2000-12-053917REPS2334302000-12-05—————Mr SPEAKER (Mr Neil Andrew) took the chair at 2.00 p.m., and read prayers.Ministerial Arrangements2334314:01:0023343Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I inform the House that the Attorney-General will be absent from question time today and tomorrow. He will be appearing before the High Court on behalf of the Commonwealth. The Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs will answer questions on his behalf. I also inform the House that the Minister for Health and Aged Care has been unavoidably detained due to aircraft delays. The minister expects to arrive shortly, so I suggest that, if it serves the convenience of the House, any questions be addressed to the minister when he arrives.Questions Without Notice233432334314:01:0023343Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question is to the Treasurer. Do you recall writing me this letter, dated 24 November, on behalf of the government giving your personal commitment that:The Government will introduce all the business tax changes announced in full.This includes the proposal to tax trusts the same as companies. Treasurer, will you guarantee to deliver on this commitment in full and with no less revenue? If you cannot keep your word on this important matter, will you resign?23343Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I will ignore the last polemic from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. That is the kind of tactic that we have come to expect from him as a substitute for serious policy, which is something that you would never hear from the member for Hotham.The government has substantially reformed the Australian taxation system. We have reformed the indirect taxation system; we have reformed the personal income tax system; we are now reforming the business taxation system. I well recall that the Labor Party, at the time that we put our business taxation changes to the parliament, said that it was opposing cuts in capital gains tax and opposing cuts in company tax. I made it entirely clear that cutting capital gains tax—DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—You are a fraud. This is the letter.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Deputy Leader of the Opposition! Deputy Leader of the Opposition for the second time!CT4Mr COSTELLO—The Labor Party said it was opposed to cuts in capital gains tax and it was opposed to cuts in company tax. It said that if we reformed the whole of the business taxation system then, grudgingly, it would vote for it. In relation to those matters, what have we done? We have enacted the alienation of personal service income measures. Do you recall those? Something that the Labor Party never got around to doing in 13 years. We then enacted the non-commercial losses provisions—something that the Labor Party—Honourable members interjecting—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Treasurer will resume his seat. As the Leader of the Opposition is well aware, I am only waiting on silence, not silence from him. The Leader of the Opposition.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order in relation to relevance. He was asked a specific question about the government's intentions in taxing trusts as companies. He has been speaking now, I think, for about two minutes and he has not got to it.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition is aware that the Treasurer has an obligation to be relevant. He has been asked a question about business tax changes and his answer has been entirely focused on the matter of tax changes.CT4Mr COSTELLO—What I said would happen is as follows: cuts in capital gains tax, done; cuts in company tax, done; introduction of alienation of personal service income, done; introduction of non-commercial losses—never done in 13 years of Labor government—done. In relation to entity taxation, the legislation is out for comment. The last leg is out for comment. We invited comments about it; we are taking those comments in, so we can proceed with those measures. I said to the Treasury on entity taxation, `Why don't you go and get Labor's model so that we can put that out for discussion.' And do you know what? After 13 years of being in government, do you know what these people, who are now allegedly interested in tax measures, had done? Actually, their policy looked a bit like their roll-back policy—a blank sheet of paper. We had to work it up from the beginning. We produced an exposure draft, and we put the exposure draft—the last piece of the jigsaw—out for discussion. After we have fully consulted in relation to these measures, we will proceed with our business taxation reform. DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—I seek leave to table the letter dated 24 November 1999, which reflects the bipartisan model—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—I seek leave.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER— The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. Is leave granted? Leave granted.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—This is not just about trusts; it's about trust.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat!2334414:07:0023344Lawler, Tony, MPMr LAWLER834ParkesNP10—My question is addressed to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Transport and Regional Services. Would the Deputy Prime Minister advise the House how the government is responding to the devastating floods and rains that have ravaged central and northern New South Wales and southern Queensland, including large parts of my electorate of Parkes? 23344Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—I thank the honourable member for his question and record that one of the many places that I visited during the floods was Narromine in his area, where we met with people from right across the central west of New South Wales who are experiencing very real difficulties. Indeed, apart from my visits to some of the worst flood affected areas, the Prime Minister came and saw first-hand what was happening; so too did the Treasurer and others. I acknowledge too that the Leader of the Opposition went to Walgett in my electorate, where very real difficulties are ensuing even at this time, as floodwaters take so very long not only to reach that area but also to recede.The particular difficulty of this rain event was not so much the floods—which of course looked very graphic on television—but the extent and the length of time that it remained wet. The damage done to crops after people had spent the maximum amount of money on growing them was immense. They were lost right on the point of harvest on many occasions, and in many instances very little or nothing can be recovered from them. Given the relatively narrow economic base of many of the regions that have been affected, it is incredibly important that we ensure that crops are replanted to restart the economy of the region. We gave a commitment that we would cut through red tape, that we would develop a comprehensive package as quickly as possible and that we would recognise that there are certainly farmers out there who have had to borrow so heavily that they are not in a position to borrow any more and need direct income support.So today the government has announced income support for farm enterprises which will be paid at Newstart rates to eligible farmers. We have announced grants for crop replanting to the tune of $120 per hectare to a maximum of $60,000 per farm. Interest rate subsidies on debt will run to a maximum of $100,000 per farm, which actually will provide leverage for up to a million dollars of debt—a very substantial leverage indeed. That will give people the opportunity to get back into the business of restructuring their finances so that they can plant their crops. We have also announced grants of up to $10,000 for small businesses for restoration following flood damage. It should also be kept in mind that small businesses and, for that matter, farmers who may not want to avail themselves of these measures are eligible for the low interest loans that are available under the natural disaster relief arrangements in this country. The New South Wales government is negotiating over the question of how they can be made a little more relevant and more user friendly for those who may need them. Those details will follow in due course. The National Farmers Federation has responded to what we have said today by issuing a statement saying the flood relief was generous. It said that flood relief measures for the victims of the recent floods in northern New South Wales are generous and fair. The president said that the scale of the assistance measures were commensurate with the scale of the disaster, which had affected up to 5,000 farmers and caused an estimated $2 billion damage to crops, farms and infrastructure. Ian Donges went on to say that the NFF is encouraged by the government's commitment to cut red tape to deliver these measures and the decision to ensure that those who need help and are eligible will receive it. He went on to say that, while the government has recognised the need to rebuild the farms, it has also recognised the unfortunate fact that many farm families will lose the financial capacity to pay for daily essentials, such as education expenses. He made another comment, with which I want to say I wholeheartedly concur, that the NFF now eagerly awaits the reaction of the banks to these measures and hopes that they will match the government's generous approach to the victims of the biggest disaster to have befallen rural industry in New South Wales since the Great Depression. So do we. We really do look to the banks, out of self-interest and, I think, respect for their shareholders, to do everything they can to ensure that the economies that have been so badly affected in northern New South Wales and southern Queensland are restored as quickly as possible. Let me also say that I am a little disappointed, to put it mildly, that the New South Wales government has declined to offer any further assistance. So far as we are concerned, the door is still open for New South Wales to come forward and do something else.WU5O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr O'Connor—You are just playing politics.4K4Mr ANDERSON—Playing politics! All I can say to that is that you apparently do not believe that the New South Wales state government—WU5O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr O'Connor—You're playing politics with farmers' survival. Why can't you just put the money on the deck?10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER— The member for Corio knows that he is out of order.4K4Mr ANDERSON—should make an appropriate contribution. We believe that they should. So we do await with very great interest the response of both the banks and the New South Wales state government.2334514:13:0023345Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question is also to the Deputy Prime Minister and Leader of the National Party. I refer to reports that last night the National Party unanimously voted to scrap the government's legislation to tax trusts the same as companies, an integrity measure worth more than $2 billion.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will come to his question.DT4Mr CREAN—Do you support the position adopted by the parliamentary National Party or do you support the position adopted by the cabinet and signed off on behalf of the whole government, including you, in the Treasurer's letter to me dated 24 November 1999 which I just tabled?23345Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—As usual, one ought to be very careful about allowing the Labor Party to interpret things that have been said on this side of the House. The fact is that the National Party fully supports the objectives of the government in ensuring that the legitimate uses of trusts are preserved but that rorts are eliminated. That is quite simply our position. The party has expressed views on how the exposure draft would work, not about its objectives or the government's objectives. The Prime Minister, the Treasurer and I have agreed that all responses will be carefully considered and that the legislation will be framed accordingly. That is really all there is to it. 2334614:15:0023346Nelson, Dr Brendan, MPDr NELSONRW5BradfieldLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. Has the minister's attention been drawn to media reports that the government will introduce legislation in two parts next year to govern registered organisations? Will the minister inform the House why the legislation will be split and the impact that it will have on registered organisations and on other parties?23346Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPMinister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business10—I thank the member for Bradfield for his question. I have seen those reports. In fact, I think we will introduce three pieces of legislation next year, including a transitional bill. We commissioned a report on the whole question of the procedures for registered organisations, which include employer associations as well as unions. That report was made public. The Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters is also looking at elections within registered organisations, and its report and recommendations have been taken into account. We have had discussions with the parties and we have released an exposure draft on the legislation. We have had discussions with the ACTU and ACCI. We are also mindful of the fact that the Australian Democrats have made it pretty clear that they do not like the bills coming to the Senate to be too chunky: they like the idea of more bite sized chunks. We have taken all those things into consideration and we will put the legislation before parliament at the start of next year. It is basically all ready to go; it is just a matter of making final preparations to introduce the bill.There is no doubt that transparency in the arrangements of registered organisations is important. There have been many cases over the years—particularly in respect of unions—when members have simply not known where the dollars that they paid by way of subscriptions have gone. I have an independent accountant's report from 1998 referring to the books of the Australian Workers Union centrally funded branches which says:In our opinion the AWU centrally funded branches have not kept satisfactory accounting records, including records of the sources and nature of the income of the Australian Workers Union centrally funded branches, including income from members, records of the nature and purpose of the expenditure of the Australian Workers Union centrally funded branches.I noted some very interesting rather more current statements in today's press about what goes on with unions and members' money. There is a report in this morning's Canberra Times about an inquiry that is going on in Queensland. According to that newspaper, a former AWU organiser, Mr Bermingham, apparently told the inquiry:You would go and tell Mike Kaiser that certain memberships had to be paid ... he would ring Bill—that is Bill Ludwig—and money would be left in an envelope on the counter ... in cash.It was probably in a brown paper bag. According to Mr Bermingham:... the fund was set up after a fund-raiser at Brisbane's Hilton Hotel and was run out of the then office of one of the federal MPs.We all know that a lot of federal MPs are basically in the hands of the AWU. Bill Ludwig is so powerful that he does not just put nonentities into the lower house; he has got his son in the Senate.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—What about your son?Opposition members interjecting—WI4Mr REITH—Let them get it out of their system, Mr Speaker. The fact is that the AWU runs you blokes in Queensland.Honourable members interjecting—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—When a measure of maturity is exhibited in the House, I will recognise the minister. WI4Mr REITH—Brian Courtice was a federal Labor member of parliament and the other day he said this about the control of the AWUET4Bevis, Arch, MPMr Bevis—Did you ring him up? WI4Mr REITH—I didn't have to ring him up, mate; he was on radio—the whole country heard what he had to say.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The minister will not respond to interjections.WI4Mr REITH—He said:The issue here is industrial power leads to political power leads to legislative power.That was reminiscent of the member for Fremantle, who said:The unions have a disproportionate influence over the Labor Party.That is a significant problem when the leader of the parliamentary party does not have the ticker to stand up to the Bill Ludwigs of the AWU. As the Financial Review said this morning:But the Queensland rorting has dragged into the public spotlight the destructive underbelly of factional politics, where an outside interest group such as the Australian Workers Union can exert influence far beyond its numbers on Labor Party preselections and eventually the composition of the Federal Cabinet.When we announced that we would be taking further action on registered organisations, what was the Labor Party's response? Opposition members interjecting—WI4Mr REITH—I would like to hear about it in more detail if it is going to be interjected.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the House will respond to the question, not to interjections.WI4Mr REITH—Their response is the response of the ACTU: no way known will they support legislation in respect of further workplace relations reform. It is about time the Leader of the Opposition tackled what has been a significant problem for the Labor Party, and that is the disproportionate influence of some of these unions. They basically own you and a whole lot of those sitting behind you lock, stock and barrel, and the challenge will come for the Leader of the Opposition. The exposure draft is already out, but the Leader of the Opposition's challenge will come in February when he must decide whether he will go along with the ACTU, who just say no—that is their policy—or whether he will support sensible government measures that have been the subject of a lot of consultation and that will clean up some of the financial discrepancies in registered organisations.2334714:22:0023347Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. I ask whether he stands by his claim that you cannot give fuel excise relief to Australian motorists because that would damage the budget surplus and put upward pressure on interest rates. Prime Minister, isn't it true that, if the government were to abandon its $2 billion commitment to tax trusts the same as companies, a figure identified at page 127 of the ANTS package, that would equally damage the budget surplus and equally put pressure upwardly on interest rates? How can giving relief to motorists be bad for the economy but caving into the National Party not be? 23347Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—The question of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition makes a number of assumptions which are not true, as per usual. Let me say to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition that any policy decision of the government that diminished revenue of course has an impact on the budget outcome, whether it is in an area of entity taxation or whether it is in an area of excise. I would have thought that was so elementary that you did not need me to confirm it. But since you have asked me I take the opportunity of correcting the record about what I have said in relation to excise. What I have said repeatedly is that the average motorist of Australia, to see any appreciable reduction in the price of petrol, would like to see a cut of about 5c a litre, not 1c or 2c, and that would cost $1.7 billion. CT4Costello, Peter, MPMr Costello—Per annum.ZD4Mr HOWARD—Per annum. What the government has done is to take the long-term view. We have a long-term policy. You just react to this morning's newspaper headlines. That is a substitute for policy. We have taken the view that to put $1.2 billion into road funding is a far better use of the taxpayers' money than a transient reduction in the level of excise. As the Deputy Leader of the Opposition knows, the price of petrol at the bowser today is uncomfortably high. I do not like it, he does not like it—we at least agree on that—but it is due to the world price of crude oil. DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—Yes, but we have a solution to it.CT4Costello, Peter, MPMr Costello—He's got a solution to it.ZD4Mr HOWARD—Labor has a solution. That will be the first solution you have produced to anything in five years. It will be the very first solution that you have produced. I remind the Deputy Leader of the Opposition that the price of petrol, the high level of which none of us likes, is due to the high price of crude oil. It is also influenced to some extent by the exchange rate of the Australian dollar against the United States dollar.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—By your tax.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition, for the third time.ZD4Mr HOWARD—Of course, all of us follow the relationship between the Australian dollar and the United States dollar, and from time to time we may extrapolate from that relationship the impact from time to time on the price of petrol at the Australian bowser. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition went into the area of trusts. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition sat in a government for 13 years that never really tackled tax avoidance—Government member—Did nothing.ZD4Mr HOWARD—Did absolutely nothing. To borrow the Treasurer's famous bit of rhetoric, you were going to do it in the 14th year, were you? We were waiting for it. The government remains strongly committed to eliminating tax avoidance through the use of trusts. That is why we have released an exposure draft of our entity taxation legislation. It is not the intention of the government, as the Treasurer said—and it never has been—to penalise the legitimate use of trusts for family and business purposes. It is my understanding that that is not the intention of the opposition either. Maybe they are so out of touch with the legitimate use of trusts by many farmers and small businessmen to imagine that anything that uses a trust is bad per se. It is not. The legislation that we have released is an exposure draft, and the government will carefully consider all submissions on that draft before it decides the final shape of the legislation. But nobody in the opposition or, indeed, nobody in the Australian community should imagine that the government has weakened in its resolve to eliminate tax avoidance abuses through the use of trusts.2334814:27:0023348Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVECK6MoretonLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Finance and Administration. Would the minister update the House as to measures the government has undertaken to strengthen electoral integrity? Is the minister aware of any opposition to attempts by the Howard government to safeguard the integrity of the electoral roll?23348Fahey, John, MPMr FAHEYHQ5MacarthurLPMinister for Finance and Administration10—I thank the honourable member for Moreton for his question. Since coming to office, the Howard government has introduced a range of reforms aimed at strengthening the integrity of the electoral roll and electoral processes. The House will recall that the Electoral and Referendum Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1998 was passed by the parliament last year. As a result of that legislation, the Commonwealth has twice issued regulations for consultation with the states and territories. The proposed regulations include provisions for witnessing and identification provisions when a person enrols to vote for the first time. The identification provisions require one original form of identification—for example, a drivers licence, student ID card, marriage certificate, birth certificate, passport or proof of age card—to be shown to an eligible witness at the time that the application is being filled in. To ensure that there are an adequate number of witnesses in regional and remote areas, the regulations specify a broad range of witnesses, including teachers, nurses, police officers, accountants, JPs, the Electoral Commission, soldiers and Aboriginal elders. It is not a difficult gate to get through—in fact, it is more difficult to become a member of your local video store than to enrol to vote. So these are sensible regulations that would ensure the integrity of the electoral roll is maintained without placing any undue burden on voters. It is interesting to note, in view of the number of statements that have been made by the Labor Party and, in particular, the Leader of the Opposition in recent days, the attitude and the position of the Labor Party on this issue. The federal Labor Party opposed this legislation in the Senate, and the Labor states have also opposed the draft regulations that have been put out to them for consultation. We are still waiting on those draft regulation responses from the states.But it is interesting again to note that, when this legislation went through the Senate in February of last year, this was stated by Senator Faulkner, the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate:I have said before that what is motivating this is simply paranoia on the part of the government—and I stress that. The government's view, belief, claims, if you like, that there is widespread electoral fraud have never been able to be justified. This is motivated by paranoia on the part of the government; it is not motivated by a desire to ensure that we have maximum integrity in the Commonwealth Electoral Act. That is the problem.That was in February of last year. But it is also interesting to note that in October of this year, a very short time ago, in its submission to the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Matters, the Australian Labor Party stated its opposition with regard to this witnessing on the enrolment. In fact, what this particular submission shows is that the Labor Party is still in denial. The submission states:Putting aside the matters currently before the CJC, the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Matters has not been presented with any substantive material indicating the existence of electoral fraud, despite years of criticism of the enrolment system.In other words, Mr Speaker, if you ignore the evidence, then there is not a problem. What we really need to see is not the huffing and puffing on the integrity of the electoral system by the Leader of the Opposition. What we need to see is support from the states. What we need to see from the people opposite, and particularly the Leader of the Opposition, is a call to the Labor premiers to say, `It's about time we had uniformity when it comes to the electoral roll and the manner in which you can enter the electoral roll for the first time.' Labor should support this legislation—not oppose it, as it did in the parliament and as it is still doing in its submissions to the committee. All of the posturing about the integrity of the electoral roll, about cleaning up the electoral roll, amounts to nothing. They are simply hollow words—unless the Leader of the Opposition supports this legislation and the regulations and calls on the Labor state premiers to do likewise.2334914:32:0023349Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Minister for Sport and Tourism. Are you aware that, on Nightline last night, it was reported that your press secretary confirmed that your former staffer Nicholas Berman was falsely enrolled at your address during the time of the 1998 election? Minister, why is it that, when you came into the House last night to make an explanation about the enrolment of Mr Berman, you at no time admitted that he was falsely enrolled at your address? Given that Mr Berman was listed in the White Pages at this time as living at 10/24 Lansdowne Street, Parramatta, and his wife was enrolled on the electoral roll at that address, will you now admit that Mr Berman was falsely enrolled at your personal private residence in Penrith? If not, will you give the House a categorical assurance that he was residing at your address, in compliance with the enrolment requirements of the Commonwealth Electoral Act?23349Kelly, Jackie, MPMiss JACKIE KELLYGK6LindsayLPMinister for Sport and Tourism and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Sydney 2000 Games10—Labor really are desperate. As the minister for finance just pointed out, there is no excuse for tardiness or sloppiness or irregularities on the electoral roll. If you want to know about the electoral enrolment details of Nicholas Berman, it is a matter between him and the Australian Electoral Commission. This young man is no longer in my employ. Until yesterday, I never discussed his enrolment details. If you want his enrolment details, you will have to ask him. But we had share accommodation from April 1997 until early 1998. Thereafter, it is a matter between him and the Australian Electoral Commission.2335014:35:0023350Gambaro, Teresa, MPMs GAMBARO9K6PetrieLP10—My question is to the Treasurer. Would the Treasurer advise the House of the results of the company profits survey for the September quarter, released today by the Australian Bureau of Statistics?23350Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I thank the honourable member for Petrie for her question. Today the Australian Bureau of Statistics company profits survey for the September quarter was released. It showed that company profits before income tax, net interest and depreciation fell by 4.2 per cent in the September quarter but were coming off a very strong base: an 11 per cent increase in the June quarter. So that would be consistent with very strong growth in company profits in June, moderating somewhat in September. Company profits are now 17.1 per cent higher than they were a year ago and, in trend terms, are still rising. The through-the-year growth rate in trend terms is one of the strongest in the 15-year history of the survey.There was one outcome that rather caught my eye. In the Australian mining industry—and I am sure the members for Curtin and Kalgoorlie would be very interested in this, the mining industry being a great export industry—trend mining profits over the year to the September quarter grew by 79 per cent. I am sure that has a lot to do with the efforts of the member for Kalgoorlie, who has led mining profits to a 79 per cent increase over the last 12 months. Manufacturing profits have grown solidly over the year: trend manufacturing profits before income tax grew by 10.5 per cent. In this release the ABS published a new series conceptually closer to the national accounts, showing that profits over the year were 23.1 per cent higher than a year ago. The profit share has risen steadily over the last three years—it is now at historically high levels. Profits accounted for 24.4 per cent of GDP in the June quarter—the highest profit share of the economy in six years.Company profits in Australia have had an exceptionally strong year. There has been some moderation of those exceptionally strong levels in the September quarter, but nonetheless the profit share as a percentage of GDP is at historically high levels. In the last year, the improvement has really been coming in export industries—mining being an obvious one, but also in agriculture, where exports are steadily growing and building on the back of what somebody described recently as a `supercompetitive' export sector for the Australian economy. That is consistent with growth moving increasingly out of consumption and into exports as the world economy strengthens.2335014:39:0023350McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN5I4FraserALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, I refer to reports last night that a candidate for the 1996 Lindsay by-election has signed a statutory declaration saying that he had his how-to-vote cards and other leaflets printed by the Minister for Sport and Tourism in return for his preferences. Prime Minister, given that similar allegations have been referred to the Australian Federal Police, will you refer this allegation, and the confession just now by the Minister for Sport and Tourism of false enrolment by a member of her then staff, to the Australian Federal Police and stand down the Minister for Sport and Tourism for the duration of any inquiry?23350Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I start by saying that to suggest that the minister had confessed something in her last answer qualifies the interrogator for the `verbaliser of the year' award. The minister has made no confession. Let me bring this little exercise by the Labor Party back into perspective. You have got a situation where the Labor Party are in the political dock in this country because one of their members was sent to jail for criminal fraud. They are in the dock because other operatives of the Australian Labor Party are singing—very musically to the ears of many people—before a Criminal Justice Commission up there in Brisbane. And you are trying to drag the children of ministers into this parliament. That is what you are trying to do. Opposition members interjecting—83LGillard, Julia, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Lalor, for the third time! 7T4Crosio, Janice, MP4G4Downer, Alexander, MPMr Downer—She shouldn't say that, Mr Speaker. 7T4Crosio, Janice, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Prospect! I was in fact drawing the member for Lalor's attention to the standing orders, and did not hear any other interjection. I am, therefore, unable to take any particular action. I invite members on both sides to exercise a little more restraint.ZD4Mr HOWARD—The minister for sport gave a very comprehensive statement last night in answer to the questions that were asked. I understand that the further allegation has been denied by the minister. In those circumstances, there are no grounds at all to send anything to the Federal Police.5I4McMullan, Bob, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Manager of Opposition Business!5I4McMullan, Bob, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Manager of Opposition Business, for the second time!2335114:43:0023351Southcott, Dr Andrew, MPDr SOUTHCOTTTK6BoothbyLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation. Would the minister inform the House of any recent developments in Australia's financial services industry. What do these developments mean for consumers of financial services and what do they mean for the men and women in my electorate of Boothby?23351Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLPMinister for Financial Services and Regulation10—I thank the member for Boothby for his question and for his interest in this very important initiative. We have good news for the people of South Australia, because Westpac today announced—Opposition members interjecting—DK6Mr HOCKEY—The Labor Party is not interested. In fact, one of the members of the Labor Party from South Australia has just been criticising it. Today, Westpac announced that it would set up a new call centre in Adelaide, creating 600 new jobs. This will add another $275 million to the South Australian economy over the next seven years, and it makes Westpac the fourth largest employer in South Australia after Southcorp, General Motors-Holden's and Mitsubishi. In response to consumers increasingly using the phone and the Internet for banking, Westpac has come up with this new initiative. Interestingly, last year Westpac received 65 million phone calls, so this is a fairly substantial operation. It already has in the electorate of Hindmarsh a processing centre, employing around 1,650 people, that provides mortgage services for Westpac around Australia.The member for Boothby's electorate is well qualified to accept this new initiative, should it go to Boothby, because the member for Boothby already has the phone centre for Ansett Australia and, interestingly, also has the back-office operations of BT Financial Group run from his electorate. They run an international service operation that employs 430 people and employs some of the very best technology to deliver full back-office services for BT financial services around the globe. New technology is delivering opportunities like this, not just in financial services but in a range of other services. When it comes to financial services, this is further evidence that, when we talk about building a global financial centre, we are not just talking about Sydney or Melbourne; we are talking about all of Australia gaining the full benefit of globalisation and the full benefit of new technology, and that has delivered real jobs.2335114:46:0023351Kerr, Duncan, MPMr KERRRH4DenisonALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, have you seen the serious allegations raised last night on the 7.30 Report and this morning on the AM program regarding the election in the electoral division of Cook? In light of your practice of last week, will you refer these allegations to the Australian Federal Police for investigation or will you hide behind the same incredible defence provided by Senator Ellison in the other place earlier today that, alone amongst those engaged in public life, you and he remain unaware of those serious allegations?23351Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—The allegations have been denied. I will not be referring them to the police.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—When the House has come to order—5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMullan—That's a new low standard.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Manager of Opposition Business is warned.2335214:48:0023352Barresi, Phillip, MPMr BARRESIZJ6DeakinLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Would the minister advise the House about progress in the reporting by states and territories against the government's national literacy benchmarks? Is the minister concerned about progress in any particular state or territory? 23352Kemp, 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 Deakin for his question. Literacy and numeracy skills are fundamental to equal opportunity, and of course the lack of such skillls has been shown to be a major factor underlying early school drop-out and prolonged youth unemployment. I am very pleased to report to the House that we are now seeing the most compelling evidence to date of the success of the national literacy and numeracy plan. As members know, all students in years 3 and 5 in Australia are now assessed against the national literacy standards and these results are made public by the states and territories.In the last week, Western Australia and the Australian Capital Territory have reported the results of their year 2000 assessments, which show significant progress over their 1999 assessments released earlier this year. Western Australia has been testing all students in year 3 since 1998 and on average, across reading, writing, spelling and numeracy, in that year some 20 per cent of students were below the benchmark standards. Last year this figure below the benchmark declined to 15 per cent and in the year 2000 assessments we have seen a further decline across all those dimensions of literacy and numeracy to 13 per cent. But this understates, I think, the achievement that is being made in Western Australia, because the reading results were quite outstanding, with an improvement from 12 per cent below the national benchmark last year to some three per cent below the national benchmark this year. At year 5 the percentage below the national benchmark decreased from 16 per cent to six per cent. The ACT results showed a similar improvement of five per cent in year 3 against the national standard in reading but essentially the same result—that is, no improvement—in year 5. Significant gains are being made for indigenous students, with literacy results for indigenous students in Western Australia up nine per cent since last year in year 3 and six per cent in year 5. In the Australian Capital Territory the year 3 indigenous reading results improved 20 per cent over the year.We need to be cautious in making too much of year on year assessments as the new equating process is bedded down. But these results are clear evidence that the national literacy plan put in place by the Howard government is working in those states which are making a strong commitment. I want to take this opportunity to congratulate the Western Australian government and the ACT government for their work in early literacy. Western Australia has significantly expanded early childhood education, reduced class sizes in the early years, targeted additional resources and established a much higher priority on literacy in the curriculum. What is really exciting about these results is that we are now seeing the first solid evidence of improvement in literacy standards in a quarter of a century. Throughout Labor's entire time in office, there was no improvement in literacy standards. The Leader of the Opposition was one of those ministers who kept secret the results of literacy surveys which showed that there was a significant problem. When we analysed those surveys on coming to office, we found that there had been no improvement in literacy standards in 20 years. Now we are finding, as a result of the national literacy plan put into place by this government, the first significant objective evidence of improvements in literacy in a quarter of a century.It is regrettable that the Bracks government in Victoria, alone of all the state governments, has failed to implement assessments for all year 7 students and has sought to water down its commitment under the national goals. The national social justice agenda of this government in education is now showing major results. Literacy is the most important social justice issue in education, and we will not stop until every Australian child has the equal educational opportunity to which they are entitled. 2335314:54:0023353Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister and follows two questions he took on notice yesterday. Isn't it a fact that the status of interstate members has been an ongoing debate in the South Australian Liberal Party, particularly in relation to the Unley branch? And isn't it a fact that Senator Hill, participating in a state executive meeting by telephone hook-up from Canberra on 26 October, proposed that all interstate members be ejected because their presence would not be good for the party? Wasn't Senator Hill eventually successful in convincing the Liberal Party state executive to reject 44 new interstate members in Unley? Prime Minister, have you assured yourself that Senator Hill did not knowingly in these debates mask the fact that he had false enrollees at his personal private address in order to protect—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is advancing argument. He will come to his question.DT4Mr CREAN—I am, Mr Speaker. I am asking the Prime Minister if he has satisfied himself that Senator Hill did not knowingly mask that he had false interstate enrollees at his personal private address in order to protect the consistency of his position against interstate members and his numbers in the Unley branch.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. I was about to observe that I was having difficulty as Speaker in finding a link between the Prime Minister's responsibilities and the question asked.WU5O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr O'Connor—Is he the Leader of the Liberal Party or isn't he?10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Order! I do not expect when I am addressing the chamber to have to call for some sense of opportunity to be heard. It was in the context of my difficulty finding where the question was linked to prime ministerial responsibilities that I interrupted the Deputy Leader of the Opposition.DT4Mr CREAN—It is in relation to code of conduct and yesterday's questions which he undertook to take on notice. It is as simple as that. Can I repeat—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat.BV5Adams, Dick, MPMr Adams—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. I had a lot of difficulty hearing the deputy leader.Honourable members interjecting—BV5Adams, Dick, MPMr Adams—It was a little louder than that, and it was very difficult to hear my deputy leader ask that question of the Prime Minister.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I suspect that any difficulty the member for Lyons had in hearing the question was a result of conversation on both sides of the House. The Prime Minister may respond to the questions placed on notice yesterday referred to by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. I fail to see where—MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr Lee—It is a big call; a code of conduct call.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Order! I will not sit here and have the member for Dobell address the chair in that manner. The member for Dobell is warned!5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMullan—I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Are you ruling that questions about the behaviour of ministers are not within the responsibility of the Prime Minister? Is that your ruling?4I4McLeay, Leo, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Chief Opposition Whip is warned! The Chief Opposition Whip has made a practice of reflecting on the chair, and I will deal instantly with him if that continues.I have actually endeavoured as impartially as possible to ensure that questions comply with the standing orders. I was having some difficulty seeing how the affairs of the South Australian Liberal Party were affairs over which the Prime Minister had control.7T4Crosio, Janice, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Prospect has not been warned, but she is now. I was failing to see how the affairs of the South Australian Liberal Party were something over which the Prime Minister had control. I freely concede that the actions of a minister under the code of conduct are something over which the Prime Minister does have some control. For that reason, I was simply endeavouring to ensure that the question complied with the standing orders. The Prime Minister is at liberty to the answer the question insofar as it refers to matters over which he has ministerial control.23354Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—Yesterday, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition did ask me some questions, and the reason that I have not—until now—responded is that Senator Hill responded quite emphatically to the questions that were asked. What you see here, both from the Leader of the Opposition and also from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, is the quite disgraceful dragging into this parliament of the children of members of parliament. The reality is that—7T4Crosio, Janice, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Prime Minister will resume his seat. The member for Prospect will excuse herself from the House under the provisions of 304A.The member for Prospect then left the chamber.ZD4Mr HOWARD—The reality is that, when the Deputy Leader of the Opposition asked me a question yesterday, he said:My question is to the Prime Minister, and it refers to his earlier answer. Prime Minister, are you aware that, contrary to the Commonwealth Electoral Act, two persons enrolled at Senator Hill's personal, private address in Adelaide for the entirety of this year have, in fact, been living in Sydney for that whole period?The questions of where they were living and the time at which they left were dealt with in Senator Hill's answer, but you did not then acknowledge that those two people were his son and daughter-in-law.Opposition members interjecting—ZD4Mr HOWARD—You did not. You knew that. The evidence that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the Opposition knew this is to be found in the response of the Leader of the Opposition last night to a question asked on the 7.30 Report. The transcript is not as vivid as the embarrassment on the face of the Leader of the Opposition when Kerry O'Brien asked:Are you suggesting that the case of Senator Hill's family should be referred to the Federal Police?Not even the Leader of the Opposition had the guts to say yes to that question, because he knew deep down that he had played dirty pool, dragging their family into it. That is what you did. You both knew yesterday that you were dealing with Senator Hill's adult children. Since when has it been a crime in this country for adult children to be enrolled at their parents' address? When did that become a crime in this country?Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Melbourne! The member for Brisbane!YU5Tanner, Lindsay, MPET4Bevis, Arch, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Melbourne is warned and so is the member for Brisbane. The behaviour of members on my left is outrageous. I see the member for Burke on his feet. As he is well aware, I will recognise him as soon as the House extends the courtesy it should to him.CE4O'Keefe, Neil, MPMr O'Keefe—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I want to make the point that my adult kids do not live at my address and they are not on the roll at my address.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Burke will resume his seat. That was a frivolous point of order. I warn the member for Burke.ZD4Mr HOWARD—The Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition both knew that they were dealing with Senator Hill's children. They must have at least suspected that they may have been living there.ET4Bevis, Arch, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Brisbane is already warned.ZD4Mr HOWARD—There were explanations given by Senator Hill yesterday about the movements of his children, and I think Senator Hill has dealt very comprehensively with this. But, if the Deputy Leader of the Opposition does not accept the explanation that I give, I invite him to have a look at the transcript of what was said last night on the 7.30 Report. Kerry O'Brien asked the Leader of the Opposition: Are you suggesting that the case of Senator Hill's family should be referred to the Federal Police?If they had had a point there, the Leader of the Opposition might simply have said yes, given the confected outrage that we have had from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the Opposition. But, interestingly enough, this was the highly equivocal answer of the now enraged Leader of the Opposition:If any question of rorting in relation to electoral enrolments or the possibility of it or the allegation of it, when directed at the Labor Party, has been referred with alacrity by the Prime Minister to the police force.Why couldn't you have said yes, if you thought it should go to the police? The reality is that even you had been shamed into realising that you had deliberately—and, I think, quite indecently—involved Senator Hill's family in a political debate.SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Minister for Forestry and Conservation, for the third time!2335515:06:0023355Macfarlane, Ian, MPMr IAN MACFARLANEWN6GroomLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment Services. What progress has been made in the implementation of the Work for the Dole program during the year 2000? Is the minister aware of any legislative threats to this program?23355Abbott, Tony, MPMr ABBOTTEZ5WarringahLPMinister for Employment Services10—I thank the member for Groom for his question and I note that unemployment in his region peaked at 13.6 per cent when the Leader of the Opposition was the Minister for Employment, Education and Training. It was 6.4 per cent in March 1996 and it is 3.4 per cent now, thanks to the outstanding policies of the Howard government. Work for the Dole this year has gone from strength to strength. There have been 2,800 new projects providing work experience for some 45,000 job seekers. I inform the House that Work for the Dole participants have a 75 per cent better chance than other job seekers of being in work three months after participating. Despite this, the Australian Democrats have said that they want Work for the Dole to be abolished, and this means that any future Labor government might have the numbers in the Senate to abolish Work for the Dole.XW4Kernot, Cheryl, MPEZ5Mr ABBOTT—At least the Democrats are honest and up-front, unlike the member for Dickson, who wants to change the structure, change the name, remove the funding and still pretend that she supports Work for the Dole. It is like taking away the size, the strength and the speed of an animal and pretending that it is still a horse and not a Shetland pony. The member for Dickson wrote to Job Network members this week. She said:We would like to see Labor's equivalent of Work for the Dole—not Work for the Dole but Labor's equivalent of Work for the Dole—incorporated into the Job Network.Perhaps the member for Dickson might like to have a full press conference this afternoon to detail her equivalent, its cost, its structure and its name.2335515:09:0023355Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question goes to ministerial standards and the code of conduct, for which the Prime Minister is responsible. Prime Minister, are you aware of the serious allegations about forged membership forms within the Liberal Party in Western Australia prepared prior to the April 2000 Legislative Council Liberal preselections in that state? Are you aware that the person who stood to gain from the forged forms was Mr Peter Collier, president of the Nedlands branch of the Liberal Party and the candidate in that preselection, and that his campaign manager was Senator Chris Ellison? Have you assured yourself that Senator Ellison played no role in the matters being alleged, specifically that he has not used his position on the executive committee of the WA Liberal Party to prevent these allegations of forged membership forms from being investigated? Can you also confirm that Senator Ellison phoned various party members over the weekend directing them not to speak publicly about this matter, especially to the media? 3K6Cameron, Ross, MPMr Ross Cameron—Mr Speaker, on a point of order: the requirement under standing order 144 that allegations of a personal nature be made by substantive motion reflects the natural law principle that a member should have the opportunity of notice in order to prepare a defence. I am just suggesting to you that this natural law principle, which the House of Representatives Practice describes as a `fundamental' principle of this parliament, is being ridden over in this series of questions.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Parramatta makes a valid point of order. We have on two occasions today had people named in a question, and I was listening closely to see whether the naming was in fact necessary to authenticate the question. I determined that it was and allowed the questions to stand. I am more concerned about the fact that the Leader of the Opposition is now advancing an argument in his question. As he is well aware, I intend to make a lengthy statement to the House about this before the House rises this week. I would ask the Leader of the Opposition to restrict the level of argument that he would know is currently being advanced in his question.PE4Mr BEAZLEY—Mr Speaker, I have one sentence to go. Prime Minister, are you confident that Senator Ellison's actions in this matter have been completely proper?23356Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I am not aware of the details of it. I will make inquiries, and if there is anything I can usefully add I will. Can I say that, in my dealings with Senator Ellison, I have always found him to be a person of great decency and propriety. I have no reason to express anything other than a total sense of confidence in him. I might also observe that I am familiar with some of the affairs of the Western Australian branch of the Liberal Party. I can remember when I first became Leader of the Opposition I was pursued to do something about the overweening influence of one particular individual in that branch. Although I did not have the vantage point of office and I did not have the power of a centrally controlled party organisation which is at the disposal of the Leader of the Opposition, I was able to secure the removal of the person in question from the Western Australian Senate ticket without the intervention of a national executive. I contrast that with your pathetically weak effort in relation to rorting in Queensland.2335615:13:0023356Haase, Barry, MPMr HAASE84TKalgoorlieLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. Yesterday the House was advised of the improved productivity figures on the Australian waterfront. What policies contributed to this outcome, and is the minister aware of any alternative policies?23356Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPMinister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business10—I thank the member for Kalgoorlie for his question. When the Howard government came to office, the productivity record of the Australian waterfront was abysmal. Whilst the Labor Party had been in government for 13 years and spent tens of millions of dollars—in fact, hundreds of millions of dollars had been spent on the waterfront—we were still lagging behind many whom we otherwise should have been well ahead of. When we were first elected, I remember the PM having a meeting with Bill Kelty, at which meeting the issue of the waterfront came up, and the PM said to Bill Kelty, `We think it's a problem, we think Australia could do better and what I suggest is that you have some discussions with the relevant minister to see what can be done about it.'That happened in 1996, and through 1996 and into 1997 we had a series of meetings with the Maritime Union of Australia. The background to those meetings was the frontbench of the Labor Party saying that all was well and nothing further needed to be done. At the conclusion of those discussions with the MUA, it was their view that 19 or 17 or 16, or whatever it was, was as good as it gets. When I said to John Coombs, `Listen, surely Australia can do as well as New Zealand and some of the other countries with which we compare ourselves,' he said it could not be done. What yesterday's figures reveal is that it can be done. I can remember John Coombs saying to me, `Oh well, of course we're committed to productivity.' They were so committed to it that in Sydney, for example, they had an agreement with P&O called the PEP agreement. When it was introduced productivity actually fell. That was their idea of productivity. So it was a bit much when this morning I heard Mick O'Leary from the MUA, when he was asked about the 25 target, say: Productivity is not the issue on the waterfront. It's reliability.The fact is that it has always been an issue, because this is an island continent and we need to be able to get our goods in and get our goods out, and we need to be able to do so efficiently and reliably. The figure at 24.9 is very good, and that represents a 35 or 36 per cent increase in productivity. But that is only part of the story, because they are now moving more containers and doing so with fewer people, which is an even greater increase in productivity. Whilst that is the average figure, in some places they have done better. In Brisbane, for example, it was 16.1 prior to the dispute back in 1998; now it is at 25.8. That is an increase of nearly 60 per cent, which just demonstrates that when all the inefficient and restrictive work practices are cut out we can have a stevedoring industry in this country that everybody, including the workers, can be proud of. Not only have we done very well against that benchmark on the crane lifts; on the reliability figure, which was also an objective that we set—we were looking for a 97 per cent berth availability—we have reached 95 per cent. So we are very close to that figure as well.I am asked whether there are alternative policies. In fact, there is an alternative policy here. The alternative policy of the Labor Party is to repeal the Trade Practices Act provisions on secondary boycotts. Can you think of a worse policy? Can you think of a policy more against the national interest than to give the MUA the right to hold Australia to ransom like they used to? As John Coombs said, `When Labor was in, I could pick up the phone and in 15 minutes close Australia down.' We took that power away from him. What does the weak Leader of the Opposition intend to do? He is going to give it back to him.These figures have come as a result of hard work and the determination of this government to stand up for decent practice on the waterfront. We were subject to a lot of question marks: would we stand firm if it came to the national interest on the waterfront? We did stand firm. We stood firm against a record on the other side where every time the MUA said, `Jump!' your question was, `How high?' That is Labor's alternative policy: give the unions whatever they want and go back to the way things were in the sixties and seventies. I say that Australia reckons that getting to 24.9 is a pretty good result. Most Australians will, I think, oppose a weak opposition leader who cannot even stand up to the trade union movement when we have reached the tremendous goal we did this week.2335715:18:0023357McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLANDJK6BartonALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, do you recall saying yesterday in the House that there was a distinction between competitive behaviour in the Liberal Party for preselections and criminal behaviour? If this is so, why did the member for Wentworth call in the New South Wales police in May this year to conduct a criminal investigation into fraudulent branch stacking in the electorate of Wentworth? Are you aware that Mr Thomson said at the time that there was evidence of corrupt behaviour in the party but, `I will not let myself be corruptly stacked out of parliament'? Prime Minister, what do you know of this corrupt behaviour alleged by the honourable member, and will you satisfy yourself that there has been no breach of federal laws with respect to that preselection?23357Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I do remember saying that there is a distinction between competitive behaviour for preselections and criminal behaviour, and when I talk of competitive behaviour for preselection I include both sides of politics. Of course there are vigorous preselection contests, and of course both sides of politics have witnessed a situation where there is a great deal of branch vigour—and there is nothing wrong with that. PE4Beazley, Kim, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Leader of the Opposition! The Prime Minister is responding to a question. The Prime Minister will ignore the interjection.ZD4Mr HOWARD—Oh! He said, `There's a load wrong with it when it is crook.' You would know about all of that. The member for Barton, for whom I do have some respect, asked me quite a serious question and I am endeavouring to answer it. I say to the member for Barton that I think there is a difference, and I think that difference has been illustrated over the past few weeks.I have to say again that the prominence of this issue in the news in Australia arose from the fact that a member of the Australian Labor Party was sent to jail for a criminal offence and that other people have had allegations made against them. Some of them have made confessions. Some of them, like Mr Elder, have removed themselves from the deputy premiership. All those sorts of things, if they involve any element of criminal behaviour, are one category of behaviour. But, when you are talking about vigorous activity in relation to branches, that is another category of behaviour. My understanding of the matters in relation to Wentworth—and I will check the circumstances after question time; I did hear something of that, but I am not possessed of the details because it is something that is normally deal with by the party organisation—is that there was a reference made to the police. That is my understanding. It is my further understanding—and I will check it again after question time and, if anything I have said is inaccurate, I will come back and correct it—that the police themselves were reluctant to pursue the matter further because it was seen as essentially a matter involving a dispute between different sections of a political party, and those disputes often arise, and that as of now no further action is being taken by the police.That is my understanding of it. I do not regard that as a particularly dramatic confession on my part or, indeed, on the part of the New South Wales division of the Liberal Party—if I can be allowed to speak for them for a moment. Those sorts of stoushes go on from time to time in the Labor Party, as they go on in the Liberal Party. You start to get a problem only where money changes hands, where you get allegations of $1,400 in a brown paper envelope. That is when the whole character of the thing changes. I shall be very happy to make some further inquires. I have no doubt that what I have said is broadly correct; if there is anything wrong, I will come back and correct it.2335815:23:0023358Gash, Joanna, MPMrs GASHAK6GilmoreLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Community Services. Is the minister aware that today is International Volunteers Day? Would he advise the House what the government is doing to mark this day and also what is planned for the International Year of Volunteers?23358Anthony, Larry, MPMr ANTHONYXJ6RichmondNPMinister for Community Services10—I thank the honourable member for Gilmore. She does a great job in her electorate; indeed, her reputation there is enhanced by the team of volunteers who help her. I want to acknowledge that. Yes, I am aware of, and I would like to acknowledge to the House that this is, International Volunteers Day. It is a day when we are celebrating the efforts of voluntary workers right across the country. Remarkably, in Australia over 2.5 million Australians volunteer their services in local communities to help their fellow Australians. It is these volunteers who give their hearts and souls through dedicated and selfless commitment to help other people. We should salute all of those volunteers. The crowning achievement this year for volunteers was the 46,000 volunteers at the Olympics and the Paralympics, which in many ways were launching pads for the International Year of Volunteers, which will commence next year. All of us want to thank the volunteers for the work they do in their communities and, even more importantly, to encourage more volunteers. Through our Stronger Families and Communities package, we are putting in $16 million to encourage new volunteering—$2.5 million will go into 500 grassroots type grants of $5,000 each for which local communities can apply. I encourage them to do so. It is appropriate because, in partnership with the Centenary of Federation, the International Year of Volunteers campaign will highlight the different scope of volunteering, and there will be different themes running for each month of the year. Part of that program is $9 million to go to the National Skills Development Program, which will help volunteers to, in particular, provide communities with skills in counselling, disabilities or financial management. Another area of volunteering that the government initiated is the voluntary work initiative, which is carried out by Centrelink. This is part of the activity test requirements, and people can carry out voluntary work to meet those test requirements. I think the whole House should applaud that 2001 will be a great year for Australia, particularly for volunteers, particularly for the Centenary of Federation and particularly when the coalition government gets re-elected. Most importantly, in all sincerity, it is an opportunity to thank the millions of Australians who have contributed to the development of this nation through their time, energy and talent. I will conclude with the slogan that is being used this year—volunteering: ordinary people, extraordinary contribution; real people, real heroes.2335915:26:0023359Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Minister for Sport and Tourism and it follows an opportunity for her to have checked the detail of her last answer. Now that the minister has confirmed that a member of her staff, Mr Nicholas Berman, was incorrectly enrolled at her private home address, at least between early 1998 and 27 October 1998—covering the election period—will she tell the House why she did not include this admission in her personal explanation to the House last night?23359Kelly, Jackie, MPMiss JACKIE KELLYGK6LindsayLPMinister for Sport and Tourism and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Sydney 2000 Games10—There is nothing in this; there was nothing in it last night; there is nothing in it this morning. To the best of my recollection, he was living in my house from about April 1997 to the beginning of 1998. After that it is a matter between the Australian Electoral Commission and the young man concerned.2335915:27:0023359Washer, Dr Mal, MPDr WASHER84FMooreLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Would the minister update the House on the situation in the Middle East and on the action the Australian government is taking to help address the growing humanitarian concern within the Palestinian territories?23359Downer, Alexander, MPMr DOWNER4G4MayoLPMinister for Foreign Affairs10—I thank the honourable member for Moore for his question, and I recognise the active interest he has shown in the crisis which, at the moment, is engulfing the Middle East. In this country we are grieved and deeply concerned about the continuing violence between the Israelis and Palestinians in the Middle East—violence that has led to the loss of over 300 lives and to thousands of injuries. Clashes between Palestinian demonstrators and gunmen and the Israeli Defence Force, and between Jewish settlers and Palestinian villagers, continue, although they are now at a lower level of intensity than was the case in October. Indeed, a building leased for future use by the Australian Representative Office near Ramallah was hit by machine-gun fire last week. The use of violence or excessive force is not the answer. We reiterate the call of the Red Cross for both sides to respect, and ensure respect for, the principles of international humanitarian law. Mutual confidence must be restored and the cycle of violence brought to an end. We look to both parties to exercise leadership and restraint and to renew their efforts to build the peace process and a future free of fear and degradation.Today I have announced that Australia will provide a further $1 million assistance to people in Gaza and the West Bank through the International Committee of the Red Cross and the joint Australian NGO appeal to fund medical relief. This amount is additional to the $500,000 provided to the Red Cross and the United Nations Relief and Works Agency last month. This additional government contribution will help provide essential supplies to hospitals in Gaza and the West Bank, and rehabilitative services for the severely wounded and the permanently handicapped.ZD4Howard, John, MPMr Howard—Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. Questions Without Notice233602336015:30:0023360Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10— Can I add to an answer that I gave?10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Prime Minister may proceed.ZD4Howard, John, MPMr HOWARD—The Leader of the Opposition asked me a question about Senator Ellison. I can inform the House that I have received an early return on this issue. The early return is to the effect that there was a complaint made about this preselection—I think it was for the upper house—and it was made by the aggrieved candidate. I understand the complaint went to the party's appeals and disciplinary committee, which comprises six people—two of whom are Queen's Counsel. They found that there was no case to answer. Peter Collier did not refuse to give evidence before the committee, as I think has been suggested. If I get any later returns at all to the likely result, I will let the House know.Personal Explanations2336015:31:0023360Mr O'KEEFE,MPMr O'KEEFECE4BurkeALP00—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?CE4Mr O'KEEFE,MPMr O'KEEFE—Yes, I do.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Please proceed.CE4Mr O'KEEFE,MPMr O'KEEFE—Members may be aware of an ongoing matter of a legal dispute arising from the belief held by the former President of the Liberal Party, Mr John Elliott, that the National Crime Authority was responsible in 1990 for the public disclosure that he had become a figure under investigation by the NCA. At various times I have made statements in the House based on my own knowledge of some of the circumstances which occurred at the time. I refer anyone interested to page 3553 of Hansard of 8 November 1990 and to page 2273 of Hansard of 20 September 1990.It was drawn to my attention yesterday that during a hearing of the Joint Committee on the National Crime Authority on 12 June 1997—see page 870 of the Hansard—Mr Filing, the former member for Moore, said:Mr O'Keefe, a former member of this committee, gave a statement in the House that he believed that Mr Bosch—and here we are referring to Henry Bosch, the former Chairman of the NCSC—had leaked that story about the investigation at a party at some stage early in 1990, and it was not the NCA. Have you been made aware of that?Mr Filing was asking that question of Mr Elliott at the hearing. We have researched the Hansard, and I can state today that, to the best of all the information that is available to us from Hansard and from my own knowledge, I did not ever make a statement on the record—in Hansard or anywhere—to the effect that Mr Bosch was responsible for the leaking of Mr Elliott's name. So it is certainly not on the Hansard as stated there.15:33:0023360Mr BAIRD,MPMr BAIRDMP6CookLP10—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?MP6Mr BAIRD,MPMr BAIRD—Yes, I do.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Please proceed.MP6Mr BAIRD,MPMr BAIRD—Last night the 7.30 Report ran an interview with a former Independent candidate for the seat of Cook, Mr Darren Boehm. In the interview Mr Boehm made a number of allegations, including that an unnamed staffer of mine offered him $7,000 with which to print his how-to-vote cards. Neither I nor, to my knowledge, any staff member spoke to Mr Boehm about such issues. I have spoken to the staffer that Mr Boehm told the ABC he had spoken to—and that particular staffer now works in the private sector—who said that the allegations were totally untrue and baseless. Never at any time were such proposals considered, discussed or acted upon and any such suggestions are a figment of Mr Boehm's imagination.Questions to the Speaker233612336115:34:0023361Theophanous, Dr Andrew, MPDr THEOPHANOUSQJ4CalwellALP00—Mr Speaker, under standing order No. 150, I ask that you write to the Prime Minister in relation to question No. 1620 of 7 June, concerning human rights, and also to the Minister for the Arts and the Centenary of Federation in relation to question No. 1802 of 15 August, pertaining to multiculturalism.23361SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I will follow up the matters raised by the member for Calwell, as the standing orders provide.Personal Explanations2336115:35:0023361Mr McARTHUR,MPMr McARTHURVH4CorangamiteLP10—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?VH4Mr McARTHUR,MPMr McARTHUR—I do, most grievously.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Please proceed.VH4Mr McARTHUR,MPMr McARTHUR—Yesterday in the House the member for Corio made the following comments about me in regard to the Roads to Recovery Bill 2000:... the honourable member for Corangamite comes in here claiming $20 million of expenditure in Corangamite when, in fact, he is double-counting the particular figures that are in my electorate.The member for Corio's claim that I have double-counted is utterly false. I do not claim credit for funding outside my electorate, nor would I have to since the government's roads package is so positive for the people of Corangamite that the facts speak for themselves.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Corangamite cannot advance an argument.LS4Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin Ferguson—You cannot count your sheep, let alone—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Batman may be right, but that does not mean he has an excuse to interject.Miscellaneous2336115:36:0023361SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I advise the House that on 1 December 2000 at the Australian Engineering Excellence Awards 2000 the Joint House Department won the inaugural Greenhouse Challenge Awardspon-sored by the Australian Greenhouse Officein the medium to small category for organisations generating less than 100,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions per annum.XW4Kernot, Cheryl, MPMs Kernot—That's a lot of hot air!Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I appreciate the fact that the interjections are well natured, but I am on my feet which means that some restraint is expected. JHD won this award in recognition of the percentage reduction achieved over 12 years, with energy consumption in Parliament House being reduced by 52 per cent and greenhouse gas emissions by 47 per cent. The award demonstrates the commitment to greenhouse gas emission reductions in Parliament House. It builds on the inaugural award for Best Performance of an Agency Leading by Example, made jointly by the Australian Greenhouse Office and the Department of Industry, Science and Resources to JHD on 15 March this year. That award recognised the efforts of JHD in maintaining Parliament House as a showcase for energy and environmental efficiency to the national and international media. JHD has demonstrated the substantial environmental, greenhouse and financial rewards available through a comprehensive energy and greenhouse gas abatement program. The department is proud to have been involved in helping Australian industry in greenhouse abatement programs through technological developments. The award is a credit to Mr Adrian Guilfoyle and all JHD staff who have contributed to this achievement. I know the House will join me in congratulating them. Honourable members—Hear, hear!Documents233612336110000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I present the Auditor-General's audit reports Nos 17 and 19 of 2000-01 entitled: No. 17—Performance audit—administration of the waterfront redundancy scheme—Department of Transport and Regional Services—Maritime Industry Finance Company Limited, and No. 19—Financial control and administration audit—Management of public sector travel arrangements—follow-up audit.Ordered that the reports be printed.Documents2336223362Reith, Peter (Leader of the House)Mr REITHWI4FlindersLPLeader of the House10—Papers are tabled as listed in the schedule circulated to honourable members. Details of the papers will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.Matters of Public Importance233622336210000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I have received a letter from the honourable member for Hotham proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:The continuing failure of the government to ensure the integrity of the tax system and consequently the importance that it honour its agreement on business tax reform.I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—15:40:0023362Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—This matter of public importance is directed fairly and squarely at the Treasurer, and I will be interested to see whether he comes in to defend himself in this House. This is not just a question of trusts; it is a question of trust. It was an agreement entered into with the Labor Party to get bipartisan support for business tax reform, an agreement signed on behalf of the whole government and now which he will not reaffirm today despite being questioned about it. This is a person who is about to be rolled or censured by the National Party, but he has still got the numbers. He has got the numbers because Labor is prepared to support the original proposal. So he has the numbers, but has he got the guts? That is, in essence, what is involved in this issue today. I see him in the chamber and I hope he takes part in the debate. He wants to come into this House and brag about the fact that he could get the GST through even though Labor opposed it, and now we are offering support and he is walking away from the proposition. This is a government, though, that is soft on tax avoidance. It slugs ordinary Australians with its deceitful GST, most recently demonstrated by its broken promise on petrol, by the pensioners who were not compensated and also by the `never ever' claim. While on the one hand he is slugging ordinary Australians with it, he slip slides on the top end of town. The latest is this trusts issue. We have asked the question before as to whether there is not a conflict of interest in this problem that he is confronted with on trusts within the coalition party because a number of members of his frontbench have and own family trusts. Tony Abbott, John Anderson, Alexander Downer, Peter McGauran, Bruce Scott, Peter Slipper, who is a parliamentary secretary, Wilson Tuckey, Chris Ellison, John Herron and Ian Macdonald are all owners of family trusts. Yet here we have a government tearing itself apart within the coalition about whether it can proceed with what it undertook to proceed with. You would have to say there is a strong supposition of a conflict of interest. This goes to a position in which the National Party is reported last night to have voted unanimously to withdraw support for the government in its attempts to crack down on trusts. But the government does not need the National Party because it knows that it has got support from this side of the House. Costello has the numbers, but has he got the guts?10000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—The Treasurer has the numbers.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—The Treasurer has the numbers, but has the Treasurer got the guts? That is the question. He has also committed to it in writing. The other question that has to be asked of him is: will he honour his agreement, an agreement not just on his behalf but on behalf of the whole government? I tabled earlier today a letter dated 24 November 1999. This was the agreement that we reached on business tax reform in which he said: As I have indicated to you I expect legislation on trusts to be prepared by 30 June next year and legislated in time to apply from 1 July 2001.Of course he did not meet that; he has put it back a year. But he then went on to say: The Government will introduce all the business tax changes announced in full.So will he stand up to the Prime Minister when he comes under pressure from the National Party? We know he was not able to stand up to the pressure from the Prime Minister when he rolled him on exempting food from the GST, something the Treasurer said he would never condone. We know that the Treasurer got rolled on tariffs. Is this another example of where he will be rolled again? Will he allow himself to be rolled in circumstances in which he has a clear commitment from us and the numbers in the House? If he does not honour the agreement that he signed underpinning the business tax reform and put in writing on behalf of the government, he must resign. It is as simple as that. This is not just a question of trusts; it is a question of trust. It is a commitment that you made to us in the interests of getting a bipartisan outcome.This is an important integrity measure so far as fairness is concerned and so far as the budget is concerned. Trusts can be used to minimise taxation. That is the truth of it. But we also know, from the quote from page 115 of the ANTS package of August 1998, the government's own attestation as to why something needed to be done on this:Achieving consistency of treatment across companies and trusts under these redesigned company tax arrangements would provide simplicity, clarity and fairness in treatment. It would also address techniques that have come to light through the High Wealth Individuals project which take advantage of highly complex structures.So this was the position that the Treasurer was saying was guiding him and directing him in terms of clamping down on them—his words, and we endorse them because we believe it is an important integrity measure. But it is also a measure that is $2 billion worth in the budget. I will be interested to hear what the Treasurer says on this point, because we understand that he has had Niki over there up in the gallery telling them that—CT4Costello, Peter, MPDT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—Mr Deputy Speaker, he hardly comes in to take a debate. Does he have to consistently interject?10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—I am trying to keep him quiet.CT4Costello, Peter, MPMr Costello—The AWU would—10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! Treasurer, you will have your turn soon.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—We want him here, but we want him to defend. But just get him to shut up for the purposes of this part of it.CT4Costello, Peter, MPMr Costello—I just wanted to hear what the AWU has to say—DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—I will tell you. You can have all the chance you want later, my friend, to answer this. We know that Niki Savva has been up in the gallery saying this is not $2 billion worth, if it goes; she is talking about a significantly less figure. But what does page 127 of the ANTS package show? It shows that the revenue gained from this measure is $900 million in the first year, $760 million in the second year and $430 million in the third year.UK6Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr Kelvin Thomson—That sounds like $2 billion to me!DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—That sounds like $2 billion to me, and not only is it the basis upon which you went public in defending this; it is $2 billion factored into the ANTS package and therefore the revenue neutrality test. So, if this is watered down or not proceeded with, not only is it a hit to the budget; it undermines the whole revenue neutrality dimension of the business tax reform, which formed the basis of bipartisanship on business tax reform. We all know that these areas are difficult, and the alienation of personal services income was one that he referred to before, which we actually insisted on as part of the business tax package, as part of the revenue—CT4Costello, Peter, MPMr Costello—You didn't!DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—Yes, we did. You know it, because you walked out on the negotiations. You got in a huff and walked out on your negotiations, and it was your advisers who brought you back in to cement the deal on business tax reform.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—The Treasurer will be silent and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition will address his remarks through the chair. DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—That is what led to the letter of 24 November. But we offered bipartisanship to get business tax reform up. We disagreed on the GST but we said that business tax reform was important to give business certainty beyond one electoral cycle and we were prepared to reach agreement. We honoured it. We were the ones who had to go into our caucus room and argue for a reduction in capital gains tax.CT4Costello, Peter, MPMr Costello—Oh, so you were against it!DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—This was no mean feat on our part. I was not against it. I undertook to do it. I did and I delivered. All I want you to do, my friend, is deliver your side of the bargain. We have delivered. Can you? Let us get that smirk off your face, and just get a commitment that you will do what I did.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—No, no! There is no smirk on the chair's face. Address your remarks through the chair.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—If we were prepared, and I was prepared, to go into our caucus and argue to deliver our side of the bargain, that is all we ask of you. But can you do it? Will you do it? Can you deliver? Have you got the guts to do it? That is the question that we are posing to you—and, if you have not, you have to resign. You signed an agreement that said you would do it, that you would honour it in full.We have the Prime Minister running around the country saying that he cannot give relief to Australian motorists because the cost would affect the budget. He reiterated that today. He said any cut to revenue or any dip into the surplus is going to put upward pressure on interest rates. That is his point. If the government does not proceed with this measure, it is a $2 billion hit over three years. You cannot have it both ways. You cannot say that you cannot afford to do it for Australian motorists because that is going to put upward pressure on interest rates but cave into the National Party and have people believe that will not. This is a government that has to have some consistency in this regard—let alone honour the agreement that was entered into.What was the commitment? This is important to go through. It is not just the letter he signed off to me. Back in June of 1999, he said in answer to a question from me, `The government's policy as announced in A New Tax System, ANTS, stands.' The question was: would he confirm the full implementation of the proposal to tax trusts? So there he was back on 7 June 1999 saying it stands. In answer to a question from me on 12 October 1999 about what Rob Bastian was saying, `Given that you have already put this measure off for a year, costing up to $900 million, will you guarantee not to water it down further?' he said, `We remain committed to introducing it.' We then have the press release of 11 November in which they make the same commitment, and then we have the letter to me which I have already referred to. The Treasurer gave his word to me in writing in that letter of 24 November 2000 and then he gave his word to the House in similar terms. The time was 4.21 p.m, the Hansard reference is page 12546 and the Treasurer promised:The Government will introduce all the business tax changes announced in full.These same business tax changes were announced in the Treasurer's first press release, which states:The key changes to business taxes are ... Implementing the entity tax arrangements outlined in A New Tax System (including the taxation of trusts like companies ...In his second press release—No. 74 of 11 November—the Treasurer states:As outlined in the Government's 21 September announcement on business tax reform, the consistent treatment of trusts and companies will commence from 1 July 2001.So the Treasurer said consistently that he will do it in full. We asked him today whether he stands by it, but he did not respond in the categorical way in which he has made that statement to date or in the same manner in which he wrote the letter to me to secure our support on the other business tax reform measures that he is now under pressure from the National Party to move away from.I have heard the argument and we have some degree of sympathy for the argument about trusts being a vehicle for farmers. However, partnerships are the usual farming business entity. Tax statistics show that there are 140,000 primary production partnerships but only 25,000 trusts operating in primary production. The National Party is not speaking for all farmers; it is speaking for the top end. Is it speaking from self-interest because it has trust arrangements as well? This is not the first time that the government has gone soft on tax avoidance. The member for Kingston will outline how the government has failed to act on recommendations associated with high-wealth individuals. But this Treasurer is also a serial offender in going soft on tax avoiders in the area of superannuation and employee share schemes. Before he came to office, he promised to support root and branch Labor measures designed to close these loopholes. He has been in government for almost five years and we are still waiting to see that. The Treasurer is a serial offender on tax avoidance and he ought to be condemned for it. If the Treasurer does not honour his promise, he should resign. 15:55:0023365Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—The speech that we have just heard from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition on this matter of public importance shows why a union official can be trusted to misrepresent the facts but not to run the Australian taxation system. It is the kind of speech that the union official would have given down on the waterfront as ACTU president, attacking the rich and saying that the workers demanded nothing but the best. It is the kind of speech that he would have given at an AWU conference when he read out a list of people who might have trusts. Perhaps it is the kind of speech that would be made down at the ALP branch meeting, when he would say, `Trusts: the following people have them, ipso facto they are bad,' and then he would call for somebody's resignation. But it bears no analysis. Was there any hint of understanding from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition about what entity taxation is? Did he say, `Entity taxation is a proposal to do the following,' or, `It ought to be done for the following reasons,' or, `The disparity between taxation treatment in companies and trusts is the following: these are illegitimate and those are legitimate, and this is why the Labor Party never did anything about it'? 83VEmerson, Craig, MPMr Emerson—You have had five years.10000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! The member for Rankin!CT4Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLO—Let me ask one simple question because I think the proposition is that it is an important integrity measure. It is apparently so important that the Labor Party produced no legislation in 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995 or in 1996. This important integrity measure not only was not legislated for 13 years but was not announced or developed. No exposure draft was prepared and there was no public discussion of the issue—not once. 83UCox, David, MPMr Cox—Yes, there was.CT4Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLO—Okay. We will go back to the Treasury; I will do it again. I asked the Treasury to produce Labor's entity tax measures, and I was given a blank sheet of paper. But apparently it was developed. If it was, I will make those opposite this offer: we will legislate the legislation that they prepared.83VEmerson, Craig, MPMr Emerson—How about we legislate—10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—The member for Rankin will be silent.CT4Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLO—Hang on. If it was developed, I will make this offer now: we will legislate the Labor Party's legislation. The thing is that this important integrity measure was so important to the Australian Labor Party that, firstly, they never produced any legislation; secondly, they never had any exposure draft; thirdly, they never thought of the concept; fourthly, they never engaged in any discussion about it; and, fifthly, to this day, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition cannot even explain what entity taxation is because it was never thought up by the Australian Labor Party. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition said that entity taxation is a means of achieving consistency and simplicity in clarifying the law across different entities. But which entities? Has there been any deliberation in his mind about different entities and why those differences arose, what the taxation differences should be, what the policy bases should be and how we compare a trust that does not have paid up capital with a company that does? Has he ever turned his mind to that proposition? A company has paid-up capital; a trust does not have paid-up capital. That is one of the principal reasons why there is a difference. When trying to apply unified taxation to two entirely different legal structures that are based on entirely different common law principles, it might actually be a good idea to initiate a discussion so that experts could come and give evidence. Is there any concept at all of what Labor would want to do or why it would want to have that kind of discussion? No. To the ACTU president, this is just another political opportunity. The ALP were so interested in this question today that they asked me just one question and then moved on to who was living in the house of the Minister for Sport and Tourism, who was giving out how-to-vote cards in the electorate of Cook and—another one of the great smears of the Labor Party—the residences where Senator Hill's children should have been registered. That was the interest that the Australian Labor Party showed in this particular issue. It bespeaks of just another MPI, of their sitting around, working out tactics and saying, `What can we do today? Well, we can't go on rorts again today, so we'll put Simon up to give the old branch member's speech.' You might get away with that down at the branch members meeting at Albert Park or, if you go to your electorate, in Oakleigh, but you do not get away with that here in the House of Representatives.The second thing he said—this I think was a really telling admission—was, `The reason why we need entity tax is that the Labor Party had to do something it did not want to do, and this is the price.' What did the Labor Party have to do that it did not want to do? He said, `I had to go into my party room and argue for a cut in the capital gains tax.' I thought that was a very interesting admission. The Labor Party had to do something it did not want to do: cut capital gains tax.If you do not want to cut capital gains tax—here is an offer—you can move laws to reinstitute a 48½ per cent capital gains tax rate. You can do that; you can announce it as part of your policy. Here you are, you run around and you say, `Look at us. We are absolutely virtuous. We actually voted to cut capital gains tax.' If it harmed you so much, here is an offer: announce at the next election that you have a policy if elected of doubling the capital gains tax rate. If that is your point—`We had to do something that really hurt us and that we really disagreed with'— then go out and say that you will reinstitute it.This is like the GST. I watched this parliament since probably August 1998, on a daily basis, argue GST. I used to get up here and come to the dispatch box on a daily basis and I would be taking questions about GST. How does GST apply here? How does GST apply there? How many people will the GST put out of work? What will the inflation rate go to under GST? How will the poor be worse off under GST? We do all of that work, we put the GST into place—and what is their principle? Blow me down, their principle is to keep it. That is their principle. We apparently argued for three years over something that was a bipartisan policy—not because there was any principle but because, when you have no policy, when you stand for nothing, if you are the career type ALP member that represents your party now, every political issue just becomes an opportunistic attempt to score a political point.When you were in government, was there any serious thought about reforming the business taxation system? Did you ever think of the concept of entity taxation? We also heard you say, `Because we had to do something we really did not want to do, we had to cut capital gains tax, and what we needed were all these important integrity measures.' What was the first one you said? The alienation of personal services income. Who introduced that? Thirteen years in government, and did the Australian Labor Party introduce measures on the alienation of personal services income? Not once. What was the other important integrity measure you spoke of? Non-commercial losses. Thirteen years in government, and you never produced legislation on non-commercial losses. Here we are, we come into office and we have to do all of the hard yards. And these people, who were nothing but lazy when they were in office, now say, `Hang on, you've run a marathon. When's your second coming up?' That is the sort of attack: `You've run a marathon. When are you going to do your second? Okay, you only did alienation of personal service income, which we did not do. You only did non-commercial losses, which we did not do. You only closed down the R&D syndicates, which we did not do. You only closed down the infrastructure borrowing scheme, which we did not do. You put in place the trafficking in trust loss measures, which we did not do. You did the measures to address the tax avoidance through overseas charities, which we did not do. You went into taxing distributions disguised as loans from private companies, which we did not do. You dealt with the artificially capital created losses, which we did not do. You put in place the measures to prevent trading in franking credits and dividend streaming, which we did not do. You spoke about the superannuation surcharge, which you opposed'. And do you know what they say? They say, `You've run a marathon. When's your next one coming up?' These are the people who sat around for 13 years and did nothing, and then we came in and did all of the things that eluded them.I would love to have the right of reply when the member for Kingston gets up, because the member for Kingston was one of the famous advisers of my predecessor as Treasurer, Mr Willis. I know that the member for Kingston advised the then Treasurer, Mr Willis, to publish forged letters. That is what I know. He advised the then Treasurer to put them out.During his speech he can tell us the following: why was it when he was advising the Treasurer, the then member for Gellibrand, Mr Willis, that they did not do anything about R&D syndicates? Mr Deputy Speaker, I will tell you why: because there was a whole clientele with which the member for Hotham is very familiar that was using those schemes. When we dealt with them, who opposed closing down the R&D syndicates more than anybody else? The old member for Hotham. He had a whole clientele.He could advise us why they did nothing about luxury car leasing. He could advise us why they did nothing about closing the infrastructure borrowings scheme, which amounted to $4 billion of tax avoidance, which I had to close. Not only did you not close it down but you actually opened it up. They actually opened it; they created it. He can tell us why they did not do thin capitalisation, why they did not do charitable trusts, why they did not do trafficking in trust losses, why they did not do loans from private companies, why they did not do streaming of franking credits and why they did not do superannuation. He can tell us why the biggest anti-tax avoidance measure that this economy has ever seen—the biggest single measure against the cash economy and tax avoidance that this economy has ever seen—was totally opposed by Labor: the goods and services tax. The one measure that completely clamped down on the black economy, the Labor Party opposed hook, line and sinker.We are not going to take these ACTU like speeches from the old ACTU president here. We have done all of these measures. We have put the entity taxation draft exposure bill out for discussion. We are certainly not going to take any of these confected smears and slurs from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. I should just correct him on another thing, Mr Deputy Speaker—the absurd claim that this has a $2 billion cost. This is an absolutely absurd claim. He referred to page 127 of ANTS. This is a total measure. It includes PAYG, which has already been implemented, and was also costed on an entity tax rate of 36c, which has now been reduced to 30c. Absent the measures which have already been put in place—namely the reduction in the entity tax rate from 36c to 30c and the bringing forward of PAYG, which produces a particular bonus in the year 2000-01—and the measures which the government has in its bill for implementation are of the order of, in a full year, $350 million.I want to come to another claim that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has made. He said, `Oh, we are very worried about the $350 million'—which we have out for discussion, for legislation once we have got agreement on the principles—`because interest rates could go up if that is not enacted.' Yet at the moment he is voting against $410 million per annum in relation to beer excise. He says, `Well, I'll vote against $410 million on beer excise'—he had his little stunt the other day with all of his things—`but, oh, gee, this $350 million, which you have got out for discussion and which you are going to enact once you have agreement on the principles, if you do not enact that, interest rates will go up.' Let me conclude by saying that the one thing I would regard you as something of an authority on would be raising interest rates, because, when you were part of the ACTU leadership and part of the government, you had the home mortgage interest rate at 17 per cent, you had the overdraft rates at 21 per cent and 22 per cent, you defended the falling of real wages and your greatest policy boast was that you had put the Australian economy into recession. Ten years later, they still boast about it. This is the government which has done tax reform. We have a record which you could only envy and the best news about it is that we intend to continue to deliver good policy to Australia. (Time expired)10000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Order! Before calling the next speaker in this discussion, the chair would like to encourage remaining speakers to exercise some attention to standing orders and address their remarks through the chair—a practice which was not entirely observed by the two previous speakers.16:10:0023368Cox, David, MPMr COX83UKingstonALP00—The coalition has a long tradition of supporting tax avoidance and evasion. Under the Howard government, paying tax remains optional for those who have money and therefore access to advice about how to structure their own affairs. This conservative tradition no doubt goes back a long way, but the coalition's reluctance to deal with it was brought to light in the last term of the Fraser government—when our present Prime Minister was Treasurer—by the Costigan royal commission. Peter Durack, the Fraser government Attorney-General, had left the prosecution file for the bottom-of-the-harbour schemes in his bottom drawer for seven years.Today, it is not bottom-of-the-harbour schemes that are the tax avoiders' and evaders' preferred method of operation; it is the abuse of trust structures. The speed with which the coalition are dealing with this problem is starting to rival Durack's seven-year inaction on the bottom-of-the-harbour schemes. The key player then, as now, was John Winston Howard. If he was at all interested in the integrity of the Australian taxation system he would have legislated to put an end to the abuse of trusts in his first year in office. It is obvious to anyone with an understanding of tax policy that the present laws relating to trusts offer significant opportunities for avoidance and evasion.Throughout 1994 and 1995, the previous Labor government pressed Treasury for advice on the extent of the problem and possible remedies. Nothing was forthcoming until 9 November 1995, when the Australian Taxation Office advised that they had uncovered a significant problem using multiple trust structures. They had found that large numbers of seemingly unrelated trusts were in fact related and that a range of techniques were being used by high wealth individuals to reduce tax liabilities to low or negligible levels; by that I mean taxable incomes of around $30,000, with some of these people accessing social security benefits. At least $800 million a year was at stake from a small number of high wealth individuals. Treasury and the tax office worked on the issue over the next three months, eventually advising the then Treasurer that it would be appropriate to make a public announcement that the government would act to end these practices. That announcement was made on 11 February 1996, the Secretary to the Treasury and the Commissioner of Taxation having been instructed on 29 January to develop a legislative response to cover income from the 1996-97 financial year as a matter of urgency. During the 1996 election campaign Labor announced it would act, because we were seeking a mandate to deal with this area of tax avoidance. Despite a briefing from the tax commissioner to the present Treasurer, the Liberal response was sceptical. They said they would act if abuses were found. When they were elected, to publicly manage the issue, as opposed to stamping out the abuse, they established the High Wealth Individuals Taskforce in the tax office—and I will have a bit more to say about that later. Two weeks before the 1998 election, when it needed money to fund tax cuts, the coalition announced that it would tax trusts as companies. It claimed significant revenue increases from the package of measures it called `consistent treatment of entities'. The positive budgetary impact was to be $1.67 billion in 2000-01, declining to $650 million in 2002-03. Yet we did not see those bills when the government introduced the GST legislation. Instead, we were told that this problem would be dealt with in the Ralph Review of Business Taxation. But when the business tax concessions were legislated there was no legislation to pay for them by curtailing the abuse of trusts. That was put off until stage 2 of the business tax reforms.The remedies on trusts were clearly set out in the ANTS package by the Treasurer. Labor wanted them implemented as quickly as possible. It was not a matter of any significant conflict between the parties; it was a matter of conflict within the coalition. Successive National Party leaders Fischer and Anderson have waged a war of resistance against it within the government. Immediately after the Treasurer and the shadow Treasurer had made their agreement on the business tax reforms, I had a brief conversation in the corridor outside the chamber with the member for Farrer. I asked him how his farmers were going to like having their trusts taxed as companies. He replied that the National Party had been intending to knock that proposition off until the Treasurer signed his letter to the member for Hotham. I did not take that as an assurance that the National Party would cease their resistance to this legislation—and it is clear from reading this morning's Sydney Morning Herald that they have not. The member for New England apparently had a stand-up argument about it with the Treasurer last night at the PM's Christmas party. He told him, `I've spoken to some members of the Liberal Party and I know that they are concerned.' The article also revealed that the Leader of the National Party had established a task force to examine their concerns about the issue and he had also raised them with the Prime Minister last night. The Nationals' intention to oppose the measure is clear, and they are going to round up those Liberals who normally support the tax avoidance industry to support them. For the government, there is only the academic question: who leaked the story last night? I wonder whether it was the Prime Minister's office or the Leader of the National Party's office. I expect that the Prime Minister will remain true to form and intervene on behalf of the tax avoidance industry.Meanwhile, what has been happening over at the Taxation Office? The High Wealth Individuals Taskforce has now been operating long enough for the Auditor-General to do a performance audit, which is very instructive. The Auditor found that, as Labor Treasurer Ralph Willis said in 1996, there is $800 million of revenue at risk because of the tax avoidance activities of high wealth individuals. However, most of that revenue will only be forthcoming—and I quote the Auditor's summary—`from the downstream impact of effective and timely changes to remedy deficiencies in the law'. It would be a triumph of hope over experience to believe, with this Prime Minister and this coalition, that those legislative changes will ever be forthcoming. The Auditor found that the High Wealth Individuals Taskforce is achieving its revenue targets. But those revenue targets are based on what can be achieved by auditing under the present legislation and they are quite modest—around $100 million per annum—by comparison with the revenue that would be available if the government were prepared to legislate.Those revenue targets are set down in a resource agreement with the Department of Finance and Administration. When the task force was set up, the government gave the Taxation Office an extra $9 million, provided it agreed to get an extra $100 million through audit activity in that area. In my experience, that is a realistic return on additional compliance activity. But what is unusual is having an outside agency directly involved in setting the tax office's audit priorities. The government knows it is politically exposed by its failure to crack down on tax cheats. The Treasurer does not want to legislate, so he redefines the revenue objective from achieving fairness to something much less and uses the High Wealth Individuals Taskforce as a political device to be seen to be doing something. He provides a limited amount of money to increase audit activity under existing legislation, but the government refuses to enact the legislation that, according to the Auditor-General, will be required to deal with the overwhelming majority of the revenue risk. The Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit has not finished its report on the High Wealth Individuals Taskforce performance audit, but I can refer to the public evidence given by the ATO and the Australian National Audit Office. I asked the Audit Office: Did you look at the advice to the previous government about the $800 million and did you find any reason to dispute that advice? It said:Yes, we looked at the advice that was provided, and no, there was not anything to suggest that it was different from the way we reported.I asked: Did the Audit Office look at the specific advice that the task force had given to the government in relation to the need for tax reform and legislative changes? It said:We looked at a number of submissions that were made by the task force which were then coordinated through the tax office to Treasury. We did not itemise those and check them against things that were made. But, yes, we saw evidence of advice that was being provided on an as-you-go basis.I asked:And it was a very substantial volume of advice? The Audit Office said:It was.Through the Public Accounts Committee, I have asked the Treasurer to release all of that advice so we can have a look at it. I also asked the Taxation Office—quoting page 58 of the Auditor's report:On the basis of evidence gathered by the taskforce to date, the taskforce considers that the most significant systemic generators of tax planning by HWIs are the use of trusts and related party or intragroup transactions. The ATO expects that the Government's proposed business tax reforms, including the taxation of trusts through the new entity tax system, will address major deficiencies in the current tax system. Can you confirm that is the ATO's view? The tax office confirmed that that was its view. I said: But the new entity taxation system has not been legislated yet, has it? It said: No, that is correct. Unfortunately for the rest of the Australian taxpayers who pay their tax, it will not be. The difference in this area of taxation will continue to be not the $800 million that is there but the $100 million the Treasurer chooses to collect. (Time expired)16:20:0023370Cadman, Alan, MPMr CADMANSD4MitchellLP10—I believe this government has kept its promises and will continue to do so. I believe that one of the reasons that the Australian Labor Party cannot make promises is that they have no policies to base those promises on—and if they had policies and promises they would not keep them. Mr Deputy Speaker, I know you will remember this document I am holding. Do you remember the money tree, Mr Deputy Speaker? I am sure members on this side of the House remember the money tree, one of the many promises never fulfilled by the Australian Labor Party.Today we heard the member for Kingston, the previous speaker, admit that, coming into the 1996 election, there was a searching around within the ranks of the then government to establish some areas of compliance, some areas of integrity, on which the Australian Labor Party could go out with a policy that identified a tax problem, seeking to have a mandate to attack tax avoidance. They left it to the third last month of the 13th year of government to take this step, to inquire of the Taxation Office: is there any area in which we can act on tax avoidance? The Australian Taxation Office came back three months later, one month before the election, in February 1996 to say, `Yes, there is one area that we can think of and we are going to identify it and you can run on it.' So after 13 years the ALP found, coming into their 13th year of government, one area of tax avoidance on which they thought there might be a policy to propose. I notice that the Australian Labor Party are not making any commitments or promises or announcing any policies today about what their anti-avoidance measures may be. They are waving around a sheet of paper saying, `If you have signed this, you have got to deliver on it.' I would like to indicate that this government has made commitments to the Australian people and it has delivered. We went to the 1996 election saying that we were going to make the economy better, solve some of the unemployment problems and fix up the tax system. I refer the House to the annual report of the Reserve Bank of Australia, the top economic measurer in Australia, and the governor's first four lines:Domestically it was a good year for the economy, with strong growth and falling unemployment.What a great opening sentence from the Governor of the Reserve Bank. The Australian Labor Party had never been able to establish a report like that. I refer the House not to government rhetoric but to Westpac Australia's Market Insight of September 2000:The export sector is providing a powerful stimulus to the Australian economy likely to override any GST effects on activity.Following the commitment to make things easier and better, we have been living up to our commitments to small business. I refer to the press release of this terrific Treasurer of 12 October this year referring to the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 8), where the Treasurer in fact refers to some of the measures to assist small business. Some of the hundreds of measures to assist small business include increased flexibility to revoke monthly tax period elections for the GST, a change to the way in which debts are offset against the business activity statement and increased flexibility to cancel GST registration. The Treasurer has been listening to people, taking action, taking initiatives and delivering on our promises.83UCox, David, MPMr Cox—He is not going to do anything about trusts.SD4Cadman, Alan, MPMr CADMAN—We will come to trusts; do not worry about trusts. The Howard government is sticking up for small businesses. There is a capacity for small business to take unconscionable conduct to the ACCC. It is done. The ACCC had its result last month, but it was lost on the Australian Labor Party. We funded that. The unemployment figures are the best results for the last 10 years—and it takes a coalition government to do that—6.3 per cent; what great figures. Agricultural exports were breaking records for the third month in a row. What great results on promises made and promises kept.The Australian Labor Party, on the other hand, has got some very interesting ways of approaching things. I refer to a statement earlier this month by Simon Crean concerning the shadow Treasurer's commitment about the roll-back of the GST, backing up his leader. An interviewer said, `You have put up a proposition to roll back the GST but the Morgan and Banks survey says that business doesn't want that.' The shadow Treasurer said, `They asked the wrong question. That wasn't the question they were supposed to ask.' So he says, `Don't worry about the facts; let's reinvent the question.' VH4McArthur, Stewart, MPMr McArthur—What is happening about roll-back now?SD4Cadman, Alan, MPMr CADMAN—You do not hear about roll-back now, and what a strange thing that is. John Della Bosca had it right in New South Wales. He said, `Forget all this carry-on, because it is a negative campaign and you will never win it by running that sort of campaign.' He said he believed that Australians had said that the GST was complicated enough and any Labor changes would make it worse.Let us have a look at some of the tax measures. I have only got a few minutes, but the list of what this government has done is quite amazing. There are integrity measures and incentive measures, and you have just got to weigh one up against the other. There has been business tax reform for individuals, and capital gains tax reform completely changed that taxa tax that was brought in by the Australian Labor Party and reformed by a reforming Treasurer. The scrip for scrip rollover relief is another measure of relief coming straight out of the business tax reform. Refund of imputation credits is another excellent tax initiative. Small businesses are big winners with the whole of the tax reform, the simplified tax system I have already mentioned. Lower corporate tax rates are part of this whole reform process. The company tax rate will fall from 36 per cent to 34 per cent and then to 30 per cent thereafter. Seventy-five per cent of any capital gain on active assets will be exempt from the GST. These are real reforms. This is a government with vision, commitment and policies. Nothing of that type has come from the opposition. Even in the area of reform where they want to attack those people who they claim are avoiding taxation, they have got no proposal at all. There is no scope and there is no understanding of a comprehensive approach. All the opposition do is wave a bit of paper and say to the Treasurer, `What is next? You have made a commitment—keep it.' Of course he will keep it. CT4Costello, Peter, MPMr Costello—Run another marathon.SD4Cadman, Alan, MPMr CADMAN—Yes. They say, `We will not say what is written on it but we will wave this bit of paper. If you don't keep what we think your commitments are, you can retire.' What a policy that is. That is sheer brilliance. That really bites with the business community! Our policy is that, where a small business has sold off active assets held for 15 years or more and the taxpayer is at least 55 years of age and intends to retire, there is no GST at all.What about the Ralph Review of Business Taxation? The government has introduced legislation and it is going to be out there for consultation. Whoever heard of a government putting the draft legislation out there so that we can hear what the community wants, and hear from the Australian Labor Party, if they have got any ideas. I think we have heard all of their ideas in 15 minutes today, so the Treasurer will not be wasting much time on reading their submission. But submissions will be coming from the whole of the business community and from the workers. It will be coming from the union movement too; it will be coming from all sections of the Australian community telling this government what they think of this draft legislation.That is the legislation with trusts in. The Treasurer outlined it today—there is $350 million to be gained from changing the taxation system for trusts. That is the path the government are going down. When we come into the session next year consultation will be finished. I know the Treasurer will carefully discuss it with his colleagues the Deputy Prime Minister and the Prime Minister, and they will come into this place and present something that is workable and that will achieve the results. We have kept the promises; I have indicated that to you. But what about the whole of the integrity areas and compliance? We have heard nothing today from the Australian Labor Party about the abuse of the research and development grants.CT4Costello, Peter, MPMr Costello—Oh, no.SD4Cadman, Alan, MPMr CADMAN—We have heard not a thing on the luxury car tax. We have heard not a thing on the closure of the infrastructure borrowing scheme. The Labor Party invented it and thought it was the best thing since sliced bread but did not realise how it was being rorted. What about the tightening of the thin capitalisation to address tax minimisation by foreign companies? We have heard not a word about that. They had 13 years to fix that. Those on the other side did not do a thing. Then there are the measures to address tax avoidance through overseas charitable trusts. All of these things this government has delivered, and it will continue to deliver on its commitments.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Order! The discussion is concluded.Miscellaneous2337210000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I advise the House that the Deputy Speaker has fixed Wednesday, 6 December 2000 at 9.40 a.m. as the time for the next meeting of the Main Committee, unless an alternative day or hour is fixed.Bills23373R112823373Message received from the Senate returning the bill and acquainting the House that the Senate, having considered message No. 597 of the House of Representatives, has resolved to further press its requests for amendments and again requests the House to make the amendments.23373SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—On 28 November I advised the House of Senate message No. 496, in which the House was advised that the Senate had returned the States Grants (Primary and Secondary Education Assistance) Bill 2000 and resolved to press its requests for amendments previously rejected by the House. I advised the House of the constitutional questions that message involved, as successive Speakers have done in similar circumstances. In the message just reported, the House is advised of the Senate resolution to press its requests further. I understand that there has not been a case of the Senate further pressing its requests since 1906. Consideration by the House of this message also has constitutional implications.SD4Cadman, Alan, MPMr Cadman—Absolutely deluded!VH4McArthur, Stewart, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I would remind the member for Mitchell and the member for Corangamite that the Speaker is on his feet. As I indicated on 28 November, the House has never accepted that the Senate has a right to repeat its requests for an amendment to a bill when the House has rejected the request. There are no House standing orders covering a situation for consideration of pressed requests, suggesting a belief, in the minds of those framing the standing orders, that the House would not, in the normal transaction of business, require procedural rules of this kind. In 1983, the action of the Senate in pressing requests was taken as failure to pass proposed legislation and included as the basis for a simultaneous dissolution of both houses. However, there have been occasions in the past when the House has refrained from determining its constitutional rights. The message has subsequently been considered. There are, of course, situations where negotiations between the houses concerning amendments to bills—that is, proposed changes to bills which the Constitution permits the Senate to make—are unresolved. The standing orders of the House provide for situations of this kind. They provide for a stage at which, if the requirements of the House are not met, the bill in question must be laid aside or a conference with the Senate sought. Standing orders would need to be suspended to enable acceptance of the Senate amendments or alternative amendments. It has been considered to be inappropriate to suspend standing orders to continue the process of disagreement.It is important that the House has regard to the constitutional implications and is not taken to have determined its privileges simply by the act of consideration of a Senate message. However, it should be open to the House to take whatever course it thinks appropriate in situations where the Senate purports to press its requests for amendments to proposed legislation. This could involve a range of options extending from declining to consider the message to considering the message and making the amendments requested by the Senate by one means or another. It rests with the House as to whether it will consider the Senate message containing requested amendments which the Senate has purported to press further.16:35:0023373Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPMinister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—I move:That:(1) the House:(a) endorses the statement of the Speaker in relation to the constitutional questions raised by message No. 504 transmitted by the Senate in relation to the States Grants (Primary and Secondary Education Assistance) Bill 2000;(b) refrains from any determination of its constitutional rights in respect of Senate message No. 504;(c) declines to consider further the requested amendments which the Senate has purported to press further; (d) calls on the Senate to agree to the Bill as transmitted to it by the House of Representatives without requests, amendments or further delay; and(2) the message returning the Bill to the Senate convey the terms of this resolution.There are three days now before parliament rises for the year, and the opposition is still playing games with the future of Australian schools, Australian school students and their families. There are some 10,000 schools in Australia. Every one of these schools is affected by this legislation. The opposition is showing complete contempt for the need of these schools to plan for the future. Normally, schools would have the opportunity for some weeks or months to plan ahead for their financial business for next year. At present, they are unable to do this, because the Labor Party in the Senate is seeking to use this bill to garner support from the Australian Education Union for its campaign in the next election. Let us be quite clear that the Labor Party's handling of this bill has nothing to do with any alternative policy for education or schools funding which the Labor Party has, because the Labor Party has no alternative policy for funding Australian schools. The Labor Party has not developed an education policy. Its knowledge nation committee has barely met. Its shadow minister for education is not even a member of that committee. It is not serious about education policy.We have here in the Senate a set of three amendments cobbled together by the opposition on an ad hoc basis in order to curry favour with the left wing of the party and the Australian Education Union. It is a pathetic exhibition of the policy bankruptcy of the Labor Party and its unwillingness to give any credence or consideration to the circumstances of those who have to manage Australian schools. This is a disgrace, and the fact that it has referred the request of the Senate back to this House three times is evidence not only that it has no respect for Australian schools, Australian schoolchildren, their parents, their need for certainty and their need to plan for the future but that it has precious little respect for the Constitution of this country, as the Speaker's statement has made clear. Continuing to press these requests is not something that the Senate should be doing. It does so because it knows that, if the House does not accept these requests, its amendments have no meaning and no sense.This bill has had almost 12 hours of debate in this House. It has had some 12 hours of debate in the Senate. There has been a Senate inquiry into this bill. There has been every chance to explore all the implications of the legislation, and yet we still have the opposition seeking to delay the passage of the legislation until the last minute for shabby, shallow and hollow political purposes. It has been an extraordinary episode of mishandling. The opposition's case on this bill rests entirely on false and fallacious statements about the impact of this legislation on Australian schools. Undoubtedly, it set off on this course to try to whip up the class hatred that it knows it can always evoke on the Left, because the Left cares for little else except class. The Left always needs an enemy. That is why the Left is never successful in its politics, why no Left policies have ever worked. It is because they are just policies based on anger and envy, not on rationality. There has never been a really sensible policy put forward. But the Labor Party is out there stirring up its own extremists because it wants their votes and then it lands itself in a situation where they do not understand what the Labor Party's position is. Within the Labor Party itself, its tactic has managed to generate massive confusion about what the Labor Party stands for.The extraordinary thing is that this bill, which is vilified by the Labor Party, is the most generous funding bill for government and non-government schools in Australia which has ever been introduced into the federal parliament. It is a bill which will appropriate some $22 billion for Australian schools over the next four years. It lifts funding for government schools by 21 per cent over that period. This follows very substantial increases in funding for government schools over the last four years. Over the last four years, funding for government schools directly through the schools funding provisions of the federal budget has increased by some $402 million—a 26 per cent increase. It is a bill, therefore, which in sheer resource terms is the most beneficial bill for public education ever to come before this parliament. In relation to non-government schools, this is a bill which puts in place a fair and equitable funding system which recognises the sacrifices that parents are making to give their children their best possible education opportunity, taking into account the values and beliefs of Australian families. Parents who exercise this choice make a very substantial financial sacrifice to do so. They sacrifice first of all the taxes that they have paid in full to support Australian public education. On top of those taxes, they pay additional fees to the schools to which they send their children in the non-government sector. By choosing what, from the taxpayers' point of view, is a cheaper form of education, they thereby save the budget, taxpayers and families some $2.2 billion a year. Yet these are the people who are being vilified by the Labor Party, who are being outrageously and dishonestly charged with draining resources out of government schools when, if they put their children into government schools, there would be an enormous, extra, colossal drain on families, taxpayers and the budget, and it is very unlikely that government schools would be able to enjoy the resources that they now enjoy as a result of public support.And yet these parents, who put education very high on their list of basic values, who are in many cases making a very substantial financial sacrifice, who are saving the taxpayer billions of dollars, are being vilified dishonestly by the Labor Party in its efforts to attract the support of its extremist wing. It is a matter of great disappointment to me and to the government to see that, in a number of communities throughout Australia, perfectly decent and honest people in the government sector have been misled by this outrageous political campaign on behalf of the Labor Party. Many of them genuinely believe what the Labor Party has told them: not that this is a bill which increases funding for government schools and provides the largest funding ever to government schools, but that it is a bill which takes money from government schools. Nothing is more dishonest and despicable than a political party which deliberately sets out to generate discontent and disharmony in the community for its own shabby, hypocritical, political purposes. The Labor Party is now prepared, as we are seeing, to twist the constitutional processes of this country to justify to its supporters the stand that it is making on this legislation, even though it has admitted that it will, in the end, pass this legislation.In the course of this debate the Labor Party has argued from time to time the extraordinary proposition that this legislation and the SES funding system that it puts in place for non-government schools is somehow unfair to sections of the non-government sector, and that the funding arrangements in this legislation for Catholic parish schools are inadequate. In other words, it has not only sought to divide the government and the non-government sector but also even attempted the tactic of dividing the non-government sector and the various elements of it against themselves by suggesting that the allocation of resources within that sector is unfair. Those who are not expert in this matter and who do not follow the details of this legislation hear this message from this supposedly responsible political party, the Australian Labor Party, and they wonder whether there is any truth in it and who they should believe. For those who ask that question, I put before them this simple and indisputable fact: every element of the non-government sector affected by this legislation, every element of the non-government sector which will be subject to the new SES funding model, supports this bill. They have been urging the Labor Party and Labor Party members week after week to pass this legislation, because they know that it is fair. Statements have been made by the leaders of the non-government sector, and I quote, for example, the Reverend Tom Doyle, the Deputy Chair of the National Catholic Education Commission. He made the statement:The Senate should pass the State's Grants Bill intact. This is a very good and equitable package. The new system is fair, it is open to scrutiny, yet does not drain resources away from government schools. In a caring and democratic Australia, it is vital that we recognise every person's right to choice.Anybody who listens to the Labor Party and hears them say that this bill is not fair to Catholic parish schools has to believe, if they want to follow the Labor Party, that the Labor Party knows better than does the National Catholic Education Commission itself what will be beneficial for Catholic parish schools—and not just the National Catholic Education Commission but all the Australian Catholic bishops. This bill has the united support of the Catholic Church in Australia, and the Labor Party still have the nerve to say that they do not know what is good for them and that the Labor Party will do better by them. What arrogance! What hypocrisy we are seeing from the Labor Party at the present time. The needy, independent schools, which are the great beneficiaries of this legislation—the Aboriginal community controlled schools, the new low fee schools that are coming into existence as the result of our abolition of the Labor Party's union generated attempt to deprive lower income families of educational choice—all strongly support this legislation. They do not believe the rubbish coming from the Labor Party about how this bill is particularly favourable to schools serving high income communities. They know that it is not. They know that schools serving the highest income communities are only funded at between 13.7 and 30 per cent or thereabouts of the amount that they would get if parents sent their children to government schools. This is not legislation which favours the well-to-do; this is legislation which gives the biggest increases, the most money, in the non-government sector to the schools serving the neediest families. What could possibly justify the Labor Party conducting a debate against this bill by focusing on the aggregate funding given to about half a dozen very large schools out of the 10,000 schools in Australia, out of the almost 3,000 schools in the non-government sector?The Labor Party treats the public with such contempt that it thinks that it does not have to answer any of these arguments. You will never hear them answered by the Labor Party spokespeople when they get to their feet to speak in this debate; they will never be answered. All they will ever talk about is the half a dozen schools that they think they can misrepresent the funding situation of and gain some credibility. I can tell the shadow minister for education and the Labor Party that they have destroyed their credibility with the whole of the non-government sector. When the Prime Minister visited an Islamic school in Sydney only a couple of weeks ago, he was hailed by the parents at the school because he had put in place a funding system. That school would not exist if it were not for the policies of this government, and the parents at that school know that.Nobody believes the Labor Party, except its union mates for whom this whole argument is mounted. This is not an argument about school funding—the Labor Party has no policy on school funding; this is an argument about internal Labor Party politics. The Labor Party is prepared to sacrifice Australian schools and their certainty of funding and is prepared to treat any participant in this debate with contempt by ignoring their arguments. All it is there to do is to generate this support and, in the end, it has got itself into a situation where it is doubtful whether it can even do that. If it had come up with an education policy over the last three years, it might have some credibility and some respect. There is no mystery about this legislation: this legislation is based on public reports and extensive consultation throughout the Australian schools sector. It has been coming down the track for three years, and the Labor Party has never once attempted to develop a policy to provide some credibility for itself in the public domain.We have people such as Peter Crimmins, the Executive Officer of the Australian Association of Christian Schools, saying, on the basis of this bill, `choice in schooling is now a reality for working-class families'. Although it may seem paradoxical to say so, in the end that is what the Labor Party does not like. The Australian Education Union does not want working-class families to have choice. It wants them to be locked into the government school sector regardless of whether they think that is the sector which best serves their children. When in office, the Labor Party did its bidding—it did precisely that and tried to lock the gate. What the Labor Party and the Australian Education Union really hate is that we have opened the gate to choice and we have said to the government schools and to the non-government schools, `You be accountable for your performance; you show what you can deliver and you attract the parents.' We are doing everything possible to help the government schools become more attractive to parents through our literacy and numeracy policies, our open and transparent accountability and our vocational education for the 70 per cent of students who do not go to university direct from school, which is pumping up retention rates within the government sector. We are doing everything possible to make school attractive to parents, but the Labor Party does not like that, so it opposes this bill. The Labor Party should stop the humbug: it should give schools the certainty and the funding they need for 2001; it should stop this disgraceful exploitation of Australian schoolchildren and parents for its own shallow political purposes; and it should deliver what government and non-government schools have wanted for a long time. (Time expired)16:56:0023377Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—On behalf of the opposition, I indicate that we will be opposing the motion moved by the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Mr Speaker, without wanting in any way to reflect on the statement that you have made, we cannot under any circumstances give effect to the position the minister has outlined, particularly in paragraph 1(c) of his motion. That paragraph, if carried, would indicate that this House, in the words of the minister `declines to consider further the requested amendments which the Senate has purported to press further'.During this debate, this minister has accused the opposition of having `precious little respect for the Constitution of Australia'. This from the party that blocked supply in 1975; this from the party that ruthlessly used its numbers in the Senate during the 13 years that Labor was in office; this from the man who worked for Malcolm Fraser both in government and in opposition. He accuses us of having precious little respect for the Constitution of Australia, and he moves a motion saying that the government refuses to consider amendments that have been moved by the Senate. His party is allowed to block the budget; our party is not allowed to move a motion increasing funding for special education for kids with disabilities by $145 million. That is how this minister bases his claim that we have `precious little respect for the Constitution of Australia'. He can block the budget in 1975; we cannot increase funding for special education by $145 million. The arguments that have been put here this afternoon are just a joke.The minister also claimed during his contribution that the government has provided 12 hours of debate in this House for the schools funding legislation. He forgot to mention that we have not had 12 hours of debate in this House since he released the detailed funding figures for each of the schools. We have not had 12 hours of debate in this House since this minister was forced to reveal how much each non-government school was getting as a result of this bill. In May 1999 this minister announced that funding was to be changed for non-government schools. It was a further 416 days before the minister got off his hands and bothered to introduce the legislation to this House. It was a further three months—a total of 507 days after the government made the announcement—before the figures were released; before he told us how much funding was going into each of the non-government schools. The minister claims that this has been `coming down the track for three years'. It is like a railway crossing: the arms are down, the bells are ringing, the lights are flashing—they were flashing for 507 days. We did not get the figures to work out how much extra was going to each of the non-government schools until 507 days after the arms dropped, the lights started flashing and the bells started ringing.The truth is that the only reason we found out about how much extra money was going to each of these category 1 schools was that the opposition day after day were asking questions in this House, and the opposition day after day adjourned and extended the time that was allowed for the Senate committee to consider this legislation. It was our actions that forced this minister to release the information on how much extra was going to each of these non-government schools. We were not surprised that he chose to release the information three days before the Sydney Olympics ended, when everyone's attention was diverted elsewhere. We were not surprised, for example, that the government were not prepared to bring this debate on yesterday when it was a broadcast day for this House but chose to bring it on on a non-broadcast day. The reason the government are running scared on this debate is that those on their backbench—and I am sure many of those on their frontbench—are embarrassed about the way the extra funding is distributed to non-government schools through this legislation. Let me make a few comments about this legislation. First of all, the minister has on many occasions claimed that the previous formula—the ERI formula—has failed and is flawed, and that his new system, the socioeconomic status index—the SES index—is in his words `open and transparent'. The basic problem the minister has with that argument is that his new system uses the old ERI formula to determine the funding level for 70 per cent of non-government schools including all of the Catholic systemic schools. The 272 other non-government schools that otherwise would have been worse off under the new formula have had their funding maintained at their current level, which is determined by ERI. Minister, you might turn your back on me and you might turn around every now and then to interject, but you cannot deny the fact that the formula that you say has failed and is discredited determines the funding level for 70 per cent of non-government schools.The only way the minister could get his new funding system up was to guarantee that the ERI category 11 funding for systemic schools would be maintained and indexed by AGSRC in real terms. The only way he could get the 272 non-government schools that would have been worse off under this formula to support his legislation was if he agreed to keep them funded at their current level, indexed by AGSRC. The point we make is that if his new system is so good why is it that 70 per cent of non-government schools have their funding levels determined by the old ERI formula?When the legislation was finally introduced and the true details of the extra funding for each school were finally announced, we moved amendments to make the bill fairer. Our opportunity came in the Senate, given that the legislation had been rammed through this House without us having a fair opportunity to discuss it.BT4Kemp, Dr David, MPMG4Lee, Michael, MPMr LEE—The minister interjects and says that we had 12 hours. Minister, you know as well as we do that, since the funding details for each school have been released, until today the Labor Party has had a grand total of 25 minutes to discuss a bill that spends $22 billion. It is hardly enough time to allow legislation of this importance to be dealt with in a proper way. We have fought for our amendments and we will continue to fight for them for as long as we can. The reason we will do that is that we believe that our amendments—and I will say more about them in a minute—make this bill fairer. But we recognise that we cannot block the whole bill because that would be the education equivalent of blocking supply—and we are not the only people who subscribe to that view. Senator Lyn Allison, the Democrat spokesman on education matters, told the Senate inquiry back in August, `This legislation clearly needs to be passed, given that it is a money bill.' Whatever she says today, Senator Lyn Allison, even back in August, said that the bill clearly needs to be passed. It clearly needs to be passed because it contains all federal funding for all government and all non-government schools for the next four years.The Labor Party has used every weapon in its armoury to increase community pressure on the government to accept our amendments. The reason we argue this bill is unfair is that it gives $700 million extra to private schools but no matching increase to public schools, which educate 70 per cent of Australian children. It is even unfair in the way it distributes the funding increases among the private schools. Our platform makes it clear that we believe all Australian schools—government and non-government—should be funded on the basis of need, taking into account the various learning capabilities of children and the socioeconomic disadvantage of the regions they live in. The new school funding bill does not meet this needs based principle. It gives an extra $145 million over four years to the 61 wealthy category 1 private schools, such as Geelong Grammar in Victoria, St Peters College in South Australia and the Kings School in New South Wales. By contrast, it gives real increases in funding to state schools of only $4,000 per school. In the debate the minister repeated his misleading claim that this bill contains an increase in funding for government schools of 21 per cent—increases which, he says, total $1.4 million. His own department has admitted that, once you discount that for inflation, once you discount that for changes in school enrolments, the average increase for government schools is $4,000 per school.So to address this gross unfairness, we have moved three amendments to the bill. Our first amendment seeks to abolish the Howard government's unfair enrolment benchmark adjustment. The EBA has already taken $60 million away from government schools in the last four years, even though they have an extra 26,000 students at government schools throughout the country. Our amendment abolishes the EBA and reinvests this money in government schools. Our second amendment keeps the 61 category 1 schools at their current level of funding—that is, we treat them the same way as 70 per cent of other non-government schools, all of the Catholic systemic schools and the 272 non-government schools that would have been worse off under the new SES scheme. Our third amendment increases the funding for special education by the same amount—that is, by $145 million. Our amendment would have quadrupled the special education payment for special education students in government schools and doubled it for those students in non-government schools. The government has indicated that it will not accept our amendments. We have had the bill before this House on three occasions, and we have indicated that we will keep trying to amend the bill during the current parliamentary session to put maximum community pressure on the government to accept those amendments. Unfortunately, if the government refuses to back down, we acknowledge that the bill must pass the parliament before the end of the year because it contains not only the new funding formula for non-government schools but all Commonwealth funding for all schools—government and non-government—for the next four years. If it does not pass, there would be no Commonwealth funding for any schools for the start of the school year. To block this bill would be the education equivalent of blocking supply. As a result, many schools would start the new school year with insufficient funds to pay teacher salaries, electricity bills and administration costs. To those people who were so upset about this legislation that they wanted us to block the bill, I ask them to consider not just the Catholic systemic schools that perhaps could get through to Easter, and not just the Lutheran and Anglican schools that might get through to March; what about the Montessori schools, the Steiner schools and the Aboriginal community schools that do not have any money behind them and that would, if this bill were blocked, be unable to open in the new school year and not be able to pay their teachers? They are the schools we also have to consider. So those non-government schools that are poorer and also the government schools that would be worse off because this bill allocates 12 per cent of total funding for government schools also need to be considered. Instead of getting on with the job of educating our kids, schools would be worrying about how they could make ends meet. By refusing to accept Labor's amendments, the government is saying in effect, `Give us the money for the 61 wealthiest category 1 schools or we will cut off the flow of Commonwealth money for all schools.' The opposition wants to make this school funding system fairer, but we will not risk a national education crisis to do it. We understand the anger that this unfair funding proposal has raised in the community, especially for parents and teachers at government schools, but many people are concerned that, if the legislation passes, it can never be changed. If we are not able to amend this bill before the end of the year, as far as Labor is concerned that is not the end of the matter. These three amendments are not just amendments for a Senate debate; they are policy for a Labor government. Our amendments reflect Labor policy. We want the government to accept our amendments now, but if they do not we will take them to the Australian people next year and one of the first acts of a Beazley Labor government will be to introduce these amendments to abolish the enrolment benchmark adjustment and to keep the category 1 schools at their current level of funding. The government should accept these amendments. It is an outrage that this minister and this government are seeking to move a motion that the House not even consider the amendments that have been moved in the Senate. We believe that our amendments make this bill much fairer. By abolishing the enrolment benchmark adjustment, by keeping the category 1 schools at their current level of funding and by increasing special education funding, we will make more than 100,000 Australian students much better off. If we are to ensure that Australia becomes a knowledge nation, we need to ensure that there is a balancing increase in funding for public schools to match the $700 million extra that this bill delivers to non-government schools. It will only be by ending the Howard government's bias against public education and it will only be by ending the declining percentage level of funding to public schools that we can address these concerns that we have raised and that we will continue to raise both in the Senate and in the broader community not just up until the end of this year but every day, day after day, as we seek to deliver a fairer level of funding for Australian schools, government and non-government, right throughout this country. (Time expired)17:11:0023380Ellis, Annette, MPMs ELLIS5K6CanberraALP00—I am extremely grateful to have even just five minutes to speak about the States Grants (Primary and Secondary Education Assistance) Bill 2000, particularly as it is the third attempt I have made to speak on this legislation in this House. On the two previous occasions, the government have moved a gag and I have been unable to contribute. I am extremely concerned—very, very seriously concerned—about the implications of this bill. One of the greatest injustices that we risk in the future should the government remain steadfast in their refusal to accept our amendments, and therefore the bill would pass through very much against the grain from our point of view, would be to hear the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs or any representative of the government represent that vote as support from this side of the House for their actions within this bill. They have been known to do that in the past on other bills, and I would deplore such misleading behaviour on their part in the future should they do so.One of my major concerns in relation to this piece of legislation is the government's refusal to accept our amendments as they would affect special needs children in our education system. There is no doubt at all from the evidence that I have within my community and communities around the country that the funding that is going to those 61 elite schools would be very well spent in the area of special need. I have a school in my electorate which currently runs an autism specific learning support unit with enormous success; it is in fact turning around the lives of children and families who have access to it. That very unit is under threat in the school year coming because of their inability to get an absolute guarantee that the staffing levels required for that unit will be supplied. That is the very thing that this money should be going to.I have a family who live not very far from me in my electorate with a child of 13 years of age. She is a Down syndrome girl and has been going to a special unit in a primary school in a semi-integrated fashion, again, with enormous success. She is now of the age where she can progress, one would like to think, to secondary school. The problem is that the family is under unbelievable pressure to find a place for her other than within a special school. I have my fingers crossed, as do that family, that that place will be found, but they should not have to go through what they are going through to find a place for her. There should be a guarantee that that special need requirement is met through the education processes. It is absolutely unfair and inequitable and something that I would deplore this government for in terms of this legislation. A third point I want to make very quickly is in relation to a non-government school. We have a non-government school here in Canberra called the Blue Gum School. I am fairly familiar with this school and have met with the principal of the school—as, I believe, have staff members of the minister's office. I understand that this school will be forced to become a high fee, elite school and not a low income open access private school as it is, if in fact the government's policy in relation to funding for non-government schools as it affects the ACT is retained. This school is in fact a low fee non-government school of a fairly unique nature and should in fact be supported—as I know I do and we do on this side of the House. But this school is receiving approximately half of the funding of similar schools around it and, to add insult to injury, I understand that DETYA refuses to tell the school the exact funding they will receive until after term 1 starts next year. How chaotic could one system become?I and we on this side have absolutely no objection to funding going into non-government schools—none whatsoever. My position is very strong on this, as is ours: that is, funding ought to be going into the education system, government or non-government, on a basis of absolute need and not on a basis of the skewed formula that this minister is standing behind. I absolutely deplore the money that is going into those 61 elite schools while I know that there are genuine needs in other levels around our country and in my electorate that ought to be serviced.17:16:0023381Andren, Peter, MPMr ANDRENKL6CalareIND00—I cannot support this motion, because I believe the Senate request is indeed very reasonable. What these amendments seek to do is to use the extra funding, which the government proposed SES model will give to the 61 category 1 schools under the education resources index—some $145 million over four years—and give that money to students with disabilities in both the government and non-government sector.If the opposition were serious about opposing the States Grants (Primary and Secondary Education Assistance) Bill 2000 in the absence of substantial amendments, I could believe this was something more than a stunt. When the bill that these requests seek to amend came before this place in September, I outlined in detail the reasons I was opposed to it as it then stood. At that point I could not support the bill's passage, because I considered there were major problems with the socioeconomic status formula as a method for calculating non-government schools funding. I considered the SES formula inherently flawed on any objective test of equity. That is not to say I thought the education resources index was not without its problems and inconsistencies, but I could see ways of amending the proposed bill to make it a fairer way of allocating funding.The SES model at the heart of the bill that this request seeks to amend proposes to assess non-government schools funding on the basis of the relative socioeconomic status of the communities from which schools draw. The problem is that it will do this not by any assessment of the families with children actually attending the school but by an assessment of the relative overall affluence of the census collection districts from which each school draws. That might be fine, if everyone in a given area happens to have the same relative wealth, but clearly that does not always happen, especially in rural areas such as those which I represent. Students attending a school might live in an area with a very low socioeconomic status score but come from a very affluent family, a family in the top five per cent or higher of families in that area. Yet a school drawing students from families all living in low socioeconomic areas will get a massive funding boost.I note the repeated quoting by the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs of people such as the Reverend Tom Doyle, Deputy Chair of the National Catholic Education Commission. How many times have these words been quoted in the House:... it is a very good and equitable package ... The new system is fair, open to scrutiny, yet doesn't drain resources away from government schools. In a caring and democratic Australia, it is vital that we recognise everyone's right to choice. Given that the proposed SES model will not even apply to schools in the Catholic system, at least in this quadrennium, one really has to wonder what relevance or weight such statements of support can have. More to the point, one has to ask: if the proposed system is so good, why will it not apply to Reverend Doyle's Catholic schools? And why did the Catholic system fight so hard to stay outside the SES net?Today I received a letter from Blayney Public School in my electorate, a letter similar to many I have received in recent times. Tracey Nelson, who is the secretary of the Blayney Public School Parent Club, writes:Blayney Public School provides quality educational experience for members of a diverse community. As parents, we endorse the inclusive nature of our school and support the Principal and Staff in their endeavours to meet the varied needs of all the children within our community.We believe the values of tolerance and equality are the foundation stone of our Australian democracy. These are the very values fostered by public education. ... ... ...Under the new funding, three nearby schools, Kinross Wolaroi—which, incidentally, my two boys went to—All Saints College and the Orange Christian School will receive a staggering $4,039,422.00 just in 2001. How much will Blayney Public School receive?I realise that they are subject to state funding arrangements essentially, but she makes the point of an injection of a significant amount of money into the independent schools sector in that area next year while Blayney Public School, like many in country areas, is struggling to provide any sort of additional resources from a parent base which is certainly not affluent by any means. She goes on to mention some other points:As parents we want the best education for our children. Both these ideals are best served by a well funded public education system.I must point out, as I did, that Blayney Public School is largely funded, first and foremost, by the state system—which the independent system is not. However, a fundamental flaw in the SES model is that it does not reflect the actual income of the households from which its students are drawn. That is why when the bill was before this place I argued that what was needed was a second-tier test that looked at the proportion of a school's students in receipt of youth allowance. The youth allowance, with the actual means test, now gives an accurate picture of an individual's family income. The same test should have had some bearing in determining a non-government school's funding. A school with proportionately fewer students on youth allowance in the communities from which it draws should not be allowed additional funding until its student population accurately reflects the population of the broader community from which it draws.XT4Ronaldson, Michael, MPMr Ronaldson—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. The honourable member for Calare may not be aware of the arrangement between the government and the opposition that, following the speeches by the minister and the shadow minister, honourable members will speak for five minutes. I ask him to consider that arrangement with regard to the length of his speech.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Chief Government Whip will resume his seat. The member for Calare has the call.KL6Andren, Peter, MPMr ANDREN—I will certainly try to draw my speech to a close as quickly as I can. After making such a song and dance about this bill in this and the other place for the last three months, I cannot believe the Labor Party has gone to the bargaining table, saying to the government, `We'd like you to make some amendments to your bill but, if you do not like them, don't worry because we'll pass it for you by the end of the year anyway.' The question I know that many parents, ALP, coalition and independent voters are asking is: what sort of a bargaining position is that? ALP voters are saying, `Why did the party I voted for show its hand so early?' It makes the amendments a hollow gesture. Why did Labor members not hold their position and not show their cards in the hope that the government would come to the bargaining table? It makes the rhetoric that we have heard in this place in recent months—question after question, MPIs and whatever—all puff and bluster. I sacrificed $100,000 plus of after tax income to send my two boys to an independent school—Kinross Wolaroi, in fact—after a state school early primary education. I have said in the House before that I come from a family of state school teachers, but I saw opportunities in the independent school system that were about positive peer pressure and opportunities in sport and other activities that I thought were very valuable. I was prepared to pay for that. I appreciate the minister's point about the enormous strain that the 25 per cent of Catholic schools and the 15 per cent or more of independents would place on the system if they were to close their doors tomorrow. But I am convinced that, without the application of a means test—such as the youth allowance—this bill provides assistance to the richer portion of the independent sector to the cost of equality of education. That is why I will not support the motion and why I will certainly scrutinise the bill when it returns to this place—if, in fact, it does—to make sure that it is amended.17:25:0023383O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr O'CONNORWU5CorioALP00—The States Grants (Primary and Secondary Education Assistance) Bill 2000 that we are debating incorporates amendments that have been passed and supported by Labor and the minor parties in the Senate. They attempt to inject some equity into the government's current funding arrangements. The amended legislation from the Senate allocates an additional $145 million over four years for special education purposes.In its original form, the bill contained a modest increase in funding for students with disabilities in non-government schools but did not increase the overall level of funding for those students in government schools. We are considering an amended bill from the Senate that relates specifically to an area of urgent educational need in our communities. Children with disabilities—whether they attend government or non-government schools—deserve the maximum opportunities that our educational system can provide to develop their individual talents and take their place as productive members of our society. Such aspirations are no different from those of any other Australian. Indeed, the parents and relatives of children with disabilities share a passionate desire to give their children the opportunity to obtain a quality education and take their place fully as productive members of society.The opposition has proposed that students with special educational needs be funded to the extent of $145 million over four years and that those resources should come from the largess that the government intends to dole out to Australia's most wealthy schools. Indeed, under the government's new funding formula, category 1 schools in my electorate of Corio—Geelong College and Geelong Grammar, which have been the subject of debate in this House on several occasions in the context of this bill—will receive an extra $4.18 million.I challenge the member for Corangamite, who shares my interest in schools in the Geelong region, to support the allocation of this $4.18 million to meet the special educational needs of students with disabilities in both public and private schools in the Geelong region. Is the member for Corangamite going to stand up in this House and support our amendments and this amended bill that will see a substantial amount of money reallocated from Geelong College and Geelong Grammar to hard-pressed government and non-government schools in the Geelong area? I know that the member for Corangamite was educated at Geelong College, but I ask him today to put aside his old school tie and his loyalty to his alma mater and support the opposition's amendments that will see more than $4 million that is currently earmarked to go to Geelong Grammar and to Geelong College reallocated to meet the needs of students with special disabilities and special disadvantages in other Geelong schools.The charge is often made against the opposition in debates such as this that we do not have policy in the public arena for debate and scrutiny. I say this to the electors of Corio and to the House: we have released several policy propositions related to education that I think my electors will find very attractive. We have given a commitment that we will abolish the enrolment benchmark adjustment that has penalised government schools in my area in particular. We are going to keep category 1 schools at their present funding levels and we will take from those schools $145 million over four years and reallocate it to meet the special educational needs of young people with disabilities. We have outlined a policy of education priority zones. I know that many schools in the electorate of Corio would receive special consideration from the new Labor minister for education because many of them are experiencing severe educational disadvantage. We have indicated that we will allocate more funds for teachers' professional development to help them to perform their educating task in a most professional way for the benefit of students of the Corio electorate and throughout Australia. I urge the House to support the amendments that have been passed by the Senate. They are sensible amendments and they should be considered very favourably by this House. 17:30:0023384Horne, Bob, MPMr HORNEUU5PatersonALP00—I rise to support the amendments and to oppose the States Grants (Primary and Secondary Education Assistance) Bill 2000. This is a shameful piece of legislation, by a shameless minister—a practice in elitism, put forward by an elitist government. We have a minister here who comes forward and talks about choice—and that statement alone shows just how much out of touch he is with education in rural and regional Australia. Only last week we had the Prime Minister visiting flood-torn north-western New South Wales, saying that he realised now how glad he was that additional funding was going to King's School because the students of that area who were going to King's School would benefit from it. I wonder whether he talked about the schools at Gunnedah, at Narrabri, at Wee Waa, in Tamworth itself and all the families there that were directly affected by flood? The majority of kids in those communities go to the local schools. They do not go off to the elitist schools that this government is pandering to.In my own electorate of Paterson, the people that I represent do not have a single secondary private school where they can send their kids. Talk about choice! I would invite the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs to listen to this. I can tell him that for kids from families in towns like Dungog and Gloucester, where there is only a single secondary state run school, where they probably have reduced face-to-face teaching, where they probably have reduced subject choices, there will never be a private secondary school to go to—and nor should there be. I say that there should not be, because it would fragment educational resources and it would reduce the educational opportunities of those kids even more.But we have a minister with the audacity to come in here and talk about choice. What is the choice of the parents of these kids? There will be no choice. They will have to send their children to a local school that will be robbed of funds because of the EBA. Most rural towns, particularly coastal rural towns where there is a significant dairying industry, are declining now because of other policies by this same government. Enrolments will drop and funds will be taken away because of this ridiculous EBA. Again, as I say, that indicates that this minister is not even remotely aware of what is happening in mainstream schools throughout Australia.I come in here and get insulted by this minister all the time. I do not mind admitting that I am a career teacher. I taught in the public system and I am a member of the teachers union, and I am proud of it. I am proud of the fact that I also sent my children to a public school. They were educated completely in public schools and they got access to the university courses at the best universities that Australia has to offer. I know what public education can do. Unfortunately, the minister in this government today is not aware of that at all. He believes that the only quality education comes from elitist schools—and he continues to put teachers down and to drive down the morale of teachers, denigrating perhaps the noblest profession of the lot. I will give you an example of an experience that I had during the Paralympics. Everyone knows that the Olympic Games and the Paralympics were two wonderful events that all Australia is proud of. I went to visit the Paralympics on one day because last year's school captain of Bulahdelah Central School, Heath Francis, was running. He won two gold medals and a silver medal. Heath Francis is the boy who came here and addressed parliamentarians at Old Parliament House—a product entirely of public education, a school captain in a central school at Bulahdelah. They are the sorts of schools that this minister is working against. But while I was there I noticed that there were a lot of schoolkids watching the Paralympics and being given the opportunity to experience a great event. They were from private schools and they were from public schools, too.But who had taken these kids there? Who had accepted the responsibility for taking these kids to that wonderful event for a great excursion? The teachers of Australia had done that. The sorts of people that this minister takes great pride in coming into this House to denigrate repeatedly had accepted the responsibility—leaving home before sunrise, getting home after dark—of making sure that all those kids in that strange environment were cared for, were fed, got to the toilets and were not lost. They are the sorts of people that this minister wants to put down—and this legislation indicates just how out of touch he is with mainstream education in Australia.Question put:That the motion (Dr Kemp's) be agreed to.17:40:00The House divided. (Mr Speaker—Mr Neil Andrew) 75Abbott, A.J.Anderson, J.D.Andrews, K.J.Anthony, L.J.Bailey, F.E.Baird, B.G.Barresi, P.A.Bartlett, K.J.Billson, B.F.Bishop, B.K.Bishop, J.I.Brough, M.T.Cadman, A.G.Cameron, R.A.Causley, I.R.Charles, R.E.Costello, P.H.Draper, P.Elson, K.S.Entsch, W.G.Fahey, J.J.Fischer, T.A.Forrest, J.A.Gallus, C.A.Gambaro, T.Gash, J.Georgiou, P.Haase, B.W.Hardgrave, G.D.Hawker, D.P.M.Hockey, J.B.Hull, K.E.Jull, D.F.Katter, R.C.Kelly, D.M.Kelly, J.M.Kemp, D.A.Lawler, A.J.Lieberman, L.S.Lindsay, P.J.Lloyd, J.E.Macfarlane, I.E.May, M.A.McArthur, S *McGauran, P.J.Moore, J.C.Moylan, J. E.Nairn, G. R.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.Sullivan, K.J.M.Thompson, C.P.Thomson, A.P.Truss, W.E.Tuckey, C.W.Vaile, M.A.J.Vale, D.S.Wakelin, B.H.Washer, M.J.Wooldridge, M.R.L.Worth, P.M.63Adams, D.G.H.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.Horne, R.Irwin, J.Jenkins, H.A.Kernot, C.Kerr, D.J.C.Latham, M.W.Lawrence, C.M.Lee, M.J.Livermore, K.F.Macklin, J.L.Martin, S.P.McClelland, R.B.McFarlane, J.S.McLeay, L.B.McMullan, R.F.Melham, D.Morris, A.A.Murphy, J. P.O'Connor, G.M.O'Keefe, N.P.Plibersek, T.Price, L.R.S.Quick, H.V.Ripoll, B.F.Roxon, N.L.Rudd, K.M.Sawford, R.W *Sciacca, C.A.Sercombe, R.C.G *Sidebottom, P.S.Smith, S.F.Snowdon, W.E.Swan, W.M.Tanner, L.Theophanous, A.C.Thomson, K.J.Wilkie, K.Zahra, C.J.Howard, J.W.Beazley, K.C.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative.Bills23386R110823386Message received from the Senate returning the bill and acquainting the House that the Senate has considered message No. 601 of the House of Representatives, has resolved to press its request for an amendment and again requests the House to make the amendment.23386SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—It is my duty as Speaker to draw to the attention of the House the constitutional question this message involves. When similar circumstances have arisen in the past—including the recent case of the States Grants (Primary and Secondary Education Assistance) Bill 2000—successive Speakers have advised the House of the constitutional principles involved, and the House has invariably endorsed their statements. The message purports to repeat the request for an amendment contained in message No. 491, which the House rejected at its sitting on 29 November 2000. The House of Representatives has never accepted that the Senate has a right to repeat and thereby press or insist on a request for an amendment in a bill which the Senate may not amend.It is a matter of constitutional propriety as between the Houses based on the provisions of sections 53 to 57 of the Constitution. Legal opinions supporting the argument that the Constitution does not empower the Senate to press a request have been advanced by Quick and Garran, who were intimately involved in the development of the Constitution, and by eminent constitutional lawyers, past and present. Respectfully, I agree with the opinions but do not propose to repeat the arguments which are summarised in House of Representatives Practice. It rests with the House as to whether it will consider message No. 507 insofar as it purports to press the requests that were contained in message No. 491.Motion (by Mr Bruce Scott) agreed to:That:(1) the House endorses the statement of the Speaker in relation to the constitutional questions raised by Message No. 507 transmitted by the Senate in relation to the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Budget Measures) Bill 2000;(2) the House refrains from the determination of its constitutional rights in respect of Senate message No. 507; and(3) the message be considered forthwith.17:49:0023386Scott, Bruce, MPMr BRUCE SCOTTYT4MaranoaNPMinister for Veterans' Affairs and Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence10—I move:That the requested amendment which the Senate has purported to press be not made.Once again, the House is being asked to give way to an amendment that would undermine the integrity of the repatriation system and the special benefits that are provided in recognition of those Australians who have risked, and were prepared to risk, their lives in the service of our country. Once again, the House is being asked to make a special case for the group of civilian aid workers, medical teams, who were part of a 15-nation civilian aid program to South Vietnam and who are currently not eligible for veterans' benefits for the simple reason that they are not veterans. Most unfortunately, important legislation that will provide full repatriation benefits for more than 2,600 veterans, who have waited something like 45 years to be recognised for their service in South-East Asia, and that will also strengthen the support available to Vietnam veterans and their children has again been delayed because of the refusal of the opposition and the Australian Democrats to accept that this is not a veterans issue.In the other house, Senator Bartlett has said that it is up to the government to justify why this group should not be eligible for repatriation benefits. Let me answer that the justification is there in the letter of the law and the intent of the law as spelt out in the Veterans' Entitlements Act. The SEATO medical teams are not veterans. They were employed by the Department of External Affairs to work as civilians, providing aid to South Vietnam's civilian hospitals. They were not part of the military forces. Some of these nurses have claimed that they were integrated with the Australian Defence Force. I have said repeatedly in this House, out on radio and in the media that any civilian who can provide evidence that they served in a conflict under direct military command will have their claim considered.So far, the only evidence provided has been anecdotal evidence to the Mohr review. Since the release of that report and the government's response, there has been widespread debate and discussion about the case of the civilian nurses, but no evidence—I repeat, no evidence—that they were integrated with the Australian military effort in Vietnam. In the end, the argument comes down to the awarding of the Australian Active Service Medal. The fact is that the SEATO medical teams as well as the nurses were awarded the Vietnam Logistic Support Medal as a result of the 1993-94 committee of inquiry into defence and defence related awards. That inquiry recommended the awarding of the VLSM to a number of civilians because, to quote the inquiry, `they could be seen to have been in Vietnam in some capacity recognised by the Australian government and subject to some degree of government jurisdiction'. The Australian Active Service Medal 1945-75 was subsequently extended to all recipients of the VLSM. This does not mean that their employment was recognised as military service. Also, there is no link between medal entitlements and the repatriation benefits. There should not be a link. In fact, the very first recommendation of Mr Justice Mohr's report was that `a policy be clearly laid down to ensure that the recommendation for the award of a campaign medal and the subsequent award of such a medal does not carry with it any entitlement to repatriation benefits'. The government agrees completely with this. It is unfortunate that the latter recommendation with regard to the civilian nurses was not consistent with that overriding principle. But the most important question here is whether the civilian nurses should be entitled to compensation cover for their time in Vietnam. The answer, as the government has consistently stated, is yes. (Extension of time granted) The nurses should be able to access appropriate compensation for any injuries or disabilities caused by their employment in Vietnam. That compensation under the Commonwealth compensation legislation has been available to them from the day they returned from Vietnam. It is still available through Comcare. As I advised the House last week, only nine claims have been received from members of the medical and surgical teams and eight of those claims have been successful. The nurses' case cannot be considered a pressing issue. There have not been any further claims on Comcare since this matter was widely publicised. In addition, they are not pressing for an early meeting with me. I have offered on a number of occasions to meet with them to discuss the issue and assist in any way that my office can help them if they believe that they served at any stage under military command. I can now advise that the nurses' representatives have taken up my invitation and they have asked to meet with me, but not until the new year. I certainly look forward to this opportunity to discuss how the nurses' cause can be appropriately addressed. But what is pressing is the delivery of essential services to the veteran community to address the alarming findings of the Vietnam Veterans Health Study. The opposition and the Australian Democrats should not be trying to address these issues by undermining the integrity of the repatriation system, and they most certainly should not be pursuing this cause at the expense of additional benefits for the veteran community that are being delayed by this debate. As I have said before, the government cannot and will not accept these amendments.17:57:0023387Edwards, Graham, MPMr EDWARDS83RCowanALP00—I must say I find the government's position rather disappointing. I want to try to put this debate into context, and in doing that I want to refer to one of most famous Australians I have ever known and a man for whom I had an immense admiration, a fellow well known by the name of Weary Dunlop. A book written by Sue Ebury, The Life of Sir Edward (Weary) Dunlop, goes into some detail on when he was in Vietnam as a civilian leader of a medical team. Of course, Weary Dunlop had already established his credentials as an ex-serviceman. He already had his qualifying service, and that is not an issue here. I want to draw to the attention of the House some of the things that these medical teams had to do. Weary Dunlop arrived in Vietnam in 1969, and this is where he went. I quote from the book: Bien Hoa was a grubby town in the delta and the civilian hospital was in its centre. The Australians occupied part of the `exceedingly squalid' buildings, in which the beds were packed so close together in the concrete floored wards, one could scarcely move between them. The grounds were drab and badly drained, the water supply and the sewerage system inadequate. The team was housed in the heavily guarded residence as dreary and lacking in amenities as the hospital;The book goes on to talk about some of the work that they did:Casualties came in from all over the country. As well as cancers, abscesses and infections and `every sort of surgical problem to be solved' they dealt with a stream of injured civilians suffering from multiple fractures and head injuries from traffic accidents or grave, septic wounds inflicted by bombs and exploding mines.Weary discovered captured Viet Cong, some of them paraplegic, others with phosphorus wounds, dumped on the concrete floor of an outhouse. After `an appalling row' about this with the Vietnamese Army administration, he admitted them to the Australian wards. Under protest, they sent soldiers `with fixed bayonets' to sit by the beds. But when Weary asked his Vietnamese nurses to attend to the VCs—many of whom were very young boys—they refused. Nursing devolved on the Australian staff. It was a battle he could not win.There is a story later in the book where Weary, because of a previous experience, wanted to get a young lad back to his village when the young lad was dying. The book describes:... he put a badly injured young boy, afraid of dying in hospital, in the jeep and drove him back to his village. He knew it was `very dangerous' and an ambush by the Viet Cong was a `distinct possibility' on the dark dirt road, but his desire to still the boy's misery and terror eclipsed his own fear of capture.Weary found his months in `the awful tragedy' of Vietnam `very moving'.It goes on to say:... insufficient acknowledgement was given to the sacrifices many team members made in volunteering for service on their country's behalf. Whereas Casey had briefed and debriefed senior technical advisors to the Colombo Plan personally, the present Minister did not seem so interested.It is a bit sad that, after all of those years, not much has changed. I raise that here because I am sure that much of the work that Weary Dunlop did was typical of much of the work that many members of the civilian surgical team did. It is true to say—and there will not be a digger who will deny this statement—that many of our civilian medical teams were exposed to far greater danger than some of the soldiers who served in Vietnam who were posted to rear echelon and relatively safe areas, and that is a fact.I have corresponded with veteran groups. (Extension of time granted) I have had veteran groups approach me, asking me to give support to the civilian nurses. They are the Vietnam Veterans Federation, the Vietnam Veterans Association and members of the RSL. They convinced me, over a period of time, that I as a veteran ought to give support to these civilian nurses for a whole range of reasons. It is ironic that the same veteran groups, after being contacted by the minister's office, are now saying: `We support the nurses and we support the medical teams but we need this legislation up. We need it through.' The minister has given these veteran groups the choice of supporting the nurses or supporting their own needs. The government does not support the nurses. The veteran groups need the legislation up and they are going to look at their priorities.I do not know what is going to happen in the Senate, but I know that Chris Schacht, the ALP spokesperson on veterans' issues, is well versed in these issues. He has spoken to a lot of veteran groups and he is a fairly reasonable and sensible sort of person. I trust Chris Schacht and other senators to make the right decision in the best interests of the veteran community, given the context of this argument. The Minister for Veterans' Affairs can take little pride in his actions. When the government is reaping a massive windfall of revenue as a result of its taxing regime on fuel, it could easily accommodate the needs of the nurses and accept these amendments. Given the recommendations of the Mohr report and given the fact that the most relevant veteran community groups in our community—the Vietnam Veterans Federation and the Vietnam Veterans Association—both support the nurses, I am sorry that the government has not found itself able to do so. 18:04:0023389Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLINPG6JagajagaALP00—I am pleased to have the opportunity to add a few remarks on the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Budget Measures) Bill 2000 and to support the comments of my colleague the member for Cowan. Like him, I have had a number of representations, particularly from veterans in my own electorate, about the need for the additional services that the government intends to make available as a result of this budget initiative. We certainly do support the increases in services that will come about as a result of these changes.That said, I have had representations from particular veterans. One is Paul Adams from my electorate. Similar to a remark made by the member for Cowan, Paul Adams told me about a veteran in Queensland who needed not only the services that will be made available as a result of this legislation—assuming that the government at some point sees sense—but also other services to be made available to the children of Vietnam veterans in particular. He indicated to me the dire needs of a particular veteran in Queensland, who could not get a wheelchair for his son, aged 32, who has spina bifida. So it is disappointing that we are not able to resolve all of those issues as a result of this legislation. Nevertheless, we do support what the government is doing by extending the services that are going to be made available and we certainly look forward to the services being implemented for these veterans. There is no question that they are urgently needed. I reiterate: we do support them and we want to see them implemented. I just wanted to mention the representation that had been made to me. That said, we are very disappointed that the government will not agree to the amendments that have been made by the opposition parties in the Senate. I just want to respond to the remarks of the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. He said that the reason the surgical medical teams cannot be compensated is that they are not members of the defence forces. These surgical medical teams were of course committed by the Australian government to South Vietnam between 1964 and 1972. There were about 450 individuals: nurses, doctors, radiographers and other medical personnel. As the member for Cowan said, many of these people found themselves in considerable danger and served in many circumstances in appalling conditions. I will not go through all of those; they have been discussed before. Many of them—and this is the critical point—are now suffering from many of the same illnesses and physical complaints that are confronting our Vietnam veterans. As I say, we are very pleased that the government is responding to the needs of Vietnam veterans. But we are trying to get the government to recognise that there were other people serving in appalling conditions as a result of Australian government commitments in South Vietnam who are now suffering very similar conditions, illnesses and physical complaints. Yet the government will not see clear to properly compensate these doctors and nurses in a way that would make sure they were properly looked after.I do not intend to call a division here this evening, but I do want to make it plain and put it on the record that, although we do support what the government is doing for both Vietnam veterans and their children, we also want to continue to press the government here this evening to extend the support to the nurses, doctors and other medical professionals who gave an enormous amount of dedicated service, both to Australians and to other people in Vietnam, for so many years. I say to the government again that these people are not being properly looked after, after having given an enormous amount of dedicated service to our country. (Time expired)18:09:0023389Scott, Bruce, MPMr BRUCE SCOTTYT4MaranoaNPMinister for Veterans' Affairs and Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence10—I would just like to add a couple of things. I do not want to trawl over the ground that we have covered a couple of times in this debate, but I do get disturbed when I hear from the opposition that these civilian medical teams and nurses are not getting the proper care and compensation that they deserve. I repeat that Comcare accepts conditions such as the psychological PTSD condition as being related to service and work in Vietnam. I do not want the message to be out there that those conditions are not accepted. I ask the opposition to make sure that we can work with these people, as I have said to the nurses and the civilian medical teams, to make sure that they are accessing their entitlements through Comcare. On the weekend, I spoke with the veteran groups. I spoke with members of the Vietnam Veterans Association and the Vietnam Veterans Federation of Australia. My office have also spoken with the RSL. The peak leadership of those three groups support the government's position in relation to the civilian surgical medical teams and the position that the government has taken. But let me assure the House once more that my office stands ready to help these nurses. If they can establish a case where they were under military command, they will be entitled to a veterans' entitlement. If they are not getting the proper support through Comcare, I need to know. I have said that repeatedly in the House and I have said it in the media. I want them to know through their associations and their friends that they do deserve to get the support of Comcare. I will make sure that my office facilities are available to help them get the adequate support and compensation that they deserve. I would not like to think that we are winding this debate up with an impression that they are not getting it. If they are not getting it, I want to know why they are not getting it through Comcare, and that is the issue we can address.18:12:0023390Edwards, Graham, MPMr EDWARDS83RCowanALP00—I just want to put a couple of things into context. First of all, the Vietnam Veterans Federation and the Vietnam Veterans Association both support the extension of the Veterans' Entitlements Act to cover these nurses. However, they are concerned that, if this bill is held up and if the government does not proceed with it, those benefits which everyone wants to see the Vietnam veteran community have, particularly in relation to the children, will not go through. So do not be at odds with the facts. The facts are that the peak Vietnam community organisations support the extension of the Veterans' Entitlements Act to cover nurses, as indeed do many people within the RSL. The other thing is that nurses have had many problems trying to access Comcare. My understanding is that one of the differences between the Veterans' Entitlements Act and Comcare is that Comcare benefits would cut out at 65. Of course, that is the age when this post-traumatic stress disorder will have really ravaged a number of people. It is the age when people most need care. That is my understanding, and it is for those reasons that the opposition is again disappointed that the government has chosen to treat this legislation the way that it has.18:13:0023390Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLINPG6JagajagaALP00—I just want to pick up one issue which we want a response from the minister on. One of the concerns of the nurses is what happens to them under Comcare arrangements once they turn 65. If the minister could clarify that issue, that would be helpful.18:14:0023390Scott, Bruce, MPMr BRUCE SCOTTYT4MaranoaNPMinister for Veterans' Affairs and Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence10—The issue is that income support under Comcare ceases at the age of 65. The medical treatment does not cease at the age of 65. The medical treatment continues beyond 65 but, at the age of 65, they would be entitled, like all other Australians, to an age pension. However, under Comcare there is provision in the compensation arrangements for lump sum compensation, which, obviously, you cannot get under a DVA entitlement. That is why they do differ: one is lump sum compensation as well as some income support, modification to the home and medical treatment. I can supply information to you on the differences in the two acts. One is more about a lump sum and then going on to an age pension, and with the other one compensation is payable as an annuity for life. There are two differences in them in that regard. But the treatment does not cease at age 65. I have got indications that that is the case from my advisers. Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills23391R115723391Consideration resumed from 29 November.Senate's amendments—(1) Schedule 1, page 3 (after line 18), after item 5, insert:5A Subparagraph 66-2(1)(a)(iii)After “, in accordance with the Sanctions Principles,”, insert “and in accordance with section 66A-2,”.5B Subparagraph 66-2(1)(a)(iv)After “, in accordance with the Sanctions Principles,”, insert “and in accordance with section 66A-3”.5C After Division 66Insert:Division 66A—Establishment of administrator panel and adviser panel66A-1 Establishment of administrator panel and adviser panel (1) There is to be a panel of: (a) administrators (the administrator panel); and (b) advisers (the adviser panel). (2) The Secretary may appoint a person to a panel mentioned in subsection (1) if: (a) the Secretary is satisfied that the person: (i) has at least 3 years' experience in senior positions in managing, or providing professional advice and support to, an aged care service or a similar undertaking; and (ii) is not a *disqualified individual; and (b) the Secretary is also satisfied that, if the person were appointed to the panel, there would not be a conflict of interest between the person's duties as a member and any other interests or duties of the person; and (c) the person is not a Commonwealth officer or employee. (2A) Each panel is to include at least one registered medical practitioner. (3) A person is appointed to a panel for the term stated in the instrument of appointment. (4) The Secretary may terminate a person's appointment to a panel by writing signed by the Secretary and given to the person. (4A) A notice under subsection (4) must include a statement of reasons for the termination of the person's appointment. (5) A person may resign an appointment by writing signed by him or her and given to the Secretary.66A-2 Appointment of advisers (1) A person is eligible to be appointed as an adviser only if the person: (a) is a member of the adviser panel; and (b) has not been one of the *key personnel of an approved provider whose approval under Part 2.1 has been revoked; and (c) has not been one of the relevant personnel of a body whose application for approval as a provider of aged care services has been refused. (2) If the approved provider agrees to appoint an adviser, the approved provider must, within 5 working days after the *section 67-5 notice time: (a) nominate, in writing, a proposed adviser to the Secretary; and (b) give the Secretary written information about the proposed adviser to allow the Secretary to decide whether the proposed adviser is suitable. (3) If the Secretary approves the proposed appointment, the appointment must be made within one working day after the approved provider is informed of the Secretary's approval.66A-3 Appointment of administrators (1) A person is eligible to be appointed as an administrator only if the person: (a) is a member of the administrator panel; and (b) has not been one of the *key personnel of an approved provider whose approval under Part 2.1 has been revoked; and (c) has not been one of the relevant personnel of a body whose application for approval as a provider of aged care services has been refused. (2) If the approved provider agrees to appoint an administrator, the approved provider must, within 5 working days after the *section 67-5 notice time: (a) nominate, in writing, a proposed administrator to the Secretary; and (b) give the Secretary written information about the proposed administrator to allow the Secretary to decide whether the proposed administrator is suitable. (3) If the Secretary approves the proposed appointment, the appointment must be made within one working day after the approved provider is informed of the Secretary's approval.66A-4 Powers of administrators and advisers (1) The Secretary must provide to a person appointed under section 66A-2 or 66A-3 a report on the relevant aged care service which includes the following information: (a) all relevant accreditation, certification and review audit reports on the service; (b) the current classification of all residents; (c) the Commonwealth subsidies paid to the service; (d) any debts owed by the service to the Commonwealth; (e) a summary of any relevant complaints about the service, indicating the issues raised and action taken by the service, without identifying any parties involved; and (f) any other matters that the Secretary determines are relevant. (2) The approved provider must provide to a person appointed under section 66A-3 all relevant information required by the person to administer the service. (3) The approved provider must allow a person appointed under section 66A-3 to manage the service to ensure that all resident care standards are met and maintained. (4) If a person appointed under section 66A-3 is a registered medical practitioner, the approved provider must allow the person to provide medical services to ensure that all resident care standards are met.66A-5 Interpretation In this Division:relevant personnel, in relation to a body, means any of the following: (a) if the body is not a State or Territory—a member of the group of people who are responsible for the executive decisions of the body; (b) if the body is not a State or Territory—anyone else who is concerned in, or takes part in, the management of the body; (c) in any case—anyone who is responsible for the overall nursing care provided by an aged care service conducted by the body; (d) in any case—anyone who is responsible for the day-to-day operations of an aged care service conducted by the body, whether or not the person is employed by the body.5D Commencement of items 5A, 5B and 5CDespite section 2, items 5A, 5B and 5C commence on the 28th day after the day on which this Act receives the Royal Assent.(2) Schedule 2, item 10, page 10 (lines 1 to 8), omit subsections (4) and (5), substitute: (4) For the purposes of this section, an individual who is one of the *key personnel of an applicant under section 8-2 is taken to be of unsound mind if, and only if, a registered medical practitioner has certified that he or she is mentally incapable of performing his or her duties as one of those key personnel. (5) For the purposes of this section, an individual who is one of the *key personnel of an approved provider is taken to be of unsound mind if, and only if, a registered medical practitioner has certified that he or she is mentally incapable of performing his or her duties as one of those key personnel.(3) Schedule 2, item 14, page 13 (line 4), omit “subsection (2)”, substitute “regulations made for the purpose of subsection (2)”.(4) Schedule 2, item 14, page 13 (line 5), after “steps”, insert “specified in the Sanctions Principles”. 18:16:0023393Bishop, Bronwyn, MPMrs BRONWYN BISHOPSE4MackellarLPMinister for Aged Care10—I move:That the amendments be agreed to.I want to make just a few points. Firstly, the government wishes the House to agree to the amendments to the Aged Care Amendment Bill 2000 that were passed in the Senate. The amendments made concern basically four points. The first amendment relates to the establishment of a panel of administrators and a panel of advisers and the reduction of the time frame for the nomination and appointment of administrators and advisers. The second amendment relates to the question of unsound mind, where it is now required that a medical practitioner certify that a person is mentally incapable of performing his or her duties as a member of the approved provider's key personnel. Amendments (3) and (4) require an amendment to the sanctions principles of the act to include steps which an approved provider needs to take with regard to ensuring key personnel are not disqualified persons.With regard to the first amendment, I simply say that the government is very comfortable with the establishment of panels in a formal sense, as this is the informal way in which panels of hospital administrators and advisers have been collected together. The time frame which is now in place is that, within five days, the proposed appointment of a would-be administrator or adviser is to be referred to the department for their consideration. The opposition moved two days, but two days would indeed have had unintended consequences. With that tight time frame, if an appointment was not forthcoming in two days then automatically the approved provider's status would lapse, with the extreme likelihood that the facility would close and residents would need to be evacuated, when, with a more reasonable time of five working days, a better outcome could be arrived at. For that reason, the Democrats agreed with the government, and five days was the allotted time. The amendment also requires that there is one day after the approval of that person has been made by the department for the approved provider to appoint either the administrator or the adviser as the sanction requires.As I said, the second amendment requires a medical practitioner to certify with regard to unsound mind. The third and fourth amendments relate to the requirement that key personnel shall be checked. The requirement for key personnel under the new legislation is that they shall not have been convicted of an indictable offence, not be of unsound mind and not be bankrupt. There will now be amendments made to the sanctions principles which will set out some of the steps that need to be followed by an approved provider to satisfy that provision. I commend the amendments to the House.18:20:0023393Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLINPG6JagajagaALP00—It is extraordinary that this bill, the Aged Care Amendment Bill 2000, is the first and only bill introduced by the government this year to attempt to fix up what I think every Australian would know to be an enormous range of problems facing our aged care system. Even so, since the bill was introduced there has been a pretty minimal response to that very wide community concern about the standards of care that exist in our nursing homes. As indicated in the debate that has gone on so far, unfortunately this bill will do nothing to alleviate the chronic shortage of nursing home beds that exists in many regions, it will do nothing to fix what many people know to be a flawed complaints system and it will not resolve the funding crisis that now is forcing many providers to compromise care standards. Unfortunately, what the bill does demonstrate is that the government has not learnt anything from its mistakes in aged care, a situation which has now gone on for four years. The bill is focused more on imposing financial penalties on substandard nursing homes, an approach that does nothing to improve resident care and can in fact contribute to the problem. The government is focused on financial penalties, and I think the contrast is very clear: Labor is focused on the care of residents. There are a number of examples of the government's failure to ensure that residents receive proper care. One of those, about which I have asked a number of questions here—SE4Bishop, Bronwyn, MPMrs Bronwyn Bishop—Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. I am happy to respond to the point that the shadow minister is making, but in this debate we are supposed to be addressing, as I understand it, the actual amendments that have come back from the Senate, not readdressing the whole second reading debate that was engaged in at the time the bill was first amended. I am happy to respond to all those points, as I have done on many occasions before, but this is the place where we are supposed to be debating the amendments. 10000Quick, Harry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Quick)—I ask the honourable member for Jagajaga to come back to the amendments.PG6Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLIN—The point about the amendments is that what the opposition have sought to do, and which the government is accepting, is put pressure on the government to change the way an administrator is appointed. The government wanted to have the length of time for the appointment of administrators to be up to 12 days. They gave no indication or rationale for the extension of the time frame to 12 days from our original much shorter time frame. The Minister for Aged Care, who is at the table, has just indicated that she has accepted that 12 days is too long and has brought the time frame back to five working days. That move has been supported by the Democrats. We still think it would have been better to have had a shorter period of time, and that is why I want to take a minute to go to the problems that exist in the system. The reason we want as short a time frame as possible is illustrated by the example of the Kenilworth nursing home in my electorate. The government has had report after report identifying problems in that nursing home. It has not at any time sought to put in an administrator, and has in fact left residents very much exposed in that nursing home. The care of the residents should be of the highest priority. It is not good enough to leave residents in accommodation that is not of the highest standard, as has been shown in report after report done by the government's own investigators. The delays have not done any good whatsoever for the residents of that nursing home or any others; we have certainly seen plenty of examples.As I say, the government's response to our amendments has been, unfortunately, to attempt to water them down. They proposed extensions to the time frame for the appointment of an administrator from our three days to a possible 12 days. (Extension of time granted) The compromise that has been reached with the Democrats of five working days is certainly much better than the current four or even more weeks. The question to the minister still remains: why did it fall to Labor to introduce these amendments to fix up the government's flawed system? The government has had many years to introduce this improvement but it has taken until now. It has been left to the opposition to move these amendments to ensure that administrators are placed in nursing homes where substandard care has been found. They should be put in quickly; it should not take a considerable period of time. In her response, the minister might also like to explain what is going to happen to nursing homes that have currently failed accreditation and are facing a loss of Commonwealth funding in just a few short weeks. What we would like to know, particularly the families of nursing home residents, is: will exceptions be made to this deadline; if so, when will the required principles be tabled? The community is very anxious to know the answer to that question.18:27:0023394Bishop, Bronwyn, MPMrs BRONWYN BISHOPSE4MackellarLPMinister for Aged Care10—Very briefly, as I have said many times before in answer to the points the shadow minister made originally, the Auditor-General found that we had been left 10,000 places short. In the last two years I have issued 22,000 places to make up for the shortfall left by Labor not meeting its own benchmark and to make up for growth and dependency. Turning specifically to the amendments to the bill, the important thing about the bill is that it now gives the department two extra tools that it can use in ensuring that good care is given. With regard to accreditation, the system is working and is working well. We have seen something like 173 facilities close or relocate in the time that we have been implementing the accreditation system. We are seeing that the bad providers who were left there under Labor for years are simply being got rid of. The fact of the matter is that we are dealing with important residents, and by way of example all my focus will be on Kenilworth, which the shadow minister mentioned, a home that was registered for 30 residents. Over time we have seen 25 of them move. Sanctions have been put in place; we have daily teams and the advocacy group in there to look after these people. For the present time those people are happy to remain there, but we have people going in there to ensure that their care is foremost and is being delivered. I commend the amendments to the House; with the bill they will give the department additional tools. 18:28:0023395Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLINPG6JagajagaALP00—I asked the minister a very specific question. It is something that a lot of people in the community are very concerned about. What will happen to those nursing homes that have failed accreditation?18:29:0023395Bishop, Bronwyn, MPMrs BRONWYN BISHOPSE4MackellarLPMinister for Aged Care10—The act provides for exceptional circumstances. I provided an answer to a question asked in the Senate today, through Senator Herron. I am sure they will let you have a copy of it. It sets out where the secretary may not grant exceptional circumstances, and the act sets out where they may be granted. The principles I have made, which will be gazetted on Friday, set that out as well. It is all in the act.Question resolved in the affirmative. Sitting suspended from 6.29 p.m. to 8.00 p.m.Bills23395R116223395Consideration resumed from 4 December.Senate's amendments—(1) Clause 4, page 7 (after line 14), after the definition of officer of the industry services body, insert:Presiding Officer means: (a) in relation to the House of Representatives—the Speaker of the House of Representatives; and (b) in relation to the Senate—the President of the Senate.(2) Clause 9, page 12 (lines 5 and 6), omit “That day must be the day on which the declaration was made, or a day that is after that day.”, substitute “That day must not be earlier than the day after the day, or the later of the days (as the case may be), that paragraph (6)(a) is complied with.”.(3) Clause 9, page 12 (lines 8 to 10), omit subclause (6), substitute: (6) The Minister must cause a copy of each declaration under this section to be: (a) laid before each House of the Parliament or, if a House is not sitting, presented to the Presiding Officer of that House for circulation to the members of that House, within 5 sitting days after the declaration is made; and (b) published in the Gazette within 14 days after the declaration is made. (6A) For the purposes of subsection (6), if a House has been dissolved and the newly-elected House has not met when a declaration is provided to the Presiding Officer, circulation to the persons who were members of that House immediately before the dissolution is taken to be circulation to the members of the House. (6B) To avoid doubt, the function of a Presiding Officer of receiving and circulating a declaration under subsection (6) is a function of the Presiding Officer for the purposes of the Parliamentary Presiding Officers Act 1965.(4) Clause 10, page 13 (lines 22 and 23), omit “That day must be after the day on which the declaration is made.”, substitute “That day must not be earlier than the day after the day, or the later of the days (as the case may be), that paragraph (5)(a) is complied with.”.(5) Clause 10, page 13 (lines 25 to 27), omit subclause (5), substitute: (5) The Minister must cause a copy of each declaration under this section to be: (a) laid before each House of the Parliament or, if a House is not sitting, presented to the Presiding Officer of that House for circulation to the members of that House, within 5 sitting days after the declaration is made; and (b) published in the Gazette within 14 days after the declaration is made. (5A) For the purposes of subsection (5), if a House has been dissolved and the newly-elected House has not met when a declaration is provided to the Presiding Officer, circulation to the persons who were members of that House immediately before the dissolution is taken to be circulation to the members of the House. (5B) To avoid doubt, the function of a Presiding Officer of receiving and circulating a declaration under subsection (5) is a function of the Presiding Officer for the purposes of the Parliamentary Presiding Officers Act 1965.(6) Clause 29, page 31 (lines 28 to 33), omit subclause (3), substitute: (3) Subject to subsection (3A), where the Minister gives a direction to a body under subsection (1): (a) the Minister must cause a copy of the direction: (i) to be published in the Gazette as soon as practicable after giving the direction; and (ii) to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 5 sitting days of that House after giving the direction; and (b) the annual reports of the body applicable to periods in which the direction has effect must include: (i) particulars of the direction; and (ii) an assessment of the impact that the direction has had on the operations of the body during the period. (4) Subsection (3) does not apply in relation to a particular direction if: (a) the Minister, on the recommendation of the industry services body or the industry export control body, determines, in writing, that compliance with the subsection would, or would be likely to, prejudice the commercial activities of the body; or (b) the Minister determines, in writing, that compliance with the subsection would be contrary to the public interest.20:00:0023396Entsch, Warren, MPMr ENTSCH7K6LeichhardtLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources10—I move:That the amendments be agreed to.In passing the Horticulture Marketing and Research and Development Services Bill 2000 last week, the opposition moved five amendments to the bill, which the government is agreeable to. These amendments relate to the tabling of documents in parliament concerning declarations, revocations and directions by the minister to the industry services body or export control body. The amendments to clauses 9 and 10 mean that in declaring a body to be, or cease to be, the industry services body or the export control body, in addition to the conditions listed in the original bill, the minister will also be required to provide to each house of parliament, or, if a house is not sitting, the Presiding Officers of the houses for the circulation to the members, a copy of each declaration within five sitting days after the declaration is made.The amendment that has been made by the Senate to clause 29 effectively means that, where the minister gives a direction to the industry services body or to the industry export control body that is in the national interest because of exceptional or urgent circumstances, the minister causes a copy of the direction to be published in the Gazette as soon as practicable after giving the direction; and also to be tabled in each house of parliament within five sitting days of that house after giving the direction. The annual reports of the bodies concerned must also include details of such direction and an assessment of the impact that the direction has had on the operations of the body.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills23396R104523396Message received from the Senate returning the bill and acquainting the House that the Senate does not insist on its amendments Nos 1 to 4 disagreed to by the House, insists on its amendments Nos 5, 6, 8 and 9 disagreed to by the House, and agrees to the amendment made by the House in place of amendment No. 3. Ordered that the message be taken into consideration forthwith.20:03:0023397Entsch, Warren, MPMr ENTSCH7K6LeichhardtLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources10—I move:That amendments Nos 5, 6, 8 and 9 insisted by the Senate be agreed to.For the sake of passing this bill so as to improve the protection provided to consumers of superannuation services, the government has reluctantly accepted some of the amendments of the Labor Party. These amendments will lower some penalties for trustees who do not comply with the legislated prudential requirements of the SI(S) Act. This decision has been reached after weighing the substantial benefits that will flow from the introduction of strict liability offences for noncompliance with the most fundamental obligations under the SI(S) Act. Strict liability will significantly increase the effectiveness of the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority as the prudential regulator of superannuation.Reluctantly the government must allow this bill to proceed with the changes insisted by the Labor Party on behalf of their mates in the superannuation industry. However, the point must be made that the ALP changes are against the best interests of superannuation beneficiaries. The same ALP superannuation mates are against the introduction of a choice of super for the workers, which is to the advantage of the industry but not to the consumer. It is important to remind the House that superannuation is designed to provide employees with a secure retirement income for their futures and that this money is entrusted to trustees to protect the workers until their retirement.Superannuation does not exist solely as an alternative career choice for washed-out Labor Party or union officials. This government will put consumers in the protection of investors first every time, not just when it suits us. While the government would have preferred not to accept any of the amendments moved by the opposition and the Democrats in the Senate, we consider the overall bill will substantially increase the integrity of the financial services sector, especially those measures aimed at strengthening the prudential framework for superannuation. The measures in this bill will assist in maintaining Australia's position at the forefront of world's best practice in the regulation of the financial system. The passage of this bill serves to highlight once again how the Howard government governs for all of us and not just for one section of the community, like the Labor Party does.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills23397R1156Consideration resumed from 29 November.2339720:06:0023397Entsch, Warren, MPMr ENTSCH7K6LeichhardtLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.This bill will make several minor amendments to the ACIS Administration Act 1999 which came into effect on 30 December 1999. The Automotive Competitiveness and Investment Scheme, ACIS, will commence from 1 January 2001 and is scheduled to end on 31 December 2005. The scheme will encourage the development of internationally competitive firms in the Australian automotive industry through rewarding eligible production, strategic investment and research and development.ACIS will provide capped benefits of $2 billion over the five years of the scheme. Benefits will be provided in the form of duty credits which can be used to offset customs duty on eligible automotive imports, or can be sold.The administrative framework for delivering the scheme to the Australian automotive industry is now well developed, and the minor amendments set out in this bill will enable the efficient delivery of the program. The amendments will streamline the operation of the scheme and reduce the administrative burden on both participants and the government.The main change to the act will be an increased capacity for regulations to define what is approved plant and equipment and approved research and development for the purposes of calculating benefits under the scheme. The regulations will be able to clarify exactly what is the maximum claimable value of investment in different kinds of plant and equipment and research and development. This will assist participants to determine what is and is not eligible expenditure, in what is largely a self-assessed scheme. The regulations will also be able to provide for investment loadings to cover all those incidental costs of investment which are extremely difficult to substantiate from a participant's point of view, and almost impossible to audit from an administrator's point of view. It is intended that these loadings will substitute for the labour costs of repairs and maintenance associated with investment in plant and equipment, and those low cost or short life items that are normally fully depreciated in the year of purchase.The loadings will also substitute for overhead costs associated with research and development, removing the need for participants to substantiate and pro-rate costs where R&D activities occur in the same building as, for example, production activities.As well as clarifying terms and phrases used in the legislation, this bill will also introduce provisions to protect the scheme from `artificial' companies set up to take advantage of ACIS, that are not going to contribute to the sustainable growth of the Australian automotive industry. This will permit the benefits of the $2 billion scheme to be directed at those firms that are working to improve their competitiveness. I present the explanatory memorandum.20:10:0023398Lawrence, Dr Carmen, MPDr LAWRENCEXS4FremantleALP00—The ACIS Administration Act 1999, which the ACIS Administration Amendment Bill 2000 before us seeks to amend, was assented to on 3 November 1999, so it is not long ago that we had that original bill before us. The Automotive Competitiveness and Investment Scheme, otherwise known as ACIS, provides for industry specific assistance to the automotive industry and will operate for five years from 1 January 2001. The scheme provides assistance in the form of import duty credits to producers of motor vehicles, components and automotive services for both domestic and export markets. The level of this assistance is capped by the legislation at $2 billion over the duration of the five-year program. The scheme will operate in two areas. Eligible applicants will earn import credits on the basis of, firstly, their production of motor vehicles, engines or engine components—motor producers only; and, secondly, their investment in certain plant and equipment and research and development.The proposed amendments in this bill were described by Senator Ian Campbell in his second reading speech in the other place as minor amendments to enable the efficient delivery of the program and to reduce the administrative burden on both participants and the government. Labor is supportive of this general objective; however, we are mindful that changes to such schemes must not be made without due regard to the potential of such change to damage an industry or sector. The proposed administrative changes made by this bill are directed at achieving a number of things: firstly, a clearer definition of approved plant and equipment and approved research and development for use in identifying which expenditures will be eligible for the assistance benefits; secondly, clarification of the methods for calculating investment, including the use of assistance loadings to cover the incidental costs of investment which are difficult to quantify; and, thirdly, protection from artificial companies set up to take advantage of ACIS that are not going to contribute to the sustainable growth of the Australian automotive industry.In introducing this bill, the government and the minister have stressed that ACIS is to provide transitional assistance over the next five years. The government intends that the tariff on passenger motor vehicles and certain parts will be reduced from 15 per cent to 10 per cent on 1 January 2005. Labor believes that the structure of this transition creates a great deal of uncertainty for members of the automotive industry, and we have had representations to that effect. The government is proposing an inquiry into the operation of the scheme at some unspecified time in 2005 into the possible impact of a tariff reduction that will have already occurred on 1 January 2005; frankly, that will not help the industry very much. The government's position has been vague on this point from the outset. In a joint statement by the Prime Minister, the Treasurer and the then minister for industry dated 5 June 1997, they set out in their dot point No. 3 the proposition that `there will be a review in 2005'. Too late, ministers. There was no indication in that statement of when in that year, there was no reference to the cessation of the scheme prior to that time and there was no reference to any form of evaluation or public and industry consultation about the effectiveness of the scheme in advance of its cessation, let alone the effects of the tariff reduction. Many firms that are involved in the design, manufacture and distribution of automotive parts and products are continually making complex investment decisions over the long term. This does not enable them to plan. These firms will be faced at the end of the operation of the ACIS scheme with wondering whether further changes will be made to tariff arrangements and whether industry development funds will still be available and, if so, in what amount and in what form. The government needs to look at the recent experience of Mitsubishi Australia in Adelaide to see a demonstration of just how complicated and long term the decision making of these firms can be. I might say that the minister was missing in action on that front. That is why we are moving an amendment later to address what we regard as the very unworkable circumstances that have been created by the government in this legislation. This is the second opportunity we have given the government to change its mind. What we have consistently argued is that an unspecified date in 2005 is an inappropriate time to have the review. Commonsense surely dictates that the review must occur before the tariff cuts occur and before the program runs out. When we originally raised this point in this place during the debate on the ACIS bill in 1999, the government gave an entirely unsatisfactory response—which it has, by the way, repeated in the other place. They said at the time that they do not need an amendment about the inquiry because the government `might have an inquiry anyway'. Might? That is simply not good enough and provides no certainty to industry. There is no stability, so important to long-term planning in an approach such as this: they `might' have a review. It is simply a sign of either lazy or incompetent administration by the Liberal-National coalition. They do not appear to really care about the automotive industry.Under such an approach, we do not actually know that the government will ever hold an inquiry. There is no certainty about what sort of inquiry it may be and there is no guarantee that the parliament would ever receive a report from any inquiry that might occur. The government's attitude to date has simply been to refuse to allow the industry and the community in general to offer their opinion on the question of automotive tariffs. Under the current bill, there is no guarantee that the public will ever get a chance to make submissions, that the industry will get a chance to make submissions, that the affected communities for this very important regionally based industry will get a chance to make submissions or that the state governments, particularly of South Australia and Victoria, will get a chance to make submissions to any inquiry that may occur. They are simply, apparently, not going to be asked their opinion.That is why we think that a far more reasonable approach is to legislate for a formal inquiry to be incorporated into the bill being debated now so that all of those bodies know in advance that they can ask questions and make a contribution and that the industry will be able to plan. Otherwise the investment will deteriorate, will disappear. We will therefore seek to amend the ACIS Administration Amendment Bill to the extent that will require an inquiry to be held at a time before the tariff changes take place so that all those participants in the car industry can be certain that they will have the opportunity to put their views to parliament before an informed decision is made on any subsequent tariff changes. That is surely a very reasonable position to adopt.I am very concerned that the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources has shown very little interest in this—which is surprising, given the fact that he represents the state of South Australia. We all know that members of that community became very agitated recently when it appeared that Mitsubishi might withdraw. The effects of the reduction or the collapse of this industry on that community would be catastrophic. I simply fail to understand why the minister and the government will not adopt this very reasonable course of action. If we do not have an inquiry of this kind well in advance of the cut-off of tariffs, we will not know what is going on to follow these transitional arrangements and, if any change does occur, precisely how the transitional arrangements are going to operate beyond 2005. The government is simply silent on this point. This is not 50 years out; this is in the foreseeable future, within the time frame of industry planning and investment. We do not want $2 billion worth of support to potentially become, after just five years, zero support. That would be irrational. But that is exactly what the government is asking the parliament to vote for at this moment—from $2 billion worth of support over five years to nothing, without an inquiry until after it is concluded. This is clearly an entirely unreasonable proposition.The amendment we are proposing is one that the government could accept, if they were not being so pig-headed about this—and, frankly, I fail to understand it. Their negative response to our proposed amendment in the past has simply been a symptom of their `if we didn't write it, it can't be accepted' attitude. This parliament is surely a place where good ideas can be accommodated, no matter where they come from. This is coming from the communities, from the companies, from the unions and from other political parties. Why won't the government embrace it? Simply because the Labor Party are proposing this very reasonable amendment, the government are apparently now saying, `We don't need anything in this bill about an inquiry, or in the former bill for that matter. We might have one or we might not. Either way, we will tell you about it at the time.' That is really not good enough for industry planning. `The form of it,' they say, `if we do have one, will be a form that we will decide when we are good and ready.' Again, that is simply not good enough.This is a very dangerous road for the government to take. At this stage I would have to say that apparently it is their foolish pride that is preventing them from supporting this very reasonable amendment. Everyone would breathe a sigh of relief and get on with it. As it is, they are very anxious about the government's resistance. Why are they resisting it? Maybe they do not want to know what the facts are before they cut off the tariffs and cut off this assistance scheme. It signals an intention to go all the way to zero without consultation. It is preventing people in the industry from making plans. It is preventing communities from understanding what their fate might be.The road the government are taking is even preventing them from supporting an early inquiry that they know the automotive industry also supports—and, I might say, all the associated industries. Sadly, be it on their own heads. We are apparently not able to get this through to the minister and to the government. I will move the relevant amendment in the consideration in detail stage of the bill. But let me point out strongly in closing: when at the next election there is a change of government, there will be an inquiry into this issue and it will be a public inquiry. The parliament and particular members of this place will have the opportunity during this debate to ensure that, irrespective of whether there is a change of government, the inquiry takes place for the good of Australia's automotive industry and the people who work within it. Surely we can expect that of the government. Surely they have the interests of the people in Victoria and South Australia, in particular, at the centre of their concern. This amendment is very important to the industry, to the unions, to the communities, to the governments of South Australia and Victoria and, given the size of this industry, to the people of Australia. I cannot understand why the government will not embrace it. I commend the ALP amendment to the House and will move it in due course.20:21:0023401Cox, David, MPMr COX83UKingstonALP00—The ACIS Administration Amendment Bill 2000 amends the Automotive Competitiveness and Investment Scheme to remove a number of legislative difficulties before it becomes effective on 1 January 2001. The scheme will replace assistance provided under the previous arrangements which were directed at promoting exports but which were found to be contrary to World Trade Organisation rules. ACIS is focused more widely on sales, investment, and research and development. ACIS provides duty credits which may be used to pay customs duty on eligible imports or transferred. The scheme has two parts: one for car makers and one for component manufacturers. Car makers will be able to claim two types of duty credits. The first is a duty credit equal to 15 per cent uncapped and 10 per cent capped of the value of cars sold in Australia and New Zealand, multiplied by the relevant tariff rate—currently 15 per cent. The second is a duty credit equal to 25 per cent of the value of production of motor vehicles other than those sold in Australia and New Zealand, engines and engine components, multiplied by the relevant tariff rate. The third is a duty credit equal to 10 per cent of their investment in plant and equipment, averaged over the preceding three years.Automotive component producers, automotive machine tool and tooling producers and automotive service providers can claim two types of export credits. The first is a duty credit equal to 25 per cent of the value of their investment in plant and equipment averaged over the preceding three years. The second is a duty credit equal to 45 per cent of the value of their investment in research and development averaged over the preceding three years. When motor vehicle producers provide components, tooling or services for a third party, as Mitsubishi does, they can access credits from the component tooling and services section of the scheme. A fiscal cap of $2 billion will apply to all benefits paid over the five years of the ACIS arrangement. These arrangements had the full support of the Labor Party when they were given passage last year. I am particularly supportive of them because they will be worth between $40 million and $50 million a year to Mitsubishi. The amendments in this bill are here today at least in part because of requests put by Mitsubishi to the government to make the original legislation more workable. The main points of the bill are to provide greater flexibility using regulations to determine what is allowable expenditure for the assessment of eligibility for duty credits. The bill also deals with the continuing eligibility of investment assets when they are transferred between entities. It broadens the definition of automotive machine tooling to automotive tooling. It allows for assistance in respect of investment in automotive services as well as tooling and allows for sales of services to be taken into consideration in calculating the cap for assistance at five per cent of sales. It provides for guidelines for registration and deregistration of eligible companies as a disallowable instrument rather than prescribing them in legislation.Since the calculation of investment in plant and equipment is averaged over three years, the bill allows for the calculation of such investment from 1 January 1999. It tightens the requirements for the provision of business plans under the scheme to better facilitate the determination of the modulation rate to apply in the next period. It allows for the deregistration of a company set up artificially for the purposes of obtaining ACIS credits when it will not contribute to the sustainable growth of the Australian automotive industry. It also broadens to criminal convictions in another country the criteria for determining whether an applicant for assistance is not a fit and proper person under the act.None of these amendments represents a policy change and Labor intends to support them. However, there is a significant difference between Labor and the government with regard to this bill. The fact that ACIS expires after five years—at the same time as the government's proposed tariff reduction—and the fact that the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources referred to ACIS as a `transitional assistance package' make it necessary to give the car industry a commitment to consider what assistance arrangements are appropriate for the future. The amendment Labor will move would insert a new part 14, `Review of Automotive Industry', into the legislation. The amendment requires that, first, after 30 June 2002 and before 1 January 2003 the minister must issue terms of reference and establish an independent public inquiry into the automotive industry. Secondly, the independent public inquiry must examine the need for assistance to promote competitiveness and encourage investment in the automotive industry after the arrangements set out in the ACIS Administration Act 1999 expire and consider the appropriate level of import tariffs for vehicles and components. Thirdly, the independent public inquiry must call for submissions, hold public hearings and commission research to inform its deliberations. Fourthly, the independent public inquiry may take evidence in private on matters that are commercially sensitive. Fifthly, the independent public inquiry must deliver its report to the minister before 31 March 2004. Sixthly, the minister must cause a copy of the report to be laid before each house of the parliament as soon as practicable after receiving it.The amendment follows a request in a resolution moved by me and carried by the state convention of the South Australian branch of the ALP asking the federal parliamentary Labor Party to seek this amendment to the bill. It followed extensive discussions I had at the convention with Paul McMahon of the AMWU. This is not the first time that Labor has sought a full review of the car industry before the scheduled reduction in tariffs and completion of the ACIS assistance arrangements in 2005. We did so when parliament dealt with the original ACIS bill last year. Since then, it has become a tenet of Labor's industry policy, which was carried by our national conference last September. That resolution was written by me and moved by the South Australian Labor leader, Mike Rann.This amendment would be welcomed by a broad cross-section of the car industry and provide reassurance that there will be a timely evaluation of the state of that industry before the scheduled reduction in tariffs and the expiry of the ACIS arrangements. It must be remembered that there is a significant gap between when the scheduled one-step five per cent phase down in car tariffs was determined by the Howard government and when it will come into effect. It is clear that the Howard government had absolutely no idea at that time what conditions might prevail in 2005 in the Australian economy and in the car industry. It may turn out to be a very bad year to be having such a dramatic five per cent phase down; if we are lucky, it may turn out to be a good year. We simply do not know, and it seems entirely prudent to make an assessment much closer to the date when the decision will take effect.Conditions can change in the car industry and, over the past 12 months, we have watched Mitsubishi fight for its survival. At the beginning of the year it was told by its parent company that it had to attain profitability by the end of this year if it was to continue to manufacture. It took some very serious action to restructure in order to achieve that objective. It reduced its work force—largely its salaried work force rather than its production line workers—by about 600 at the beginning of the year. On then prevailing production levels and exchange rates, that should have been sufficient for the company to break even. Increases in production after the GST buyers strike ended when the GST came into effect should have seen the company move into a profitable trading position.However, the company has had to contend with a declining Australian dollar, particularly in relation to the yen. Every depreciation of the dollar by the equivalent of one yen over the course of a full year has cost Mitsubishi $13 million. We have seen that exchange rate problem cause the company to be in a situation where it will again record substantial losses this calendar year.There has been substantial restructuring, there has been a model upgrade and there has been a considerable amount of work done at the operation. The new CEO has, with great relief, convinced the parent company to provide ¥10 billion as a capital injection. This is the first capital injection, I understand, that Mitsubishi Australia has received from the parent company since 1980, and it is a significant demonstration that Mitsubishi sees its Australian operation as having a long-term future. Finally, more than any other decision, it lays to rest any conjecture about Mitsubishi's imminent closure, no matter what other commentators in the industry might say or what its competitors might say. I must say that Mitsubishi's competitors in Australia have welcomed this decision because they rely on the economies of scale that are achieved by having four automotive manufacturers operating in this country. Providing them with enough throughput also helps justify research and development. But in the long term we all know that the future of Australian car making will be dependent on exports, and we know that it will involve substantial further investment. The industry needs a government that is totally committed to an automotive industry with a long-term future. That means making timely assessments of what sort of assistance arrangements are necessary to be provided to the industry for its long-term future and growth. That is something that this Howard government has been remarkably reluctant to do.We have been utterly amazed by the lack of activity of the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources, Senator Minchin, in relation to the car industry's future. With his total disregard of the need to give the industry a continuing time horizon for assistance and for tariff protection and his wont of activity in that area, an opportunity has been missed; it has gone absolutely begging. It would have been of no real cost to the Commonwealth taxpayer for the government—unless it was contemplating a situation where there would not be any industry assistance for the car industry after 2005—to have given a clear indication that it would be making that timely evaluation and that it would be standing behind the industry in the long term.I look forward over the next couple of years, with the help of this ¥10 billion, $172 million, to seeing a significant expansion in Mitsubishi's export operations. Tom Phillips, who is a marketer by occupation, is targeting two overseas markets: the Middle East and North America. He is looking at substantial expansions in Mitsubishi sales to those two markets. We also look forward to the conclusion of the parent company's evaluation of what it may best be able to do with the plant. There is some possibility of an additional model being put down that production line and more exclusive marketing arrangements for the Diamante in those North American and Middle East markets.I was so pleased that Tom was able to make that announcement last week. There was absolute jubilation on the production line. The workers were bussed into Tonsley from the Lonsdale engine plant. They certainly received the message and understood it very clearly. It has been an absolutely dramatic turnaround for the local community. People who were extremely concerned because of recent media speculation about their futures are looking forward to a long-term future, and they are looking forward to working for a company where there is every potential for substantial growth—and I think that every South Australian would welcome that. This is something that the Labor Party has been praying for for some time.I know that the government will oppose the amendment, as it did in the Senate. But I would call on the government, in the fullness of time, to reconsider its position. If it is not prepared to vote for our amendment, I would call on it to make a timely announcement about when it is going to do a full public inquiry into the car industry—which should be well in advance of the phase-down in tariffs. If the government does not do that, it will be one of the contributing factors to it losing government. It can be absolutely assured that we will not need legislation to force us to do it. It is a tenet of the Labor Party's industry policy. We will be establishing such an inquiry very soon after we are returned to the treasury bench.20:36:0023403Gillard, Julia, MPMs GILLARD83LLalorALP00—The ACIS Administration Amendment Bill 2000, before the House this evening, is a further piece of legislation in the rather tortured decision making and legislative path which provides the foundation for the Automotive Competitiveness and Investment Scheme—ACIS. Before turning to the details of this bill, I would like to outline briefly the importance of the motor vehicle industry to Australia generally and more particularly to my electorate of Lalor. As I think we are all aware, the automotive industry is a very important one. It currently generates gross turnover in Australia of $14.5 billion and accounts for 7.4 per cent of total manufacturing turnover. It exports over $3.2 billion worth of vehicles, and it provides employment to over 51,000 Australians. The industry has worked hard to become internationally competitive and its exports have increased by a staggering 213.2 per cent since 1990. My electorate is home to Toyota, which does all of its manufacturing at the plant located at Altona. Toyota has recently launched the Avalon model, the latest vehicle in its range, which is selling very well indeed. The plant in my electorate located at Altona is worth some $420 million and Toyota consolidated its manufacturing operations there in 1994 and 1995. The plant at Altona is one of world class in the efficiency with which it manufactures and the technology and processes which it uses. It is very important to note that it is also a leader in environmental technology in terms of the technology that it actually uses to make the motor vehicles. The most recent contribution to the environmental performance of Toyota was the opening of a waterborne paint system which reduces the emissions to the atmosphere as paint is applied to the motor vehicles.Toyota is a major employer in Australia generally and in my electorate. The livelihood of some 4,083 Australians depends upon Toyota and 2,372 of those work at the Altona plant. Many of them live locally. Toyota, with a market share of 19.7 per cent, is currently Australia's No. 1 in market ranking, a ranking Toyota is justifiably proud of. It continues to be the market leader in Australia. This year, it will export just under $1 billion worth of motor vehicles. I think it is important when you use a statistic like that to put it in some context, because it is a very impressive achievement but the figure can roll easily off the tongue. I think it needs to be recognised that that export performance, almost equal to the billion dollar mark, comes off a base of $47 million of exports in 1990. So here we are 10 years later and we have seen Toyota's exports escalate to near the billion dollar mark. I think it is also very important to talk about other industries that are debated back and forth in this House—for example, the wine industry. The wine industry in total across Australia exports $1.2 billion worth of product per year. Some of the members in this House would be very familiar with the wine industry, having wineries located in their electorates. If we look across and say that, to Australia, that industry is worth $1.2 billion in exports in total and Toyota, in and of itself as a component of the motor vehicle industry in Australia, is worth almost $1 billion worth of exports, I think we get some idea of the importance of this industry and the importance of Toyota to our manufacturing industry and to Australia's capacity to earn export dollars.I met as recently as Friday with representatives of Toyota to discuss with them the way in which the plant is progressing and the way in which their business is going. Basically they say that business is good and that they are striving for further exports and further production. But they do say that there are a number of impediments in their way, one of which is the value of the Australian dollar. That might seem a little bit of an odd thing to say in respect of a company which exports so much of its product, but of course a variety of the components are actually imported, much of the contracting for that importing is done in American dollars and some of it needs to be done by way of spot purchasing in American dollars. Consequently, the depreciation that our currency has experienced actually has caused a problem in that regard when Toyota and other motor vehicle manufacturers are importing and purchasing source product. They also say that the uneven trade arena which they face continues to be a problem, and I think they rightly wonder whether we, under the current government, have the capacity to try and knock over some of the tariff regimes that Toyota experiences when it seeks to export to many of our trading partners. The feeling that Toyota has and that I have, having had a look at these issues, is that, as we are increasingly locked out of multilateral trade forums in our region and as we increasingly seem to struggle with securing appropriate bilateral relationships, our products—like the Toyota motor vehicles manufactured here—face increased difficulties in getting the sort of penetration into overseas markets that they ought to have. Just to do a very quick run round of some of our potential trading partners in this area, Brunei continues to have tariffs in the range of 40 per cent to 200 per cent, Malaysia 140 per cent to 300 per cent, Saudi Arabia 25 per cent, South Africa 61 per cent, Taiwan 30 per cent to 42 per cent and has quotas applying, Thailand 80 per cent, and so on. Our inability to make progress in knocking through some of the trade barriers of our potential trading partners is a real impediment for major exporters like Toyota. Having talked, by way of backdrop, about the importance of Toyota to my electorate and the importance of this industry to Australia generally, I now turn to consider in particular the provisions of the ACIS Administration Amendment Bill 2000. I think we do need to note that this bill has had a very tortuous path to this House. One could really write a book about the whole Automotive Competitiveness and Investment Scheme, although I am not sure it would make the most interesting page turner of all time. I would not be recommending that to any honourable members in the House. But, as we know, this House dealt with the ACIS Administration Bill 1999 in the middle of last year and the act came into effect on 30 December. But that was not the first time that ACIS style legislation had been before this House and it certainly was not the first step in the decision making process which led to this scheme. As I think we are all aware, the very first step in the decision making process was an Industry Commission inquiry and report on the automotive industry, and that final report was given to the Treasurer on 26 May 1997. I am not sure if he still has a copy on his shelf, but if he does I hope he takes it down and dusts it regularly—otherwise, it would be accruing a great deal of dust.Prior to the publication of the final report, a draft report was issued for public comment and debate. The report was actually divided into a minority report and a majority report. The majority report, by Presiding Commissioner Scales and Commissioner Rae, recommended that tariffs be reduced on passenger motor vehicles and components from 1 January 2001 at the rate of 2.5 percentage points per annum until 2004, when the tariff would reach five per cent. The minority report, by Associate Commissioner Webber, recommended the maintenance of tariffs on passenger motor vehicles, original equipment and replacement components at 15 per cent until 2005, with a review—and I emphasise those words—to be held in, say, 2003 to consider post-2005 assistance arrangements for the industry.As I am sure we in this place all recall and as I am sure the Australian community recalls generally, the publication of the Industry Commission's draft report in late 1996 caused a huge reaction, a furore, involving the industry, the relevant trade union and communities like mine in the electorate of Lalor, which very clearly identify the motor vehicle industry as being the key to providing jobs and any form of prosperity for the region. There was a great deal of community campaigning in response to the release of that draft report. I think we would remember that, in response to that community campaigning, the Howard government did not come out with a clearly articulated vision for the motor vehicle industry. It did not come out with a vision for the future where the industry would be secure. It did not even come out in the public domain with a transparent decision making process that people could engage in.No, instead of that, we had a variety of press reports about who was lining up which way on the tariff debate. So press reports at the time told us that Senate leader Robert Hill and the then industry minister, John Moore, did not see themselves as wedded to the majority Industry Commission report. However, the press were telling us that internally the then contenders for the leadership, the Federal Treasurer, who remains a contender of course, and the workplace relations minister, who no longer does, were seen to be favouring tariff reductions. This debate was played out through internal leaks in the pages of our newspapers. As fascinating as that might be for those of us who like to follow politics and see cabinet leaks in the newspaper, in terms of the Australian community that does not equal a vision for the industry. At no point, while we had this engaging byplay between Howard government ministers, did we get a clear vision for the industry in Australia. Finally, the government made the announcement of what the arrangements for post-2003 were going to be, legislation was presented to this House but lapsed on the calling of the election and then of course we finally processed the ACIS bill last year. The government has this component of the scheme back before us because it seeks to make some fine-tuning changes to the scheme and it basically says that these amendments are required to enable a more efficient delivery of the program, to streamline the operation of the scheme and to reduce the administrative burden on both participants and the government. This bill deals with a number of matters, including increasing the capacity for regulations to define what is approved plant and equipment and approved research and development for the purpose of calculating benefits under the scheme. The bill deals with regulations which will deal with the maximum claimable value of investment in different kinds of plant and equipment and research and development. It also deals with the question of investment loadings.All of those things are well and good but what this bill fails to do—and what the last ACIS piece of legislation that we dealt with failed to do—is to give us in any way an indication of what the plan is, what the vision is and what is going to happen after 2005. So should this bill pass in this form, the community will be no wiser about what happens after 2005. The scheme of arrangements that the Howard government has adopted is to say, let us have this regulatory environment, let us have this scheme, let us have these tariff arrangements and let us have that all come to an end and, after that has come to an end, then let us have a review and let us make up our mind about what we are going to do next.Of course, the Labor Party thought that was an insufficient approach last time the ACIS legislation was before this House and we think it is an insufficient approach now. We actually think that it is an act of public policy madness, an act of public policy vandalism, to allow yourself, as a government, to get into a situation where, in respect of a major industry, you go into a regulatory and industry assistance black hole for a period: you find yourself out there in the void not knowing what is going to happen next and then sometime later, presumably—or maybe you just stay in the void forever; maybe that is the plan—you then try to struggle your way out of the void by adopting a new scheme.The Labor amendment says, let us not do it that way because that is clearly an irrational way to do it; let us do it the rational way, and the rational way is obviously to review the situation of the industry prior to the end of the arrangements contemplated in this bill and the end of the current tariff arrangements and then make some decisions about what should happen next and allow for a seamless transition from the regime then applying to whatever the next regime may be. I do not think that we sitting here today can be prescriptive about what that regime may be. Obviously, there would be a variety of factors that you would take into account in calculating what that regime would be. There might be progress in the construction of and effective usage of a multilateral trading forum—we might take that into account. We might have secured a series of bilateral trade agreements which affect this industry—we might take that into account. There might have been major technological advances in the way in which motor vehicles are produced—we might take that into account. We might have made sufficient investment—and certainly one would hope this was true when Labor was in government—in R&D and in our Knowledge Nation agenda that, in terms of skills and capacity to support the industry, things have changed there, and you might take that into account. We do not want to be too prescriptive about all of the factors, but you would have an open, transparent review where everybody gets to have a say, everybody gets to have a go and then government makes some decisions and we move from this tariff and this industry assistance regime to whatever the next regime is going to be. When the ACIS Administration Act was before this House last year, Labor moved a similar amendment and I spoke during that debate. I have had cause to have a look at the Senate Hansard for the debate on this bill in the Senate, and I have to say, having been a participant in the debate last time and having seen the Senate Hansard in relation to the debate this time, that I am yet to really see a government member put forward an argument that says there is something wrong with the chain of reasoning that says you have the review before the end of the scheme and you work out what you are going to do next. It just seems to me unarguable, and it must be unarguable because nobody from the other side has argued against it. So, if there is some fatal flaw in that as a decision making process, I think we would all be enlightened to hear it. But it is now the best part of 18 months since we were debating the ACIS Administration Act 1999. No-one in that debate explained why the review amendment which Labor moved was a flawed amendment. No-one in this debate, here or in the other place, has explained why it is a flawed amendment. One is driven to the conclusion that it is not flawed, that it is actually a really good idea, and that the only thing that is really happening here is that the government does not want to concede that the opposition has had a good idea. Rather than steer itself towards the correct public policy course, it would rather save a bit of face and stick with its agenda, even though it is clearly not the right agenda.I conclude this speech by saying what I said when Labor moved a similar amendment in respect of the ACIS Administration Act 1999, which is that I would really ask government members not to just go through the trite arguments that sometimes get exchanged in these circumstances when no-one is really answering anybody else. Rather than going through that sort of ritual, I ask them to actually have a think about the proposition Labor is putting forward, to think about whether it is the best public policy course to go into a policy vacuum and then work out what you are going to do or whether it is the best public policy course to have a review, work out what you are going to do and move from one scheme of arrangements to another scheme of arrangements with no vacuum in the middle. I really do think that, if government members have a clear think about that, they will be voting for Labor's amendment, not opposing it. If that happens, we will end up with a better public policy regime. So I would urge members on the other side to think about what is a rational way forward in relation to our automotive industry. As I said at the start of this speech, for Australia generally and for electorates like mine it is too important an industry to muck around with. We really want a rational, secure, transparent and understandable regime. Labor's amendment secures that, and I urge all members to vote for it.20:55:0023407Thompson, Cameron, MPMr CAMERON THOMPSON84CBlairLP10—At the outset, I would like to thank members opposite for accommodating me and other events going on around the place tonight in this debate and allowing me to speak as it has been scheduled. It winds up being very effective, in my view. I will begin by saying that what we are talking about tonight in the ACIS Administration Amendment Bill 2000 is the Automotive Competitiveness and Investment Scheme, which is worth $2 billion. I want to compare it with the scheme that was in place beforehand. Going to the AusIndustry web site, I note that the scheme which terminates on 31 December 2000 has the following key elements: a reduction in the automotive tariff by 2.5 percentage points annually to 15 per cent in 2000; a duty-free allowance which allowed passenger motor vehicle manufacturers to import up to 15 per cent of the value of production of each car duty free; and the Export Facilitation Scheme, which encouraged export of automotive products. That was replaced by the scheme we are discussing tonight, the Automotive Competitiveness and Investment Scheme. That scheme, which will begin on 1 January and continue till 31 January 2005, has three main elements. The automotive tariff will remain at 15 per cent until 31 December 2004, after which it will be reduced to 10 per cent; motor vehicle producers will earn benefits for eligible production investment and research and development; and automotive component manufacturers, automotive machine tooling and tooling producers and automotive service providers will earn benefits for eligible investment and research and development. Those are the comparisons between the two schemes. This Automotive Competitiveness and Investment Scheme was proclaimed on 30 December 1999. We now have this amendment bill, which looks to identify a range of issues. Firstly, it clearly identifies what can be claimed by the various companies seeking to access funding under ACIS. That includes plant and equipment and research and development funding. There is also a definition provided in relation to mergers and acquisitions. For example, it enables the investment being made by one company to be considered as being the investment of another in the case of a merger or acquisition. That is obviously very logical, and without that kind of provision I doubt we would have the kind of encouragement for investment in the Australian automotive industry that we would like to see. It also provides for the better identification of contrivances. For example, the case which has been given is that, if there is a finance company in effect posing as a component manufacturer under the legislation, then that is obviously something that would be regarded as being not appropriate and something which needs to be identified so that we get the money being directed in the most effective way for the development of industry. There are also several provisions for better administration, for example, providing for early payment on the receipt of a quarterly return from one of the claiming companies.The Automotive Competitiveness and Investment Scheme does seek to encourage investment, innovation and production in a range of automotive pursuits. Vehicle producers, car component producers, machine tool and tooling producers for those involved with car production and auto service providers are to be encouraged by it. If we look at what is going on in Australia today, we find many worthwhile Australian companies engaging in exporting, using the kinds of incentives that will come forward under ACIS. Their locally developed products will also encourage export earnings.I would like to list a few of them and their achievements: PBR Automotive has been exporting braking systems to the United States since 1983; Pilkington has been exporting glass to Japan since 1983; Henderson's Automotive has been exporting lumbar automotive seat support mechanisms to the US; Natra has been exporting radiators to South-East Asia, Hong Kong and the US; South Pacific Tyres has been exporting tyres to the US, Europe, Japan and the UK; BTR Automotive has been exporting gearboxes to Maserati in Italy and is looking at contracts to export to the Asian market; Nissan Casting has been exporting to Japan, Spain, Mexico and the US; and Holden's component manufacturing operations have been exporting to the UK, Germany and several other countries—in fact, its export earnings exceed $1.4 million a day. Mitsubishi is engaged in these pursuits as well.I have been through what this bill clearly identifies and what it seeks to do, but let us look at the car industry itself and what it amounts to. It is a very valuable industry within Australia. Even in my electorate, which is not directly engaged in the car industry, there is a direct acknowledgment of the importance of this industry within Australia. One-quarter of the manufacturing industry in South Australia is basically the car industry. In that state, the car industry is responsible for some 16,700 jobs—that is 16,700 people, or 16,700 potential families, being supported by the car industry. In Victoria, it is more than double that amount: some 38,800 employees earn their income as a result of the car industry. In New South Wales, 9,300 jobs come from the car industry; in Queensland, my own state, 6,800 jobs come from the car industry; in Western Australia, 1,800 jobs come from the car industry; and, in Tasmania, 400 jobs come from the car industry.It is obviously a very important industry. If I look at the figures for the whole of Australia for the year 2000, employment within the automotive industry totals 73,800 jobs. Australian governments need to very carefully monitor this industry and maintain a careful link and communication with it. That is why it was very rewarding to see the recent decision of Mitsubishi. My electorate is not anywhere near South Australia and not directly involved with that Mitsubishi decision, but it is something that Australians all over would have welcomed. I would like to quote a Mitsubishi Motors press release headed `Mitsubishi Motors Secures Future in Australia': MMAL parent company, Mitsubishi Motors Corporation (MMC) announced its decision to invest the capital from Japan earlier today—that is, 28 November—subject to the necessary Australian Government approvals. The decision was also supported by Daimler Chrysler which has a 34% stake in MMC.Managing Director of MMAL, Tom Phillips, said that the capital injection puts an end to continued speculation over the future of the Australian operations.I am sure that was very welcome, and there was certainly a big sigh of relief breathed in South Australia about that. A press release of the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources, Senator Nick Minchin, dated 28 November stated:`Today's announcement that Mitsubishi Motors Corporation, with the backing of Daimler Chrysler, will inject $172 million into its Australian operations demonstrates the company is serious about the future of MMAL,' Senator Minchin said.`This injection of funds represents a vote of confidence in the company's Australian operations.`This decision should boost the morale of Mitsubishi employees who have in recent weeks borne the brunt of irresponsible media reporting and Labor's dodgy speculation about the company's future.Those are Senator Nick Minchin's comments, and I do not think it was wise for anyone to have speculated about the future of the Mitsubishi plant in South Australia in any negative sense. To see the jubilation and the strong spirit of commitment of all the workers in those plants on the day of that celebration—it was a wonderful day, and I am sure they all felt very positive—and to see Tom Phillips saluting that announcement was very positive. It would have had ramifications across Australia. People would feel very proud and very pleased that we can get that kind of result. The Brisbane Courier-Mail of 29 November summed it up by stating:Months of anxiety ended yesterday when 3200 workers at Mitsubishi Motors' two South Australian plants received an early Christmas present—a guarantee their jobs were safe, at least for the foreseeable future.Why were those jobs safe? Because of the very positive programs being pursued by the Howard government—for example, the government's decision on tariff protection in the auto industry, which did see those tariffs frozen at 15 per cent for five years and also a light commercial vehicle tariff of five per cent. The freezing of those tariffs until 2005, when those tariffs are due to reduce again to 10 per cent, was received very positively by the auto industry and would have contributed to Mitsubishi Motors voting in support of their South Australian manufacturing plants.Also, I do not think we should overlook the impact of tax reform in this process. We have seen from the coalition government the introduction of a new tax system that takes taxes off exports. That is a significant decision by the government. It is something which we alone have been campaigning for and which we alone have delivered. There is no person sitting opposite who can say that they were advocating a scheme to take taxes off exports. I think Mitsubishi Motors would definitely give credit to the Howard government for that. I think the jobs of those people in South Australia have in large part been protected as a result of the government's activity.Apart from measuring the value of the auto industry to Australia in terms of jobs, let us look at just what sort of turnover is being generated. In the 1998-99 financial year, the turnover of the auto industry was $16.7 billion. That was the highest ever recorded in the auto industry—$16.7 billion is a massive industry in Australian terms, and it is something that, as I have said before, is very important to our future and must be continually monitored by the government and supported. If we look at it in value added terms, in 1998-99 the value added component being contributed by the auto industry was $4.9 billion. They are the latest figures that the Parliamentary Library has been able to get me on the issue. The highest value added assessment of the worth of the auto industry came in the year before, in 1997-98, at $5.1 billion. So it is an industry of great importance and something that Australia is very proud of. Something that has been raised by members opposite and must definitely be considered in this forum is what tariffs currently apply around the world in various markets. We have seen Australia reduce our tariffs from 22.5 per cent to 15 per cent by the year 2000, but overseas there are also reductions occurring. We must of course be strong in our efforts to advocate continuing reductions in other countries as we review the tariffs that apply within Australia. For example, in Brazil we have seen a reduction in the passenger motor vehicle tariff from 70 per cent to 22 per cent by the year 2000. I must say that the passenger motor vehicle market in Brazil is something like 1,445,000 units. That is the size of that market—it is obviously very big. In Canada we have seen a reduction in passenger motor vehicle tariffs from eight per cent to 6.1 per cent, and in Canada the size of the passenger motor vehicle market is 672,000 units. We have also seen reductions in Chinese Taipei and in places like the Czech Republic, where there has been a reduction in passenger motor vehicle tariffs from 19 per cent in 1995 to 17.1 per cent in 2000.In Indonesia, which is of course a market that has been very heavily protected, there has been a reduction in tariff on completely built-up vehicles from 125 per cent with a 75 per cent surcharge to a maximum of 40 per cent with a 50 per cent surcharge by 2003. Those numbers seem incredibly high and, to Australians, it really does seem significant that Indonesia is running those kinds of tariffs. But, when you look at the proportion of the reduction there and the efforts that are going into reforming Indonesia's trade position, you can see that there has been significant improvement. Of course, around the world we are seeing this move towards tariffs. I am sure that the federal government is worthy of congratulations for the steps that it has taken. It is playing its part in providing a more competitive passenger motor vehicle market here in Australia and worldwide. What that means for average Australian consumers is cheaper motor vehicles and a better and more competitive motor vehicle market. I heard members opposite talking about the buyers strike prior to the introduction of the GST. I think those of us who are in the real world remember what happened on that occasion. We have seen a car industry that has benefited magnificently from the GST. We have seen an industry that is now so competitive in Australia, and Australians are of course continuing to reap the benefits of that.In closing, I want to turn my attention to the amendment being proposed by the opposition. I do not really hold with this at all as a member of parliament. It is really a stunt. It is setting up a straw man to say that we can have a review, which is really just a public talkfest. It is not in the realm of this at all. There is an opportunity here for governments to produce an effective outcome for the future of Australia. If you follow what the opposition is proposing, this talkfest is going to start on 30 June 2002. Even if that continued for a year and finished on 30 June 2003, there would be no guaranteeing at all that whatever it had recommended would be effective when tariffs were again going to be reviewed in 2005. That industry is continually in a state of flux and requires governments to act effectively. There is no doubt in my mind that, no matter what the government does, the opposition will set up an inquiry in the Senate anyway. They do this all the time. I am a member of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Resources, and we have seen a plethora of inquiries going on into, for example, the contracting out of computer services. It does not have anything to do with the most effective outcome; it has to do with whether or not you are able to beat up concerns in the minds of the public and whether or not you are able to confect a totally inaccurate picture of the government's position and its responsibilities to the public.The opposition and in particular the Australian Labor Party believe that they are past masters of this kind of phoney confecting. We have seen it on the GST. They wailed about it for three years and, at the end of that time, they agreed with it. We have seen it on a range of policies, and here we have it again. They do not have any policies to support themselves, so they want to create agony and concern in the minds of people associated with the automotive industries. They are waxing up their surfboards and hoping to cruise into power on the back of this community concern and grief over something which would more effectively be determined in an appropriate manner by people in government who have been elected for that purpose. This government will be assessed by people in the community on its performance; it will not be assessed on the efforts of the opposition to confect a false public talkfest to give themselves a soapbox on which to bang away at the automotive industry, as they did to the chagrin of Mitsubishi workers in the very recent past. (Time expired)21:15:0023411O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr O'CONNORWU5CorioALP00—I think this particular piece of legislation, the ACIS Administration Amendment Bill 2000, is one of the more important bills that we have debated this year. I urge everybody in my electorate to read in Hansard the contribution of the member for Blair to this debate, because he is a walking, talking advertisement of the failure of this government to appreciate the necessity for good planning in this industry. Indeed, I will make sure that the Geelong community—the community of Corio that I represent in this parliament—fully understand that this Liberal member and others on the coalition side regard a public review of the industry's position before tariffs are lowered further as a false public talkfest. I will make sure that the City of Greater Geelong, the councillors, the union movement, all the workers, the business community and the general community that have supported this industry in my electorate are made aware that this Liberal member, reflecting the views of the coalition backbench on this important industry, regards the process of consultation with them as a phoney, confected and a false public talkfest. The honourable member for Blair has not been in this parliament very long, so I suspect he is a little wet behind the ears when he gets up to speak about matters relating to an industry which does not have particular relevance to his electorate and I can understand him coming in here and making a fool of himself in the way that he has. But for electorates like Corio—GT4Truss, Warren, MPMr Truss—Get to the dairy industry.WU5O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr O'CONNOR—I will get to dairying, Minister. As far as the electorate of Corio is concerned, the car industry is the region's largest employer, and the community wants to have input into the decisions that are made that will affect thousands of families in my electorate. For the member for Blair to come in here and describe as a false public talkfest a review where those families and their community representatives would have the opportunity to put a proposition to government on the future of their industry is an indication of just how shallow his understanding is. When he wipes the water from behind his ears and gets into some real debate in this chamber, he will come to realise that this is a significant industry to regional Australia. This industry forms the heart of Australian manufacturing, and it deserves to be treated with a little more respect, a little more concern, than the member for Blair has treated it with tonight.The importance of this industry to the Australian economy has been alluded to by previous speakers in this debate. It is an industry that has a turnover of some $14.5 billion, putting it at the forefront of manufacturing industry in this country. It is an industry whose exports have grown substantially, to the position where it now exports in excess of $3 billion. Its employment level is among the highest in Australian manufacturing, with some 51,000 people directly employed. The member for Blair, who is fairly new to the parliament, probably does not have an understanding of the restructuring that has occurred in the car industry over the past 15 years, but it is an industry that has undergone very significant restructuring over that time. As far as the economy of the Geelong region is concerned, Ford—a major car manufacturer that exists in my electorate—and its manufacturing activity forms the background of the regional economy. As I said, the company has gone through substantial restructuring over the past 15 years that has seen significant losses in employment. However, productivity in the company has improved massively over that period. That has been achieved on the back of good planning by Labor governments in the past and significant investment by the company itself, encouraged by that good planning, in new technologies. Another factor in the company's achievement of that strong productivity growth has been its significant investment in skilling the local work force. We must never underestimate the importance of this car and component manufacturing activity to the Geelong community. I congratulate the Ford company on its participation in the economic, cultural and social life of the region. The company is a strong participant in the affairs of the community at many levels. It is a major sponsor of the Geelong Football Club. I know, Mr Deputy Speaker Adams, that you are a great fan of the national code. While the member for Fremantle may claim that Fremantle is a provincial city, I think you can say that Geelong is really the only provincial city that has a football side in the national competition. The major sponsor of that football side is the Ford company. It has been a major sponsor of our code and our football club for many years. It is a most valued sponsor. Although the club has not won grand finals over the last decade, we have certainly participated in many of them and that has, in part, been due to the interest and the sponsorship provided by the Ford Motor Co.Ford has established the Ford Discovery Centre, which now forms an important part of the cultural precinct of Geelong. You can go to see the National Wool Museum, walk down to the waterfront and then go back up to the Ford Discovery Centre. The Geelong art gallery is in the precinct. also All of this takes an investment and a commitment by a company to its community. It is also a major corporate sponsor of the City of Greater Geelong's Boulevard project, a project to beautify the entrance to our great city. It has also established very strong links with Deakin University in the area of research and training programs. This is a partnership that was encouraged in the first instance by Labor in government and it is one which has grown to be a very productive partnership indeed. At the very local level, its employees are major contributors to local charities. Many of the volunteer work force in community organisations in Geelong, particularly at weekends, are Ford employees.I pay tribute here tonight to those employees who have had to put up with a great degree of uncertainty through the years about their future—similar to what has been experienced by employees in the Mitsubishi company in South Australia—but they have kept their shoulders to the wheel and they have changed the culture of the workplace, cooperated with management in the new task of building a company that can compete in the global marketplace and they have done that successfully. They have been well represented by the vehicle builders union, and I pay tribute here to Russell Gardiner and the other union officials there who have negotiated on their behalf with this multinational company for very good wages and conditions. The union movement is to be congratulated on the way it has embraced change.The company is a major contributor to the Geelong economy through the support it provides the component suppliers, and it is a major trainer of Geelong's manufacturing work force. In many other manufacturing companies around the city you will find people who have been trained in the Ford Motor Co. Of course, the company has a major wages bill and every week the work force goes into the Geelong community spending those hard earned dollars on products from a myriad of small businesses which depend very much on this company for their survival. It provides a critical mass for the employment of top level automotive engineers and researchers. The company has played a prominent role at the environmental level. It has been at the forefront of producing environmentally friendly vehicles, and the company cannot keep up with the demand for the gas powered vehicle that it recently released onto the market. Indeed, I recently went to the company to put an order in and they indicated to me that it would be several months because of the waiting list of Australian consumers for a very good car which is environmentally friendly. Honourable members have alluded to the fact that this is an industry that has had to compete in an international market place that has been heavily protected while tariffs in its own country have been significantly reduced. In this debate we have heard of tariffs in Malaysia of 140 to 300 per cent; in Taiwan, 42 per cent; and in Thailand, 80 per cent. These are substantial tariff barriers. If we go to the Middle East, in Saudi Arabia tariffs are 25 per cent. This is an industry that, while it has undergone restructuring and a lowering of tariffs, faces significant pressure in the international market place from other countries which impose high tariffs.We have proposed here an eminently sensible review of the industry before a major fall in tariffs scheduled for 2005. Because of the importance of the industry to regional economies, the policy framework in which the industry operates should not be dramatically changed without careful planning. The key to any planning task is the acquisition of accurate information on the state of the industry at the time the particular changes are contemplated. We are putting a very reasonable amendment. We will support this amendment when it is put by the shadow minister in this debate tonight on behalf of the Geelong community and the electors of Corio because we believe it is prudent to conduct this review of the conditions in the car industry before any sudden drop in tariff levels in 2005. That community wants its voice heard and it wants the opportunity through a review and a public inquiry to put its view without fear or favour to the government of the day.Labor has done this in the industry in the past and it has positioned the industry to cope with momentous changes in its production and marketing environment. I note the presence in the chamber tonight of my portfolio counterpart, the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. The minister's actions are a good example of the failure of the government to pay close attention to the need for industry planning in key rural industries that are facing momentous change. Only today I met with dairy farmers from the Northern Rivers region of New South Wales who have had their incomes decimated by the failure of this government to adequately plan for that industry's future. I would like the minister, who held a gun at the head of the dairy industry in Australia and forced it to deregulate without any planning, to take a leaf from Labor's book to see how, in the past, we handled significant change in the dairy industry. Not only did we establish industry plans in the dairy industry; we did it in the car industry.On behalf of the workers that I met today, I appeal to the minister to take their concerns on board because their incomes have been decimated by your government's failure to plan for change in the dairy industry. All you have to do is to take a leaf out of Labor's book; it is not very hard. When I mentioned Kerin and Crean to the dairy farmers out there today, they clapped; when I mentioned Vaile and Truss, they booed. I say to the minister tonight to take a leaf out of our book and plan for the changes that you force on particular rural industries. The car industry is very important to the Australian economy, and it was, if we go back to the 1980s, heavily protected. The member for Blair was not in the House at that particular time and nor was I—I was a candidate for the seat of Corangamite at three elections in the 1980s. Throughout the 1990s, as the industry faced declining tariff levels, it put representations to government about its future. I must comment here on the contribution to the debate by the honourable member for Corangamite, whose electorate occupies a small section of the City of Greater Geelong on the western side of the Barwon. In the debate leading up to the year 2000 and the changes that were contemplated at that time, the honourable member for Corangamite was advocating zero tariffs—not zero tariffs over 10 or 15 years; he wanted them `now'. He was a Hewson man. He wanted zero tariffs, to drop industry protection completely. If that decision had gone ahead, we would have had thousands of people in Geelong out of work overnight.As I just mentioned, the lack of planning in the dairy industry by this government now sees us with the prospect of thousands of dairy farmers leaving the industry under circumstances that we would all regret. As far as the car industry is concerned, the government does have an opportunity to put in place some effective mechanisms for reviewing the industry assistance arrangements, doing it sensibly and doing it with community support. That is why people on this side of the House are at a loss to understand why the government might reject any amendment that indicates that the industry should be reviewed ahead of a momentous change that might occur around the years 2003 to 2005. We think that is a reasonable amendment, and one which could be accommodated by the government. When this particular amendment is moved, on behalf of the Geelong community here tonight I urge the government to support it, because I know our amendment has the strong support of the union movement and the workers in the Geelong community. I know it has the strong support of the City of Greater Geelong. I know it has the strong support of the business community and the Geelong Chamber of Commerce. I know it has the strong support of the Geelong community overall. This industry is absolutely critical to the economic survival of the region, and I urge the government to accept this amendment when it is moved.21:35:0023414Entsch, Warren, MPMr ENTSCH7K6LeichhardtLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources10—in reply—First of all, I would like to thank all of those members who contributed to this debate on the ACIS Administration Amendment Bill 2000. I thank the honourable member for Fremantle for her support for the thrust of ACIS and for the amendment bill. I appreciate the member for Kingston's support for ACIS and the amendment bill, and I certainly appreciate his interest in Mitsubishi. I stress here that Mitsubishi will certainly benefit substantially under ACIS. I noted the member for Lalor's interest in Toyota and in ACIS, although I certainly do not agree with the need for a rigid review. I also thank the member for Blair for his very positive contribution, highlighting the significant value of the Australian automotive industry to Queensland and to Australia generally. He also raised the point that the new tax system and the GST are having a very positive influence on the automotive industry and he confirmed that significant reductions in tariffs in the automotive industry are happening right around the world. The member for Corio again highlighted the importance of ACIS to the industry. He raised the value of Ford's investment and commitment to his electorate and also confirmed the positive contribution of Ford employees to Geelong. But I would have looked for a greater appreciation from him of the government's business tax incentives, and certainly their benefits to the automotive industry.The amendment foreshadowed by the opposition, quite frankly, is really just a stunt. It has already been defeated in the other place. The government has accepted a second reading amendment moved by the Democrats to conduct a review not less than 12 months before ACIS ceases at the end of 2005. The detail of the review is really a matter for the government of the day. ACIS is part of a more general automotive package, including a trade strategy and a pause in tariffs. Formal review would encourage speculation that the commitment to tariffs was really not firm. The government is not opposed to a review. Certainly it is good practice, but the terms need to be determined closer to the conclusion of the scheme in light of circumstances that may be prevailing at that time. No automotive industry review has ever been legislated in the past, I should point out, and there have in fact been auto reviews in 1984, 1988, 1992, 1996 and 1997. I think it is interesting also to note that Labor has never legislated auto reviews. You have to ask why it has suddenly now developed such wisdom.This bill proposes several technical amendments to the Automotive Competitiveness and Investment Scheme. ACIS is certainly a major plank in the government's commitment to the Australian automotive industry to provide transitional support in an era of trade liberalisation. ACIS will make $2 billion available to industry over five years, making it one of the largest industry development schemes supported by government. ACIS will encourage the development of internationally competitive firms in the automotive industry through rewarding eligible production, strategic investment development and research and development. The proposed amendments will enable the scheme to be delivered more efficiently, reducing the compliance burden on participants. The amendments will also prevent contraventions against the policy intent of the scheme. I note that the bill was amended in the Senate by the government to enable proposed new section 6B to work as intended, and the revised explanatory memorandum reflects this change. The proposed ACIS Administration Amendment Bill 2000 has no additional financial impact and also has no impact on the scheme's compliance with our obligations under the WTO.I would like to thank the Democrats for their second reading amendment made in the Senate under which the government has agreed to undertake that review, as I said earlier, of the scheme before 2005. The government notes that it is good practice to undertake such a review of such a significant scheme. The government is pleased that this $2 billion scheme is now ready to operate from 1 January 2001 and that the Democrats have supported the passage of the amendment bill for this very important industry.Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time.23415Bill—by leave—taken as a whole. 21:42:0023415Lawrence, Dr Carmen, MPDr LAWRENCEXS4FremantleALP00—I want to speak very briefly in order to introduce the amendment into the debate on the ACIS Administration Amendment Bill 2000. We have already to some extent canvassed the issues, and I note the reluctance of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources to concede that this is a reasonable point that we are making. I acknowledge the fact that the Democrats and the government have apparently agreed on some form of review. The difficulty is that it is not clear exactly what or when, whereas what we propose gives a strict timetable and a clear indication of what should be done and makes provision for it to be a public inquiry, all of which are very important elements.I have been concerned since taking over this portfolio at the number of times I have had reports from industry groups and communities about the decline in industry focus by this government. Indeed, it is frequently said that the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources is simply absent without leave, missing in action, nowhere to be found, when the key issues are being debated and that there has been a general lack of strategy by the current government. The events which led to the establishment of ACIS are an indication of that lack of strategy. Some of the industry groups have indicated to me that they regard the minister as really having a cavalier attitude: he does not really appear to care and thinks it is a matter of standing back, hands off and letting what will happen happen. That is a tragedy for industry generally but particularly for this industry, which is so fundamental, which has enjoyed protection and which is growing now but continues to need assistance. Unfortunately, without a minister who is taking an interest in the portfolio, that industry has little capacity to plan, and that is indicated by the government's failure to agree to a reasonable review. We have seen too that the government has not taken any action to remove some of the barriers to improvement in this industry. There has been very little trade action. We have seen the high tariff barriers referred to tonight, and they remain in a lot of cases. The government has not been engaged. It really only seems to be interested in agriculture and resources when you are talking about trade policy.The tax changes that were referred to as assisting the industry, too, have actually been an impediment. We actually saw a motor vehicle strike for some time. Admittedly the industry bounced back, but then there was a decline in registrations again recently. If it were not for export growth, there would be considerable difficulties in this industry. So we need planning, and I hope that Parliamentary Secretary Entsch at the table will convey to the minister the view that we want to cooperate to get decent planning for this industry, because it is so critical for Australia's future. The bill itself ensures support during restructuring. It will assist major domestic and export sales. It will ensure that investment takes place in the industry—and we have just seen that with Mitsubishi. It will ensure that we have high skilled and secure employment and it will provide a basis for research and development—all admirable objectives. But, come 2005, what will happen? The industry needs to plan well in advance, and having a review some time in some form just before the end of that period is simply not adequate. The industry needs to have confidence to invest; the communities need to have some sense of long-term security; and those people who work in the motor vehicle industry deserve it too. It is also fundamental in generating new industries. I met with a company today which is a spin-off from this very important sector and which has now major export orders all around the world. Were it not for the domestic industry, it assured me, it would not exist at all.We expect from this government a commitment to Australian manufacturing. That is what is at question here: a commitment, a long-term commitment, to Australian manufacturing and, therefore, to Australian jobs. The Australian community expects no less than that. Yet we have a government prepared to say `Well, come 2005, we'll see what happens.' Given the existing scale of investment, that is not adequate and, given what is possible in this country, that is not adequate. We should be investing in this industry. We should be at the front end of this industry, instead of having the government running along behind after various decisions have been made and have taken effect. With those few observations, I move:Schedule 1, after item 47, page 18 (after line 12) insert:47A After Part 13Insert:Part 14—Review of Automotive Industry117 Independent Public Inquiry (1) After 30 June 2002 and before 1 January 2003, the Minister must issue terms of reference and establish an independent public inquiry into the automotive industry. (2) The independent public inquiry must: (a) examine the need for assistance to promote competitiveness and encourage investment in the automotive industry after the arrangements set out in the ACIS Administration Act 1999 expire; and (b) consider the appropriate level of import tariffs for vehicles and components. (3) The independent public inquiry must call for submissions, hold public hearings and commission research to inform its deliberations. (4) The independent public inquiry may take evidence in private on matters that are commercially sensitive. (5) The independent public inquiry must deliver its report to the Minister before 31 March 2004. (6) The Minister must cause a copy of the report to be laid before each House of the Parliament as soon as practicable after receiving it.I want to make reference to a couple of elements in that amendment. The minister would establish, after 30 June 2002 and before 1 January 2003, an independent public inquiry into the automotive industry and would issue terms of reference. The public inquiry would examine, firstly, the need for assistance to promote competitiveness and encourage investment in the automotive industry after the arrangements set out in the ACIS Administration Act 1999 expire—in other words, it would enable them to plan for the future, enable communities to know about their future and to have a say in it, and consider the appropriate level of import tariffs for vehicles and components. As many members on our side have said, we are serious about this. This is not a stunt. We understand this industry. We care about this industry. We care about Australian investment and Australian jobs. (Time expired)Amendment negatived.Bill agreed to. 7K6Entsch, Warren, MPMr Entsch—I seek leave of the House to move the third reading forthwith.10000Adams, Dick (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. D.G.H. Adams)—Is leave granted?XS4Lawrence, Dr Carmen, MPDr Lawrence—No, it is not granted. I want to take a brief moment to indicate what the Manager of Opposition Business has indicated on a number of occasions in the last 48 hours, and that is our unwillingness to cooperate with the government as a result of the Minister for Employment Services' refusal to apologise to the member for Dickson. This is a matter of considerable importance. We have had a failure in this House by the Speaker to insist that that minister apologise for what was clearly unreasonable behaviour—not to mention besmirching the reputation of a member of this House. As long as that remains the case, we are not prepared to cooperate, in albeit a symbolic way, with the government.Anyone who was in the House at the time clearly understood that the minister meant to be extremely critical of the member for Dickson, and he did so without evidence and without any reference to the appropriate forms of the House. Yet he appears to have been given very special consideration, because he was allowed to get away with that: he was allowed to continue to sit in his place when members on our side have been thrown out of this place for much, much less. It is a matter of concern to the opposition that that minister continues in this House and continues, by the way, to interject sotto voce from time to time to reinforce the already appalling position that he adopted in relation to that member. I must say that he added to his sins by, in due course, making other observations about the member for Bowman which are now the subject of other actions. We simply want to indicate by this means that, as long as the government is prepared to allow one of its ministers to sit in his place without any action by the government, without any attempt to criticise him for his behaviour, allowing him in a sense to get away—GT4Truss, Warren, MPMr Truss—I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The honourable member for Fremantle is rambling—10000Adams, Dick (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order!XS4Lawrence, Dr Carmen, MPDr Lawrence—I don't ever ramble.GT4Truss, Warren, MPMr Truss—She is rambling on—10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! I have not called the minister yet. I call the minister.GT4Truss, Warren, MPMr Truss—My point of order is that there is no motion before the House, and so the honourable member has no right to be speaking. I am prepared to move one, if you would like.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Member for Fremantle, please resume your seat.23417Motion (by Mr Truss) agreed to:That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the motion for the third reading being moved without delay.Bill (on motion by Mr Entsch) read a third time.Bills23417R104923417Bill returned from the Senate with amendments.Ordered that the amendments be taken into consideration forthwith.Senate's amendments—(1) Clause 2, page 1 (lines 17 to 22), omit subclause (1), substitute: (1) Subject to this section, this Act commences on 1 July 2001.(2) Clause 3, page 2 (line 20), at the end of paragraph (b), add:; and (iv) provides individuals with mechanisms by which they can obtain appropriate redress for interferences with privacy; and (v) provides the Privacy Commissioner with the means to monitor and prevent the systematic abuse of privacy by organisations.(3) Schedule 1, page 6 (after line 5), after item 11, insert: 11A Subsection 6(1)Insert:DNA sample includes: (a) a human tissue sample from which DNA is intended to be extracted; or (b) DNA extracted from such a tissue sample and other molecules (such as ribonucleic acids and polypeptides) from which DNA may be derived;but does not include a tissue sample that is taken: (c) as a biopsy or an autopsy specimen, or as a clinical specimen solely for the purpose of conducting an immediate clinical or diagnostic test that is not a DNA test; or (d) as a blood sample solely for the purpose of storage and distribution by a blood bank.(4) Schedule 1, item 12, page 6 (lines 6 to 26), omit the item, substitute: 12 Subsection 6(1)Insert:employee record, in relation to an employee, means a record of personal information relating to the employment of the employee other than an exempt employee record. Examples of personal information relating to the employment of the employee are health information about the employee (including genetic information or information about DNA samples) and personal information about all or any of the following: (a) the terms and conditions of employment of the employee; (b) the employee's personal and emergency contact details; (c) the employee's salary or wages; (d) the employee's membership of a professional or trade association; (e) the employee's trade union membership; (f) the employee's recreation, long service, sick, personal, maternity, paternity or other leave; (g) the employee's taxation, banking or superannuation affairs.(5) Schedule 1, page 7 (after line 22), after item 13, insert:13A Subsection 6(1) Insert:exempt employee record, in relation to an employee, means a record of personal information relating to the employment of the employee and relating to all or any of the following: (a) the engagement, training, disciplining or resignation of the employee; (b) the termination of the employment of the employee; or (c) the employee's performance or conduct.(6) Schedule 1, page 7 (after line 22), after item 13, insert:13A Subsection 6(1)Insert:family member, in relation to a person, means another person who is related by blood to that person.(7) Schedule 1, page 7 (after line 25), after item 14, insert:14A Subsection 6(1)Insert:genetic information, in relation to a person or a family member of that person, means: (a) information from a DNA sample about genotype; or (b) information from mutation analysis; or (c) information about nucleotide and polypeptide sequences; or (d) information about genes or gene products.(8) Schedule 1, item 16, page 8 (line 13), at the end of the definition of health information, add:; and, except where the contrary intention appears, includes genetic information.(9) Schedule 1, page 9 (after line 15), after item 22, insert:22AA Subsection 6(1) (definition of personal information)Repeal the definition of personal information, substitute:personal information means information or an opinion (including information or an opinion forming part of a database), whether true or not, and whether recorded in a material form or not, about an individual: (a) whose identity is apparent from the information or opinion; or (b) who can be identified, directly or indirectly, by reference to the information or opinion.(10) Schedule 1, page 11 (after line 29), after item 33, insert:33A Subsection 6(1)Insert:tenancy information means information or an opinion about an individual collected in connection with the provision of residential accommodation to the individual that is also personal information.(11) Schedule 1, item 36, page 14 (line 20), omit “In this Act”, substitute “Subject to subsections (1A) and (1B), in this Act”.(12) Schedule 1, item 36, page 15 (after line 6), after subsection (1), insert: (1A) Notwithstanding subsection (1), a small business operator is deemed to be an organisation with respect to its actions and practices in relation to: (a) an employee record it holds; and (b) tenancy information it holds. (1B) Notwithstanding subsection (1), a small business operator is deemed to be an organisation if it accepts online payment for goods or services.(13) Schedule 1, item 36, page 18 (lines 3 and 4), omit paragraph (c), substitute: (c) discloses personal information about another individual to anyone else other than: (i) with the consent of the other individual; or (ii) as required or authorised by or under legislation.(14) Schedule 1, item 36, page 18 (lines 23 to 29), omit subsection (7).(15) Schedule 1, item 36, page 21 (lines 11 to 13), omit the note.(16) Schedule 1, item 36, page 21 (lines 21 to 23), omit subsection (4), substitute: (4) A small business operator may not revoke a choice to be treated as an organisation.(17) Schedule 1, item 42, page 24 (line 30), omit “Employee records”, substitute “Exempt employee records”.(18) Schedule 1, item 42, page 25 (line 3), omit “employee record”, substitute “exempt employee record”.(19) Schedule 1, item 42, page 27 (after line 22), at the end of section 7C, add: (7) Nothing in this section permits a political representative, a contractor or a subcontractor to sell or disclose personal information collected or held by the political representative, contractor or subcontractor to any entity that does not have the benefit of this exemption.(20) Schedule 1, item 52, page 31 (line 25), at the end of subsection 13B(1), add: ; provided that: (c) such collection or disclosure would not exceed the reasonable expectations of the community; and (d) the organisation which initially collected the information has complied with National Privacy Principle 1.(21) Schedule 1, item 54, page 35 (lines 16 to 18), omit subsection (3), substitute: (3) National Privacy Principles 2, 6 and 11 apply in relation to personal information held by an organisation regardless of whether the organisation holds the personal information as a result of collection occurring before or after the commencement of this section, provided that, in respect of personal information collected before the commencement of this section, an organisation is not required to comply with those Principles where such compliance would place an unreasonable administrative burden on the organisation or cause the organisation unreasonable expense.(22) Schedule 1, item 58, page 39 (line 34), at the end of subsection (3), add: ; and (m) the code requires the adjudicator to maintain a summary of each complaint resolved with or without a determination, finding, declaration, order or direction identifying the nature of the complaint, the code provisions applied in resolving it, the nature of the settlement, and any issues of law which were raised in the complaint; and (n) the code requires the adjudicator to provide a copy of these summaries to the Commissioner at least annually. (23) Schedule 1, item 58, page 42 (after line 18), at the end of the item, add: 18BH Review of operation of approved privacy codes (1) The Commissioner may, if in his or her view the circumstances so warrant: (a) following receipt of a report referred to in 18BB(3)(i); or (b) following receipt of the summaries referred to in 18BB(3)(n); or (c) on his or her own motion; conduct a review of the operation of an approved privacy code. (2) The circumstances under subsection (1) may include: (a) the number, nature and outcome of complaints made to an adjudicator; and (b) the code provisions applied in resolving complaints; and (c) information received by the Commissioner that indicates that obligations under the code may not have been met by an organisation bound by the code. (3) In undertaking a review under this subsection, the Commissioner may do all or any of the following: (a) review the complaints process; (b) inspect the records of the adjudicator; (c) review the results of complaints; (d) interview the adjudicator.(24) Schedule 1, item 58, page 42 (after line 18), at the end of the item, add:18BI Review of decisions under an approved privacy code A person who is aggrieved by a decision made by an adjudicator under an approved privacy code may apply to the Commissioner for a review of the decision.(25) Schedule 1, item 58, page 42 (after line 18), at the end of the item, add:18 BJ Powers of the Commissioner in respect of applications for review On an application for a review under section 18BI, the Commissioner may: (a) make a determination setting aside a decision under the privacy code, or a part of a decision, with effect from the date of the determination; or (b) exercise all the powers conferred on the Commissioner to investigate complaints made directly to the Commissioner; or (c) make a fresh determination in accordance with section 52.(26) Schedule 1, item 59, page 42 (after line 32), at the end of the item, add: (ad) to review the operation of privacy codes under section 18BH; (ae) to review decisions that an adjudicator may make under an approved privacy code under section 18BI, to set aside those decisions and to make fresh determinations.(27) Schedule 1, item 99, page 56 (after line 24), at the end of the item, add: 55C Privacy Commissioner may issue breach notice (1) The Commissioner may issue a breach notice to an organisation which, in the opinion of the Commissioner, has not complied with a determination issued under section 52. (2) Before issuing a breach notice, the Commissioner must provide the organisation with an opportunity to be heard. (3) The breach notice must specify: (a) the nature of the breach; and (b) the steps which the organisation must take to rectify the breach; and (c) a reasonable period (of not more than 12 months) in which the organisation must rectify the breach.(28) Schedule 1, item 99, page 56 (after line 24), at the end of the item, add:55D Imposition and recovery of penalty (1) Where an organisation to which a breach notice has been issued fails to comply with the breach notice within the time specified in the breach notice, a penalty may be imposed by the Federal Court. (2) The maximum penalty that may be imposed under subsection (1) for a failure to comply with a breach notice is $50,000. (3) A penalty under this section may be sued for and recovered by: (a) the Commissioner; or (b) a person who is affected by the serious privacy breach. (4) A proceeding under this section must be commenced not later than 6 years after the commission of the breach.(29) Schedule 1, item 139, page 75 (line 11), after “individual,”, insert “other than health information,”.(30) Schedule 1, item 139, page 75 (lines 14 to 18), omit paragraphs (a) and (b), substitute: (a) providing access would pose a serious and imminent threat to the life or health of any individual; or(31) Schedule 1, item 139, page 76 (after line 14), after subclause 6.1, insert: 6.1A Subject to subclauses 6.1B and 6.1C, if an organisation holds health information about an individual, it must provide the individual with access to the information on request by the individual, except to the extent that: (a) the provision of the information would constitute a significant risk to the life or health of: (i) the individual; or (ii) any other person; or (b) the provision of the information would contravene: (i) a law of the Commonwealth or of a State or Territory; (ii) an order of a court of competent jurisdiction; or (c) the information consists of or includes material or information concerning an individual given in confidence to the person who was responsible for receiving or recording the information, by a person other than: (i) the individual; (ii) a guardian of the individual; or (iii) a health service provider in the course of, or otherwise in relation to, the provider's treatment of the individual,and, in addition, health information may not be disclosed if: (d) the individual notifies the person responsible for the information to the effect that the individual does not wish the information to be disclosed and the person responsible for the information marks the information or record accordingly; or (e) the individual: (i) becomes a legally incompetent person; or (ii) dies. 6.1B Health information about an individual that contains factual matter is subject to the provisions of subclause 6.1A regardless of when the information was collected. 6.1C Health information about an individual that contains matters of opinion is subject to the provisions of subclause 6.1A if the information was collected on or after the date of the commencement of this Act.(32) Schedule 1, item 139, page 80 (after line 25), after subclause 10.4, insert: (10.4A) Without limiting subclause 10.4, an organisation must take all practicable and reasonable steps to permanently de-identify genetic information before disclosing it, having regard to the need for privacy protection of genetic information in relation to an individual to take into account the privacy of that individual's family members. (10.4B) Nothing in this clause prevents an organisation from disclosing genetic information with the consent of the subject.(33) Schedule 1, item 139, page 80 (after line 29), at the end of the item, add:11 Special protection for children 11.1 An organisation which: (a) operates a commercial service which is directed at children; or (b) operates a commercial service directed at a general audience but for which there is a reasonable expectation that personal information will be collected from children; must: (c) provide parents with notice of the information collection practices of the organisation; (d) obtain parental consent before collecting, using or disclosing personal information about a child, which consent may be revoked by a parent at any time; (e) obtain new consent from parents when the information collection practices of the organisation change in a material way; (f) allow parents to access and correct personal information collected from their children; (g) delete information collected from children at the request of parents; (h) not require a child to provide more information than is reasonably necessary to participate in the service offered by the organisation; and (i) ensure that personal information collected from children is maintained with confidentiality, security and integrity. 11.2 In this clause:child means a person aged 13 or under.(34) Schedule 2, before item 1, page 81 (line 4), omit “Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977”.(35) Schedule 2, items 1 and 2, page 81 (lines 5 to 11), omit the items.21:52:0023422Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—I would like to indicate to the House that the government proposes that amendments Nos 34 and 35 be agreed to, that amendments Nos 1 to 18, 20 and 27 to 33 be disagreed to, and that amendments Nos 19 and 21 to 26 be disagreed to but that amendments be made in place thereof. I suggest, therefore, that it may suit the convenience of the House to first consider amendments Nos 34 and 35, then consider amendments Nos 1 to 18, 20 and 27 to 33 and, when those amendments have been disposed of, to consider amendments Nos 19 and 21 to 26. I move:That amendments Nos 34 and 35 be agreed to.These amendments are relevant to others that the government proposes to move that give the Privacy Commissioner the power to review decisions made by code adjudicators.21:54:0023422McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLANDJK6BartonALP00—We fully support this position. The government has accepted the Senate's amendments, which are important because they will give citizens the right to appeal the decision of a private sector privacy code adjudicator. Industry bodies will set up their own privacy codes and each code will have a privacy adjudicator. Under this legislation, citizens will have the right to appeal the decision of a privacy adjudicator to the Privacy Commissioner. This is a significant improvement because the Privacy Commissioner will have the right to make the decision afresh and literally stand in the shoes of the private sector adjudicator. The bill originally restricted citizens to a very cumbersome, expensive and inflexible judicial review proceeding, which involved going to the Federal Court of Australia to challenge a decision on technical grounds. This is a significant right for Australian citizens—particularly Australian consumers, who will most likely be affected by this decision. These amendments will also ensure that there is some uniformity in the interpretation of similar private sector codes. Such codes will exist throughout Australia and having appeals funnelling into the Privacy Commissioner will lend some uniformity, and indeed guidance, to the interpretation of private sector codes. We received strong submissions not only from consumer groups but also from business saying that these amendments were appropriate—indeed, business suggested the amendments to us initially—so it is good to see that the government has adopted this position. We think it will significantly improve the right of private citizens to obtain redress for any breaches of privacy. I think, by and large, those industry bodies in the most significant Australian industries have acted responsibly in establishing these codes, and will continue to do so. However, this legislation will ensure that Australian citizens retain their rights when there is no demonstrated goodwill. Private industry bodies will not be able to contract out of the protections that Australians will have under the Privacy Act. The opposition moved these amendments in the Senate with the support of the Australian Democrats and we are pleased that the government has accepted their validity and the rationale for them.Question resolved in the affirmative.21:58:0023422Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—I move:That amendments Nos 1 to 18, 20 and 27 to 33 be disagreed to. The amendments under consideration were debated effectively in this House and in the Senate. Extensive reasons have been provided for the government's opposition to these amendments. When the motion is agreed to by the House those reasons will be presented in due course. Therefore, in order to save time tonight, I do not propose to address these amendments yet again.21:59:0023423McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLANDJK6BartonALP00—We will not oppose the government's motion—albeit with some disappointment. We will not press the amendments at this time, although a Labor government would tighten this privacy legislation significantly by including these amendments and by ensuring that we developed in Australia what was effectively world's best practice privacy protection. We believe privacy protection not only is an important civil right of Australian citizens but also makes good economic sense.In particular, evidence suggests that in the next few years the potential for revenue from economic commerce is in the billions of dollars. What will happen is that citizens of other countries will look to those countries that have regimes that provide security for them—not only security for their financial transactions but also security for their private information. We think there is a significant advantage in Australia being ahead of the pace rather than behind it. Indeed, research suggests that only a very limited number or percentage of those who use the Internet engage in economic commerce and, for at least 40 per cent of those, the prime consideration is the potential for intrusion into their privacy. So we say that having a sound privacy regime is actually in the interests of Australian business, whether it be big business or small business. We hope that small business will realise that and, despite the width of the small business exemption contained in the legislation, that most small businesses—particularly those engaged in electronic commerce—will voluntarily bring themselves within the provisions of the act.One of the other areas where we are disappointed that the government has not accepted our amendments is in the fact that the bill currently contains a complete exemption for employee records. While we readily admit that it will be necessary in the course of the normal employment relationship for subsequent employers to seek and obtain details regarding performance, disciplining, pay rates and the like, there is no justification at all for subsequent employers to obtain, off previous employers, details relating to any illness that an employee may have—for instance, diabetes or some other ailment not connected to the way in which they perform their duties—or whether they have a regular payroll deduction—for instance, for child support or by way of subscription to an organisation or even to a trade union. So we say that the width of the small business exemption is unjustified. We note that the government itself has tacitly acknowledged this by the mere fact that it proposes to have an inquiry into the width of that exemption. We hope that, within 12 months of this bill coming into operation, the government will do something about the unreasonable width of the exemption.We are also concerned that there is no penalty for systematic and serious breaches of privacy. We are very concerned that the bill will not come into operation until at least 12 months from its being passed this week, which effectively will make it after the next election. But fundamentally this bill, we say, is certainly better than nothing. The amendments that we have succeeded in moving—and, indeed, the government accepting in part—will at least give some protection to Australians.The area that will not be protected, however—and we note again the government's agreement to review—is in respect to special protections for information obtained from children. The basis of the current privacy principles is that there must be informed consent before a consumer provides information. Obviously that cannot be obtained from children, and there is justification for special protections for information obtained from children to ensure that parents have the ultimate control on their commercial relationships. We have proposed a model based on that which exists in the United States. We note that the government seeks more time to confer with the states and other bodies in respect of developing a special protection for children, and we welcome that. (Time expired)Question resolved in the affirmative.22:04:0023424Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—I present the reasons for the House disagreeing to Senate amendments Nos 1 to 18, 20 and 27 to 33, and I move:That the reasons be adopted.22:04:0023424McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLANDJK6BartonALP00—In respect of the block of amendments for which the amendments have been proposed, I support the reasons being adopted.Question resolved in the affirmative.22:05:0023424Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—I move:That amendments Nos 19 and 21 to 26 be disagreed to and that Government amendments Nos 1 to 9 be made in place thereof:(1) Schedule 1, item 42, page 27 (after line 22), at the end of subsection (6), add:Note: To avoid doubt, this section does not make exempt for the purposes of paragraph 7(1)(ee) an act or practice of the political representative, contractor, subcontractor or volunteer for a registered political party involving the use or disclosure (by way of sale or otherwise) of personal information in a way not covered by subsection (1), (2), (3) or (4) (as appropriate). The rest of this Act operates normally in relation to that act or practice. (2) Schedule 1, item 54, page 35 (after line 9), after subsection 16C(1), insert: (1A) National Privacy Principle 2 applies only in relation to personal information collected after the commencement of this section. (3) Schedule 1, item 54, page 35 (lines 16 to 18), omit subsection 16C(3), substitute: (3) National Privacy Principle 6 applies in relation to personal information collected after the commencement of this section. That Principle also applies to personal information collected by an organisation before that commencement and used or disclosed by the organisation after that commencement, except to the extent that compliance by the organisation with the Principle in relation to the information would: (a) place an unreasonable administrative burden on the organisation; or (b) cause the organisation unreasonable expense. (4) Schedule 1, item 58, page 39 (line 29), omit “, nature and outcome”, substitute “and nature”. (5) Schedule 1, item 58, page 39 (after line 31), after paragraph (k), insert: (ka) the code requires the report prepared for each year to include, for each complaint finally dealt with by an adjudicator under the code during the relevant financial year, a summary identifying: (i) the nature of the complaint; and (ii) the provisions of the code applied in dealing with the complaint; and (iii) the outcome of the dealing; whether or not the adjudicator made a determination, finding, declaration, order or direction in dealing with the complaint; and (6) Schedule 1, item 58, page 39 (line 32), omit “a person who is”, substitute “an adjudicator for the code or another person as the person”. (7) Schedule 1, item 58, page 42 (after line 18), after section 18BG, insert:18BH Review of operation of approved privacy code (1) The Commissioner may review the operation of an approved privacy code.Note: The review may inform a decision by the Commissioner under section 18BE to revoke the approved privacy code. (2) The Commissioner may do one or more of the following for the purposes of the review: (a) consider the process under the code for making and dealing with complaints; (b) inspect the records of an adjudicator for the code; (c) consider the outcome of complaints dealt with under the code; (d) interview an adjudicator for the code. (8) Schedule 1, item 58, page 42 (after line 18), after section 18BH, insert: 18BI Review of adjudicator's decision under approved privacy code (1) A person who is aggrieved by a determination made by an adjudicator (other than the Commissioner) under an approved privacy code after investigating a complaint may apply to the Commissioner for review of the determination.Note: The review of the adjudicator's determination will include review of any finding, declaration, order or direction that is included in the determination. (2) Divisions 1 and 2 of Part V apply in relation to the complaint covered by the application as if the complaint had been made to the Commissioner and subsection 36(1A) did not prevent the Commissioner from investigating it.Note: Divisions 1 and 2 of Part V provide for the investigation and determination of complaints made to the Commissioner. (3) The adjudicator's determination continues to have effect unless and until the Commissioner makes a determination under Division 2 of Part V relating to the complaint. (9) Schedule 1, item 59, page 42 (after line 32), after paragraph (ac), insert: (ad) to review the operation of approved privacy codes under section 18BH; (ae) on application under section 18BI for review of the determination of an adjudicator (other than the Commissioner) in relation to a complaint—to deal with the complaint in accordance with that section;Government amendment No. 1 is in response to Senate amendment No. 19, relating to political acts and practices. The amendment inserts a clarifying note into the exemption for political acts and practices in clause 7(c) of the bill. The amendment is intended to replace Senate amendment No. 19. However, to avoid any doubt, the government proposes an amendment that will insert a note at the end of clause 7(c) that confirms the way in which the exemption operates. The note makes it clear that the exemption does not extend to the use or disclosure by sale or otherwise of personal information collected by virtue of the exemption in a way not covered by the exemption.Government amendments Nos 2 and 3 are in response to Senate amendment No. 21 relating to the application of national privacy principles to existing information. Government amendments Nos 2 and 3 relate to the application of national privacy principles 2 and 6 to personal information collected before the commencement of the bill. They are intended to replace Senate amendment No. 21. The government does not accept Senate amendment No. 21 and does that for good reason.The Senate amendments would create unnecessary and unjustified compliance costs for organisations, in the government's view. It must be remembered that, after the legislation comes into operation, organisations that hold existing databases of personal information will need to comply with all aspects of the legislation when they update that information, including those relating to use and disclosure. In the information industry, the currency of personal information is crucial. This means that over time the complete set of principles will come to apply for that updated information. The government considers that there is merit in providing individuals with some means to access information collected before the commencement of the act when an organisation uses or discloses that information about them. This is particularly the case where the use adversely impacts upon the individual—for example, where a real estate agency relies on personal information collected prior to the commencement of the bill to deny an individual rental accommodation. The government accepts that there may be situations where it is fair that individuals have the ability to access that information and to correct it if it is wrong.While not accepting the Senate's general application of NPP6 to all existing information, the government proposes through amendment (3) to enable individuals to access and correct information collected before the commencement of the bill, where that information is used or disclosed by the organisation after that commencement. The ability to access and correct existing information that is used or disclosed after commencement of the bill will also assist organisations to comply with their obligations under national privacy principle 3 to make sure that the information it uses or discloses is accurate, complete and up to date. However, the government remains concerned that even a limited extension of access and correction rights to existing information could impose onerous burdens for organisations. Accordingly, the government has made it clear in proposed government amendment (3) that organisations are not required to comply with national privacy principle 6 where such compliance would place an unreasonable administrative burden on the organisation or cause the organisation unreasonable expense. Government amendments (4), (5) and (6) are in response to Senate amendment (22) relating to privacy codes. These amendments relate to privacy codes and the matters about which the Privacy Commissioner must be satisfied before approving a privacy code. Government amendments (4) and (5) insert a new requirement in relation to complaints that have been resolved by a code adjudicator. It requires that a summary of each complaint finally dealt with by the adjudicator be included in the annual report, to be provided by a complaint body to the Privacy Commissioner. This summary should include details about the nature of the complaint, the provisions of the code applied in dealing with the complaint and the outcome of the dealing. Government amendment (6) requires the code to identify who is responsible for the annual reporting requirements—the amendment clarifies that the responsible person may be the code adjudicator or another person nominated in the code. The Privacy Commissioner needs to ensure that the privacy codes he has approved are working effectively. If they are not, he has the power under the bill to revoke his approval. Government amendments (4), (5) and (6) will mean that the Privacy Commissioner will be provided with additional information upon which he or she may base his or her assessment of the effectiveness of the codes.Government amendment (7), in response to Senate amendment (23), relates to the review of privacy codes. It gives power to the Privacy Commissioner to review the operation of the code complaint process and is intended, as I said, to replace Senate amendment (23). Senate amendment (23) is unacceptable in its current form, as it goes beyond simply looking at code complaints processes and procedures. Government amendment (7) provides that the Privacy Commissioner may review the operation of an approved code. (Extension of time granted) The note inserted after the clause makes it clear that the review of the operation of an approved privacy code may be relevant to an exercise of the Privacy Commissioner's power to revoke the approval of an approved code. The review power will assist the Privacy Commissioner to ensure that privacy codes approved by him or her operate effectively.Government amendment (8) relating to the review of code adjudicators' decisions by the Privacy Commissioner is in response to Senate amendments (24) and (25) and takes into account Senate amendments (34) and (35), which have been accepted and relate to removal of judicial review of code adjudicators' decisions. Government amendment (8) relates to the review of code adjudicators' determinations by the commissioner and replaces Senate amendments (24) and (25), as those amendments do not sufficiently address all necessary matters to give the amendments full effect. Amendment (8) inserts a new clause that enables a person who has agreed, by a determination made by an adjudicator under an approved privacy code, to apply to the Privacy Commissioner for a review of the adjudicator's determination. The clause confers powers of investigation on the commissioner and provides that the adjudicator's determination will continue to have effect unless and until the Privacy Commissioner makes a new determination. The Privacy Commission's power to review decisions made by a code adjudicator effectively replaces the judicial review mechanism in schedule 2 of the bill. The government therefore accepts Senate amendments (34) and (35), which remove the items in the bill that provide for judicial review under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977. Finally, government amendment (9) is in response to Senate Amendment No. 26 relating to the functions of the commissioner. It is a consequence of government amendments (7) and (8). Government amendment (9) inserts into the bill the new functions conferred on the commissioner by government amendments (7) and (8). 22:13:0023427McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLANDJK6BartonALP00—The Attorney-General obviously put detailed reasons to justify the amendments, which should be regarded when subsequently interpreting the legislation. I should indicate at this stage that—particularly in this area where the government has not accepted opposition amendments but has proposed substantially similar amendments—there has been a considerable amount of cooperation between the respective officers, and I express our gratitude for that. Highlighting, however, some of the more significant areas from the opposition's perspective, we regard the fact that there are additional reporting requirements for private sector code adjudicators as being particularly important. Specifically, they will be required, in respect of their adjudication of citizens' complaints, to provide a summary of the nature of the complaint, the provisions of the code which they applied in dealing with the complaint and the outcome of their particular dealing with the complaint. We say that will give the Privacy Commissioner a far better picture as to what is going on in the application of the private sector codes—again enforcing the Privacy Commissioner's overall supervisory role in respect of these private sector codes.Amendment (7) will provide the Privacy Commissioner with power to review codes, which again we say is particularly significant. In particular, in reviewing these codes the Privacy Commissioner will be empowered to exercise his power to revoke codes if he considers that they are inappropriate or are being applied inappropriately. In considering whether or not to exercise his power to revoke a code, he will consider the process under the code for making and dealing with complaints. He has the power to inspect the records of an adjudicator for the code, to consider the outcome of complaints dealt with under the code and, importantly, to interview an adjudicator for the code to assess the competence, bona fides and balance of that private sector code adjudicator.We also note with some disappointment that the government has not accepted our argument that there should be a prohibition against the misuse or disclosure of information contained in existing databases, but we do recognise the importance, as the government has conceded, of enabling citizens to have access to that information for the purpose of correction. In particular, while the government has not accepted our argument that it should apply to all existing databases, save for one complication that I will mention, the government has at least conceded that it will apply, post the commencement of the legislation, to information that is used or disclosed. That will give Australians a significant protection, as the Attorney-General indicated, in many areas but particularly, for instance, in real estate if there is some misunderstanding of a particular citizen's financial position or rental record. That is a very significant amendment.We also note that the government has appropriately picked up our exemption in regard to an unreasonable administrative burden. We are not saying—nor is the government for that matter—that, in the way the legislation is framed, businesses will be required to go and search wooden boxes containing paper archive records. That would clearly impose an unreasonable impost and expense. However, if the information is contained in a digital form, that will be different.In respect of the controversial area of political exemptions, we substantially agree with the government that, like the media exemption, there is a substantial issue regarding freedom of speech in a democracy, and by and large we have supported the government's approach. We note, however, that it has agreed to include, by way of a legislative note, a clarification indicating that this information obtained for political purposes cannot be sold or leased or misused. We accept that was not the intention of the government in originally framing the legislation. However, the legislative note will clarify that and bring certainty to the legislation. So overall the legislation is certainly a better package than that which went to the Senate, and that is as a result of cooperation. (Time expired)22:18:0023428Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—I will be brief. It is nearly two years since I announced the government's decision to legislate to support and strengthen self-regulatory privacy protection in the private sector. The two years will actually be up on 15 December. Since that time there has been extensive consultation, both during the development of the Privacy Amendment (Private Sector) Bill 2000 and since I introduced the bill into the House in April. The bill is the result of this comprehensive consultation process and represents a well-considered balance between the need to ensure adequate privacy protection and the need to minimise compliance costs for business.I have said previously that the bill is the most significant development in the privacy area since the Privacy Act was enacted in 1988. This bill is groundbreaking legislation. In fact, as far as I am aware, it is the first in the world in which there has been a coregulatory, light touch approach adopted rather than a fully regulatory or a completely self-regulatory approach. It seeks to introduce, as I said, a balanced coregulatory approach to privacy protection.It is essential for the private sector that the bill ensure that full advantage be taken of the opportunities that electronic commerce presents for Australian business and consumers. It is a major part of the government's strategy to improve business and consumer confidence about transacting online, and business has already indicated a willingness to embrace this legislation because, as good businesses know, good privacy is good business. I trust that business will continue to adopt that attitude.It is important for Australians to have greater confidence in the way that private sector organisations handle their personal information in the future; it is important for the future growth of electronic commerce in Australia. I express the government's appreciation for the support, to the extent that it has been given, of the opposition in dealing with the amendments in this House. I now urge the opposition to support passage of the bill as amended through the Senate. If the bill can be passed by the Senate in the next two days, then it will be to the credit of all concerned and to the benefit of all Australians. I commend the motion and, in due course, the bill as amended to the House.Question resolved in the affirmative. Bills23428R115023428Bill returned from the Senate with amendments.Ordered that the amendments be taken into consideration at the next sitting.Bills23428R114923428Bill returned from the Senate with amendments.Ordered that the amendments be taken into consideration at the next sitting.Bills23428R979Consideration resumed from 26 June.2342822:22:0023428Bishop, Bronwyn, MPMrs BRONWYN BISHOPSE4MackellarLPMinister for Aged Care10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.The Commonwealth government, in its 1998 election commitment, Protecting the Sydney Harbour Foreshore, stated that it was committed to preserving the Sydney Harbour foreshore for future generations. The government announced that, as the Department of Defence relocates from certain sites around Sydney Harbour, it would establish a trust to assume management and planning responsibilities for those sites.This bill was intended to fulfil the government's commitment, but it has been totally transformed in the Senate by the Labor Party and the Australian Democrats. The bill, as it now appears before this House, is not in a form that is acceptable to the government. I will explain in a moment why the bill is not acceptable but, firstly, I would like to state the government's intentions in establishing a Sydney Harbour Federation Trust. Over the last century, the Commonwealth has been custodian of some of the Sydney Harbour foreshore areas of greatest natural and heritage significance. Those lands have been used by the Department of Defence for the activities of both the Navy and the Army. Defence is relocating, or in some cases has already relocated, from North Head, Middle Head, Georges Heights, Woolwich and Cockatoo Island as part of the government's program to improve the defence of Australia. As Defence relocates, it is intended that these lands will be vested in the trust. Our bill also allows other Commonwealth foreshore sites to be vested in the trust. On 3 June 2000, Senator Robert Hill, the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, announced that two other foreshore sites, Macquarie Lightstation and Snapper Island, would be transferred from the Department of Finance and Administration to the trust.As the cradle of European settlement and the focus of Australia's most populous city, the harbour is the most powerful image in presenting our nation to the world. For the people of Sydney, the harbour provides an avenue for commerce and the transport of people. The harbour and its foreshores are the focus of city living and of recreational pursuits.For these reasons the government is committed to preserving the harbour and its foreshores for future generations.The government's intention is to establish the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust to manage the sites with the objectives of:· ensuring that management of trust land contributes to preserving the amenity of the Sydney Harbour region;· protecting and conserving the environmental and heritage values of the trust land, and establishing suitable land as a park;· maximising public access to trust land; and· cooperating with Commonwealth, New South Wales and local government bodies.The trust is to be a transitional body to ensure that the Commonwealth's duty to rehabilitate the former Defence sites is fulfilled, and that the sites are returned to the people of Australia in good order.The bill in its current form has introduced several concepts that are not consistent with the government's policy for protecting the Sydney Harbour foreshore. These concepts relate primarily to all trust land being designated for incorporation in the Sydney Harbour National Park, the prohibition on the sale of any land and requiring the trust to comply with certain state laws.The purpose of our amendments is to restore the government's original intentions in establishing a Sydney Harbour Federation Trust whilst accommodating as many as possible of the positive changes that were introduced by the Senate.Unfortunately, the bill in its current form has significant legal problems. The major concerns relate to conceptual coherence, constitutional validity and legal redundancy and inconsistency. For this reason, it has been necessary to introduce amendments to whole parts of the bill, rather than amend each clause. At first glance, the amendments appear to be a wholesale rewriting of the legislation, but this is not the case. We have managed to incorporate many of the Senate's changes, or at least the thinking behind those changes.The Senate's bill would require all trust lands to be transferred to New South Wales for incorporation into the Sydney Harbour National Park. We do not accept that this is necessarily the best option for all the sites. The government has stated its commitment to ensuring that suitable land at North Head, Middle Head and Georges Heights is transferred for such purposes, but the future arrangements for the other lands need to be further considered. A primary consideration of the government in its decision to establish a statutory trust was to instigate a planning process, involving the local communities, to determine the best options and outcomes for the conservation and management of these lands. There is little point in establishing a trust if the outcome is predetermined. We have clarified the extent of the lands that are to be vested in the trust, to address any concerns that the community may have had about our intentions. There are now two schedules to the bill that include the boundary details. These sites are the initial properties that are to be transferred to the trust upon its establishment, although transfer will only be able to take place progressively as Defence relocates. It should be noted that properties listed in schedule 1 cannot be sold by the trust and must remain in public ownership.An obvious omission from schedule 1 is the land at North Head. There is nothing sinister about this omission. Due to complexities in relation to land tenure at the site, we have not been able to include the boundary details in the schedule. I repeat, however, that the government is committed to transferring North Head to the trust with the intention that it is eventually incorporated in the Sydney Harbour National Park.Other land that is to be vested in the trust has been listed separately in schedule 2. This land might be sold, but only if the approved plan relating to those properties has identified sale as the preferred option. It should be noted that a general restriction has been introduced in the bill to ensure that, where significant environmental and heritage values are identified in the relevant plan, trust land cannot be disposed of, other than to the Commonwealth, New South Wales or affected councils, that is, local government. In addition to the restrictions on any sale of land, we have also tightened up arrangements for leases. Where the trust is proposing to enter into a lease over 25 years, the proposed terms and conditions of the lease will be subject to a determination that is a disallowable instrument.The government's original bill provided that the trust would consist of a chair and five members, appointed by the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, and that the government of New South Wales would be invited to recommend two members for appointment to the trust. The Senate's amendments increased this to a chair and seven members, including representatives of local government and indigenous interests.The government is proposing to compromise on the size and composition of the trust, but we believe that the numbers must be limited if the trust is not to become unwieldy. Our amendments now propose a chair and six members. One of the members is to represent indigenous interests and New South Wales will be asked to nominate two representatives, one of whom must be an elected councillor from one of the affected councils.We will not accept a bill that makes the trust subject to state planning processes and gives a power of veto to the New South Wales government which, so far, does not appear to be prepared to cooperate with the Commonwealth government in this exercise.In our amendments, we have reinstated the exemption for the trust from certain New South Wales laws.Debate interrupted; adjournment proposed and negatived.SE4Bishop, Bronwyn, MPMrs BRONWYN BISHOP—If the trust were to be subject to state laws, its ability to develop and implement plans would be severely constrained. The trust is expected to work in close cooperation with the New South Wales government and local government authorities. The process in the bill, incorporating our amendments, for development of plans is similar to state processes and we have inserted an obligation for the minister to consult New South Wales on a plan. The minister must then consider these comments when deciding whether to approve a plan.Our amendments have standardised on a two-year time frame for the trust to develop plans for the conservation and management of its lands and the trust is restricted to operating within the confines of the plans. We have also increased the provisions for public scrutiny of the trust's actions by making trust meetings open to the public, and copies of minutes and other trust documents and reports are to be publicly available.The government has made a genuine effort to respond to as many as possible of the changes that were made in the Senate. I believe that we have made some significant compromises and have rectified the problems relating to legal coherence and inconsistency. I cannot commend the bill to the House in its present form and will be moving these amendments to reflect government policy and our discussions with the community and local council groups. Debate (on motion by Mr Kelvin Thomson) adjourned.Adjournment23431Motion (by Mrs Bronwyn Bishop) proposed:That the House do now adjourn.2343122:32:0023431Cox, David, MPMr COX83UKingstonALP00—The local government component of the Roads to Recovery Program is being distributed between the states under a formula based on the length of local roads and on population. The Minister for Transport and Regional Services has, however, declined to release that formula and instead has taken the extraordinary step of referring to a tabled list in the bill that sets out each local government body's entitlement. He claims this secret formula will advantage South Australia—it needs to.In 1999-2000, South Australia received the lowest local government identified roads grant of any of the states in terms of dollars per kilometre. South Australia received less than $300 per kilometre whereas Western Australia, Queensland and Victoria each received between $400 and $600 per kilometre, New South Wales almost $800 per kilometre and Tasmania more than $1,400 per kilometre. Expressed in per capita terms, South Australia again came out worst, with less than $15 per capita, whereas New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland and Western Australia received between $15 and $35 per capita, while Tasmania received almost $45. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a table provided to me by the Local Government Association of South Australia.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Kingston seeks to have a table incorporated in Hansard.SE4Bishop, Bronwyn, MPMrs Bronwyn Bishop—Mr Speaker, I have no confirmation that this has been discussed with the relevant shadow minister, so I will decline leave.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—It may be possible, in fact, to have a look at the table and to reconsider the matter.SE4Bishop, Bronwyn, MPMrs Bronwyn Bishop—I find it a particularly unusual thing to do in an adjournment debate. I decline leave.83UCox, David, MPMr COX—I understand that the division of shares between the states—by which South Australia does so badly: 5.5 per cent—was part of some piece of ancient history, the logic of which neither the Commonwealth Treasury nor the Office of Local Government is now able to explain. South Australia's share of the Roads to Recovery local government allocation is 8.3 per cent. However, the Roads to Recovery Program represents only half the Commonwealth funding that will be received for local roads and it will expire in four years, at which time South Australia's share will revert to 5.5 per cent. It would have been far better if the opportunity of this additional funding had been used to make the relativities between the states fairer on a permanent basis.There are two local councils that cover my electorate of Kingston. The City of Onkaparinga will receive Roads to Recovery funding of $5.5 million over four years. The City of Marion will receive $2.4 million over the four years. Another component of the Roads to Recovery Program is $400 million to be spent over the four years from 2001-02 for—in the words used by the Deputy Prime Minister in his letter to me:... developing key arterial link roads in outer metropolitan areas. The Government will provide details of this programme next year once it has assessed and prioritised potential projects.Priority in federal road funding has always gone to the national highway system, to roads designated as of national significance and to black spots. The area where there are the largest community benefits, though, is urban arterial roads. I was therefore very interested in the Deputy Prime Minister's letter. Noting that the government has not yet `assessed and prioritised potential projects', I immediately contacted the respective mayors and city managers of the cities of Marion and Onkaparinga to discuss what suggestions we might pass on to the minister. Two of those suggestions are linked. The first, in the City of Onkaparinga, is Commercial Road, south of the Onkaparinga River. Commercial Road services a major outer urban growth area. It carries a very large volume of traffic and is in poor condition, and the state government's attitude has led me to doubt it will ever give it appropriate priority. Commercial Road is connected to Lonsdale Road and together they service 35 kilometres of beachside suburbs. Lonsdale Road is in the City of Marion. Intersections connecting Hallett Cove, Sheidow and Trott Park and Woodend to Lonsdale Road create a substantial traffic hazardthere have been fatalities, including one in the last monthand impede traffic flow. Lonsdale Road also divides the community, with residents of Sheidow and Trott Park and Woodend having impeded access to shops and community facilities—including churches—and also the rail line and the beach. I have asked the Marion council to look at some engineering solutions that would alleviate these problems. These two projects fit the criteria of outer metropolitan arterial roads.There are two other projects that I discussed with the two councils: upgrading the wine roads connecting McLaren Vale to other local wine regions and upgrading Majors Road, which joins Lonsdale Road and South Road and services the Onkaparinga TAFE. I will forward these four proposals to the minister so that he can consider them in his assessment and prioritisation of potential projects. I understand that, in the Prime Minister's address to the Local Government Association conference, he referred to this funding as for roads of national significance. I hope this does not indicate a split within the government about the objectives of this part of the program. I fear that the central departments may be attempting to thwart the Commonwealth funding arterial links in outer metropolitan areas because of the precedent that would set. In my view, because of the substantial community benefits to be derived from those projects, it is time funding was shifted in that direction.2343222:37:0023432Gambaro, Teresa, MPMs GAMBARO9K6PetrieLP10—I note with great surprise the new Deputy Premier of Queensland allows himself to be known as Mr Fix-it. As members know, the only thing that Labor can fix in Queensland is elections. (Quorum formed) A few weeks ago, my colleague the honourable member for Blair starting speaking about some very serious and concerning vote rorting allegations that had been made in the Queensland branch of the ALP. Not surprisingly, the opposition did not want to hear what he had to say. Nearly every time the Labor Party vote rigging allegations are raised in this House, the opposition try to gag debate. We saw an example of this just a few moments ago. They want the truth not to be told. Nevertheless, in his speech the member for Blair tried to tell the House about the outrageous misfortune of the Townsville Labor Party identity Mr Russell Carr. Mr Carr is a longstanding member of the Labor Party and the husband of the state Labor MLA for Mundingburra, Lindy Nelson-Carr. Although I do not know Mr Carr personally, there is little doubt that he could be described as a stayer.Motion (by Mr Leo McLeay) put:That the member be not further heard.22:46:00The House divided. (Mr Speaker—Mr Neil Andrew) 51Adams, D.G.H.Brereton, L.J.Burke, A.E.Corcoran, A.K.Cox, D.A.Danby, M.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.Hatton, M.J.Hoare, K.J.Horne, R.Irwin, J.Jenkins, H.A.Kernot, C.Latham, M.W.Lawrence, C.M.Lee, M.J.Livermore, K.F.Macklin, J.L.Martin, S.P.McClelland, R.B.McFarlane, J.S.McLeay, L.B.McMullan, R.F.Melham, D.Morris, A.A.Mossfield, F.W.Murphy, J. P.O'Connor, G.M.O'Keefe, N.P.Plibersek, T.Price, L.R.S.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.Swan, W.M.Thomson, K.J.Wilkie, K.70Abbott, A.J.Andrews, K.J.Anthony, L.J.Bailey, F.E.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.Draper, P.Elson, K.S.Entsch, W.G.Fahey, J.J.Fischer, T.A.Forrest, J.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.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.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.Sullivan, K.J.M.Thompson, C.P.Thomson, A.P.Truss, W.E.Tuckey, C.W.Vaile, M.A.J.Vale, D.S.Wakelin, B.H.Washer, M.J.Williams, D.R.Wooldridge, M.R.L.Worth, P.M.Beazley, K.C.Howard, J.W.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the negative.2343322:52:0023433Sercombe, Bob, MPMr SERCOMBEQK6MaribyrnongALP00—One of the projects that was funded in my electorate as part of the Federation Fund community funding was the St Albans business group project that involved the local community looking at the opportunities for, as well as the constraints on, economic and business development within the St Albans community. One of the more fundamental constraints on development opportunities within St Albans is a level crossing that has been identified by the RACV as the worst level crossing in Victoria. In fact, the choking of traffic that is associated with the operation of this particular crossing certainly has an extremely adverse effect on a range of economic and social opportunities in that community, and the situation is going to get significantly worse when an electrification of the suburban train network further out to the north-west of Melbourne, to Sydenham, occurs. The project that is being funded as part of the Federation Fund has proved to be very successful. It has stimulated VicRoads, the Victorian state government roads authority, to prepare a report on the options for easing the congestion of traffic at this particular level crossing. A number of options have been identified to assist in the matter. The most expensive option that has been identified is a grade separation at the level crossing. Whilst that is an expensive option, it has been shown by the VicRoads study to be economically viable. In the view of the local business community, and certainly in my view, it is the only really lasting solution to the problem that exists in the community.Whilst this is obviously primarily a Victorian state government matter and a local government matter, we have seen in recent days a recognition by the Commonwealth, through the local roads program, that there is a legitimate role for the Commonwealth in relation to the operation of local road networks. The railway line that causes the choking effect that I have referred to is part of not only a suburban Melbourne train network but also a country network. It serves not only country Victoria but also southern New South Wales with goods connections to centres such as Deniliquin and Balranald. The interstate significance of the situation is a further reason for the Commonwealth to have a look at it. The St Albans community has been identified as having a range of social and economic needs. It is a community that bears a very large proportion of, for example, the humanitarian immigration intake in Victoria. It is a community that hosts a very large campus of the Victorian University of Technology, and the effective operation of that university is significantly hampered because of the choking traffic effects. It is also a community where former Commonwealth land, the Albion explosives site, is being developed for residential purposes. Therefore, I suggest there is a clear Commonwealth responsibility to have a look at the overall social and economic operation of this community.The federal government really ought to be looking at ways in which it can work cooperatively with the Victorian state government and the local municipality to advance the economic and social interests of the St Albans community. There are significant opportunities available, with a grade separation of the railway line, for the utilisation of the air rights over the lowered section of the line. I would certainly be urging the Commonwealth government to have a look at this. It is welcome that the Commonwealth, through federation community funding, has enabled some preliminary community consultations and research to get under way. But a great more needs to be done and I would suggest that, without in any sense taking away from the primary obligations of the Victorian government and the local authority, there is an important role for the Commonwealth to play here as well.2343422:56:0023434Sullivan, Kathryn, MPMrs SULLIVAN3E4MoncrieffLP10—Before the Chief Opposition Whip decided to indulge in his little bit of gagging the chamber, the member for Petrie was informing us about the case of Mr Carr, and was saying that, unfortunately for Mr Carr, the administrative committee of the ALP refused or rejected his nomination when he stood for preselection because he was found to be disloyal in handing out how-to-vote cards for the Greens during the 1995 state election.4I4McLeay, Leo, MPMr Leo McLeay—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. I move that the member be not further heard. HK5Andrews, Kevin, MPMr Andrews—The honourable member cannot take a point of order from where he is taking it. He ought to be back in his seat.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Menzies will resume his seat. The Chief Opposition Whip, as Deputy Manger of Opposition Business in the absence of the Manager of Opposition Business, is able to take a point of order at the dispatch box. I have a motion before the chair that ought to be acted on immediately; it would seem to me, though, that it may more suit the facility of the House if I were simply to put the question that the House do now adjourn. Will the Chief Opposition Whip withdraw his motion?4I4McLeay, Leo, MPMr Leo McLeay—I am happy to withdraw my motion if you put the question forthwith that the House do now adjourn, Mr Speaker.XT4Ronaldson, Michael, MPMr Ronaldson—The member for Moncrieff was on her feet; it is not 11 o'clock yet. If the Chief Opposition Whip wants to bastardise the process of the House tonight when the member is utilising her legitimate right to rise in the adjournment debate to raise matters that are of concern to her, then so be it, but I would urge you, Mr Speaker, not to adjourn this House until 11 o'clock, which is the appropriate time.4I4McLeay, Leo, MPMr Leo McLeay—On the point of order: I was seeking only to facilitate your suggestion, Mr Speaker, which was that you put the question that the House do now adjourn. I am quite happy to propose that the member be not further heard. But I will defer to your proposal, Mr Speaker, that you put the question forthwith and then we will divide upon that.XT4Ronaldson, Michael, MPMr Ronaldson—It is quite obvious that the Australian Labor Party do not like what is happening in Queensland and they are using every opportunity to make sure that members on this side of the House do not have the opportunity to be heard.Question put:That the House do now adjourn.23:03:00The House divided. (Mr Speaker—Mr Neil Andrew) 50Adams, D.G.H.Brereton, L.J.Burke, A.E.Corcoran, A.K.Cox, D.A.Danby, M.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.Hatton, M.J.Hoare, K.J.Horne, R.Irwin, J.Jenkins, H.A.Kernot, 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'Connor, G.M.O'Keefe, N.P.Plibersek, T.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.Swan, W.M.Thomson, K.J.Wilkie, K.69Abbott, A.J.Andrews, K.J.Anthony, L.J.Bailey, F.E.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.Draper, P.Elson, K.S.Entsch, W.G.Fahey, J.J.Fischer, T.A.Forrest, J.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.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.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.Sullivan, K.J.M.Thompson, C.P.Thomson, A.P.Truss, W.E.Tuckey, C.W.Vale, D.S.Wakelin, B.H.Washer, M.J.Williams, D.R.Wooldridge, M.R.L.Worth, P.M.Beazley, K.C.Howard, J.W.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the negative.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—It being past 11 p.m., the debate is interrupted.23:10:0023435House adjourned at 11.10 p.m.Notices23435The following notices were given:7V5Williams, Daryl, MPMr Williams to present a bill for an act to amend and repeal certain legislation relating to Customs, and for related purposes.7K6Entsch, Warren, MPMr Entsch to present a bill for an act to amend the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act 1967, and for other purposes.4G4Downer, Alexander, MPMr Downer to present a bill for an act relating to the application of the Criminal Code to certain offences, and for related purposes.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr Reith to move:That the following changes to the standing orders be made with effect from the first sitting in 2001:(1) That standing orders 112 to 120 be amended to read as follows:CHAPTER IXPETITIONSPreparing a petitionWhat must be in a petition112 A petition for presentation to the House must:(a) be addressed to the House of Representatives.(b) refer to a matter which is within the power of the House of Representatives to address, that is, a Commonwealth legislative or administrative matter.(c) state the facts which the petitioners wish to bring to the notice of the House.(d) contain a request for the House or the Parliament to take one or more specified actions.How a petition should be prepared113 A petition must conform to the following requirements:(a) It must be on paper.(b) It must be legible.(c) It must be in the English language or be accompanied by a translation certified to be correct. The person certifying the translation must place his or her name and address on the translation.(d) The text of the petition must not contain any alterations.(e) It must not have any letters, affidavits or other documents attached to it.(f) The language used must be respectful, courteous and moderate. The petition should not contain irrelevant statements.(g) It must not contain any indication that it has been sponsored or distributed by a Member of the House of Representatives; except that, for the purpose of facilitating the lodgement of the petition, the name and address of a Member may be shown as an address to which the petition may be sent for presentation to the House.(h) A petition from a corporation should be made under its common seal. Otherwise it will be received as the petition of the individuals who signed it.Rules about signatures114 Every petition must contain the signature and address of at least one person on the page on which the terms of the petition are written. All the signatures on a petition must meet the following requirements:(a) Every signature must be written on a page bearing the terms of the petition, or the action requested by the petition. Signatures must not be copied, pasted or transferred on to the petition nor should they be placed on a blank page on the reverse of a sheet containing the terms of the petition.(b)Each signature must be made by the person signing in his or her own handwriting. A petitioner who is not able to sign must make a mark in the presence of a witness. The witness must sign the petition as witness and write his or her address, and the name and address of the petitioner.Presentation to the HouseOnly a Member may lodge a petition for presentation115 A petition for presentation to the House may only be lodged by a Member. A Member cannot lodge a petition from herself or himself.Responsibilities of Members116 Before lodging a petition with the Clerk or presenting a petition to the House a Member must:(a) write his or her name and electoral division at the beginning of the petition; and(b) count the signatories and write the number of signatories at the beginning of the petition.Presenting a petition117 Petitions may be presented to the House in one of the following ways:(a) In accordance with standing order 101, the Clerk must announce each sitting Monday petitions lodged for presentation. Members must lodge petitions with the Clerk by 12 noon on the Friday prior to the Monday on which it is proposed that they be presented.(b) A Member may present a petition during the period of Members' statements under standing order 106A or 275A.(c) A petition which refers to a motion or order of the day may be presented by a Member when that motion or order of the day is moved or called on for the first time.Before presenting a petition under paragraph (b) or (c) the Member presenting it must insert the information required by standing order 116 and obtain a certification by the Clerk that it complies with the standing orders.Responsibilities of Clerk118 (a) The Clerk or the Deputy Clerk must check that each petition lodged for presentation complies with the standing orders. If it does he or she shall certify the fact on the petition.(b) The Clerk must make an announcement to the House of the petitions lodged for presentation. The announcement must indicate, for each petition, the Member who lodged it, the identity and number of petitioners and the subject matter of the petition.Action on petitionsAction by the House119 (a) No discussion on the subject matter of a petition is allowed at the time of presentation.(b) Every petition presented is deemed to have been received by the House unless a motion that it not be received is moved immediately and agreed to.(c) No other motion may be moved in connection with a petition except a motion that a particular petition be:(i) referred to a particular committee; or(ii) printed. This motion may only be moved by a Member who intends to take action on the petition and informs the House of the action he or she intends to take.Other action120 The following action shall be taken in respect of every petition received by the House:(a) Its terms must be printed in Hansard. (b) The Clerk must refer a copy of the petition to the Minister responsible for the administration of the matter which is the subject of the petition. A Minister may respond to a petition by lodging a written response with the Clerk. At the end of the petitions announcement the Clerk must report any response received and the response must be printed in Hansard.(2) That standing order 346 be amended to read as follows:Publication of evidence and proceedings346 (a) A committee or subcommittee has power to authorise publication of any evidence given before it or any document presented to it.(b) The evidence taken by a committee or subcommittee and documents presented to it, and proceedings and reports of it, which have not been reported to the House, must not, unless authorised by the House or the committee or subcommittee, be disclosed or published to any person other than a member or officer of the committee. Provided that a committee may resolve to:(i) publish press releases, discussion or other papers or preliminary findings for the purpose of seeking further input to an inquiry;(ii) divulge any evidence, documents, proceedings or report on a confidential basis to any person or persons for comment for the purpose of assisting the committee in its inquiry or for any administrative purpose associated with the inquiry; or(iii) authorise any member or members of the committee to provide such public briefings on matters related to an inquiry as the committee sees fit. The committee may impose restrictions on such authorisation and in any case a member so authorised must not disclose evidence or documents which have not been specifically authorised for publication.(3) That standing order 339 be amended by inserting new paragraph (ab) as follows:(ab) A committee may resolve to conduct proceedings using audio visual or audio links with members of the committee or witnesses not present in one place. If an audio visual or audio link is used committee members and witnesses must be able to speak to and hear each other at the same time regardless of location.0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr Slipper to move:That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the Committee has duly reported: Construction of mixed residential dwellings at Block 87, Section 24, Stirling, ACT.0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr Slipper to move:That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the Committee has duly reported: Reserve Bank of Australia Head Office building works, Sydney.0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr Slipper to move:That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the Committee has duly reported: ABC Perth accommodation project, East Perth.TK6Southcott, Dr Andrew, MPDr Southcott to move:That this House:(1) notes that amongst the OECD, Australia is ranked: (a) 3rd in information and communications technology expenditure as a percentage of GDP; (b) 3rd in secure servers for e-commerce (c) 3rd in internet multimedia content (d) 6th in personal computer ownership; and (e) 8th in total online population;(2) notes Canberra has more adults accessing the internet than Washington; Darwin and Perth have more than Atlanta; Sydney, Melbourne and Hobart more than Los Angeles; and Brisbane and Adelaide are equal with New York;(3) notes our take up rates of cellular phones are amongst the highest in the world;(4) notes Australia's growth and increase in productivity during the 1990s exceeded that of the US;(5) notes the financial services sector is greater in size than the mining and agriculture sectors combined, as a percentage of GDP; and (6) rejects the view Australia represents an old economy.