $7. Why is it that Neighbourhood Watch groups have found themselves caught up in this mad system of taxation in the first place? Surely they are voluntary and charitable organisations. When this Neighbourhood Watch group approached my office and we, in turn, approached the Australian Taxation Office for some clarification on this issue—namely, are Neighbourhood Watch groups ITECs, that is, income tax exempt charities—we were told that it was far from clear and that they would be seeking guidance on the question. So much for a rolled gold, beaut, no problems, no questions asked implementation period four months down the track, when your average local Neighbourhood Watch, who do a fine job right across this country, cannot get clear guidance from their local tax office as to whether they are a tax exempt or a non-tax exempt charitable body. I would say to the Treasurer: if there is still doubt four months down the track about where Neighbourhood Watch groups stand, what hope have we for the rest of the system, particularly as it applies to small business? So much for the inadvertent registration for the GST! What about business activity statements—the world's simplest 148-page quarterly tax return? It all comes to a head on 11 November, Remembrance Day, when the first quarterly BAS is due. I predict that the small business sector will indeed be remembering the Howard government on 11 November. But I doubt that their remembrance will be of a particularly fond nature. The commentators on this question have been unified in their condemnation of the implementation by the tax office. There is commentary by Allesandra Fabro in the Financial Review. We have commentary from Kate Marshall, also in the Financial Review, and from Kathy Lipari from the Daily Telegraph. We also have a recent article by Christopher Jay, again from the Financial Review. Most recently, we have articles from Fiona Buffini and again Allesandra Fabro, all pointing to the enormous difficulties that small businesses face with the BAS system, and the management of refunds in particular.What the Treasurer has forgotten in all of this is his responsibility as the Treasurer of the Commonwealth of Australia to properly administer the tax system. It is not just coming up with new policy; it is ensuring that the implementation of that policy is manageable through the tax office and through the accountancy profession for those who depend on that advice to make their businesses tick for the benefit of this country. (Time expired)18:23:0022208Gillard, Julia, MPMs GILLARD83LLalorALP00—In the minutes remaining before the dinner suspension, I will commence my remarks on the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 8) 2000. Those who observe this House routinely—hopefully, that is not too many in some senses—will know that, during question time, the Treasurer has a little party trick that he likes to use: he comes in and very theatrically rolls his `Rs' when talking about Labor's pledge to roll back the GST. It is very endearing in some senses.XW4Kernot, Cheryl, MPMs Kernot—He is an endearing ham!83LGillard, Julia, MPMs GILLARD—He is an endearing ham. One wonders whether he has an Actors Equity card; although, I think they would probably have a quality control standard that would keep him out. Perhaps he still has his barrister's card and he got his skills in practice. One wonders why he bothers with all of this theatrical carry-on. I do not actually see too many members of his backbench laughing, and we have heard it so many times we are not laughing anymore. You wonder why someone would come in and so theatrically and so deliberately oppose a plan, which will be put forward by the Labor Party, to make the GST fairer and simpler. What could be wrong with that? Why would you come in and carry on in that fashion when you are up to your eyes yourself in roll-back? This Treasurer is constantly engaged in rolling back the GST, and this Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 8) 2000 is just the most recent example of roll-back according to the Treasurer.The bill contains 188 amendments, and seven more were circulated in the chamber last time we sat. That brings it to a grand total of more than 1,650 amendments to the GST. So the number just keeps on growing and sooner or later, no doubt, will crack the 2,000 figure. So, if the Treasurer wants to ridicule roll-back during question time, it is about time he woke up and realised that the joke is on him. Just so that people understand the nature of the roll-back with which we are dealing, I will briefly go to some of the details of this bill. I will not do it at too great a length because we would not want everybody to fall asleep. But you need to understand the mind-numbing complexity that this roll-back, induced by the Treasurer, is getting us into with our tax system. Schedule 1 deals with matters like changing input tax credits; changing the provisions that relate to child care; making the treatment of travel agents' fees for arranging overseas supplies such as accommodation, transport, car hire, sightseeing and what-have-you GST free; providing that a supply of a freehold interest or long-term lease made after a short-term lease is also GST free; providing that the sale of residential premises that have been used as residential premises for at least five years will be input taxed; and changing arrangements in relation to machines that take coins. But that is not all. We have schedule 2, which deals with such matters as ensuring that re-imported breeding livestock is subject to GST only on the increasing value. Schedule 3 deals with various FBT tax matters. Schedule 4 deals with adjustments and, significantly, schedule 5 deals with a very clear error that was made at the outset of this legislation which prevents an entity that had registered for the GST being able to cancel that GST registration if it was inappropriate. Currently, such an entity is stuck with being registered, and with all the onerous compliance burden that goes with that, for 12 months. So that very manifest problem is being rectified by this bill. So you can see from that very quick tour of the provisions of this bill that it is, once again, layer of complexity upon layer of complexity and that, of course, is the essence of the GST roll-back according to this Treasurer and this government. It is not making the system fairer and simpler; if anything, it is making it more opaque.Of course, we know as we move around our electorates how business is reacting to this tax system—how it is reacting to its complexities, its amendments, its more bits of paper and its increased changes. We have had the Morgan and Banks survey, which has already been referred to today. But the details of that are truly extraordinary: that you can have, when you survey almost 6,000 employers in a survey form that has been viewed as very reliable over the years, so many of them come up and say they really believe that the GST has impacted negatively on their organisation's profitability. The Morgan and Banks survey shows us that a whopping 94.1 per cent of businesses fervently believe that—`fervently' being their term, not mine. Of course, there are some differences in the various sectors, but even the sectors that are least affected are in the order of 84.3 per cent for services, 88.6 per cent for resources and 89 per cent for non-profit organisations. So bad is this survey that figures like that are viewed as a good result.When you have in the upper ranges above 80 per cent of businesses in any sector telling you that the GST will negatively impact upon their profitability, I do not think that it can be viewed by anyone as a good result. What it is showing us is that business in this country is really struggling and is fearful of this tax system. The survey goes on to tell us that 12.3 per cent of Australian employers have indicated that their first GST payment to the government, which is due on 11 November, will cause cash flow problems. That has to be a real worry too. When we look through the detail of that, we can see that more than one-fifth of those in retail, more than one-fifth of those in tourism and more than one-fifth of construction and property firms are saying that they will have a cash flow problem caused by the GST. One wonders, when that cash flow problem strikes, precisely what impact we are going to see on employment and on business bankruptcies. One can only presume from this survey that we will see a very negative impact on employment and on business profitability. So I do not think that theatrical gestures and a little question time play can really give anybody any reassurance about what is going to happen as we pass the 11 November deadline and businesses start for the first time to really struggle with the implementation of this GST. Sitting suspended from 6.30 p.m. to 8.00 p.m.83LGillard, Julia, MPMs GILLARD—Before the suspension for dinner I had referred to the Morgan and Banks survey of small business attitudes in relation to the GST. That is not the only indicator we have of small business attitudes. The Victorian Parliament's Economic Development Committee has inquired into the issue of GST compliance. It found that Victorian small businesses are struggling to stay afloat as GST compliance costs balloon to more than $1.2 billion—that is its figure—and it put this down to a crippling cocktail of higher electricity, fuel and gas prices pushed up by the new tax. The committee said that this had already triggered a spate of closures of businesses in regional areas. The Herald Sun quotes from the committee's report:GST can be seen as a contributing factor in accelerating the closure of some small businesses. The Herald Sun reported that the committee:... found businesses faced a compliance nightmare with setting-up costs of $5,000 to $20,000, and administration costs expected to soar to $5,000 a year. The committee concluded that cash based businesses suffer the most, struggling to fund more sophisticated accounting systems. The committee also found that the GST was a threat to small business's competitive edge because larger companies found it easier to absorb the administration costs. And to give a lie to one of the government's claims about the GST and the new tax package that it would deal with the black economy question, this parliamentary committee found that the cash economy was tipped to flourish as service industry businesses dodged the system. The first report by Morgan and Banks and this second report by a Victorian parliamentary committee both tell us what we clearly know as we move around our electorates: business in general—and small business in particular—is desperately concerned about the compliance issues in relation to the GST, desperately concerned about the effect on profitability and desperately concerned about the cash flow problem as they come up to the first trigger date of 11 November. The reporting on this issue goes on and on. The Business Review Weekly has dealt with this matter in an article headed `Small business chokes on the big GST lie'. The article concludes—and I think this puts the point very clearly:In 1996 small business owners were excited by Howard's promise to cut their paperwork. Four years later, they are disillusioned and angry about their increased administrative burden. They realise that a politician lied to them. Now there is a surprise.The article says that small business is now dealing with a compliance burden that it has never had to bear before. The burden is termed as follows:Instead of filling out one tax return a year, businesses are collecting paperwork for five returns—four business activity statements and their annual income tax return. Their role as a tax collector has expanded significantly. Not only are they required to collect GST and send it to the Australian Taxation Office, they must also police the system, sending 48.5 per cent of any invoice to the tax office if the correct procedures are not followed.Those words capture exactly what is being said to us by small business. They are stumped by the business activity statement, they are worried about complying with it and they are worried about bearing that burden month after month, or quarter after quarter, as the GST rolls on.We can now see in relation to the GST that the claims used to sell it to the Australian electorate were completely untrue. In particular, the claim made by the Treasurer, by the Prime Minister and by the government in general that the GST would be good for Australia can now be seen very clearly to be a lie. We know from voting patterns at the last general election that there were a number of Australians who actually acknowledged themselves that they would be worse off because of the GST but that they were prepared to accept the package because they thought it would be good for Australia. Now I think it is perfectly clear to say, as small businesses crumple under the paperwork burden and businesses generally live in fear of the consequences for profitability that this tax system imposes, that this tax system is bad for business. We can also say that, if it is bad for business, it has got to be bad for Australia because it is bad for the engine room that is generating jobs and wealth. I think that is a fairly simple proposition and one this government should understand.Moving from the administrative complexity of the GST, the second reading amendment moved by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to this Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 8) 2000 is expressed in very simple terms. It says:“whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House, noting the serious impact of the taxation regime on Australian households, calls on the Government to remove the effect of the GST from the fuel excise indexation adjustment in February 2001”.When we deal with this amendment, I will be very interested to hear some of the government members opposite justify why they would not support such a second reading amendment. We all know that the Prime Minister promised that the GST would not increase the price of petrol, but we all know that it has. We know that the government is intending to worsen the situation by allowing the GST inflation spike to feed into the February indexation adjustment. This is a serious issue, and let me explain it in relation to an electorate like mine. My electorate is outer suburban. It is a growth corridor where infrastructure provision lacks behind population growth. This has been particularly true in relation to transport infrastructure during the period of the Kennett government with its agenda of privatisation of public transport. The sort of transport provided in the most outer suburban section of my electorate—the city of Wyndham—is truly poor. The city is geographically large. It covers 542 square kilometres and takes in some rural and agricultural areas. It is 30 kilometres away from the Melbourne GPO by road. It has one railway line and two stations. The stations are four kilometres apart. In 1996, the population—given this is a growth corridor, clearly these are old figures—per station was 38,100. So there is a very heavy demand on the railway line. When you get there you find that trains operate at 20-minute intervals during peak hour and at 40-minute intervals at other times. You can only get to the railway line by public transport—by bus. Those bus services were tendered out to the private sector by the former state government.When we look at the details of those services we find very limited hours of operation. Services offered to residents commence between 5.50 a.m. and 6.25 a.m. on weekdays and finish by 7.46 p.m. Weekend services are fewer and hours are even further limited, commencing between 7.40 a.m. and 7.56 a.m. and finishing by 6.48 p.m. You can see from that pattern that, for a growing population, there is a very infrequent service which does not work at all outside daylight hours and works very infrequently on weekends. That is all a very long way of saying that the people in my electorate—the people who live in the city of Wyndham—have absolutely no alternative, if they want to get from place A to place B, but to get in the car. The price of petrol is not some academic issue for them. It is not a case of weighing up whether they are going to get into the car or jump on the nearest form of public transport, because there is not a nearest form of public transport. In a situation such as this, the government's failure to honour its promises in relation to petrol prices cuts in very sharply, and government members need to understand that. Government members are feeling some heat about this in their electorates. We know that the member for McEwen, the member for Makin and the member for Hume have come to parliament and have raised within the government ranks the question of petrol prices and, of course, they have been slapped down. It will be very interesting to see how they deal with the opposition's second reading amendment. If they were as good as their word and as good as the propaganda that they put out in their electorates, they would be voting for this second reading amendment.On the question of petrol prices, I would like briefly to address the circumstances of the electors of Corangamite, which is a seat a little further down from mine. It is actually on the other side of the member for Corio's seat. We all share the same road, so we have something in common. Regarding petrol prices, the member for Corangamite said in this place on 27 June, when speaking in a discussion of a matter of public importance:Let me put it to you quite clearly and categorically that those small business men and women and big businesses around Australia will in fact pay reduced costs for their fuel, petrol and diesel from Saturday, 1 July and thereon in. This is the biggest price reduction in fuel that any government has ever undertaken.A little later he said:So the motorists and the consumers in Australia are enjoying a cost reduction no matter which way you look at it.I wonder whether the member for Corangamite wants to go out amongst his constituents, when he returns to them when parliament rises at the end of the week, stand in any of the main centres of his electorate and repeat those words. I wonder whether he wants to tell the passers-by that they are enjoying the biggest price reduction in fuel that any government has undertaken. Something tells me that he will not be repeating those words in his constituency because we all know those words are not right. The price of fuel has not fallen under the GST regime. The price of fuel has gone up. It is about time the constituents of Corangamite understood that this is the kind of thing that is said in this House when back in the electorate, as people move between their homes and work, their homes and school, their homes and the shopping centre, the simple reality of increased fuel prices that they experience every day is apparently denied by their federal member. The member for Corangamite needs to explain to his electors how he could possibly have made this statement. If he was mistaken then and now understands that he was mistaken then, that this is no longer a statement of truth—though how one could ever have believed it to be a statement of truth is another question, but today it is certainly no longer a statement of truth—he has to get honest with his electors and tell them what he is going to do about fuel prices. He could start by being prepared to come in here and vote for Labor's second reading amendment. If he does not do that, I think his constituents will know that his position on petrol prices is not an honest or a transparent one. They will be well aware by the end of this week that his position on petrol prices is not one that is meeting their needs. I invite the member for Corangamite, the member for Makin, the member for Hume, the member for McEwen and other members opposite who have talked about petrol prices to come in and vote for the second reading amendment. If that is unsuccessful, they should put some pressure on so that the government does what it should do, and that is immediately make a 2c difference in the price of petrol. It could do that by honouring the Prime Minister's election promise or it could do it by eliminating the GST inflation spike from the February indexation adjustment. It is not that hard. You keep your word or you at least stop the worst of the flow-on consequences. Clearly, the bill before the House adds complexity in relation to the GST, it deals with the Treasurer's roll-back of the GST, but it does not address any of the real problems. It does not address the problem with petrol, it does not address the problem with small business compliance and it does not address the issues that are worrying electors in electorates like mine, in electorates like Corio and certainly in electorates like Corangamite.20:14:0022212O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr O'CONNORWU5CorioALP00—The Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 8) 2000, which we are debating tonight, continues the process of the Treasurer's roll-back of his own GST in what I believe history will judge to be one of the most flawed policy developments, as far as economic policy is concerned, that this country has ever seen. The bill before the House effectively contributes to a roll-back of the original GST legislation. These are significant amendments in terms of the key administrative issues that are addressed. Already in this debate the shadow Treasurer has indicated that the opposition will be supporting the amendments.The government has described these amendments as `minor' and `technical', but they are certainly very important to small businesses already having difficulty with the implementation of the GST. There are three major issues addressed in this piece of legislation. Firstly, it allows for increased flexibility to cancel GST registrations; secondly, it proposes changes to the way debts are offset against business activity statements; and, thirdly, it provides increased flexibility to revoke monthly tax period elections. These are indeed important amendments that continue the correction of anomalies, unintended consequences, penalties and the sheer incompetencies of the legislation the government claimed would reduce compliance costs to small business and would be much simpler for them to administer.The impact of the GST on Australian small business has been profound, but the Treasurer seems to be oblivious to the real harm that is being inflicted on those small businesses as they go about earning a living and providing employment for many Australians. The Treasurer's arrogance is really hurting the spirit of Australian small business, and they are really angry. Day after day, the Treasurer gets up in this House like a grinning hyena, telling us all how good the GST is. But out in the field, out in the day-to-day struggle to earn a living, Australian small businesses are bleeding, and they are bleeding as a result of the GST. Only today I had a call from a business in my electorate, which I first became acquainted with in one of my electorate visits in Corio. The proprietor of a small business employing some 10 people on a full-time basis, and his partner, had come to see me and expressed their concerns about the difficulty they were having and they could foresee they would have in dealing with the government's GST. I have to say they did not articulate a political preference for one party or the other. This was a cry from a small business that was really staggering under the burden of the GST. This company employs 10 people, drivers of one-tonne vans up to eight-tonne trucks. The company had a historical arrangement with its fuel distributor where it would pay on a one-monthly up to two-monthly basis for its fuel bills. There was good reason for this, because the company had to hold out over that period to receive payment from its customers before it could on-pay the distributor. The distributor rang the company in the previous week and indicated that he wanted payment in 21 days. The historical arrangement that existed between this small freight company and the fuel distributor had been upset as a direct result of the introduction of the GST. When the proprietors talked to the distributor about why this was so, they were told that the fuel companies were demanding COD from the distributors for their petrol. The simple facts are that no business can really operate on that 21-day turnaround period, let alone in the transport and fuel industry. The advice that the small company received from the distributor was that it should go to their bank and get an overdraft to cover the situation. It had already been to their bankers to canvass possibilities on the introduction of the GST because it was fearful of its cash flow position, but it was told by its bankers that they would not cover the situation because the company did not have a high enough level of profit. As we know, small businesses work on turnovers and many of them do not earn large profits, but they do earn a living for their proprietors and those who work for them.That was not the only situation that was faced by this small company. They were having problems with the business activity statement. The problem that they have had with the business activity statement was simply that the information that has been provided by the government in booklet form does not provide answers to the sorts of questions people out on the ground are asking about the implementation of the GST. They had to visit their accountant, who was also tearing his hair out at the impact the GST was having on his clients. This small business had a pay-as-you-go arrangement; they chose an arrangement to make PAYE each month. They did not opt for a quarterly payment. But they were advised by the Australian Taxation Office that it did not want this arrangement because its computer could not handle the situation. This small company are asking the question about the $400 million or so that was spent on informing small business about the GST and its implementation, and they are perplexed as to why, when they choose a particular option that they believe is in their interest in assisting them to manage their affairs, they are advised by the ATO that it is not an arrangement that is satisfactory to it because its computers cannot take it.There are three smaller businesses that are largely dependent on this particular business. They are owner-operators in the transport field. Their assessment is that one of those proprietors is thinking very seriously of folding the tent. This small business in my electorate of Corio is asking the question about where it goes to from here under the arrangements that are being imposed by fuel companies and their distributor. It fears very much for the futures of the 10 employees who, until the implementation of the GST, felt some degree of security in the growth of this small company. The proprietors of this company want me to pass this on to the Treasurer, because the Treasurer gets up here like a grinning hyena and says that this GST is easy to comply with. In his arrogance, he says, `Well, the administrative burden is much simpler.' This small business has this message for the Treasurer: `You might have a very simple business activity statement, but for most small businesses the number of hours that go into the preparation of that statement far outweigh any claimed advantage.' This small business is putting in eight hours of background work just to fill out the simple statement. The problem is that out there in small business today everyone wants seven-day accounts. That is a direct result of the GST. If you are in business, you understand that it is not a situation that can be practically realised in the day-to-day activities and relationships of most small businesses. On Saturday I was at the Colac show in the Corangamite electorate. I have a few things to say about the statement on fuel of the honourable member for Corangamite. I was sought out by an organic fertiliser business that is based in Geelong. This is a small business that earns a steady income for the proprietor. The proprietor relayed to me his concerns about the impact of the GST on his business and the other businesses that he deals with. In discussions with his accountant, his accountant made known to him his concerns, with the statement that many small businesses simply will not make it to Christmas. I had a call from another angry small business person from Beech Forest, a small town in the Corangamite electorate where jobs are hard to come by. The proprietor employed several full-time people, and, when demand permitted, some part-time employees, providing much needed employment in that local area. Already that business has folded its tent as a direct result of the GST. The Treasurer gets up here talking about the great employment impact of this great taxation reform, yet out on the ground in regional areas small businesses are bleeding and folding. I had another call from a small business proprietor from Port Campbell, the proprietor of another microbusiness, that provided employment for the proprietor and a couple of part-time people as demand permitted. It was the same story. The business has gone out of business as a result of the GST. It was very interesting while I was at the Colac show on Saturday in the electorate of Corangamite that many people came up to me to express their concerns about the impact of fuel prices and the impact of the GST. The issue of fuel is relevant to the second reading amendment to this legislation that we will be moving. I remind the honourable member for Corangamite about his words on the impact of fuel on regional businesses and farmers. This is what the honourable member for Corangamite said to his electors on the floor of this parliament:Let me put it to you quite clearly and categorically that those small business men and women and big businesses around Australia will in fact pay reduced costs for their fuel, petrol and diesel from Saturday, 1 July and thereon in. This is the biggest price reduction in fuel that any government has ever undertaken.I find this an extraordinary claim by the honourable member for Corangamite. In the short time I was at the Colac show, in his electorate, we took 500 signatures on a fuel petition. I would have to say that the Colac show society did not exactly put us in a strategic position to be collecting signatures on a fuel petition, but 500 signatures were received. I do not want to dishearten the honourable member for Corangamite in his remaining days in this parliament, but some of the things his constituents had to say about this government give me grave fears for the honourable member's re-election prospects. Indeed, it is going to be the pleasure of the Labor Party to take the so-called jewel in the Liberal crown, the seat of Corangamite. You need to pour a lot of money into it, my good friend, because we are coming after you. Let me tell you your electors are lying in the grass with baseball bats. There is f-u-e-l written all over it and p-e-t-r-o-l. You told them that your GST would lower the price of their fuel.The Automobile Association of Australia, the National Farmers Federation of Australia and many other consumer groups have indicated publicly that the government is ripping off over $1 billion in extra revenue from the GST. Indeed, as a result of the GST, once you take out the impact of higher import fuel prices, there is a discrete impact of the GST on petrol prices in rural areas. That is a fact. You have your hand deep into the pockets of the electors of Corangamite. Indeed, you have your hand deep into the pockets of farmers all over this country. In the short time available to me, let me indicate what farming organisations around this country think of the government's current position on fuel. The South Australian Farmers Federation in a media release on Tuesday, 3 October had this to say: SAFF President, Dale Perkins, said that it is time the Federal Government stopped hiding behind the world oil price and finally did something positive about regulating the price of fuel in Australia.He went on to say:It may be a struggle for the Government to do anything that affects the world price, but they can do something that affects the level of taxation on fuel.He went on to say further that the government was already raising more revenue than budgeted for from the high fuel price and that it would be disappointing for that take to increase again through the jump in CPI caused by the GST. That is a call reiterated by the National Farmers Federation, which on 3 October launched a campaign to convince the federal government to freeze the excise on fuel. The National Farmers Federation had this to say:The Government will claim it needs the revenue. I have got to say here that the government has already indicated it has blown the extra billion dollars it has raised through these measures. But the fact is the Government will be getting a windfall in excise revenue, just from the additional GST on the higher petrol prices, which amounts to almost $72 million. We all know that that is probably a very low estimate of the windfall from that particular measure. In the Weekly Times on 19 August, under a headline `Farmers claim diesel fuel “rip-off”', the article had this to say:“The Federal Government's backflip on farm diesel rebates has cut $25 million in off-road rebates to the nation's farmers,” VFF treasurer Geoff Crick told the annual conference. “This is far from what the government indicated would happen as a result of the GST,” Mr Crick said. Benalla farmer Laurie Horne said farmers had been let down. “The cornerstone of the VFF's support for the GST was a reduction in fuel prices. We are being ripped off by government,” he said.Yes, they are. Time does not allow me to really outline the National Party's complicity in this Liberal Party rip-off by the city lawyers—the Prime Minister, the Treasurer and the recent rorter, the honourable member for Flinders. But let me say this to honourable members opposite: you cannot come into this place and say one thing and then go into your electorates and say another. You have betrayed rural Australia. (Time expired)20:34:0022215Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration10—It will not come as a surprise to the House and honourable members to hear that the government is not prepared to support the pious amendment to the motion for the second reading of Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 8) 2000 moved by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. This government has successfully implemented what is probably the largest structural change to the Australian economy since the Second World War. No longer is our economy being held back by an outdated and inefficient tax system. To say that Australian households have felt a serious impact under the new tax system is a complete fallacy. Households are benefiting from income tax cuts worth $12 billion annually and increased family assistance of $2.4 billion annually. I know that the opposition were considerably disappointed with the recent results of the September quarter consumer price index. They would have been as devastated as the Australian Council of Trade Unions was by the result. The index showed that the effect of the new tax system was actually lower than was forecast by the government. This means that the government's income tax cuts and increases in family allowances have actually resulted in families receiving more generous benefits than even the government had forecast. The opposition deny these clear facts and clearly in this matter, as in so many others, they are totally out of touch with reality.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—What about petrol?0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER—I will come to that. The opposition suggest that the government remove the effect of the GST from the fuel excise indexation adjustment in February 2001. That is a fascinating proposition, because when the Labor Party were in government not once did they advocate a freeze in indexation on petrol. They are absolute hypocrites. Indeed, indexation was introduced by the Hawke Labor government in 1983. DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—Get your facts right.0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER—The member opposite really ought to take notice of history. It is a longstanding practice that governments have maintained indexation when making policy changes that impact on the consumer price index. For example, indexation was maintained when Labor's wholesale sales tax rates were increased in the 1993-94 budget. From 1983 to 1996, the Labor Party increased the rate of excise of unleaded petrol by over 28c per litre, and around half of this increase was attributable to indexation. The assertion that the government will receive a windfall gain from indexation is misleading. There is a much larger increase in government payments linked to the CPI. For every dollar gained through indexation of excisable products like petrol, the government increases by over $2 outlays linked to the CPI. These outlays include pensions, Newstart allowance, parenting payments and rent assistance. Are the opposition seriously suggesting that we should cut pensions?The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission did not find that the GST increased petrol prices. On the contrary, it found that, when the tax changes came in between 30 June and 1 July this year, petrol prices actually fell. That is right: in the major metropolitan areas, petrol prices actually fell with the introduction of the new tax system. The government reduced excise and introduced the GST and still the petrol prices fell. Labor may want to deny it but the cause of the high price of petrol today is the huge price increase in world crude. Any change in the indexation arrangements would be completely irresponsible. Indeed, the Labor Party's favourite Prime Minister, the Rt Hon. Tony Blair, has said that blowing his budget to cut fuel prices would result in his being able to do nothing for pensioners and it could place upward pressure on interest rates. The opposition is suggesting a change that would hit pensioners and place upward pressure on interest rates. Quite frankly, the government does not apologise for not supporting such a slug on all Australians.I now wish to address some of the claims made by the opposition in the course of this debate. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Assistant Treasurer both foreshadowed an amendment to the bill to allow businesses to deregister from the GST, effective 1 July 2000. This government will not be supporting this change—DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—Why not?0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER—as it will increase complexity for business—and you should listen, my friend. I will have more to say on this during debate on the amendment. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition suggested that the business activity statement refunds would not be paid to businesses in some circumstances, despite the measure that the government has introduced in this bill. This is simply not the case. The Commissioner of Taxation will now have the discretion to be able to refund a net business activity statement credit rather than apply it to another tax debt that is due and not yet payable. This means that, apart from when there is a business activity statement debit to be offset, the commissioner will be able to refund a business activity statement credit. Businesses will not have money withheld to cover other tax debts that are not yet payable.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—You mean give them back their own money? It's their own money. That's decent of you.0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition ought not bleat. He and others opposite also claim that the business activity statement is complex and that businesses will not be able to submit on time. The government is committed to a continuing program of assistance for those required to complete business activity statements. This assistance is being provided by both the Australian Taxation Office and the GST Start-Up Assistance Office. Over 4,000 workshops, as well as field advisory visits and signpost offices, are being made available to assist businesses in completing a business activity statement. In addition, we are currently in Business Activity Statement Help Week, which will run until November in over 200 locations. DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—What about the e-record? What about the e-record?10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! If the Deputy Leader of the Opposition wishes to contribute to subsequent debate, he may wait for his turn.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker.0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER—During this week the tax office is offering free practical advice and assistance to smaller businesses who are trying to fill in their first business activity statement but still have questions that need to be answered. There are 50,000 places available by appointment. The tax office has already announced concessional business activity statement lodgment and payment dates which have extended the due date for the first quarter from 21 October 2000 to 11 November 2000. Also, businesses will not be subject to any late lodgment penalties where they have made a genuine attempt to comply.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—Oh, yes!0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER—We will not victimise businesses the way the Labor Party wants to. Businesses will be given the benefit of any doubt. In addition, the tax office has advised tax agents that no general interest charge or late lodgment penalty will apply to clients of agents who lodge by 30 November, as long as the agents lodge in the vicinity of 50 per cent of their activity statements by 11 November. In terms of reporting GST on the business activity statement, businesses can choose one of two methods: the GST calculation sheet method and the GST derived from accounts options. The accounts method may be an easier and quicker alternative for those businesses who separately record the GST amounts for supplies and acquisitions they make. These businesses do not need to complete all of the calculation boxes on the business activity statement.Already over 213,000 businesses have lodged their first quarterly BAS. But the opposition says that, despite all of this, the National Tax and Accountants Association still thinks that businesses will struggle with the BAS. Ray Regan of the National Tax and Accountants Association has been a persistent critic of the government's tax reform plans. He has constantly made negative statements against the government and Australia's new tax system voted for by the Australian electorate in the October 1998 election. These have been part of a dedicated campaign of scaremongering amongst the business community and they are absolutely disgraceful. For the opposition to use his statements as being indicative of the concerns of the business community is both misleading and dishonest. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition also criticised the tax office for its e-record software. Thousands of businesses have been using e-record without any problems at all. Only a handful of businesses have problems and these were caused by their use of an old version of a virus detection software package that incorrectly reported a problem in e-record.The shadow minister for small business attacked the wine equalisation tax and its effect on the wine industry. The government introduced the WET to replace the difference between Labor's old wholesale sales tax rate on wine and the GST. It is designed to ensure that the price of a four-litre cask of wine need increase by only 1.9 per cent. Both the wine equalisation tax and the GST do not apply to exports of wines, and exporters have the benefit of the removal of the embedded taxes built into the price of exports. For the opposition to say that the wine industry is adversely affected is absolutely ludicrous, and it ought to be ashamed of itself. There is also a cellar door rebate which effectively removes the wine equalisation tax from the sales of small wineries. This places wineries in a much better position than they were in under the wholesale sales tax system presided over by Labor. The shadow minister also quotes from a survey about the impact of the GST on business. Is this an independent, reliable survey? It is a survey conducted by the shadow minister himself—could you believe that, Mr Deputy Speaker? We all know the opposition's record on surveys. We have come across the Lindsay Tanner price survey, haven't we? Which would you trust—the Yellow Pages small business survey or the Joel Fitzgibbon Labor Party survey? The people of Australia would certainly know the answer to that. The honourable member for Grayndler argued that under the bill people living on boats moored at marinas will be slugged a 5½ per cent GST on their rents. The fact is that these people are currently subject to the full 10 per cent GST and this bill ensures that they may be provided with the same concession rate as residents of caravans parks. Of course, the honourable member for Grayndler then continued his long-running campaign of misrepresentation against the goods and services tax and caravan park residents. The government has ensured that long-term residents of caravan parks and other forms of commercial accommodation are treated fairly compared with the residents of other forms of rental accommodation.Under the GST legislation, residents of long-term commercial accommodation may be either input taxed, meaning that they are not charged GST, or they may be charged the 5½ per cent concessional rate of GST. That is designed to result in the lowest possible rent increase to residents. Independent modelling by Econtech shows that, in the long term, the concessional rate of GST is actually better for residents than the input taxing option. In the short term, both options produce similar price changes. So for the honourable member for Grayndler to say that caravan park residents are worse off under the goods and services tax is a complete nonsense. DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—They are: another broken promise.0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition ought to apologise to the House for making such an outrageous accusation. In addition, the member for Grayndler claims that the $33 million increase in rent assistance from the government is worthless. The maximum rate of rental assistance has been increased by 10 per cent. This extra assistance will provide an additional buffer for all low income earners regardless of what type of accommodation they live in. People who do not pay enough rent to get the maximum rent assistance will generally receive an increase in rent assistance equal to 75 per cent of any increase in their rent. The honourable member for the Northern Territory criticised the pay-as-you-go arrangements applying to remote indigenous artists. Until July 2001, indigenous artists carrying on an enterprise will not need to quote an Australian business number. This recognises the particular issues faced by indigenous Australians living in remote areas becoming part of our new tax system. The tax office will develop further information and education programs for these artists in partnership with the indigenous art representative bodies.The honourable member for Swan criticised the tax office's replyin5 initiative. With the implementation of the new tax system, the tax office has predictably received a large number of queries. Many of these, however, were from tax professionals with complex queries. These queries were never intended to be answered as part of the replyin5 service. Therefore, the tax office set up a tax professionals liaison group to provide advice—DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—I see.0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER—I am pleased you see, at last—to alleviate the strain on the service. There is currently no backlog at all in the provision of general advice to the community, with dedicated staff responding to written queries in shorter time frames than ever before—often within five days. The honourable member also argued that the goods and services tax is having an adverse effect on the building and construction industry. He cites a decline in housing approval numbers. The housing industry has just come off a huge boom in activity leading up to the introduction of the goods and services tax. Business was booming for the industry. The current readjustment to normal levels of activity from such a high level will appear on the surface as a significant decline but is certainly not indicative of the housing industry struggling under the GST.The honourable members for Griffith and Lalor referred to the Morgan and Banks survey and claimed that that indicated that businesses are suffering. The Morgan and Banks survey, reported in the Sunday Telegraph, was in fact released on Tuesday, embargoed for Wednesday's papers and reported at that time. Accompanying the release on profitability were three other press releases. They were as follows: Australia wins gold again, finding that a record number of businesses will be hiring permanent staff in the next quarter; no worries for November GST payments, indicating only 12 per cent of employers were worrying about cash flow in meeting GST payments; and GST roll-back not appropriate, showing a resounding 90.5 per cent of businesses oppose Labor's roll-back policy—they have not been talking about that for some months. These surveys show that, overwhelmingly, businesses are coping with the introduction of the GST, that they are not worried about cash flow and that employment is booming. They also confirm that businesses may well have absorbed profit margins to keep prices down for consumers. This is good news for consumers and consistent with the lower than expected September quarter consumer price index result. Since overall company profits are at record highs, businesses may have taken the opportunity to preserve market share and consumer goodwill. Labor's claim that business viability is threatened is completely false. As the survey itself shows, employment intentions are booming. The most revealing part of the survey was the near total opposition to Labor's roll-back—a massive 90.5 per cent—making Labor's roll-back one of the most unpopular policies in federal political history. No wonder Labor keep it hidden. If Labor have any intention of rolling back GST, they should announce it now so that people can assess it and in particular assess Labor's plans for higher tax and interest rates to pay for it. Labor's shame and embarrassment over roll-back is proven by the fact that they are going to such extreme lengths to cover up their policies. I am indebted to the Treasurer's media release of 5 November for those useful facts which very effectively rebut some of the false arguments put forward by members of the opposition. It has also been suggested by the honourable members for Griffith and Lalor that the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 8) 2000 is roll-back by the Treasurer.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—It is!0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER—It is not. These bills are simply technical changes. They are completely different from roll-back, which is a wholesale structural change to the tax system. It is an indication of how embarrassed Labor are about roll-back that they try to label our technical changes with the term, trying to drag us down to their level. That is very sad. Labor's whole strategy on tax reform has been a massive fraud—a bit like the allegations of Labor's conduct in the 1987 Fisher poll. Kim Beazley supported a GST when Keating opposed it for populist reasons. Labor's doom and gloom report was shameless and has shown them to be scaremongers. Labor said there would be a nightmare and a deluge on 1 July. It said that everything was going up by 10 per cent. It said the inflation estimates were too low. It put out sham surveys with doctored results. Labor ended up with egg on their faces. Life went on, the sun came up on 1 July and Labor's scaremongering on inflation has proved to be baseless now that the inflation figures have been released.The honourable member for Swan referred to what he claimed was the severe impact of the GST on the commercial property sector, especially strata title hotels, and he wanted a change in the legislation. I am pleased to reassure the honourable member that the government's new tax system is good for business. Cuts to the company tax rate and the largest income tax cuts in Australia's history will provide significant long-term benefits to all business. Single strata title apartments or units are classed as residential premises. Sales of new residential premises are subject to GST. The supply of rented residential premises is input taxed. This means that no GST is charged and business cannot claim back the GST included in the price of acquisitions relating to the supply. This treatment ensures that apartments and units are treated in the same way as other residential premises, including housing. This bill is good for business. It contains finetuning measures which will increase administrative simplicity and compliance while ensuring protection of revenue. The bill demonstrates the government's commitment to monitoring the implementation of Australia's new tax system and listening to any concerns in the community. The bill contains minor and technical changes, and I am very pleased on behalf of the government to commend this bill to the chamber. Question put:That the words to be omitted (Mr Crean's amendment) stand part of the question.20:58:00The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker—Mr K.J. Andrews) 74Abbott, A.J.Anderson, J.D.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.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.Moylan, J. E.Nairn, G. R.Nehl, G. B.Nelson, B.J.Neville, P.C.Nugent, P.E.Prosser, G.D.Pyne, C.Reith, P.K.Ronaldson, M.J.C.Ruddock, P.M.Schultz, A.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.Tuckey, C.W.Vaile, M.A.J.Vale, D.S.Wakelin, B.H.Washer, M.J.Williams, D.R.Wooldridge, M.R.L.Worth, P.M.61Adams, D.G.H.Albanese, A.N.Andren, P.J.Bevis, A.R.Brereton, L.J.Burke, A.E.Byrne, A.M.Corcoran, A.K.Cox, D.A.Crean, S.F.Crosio, J.A.Danby, M.Edwards, G.J.Ellis, A.L.Emerson, C.A.Evans, M.J.Ferguson, L.D.T.Ferguson, M.J.Fitzgibbon, J.A.Gerick, J.F.Gibbons, S.W.Gillard, J.E.Griffin, A.P.Hall, J.G.Hatton, M.J.Hoare, K.J.Irwin, J.Jenkins, H.A.Kernot, C.Kerr, D.J.C.Lawrence, C.M.Lee, M.J.Livermore, K.F.Macklin, J.L.Martin, S.P.McClelland, R.B.McFarlane, J.S.McLeay, L.B.McMullan, R.F.Melham, D.Morris, A.A.Mossfield, F.W.Murphy, J. P.O'Byrne, M.A.O'Connor, G.M.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.Wilkie, K.Zahra, C.J.Howard, J.W.Beazley, K.C.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative.Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time.Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation for the bill and proposed amendments announced.22220Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.21:04:0022220Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—I move opposition amendment No. 1:(1) Schedule 5, item 18, page 40 (lines 8 to 11), omit subitem (1), substitute: (1) The amendment made by item 2 of this Schedule authorises the Commissioner to decide, as a date on which the cancellation of a registration under section 25-57 takes effect, any day occurring on or after 1 July 2000.The amendment I have moved proposes to introduce some badly needed increased flexibility into the government's roll-back proposals concerning the power of the Australian Taxation Commissioner to cancel GST registration. 0V5Slipper, Peter, MPDT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—We have heard the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration saying that this is not roll-back; they are only technical amendments. But what are they about? They are correcting the mess that this legislation has created. In this legislation we are talking about some 188 amendments which, even before the matter was brought on for debate, required an additional seven—taking it to a total of 1,650 amendments plus to this simple new tax. This is one aspect of that additional legislation, but make no mistake: this is roll-back by the government. The government that wants to ridicule the opposition for roll-back is into it in spades. A large number of people have been registered who accidentally registered and wish to deregister. These are people who are carrying out an enterprise but were wrongly registered by the Australian Taxation Office and wish to deregister or who registered because they thought they had to but now wish to deregister and have a turnover low enough to justify that deregistration. At the moment, under the legislation that the Treasurer boasted again was right and in no need of any further amendment, these taxpayers would have to remain in the system for 12 months and collect and remit the GST before they can be deregistered. This clearly is an absurd proposition—doubly absurd in the context of the blitz advertising that was running earlier in the year imploring people to register for an Australian business number and/or the GST.Obviously, many people and/or non-profit bodies registered for the GST in inappropriate circumstances. This harsh 12-month rule applies even where taxpayers who are carrying on an enterprise have been incorrectly registered by the tax office. One category of taxpayers is those who meant to apply only for a business number but who wound up being registered for the GST. Many of these people are not even aware that they have registered—or were not aware until they were sent a BAS statement form to fill out recently. They have not been charging the GST on their supplies, as they are below the turnover limit, and they do not want to get caught in the paperwork, expense and hassle of the GST, yet they now find that they are. The bill will grant the commissioner the discretion to deregister someone where they have not been registered for the full 12 months. As I said in my earlier speech, we welcome this overdue move, but it is preposterous to keep someone in a system for a year before letting them leave it, when they should not be in the system at all. Under this bill, the deregistration can be effective only after the date of royal assent of the bill. You need only to refer to paragraph 5.5 of the explanatory memorandum. In other words, it is a prospective proposition only.To argue that this cannot be made retrospective is ludicrous, particularly in the context of the Prime Minister's promise that no-one would be penalised for an inadvertent mistake. The tax commissioner issued a release on 26 October estimating that, with passage of this bill this year—which we are happy to cooperate with, assuming adequate debating time is allowed in the Senate—deregistration can occur, for taxpayers who have already applied, from 31 December. But the release contains the following paragraph: `People who now expect to have their GST registration cancelled effective 31 December must note that they will still have GST reporting obligations for all tax periods up to and including the end of December 2000.'(Extension of time granted) This means that all of the people wrongly or accidentally registered for GST can only be deregistered prospectively. It means that they will have a GST liability from the period 1 July 2000 until the time of deregistration—a liability which continues to grow as we debate. Many people will not have collected the GST and will face hardship in paying it to the government. The Prime Minister promised that no-one would be penalised for inadvertent mistakes. What is going to happen to people who have been registered for the GST and have not collected it? That is the important question that this government and the parliamentary secretary need to answer. Even with this proposed amendment, these people will have to pay two quarters of GST, probably out of their own pockets. In addition, they have all the expense and hassle of filling in the BAS returns. Whilst we support the proposal in the bill, it does not go far enough, and the amendment that I have proposed will allow deregistration to be retrospective. It will allow people who should not have been caught in the net to be deregistered from 1 July 2000, and the nightmare that they are now faced with—that is, having to pay the GST when they have not collected it—should be removed. These people will definitely be losers under the new tax system, in direct breach of the pledge by the Prime Minister. I have heard the parliamentary secretary arguing that it is too complex to apply this provision retrospectively, but we have heard no defence of that. Why, if we can make the provision now, can't we make it retrospective? Why, if the Prime Minister has made a promise that no-one will be penalised for inadvertent mistakes, can't we take forward the provision ensuring that that will happen? This government has deceived all the way through in relation to the GST, and this is just another example of that. Just as we have argued for a roll-back in relation to so many other matters in this GST bill, we have drawn attention to this issue. It is something we have argued should be corrected, and the government has seen the need to correct it, but it has not corrected it completely. We are arguing that the provision should be made retrospective, and the amendment seeks to achieve that. I urge the House to support it.21:13:0022222Burke, Anna, MPMs BURKE83SChisholmALP00—The Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 8) 2000 provides for deregistration. However, this will be effective only from the date of deregistration, which will be mid-November at the earliest—and it is more likely, according to the ATO, to be effective 30 December 2000. This will leave these people with six months of GST liability which they may not have collected and which they will undoubtedly face hardships in finding. One of my constituents, Mr Yates, has fallen into this category. He applied for an ABN but not for GST registration. He received a letter in April confirming this. He then received a letter on 7 June confirming ABN registration and GST registration, even though he had not applied for it and, with his business grossing less than $50,000, did not need it. He requested a cancellation form in mid-June and again on 4 July. This form did not arrive until 11 July. The fax number given for return was not working, and so the form was posted back again the next day. A subsequent phone call to the ATO showed no record of a request for cancellation. Because he was not able to cancel registration before 1 July, he has been told he will have to pay GST for the whole of the financial year, even if the decision by the ATO to register Mr Yates for GST was reversed. The same letter on 7 June informed him that should he want to appeal the decision that the ATO had made to register him for GST, it would cost him $500, regardless of the outcome. Bear in mind that he did not request this GST registration; the tax office just took it upon themselves to register him. He operates a small franchise cleaning business which will gross less than $50,000, and so he has no need to collect or to pass on the GST. As Mr Yates puts it so well:I am concerned about the way the introduction of the GST has been handled by the ATO at this point. I was told by the operator on July 27 that, since I had not cancelled the GST registration prior to July 1, I would need to charge GST for 12 months even if I was successful in having the decision reversed.Since this system is totally new to Australia and the ATO has been so slow in processing applications and informing clients of decisions, I believe this attitude is totally wrong. It comes across as bully-boy tactics. In addition, the lack of intelligent information and explanation shows a high degree of arrogance on the part of the ATO. After all, if a private company demonstrated such contempt for its customers, the ACCC would be issuing heavy fines and holding them out to ridicule.He cites the Franklin case. I think this is a prime example of why we should support the amendment by the shadow Treasurer to allow retrospective deregistration from the GST—to allow people such as Mr Yates, who should never have been registered for the GST, to not be caught up in the system, to not have to pay. It should be removed, and it should be removed retrospectively.21:16:0022222Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr FITZGIBBON8K6HunterALP00—The amendment to the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 8) 2000, moved by the member for Hotham, is a slight enhancement to the government's ongoing roll-back of the GST package. It is an eminently reasonable amendment. Once one concedes that it is reasonable to give the Commissioner of Taxation discretion to allow small business people to opt out of the system, it flows logically that it is eminently reasonable to provide the commissioner with the power to act retrospectively. As the shadow Treasurer and the member for Chisholm have both pointed out, it is true that there are people out there who inadvertently registered for the GST and were not aware of it. They have been operating within the system for some three and a bit months now and will be liable for GST they have not collected. These are microfirms by definition, with turnovers of less than $50,000 a year, and therefore do not fall into a group of firms that could possibly hope to absorb that sort of liability to the tax office. There is just one remaining incontestable fact tonight: small business is struggling desperately with the implementation of this new tax. All the surveys now show that. The Treasurer was very quick to point out to us today that the Labor Party went to the last election also proposing a pay-as-you-go system—a quarterly return. The Treasurer obviously has not even looked at a business activity statement. If he had, he would see that all the work in the business activity statement is not in remitting one's employee remittances or even one's ongoing tax calculations; the real difficulty lies in the calculation of the GST—what constitutes an input tax credit, what does not constitute an input tax credit, and all of those defining issues that go with it.The Prime Minister today in question time, when asked a question on red tape, was not prepared to even acknowledge the fact that the small business community is struggling with this tax. We had that infamous promise prior to the 1996 election highlighted during question time today—that promise that the government would halve red tape for small firms by the year 2000. What a joke that is now. The Prime Minister and the Treasurer should be hanging their heads in shame. At no point in Australia's political history has a promise been so comprehensively broken. I will dwell very quickly on what the small business community is saying about the new tax system and in particular about the looming business activity statement deadline. 0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr Slipper—They wouldn't be talking to you!8K6Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr FITZGIBBON—They are talking to me, I say to the member for Fisher.83VEmerson, Craig, MPMr Emerson—It's a very bad sign!8K6Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr FITZGIBBON—It is a very bad sign. I appreciate the interjection by the member for Rankin. The member for Fisher sees the small business community as part of his natural constituency. I tell you what, Member for Fisher: that is not what we are hearing at the moment.The Small Business Coalition, probably the pre-eminent small business group in this country, was in Canberra for its regular meeting last Thursday. I had the great pleasure of addressing that group during dinner on Thursday night. The room was abuzz on Thursday night with post-mortems on the session the Small Business Coalition had last Thursday. Never has so much ire been let out in a meeting of the Small Business Coalition.There was a unanimous view there, I understand, that the small business community has been sold a pup by this government. There is a unanimous view that the government is not even prepared to acknowledge the difficulties small businesses are facing. That was confirmed and reinforced by the Prime Minister during question time today. I understand that, when Minister Reith appeared before the Small Business Forum which always follows Small Business Coalition meetings in Canberra, things were not too pretty there either. I understand Minister Reith was told in no uncertain terms that he has failed the small business community both in the implementation of the GST and in taking the fight up to John Howard and Peter Costello with respect to the way the GST and the business activity statement—all those issues combined—are affecting them. I can guarantee that there has been a huge mood shift. Do not worry about any elite commentary about smooth sailing with the GST. That is not the case. (Time expired)21:21:0022224Emerson, Craig, MPMr EMERSON83VRankinALP00—Labor's amendment to the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 8) 2000 would ensure that there was a little less complexity in the administration of the GST because registrants who accidentally registered for the GST would be able to get out of the system as from 1 July, not as from the date of Royal Assent to this legislation. Constituents have said to me that, when they got onto the web site, they thought they were registering for an ABN. They were answering the questions electronically but found out later that, instead of registering for an ABN, they were registering for GST and they did not want to do that. But once they were in the system, under the government's legislation as it currently stands, they were in the system for a year.The government says, `We'll bring that back to the date of royal assent,' and we want to bring it all the way back to 1 July to reduce some of the complexity of this legislation. We have heard government speakers saying that this is a simplified new tax system for a new century and that there are no difficulties with the business activity statement. That is incorrect. Indeed, the survey from the restaurant and catering industry—about which we debated earlier today—shows that 30 per cent of respondents to the survey indicated that they anticipate or are experiencing problems in completing the business activity statement. Similarly, the Treasurer has chortled about the Morgan and Banks survey in the last few days; but what he did not mention was that that same survey found that 94 per cent of businesses reported reduced profitability as a result of the GST. I wonder why the Treasurer did not highlight that fact. That is a forerunner to bankruptcies under the GST.This House might remember that the Treasurer said in May of this year on Perth radio that he did not expect any businesses at all to go to the wall as a result of the GST. In my own electorate there are many businesses that are struggling not only with reduced sales associated with the GST but also under the complex paperwork burden associated with the GST. I heard the parliamentary secretary citing Econtech as an authoritative source. That is very interesting because, again, he failed to cite the Econtech report that relates to petrol. The Econtech report relating to petrol said that the government should in fact adjust the indexation of fuel excise in the February adjustment for the impact of the GST. I wonder why members of the government do not read the report and do not report on the reading of it in this parliament. The answer is obvious: we have an economist—in fact, the Prime Minister's preferred modeller—saying that there should be an adjustment for that and the government saying, `No, no that would be highly irresponsible.' They are very good at selectively quoting from reports. When the Prime Minister made his major statement back on 2 May 1995 that there would never, ever be a GST, I did not realise that he had got his inspiration from the Treasurer, who, on 21 March 1995, was asked these questions:Nicholl: What about the GST? Would you bring in a GST?Costello: Nope.Nicholl: No, not at all? Definitely?Costello: Nope.So he gave the idea to the Prime Minister to tell the electorate that they would never, ever bring in a GST. In fact, it was the Treasurer's own idea. We have to reduce the complexity of this legislation. The government says that the GST cannot be made simpler. We know that the GST can be made simpler. Some of the measures that the government has introduced do make it simpler but, in respect of this particular amendment, it would be a very straightforward matter to make it simpler still—that is, to allow people out of the net of the GST by bringing the date of withdrawal from the GST registration back to 1 July.21:25:0022224Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration10—I listened with interest to honourable members' speeches in relation to this consideration in detail stage on theTaxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 8) 2000 and, in particular, to the remarks made by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and other Labor speakers. It will not come as any surprise to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, or indeed to all other members of the House that the government will not be supporting the opposition's proposed amendment to the bill. This is because the government is not going to support a change that will increase complexity for business. It was the Deputy Leader of the Opposition who, in his contribution to this debate on 2 November, said that `business does not want any more complexity' associated with the GST. This is what makes the opposition's amendment unsustainable. Business does not want complexity; yet that is exactly what they would get with the Labor Party's proposed change. Honourable members opposite obviously did not listen to what I said in my summing up to the second reading debate. The false claim that this is roll-back by the Treasurer continues. It is clear that this is not roll-back. These amendments are simply technical changes. They are completely different from roll-back, which is a wholesale structural change to the tax system. The Labor Party talked about roll-back. They were ridiculed. It is clear that business does not want roll-back and, therefore, we find that that word is now no longer uttered by the Leader of the Opposition, or indeed by those people who sit behind him. So the Labor Party is totally dishonest in suggesting that the legislation before the House is in some way roll-back.The opposition seeks to give the Commissioner of Taxation the power to cancel the GST registration of a business retrospectively, to 1 July. The government proposes to allow cancellation from the date of royal assent to this bill. This approach is designed to minimise compliance costs for registered businesses and other businesses with which they deal. To cancel the registration of a business retrospectively would require the unwinding of transactions between the business and other parties. It would place a huge compliance burden on both the business and its registered customers. The business would be required to calculate GST embedded in the price of each of the supplies it made while registered, find and notify the recipients and then refund the GST incorrectly charged. This would place a huge compliance burden on the business as it would have to somehow contact all of its customers and arrange for refunds. The business would retrospectively lose its entitlement to input tax credits.The honourable member for Hotham referred to what he said were the substantial and increasing GST liabilities on the supplies businesses make. The member for Hotham is correct in so far as those businesses that register for GST do have GST liabilities on the supplies they make. But he conveniently ignores the fact that these businesses have entitlements to input tax credits on all of their acquisitions, generous and substantial income tax deductions and access to vouchers from the GST start-up office. All of those would have to be unwound if cancellation were made retrospective. Where a business has paid GST to the tax office, the tax office would have to make a refund net of any input tax credits claimed. This would involve complications where the GST has been passed on in the price to the customer. The tax office would only refund the GST if the business could prove that the GST included in the price had been reimbursed to unregistered customers. This would create huge administrative difficulties for the business wishing to deregister. It would also make it extremely difficult for the commissioner to be satisfied that the net result of the deregistration is the same as if the business had not registered at all. The necessary inquiries may delay refunds, with adverse cash flow consequences for business.Once registered for GST, a business has a number of entitlements and obligations that most complying businesses would have already met or taken advantage of. A business would retrospectively lose its entitlement to income tax deductions for its GST start-up expenditure on plant and equipment. Its income tax return may have already been lodged and will require amendment. (Extension of time granted) It would probably have used its $200 voucher supplied by the GST Start-Up Office, which would require a further unwinding of purchases made with the voucher. The business would also have lodged at least its first business activity statement. It would then have to request an amended business activity statement to adjust its GST. In most cases, the business will still need to lodge a BAS to meet its pay-as-you-go obligations. As businesses have already been notified that they are registered for GST, most have sought to comply with their obligations and have factored GST into their operations. Only those businesses that have not complied with their obligations are likely to be advantaged by retrospective deregistration. As I have said previously, retrospective deregistration has additional compliance consequences for any other registered businesses that the entity has dealt with. I had understood that the opposition had run out of speakers. I am now advised by the shadow minister opposite that there are three more Labor speakers. I may or may not make a further contribution, depending on whether the remarks that these three Labor speakers waiting to speak have any veracity or substance. If they are as empty as the contributions made by earlier speakers, then obviously it will be most unlikely that it will be necessary for me once again to approach the dispatch box.21:32:0022226Byrne, Anthony, MPMr BYRNE008K0HoltALP00—We always stick to the veracity of the facts, do we not?83VEmerson, Craig, MPMr Emerson—We are very substantial.008K0Byrne, Anthony, MPMr BYRNE—We are very substantial. The issue that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration raised with respect to additional complexity or the amendment that the opposition put forward I find quite amusing, given that to date 1,600 amendments have been put forward by the Treasurer to this new, improved, streamlined taxation system. We have, the member for Rankin tells me, 7.1 kilos worth of documents. I think what the Treasurer really wants to do with this legislation is turn himself into a weightlifter. It is a bit like the Greek myth in which the calf is carried around every day and gets larger and larger. This is the situation with the GST legislation: it is getting larger and larger and heavier and heavier. The trouble is that the burden of this taxation legislation and the amendments thereto falls on small businesses—like the small businesses in my electorate.In specifically addressing this increased flexibility to cancel the GST registration, many people who registered for the GST were in error. Sometimes it was the error of the Australian Taxation Office and sometimes the error of the taxpayer. Often the latter made the error due to the complexity of the instructions being provided by the ATO. One of the difficulties found by small business people in contacting the Taxation Office—in many cases they have not been able to get through or have received incorrect information; I will cite an example of that shortly—is that they have not been satisfied. They are working 80-plus hours or so a week trying to make sure that their small business continues and they are faced with this unbelievably complicated taxation system. They have a 143-page explanatory document which many of them do not have time to read. Many of them are seeking the services of an accountant, but the problem is that, because there is such a huge GST generated demand for accountants, many of them do not actually have access to that service. Many, as you read in the media, are actually sticking their heads in the sand due to the overwhelming complexity of these things. An example of this was expressed by a director of a regional bank in my electorate who told me that, due to the complexity of this legislation and the amendment thereto, small businesses are just borrowing in anticipation that they will not have the cash with which to forward their payment. Also, as I said, a number of small business people have spoken to me about the difficulties they have in actually accessing this service. A business person in Endeavour Hills has contacted the Australian Taxation Office line on four occasions. He still has not received his business activity statement form. So here we are talking about this new and improved taxation system, but many small business people who rely on cash flow are not actually able to reach the service or get the actual forms that they need. That is difficult.We talk about retrospectivity of legislation and how it will affect people, but at least we are on the ground listening to people. The Treasurer's idea of listening to people is to go shopping for antiques on High Street, Armidale. We take a loftier view and actually speak to people. As I said, the feedback we are continually getting is that this is unnecessarily and unduly complex, that a lot of small business people do not understand the legislation and the actual requirements and that when they do try to go to the Taxation Office they are not actually getting an appropriate response. An article in the Australian talks about the error rate. I think we are anticipating—and the Australian Taxation Office will acknowledge this—given the complexity of this legislation and the fact that people are struggling to get the information, many of these businesses when they lodge their business activity statements actually making errors. In the Australian of 23 October an article quotes the senior partner of accounting firm Hayes Knight, who estimates that:... early rounds of BAS will have an error rate of up to 75 per cent.Mr Hayes says this reflects the complexity of the exercise, demonstrated by the Australian Taxation Office's 148-page instruction book on how to fill out the two-page form.83VEmerson, Craig, MP008K0Byrne, Anthony, MPMr BYRNE—It is sort of the same. The article continues:The country's largest professional accounting body, CPA Australia, is calling for an extension of the deadline with tax agents saying they can't get to the starting line with all of their clients' BAS forms. Many expert accountants, who actually instruct tax agents on how to fill in the BAS, are expressing surprise at the error rate of many professionals. So not only do you have a situation where they cannot actually get appropriate information from the Taxation Office, get their inquiries responded to or get the forms but the very experts who these people are supposed to go to are actually making errors. The trouble is that they will not be paying for the mistakes; it will be the small business people, many of whom are dotted throughout my electorate, who are experiencing difficulty in even submitting these things that are going to have to pay the penalty as a consequence of this error rate. The article goes to say:Mr Hayes basically sees the PAYG as a real bogy, especially for business owners who will be attempting to fill in their own BAS forms.The Treasurer—who claims to be listening to the Australian population—quite clearly is not in this instance. Instead of crying `roll-back, roll-back, roll-back', what he should be saying is `simplicity, simplicity, simplicity.'21:37:0022227Wilkie, Kim, MPMr WILKIE84GSwanALP00—Earlier this evening when speaking to the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 8) 2000 I referred specifically to accommodation that is used for hotels but is actually treated as residential accommodation for GST purposes. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration, in his summing up address earlier, suggested that these were apartments and should be treated as residential. The problem here lies with the definition of what is residential and what is commercial. Clearly, an apartment which is used purely as hotel type accommodation should be treated as commercial. I think the ATO even acknowledges this. I am suggesting that we need to address the actual definition in the act of what is commercial and what is residential in order to clarify and sort out this particular anomaly. What is needed is a legislative solution through amendment, as I have stated, to bring within the scope of commercial residential premises the type of strata titled units that are sold to investors on the basis that they will form part of a purpose-built hotel, motel, inn, hostel or boarding house. In this regard, one solution, as I have suggested, may be introduced by a simple amendment to the definition of commercial residential premises in the GST law. Currently, commercial residential premises are defined in A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Act 1999 as follows:commercial residential premises means:(a) a hotel, motel, inn, hostel or boarding house; or(b) premises used to provide accommodation in connection with a school; or(c) a ship that is mainly let out on hire in the ordinary course of a business of letting ships out on hire; or(d) a ship that is mainly used for entertainment or transport in the ordinary course of providing ships for entertainment or transport; or (e) a caravan park or a camping ground; or(f) anything similar to residential premises described in paragraphs (a) to (e).However, it does not include premises to the extent that they are used to provide accommodation to students in connection with an education institution that is not a school.It is envisaged that an additional subparagraph could be added to this definition to bring within the definition individual strata titled units that form part of any of the types of commercial residential premises set out in subparagraph (a). This could be achieved by adding an additional subparagraph (aa) following subparagraph (a) as follows:(aa) a stratum unit which forms part of a hotel, motel, inn, hostel or boarding house and which is let to guests on similar terms as the other stratum units which together comprise the hotel, motel, inn, hostel or boarding house; or ...It continues. It is considered that this simple amendment will apply the same GST treatment to all owners of premises that are used to provide accommodation to guests in a hotel, motel, inn, hostel or boarding house, irrespective of whether they own one, several or all of the individual apartments, units, suites or other type of accommodation that make up the hotel, motel, inn, hostel or boarding house. In addition, it will ensure that all the GST associated with the supply of accommodation to guests is borne by the end users, the guests, as should be the case, rather than some being borne by the suppliers of the accommodation—the individual owners of strata titled units.Bringing the owners of individual strata titled hotel units into the GST regime with certainty through this legislative amendment, rather than relying on the use of 50-year leases, which has also been suggested, could become an exceptionally good way of dealing with this anomaly. As I have said previously, we are dealing here with a problem in the definition of commercial and residential. Clearly, these particular developments are commercial developments. It is only an anomaly in the act that stops them from being treated that way. Again, I urge the government to consider dealing with this issue quickly. I urge it to sort out the problem and enable the $130 million worth of developments in regional Western Australia to progress unhindered.21:42:0022228Emerson, Craig, MPMr EMERSON83VRankinALP00—It is unfortunate that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration has misunderstood the amendment. For his benefit and for the benefit of other members of the House, I will read it again. It states:The amendment made by item 2 of this Schedule authorises the Commissioner to decide, as a date on which the cancellation of a registration under section 25-57 takes effect, any day occurring on or after 1 July 2000.The parliamentary secretary says, `We can't do that. We can only do it from the date of royal assent. We can't bring it back to any day on or after 1 July 2000 because we would have to undo all these complex transactions.' The purpose of this amendment is to give the Commissioner of Taxation the discretion. If the taxation commissioner considered that it would be too complex, the taxation commissioner has the discretion to say, `No, we will not allow the deregistration from that date—only from the date of royal assent or after that.' There would be many cases where no complex transactions have been entered into and, in fact, no transactions at all entered into. It is very easy to contemplate a situation where someone has accidentally registered for GST because they thought they were registering for the ABN and pressed the wrong buttons or did not realise that there was a threshold of $50,000; they thought they were obliged to register for the GST but it turned out that they were not. In those circumstances, they may not have been charging any GST. Even the government has cited examples where businesses are charging less than the full GST, or not charging GST at all.Here is a classic case where the government has the opportunity to pick up an opposition amendment, moved by the shadow Treasurer, which gives the taxation commissioner the discretion to go back to any date on or after 1 July 2000. If it is too complex to do so, obviously the tax commissioner will not do it. If no transactions have been entered into but some unfortunate business has accidentally registered for the GST, it is now going to have to keep the books for the GST for the period from 1 July 2000 through to the date of royal assent and will have to apply the GST. If the GST has not been levied, it has to at least pay the GST, incurring cash flow problems. All of these problems are readily resolvable by picking up our amendment which gives the discretion to the taxation commissioner. It does not make it mandatory that all cancellations occur from 1 July 2000. I see the parliamentary secretary is seeking advice. So he should. Let us have the democratic processes of this parliament work. Here is a sensible amendment that has been misunderstood by the parliamentary secretary and obviously, by reading out the notes that have been prepared for him, by his advisers. They have an amount of time now available to them to realise that they have been in error in misunderstanding what this amendment actually proposes. They do not understand that it involves a discretion on the part of the tax commissioner—that it is not mandatory.I see the parliamentary secretary has now picked up some notes. He is reading them. I will keep talking for another couple of minutes so that he will be able to continue reading his notes. I am sure that there is every chance that, having read those notes, having consulted with his advisers, he will realise the error of his ways and when he stands up to do a summing up, he will say, `Well, there you go! The shadow Treasurer has got it right. The Labor side has got it right. Here is a genuine attempt to improve': some roll-back, some administrative simplicity on the part of the government, that is, to make it even simpler by giving the Taxation Commissioner the discretion, not the mandatory requirement but the discretion. I see the parliamentary secretary is readying himself to make the announcement that: yes, they have made an error; it is fair enough. It will reflect very well on the parliamentary secretary to admit the error of his ways, to now understand what the amendment fully involves, that is, a discretion. It involves a further simplification of the GST—a simplification the business community is crying out for. Here is the opportunity for the parliamentary secretary to stand up and implement in this parliament a piece of good policy.21:46:0022229Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration10—There is a lot of bad publicity around politicians. Some are being accused of being paid by the word, and I suspect that accusation quite accurately could be applied to the honourable member for Rankin. I am pleased to reassure the honourable member that I did not misunderstand his initial contribution. In a situation where there had been no activity by the particular business, then the business activity statement would be very simple indeed. The government is absolutely determined to provide a continuing program of assistance to those required to complete business activity statements. In my summing up speech, I highlighted what some of this assistance is. The assistance is being provided by both the Taxation Office and the GST Start-Up Assistance Office. Over 4,000 workshops, field advisory visits and signpost offices are being made available to assist in completing a business activity statement. I mentioned these matters in my summing up, but it is clear that the honourable member for Rankin and others opposite were simply not listening. The message did not penetrate, did not get across to them. They must have been asleep, so for their benefit and for the benefit of other honourable members I thought I would just reiterate the fact that the government does have this very substantial series of assistance measures with respect to the business activity statement. Opposition members interjecting—0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER—I mentioned that we are currently in Business Activity Statement Help Week. That will run to 8 November in over 200 locations around Australia. During this week there is free practical advice and assistance to small businesses that have tried to fill in their first business activity statement but still have questions. There are 50,000 places by appointment.Those honourable members opposite ought not to misrepresent the government's determination to give all assistance necessary to businesses with respect to the completion of the business activity statement. The honourable member for Holt, who you, Mr Deputy Speaker, would notice has interjected out of his place, referred to the instruction booklet to complete the BAS. He said it was a large booklet. It is pretty obvious that the vast majority of businesses will only need a small proportion of the instruction booklet to complete the BAS. The member for Holt referred to the fact that some businesses will make mistakes on the BAS. I am pleased to assure the honourable member that businesses will not be subject to any late lodgment penalties where they have made a genuine attempt to comply. I have said that before. The government has said that before, over and over again, and yet honourable members from the Labor Party continue to come into the chamber and seek to misrepresent the actual situation. Businesses will be given the benefit of any doubt. The honourable member for Rankin said that the amendment moved by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is to allow the commissioner a discretion to deregister and is thus not complex. He suggests that the opposition amendment will simplify arrangements for those businesses which have made no supplies. As I said before, for those businesses the BAS obligations will be simple to comply with. Allowing retrospective amendments involves setting up expectations for businesses to deregister which cannot be met. Such a discretion would not be able to be exercised by the commissioner in many cases. Thus the government amendment, being prospective, allows businesses to prepare for a date from which GST and corresponding credit entitlements will not apply. So the opposition huffs and puffs and makes a lot of noise. The honourable member for Swan also again referred to strata title hotels and claimed that this was an anomaly. The Australian Taxation Office has issued a substantial ruling which explains in detail why a strata title unit cannot be a hotel as far as the individual owner is concerned. The issue concerns availability of input tax credits to the owners of such strata title units, as these units are akin to residential premises. The supply of them is input taxed, and to treat them differently would allow an unintended advantage to such investors over other landlords. Honourable members opposite have gone on and on, but the government is determined to make sure that the amendment moved by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is defeated in this place, as it rightly should be.21:51:0022230Wilkie, Kim, MPMr WILKIE84GSwanALP00—Once again, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration misses the point. The point is that the legislation needs to be changed. I do not think he understands that. He does not have a briefing note on it and he does not know what he is talking about. I mentioned earlier that this issue had been raised by Kareelya at the highest level of government, and the highest level of government usually sits in the chair opposite, I would have thought—the chair where the parliamentary secretary is now sitting. It is my understanding that the highest level of government has acknowledged—and I am assuming that it would be the person that normally sits in the chair currently occupied by the parliamentary secretary—that there is a problem, that it has acknowledged that there needed to be something done to deal with it, that it was wrong. I believe that Kareelya also raised it with the Assistant Commissioner of Taxation. The Assistant Commissioner of Taxation acknowledged that there was a problem with the act. It is an anomaly that needs to be changed. At all levels that they have spoken to, everybody has acknowledged that there is a problem that needs to be dealt with. When they have taken it up with one of the local members, the member for Kalgoorlie, he has assured them that he supports them and that he would do something for them. Unfortunately, no assistance has been forthcoming and nothing has been done. I also understand that the member representing the Bunbury and Busselton area acknowledged that there is a problem, but I am not sure to what degree he has taken that up either. We have a problem here with the legislation. The government is dealing with amendments to make it fairer. Clearly here is an issue that needs to be resolved. The government needs to act. It needs to stop pussyfooting around, get on with doing the job of looking after the businesses that represent these sorts of interests and help to build the infrastructure that Australia needs. Question put:That the amendment (Mr Crean's) be agreed to.21:57:00The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker—Mr H.V. Quick) 60Adams, D.G.H.Albanese, A.N.Bevis, A.R.Brereton, L.J.Burke, A.E.Byrne, A.M.Corcoran, A.K.Cox, D.A.Crean, S.F.Crosio, J.A.Danby, M.Edwards, G.J.Ellis, A.L.Emerson, C.A.Evans, M.J.Ferguson, L.D.T.Ferguson, M.J.Fitzgibbon, J.A.Gerick, J.F.Gibbons, S.W.Gillard, J.E.Griffin, A.P.Hall, J.G.Hatton, M.J.Hoare, K.J.Horne, R.Irwin, J.Jenkins, H.A.Kernot, C.Kerr, D.J.C.Lawrence, C.M.Lee, M.J.Livermore, K.F.Macklin, J.L.Martin, S.P.McClelland, R.B.McFarlane, J.S.McLeay, L.B.McMullan, R.F.Melham, D.Morris, A.A.Mossfield, F.W.Murphy, J. P.O'Byrne, M.A.O'Connor, G.M.Price, L.R.S.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.Wilkie, K.Zahra, C.J.75Abbott, A.J.Anderson, J.D.Andrews, K.J.Anthony, L.J.Bailey, F.E.Baird, B.G.Barresi, P.A.Bartlett, K.J.Billson, B.F.Bishop, B.K.Bishop, J.I.Brough, M.T.Cadman, A.G.Cameron, R.A.Causley, I.R.Charles, R.E.Costello, P.H.Downer, A.J.G.Draper, P.Elson, K.S.Entsch, W.G.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.Moylan, J. E.Nairn, G. R.Nehl, G. B.Nelson, B.J.Neville, P.C.Nugent, P.E.Prosser, G.D.Pyne, C.Reith, P.K.Ronaldson, M.J.C.Ruddock, P.M.Schultz, A.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.Tuckey, C.W.Vaile, M.A.J.Vale, D.S.Wakelin, B.H.Washer, M.J.Williams, D.R.Worth, P.M.Beazley, K.C.Howard, J.W.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the negative.22:02:0022231Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration10—by leave—I present the supplementary explanatory memorandum to the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 8) 1999 and move government amendments 1 to 7 as circulated together:(1) Schedule 5, item 4, page 37 (lines 27 to 30), omit all the words (including the paragraphs) from and including “tax debt that is:”, substitute: tax debt: (a) that is: (i) not a BAS amount (as defined in subsection 995-1(1) of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997); and (ii) due but not yet payable; or (b) in respect of which the taxpayer has complied with an arrangement under section 255-15 to pay the debt by instalments; or (c) in respect of which the Commissioner has agreed to defer recovery under section 255-5.(2) Schedule 6, item 12, page 43 (after line 21), after subparagraph (ii), insert: (iia) a member of, or a family member of a member of, any company referred to in subparagraph (i) or (ii) that is a company to which subsection (1A) applies; or (3) Schedule 6, item 12, page 43 (after line 23), after subsection (1), insert: (1A) This subsection applies to a company if: (a) the company has only one member; or (b) the company has more than one member, and: (i) at least 2 of the members are beneficiaries of the trust in question (either directly, or indirectly through one or more interposed trusts); or (ii) one of the members is such a beneficiary, and at least one other such beneficiary is a *family member of a different member of the company; or (iii) none of the members is such a beneficiary, and those family members (of the members of the company) who are such beneficiaries are not all family members of the same member of the company and no other member.(4) Schedule 6, item 20, page 45 (lines 16 to 20), omit the item, substitute:20 Subsection 78-15(4) (step 2 in the method statement)Omit “those payments”, substitute “those payments (except to the extent that they are payments of excess to which section 78-18 applies)”.(5) Schedule 6, item 21, page 45 (line 30), omit “acquisitions or importations”, substitute “*creditable acquisitions or *creditable importations”.(6) Schedule 6, item 21, page 46 (line 12), omit “acquisitions and importations”, substitute “*creditable acquisitions and *creditable importations”.(7) Schedule 6, item 21, page 46 (line 21), omit “acquisitions or importations”, substitute “*creditable acquisitions or *creditable importations”.Since this bill was introduced into parliament, further consideration by the Australian Taxation Office and consultation with industry has resulted in the need for minor technical changes to some provisions already existing in the bill. The first amendment is a concessional amendment relating to refunding business activity statement amounts. The law currently requires the Commissioner of Taxation to apply any credit or running balance account surplus against any liability of a taxpayer, including a tax debt that is due but not yet payable. While this offsetting of refunds against tax debts is necessary for the efficient collection of revenue, the government considered that offsetting should not always occur where amounts are not yet payable. Therefore an amendment was introduced in the bill to give the commissioner the discretion to be able to refund a net business activity statement credit rather than apply it to another tax debt that is due but not yet payable. The government is amending this provision in order to allow the commissioner to refund amounts in cases where a tax debt is in dispute and finalisation of the matter is dependent on the decision of a court or tribunal. This will allow the commissioner the discretion not to offset a refund against a tax debt that is covered by an agreement with a taxpayer to defer recovery of a tax debt or to pay the tax debt by instalments. The government is also amending the GST grouping provisions in the bill to allow a broader range of entities to group with a company. The existing amendment was introduced to ensure that, when company and non-company entities such as partnerships, trusts and individuals exist within one GST group, the companies must have some relationship to the non-company entities. However, the amendment is narrower in operation than the GST regulations that set out specific membership requirements for partnerships, trusts and individuals. Therefore, the government is amending the bill to better align the GST Act and GST regulations in this area. This will ensure that a company will also satisfy a relationship with a trust if the trust makes distributions to shareholders or family members of shareholders of companies that are members of the GST group. The amendments in the bill relating to insurance were introduced to ensure that an insurer did not obtain a tax benefit by rearranging normal commercial practices in the payment of excesses. This is because there was an opportunity for an insurer to rearrange the payment of excess so that the insurer was entitled to an input tax credit for the amount of the excess, even though it had not paid it. The amendments contained in the bill were intended to provide for an increasing adjustment in such circumstances. An increasing adjustment increases the net amount owing to the Australian Taxation Office and therefore would claw back the tax benefit the insurer obtained. However, industry has raised concerns with the Australian Taxation Office that the amendments in the bill could apply more broadly than intended. In order to address these concerns, the government is amending the bill to ensure that the increasing adjustment applies only where the insurer was entitled to an input tax credit for an acquisition or importation made directly for the purpose of settling the claim. A corresponding amendment is also required to ensure that the amount of excess taken into account in determining the insurer's decreasing adjustment on an insurance settlement is reduced only to the extent that the insurer has an increasing adjustment on the excess. Full details of the amendments in the bill are contained in the supplementary explanatory memorandum. I commend the amendments to the House. Amendments agreed to.Bill, as amended, agreed to.22233Bill (on motion by Mr Slipper)—by leave—read a third time.Bills22233R104922233Debate resumed from 12 April, on motion by Mr Williams:That the bill be now read a second time.22:07:0022233McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLANDJK6BartonALP00—This debate has been a long time coming. The Privacy Amendment (Private Sector) Bill 2000 is an important bill from the point of view both of citizens' rights and of the development of future economic activity and, importantly, economic activity through electronic means and, in this day and age, over the Internet. I suppose we are seeing two different philosophies here before the House: that advocated by the government, which is essentially one of trying to develop a culture of privacy in the private sector, and one which the opposition will be advocating. That is one where there is some enforcement, some actual grunt, in the legislation to enforce citizens' rights and indeed to give the business community generally confidence that privacy is actually an enforceable right and protected in transactions. Our criticism of the government's approach is that, while they have provided a car by setting out some national privacy principles with which we essentially agree and indeed which in many ways have been utilised in the public sector through the Privacy Act, they have not provided an engine, so these principles are not really being driven anywhere. They exist and, yes, people can point to them as being aspirations, but we are getting into virtually non-existent or at best extremely weak enforcement regimes. The Attorney-General himself says that this is light touch legislation. We say it is worse than that: it is feather touch. I will point to the Attorney's statement on 18 October this year when he referred to a survey of business practices that intruded into privacy. Speaking of this government's intention, he put it this way:It is clear that a cultural change is required to ensure that the protection of privacy is part of ... business practice. To help encourage this change, the Government has adopted a light touch, co-regulatory approach to privacy in the private sector.The Attorney refers to encouraging a cultural change through a light touch coregulatory approach. But again we say that much more grunt is needed in the legislation to give it some purpose, and our amendments will be intended, in goodwill, to achieve that. I might add that there have been two excellent inquiries in this area, by the House and by the Senate, and I understand a further Senate report will be handed down on Wednesday, which may well have some additional contribution to make to the debate.As all Australians would be aware, the growth of electronic commerce over the Internet has been astounding. Even if people are not buying products through the Internet, they are perhaps using it to do their banking or at least inquire as to what their banking records show. We have seen recently a tremendous boom in dot.com companies on the stock market both in Australia and overseas. There was a tremendous increase in the value of their stocks. Equally, however, we saw a rapid decline as confidence in those dot.com companies burst. One of the reasons why the value of those shares toppled so dramatically was that these dot.com companies were developing value on the basis of the number of hits on a particular ad or a particular web site. Those hits were being represented by the dotcom companies as anticipated marketing potential. But it has been revealed that the marketing potential from those hits has not eventuated: the hits have not coincided with people purchasing goods through the advertisements as displayed on the web sites or on the particular screens that come up. All of the evidence indicates that a significant, if not the most significant, reason why purchases have not followed from the hits is the concerns that people—not only Australians but those around the world—have about their privacy. An increasing number of members would know what happens when you enter into a transaction on the Internet. A dialogue box will come up and it will ask you your name and address, which is of course required if you are purchasing a product and it is being mailed to you. But more often than not there will be some sort of incentive plan attached to it, so it will ask you about other issues, such as areas of interest and perhaps even community groups that you may belong to or chat clubs or news groups that you may be interested in, which clearly goes beyond the purpose, the particular purchase or transaction. So we are seeing not only information directly being obtained for the purchase but also a whole range of ancillary information which will go into building a profile of the particular customer.Not only is that occurring with respect to specific transactions but through the use of the Internet—the mechanisms are substantially beyond my expertise—we have seen the use of cookies and even Internet bugs, as I understand it, which feed back information to companies which have placed these cookies regarding your particular browsing over the Internet. Someone has described the use of these bugs, depending on the nature of the cookie, as branding a bar code—such as the one you see when you buy goods from a shopping centre—on your forehead, if you like, so that every time you browse a particular web site it is like walking through the door of a shop and the bar code activates that this particular person has been in the shop and at least had a look around. Then the person will move on, look at another site and walk into another shop, and that will be identified. Perhaps a person's name, address and other details will not be included, but when the person makes a transaction that trail is then recorded and linked to that person. So, very quickly, this information can come together and develop a profile on the person.This is not future technology; this is happening now. Many people are apprehensive regarding their privacy rights on the Internet without knowing why they have these apprehensions—they just have them. What is needed is legislation not only to address rights but also to assure Australians that their rights are being protected. Not only is this information used for marketing purposes where companies figure from someone's profile the sort of things they have looked at—whether it is boats, surfing products, whatever it might be—and fire particular ads directed at that sort of area, but increasingly evidence is being shown that businesses are using the information to downgrade the ranking of a customer so that they are identified as someone who is not particularly desirable and, indeed, it would probably be better for the overall profitability of the business if they were to go elsewhere—actually putting them on a lower key priority in terms of a response time or what products or services are offered to them. The use of this information not only can be constructive but also can be very destructive. These are not potential concerns but very real concerns in the community. Indeed, here are some figures to substantiate it from Roy Morgan Research:The majority of Australians (56%) are worried about invasion of privacy issues created by new information technologies ... More than one-in-six Australians (18%) said they `strongly agree' notwithstanding the statement, `I'm worried about the invasion of privacy through new technology', with a further 38% saying they `agree' with the statement. That is certainly a significant figure. Recently, the Attorney-General released figures regarding concerns voiced by Australians and raised with the Privacy Commissioner. The Attorney-General noted:The Commissioner's web site averaged 4000 hits a month last financial year—up from previous year's average of 25000 per month.During 1999/2000, the Hotline received 9454 calls, 474 more than the previous year.Interestingly, the Attorney notes that most of those complaints related to the private sector, not to government. This is an increasing trend now. Previously, it was governments that had the capacity to be so intrusive into the lives of ordinary Australians with the information they recovered but, with outsourcing and with these new technologies, that power is very much shifting to the private sector. The private sector, as the Attorney has indicated, just has not had that culture of privacy protection. That is shown very much by a recent survey by Arthur Andersen. There are five points that are certainly worth noting to realise the significance of the invasion of privacy and how Australians' concerns are justified. The summary of the survey showed:Although 72% of the sites surveyed—that is, involved in electronic commerce—collected personal information, only 51% had a published privacy policy and only 28% of those sites notify their users about the specific personal information that is collected.The second point is:71% of the web sites with a stated privacy policy say that personal identifying information may be disclosed to third parties but one in three of those sites do not offer users a choice with respect to that disclosure.That is a significant finding. The third point is:43% of the sites that collected personal information did so without the user actively providing that information.This is through cookies and bugs and the like. The fourth point is:15% of web sites without a statement about third party disclosures attempted to place third parties cookies (sent from ad servers).This is placing, if you like, the spies or fifth columnists on your particular computer system. The final point is:Only 14% of the sites surveyed say that they give users the opportunity to have at least some personal information about them deleted from web site records.These figures indicate what is happening in industry today, and they are significant figures because it is very likely that those businesses, if they are of substance in their marketing, will be a party to a voluntary privacy code. These figures are being revealed in an atmosphere where there is, in many areas, self-regulation. We have to ask, `Is self-regulation good enough?' I think those figures give sufficient concern to say, `Self-regulation is not good enough and something more needs to be done about it.To see the government's reluctance to move a step further, you have only to look at the history of this legislation in the parliament. While it is customary for a member of the opposition to stand here and criticise backflips of the government, I do so on this occasion to demonstrate the reason behind the weakness in the government's approach. The Liberal Party had as its policy before the 1996 election the development of privacy legislation. But, in March 1997, the government announced a withdrawal from that position and said that it favoured self-regulation rather than legislation in the area. There is no doubt that that was primarily as a result of pressure from the Prime Minister. The government was quite happy to go along with that except for the fact that the states—conservative and Labor states—said, `This is going to cause us real problems because, if we don't have privacy legislation, there is a significant risk of trade with other countries being impeded.' In particular, the European Union said, `Unless you have an acceptable privacy framework, we aren't going to trade with you, because the information which we convey in the course of that trade could be released through your system. In other words, before we embark on trade in the electronic environment with you, we need to be satisfied that your privacy standards are acceptable.' The various state governments—indeed, Victoria was quite advanced in the development of its regime—put forward their own legislation. Industry then said, `Hold on, we're in one nation but we're looking at the prospect of having six or seven different privacy systems.' That would have been totally unacceptable to a national economy, the activity in which goes beyond state boundaries and indeed beyond national boundaries. It was only then that the government came in and said, `Yes, there is a need for national privacy regulation.' But all the way we can see in their reasoning a throwback to the March 1997 withdrawal from the need for legislation. Hence, what we are looking at today is very weak—not light touch legislation but feather touch legislation, as advocated by the government. We in the opposition say that the fundamental reasoning with which the government has come into this area has been too timid and, for that reason, is flawed.However, on the other side, we acknowledge that some regulation is better than no regulation, so our approach is not to throw the baby out with the bathwater but to make some constructive suggestions. One of our primary concerns about the legislation is that important privacy principles relating to access and correction, and the use and disclosure of information, do not apply to existing databases. So, in many ways, the horse has already bolted, and the horse has bolted with the private information of Australian citizens riding on it. We saw recently the giant Axiom database—Axiom being a business subsidiary of a larger American company—with the information of some 15 million Australians apparently on it, information which had been obtained from merging information from all types of sources—from the ninemsn web site, from Ticketek and from other sources. They already exist in Australia. If this legislation goes through unamended, Australians have absolutely no prospect of accessing and correcting that information. That is the second point—there is not only the misuse of the information but the consumer's access to it.The second area we have concerns about is that the Privacy Commissioner has effectively been left out in the cold in terms of regulating these industry codes. That is unacceptable because it is going to result in a whole range of diverse interpretations being made throughout Australia according to the particular privacy adjudicator under separate and discrete privacy codes. They will exist as silos all around the country, and the Privacy Commissioner will not have the right to step into the shoes of those adjudicators and set a common framework. The Privacy Commissioner's powers in respect of those private sector codes will be minimal indeed. The Privacy Commissioner at best will have the power to review their annual reports and, if he considers anything awry, to determine whether not they will be reregistered. But he will not have, for instance, the power to inspect documents, the power to interview witnesses or the power to conduct a privacy audit of these private sector codes, and we say that that is inadequate.We say that the Privacy Commissioner's powers are inadequate not only in terms of investigation but also in terms of his inability to impose a penalty. This is significant. While the Privacy Commissioner does have the power to recommend compensation in respect of a privacy breach, he does not have the power to order a penalty. By way of an example, if it were disclosed that I subscribe to Tracks Surfing Magazine, that may or may not affect my reputation in the eyes of some citizens. If I complained about it, the Privacy Commissioner might say, `It shouldn't have been disclosed; I'm prepared to order some compensation. I'll give you a token monetary amount.' But the disclosure of my subscription may have been part of an overall scheme, an overall assault, to tap into a particular publisher's web site, and the intrusion into the privacy of citizens generally may have been so extensive that a penalty is warranted. However, the legislation does not provide that sort of opportunity.Generally, I think Australians see that, if there is going to be any teeth in the law covering consumer protection, you need to have an active regulator. Look at the powers of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission in the area of consumer protection. That is very much an example of you needing teeth before a culture of consumer protection can develop. The point I am making is that, to be fair dinkum about protecting Australians' rights, you need effective regulation. Debate interrupted. Adjournment2223710000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 10.30 p.m., I propose the question:That the House do now adjourn.2223722:30:0022237Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr LAURIE FERGUSON8T4ReidALP00—The question of Reserve recruitment in this country has certainly been in the forefront of concerns of people in support committees around the country. Recently, the crisis in recruitment levels forced the government to actually look at employer subsidies. But that, of course, will not solve the fundamental problem. Tonight I want to talk about the Department of Defence annual report for 1999-2000. It was tabled last week, and it revealed that Defence had spent a massive $34.8 million of taxpayers' money last financial year on advertising and market research. Of that figure, $32.8 million was spent by the Defence Personnel Executive mainly on recruitment campaigns and $9.7 million was allocated solely towards the recruitment of officers for ADFA. One has to question whether this sort of expenditure is really being well spent under the Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence. You would expect a pretty impressive recruitment outcome with the devotion of this kind of money from taxpayers. Instead, we read elsewhere in the report that Defence met only 74 per cent of its recruitment targets for the permanent forces and an embarrassing 31 per cent for the reserves—and that is not going to be fixed up by employer subsidies, quite frankly. By service, the Army and RAAF met 83 per cent of their recruitment targets for full-time personnel, while the Navy managed a mere 57 per cent of its positions. As the annual report notes on page 79:Failure to meet recruiting targets, combined with separations, is creating increasing workforce gaps within the Services. Navy is most affected with vacancies of almost 2,000 against requirements, resulting in higher workloads to be shared among its people.This is at a time when this government rabbits on every second day of the week about the way in which we are going to become more and more dependent on the reserves. They say that personnel costs mean that we essentially cannot afford full-time personnel to undertake these roles and we are going to depend more on reserves. While that is happening we have this atrocious performance managed by the minister, who just does not understand that there is more to this task than a bit of backslapping at RSL conferences and wearing a few uniforms around the place. He has to actually get down and do something about the recruitment levels.The report reveals that the government's procrastination over the measures to rebuild the Army Reserve exacerbated the so-called hollowness that clearly afflicts most Reserve units. In the 12 months from June 1999, the number of active Army reservists actually shrank by a massive 18 per cent from just under 22,000 to a little under 18,000—and the government continues to insist that the Army Reserve will be required to shoulder a great share of our national defence effort. In a massive understatement the Defence annual report—the government's own document—comments that:Of concern was poor Army General Reserve enlistments, which achieved only 33% of the target. To appreciate the seriousness of the recruitment position of the Army Reserve, I would like to refer to data I have obtained for the eight years commencing in July 1992. These figures come from my analysis of previous Defence annual reports. In the six years to June 1998, the Army Reserve recruited an average of 4,800 new personnel a year. During that period the year-by-year variation was fairly small—ranging from about 4,300 to just fewer than 5,800. In contrast, under the current administration of this country, over the last two years we have seen the worst recruiting outcomes in living memory. In 1998-99, the number of recruits plummeted to 2,281 and in 1999-2000 it fell even further to 1,566. This worrying outcome would be bad enough if it was the first indication of any sort of problem with the reserves. Typical of what is going on with the $32 million they are spending around the place, the 11th/28th Battalion recently conducted an exercise in Western Australia. They had 100 people turn up and express interest. The exercise was called `Try before you buy' and people could see what the reserves was like. They obtained the interest of 100 people, but these people were not told beforehand that only five people were able to go on the course. So they actually spent this taxpayer money on having this day and seeing people's interest—actually, for once, managing to get a few people there; it is very rare these days—and then none of those people were told until afterwards that there were only five possible training positions interstate. As I say, the annual report—the government's own wording—indicates an alarming decline in recruitment in this country at a time when Timor has indicated, more than ever, the need to depend upon reserves. We just cannot financially afford to do it any other way, and the continued downturn in reserve recruitment is quite alarming.2223822:35:0022238Lloyd, Jim, MPMr LLOYDIK6RobertsonLP10—Earlier today during 90-second statements I mentioned the Spencer Public School and their centenary celebrations. Obviously I did not have long enough to really do justice to the celebrations that I attended last Saturday, 4 November, and I thought I would take the opportunity this evening to elaborate a little on the Spencer school and the history of that area of the Hawkesbury River.The Hawkesbury River, of course, was a very important part of the early days of Sydney and, in fact, was the lifeblood of the small colony of Sydney. Education of children was quite difficult in those days because of the transport problems. Spencer school was established in 1900. I have a document in front of me that was put together by the Headmaster of Spencer school, Mr Paul Miller. It is a very detailed document of the history of Spencer school from 1900 through to 2000. The school has always been a fairly small school. At one stage they had about 42 students, which was the largest number of pupils at that school. At the moment they have only 10 students there. People might say that it is uneconomic to have a school of that size. If that school was not there, those students would have to travel approximately three hours per day to get to the next closest public school—and we are talking about primary school, so we are talking about children from five years through to 12 years—and it would not be practical. In my electorate there are five communities that have water access only; they do not have road access to their communities. Many of the children who live in that area commute by boat to the Spencer school or to Mooney Mooney school in my own town of Mooney Mooney. It is a fairly unique electorate, along with that of my parliamentary colleague, the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, Philip Ruddock. Ours are probably the only electorates in New South Wales that have so many communities which are accessible only by boat. The education of these children is very important, and schools such as Spencer, Mooney Mooney and Brooklyn play a very important part in the education of these children.These schools are fine examples of government school education in New South Wales. There has obviously been a debate about education funding and the commitment that the government has to government and non-government schools in New South Wales, and I am very proud to say that the education level of all the schools in my electorate of Robertson is excellent. It is the dedication of the teachers in both the government and non-government schools that enables the standard of education to be as high as it is in New South Wales, and in particular in my electorate of Robertson. I would like to congratulate the principal of Spencer Public School, Mr Paul Miller, for the work that he does with the school and for the work that he does in linking the school to the community. I would also like to congratulate the P&C president, Mrs Donna Thompson, for the work she did in organising the celebrations on Saturday, and all the P&C and the community of Spencer who rallied behind the celebrations on Saturday, including the local volunteer bushfire brigade and many other volunteers. Whilst the community is small and the school is a very small school, they all rallied. I would estimate that there was a crowd of more than 200 people at the celebrations. The school district inspector, Mr Bill Lowe, also attended the celebrations, along with the state member for Peats, Ms Marie Andrews. It was a very significant day, and it was interesting to watch the number of people who commuted up the river from communities such as Bar Point, Greenman's Valley, Milsons Passage and Milson Island, who brought their children up by tinnies, as we call them—small aluminium boats—to make sure that they were part of the celebration days for the Spencer Public School. Spencer Public School has a long and proud history, and I am sure that it has a very secure future and that it will continue to educate our river kids in the best possible way. We will certainly ensure that they have a very bright and wonderful future, with a great education system in schools such as Spencer. 2223922:40:0022239Gerick, Jane, MPMs GERICK83WCanningALP00—Friday of this week is the last working day small businesses will have to submit their first business activity statement. We have all seen the advertisements on TV—`The new tax system: give it a go'—but there is no real choice for small business people. They have to face up to the paperwork or face the consequences, which are severe. The Taxation Office said they will go easy on first-time errors, but that does not lessen the pressure or the amount of work required of small business people. They still have to go through all the processes to prepare their first business activity statement. Over the last few months, I conducted a survey of all businesses in my electorate, asking for feedback on the initial effects of the GST. The first question in the survey was: `What has been the impact of the GST on your business?' Of those who replied, 61 per cent said that the GST had had a negative impact on their businesses. The next question was: `Did the implementation of the GST in your business increase your costs?' 75 per cent said yes. The third question was: `In terms of one-off costs, how much would you estimate it has cost your business to implement the GST?' 43 per cent said it had cost them between $1,000 and $5,000—a one-off cost which is significant for small businesses. The next question was: `In terms of ongoing costs, how much would you estimate it will cost your business to comply with the GST?' 66 per cent thought it would cost between $1,000 and $10,000, and this was an increase on their earlier costs. The last question was: `Has your business declined due to the GST?' 43 per cent answered yes. There were not many surprises in the results. The vast majority of the small business people who replied felt that their businesses had suffered as a result of the introduction of the GST. 43 per cent said that their business had declined as a result of the GST.One woman who runs an agistment business in Waroona has been trapped by the government's decision not to allow businesses to withdraw from the system before 1 July of next year. She believes that if they cannot withdraw they are going to have to close their business and put people out of work. The other result that she found from the introduction of the GST was that, while she offered agistment for a number of overseas owners of horses, those owners had decided to take their horses out of Australia much earlier than they normally would have because of the increase in costs she had had to add. So the whole racing industry was suffering as a result.The government seems to struggle to understand that the majority of small businesses employ small numbers of people, and it means that the vast amount of paperwork required needs to be added onto the owner's workload. The only alternative to the owner struggling to complete the paperwork is to pass it on to the accountant, thus dramatically increasing the cost of having an accountant—from a consultation once a year to needing the accountant's services four times a year. In a number of small communities in my electorate, a number of businesses made the decision to close on 30 June rather than facing the impact of the GST. RW5Nelson, Dr Brendan, MPDr Nelson—How many?83WGerick, Jane, MPMs GERICK—Quite a few. A few months after, another five businesses in Waroona, which is a very small community, had closed. Five may not sound like a lot, but if you live in a community of 1,000 households it is a large number of businesses. They may have offered only part-time employment, but it was incredibly important to those who lived there. You can be dismissive of small numbers, but try living in the town and try living with the consequences. Small businesses already suffer as a consequence of the government's policies. This is an increased burden and it is an unfair burden. Many small businesses are trapped in the system. They have no choice. It is no comfort to be told to give it a gobut of course most of them probably have not seen the advertisement because they are too busy doing the paperwork. Many have spent their lives struggling to build up their businesses, believing it was their superannuation. Instead, they can see their businesses failing in front of their eyes. It does not matter whether it is my survey of small business in the Canning electorate or the Morgan and Banks survey or a survey from speaking to small business owners, we all know that the GST is hurting small businesses. It is unfair of the government to say, `Give it a go,' when the odds are stacked against a number of businesses surviving. The government owes it to the business community to give them a fighting chance.2K6Brough, Mal, MP83WGerick, Jane, MPMs GERICK—You can sneer, but try living it. You will pay the price at the next election.2224022:45:0022240Nelson, Dr Brendan, MPDr NELSONRW5BradfieldLP10—I rise this evening to firstly draw the House's attention to a problem which is not unique to my area but is one which nonetheless is a source of serious concern and also to pay tribute to Councillor Tony Hall, who until recently was the Mayor of Ku-Ring-Gai Municipal Council. Councillor Hall led an initiative which recently brought together principals from secondary schools in the electorate of Bradfield, State Rail authorities, local police and those who have an interest in trying to control not only drug peddling but also other forms of antisocial behaviour by some elements in and around our train stations.Drugs have always been with us. Human beings, and young people in particular, seem imbued with a desire to find altered consciousness. But, at the moment, we live in a society where there is an unprecedented level of drug use and indeed various forms of self-destructive behaviour by young people. Up and down the North Shore line, on the North Shore of Sydney, our train stations are increasingly becoming places at which young people congregate and where drugs are peddled by not only some people from the south-west of Sydney but also some locals. There are a number of reasons why this is occurring. Most importantly, given that many young people begin their drug-taking careers in this sort of environment, we as a caring society have obligations to do something about it.There are a number of issues that contribute to this situation. The first is that the reduced presence of authority figures on railway stations and platforms has led young people to become increasingly brazen in their misbehaviours on the train platforms. One unintended consequence of removing train station masters and replacing them with either ticketing machines or ticketing officers is that young people are congregrating without any kind of adult supervision on train station platforms. There is at the moment little if any policing of railway passes. Many young people, particularly in my electorate, are not travelling directly from school to home or vice versa, and they are being encouraged to by parents who, whilst providing for the material possessions they feel their children need, unfortunately have left them in a position of emotional abandonment.We are also in a ludicrous situation where, if a schoolchild is not travelling according to the requirements of the rail pass, the State Rail Authority and the Transit Police are not able to inform the school or the parents. So that means that these kids leave school at 3.15 p.m. and arrive home at 6 p.m—before their parents, I might add. The parents have little if any idea of where their children have been or what they have been doing. In some instances where police have asked these kids to move on, the police have subsequently been phoned by parents who have abused the police for actually moving their kids on, the parents being of the view that it is quite acceptable, if not desirable, for their kids to hang around for a couple of hours after school in places like the Chatswood or Pymble interchanges. The second point is that Mr Carr, the New South Wales Premier, would be well advised to spend a little less time behaving like Nero and to put on a pair of jeans, a T-shirt and a baseball hat, to get on a train at about 9 o'clock at night and travel around Sydney for a couple of hours to get a taste of what the real world is like. You need to visit a train station in Sydney any time after 9 o'clock or 10 o'clock at night in just about any part of Sydney to get a small glimpse of the problems we face in our railway stations, where a significant number of young people congregate, where alcohol is being consumed excessively and where drugs are certainly being traded.The other thing that is most important is that the program of camera surveillance installation in New South Wales train stations needs to be urgently expedited. Also, local governments as well as state governments ought to consider employing security guards to supervise train platforms and bus interchanges at key hours of the day. If that means higher taxes and rates, I believe most of the people I represent would be prepared to pay them. Finally, but not least, parents need to understand that they have obligations and responsibilities to their children which extend beyond providing them with material resources. (Time expired)2224122:50:0022241Quick, Harry, MPMr QUICKAV5FranklinALP00—All of us in this place have schools visit Canberra from our electorate. They come here for a variety of reasons, but all schools make a real effort to visit Parliament House while they are in the nation's capital. I was delighted today to host two schools from my electorate: 60 students from St Michael's Collegiate and 17 students from the small school of Glen Huon Primary on their visit to Canberra. The subsidy which allows schools from the more remote regions to lessen the costs to students and their families of visiting Canberra is greatly appreciated by parents and schools. I know that there are moves to increase the amount in 2001 during our centenary year so that even more schoolchildren will experience just what takes place in this building.All students who visit Parliament House visit the PEO, the Parliamentary Education Office, and participate in a range of role-play sessions that are designed to give students the opportunity to gain some insight into the workings of the parliamentary system. All of us in this place have sat in on those sessions and watched with real interest as these young people attempt to understand why we do what we do. We watch the teachers from the PEO take classes through the daily opening of the House and through the basics of the introduction of a bill and the second reading proceedings.As a former teacher, I have always been impressed with the dedication and professionalism of the staff of the PEO. They encourage the children, either primary or secondary students, to have a go and to get a feel for what their elected members and senators do in their respective chambers. I have been privileged to serve on the advisory committee to the PEO for the last six years. One of the things that really impressed me about the PEO, apart from the fantastic work they do here in Canberra, is the outreach service they provide to teachers in distant parts of Australia. I really valued their visits to Tasmania and have been privileged to welcome teachers to the sessions held in the Tasmanian parliament in Hobart. I know for a fact that teachers in my state really value the sessions that the PEO runs with them and are very appreciative of their guidance and support. Today is a sad day for the PEO and the House. Today is the last day for two of the shining stars in the PEO stable of superb teachers. Judy Gauld and Jennet Cole-Adams are leaving after long and meritorious service to take up staff positions at the Museum of Australia. Judy and Jennet are the very best of teachers. They have a love of learning and their obvious enthusiasm for their job is evidenced by the willingness of all students to participate in the various role-playing exercises they present for young students. I guess it is time for them to move on to pastures new and to assist in setting up the latest addition to Canberra's highlights, the Museum of Australia. I can assure you, Mr Speaker, the museum's gain is certainly our loss. I trust that both Judy and Jennet will have a wonderful new life just down the road from us, and I know that we will all miss them from in our midst. Their wonderful contribution to Parliament House will long be remembered not only by their work colleagues and the members in this place but also, more importantly, by the thousands of children who have passed through their hands in the countless PEO sessions they have conducted over the last eight years. It was a great privilege to have met you both and to have developed a real friendship in the time that I have been in this place. I can assure you that everyone in this House who has come into contact with them wishes them all the best for the future.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I thank the member for Franklin for his sentiments and say that I am sure all members of the House would want to be identified with what he has just said with reference to Parliament House staff.Honourable members—Hear, hear!2224222:55:0022242Draper, Trish, MPMrs DRAPER0L6MakinLP10—I would like to take the opportunity this evening to speak on the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1999, as I did not have the opportunity during the last parliamentary sittings to do so. I would like to commend the Attorney-General, the Hon. Daryl Williams, the Deputy Prime Minister, the Hon. John Anderson, and, of course, the Prime Minister, the Hon. John Howard, for their work in this area. I would also like to commend the member for Dawson, De-Anne Kelly, for her role, which, if time allows, I will outline later. These amendments have removed those provisions in theClassification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1999 that relate to the proposal to abolish the X classification and create a new classification entitled non-violent erotica, or NVE. This follows the government's decision to retain the X classification for sexually explicit videos but with, I am delighted to say, a more restricted content. These restrictions include excluding from such films any form of violence whatsoever, certain fetishes, sexually aggressive language and the portrayal of people over the age of 18 as minors.These additional restrictions are now reflected in amendments to the National Classification Code and the Classification Guidelines agreed to by the Commonwealth and state and territory censorship ministers, which took effect on 18 September 2000. The amendments will also make an unrelated consequential amendment to section 53 of the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995 to authorise the Director of the Classification Board to exercise expanded powers under state and Northern Territory laws to call in certain publications, films and computer games for classification, reclassification or review of a classification decision, as the case requires. The amendment of state and territory legislation will be required to complement the expanded call-in powers to similar effect to be conferred on the director under the bill in relation to material published or likely to be published in the Australian Capital Territory.I have said publicly on many occasions that if adults want to watch certain movies, that is their prerogative. However, I have also said: let's call a spade a spade—hard-core pornography is hard-core pornography. I commend the Attorney-General, the Hon. Daryl Williams, for introducing the amendment bill in an effort to inject responsible leadership and direction into this debate and to provide peace of mind for Australian families. I add that the intimidatory tactics used by the Eros Foundation in its campaign for the creation of a new classification entitled non-violent erotica should be deplored on both sides of the political fence. I have been the target of a campaign by the Eros Foundation in which I have been slammed in the media just for taking a stand in the interests of families and minors in our community. The Eros Foundation has publicly stated that it will campaign for opposition candidates at the next election, distributing thousands of how-to-vote cards advising their customers and the community to vote against me. As a coalition member of parliament, I think it is rather sad that, according to the Eros Foundation, I will be targeted at the next federal election for standing for these family values. If I suffer the consequences of fighting to stop a bill that would allow my children and those within my electorate ready access to hard-core films, so be it. In this scenario, a vote for my opponent is an endorsement for increased availability for explicit hard-core pornography. I have long fought against inappropriate films becoming more readily available and accessible to minors. That is why I so vehemently opposed the film Lolita, with its depiction of a middle-aged man's exploitation and abuse of a 12-year-old child in the name of entertainment. But the fact that the Eros Foundation had the gall to actively target me for my beliefs is, I think, a sad indictment of that organisation. Once again, I take this opportunity to commend the bill to the House and congratulate Daryl Williams on his work in this area.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 11 p.m., the debate is interrupted.23:00:0022243House adjourned at 11.00 p.m.Notices22243The following notices were given:4K4Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson—to move—That, in accordance with section 5 of the Parliament Act 1974, the House approves the following proposal for works in the Parliamentary Zone which was presented to the House on 31 October 2000, namely: Garbage hopper enclosure at West Block.HK5Andrews, Kevin, MPMr Andrews—to move—That this House:(1) notes that stroke is the second highest cause of death in Australia;(2) notes that there has been a slowing down of the decline in stroke death rates in recent years;(3) notes that the number of people dying from stroke and those surviving with a permanent disability is likely to increase in the future;(4) notes that the risk factors for stroke include high blood pressure, tobacco smoking, heavy alcohol consumption, high blood cholesterol, being overweight, and insufficient physical activity;(5) notes that the length of stay in hospital for stroke is twice as long as that for other cardiovascular conditions;(6) notes that while more women are affected by stroke, the proportion of men who suffer a stroke is 30 per cent higher than for women, and that for people aged 25-64, those from the lowest socio-economic group are twice as likely to die from stroke as those in the highest socioeconomic group with indigenous death rates from stroke in the same age group being eight times the rate in the rest of the population; and(7) urges the Government to continue to support public awareness about the high risk factors associated with stroke.3J4Sawford, Rod, MPMr Sawford—to move—That this House acknowledges the grave dangers inherent in the dramatic rise of precarious casual employment in Australia.Answers to Questions in Writing22244The following answers to questions were circulated:22244(Question No. 955)95522244Crean, Simon, MPMr CreanDT4HothamALP00 asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 30 September 1999: (1) Did the Coalition promise not to introduce new taxes or increase existing taxes during the 1996 election. (2) What tax rates did the Government increase and what new taxes did it introduce between the 1996 and 1998 Federal elections.22244Costello, Peter, MPMr CostelloCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The Coalition policy for the 1996 election was not to introduce new taxes or increase existing taxes as a contrast to the Keating Labor Government which promised prior to the 1993 election not to increase taxes, and then after that election:- - Increased wholesale sales tax rates from 10%, 20% and 30% to 12%, 22% and 32%; - Increased unleaded petrol excise by 5 cents per litre; - Increased leaded petrol excise by 7 cents per litre (after proposing to increase it by 10 cents per litre); - Increased the company tax rate from 33 to 36 per cent; and - Took away the L-A-W income tax cuts that had been legislated prior to the 1993 election. (2) None22244(Question No. 1532)153222244O'Byrne, Michelle, MPMs O'Byrne84SBassALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, 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.22244McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGauranXH4GippslandNPMinister for the Arts and the Centenary of Federation10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes, the Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts does administer Commonwealth funded programs through which community organisations, businesses or individuals can apply for funding in Tasmania. The programs are:· Playing Australia, the national performing arts touring program;· Contemporary Music Touring Program, which funds bands to undertake national tours;· Visions of Australia, the national exhibitions touring program;· Festivals Australia, which funds cultural activities at regional and community festivals; During the last three years, organisations based in Tasmania have been successful in obtaining funding from the Playing, Visions and Festivals programs. · Television Fund, through which eligible community organisations can apply for funding under two components of the Television Fund:- (i) Under the Television Black Spots Program community groups or local government authorities can apply for funding to retransmit ABC, SBS and commercial television services in black spot areas of poor or non-existent television reception. (ii) The Remote Commercial Subsidy Program is open to existing self-help retransmission groups in remote broadcast areas seeking to rebroadcast a second remote commercial television service. · Community Broadcasting, In 2000-01, the Commonwealth will provide $5.407m to assist community broadcasting. These funds are allocated to the Community Broadcasting Foundation Ltd (CBF) in accordance with the terms of an annual grant agreement administered by the Department. The CBF is an independent company established by the community broadcasting sector to allocate funding assistance to individual stations and peak bodies. There are now over 190 community stations throughout Australia that are eligible to apply to the CBF for grants. Specific proportions of the annual grant are directed to community broadcasting in general and to sub-sectors with special needs: ethnic broadcasting, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander broadcasting and broadcasting for the print handicapped.· Networking the Nation Networking the Nation is a Commonwealth grants program providing over $400 million in funding to not-for-profit organisations to support activities and projects designed to address a range of telecommunications needs in regional, rural and remote Australia. The different parts of the program consist of the: - General Fund. Established in 1997 following the sale of the first third of Telstra. This is the original and main part of the program. Under this part of the program $250 million was allocated to the States and Territories over a five-year period commencing in 1997. Tasmania received $58 million. - mote and Isolated Island Communities. This part of the Fund is providing $20 million to address the particular telecommunications needs of remote and isolated island communities. - proved Internet Access. This part of the program is providing $36 million to ensure that all Australians have untimed local call Internet access, or at least the equivalent where traditional dial-up access is not feasible. - Building Additional Rural Networks (BARN).This part of the program is providing $70 million to support the development of new networks and new network services and products, using innovation and leading edge technologies. $10 million is being provided to each State, with a further $10 million to be divided between the Territories.ADVERTISING (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.Each of the following programs were advertised, in various media, including Tasmania's print media. All advertising in the commercial media was paid advertising.· Playing Australia;· advertised in Hobart Mercury· Contemporary Music Touring Program;· advertised in Hobart Mercury, Launceston Examiner· Visions of Australia;· advertised in Hobart Mercury· Festivals Australia;· advertised in Hobart Mercury, Launceston Examiner and Burnie Advocate· Television Fund - Television Black Spots Program;· advertised in Hobart Mercury, Launceston Examiner and Burnie Advocate· Television Fund - Remote Commercial Subsidy Program; advertised in Tasmanian Country The following programs did not advertise in the commercial print media:· Community Broadcasting Fund - The CBF did not advertise. It has a very narrow and specific client base. The CBF does provide detailed information to community stations about the availability, timing and categories of grants. Regular contact is maintained with all community stations by mail, phone and on-line. · Networking the Nation -The Department distributes 20,000 copies of the Networking the Nation newsletter nationally every three months. The newsletter is mailed directly to a range of community and local government organisations, including local government councils, regional community groups, area consultative committees, regional and country women's associations, State Advisory Groups, libraries, financial counsellors, Members of Parliament, all Countrylink outlets and other parties on request.22246(Question No. 1668)166822246Andren, Peter, MPMr AndrenKL6CalareIND00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 22 June 2000: Prior to the 1998 election did he give a commitment to a group representing apple growers from the Orange district and the then National Party candidate for Calare, that if re-elected the Coalition would hold an inquiry into the fresh produce (including apple) industry; if so, is he able to say when the inquiry will take place.22246Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: I have been advised that a review to examine the options for the apple juice industry for expansion and value adding, in response to increasing apple juice imports, will be undertaken under the auspices of the national component of the FarmBis program.22246(Question No. 1694)169422246Murphy, John, MPMr Murphy83DLoweALP00 asked the Minister representing the Assistant Treasurer, upon notice, on 27 June 2000: (1) Did the Commonwealth obtain permission to use music and other intellectual property of Mr Joe Cocker and Mushroom Records before the Government put to air advertisements concerning the Goods and Services Tax. (2) If not, (a) has the Commonwealth paid Mr Cocker, (b) may Mushroom Records, as owners of the intellectual property, set the price in conformance with accepted copyright industry practice, in substitution for a legal suit against the Commonwealth on grounds of breach of copyright and (c) has Mr Cocker and Mushroom Records sued or threatened to sue the Commonwealth for unpaid royalties. (3) If the Commonwealth did obtain permission, has the Commonwealth paid a sum for the use and broadcast of intellectual property in the hands of Mr Joe Cocker and Mushroom Records; if so, (a) what was the sum and (b) for what goods or services was the money spent.22246Costello, Peter, MPMr CostelloCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—The Assistant Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) The Commonwealth secured publishing rights to the music Unchain My Heart and broadcasting rights to the Joe Cocker recording of that song, prior to the airing of GST advertisements. (2) Not applicable (3) As previously advised to Senate Estimates, the advertising agency, Whybin TBWA, paid the following fees on behalf of the Commonwealth in regard to the use of music and broadcasting rights: CompanyIntellectual Property controlledRights grantedAmountCampbell ConnellyThe musical composition Unchain My Heart by Sharp & James.Non-exclusive, non-theatric licence to record mechanically and to use the work in synchronisation or timed relation with a commercial production to be broadcast for a period of 12 months.$100,000Festival Records Pty Ltd (part of Festival Mush-room Group)Sound recording of Unchain My Heart by Joe Cocker.Non-exclusive right and licence to synchronise and reproduce an extract of the sound recording for broadcast purposes for a period of 12 months.$169,00022247(Question No. 1746)174622247McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 14 August 2000: Further to the answer to question No. 1505, (Hansard, 15 August 200, page 18964) will the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, the Australian Transport Safety Bureau and Airservices Australia be considering a definition of an acceptable safety hazard as a benchmark for their review of using the short runways at Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport with up to 25 knots of crosswind; if not, against what criteria will safety considerations be evaluated.22247Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:The review of operating with a crosswind of 25 knots is currently in progress. I am advised that the assessment of the acceptability of these operations is being done through an examination of international crosswind limits and an examination of overseas experience in operating airports with differing crosswind limits.22247(Question No. 1760)176022247Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 14 August 2000: (1) How many nights has the current Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of Airservices Australia spent out of Australia since January 2000. (2) Which countries has the current CEO visited since January 2000. (3) What was the duration and purpose of each visit. (4) Did the Airservices Australia board approve each visit. (5) What was the total cost of this travel, including airfares, accommodation, expenses and allowances. (6) When does the employment contract of the current CEO expire. (7) Has the CEO confirmed that he will not be seeking a further term; if so, when did he advise that he was not seeking a further term. (8) What travel is planned for the CEO between now and the end of his employment contract. (9) What is the process for appointing a CEO for Airservices Australia and who has the authority to make the appointment. (10) Has the process for appointing a CEO commenced; if not, when and where will the position be advertised. (11) What is the financial value of the salary and conditions package for the CEO. (12) What will be the financial value of the employment contract offered to the next Airservices Australia CEO.22247Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:Airservices Australia has advised the following: (1) 84 nights. (Breakdown is 17 nights on Airservices' business - the remainder were on leave when the CEO returned home on his first extended leave during his five year tenure with Airservices Australia. CEO interrupted leave to attend the meetings held in Germany and Canada - referred to in response to (2). (2) Singapore, Germany, Canada and the United States (U.S. was a personal visit whilst on leave). (3) Singapore - Directors' General of Civil Aviation meeting. Duration 6 days. Germany - Civil Air Navigation Services Organisation (CANSO) 4th Annual General Meeting and 15th Information Meeting of the Directors of Air Navigation Services (DANS). Duration 6 days. Canada - Air Traffic Control Association International Technical Program & Exhibits. Duration 5 days. (4) Yes, since the Chairman must approve the appointment of an Acting Chief Executive whilst the CEO is away from Australia. (5) Total cost of travel (including air fares, accommodation and expenses/allowances) was $34,503. (6) 5 November 2000 (7) Yes. October 1999. (8) Return home to the United States at conclusion of contract. (9) Under the provisions of Section 34.(1) the AirServices Act 1995 the CEO is appointed by the Board of Airservices. (10) Yes. I announced the appointment of the new CEO on 14 September 2000. (11) Specific information is subject to privacy provisions however Airservices reports the remuneration of executive managers within a number of ranges in the Annual Report each year. In setting the level of remuneration the Board of Airservices consults with the Remuneration Tribunal before determining the Chief Executive Officer's remuneration. (12) Refer to response to question 11.22248(Question No. 1762)176222248Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 14 August 2000: (1) Did he issue a media release dated 24 May 2000 titled Sale of National Rail Corporation to Proceed Shortly. (2) What is the timeframe for proceeding with the sale. (3) What are the sale management arrangements agreed between the shareholders to govern the terms of the sale process. (4) Will the sale arrangements be released to the public. (5) Will the process be an open tender process and who will make the decision on the preferred buyer. (6) Will public sector rail organisations be permitted to bid to purchase National Rail in their own right or as part of a consortia; if not, why not.22248Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes (2) The sales management process has commenced. Expressions of Interest will be called for shortly and the sale is expected to be finalised by the middle of 2001. (3) The sale management arrangements under which the sale will be managed and proceed are set out in a Sale Management Agreement, agreed to by all shareholders. (4) No (5) Yes, the sale process will be an open tender process. Decisions on the preferred buyer will be made by shareholder Ministers representing the Commonwealth, NSW and Victoria. (6) No. It is considered that greater private sector investment and participation is essential to increasing the competitiveness of the rail industry. Recent reports into the rail industry, such as the Smorgon Report and Productivity Commission Report, Progress in Rail Reform, support the view that the interests of the rail industry would be best served by the sale of above-rail freight operators to private sector bidders.22249(Question No. 1774)177422249Hatton, Michael, MPMr HattonLN6BlaxlandALP00 asked the Minister for Finance and Administration, upon notice, on 14 August 2000: (1) Is the Minister's Department and agencies within the Minister's portfolio compliant in respect of the Goods and Services Tax. (2) What action did the Minister's Department and agencies within the Minister's portfolio take to ensure that they were GST ready by 1 July 2000. (3) Is the Minister able to guarantee that no agency within the Minister's portfolio will suffer negative impacts on its budget or services due to the GST; if not, or if the guarantee was subsequently proved incorrect, would the Minister be prepared to resign.22249Fahey, John, MPMr FaheyHQ5MacarthurLPMinister for Finance and Administration10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) In June 2000, the chief executives of all agencies within my portfolio were asked to provide me with written confirmation that they would be able to comply with The New Tax System from 1 July 2000. I received such assurances from each agency. (2) Each agency within my portfolio took the following action to ensure that it was GST ready by 1 July 2000:· Initial scoping of all activities to develop a GST implementation plan.· Formation of a project team to manage implementation.· Examination of contracts to determine GST implications.· Registration for the Australian Business Number and for GST.· Review of record keeping requirements to ensure compliance with the GST.· Changes to financial systems to record and account for the GST. · Analysis of effects of the GST on cash flows.· Staff training (both general awareness training and tailored training for staff whose roles were directly affected by changes to systems and/or processes).· Suppliers were notified of relevant issues relating to the GST.· Price changes, where required, were made in accordance with the agency pricing guidelines.· Each agency within my portfolio participated in the comprehensive monitoring surveys, coordinated by my Department's whole-of-Government GST Unit, to ensure implementation milestones were met.(3) The implementation and ongoing management of tax reform by agencies is the responsibility of their respective chief executive officers or boards of management (as applicable). While the Government will continue to monitor the impact of the implementation of The New Tax System, it does not expect that the reforms will reduce agency funding in real terms.22249(Question No. 1784)178422249McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMullan5I4FraserALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 14 August 2000: (1) Did the Commonwealth, State and Territory Transport Ministers sign draft transport standards under the Disability Discrimination Act in April 1999. (2) If so, have the standards been gazetted; if not, why not.22249Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The Commonwealth, State and Territory Transport Ministers did not sign draft transport standards under the Disability Discrimination Act in April 1999. What they did do was to endorse the Disability Standards for Accessible Public Transport (the Standards) in April 1999 and recommend some changes to be made to the Standards. (2) The Standards will be amended and tabled before Parliament as a disallowable instrument.22250(Question No. 1785)178522250Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 14 August 2000: (1) Has an environmental impact statement been undertaken for National Rail's Adelaide Freight Terminal and shunting facility at Islington and its impact in neighbouring residential areas, including Kilburn. (2) Has the Government considered funding a buffer zone at Kilburn to assist in the noise problem; if so, what was the nature and cost of the proposal. (3) Will documents to potential purchasers relating to the proposed sale of National Rail refer to the environmental difficulties associated with the operation of the Islington Depot and the community campaign for a buffer zone, including its cost. (4) What environmental impact will any extension of the Islington freight terminal have on the surrounding community as a result of work arising from the development of the Alice Springs to Darwin line.22250Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) National Rail (NR) advises that independent contamination audits have been undertaken at the Adelaide Freight Terminal. Ongoing noise testing is being undertaken at the perimeter boundaries and terminal staff meet regularly with concerned locals. (2) No. (3) Bidders for NR will have made available to them all reasonable information necessary to make an informed bid for the company. A vendor due diligence process is currently underway, and this will incorporate a review of all material environmental issues at NR. Islington Depot will be reviewed as part of this process and if it is determined as a material issue, relevant information will be provided in the bidder due diligence phase of the process. (4) The Government is not aware of any plans to extend the Islington freight terminal.22250(Question No. 1797)179722250Danby, Michael, MPMr DanbyWF6Melbourne PortsALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 15 August 2000: (1) With regard to Patricks dispute with the Maritime Union of Australia, is he able to say whether the Prime Minister told the 1998 New South Wales Liberal State Conference that Australia's export future was at stake. (2) What was the cost of a dry container on the (a) Melbourne-Singapore, (b) Melbourne-Hong Kong, (c) Melbourne-Bangkok and (d) Melbourne-Seoul runs (i) prior to the dispute and (ii) in October 1999. (3) What was the cost of dry container on the routes referred to in part (2) in August 2000. (4) Has the peak Australian shippers association said that despite the Government's professed concerns at export costs that Australian exports had not had a cent in benefits from increased stevedoring efficiency. (5) In the period since January 1998 to July 2000, has Lang Corporation's share price risen from $1.16 to $9.09. (6) During the period referred to in part (5), what benefits have accrued to Australian importers or exporters as the result of drops in the cost of stevedoring. (7) Did he meet Lord Sterling, Chairman of P&O, when he was in London for the Centenary of Federation celebrations; if so, did he raise with Lord Sterling the possibility of passing on some of the cost savings of waterfront reform to Australian importers and exporters; if no, why not.22251Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's questions is as follows: (1) Yes. The Prime Minister in a speech to the New South Wales division of the Liberal Party on 3 April 1998 stated:“It will be important that you continue to give us, and those involved in these events, your wholehearted support because Australia's export income future is at stake. The potential jobs of thousands of Australians are involved and the economic reputation and the reliability of this country as seen by the rest of the world is very much involved.” (2) and (3) Actual freight rate levels in liner shipping are a commercial in confidence matter, and can vary between individual shipping lines and their clients, depending on factors such as the nature, value and volume of the cargo, and the regularity of shipments. However, information in the Productivity Commission's report on International Liner Cargo Shipping (15 September 1999) indicated that the general trend in freight rates for Australian exports had been downward in the past decade. In a number of cases rates were reported to have fallen to levels that were commercially unsustainable in the long term. For example, information from the liner shipping industry indicates that between 1995 and 1999 export freight rates fell in real terms by about 10% in the European trade, by about 13% in the North American trade, by about 28% in the North Asia trade, and by about 50% in the South East Asia trade. These decreases in freight rates were largely due an oversupply of shipping. The larger falls in the Asian trades reflect the added factor of the Asian economic crisis. Since mid 1999 there has been a recovery in freight rates, but in general these are reported to be still below the 1995 levels in real terms. Stevedoring charges make up only a minor proportion of the freight rates paid by export shippers. On 27 August 1999 in response to a question from Senator O'Brien of the Senate's Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee as to whether there has been an overall increase or decrease in stevedoring charges since the beginning of 1998, Patrick Stevedores CEO Mr Chris Corrigan stated: `The facts are that our stevedoring charges have declined'. (4) The Australian Peak Shippers Association (APSA) has on a number of occasions claimed that freight rates have not been reduced as a result of the Governments recent waterfront program. Shippers have received benefits from the Government waterfront reform program through the marked improvement in stevedoring performance within Australia's key container ports. The June 2000 issue of the Bureau of Transport Economics publication Waterline reported that the five-port average crane rate reached a record 20.4 containers per hour for the March quarter 2000. This compared with 19.1 containers per hour for the December quarter 1999. The rates at which the stevedores work ships also reached new records due to better utilisation of quay cranes. The five-port net ship rate was 31.8 containers per hour for the March quarter 2000, well above the pre-Patrick dispute figure of 24.3 containers per hour. Berth availability also reached a new high point of 94 per cent, which is just short of the Government's reliability benchmark of 97 per cent. (5) Yes. (6) Refer to answer in question (4) above. (7) Yes. I met Lord Sterling while in London earlier this year. Our discussion covered a range of issues relating to P&O Ports activities in Australia including the recent waterfront reform process.22251(Question No. 1808)180822251Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr Kelvin ThomsonUK6WillsALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 15 August 2000: (1) What is the current share of national road funding received by Victoria. (2) Has Victoria's share changed over recent years; if so, by what sums has it changed. (3) How long does the existing agreement for the division of national road funding last. (4) What is the process by which roads are declared Roads of National Importance. (5) On how many occasions during the period 1993-1999 did the Victorian Government seek to secure with the Federal Government an agreement over any Roads of National Importance. (6) What was the first occasion in which the Victorian Government requested the Federal Government to agree to declaring the Scoresby Freeway a Road of National Importance. (7) Has the Federal Government refused to fund the Scoresby Freeway project.22252Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Victoria's current National Highway and Roads of National Importance allocation totals $95.13m from a total national allocation of $816.84m. (2) Victoria's funding share, as with all States and Territories, changes on an annual basis. For example, in 1998/99 Victoria's share of National Highway and Roads of National Importance was $107.4m from a total national allocation of $874.5m. In 1999/2000 Victoria's share was $84.7m from a total national allocation of $815.4m. Victoria's allocations for the years 2001/02 and 2002/3 are forecasted to increase to $220.8m and $205.9m respectively, depending on the ability of the Victorian Government to bring proposals to the point where tenders can be called. (3) Road funding is based on competing priorities on a National basis and not on a predetermined States share agreement. Projects are assessed on their merits and focussed on those areas of the network where the largest net benefit can be achieved. (4) Roads of National Importance can be nominated by State Governments or by specific interest groups. The broad criteria when designating Roads of National Importance is that the project is not on the National Highway system and that it will return significant economic benefit to the nation. (5) The Roads of National Importance program started in 1996. The Victorian Government has sought funding for Roads of National Importance annually as part of their general road funding submission. (6) Since the early 1990s the Victorian Government has sought to secure funding for the Scoresby Freeway. Under the Roads of National Importance program. Victoria has sought declaration since 1996. (7) Development of the Scoresby Corridor is the responsibility of the Victorian Government. The Federal Government, for its part, is prepared to discuss with Victoria how best construction of the Scoresby Corridor might be funded. The release of the Partnerships Victoriapaper by Victoria provides an ideal policy platform from which private sector development of Scoresby could be pursued.22252(Question No. 1817)181722252Murphy, John, MPMr Murphy83DLoweALP00 asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 18 August 2000: Further to the answers to questions No. 1654 and No. 1153 (Hansard, 8 June 2000, page 16339), is the information concerning former Senator Colston a matter relating to law enforcement pursuant to subsection 488 (2)(e) of the Migration Act with respect to charges alleging misappropriation of Commonwealth revenue, namely travel rorts.22252Williams, Daryl, MPMr Williams7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—The Minister for Justice and Customs has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: The investigation by the Australian Federal Police into allegations concerning former Senator Colston did not extend into 1999. Information relating to the movement records of former Senator Colston during 1999 are not currently of interest to the AFP and hence are not matters relating to law enforcement.22253(Question No. 1818)181822253Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 16 August 2000: (1) Further to the answer to question No. 510 (Hansard, 12 May 1999, page 5318) concerning rescue operations during the Sydney to Hobart Yacht Race, what was the final cost to his Department for employing civil search and rescue resources in assisting rescue operations. (2) Was any of the cost recoverable from the-organisers of the race, the Cruising Yacht Club of Australia; if not, why not.22253Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The Australian Maritime Safety Authority (AMSA) arranged and paid for the use of civil resources for search and rescue operations for the Sydney-Hobart Yacht Race during the period 27-29 December 1998. The total cost to AMSA was $697,101.40. (2) None of the costs were recovered. Search and rescue services are provided by AMSA in pursuance of the AMSA Act and in accordance with relevant maritime and aviation international conventions. The .conventions are based on the humanitarian principle of rendering assistance to those in distress without regard to their origins. Successive Australian Governments have accepted that funding for search and rescue services is provided as a community service obligation. This accords with the worldwide practice of signatories to the conventions.22253(Question No. 1827)182722253Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TannerYU5MelbourneALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, upon notice, on 16 August 2000: In 1999-2000 in the Minister's Department, what was the (a) average salary paid in each Australian Public Service salary band and (b) average staffing level (average number of employees) for each band.22253McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGauranXH4GippslandNPMinister for the Arts and the Centenary of Federation10—The Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: LevelAverage Salary (a)Average staffing level for each band (b).Cadet$15,025.771Graduate$30,598.0213APS1$26,385.283APS2$29,438.5828APS3$33,803.7748APS4$37,644.5665APS5$42,710.9575APS6$47,564.14113EXECI$59,280.15155EXEC2$71,812.36123SES B1$87,287.2729SES B2$104,522.1110SES B3$123,964.553NB: Average figures will differ from actual number at 30 June 2000 due to turnover, growth and higher duties movements.22253(Question No. 1901)190122253Latham, Mark, MPMr LathamK26WerriwaALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs, upon notice, on 31 August 2000: (1) Will the Minister bring up to date the information that he provided in the answer to Question No. 48 (Hansard, 1 March 1999, page 3700). (2) When did he receive the text of the recommendations of the British House of Commons Culture, Media and Sport Committee relating to the care and safe-keeping of Indigenous remains and to the handling of requests for their return. (3) What communications have he and his Department had with their British counterparts on this issue.22254Ruddock, Philip, MPMr Ruddock0J4BerowraLPMinister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Reconciliation10—The Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) In undertaking its responsibilities regarding the repatriation of cultural property from overseas, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC) has been in contact with the University of Edinburgh in the UK regarding Australian Indigenous human remains held in that institution. The University of Edinburgh cooperated with ATSIC and the Australian High Commission in London to return the skeletal remains of approximately 330 Indigenous individuals to Australia in June this year. ATSIC has also been in touch with the Australian Embassy in Warsaw, which has negotiated with the Polish Government and museum authorities for the return of an Indigenous human skeleton held by the Kornik Museum in Poland. Earlier this year, the Museum was said to be agreeable to the return of these remains to Australia but subsequently changed its position and has indicated that ongoing scientific research does not permit handing over the skeleton in the near future. (2) The recommendations were published on 25 July 2000 and made widely available on the Internet and I did not have access to them before that time. (3) During the last year there have been ongoing discussions between the Australian and British governments aimed at developing a cooperative approach to dealing with the repatriation of Indigenous human remains from Britain. In June 2000 I made a submission on this issue to the House of Commons Culture, Media and Sport Committee inquiry into Cultural Property: Return and Illicit Trade. The Australian and British Prime Ministers issued a joint statement on 4 July 2000 that outlined their governments' commitment to increasing efforts to repatriate human remains to Australian Indigenous communities.22254(Question No. 1907)190722254Latham, Mark, MPMr LathamK26WerriwaALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 31 August 2000: (1) Further to my question No. 818 (Hansard, 29 September 1999, page 10333) what are the results of the planning study examining the need for additional ramps on the F5 between Casula and Campbelltown. (2) What progress has been made in implementing the findings of the report.22254Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) and (2) Work on the Campbelltown Ramps Study is progressing. On 25 August 2000 my Department met with the NSW Roads and Traffic Authority and the consultant to discuss a Working Draft of the study. As a result, the consultant will further review the draft and is expected to finalise the report within the next few months.22254(Question No. 1912)191222254Andren, Peter, MPMr AndrenKL6CalareIND00 asked the Minister representing the Assistant Treasurer, upon notice, on 4 September 2000: (1) Is it the case that (a) prior to 1 July 1998 Australians leaving the country permanently could access their superannuation regardless of its value and (b) until that time, superannuation deposits of less than $500 could be withdrawn by their holders. (2) Is it also the case that since 1 July 1998 people leaving Australia permanently have been unable to access their superannuation before retirement unless their holdings are $200 or less; if so, why. (3) Is he aware that as a result of the changes (a) young people leaving Australia with small superannuation holdings risk losing track of their superannuation altogether or having it eroded by fees and charges and (b) may be unable to access their superannuation for 30-40 years. (4) Will the Government consider reforming the superannuation early access rules to allow amounts held by Australians leaving the country permanently to be rolled over into a complying fund in the country the claimant moves to; if not, why not.22255Costello, Peter, MPMr CostelloCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—The Assistant Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) (a) and (b) Yes. (2) Generally, yes. Early release of preserved benefits is possible, subject to the governing rules of the fund, if the benefits are taken in the form of a lifetime non-commutable pension or annuity, are restricted non-preserved benefits, or on compassionate grounds in certain limited circumstances. The purpose of the superannuation preservation rules is to ensure that superannuation savings that have benefited from Australian tax concessions are used to provide income in retirement and not for other purposes. (3) (a) “Member protection rules” are in place to ensure that fees on superannuation accounts with balances below $1,000 do not exceed investment gains. (b) The superannuation preservation rules are to ensure that superannuation savings are used to provide income in retirement. (4) The Government has announced that it would be prepared to negotiate arrangements with other countries on a reciprocal basis to allow non-residents to transfer their superannuation entitlements to an approved pension fund in their home country.22255(Question No. 1950)195022255Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 7 September 2000: (1) Are there Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) regulations governing the regularity of checking and clearing debris and objects from runways at Australia's capital city and major regional airports, if so (a) how often are checks required, (b) does CASA conduct audits to ensure airport compliance with CASA runway inspection regulations, (c) how many audits have been conducted since 1995, and at which airports have they been conducted and (d) have there been any prosecutions or show cause notices issued to airport operators with respect to the runway inspection regulations since 1995. (2) Is the airport owner or operator responsible for ensuring the checks occur. (3) Do airport operators record the frequency of runway checks.22255Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:The Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) has advised the following: (1) Yes. Civil Aviation Regulation (CAR) 89H requires the operator of a licensed aerodrome to have an aerodrome manual, and CAR 89I states that the information which must be included in the aerodrome manual is shown in Schedule 10 of the CARs. All capital city aerodromes are licensed. All regional aerodromes which are used by regular public transport (RPT) aircraft with a seating capacity exceeding 30 passengers must also be licensed and all aerodromes may apply to be licensed regardless of the presence or size of RPT operations. Schedule 10 requires the operator of a licensed aerodrome to include, in the aerodrome manual, information about the aerodrome as well as the arrangements that are in place to ensure that safety is maintained. These include details of the arrangements for carrying out inspections of the movement area (including runways), arrangements for keeping records of the inspections, frequency of the inspections, an inspection checklist, arrangements for reporting and correcting any unsafe conditions and the names and roles of the aerodrome staff who are responsible. (a) Chapter 9 of the CASA publication 'Rules and Practices for Aerodromes' contains details of aerodrome inspection requirements, including the frequency of inspections. At aerodromes with 24 hour Air Traffic Control (ATC), inspections are required each day as soon as practicable after first light, after significant weather phenomena such as strong winds or heavy rain, and when requested by ATC. At other aerodromes, inspections are required each day before the first daylight public transport service movement, after significant weather phenomena such as strong winds or heavy rain, and when requested by Airservices Australia or CASA. Aerodrome operators may exceed these minimum requirements and CASA can direct an aerodrome operator to alter the procedures using CAR 89M if required to ensure the safety of aircraft. (b) Yes. CASA employs 12 Aerodrome Inspection staff who conduct audits of all licensed aerodromes in accordance with the Aviation Safety Surveillance Program (ASSP). The audits include all aspects of the procedures in the aerodrome manual, including aerodrome inspections. (c) There are approximately 260 licensed aerodromes in Australia, which are all audited on a regular basis in accordance with the ASSP. The program specifies an audit each 12 months for aerodromes which are used by RPT aircraft with more than 9 passenger seats and each 24 months for all other licensed aerodromes and for unlicensed aerodromes which are used for RPT operations. (d) No. There have been no prosecutions or Show Cause Notices issued to aerodrome operators in relation to runway inspections since 1995. (2) Yes. The aerodrome operator is responsible for ensuring that the checks occur. CAR 89M states that the aerodrome operator must operate and maintain the aerodrome in accordance with the procedures set out in the aerodrome manual. (3) Yes. The aerodrome manual must include details of the frequency of checks, the checklist used and a logbook or other system for recording inspections.22256(Question No. 1976)197622256McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMullan5I4FraserALP00 asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 3 October 2000: (1) What increase in funding for microcredit has been included in the 2000-2001 aid budget. (2) Is the additional funding supporting lending to the poorest people. (3) Is the funding being used to enable non-government organisations to distribute assistance to individual microcredit programs.22256Downer, Alexander, MPMr Downer4G4MayoLPMinister for Foreign Affairs10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The Australian Government remains committed to doubling microfinance expenditure through the aid program within the life of the current Parliament, consistent with ensuring a high quality portfolio of activities. In support of this commitment I announced in the 1999-2000 Commonwealth budget, a three-year $3 million fund to act as a catalyst for further assistance to the microfinance sector in partnership with developing countries in our region. There has been no specific budget allocation for microfinance apart from this seed fund. This reflects the fact that the Government's microfinance commitment will be met by increasing the role of microfinance in its regular programs, not by introducing a separate allocation specifically for microfinance. The role of the seed fund is to facilitate this process. It is only if we succeed in giving microfinance a more secure and prominent role in AusAID regular bilateral and NGO programs that a long-term enhancement of Australia's contribution to the development of microfinance will be assured. A lot of work has been done and will continue to be done, much of it independently of the seed fund, to consolidate and expand the role of microfinance in Australia's aid program (2) AusAID's microfinance projects target those among the poor who are able to make effective use of credit. Consequently, there is a strong focus on women, given their disproportionate representation among the poor, their reliability as borrowers and their propensity to use the income generated by loans to improve the living standards of their families. (3) AusAID's microfinance expenditure is channelled through a number of intermediaries including Australian commercial contractors and non-government organisations (NGOs), both in Australia and in developing countries. Some of the Australian Government's funding is being used to enable NGOs to distribute assistance to individual microcredit programs. For example, part of the microfinance seed fund was made available to Australian NGOs in 1999/2000 and 2000/01 to increase their microfinance capacity and that of their implementing partners.22257(Question No. 1982)198222257Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TannerYU5MelbourneALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, upon notice, on 3 October 2000: (1) What are the forward estimates for (a) 2000-2001, (b) 2001-2002, (c) 2002-2003 and (d) 2003-2004 for the Regional Telecommunications Infrastructure Fund. (2) What sum has been committed to projects for each year referred to in part (1).22257McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGauranXH4GippslandNPMinister for the Arts and the Centenary of Federation10—The Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) The present Networking the Nation (NTN) program was originally established as the $250m Regional Telecommunications Infrastructure Fund (RTIF) over five years from 1997-98 and funded from the sale of the first third of Telstra. This is now referred to as the NTN General Fund. An additional $171m Social Bonus funding from the sale of the next 16% of Telstra was provided for initiatives including:· The Local Government fund ($45m over five years from 1999-2000) to assist local government authorities in regional Australia to provide online access to information and services including the Internet - this funding is not incorporated into the RTIF;· Building Additional Rural Networks ($70m over five years from 1999-2000) to promote ongoing, sustainable improvements in regional telecommunications services - this funding is not incorporated into the RTIF;· The Internet Access fund ($36m over three years from 1999-2000) to stimulate Internet service delivery in regional and rural Australia - this funding is incorporated into the RTIF;· The Remote and Isolated Islands fund ($20m over three years from 1999-2000) to improve telecommunications access for remote island communities - this funding is incorporated within the RTIF. Social bonus funding for Mobile Phones on Highways ($25m over three years from 1999-2000) is incorporated within the RTIF but will be allocated through a competitive tender process and not through the NTN Board process as applies to the other initiatives outlined above. The objective of this initiative is to deliver mobile service to the maximum number of users of the designated highways, and any additional highways, regardless of where these users normally reside or do business. Forward estimates for the Regional Telecommunications Fund (administered under the Networking the Nation program) are as follows: Year:Fund:2000-2001$m2001-2002$m2002-2003$m2003-2004*$mGeneral Fund48.24347.85927.759BARN10202010Local Government Fund3151210Combined figures for: Internet AccessRemote and Isolated IslandsMobile Phones on Highways2727 * Note: Budget figures for 2003-04 have not been published for these programs. These figures comprise residual funding from the Government's announcements for the programs to 2003-04. (2) The sum committed to projects for each year referred to in part (1) above is as follows: Year:2000-2001$m2001-2002$m2002-2003$m2003-2004$mSums committed to projects: 68,348,66725,592,4064,256,586393,853 Notes: These figures represent the commitment of program funds following the last funding meeting of the NTN Board in May 2000. Further commitments for these years will be dependent on the number and value of applications approved by the NTN Board at future funding round meetings. Commitments for the Mobile Phones on Highways initiative will be made following a competitive tender process and have therefore have not been included in the above figures.22258(Question No. 1983)198322258Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TannerYU5MelbourneALP00 asked the Minister for Employment Workplace Relations and Small Business, upon notice, on 3 October 2000: (1) What are the forward estimates for (a) 2001-2002, (b) 2002-2003 and (c) 2003-2004 for the Regional Assistance Program. (2) What sum of the estimates in each year is committed.22258Reith, Peter, MPMr ReithWI4FlindersLPMinister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Forward estimates at this level of detail are not available at this time.22258(Question No. 2004)200422258Theophanous, Dr Andrew, MPDr TheophanousQJ4CalwellIND00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources, upon notice, on 3 October 2000: (1) Is the Minister able to say what are the current costs of production of oil in Australia as declared by the major companies involved in such production. (2) On a year-by-year scale, how does this cost compare with previous years since 1990. (3) How do the costs of production compare with those in other oil producing countries, including the USA, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States and Nigeria. (4) How does the cost of Australian production compare with the OPEC price and on a year-by-year scale, what has been this comparison since 1990. (5) What is the reason for the difference between the cost of production in Australia and the OPEC figures.22258Moore, John, MPMr MooreEI4RyanLPMinister for Defence10—The Minister for Industry, Science and Resources has provided the following answer to the honourable member's questions: (1) The sort of information required to answer the questions is commercially sensitive and oil companies do not generally release it. The Department of Industry, Science and Resources has been advised by the Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association Limited; the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics; the Australian Bureau of Statistics; and the International Energy Agency that the sort of information required to answer the honourable member's questions is not available. (2) Refer to Question 1. (3) Refer to Question 1. (4) Refer to Question 1. (5) Refer to Question 1.22259(Question No. 2005)200522259Theophanous, Dr Andrew, MPDr TheophanousQJ4CalwellIND00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources, upon notice, on 3 October 2000: (1) Is the Minister able to say what are the current rates of profit of the oil-production companies within Australia and on a year-by-year scale, how does this compare with previous years since 1990. (2) What percentage of these profits is currently being spent on exploration and on a year-by-year scale, how does this compare with previous years since 1990. (3) Given the level of profits made by the oil production companies, is the Government satisfied that the level of investment in exploration justifies the linking of Australia's oil prices to the international price.22259Moore, John, MPMr MooreEI4RyanLPMinister for Defence10—The Minister for Industry, Science and Resources has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) Yes, this is shown in the second line of Table 1 below. (2) This is shown in the fourth line of Table 1 below. (3) The level of investment exploration by oil production companies is a commercial decision for those companies. That said, the Government encourages petroleum exploration because it generates employment, economic activity and contributes to improving Australia's energy self-sufficiency, as well as its fiscal and external position. If the Australian price of oil was set below the international price, petroleum exploration in Australia would be discouraged and such activity would tend to move overseas. Table 1: Historical Summary of Oil Production Net Company Profit and Exploration ExpenditureYear90-9191-9292-9393-9494-9595-9696-9797-9898-9999-00Net Profit$milliona198813121666182015251934215516271491n.a.Exploration Expenditure$millionb583474612507683725853981868704Exploration to Profit %29.336.136.727.944.837.539.660.358.2n.a. (a) The Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association Limited, whose membership includes all Australian oil production companies, publishes the results of Financial Surveys on its Webpage at http://www.appea.com.au/industrystats/fin99/Table%209.htm. (b) Data obtained from ABS Mineral and Petroleum Exploration Catalogue Number 8412.0.22259(Question No. 2006)200622259Theophanous, Dr Andrew, MPDr TheophanousQJ4CalwellIND00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources, upon notice, on 3 October 2000: (1) What efforts are being made to implement new technologies that would serve to loosen the grip that oil companies have on the Australian motorist. (2) Is the Government exploring the idea of alternative fuels to be used in new cars, such as the use of ethanol based E-85 in all government cars in Illinois, USA. (3) Is the Government prepared to follow the lead of other nations such as the USA and implement an initiative which would promote clean fuel-burning and also serve to help sugar farmers who could sell their sugar cane to produce the ethanol needed for E-85.22260Moore, John, MPMr MooreEI4RyanLPMinister for Defence10—The Minister for Industry, Science and Resources has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) The Government is providing significant support for the development of alternative fuels.Ethanol, liquefied petroleum gas (LPG), and compressed natural gas (CNG) have been included in legislation as alternative fuels which are excise exempt. The excise exemption represents a cost to revenue of some $700 million each year. It provides a 38 cent per litre cost advantage compared to petrol and diesel. The Government, through the Australian Greenhouse Office has an integrated strategy to encourage the use of cleaner alternative fuels through three programs:· The Alternative Fuels Conversion Program · The CNG (Compressed Natural Gas) Infrastructure Program· The Diesel and Alternative Fuels Grants Scheme The Alternative Fuels Conversion Program (AFCP) is a four year, $75 million initiative which was commenced in January 2000. The Program applies to certain heavy commercial vehicles and provides funds of up to 50 per cent of either: · the difference between the purchase price of new CNG/LPG fuelled vehicles over their conventionally fuelled equivalents; · the cost of converting conventionally fuelled vehicles to operate on CNG/LPG; or· the cost of upgrading the fuel systems of vehicles already operating on CNG/LPG where improvements in greenhouse and other emissions can be demonstrated. The CNG Infrastructure Program (CNGIP) is a $7.6 million program designed to facilitate the establishment of a national network of CNG refuelling stations. The Diesel and Alternative Fuels Grants Scheme (DAFGS) commenced in July 2000 and will maintain existing price relativities between diesel and a range of alternative fuels by allowing transport operators that are eligible for the diesel fuel grant to also be eligible for alternative fuel grants. (2) Yes. The Government is actively exploring the use of alternative fuels such as ethanol. In addition to the beneficial excise treatment of certain alternative fuels, on 20 June this year the Renewable Energy Action Agenda New Era - New Energy was launched. Under this Action Agenda the Australian Greenhouse Office has been tasked with managing the process of identifying key opportunities for the sustainable development and use of renewable transport fuels. A Renewable Transport Fuels (RTF) Working Group has been established and had its first meeting on 5 September 2000. At current levels of production of ethanol, there is insufficient supply to enable its use by all government vehicles. As a fuel its main use is as a blend stock in the production of petrol. (3) Yes, the Government has a program to promote cleaner fuels. Environment Australia (in conjunction with the Department of Industry, Science and Resources and the Department of Transport and Regional Services other agencies and the refining and automotive industries) is currently developing new cleaner fuel specifications. An important aim for the specifications is to reduce exhaust emissions. Currently, specifications for the principal transport fuels, petrol, diesel and LPG, are being developed. The Government is aware of the potential benefits to the environment and to sugar cane farmers of a competitive, robust and ecologically sustainable fuel ethanol industry. On 25 September 2000 the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, the Hon Warren Truss MP, announced the Government will fund a study, coordinated by ABARE, of the commercial viability of increasing production of ethanol by the Australian sugar industry. The Government believes it is more appropriate for the industry to make commercial decisions about the use of ethanol, rather than for the Government to impose its use through legislation.22261(Question No. 2066)206622261Latham, Mark, MPMr LathamK26WerriwaALP00 asked the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 12 October 2000: (1) Did the Government appoint a Steering Committee to oversee the development of its new SES-based model for the recurrent funding of non-government schools. (2) Did three of the eight members of the Committee represent the Catholic Education Commission; if so, what are the details. (3) Given the decision of the Catholic Education Commission not to participate in the SES system, why were three of its representatives invited onto the Steering Committee.22261Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KempBT4GoldsteinLPMinister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The SES Simulation Project conducted in 1998 was managed by my Department with the guidance of a Steering Committee representative of non-government schools. (2) Membership of the Steering Committee included Mrs Therese Temby, National Catholic Education Commission; Mr Chris Duncan, NSW Catholic Education Commission; and Mr Frank Pegan, Victorian Catholic Education Office. (3) The purpose of the SES Simulation Project was to explore the feasibility and validity of an SES approach to funding non-government schools. Although participation in the Project was purely voluntary, every Catholic system (and almost 100 per cent of Catholic systemic schools) participated in the Project. The decision to essentially preserve category 11 funding for Catholic systems (category 10 for the ACT system) was taken independently of the simulation exercise.