2001-06-203919REPS2803102001-06-20—————Mr SPEAKER (Mr Neil Andrew) took the chair at 9.30 a.m., and read prayers.Miscellaneous280312803109:31:0028031Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALPLeader of the Opposition00—I move:That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent:(1) the Leader of the Opposition from presenting forthwith a Bill to require government advertising to meet minimum standards with respect to objectivity, fairness and accountability, and to prohibit the expenditure of taxpayers' money on advertising which promotes party political interests, the Government (Advertising Objectivity, Fairness and Accountability) Bill; and(2) the Bill being debated and passed through all stages without delay.This government is trying to pay for its re-election with taxpayers' money. This government is using and abusing the taxpayer to confuse the taxpayer into believing that they ought to vote for them again—Motion (by Mr Anthony) put:That the member be not further heard.09:36:00The House divided. (Mr Speaker—Mr Neil Andrew) 71Abbott, A.J.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.Causley, I.R.Charles, R.E.Costello, P.H.Draper, P.Elson, K.S.Entsch, W.G.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.Kelly, D.M.Kelly, J.M.Kemp, D.A.Lawler, A.J.Lieberman, L.S.Lindsay, P.J.Lloyd, J.E.Macfarlane, I.E.May, M.A.McArthur, S *McGauran, P.J.Moylan, J. E.Nairn, G. R.Nehl, G. B.Nelson, B.J.Neville, P.C.Prosser, G.D.Pyne, C.Reith, P.K.Ronaldson, M.J.C.Ruddock, P.M.Schultz, A.Scott, B.C.Secker, P.D.Slipper, P.N.Somlyay, A.M.Southcott, A.J.St Clair, S.R.Stone, S.N.Sullivan, K.J.M.Thompson, C.P.Thomson, A.P.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.64Adams, D.G.H.Andren, P.J.Beazley, K.C.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.Gibbons, S.W.Griffin, A.P.Hall, J.G.Hatton, M.J.Hoare, K.J.Hollis, C.Horne, R.Irwin, J.Jenkins, H.A.Kernot, C.Kerr, D.J.C.Lawrence, C.M.Lee, M.J.Livermore, K.F.Macklin, J.L.Martin, S.P.McClelland, R.B.McFarlane, J.S.McLeay, L.B.McMullan, R.F.Melham, D.Morris, A.A.Mossfield, F.W.Murphy, J. P.O'Byrne, M.A.O'Connor, G.M.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 *Sercombe, R.C.G *Short, L.M.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.Fahey, J.J.Gerick, J.F.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Is the motion seconded?09:41:0028032McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN5I4FraserALP00—I second the motion. Talk about wrong priorities: $20 million a month for advertising—Motion (by Mr Anthony) put:That the member be not further heard.09:42:00The House divided. (Mr Speaker—Mr Neil Andrew) 71Abbott, A.J.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.Causley, I.R.Charles, R.E.Costello, P.H.Draper, P.Elson, K.S.Entsch, W.G.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.Kelly, D.M.Kelly, J.M.Kemp, D.A.Lawler, A.J.Lieberman, L.S.Lindsay, P.J.Lloyd, J.E.Macfarlane, I.E.May, M.A.McArthur, S *McGauran, P.J.Moylan, J. E.Nairn, G. R.Nehl, G. B.Nelson, B.J.Neville, P.C.Prosser, G.D.Pyne, C.Reith, P.K.Ronaldson, M.J.C.Ruddock, P.M.Schultz, A.Scott, B.C.Secker, P.D.Slipper, P.N.Somlyay, A.M.Southcott, A.J.St Clair, S.R.Stone, S.N.Sullivan, K.J.M.Thompson, C.P.Thomson, A.P.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.64Adams, D.G.H.Andren, P.J.Beazley, K.C.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.Gibbons, S.W.Griffin, A.P.Hall, J.G.Hatton, M.J.Hoare, K.J.Hollis, C.Horne, R.Irwin, J.Jenkins, H.A.Kernot, C.Kerr, D.J.C.Lawrence, C.M.Lee, M.J.Livermore, K.F.Macklin, J.L.Martin, S.P.McClelland, R.B.McFarlane, J.S.McLeay, L.B.McMullan, R.F.Melham, D.Morris, A.A.Mossfield, F.W.Murphy, J. P.O'Byrne, M.A.O'Connor, G.M.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 *Sercombe, R.C.G *Short, L.M.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.Fahey, J.J.Gerick, J.F.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative.Original question put:That the motion (Mr Beazley's) be agreed to.09:45:00The House divided. (Mr Speaker—Mr Neil Andrew) 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.Gibbons, S.W.Griffin, A.P.Hall, J.G.Hatton, M.J.Hoare, K.J.Hollis, C.Horne, R.Irwin, J.Jenkins, H.A.Kernot, C.Kerr, D.J.C.Lawrence, C.M.Lee, M.J.Livermore, K.F.Macklin, J.L.Martin, S.P.McClelland, R.B.McFarlane, J.S.McLeay, L.B.McMullan, R.F.Melham, D.Morris, A.A.Mossfield, F.W.Murphy, J. P.O'Byrne, M.A.O'Connor, G.M.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 *Sercombe, R.C.G *Short, L.M.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.71Abbott, A.J.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.Causley, I.R.Charles, R.E.Costello, P.H.Draper, P.Elson, K.S.Entsch, W.G.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.Kelly, D.M.Kelly, J.M.Kemp, D.A.Lawler, A.J.Lieberman, L.S.Lindsay, P.J.Lloyd, J.E.Macfarlane, I.E.May, M.A.McArthur, S *McGauran, P.J.Moylan, J. E.Nairn, G. R.Nehl, G. B.Nelson, B.J.Neville, P.C.Prosser, G.D.Pyne, C.Reith, P.K.Ronaldson, M.J.C.Ruddock, P.M.Schultz, A.Scott, B.C.Secker, P.D.Slipper, P.N.Somlyay, A.M.Southcott, A.J.St Clair, S.R.Stone, S.N.Sullivan, K.J.M.Thompson, C.P.Thomson, A.P.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.Fahey, J.J.Gerick, J.F.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the negative.Bills28033R133628033Bill presented by Mr Anthony, for Dr Wooldridge, and read a first time.2803309:48:0028033Anthony, Larry, MPMr ANTHONYXJ6RichmondNPMinister for Community Services10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.This legislation has arisen as a result of the recent agreement by the Prime Minister and the Australian Democrats to direct the proceeds of the changes in excise collections and customs duty on draught beer to a new independent charitable foundation called the Alcohol Education and Rehabilitation Foundation.On 4 April 2001, the Prime Minister and the then Leader of the Australian Democrats, Senator Meg Lees, announced their agreement to an arrangement that would appropriate an amount equivalent to the difference between the excise collections on draught beer since 1 July 2000 and the amount that would have been collected using the new rates prescribed under A New Tax System—a total of $115 million—to a new foundation in the 2001-02 budget. An amount of $5 million has also been allocated to the restoration and preservation of historic hotels in rural and regional Australia. This legislation will essentially establish the special account through which to direct funds to the foundation. It will provide accountability mechanisms for the funding and will enable the government to appoint an alternative body to expend the funds should the new foundation not perform satisfactorily.In addition to its focus on programs relating to reducing the impact of alcohol abuse, the foundation will also have a charter to target other licit substances that are subject to abuse such as petrol and other inhalants that can lead to death or illness with severe mental and/or physical debilitation when used over a sustained period. Use of inhalants is also associated with suicide attempts, antisocial behaviour and crime. These are problems that Australian people and communities grapple with every day and for which new approaches and solutions are desperately needed.As an independent charitable body, the foundation will be uniquely placed to develop affiliations, partnerships and grassroots connections to communities that require expertise and support to address entrenched problems with the misuse of alcohol and other substances. The government envisages that the foundation's charitable status will also encourage donations from the business sector and other community members for the further enhancement of work in this important area.While alcohol related harm can affect any individual, family or community, research shows that some population groups are more affected than others. Populations and settings considered to be at particular risk of alcohol related harm require additional targeted support to ensure that a reduction in harm occurs. Strategies are required that are culturally responsive, meet the needs of marginalised groups, recognise the unique settings of local communities and improve access to services. The Alcohol Education and Rehabilitation Foundation will support such strategies by targeting much of its activity to population groups identified to be at particular risk. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities are one such group and at least 20 per cent of the foundation's expenditure will be for projects targeting indigenous Australians.Young people are also recognised as a particularly vulnerable group and the foundation will assist with the development of programs that will support and promote the development of understanding, attitudes and behaviours that enable young people to minimise and avoid the harmful consequences associated with excessive alcohol use.The focus of this initiative is on the provision of effective education, prevention, treatment and rehabilitation services that target alcohol and other licit substance misuse. The best evidence and experience has found that this comprehensive set of activities can effect change to behaviours and outcomes. The foundation's constitution, which will be developed in consultation with the government and the Democrats, will specifically incorporate each of these objectives, providing the framework for community organisations to access grants for delivering services to people in our communities who are most vulnerable to abusing alcohol and other licit substances.Whilst the foundation is being intentionally set up as an independent body, it will be rigorously accountable for expenditure of Commonwealth funds in those areas identified as priorities.I table the explanatory memorandum and commend the bill to the House.Debate (on motion by Mr O'Connor) adjourned.Bills28035R129428035Debate resumed from 24 May, on motion by Mr Truss:That the bill be now read a second time.09:54:0028035O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr O'CONNORWU5CorioALP00—The Dairy Produce Legislation Amendment (Supplementary Assistance) Bill 2001, which we are debating here today, is an admission of policy failure by this minister and by the Howard government. If this legislation passes the parliament, over $1.9 billion will have been committed by the milk consumers of this nation to support dairy farmers in the aftermath of the deregulation of their industry. Yet the Howard government has not committed one red cent to support the dairy farmers of Australia through one of the most important periods in the history of their industry. Indeed, when the dust settles on the total package of assistance to the dairy industry, one indisputable fact stands for every dairy farming family to see: one of the big winners from deregulation of the dairy industry has been the Howard government, because it has been able to claw back hundreds of millions of dollars in tax from dairy farmer package payouts. It is of little comfort to dairy farmers, as they endure the financial and personal pain of deregulation, to observe the Howard government, which has put nothing into their industry, indulging itself in an orgy of advertising promotion to save the political skin of the minister and his colleagues in the Howard government. That advertising dollar meter is ticking over at $660,000-odd dollars a day, or $20 million a month, as the Howard government feverishly attempts to save its political skin. As dairy farmers battle with low prices, reduced farm values, unsympathetic banks and the personal heartaches that have followed deregulation, this government is lining the pockets of advertising industry executives in Sydney and Melbourne without putting one cent—not one red cent—of federal money into one of Australia's most important industries. Some $1.9 billion later—and after one of the largest packages of industry assistance in Australia's history, financed not through general revenue but through a milk tax on consumers—this government has yet to articulate a coherent plan for the long-term future of the dairy industry. This hapless and discredited government passed up a unique opportunity in the history of this great rural industry to set out a coherent plan for its future. It took the lazy option, and now dairy farming families in New South Wales and Queensland are paying a heavy price indeed for its incompetence. This legislation authorises the raising of an extra $140 million in a supplementary package of assistance, with $100 million allocated to dairy farmers whose production of market milk is over 35 per cent of their production, $20 million to iron out anomalies and $20 million in extra DRAP funding. I move:That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:“whilst supportive of Australia's dairy industry and whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House condemns the government for: (1) failing to deliver a long term plan to secure the future of the dairy industry;(2) failing to prepare the industry to meet the substantial environmental challenges it faces in many communities in moving to a more sustainable production base;(3) failing to adequately plan to provide for rationalisation within the dairy processing sector;(4) failing to address the long term skilling needs of the industry;(5) failing to stimulate further research and development in the dairy industry;(6) failing to plan and promote further market access for dairy products;(7) using Dairy Regional Assistance Program funds to pork-barrel for its own political survival; and(8) failing to ensure that its latest assistance package is fair and equitable.Each element of the supplementary package is an admission by this minister and the government that it has failed the dairy industry. The $100 million of extra assistance is squarely aimed at dairy farmers in New South Wales and Queensland, whose livelihoods have been decimated in the aftermath of deregulation. Yet, even before the ink was dry on the minister's announcement, many dairy farmers were ringing my office complaining about the inequities in the criteria used to allocate the funds. Many dairy farmers in New South Wales and Queensland heeded the advice they received years prior to deregulation—that it would actually happen. They borrowed heavily to expand their farm acreages and update their milking plants. They undertook pasture improvements and increased their herd size to reduce their dependence on quota market milk. Some of these farmers are now excluded from receiving additional assistance available under this supplementary package. No wonder they are angry. I received representations from industry representatives last week which mooted a lowering of the 35 per cent threshold to 25 per cent with minimal net cost to the package. The advice that I have received within the industry is that it is possible to bring a significant number of deserving dairy farmers in New South Wales and Queensland into the ambit of the supplementary package at little or no extra cost to consumers. I mention consumers, as it is they, not the Howard government, who are funding this $1.9 billion package. The minister has at his disposal the resources to evaluate this proposal and I would urge him to give it serious consideration. I am attracted to it because it would most certainly introduce greater equity into those supplementary arrangements and reduce the deep divisions in the ranks of dairy farmers in many of these communities. The minister ought to swallow his pride and do the right thing in the interests of greater equity. His Prime Minister is well practised in that ancient political art of the backflip, so he need not be bashful himself if he does one. We on this side promise that we will not even look while he does the backflip.With regard to the allocation to anomalies, this is simply an overt admission that the original legislation was grossly defective in not enabling the rather unique position of many dairy farmers to be accommodated in the original package. For example, I mention the group of Tasmanian milk producers—and this will be taken up by the member for Braddon, I am sure, in this debate—who supplied 100 per cent of their product into market milk but, because of the pooling arrangements in Tasmania, were deemed to have supplied only eight to 10 per cent to that market.The third element of this package—the $20 million of extra funds for DRAP—is, once again, an admission by the government that it grossly underestimated the original impacts of deregulation on regional communities. For the benefit of dairy farmers, it would be instructive for me to outline the history of DRAP funding, for it tells us much about the incompetence of the government, the lack of policy planning, and the panic that motivates the actions of this government. There was no regional development package in the original one. It was only continual agitation by the opposition and dairy communities, such as those in the Bega Valley, that forced the government to allocate $45 million to this purpose. We had to put the political bull ring in the minister's nose and drag him around the political stage to respond to community concerns in this regard. An hour before the original bill and the package were passed by this House, the minister, in a flat panic, amended his own legislation to allocate $45 million to regional development in dairy communities affected by deregulation.Of course we on this side of the House were pleased that the government had finally caved in on this point, but we were absolutely horrified when the minister started making allocations from the fund—and those allocations included over $200,000 to a polocrosse field and $50,000 to a wine appreciation course—even before dairy farmers had received any money from the original package. Due to our political pressure, the government had to focus that expenditure more, but we are nevertheless concerned about what this minister will do with an extra $20 million in the pork barrel. We know that about half of the Queensland DRAP allocations have gone to the minister's own electorate. We do not deny there are communities in hardship there—we do not deny there are dairy farmers who have gone through extreme hardship—but we will be watching with a close eye the allocations that are made under the extra money in this program. There are several points to be made about this supplementary package of $140 million. I believe it is reasonable for dairy farmers to ask why it has taken the government so long to respond to the crisis facing many dairy farmers in Queensland and New South Wales. It was clear to dairy farmers within a few months of 1 July 2000 that deregulation had caused a catastrophic drop in their incomes. The ABARE report in January 2001 found that there was an estimated decline in farm gate prices in New South Wales alone of 29 per cent, in Queensland of 24 per cent and in Western Australia of 30 per cent, leading to declines in income of 54 per cent in New South Wales, 40 per cent in Queensland and 56 per cent in Western Australia. That report only reflected what farmers in those regions already knew—that deregulation had devastated their incomes, devalued their farms and made it difficult for them to obtain credit from financial institutions.Kim Beazley's dairy task force, which I chaired, visited affected regions and we publicised, where we were able, the cases of extreme hardship in order to get this minister to act. It is now a matter of public record that this minister from Queensland only became interested in the plight of dairy farmers after the Queensland state election results when his National Party was virtually wiped out at the polls. It took the government until last week to produce a draft set of guidelines for this legislation for the allocation of the extra $20 million for anomalies. The Shane Stone memo described this government as mean, tricky, out of touch and dysfunctional. We all know that to be true. Dairy farmers now know it to be true. But we need to add contemptuous, arrogant and incompetent, as evidenced by their failure to provide this parliament with the full details of how their extra funds are going to be allocated.I note the comments of the minister yesterday in this House about Labor policy relating to agriculture, and his failure to mention Labor's announcements on salinity, the single desk for rice and wheat, and national competition policy. We know this minister is tricky, like the Prime Minister. Up there in Wide Bay they call him `tricky Truss'. He has indulged in heavy bouts of trickery before. For example, he has claimed this compensation package as his own, even though it is financed by consumers and there is no federal money in it at all. He has criticised state Labor governments which have put money into their dairy industries, when he has put none in himself, and he has attempted to hide Costello's tax take of hundreds of millions of dollars from this package. The minister mentioned the report of Kim Beazley's dairy task force, due in April. I can assure the minister that that report has been completed, but we had no intention of releasing that report before the minister made his announcement in May on the supplementary package and brought his legislation into this House. We on this side of the House know the government's capacity to poach policy. They are good at looting the public purse for their cheap advertising campaigns and poaching Labor policy in a whole range of areas—from BAS to petrol to salinity to the knowledge nation agenda. I would like to take some time in this debate to outline some of the concerns of dairy farmers about their industry in the wake of deregulation. These views came to us in the meetings that we held in every dairying region across Australia. Dairy farmers told us of the great uncertainty in their lives as a result of the government's poor handling of and incompetence in this area of deregulation. They expressed concerns about the ageing of their industry and the exodus of young families from the industry in the wake of deregulation and their concern about its long-term future. They expressed frustration at the cooperatives, which they felt had betrayed them in the marketplace; at supermarkets, whose margins on their product had widened; at the national competition policy, which they felt had caused their situation; and at the ACCC, which prevents them from collectively bargaining on the price they receive for their produce. They told us of the horrendous personal impacts on their family life and their communities. They told us of massively reduced farm gate prices and incomes, of problems and stress in dealing with the banks, of significant slumps in local land prices and of a virtual drying-up of the market for dairy farmers, of difficult dealings with local councils and of huge hikes in input costs, in the costs of grain feeds, fertilisers and petrol in particular. They told us of the exodus of many young share farmers from the industry, the difficulty of recruiting farm labour, the problems that were encountered between lessors and lessees and the lack of investment in non-farm infrastructure that threatens the long-term productivity of their farms and their industry production. But above all, they expressed their anger at an incompetent government that promised them payments from the package in October 2000 which they had not received by February and March 2001. They expressed their anger at a government that steadfastly refused to do anything about the anomalies that its policy had created until it was forced by the opposition and the industry to address those needs. They expressed their anger at a government that in its deceit claimed a package of assistance as its own, a government that burdened farm businesses with the GST and, above all, a government that had failed to plan for this momentous change to their industry. That lack of planning and vision for the industry goes back many, many years with this government. It goes back to the previous National Party minister and the hands-off approach to rural industry, a policy which was endorsed and continued by this minister. Indeed, the government made great play of the fact that in the wheat and wool industries its policy was to extract the government from the industries. When the government was encouraged to take a hands-on approach to the dairy industry in the face of the two momentous changes that were confronting it on 1 July, namely the introduction of the GST and the deregulation of the industry, this government did nothing. It articulated no vision for the industry. It did not seek to develop any coherent plan for its long-term future. It left the response to deregulation up to the industry. It was the industry's responsibility, apparently, to get agreement between all the state farming organisations and all state governments on this issue and then bring the package on a plate to a lazy and incompetent government to endorse and then claim as its own. Those are the facts of the matter, and the dairy farmers in northern New South Wales in the electorates of Richmond and Page and in Queensland know that was the case as far as their industry is concerned. They know that no vision was articulated. They know that no plan was developed. They know that there is not one cent of Howard government money in this package, in the original package or the supplementary package. They know that this minister has attempted to blame everybody else for the situation that this lazy and incompetent government created. The plan for this industry could have included a clear statement of where the government intended to take this industry over the next 10 years—a very important signal to the financial sector about how the federal government of this nation regarded this most important rural industry. Yet this government, in its slothful policy laziness, refused to put one cent into this industry and sent a signal to financial institutions that it was prepared to cut it adrift in the face of the most momentous changes in its history.The government articulated no plan that included addressing the important skilling needs of farmers in the bottom 30 per cent of the income chain or the farm labourers that are in short supply in the dairy industry, nor the skilling of process workers to lift productivity in the value adding chain. It articulated no vision to engineer the expansion of the research and development program that would bring extra cents per litre at the farm gate to hard-pressed dairy farmers. It articulated no vision that took into account the momentous changes that would occur in the processing sector as a result of the decisions that it had forced on the industry. It did not articulate any coherent plan for the regional development of communities that were hard-affected by this action and it articulated no plan for the environmental future of the industry in the face of the enormous pressures that have come upon it in many communities. This is an important supplementary package for the industry. But let it be known that it was forced upon this government in the wake of the Queensland state election result that absolutely decimated the National Party. Let it be known at this point in time, in the debates in this great House on this great industry, that this minister and this government have yet to articulate a plan for the future of one of Australia's great rural industries.10000Jenkins, Harry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Is the amendment seconded?UU5Horne, Bob, MPMr Horne—I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.10:17:0028039Nairn, Gary, MPMr NAIRNOK6Eden-MonaroLP10—The clear difference between the Labor Party and the coalition in this, as in so many other things, is that the Labor Party is full of hot air and rhetoric while the coalition actually acts. The Dairy Produce Legislation Amendment (Supplementary Assistance) Bill 2001 is an example of that. It provides for additional assistance to be made available to Australian dairy farmers and dairy communities, as announced by the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Warren Truss, on 20 May this year.This extra $140 million comes on top of the federal government's largest ever assistance package for rural Australia, that being the $1.78 billion Commonwealth dairy industry adjustment package that was announced last year to compensate for the removal of market milk pricing regulations by the Australian states last June. The original $1.78 billion package provides quarterly Dairy Structural Adjustment Program payments for eight years. It also provides a lump sum payment of up to $45,000 tax free to those dairy farmers wishing to leave agriculture and provides $45 million over three years under the Dairy Regional Assistance Program to assist dairy dependent communities affected by deregulation—the original package that I referred to.The implementation of this package is well advanced. Virtually all people with an interest in a dairy farm on 28 September 1999 have applied to the Dairy Adjustment Authority for payments under DSAP, 99 per cent have been notified of their entitlements and 95 per cent are now receiving payments. The remaining applicants are essentially only those whose entitlement is under appeal or who are involved in legal action of one kind or another. Farmers in the Bega Valley and Eurobodalla in Eden-Monaro have used their payments for a variety of purposes, including to improve farm productivity and profitability in the new market environment. Some have reduced their farm debt, while others have invested in new farm capacity and other means of improving farm productivity. Some have chosen to leave the industry and are using their payments to re-establish.Bega Valley dairy farmers have also benefited from the Dairy RAP, most notably through the $660,645 provided to the Bega Cheese Co-op to purchase, install and commission a new shredded cheese processing line. The South East Area Consultative Committee endorsed the project as a beneficial employment generating project for the local community, with the federal assistance helping Bega Cheese to maintain direct responsibility for the production of shredded cheese products. With the sales of shredded cheese currently very popular in export markets, and with significant growth of the market expected in the next few years, this means jobs in the Bega Valley. In fact, it was estimated that the shredded cheese line would generate 11 immediate full-time positions with a further 12 full-time positions after 12 months. Also, with the line being installed by local contractors, further employment opportunities were available to local businesses.There is also a possibility of further help for the Bega Valley under Dairy RAP as the Bega Cheese Co-op is to undergo a massive expansion due to a restructuring of the business alliance between Bega Cheese, Bonlac Foods Ltd and the New Zealand Dairy Board. The restructuring, which received unanimous support from the Bega Cheese shareholders, will see a major injection of business from Bonlac and the New Zealand Dairy Board into Bega's cutting, packing and processing plant, as well as an injection of $35 million cash. Of that money, approximately $16 million will be invested in new plant and equipment and there will also be a special cash and share distribution to members, to the dairy farmers, of approximately $16 million. The deal includes the national licensing of the Bega Cheese brand to a consumer company to be jointly owned by Bonlac and NZDB. NZDB will buy a 25 per cent share in Bonlac and bring together businesses in Australia worth more than $1 billion. Overall it gives Bega shareholders certainty and greater security for the future, with a real deal worth millions to Bega Cheese through royalties from national sales, the $35 million cash injection and greatly expanded output at the company's plant. Bonlac will close its Melbourne based cheese cutting and processing plant and transfer that production to Bega, thereby nearly trebling Bega's production. It will take 12 to 18 months to build up the production level. However, the new alliance will also mean around 200 new jobs, not just for Bega but for the whole Bega Valley Shire. This is the kind of project that fits perfectly within the intentions of Dairy RAP, those being to generate employment and encourage growth through support for new business investment and establishment of community infrastructure, and so I am working closely with the co-op and the minister for further funding to help with the expansion.Overall, things have been looking pretty good for Bega Cheese lately. Only late last year the Minister for Trade announced that the export volume of Australian cheese had almost doubled over the last five years, with 222,000 tonnes exported in the last financial year. Figures compiled by the Australian Dairy Corporation revealed that our cheese exports in 1994-95 stood at just over 111,000 tonnes and since then they have also expanded in value from $355 million in 1994-95 to $752 million in 1999-2000. With Bega Cheese exporting around 60 per cent of production and leading the way in exporting to many new countries, they are now in a position to continue that lead at a higher level.Despite the successful take-up of the $1.78 billion Commonwealth dairy industry adjustment package, the federal government is aware that many producers are still experiencing very difficult circumstances as farm gate price reductions following deregulation have been greater than many farmers expected. The Bega Valley dairy farmers could have been helped even further, but it is most disappointing that the New South Wales state Labor government failed to provide any compensation following dairy deregulation. And it is disappointing to note that the only state government to provide any compensation has been the former Liberal government in Western Australia. I actually find it amazing that the New South Wales state government made worthless the state based quota system that many farmers had depended on, and provided absolutely no compensation. While Bob Carr and his New South Wales Labor government have a clear responsibility to provide compensation for the lost value of quotas, it is becoming increasingly obvious that dairy farmers are just not on their agenda.Because of our concern, the federal government in November 2000 asked the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics to investigate the impacts of deregulation to get to the facts of the adjustment situation facing dairy farmers and their communities. The ABARE report, released in January, confirmed that market milk price declines had been greater than the industry anticipated, particularly in the former quota states of New South Wales, Queensland and Western Australia. The report clearly indicated the magnitude of the challenge facing the dairy industry, particularly those operating in the former quota states where the proportion of market milk to manufacturing milk in the total production of the dairy enterprise was significantly greater. So, as the state governments do not really seem to believe that they should take any responsibility for their actions, the federal government has again stepped in to provide practical assistance. The additional package includes $100 million in supplementary market milk payments to dairy farmers who were most heavily dependent on market milk production; $20 million for eligible farmers who, because of extraordinary circumstances, were excluded, or their entitlements were significantly lower than normal under the government's DSAP; and a $20 million expansion of Dairy RAP. This additional assistance was praised by the executive committee of the New South Wales Dairy Farmers Association and by local dairy farmers.In contrast to the federal government's massive assistance package, let us ponder on the actions of the Australian Labor Party which have actually involved a lot of pondering and very little doing, if any at all. Labor's dairy statement, released in February this year, provided no substance or practical assistance. There was no policy at all. If Beazley were serious about helping Australian dairy farmers, he would have approached his Labor colleagues in Queensland and New South Wales and insisted that they compensate farmers for the loss of value of their milk quotas. Let me make it clear: the states introduced milk quotas, the states administered the milk quotas and the states abolished the milk quotas. Farmers who had previously bought state milk quotas in order to sell milk now have a worthless asset, and the Labor states, instead of giving them any compensation, simply turned their backs on them.Labor wants to take $20 million out of Dairy RAP to finance so-called training programs, but the government is already providing assistance for training and reskilling. It is done under FarmBis, and so far around 6,000 dairy farmers have been helped under this program. Due to the success of FarmBis, in last year's budget the government committed a further $167.5 million to continue it for another four years. The question that begs to be answered is: is Labor going to abolish FarmBis, or is it going to deny dairy farmers access to it? Labor's plan for Dairy RAP has no logic and farmers would actually be worse off as they would have fewer funds for new job creating prospects, such as the additional assistance that I am working on for the Bega Cheese expansion—as I said before, an expansion that looks like creating over 200 jobs.Labor's other plan is to give extra resources to the Dairy Adjustment Authority—an exercise which would be wasteful and bureaucratic. The DAA was given extra resources last year and will begin downsizing when its task nears completion. And, finally, Labor's proposed changes to the dairy structural adjustment payments were rejected by the industry itself when the scheme was designed. The aforementioned ideas are the only ones that Labor have come up with through all their talkfests. All they plan to do is set up committees and fiddle at the edges of the existing program.It is also pretty obvious that those in the know—the dairy farmers themselves—have very little faith in Labor. At a typical Labor talkfest in the Bega Valley in late April this year, a grand total of nine people showed up—that is, in the Bega Valley nine people showed up for this great talkfest to solve all the problems. If that is any indication of what happened elsewhere, what we heard from the member for Corio earlier was nonsense and had absolutely no substance, because it means that they have listened to probably about 0.5 per cent of dairy farmers, if lucky, and have assumed that that refers to 100 per cent. From a dairying community of the size and stature of the Bega Valley, with around 150 dairy farms and with big names like Bega, Tilba, Bodalla and Kameruka, and including also the Eurobodalla, Labor could only pull an audience of nine. The most hypocritical thing about their Bega Valley talkfest was the timing. Dairy deregulation occurred in June 2000, and there were eight years of talking about deregulation before it actually happened, and yet it took until the end of April 2001 for Labor to show any concern. During the deregulation debate, it was very easy for the Labor candidate to fire press releases out of his Canberra base, but to tackle the situation face to face required far too much work. In light of requests from the industry and after the ABARE report revelations, the federal government has moved promptly to address the concerns of vulnerable dairy farmers and their communities by providing this additional $140 million of assistance. Payments under the Supplementary Dairy Assistance Scheme will be largely based on DSAP entitlements and information already largely available to the DAA. Notification of the additional market milk entitlements will be made shortly after passage of this bill, and payments can be made promptly on completion of acceptance processes. It is therefore vital that the Labor Party does not delay the passage of this bill. Its support of the passage of this legislation is necessary to ensure that payments can be made to those most vulnerable dairy farmers and dairy dependent communities as soon as possible. I urge all members to support this bill.10:29:0028042Horne, Bob, MPMr HORNEUU5PatersonALP00—It is interesting to come in here and listen to absolute hypocrisy from the government benches. The government loves to come in here, as the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry did yesterday in response to a dorothy dixer, and tell the House and Australia how well rural industries are doing. But he did not mention the `D' word—he did not mention the dairy industry. If we want to note the effect of dairy deregulation on the dairy industry, we only have to look at the ABARE prediction that was put out yesterday. The headline said `Milk prices should increase'. That is a very positive headline, but when I read into it I could not help but notice that it also warned:... industry deregulation has cut sharply into the number of farmers producing milk, with total milk production rising marginally after years of strong increases.It goes on to say:Dairy exports are tipped to fall almost one per cent to $3.2 billion, after climbing $1 billion between 1998-1999 and the current financial year.Skim milk powder production is expected to fall ...It also says:Total market milk production, which was hit hardest by dairy industry deregulation last July, has actually fallen in the past 11 months.That is the effect of dairy deregulation on an industry that has been the mainstay of the economy of many areas on the North Coast of New South Wales. Dungog and Gloucester are towns in the electorate I represent. Dungog is the most adversely affected community in the whole of Australia and Gloucester the third most. It has been calculated that the dairy industry was worth $16 million a year to the community of Dungog before deregulation.If we want to measure the compassion, the understanding, of this government for communities like that, let me tell the House that last December I took the mayor of Dungog and the mayor of Gloucester and their general managers to meet the minister and explain how adversely dairy deregulation was going to affect those communities. I think he understood. What did those communities get? Dungog has received $84,000 to do a study that will be printed in 12 months time, and they will immediately have to do another one because the dynamics will have changed so much it will no longer be relevant. And the week before last they got $110,000 for a family organisation to construct a concrete batching plant. I have got nothing against concrete—we need it in our buildings—but the whole point is that that is the total money that community has got for an industry that was worth $16 million a year. And this government has the audacity to come in here and tell us it represents rural and regional Australia. It does not even understand the needs in those communities. The minister has never been there, despite meeting with the mayor and the general manager.I want to talk about some other anomalies. This is a government that prides itself on being a low taxing government. The Treasurer tells us every question time it is the lowest taxing government in Australia's history. We just heard the member for Eden-Monaro say that this is a federal government program—$1.7 billion worth. If that is not hypocritical, because he knows— 4K6Causley, Ian, MPMr Causley—It is from taxpayers.UU5Horne, Bob, MPMr HORNE—as well as the member for Page knows, this is fully funded by consumers, and will be for the next nine years, with 11c on every litre of milk that is consumed in Australia. Talk to the dairy farmers—obviously members opposite do not—and they will tell you that they pay that 11c a litre many times over because of the drop in farm gate price. This government continues to identify it as a federal program. It is not; it never has been. And what does this latest attempt to try and put your finger in the hole in the dyke before it collapses achieve? It extends it for another year: more consumers money, not one cent out of the federal government's pockets. It is all right for the Treasurer to come in here and talk about surpluses, but this whole program continues to be funded by the consumers.There are other issues I would like to raise. We have heard repeatedly from the government: what did the states do about it? 4K6Causley, Ian, MPMr Causley—Nothing.UU5Horne, Bob, MPMr HORNE—We have heard that this was a state responsibility, that the states should have compensated for quota. The member for Page in particular, as a former minister in the Greiner government, knows only too well that quota was never issued by a state government. No licence fee was ever paid for quota. If he cares to have a look at the New South Wales Dairy Corporation handbook, Individual quota policy 1998-99, he would see that it says:A quota is a quantity of milk that has been determined by the Corporation.It goes on and says:Briefly stated, the Corporation does not see a quota allocated under the Act as a negotiable or a transferable asset with a value as property.Yet members come in here repeatedly stating that it was the responsibility of the states to compensate for that. Why? The handbook of the industry said it was not an asset, it was not saleable and should not be regarded as property.We should ask the question: does this compensate all? The answer is no. I would like to read a letter I received yesterday from the daughter of a dairy farmer. It saysMy two sisters and I inherited a dairy farm in Gloucester after our father's death in 1997. The farm had a quota attached which was valued for probate purposes at $122,060. At that time the farm was leased to—a family, and I will not name them—who paid a monthly rental tied to the price of quota or market milk.In the lead up to deregulation all correspondence and any rights to vote were given to the tenant as the registered supplier of the milk. As the farm and the quota owners we received no correspondence and were not allowed to vote, even though we were in attendance at the meeting to do so.After deregulation the tenants have walked off the property, taking their substantial Dairy Adjustment Package payment to commence operations somewhere else. This has left our property in a much less viable state as a dairy farm.Attached is a copy of our appeal to the Dairy Adjustment Authority which we subsequently lost.We now hear that the Federal Government is providing $140m in additional assistance. We urgently request that you ensure that any entitlement under this additional scheme be paid in full to the original farm and quota owners or the lessors rather than any of it being paid to the lessees. In our case these lessees have walked off the farm in April with their substantial package, and have left our property run down from over stocking and with rental payments in arrears. These tenants have no further interest in the property yet they will continue to be compensated for loss of eamings from the property for the next eight years under the original adjustment package. It appears quite ludicrous that they could possibly be considered for any further payments.We vehemently request that the Federal Government consider very carefully how they allocate the further assistance, particularly with respect to lessors/lessees.It raises this point: how thoroughly did the minister and his department look into the justice of their original package? Here we have a family that had to pay probate on the value of a quota and yet, when it came time for compensation only a short while later— 4K6Causley, Ian, MPMr Causley—I thought it didn't have any value.UU5Horne, Bob, MPMr HORNE—this minister and his department said, `You have no interest in it. The tax office says you pay the probate on it, but you are not entitled to have an interest in it and get any compensation from this very fair package that we are putting forward.' It is a disgrace, and the member for Page knows it is because he has spoken with many dairy farmers in his electorate.The other point I would like to make is that this package in no way addresses modern farming practices or farmers who knew that deregulation was on its way and were prepared to go out there and invest. I appreciate the nod of agreement by the member for Page, because those are the people that are missing out. These are the people that are capable of producing high volumes of milk at low cost. They are the people that really entered into deregulation before it occurred. They ran their farms without more than 35 per cent of quota milk and, because of that, because they had a low volume of quota, they miss out entirely. They are very aggrieved by it because this is really a bit of a payout to the people who said, `We got nothing for our quota. We believe we should have.' So they are going to get a maximum of $60,000 and an average of about $30,000. This government is really not encouraging modern practice at all and it is not rewarding the people that should be rewarded, and for that reason I certainly support the amendment.The debate over the deregulation of the dairy industry will go on for many years because it is going to see the destruction of communities that have relied on dairying for well over a century, and I represent a number of those communities. What this government should have been doing for at least 12 months before dairy deregulation was workshopping those communities, advising them of the devastation that deregulation was going to bring them and that they should have been looking for alternative industries or processing.I agree with ABARE and their statistics that show that Australia has the potential to be one of the greatest exporters of dairy products in the world. But what do we find? I attended a morning tea with some senior citizens the other day, and they said to me, `Why has the price of butter escalated suddenly?' I said, `I don't know. I don't eat butter. I eat the alternative product, but I will find out.' I found out that butter production has dropped because there is a shortage of milk. The old butter factories that we used to have all the way up the North Coast of New South Wales are no longer there; New South Wales is importing its butter. The dried milk factory that used to be in Gloucester and had 36 jobs closed earlier this year; we are now importing dried milk from New Zealand. These are the sorts of things that deregulation of the dairy industry has brought about. These are the sorts of things that are destroying the country towns that the National Party of Australia will tell you are their lifeblood—and they wonder why dairy farmers are angry! I know why they are angry, the member for Page knows why they are angry, and this legislation in no way gives them the answers that they are looking for. I support the amendment.10:43:0028044Causley, Ian, MPMr CAUSLEY4K6PageNP10—I suppose it was a forlorn hope but I did come in here for the Dairy Produce Legislation Amendment (Supplementary Assistance) Bill 2001 to listen to the members of the Labor Party giving some suggestions as to what might overcome the problems that are in the dairy industry at the present time, but all we have heard has been empty rhetoric and some politicisation of the whole situation. I have to say that the member for Corio continually misrepresents the truth of this issue in this House, because there is no doubt that he is trying to use this particular situation to the advantage of his own political leanings and is not looking at all at what are the problems in the dairy industry.Let me go back to the start of this, because I remember the start of this very clearly. This all started in the early eighties, and it had nothing to do with competition policy. It was all to do with the Victorian dairy industry, which wanted to come across the border into New South Wales and sell milk in the Sydney whole-milk market. That is what it was all about: the green-eyed monster from down south. I have heard nothing from the member for Corio about that particular issue. The member for Corio, of course, was aiding and abetting the Victorian industry at that time. He was not out there saying, `This is going to be a terrible thing for the dairy industry.' He, as a Victorian member, was out there supporting the Victorian dairy industry. That is where the whole issue started: in Victoria. We talk about the Kerin plan and we talk about the Crean plan that was put in place to try to overcome these particular problems. Minister Crean put a sunset clause on the dairy marketing scheme, which ran out in 2000; the Victorians were never going to sign that again. They wanted to break down the marketing arrangements in Australia, and it had nothing to do with competition policy. In fact, if the members opposite want to tell the truth about this issue, all the states under the terms of competition policy had inquiries to see whether it was in the interests of the consumers to deregulate the dairy market. All except one state found that it was not in the interests of consumers, and that one state was Victoria. That is where this whole process started. Anyone who has been around this debate for any length of time knows that I did not support deregulation of the milk market in New South Wales and I still do not, because I do not believe that it was necessary in the first place. This government has attempted, at the request of the dairy industry, to do something to alleviate the pain that was obviously inherent in the deregulation of the dairy industry. The members opposite, the members of the Labor Party, continually say that the government as such has never put a dollar into this scheme. It seems to me that they must be away on a holiday or something. The member for Paterson, I understand, was a schoolteacher at one time; he obviously was not a maths teacher. If you have a look at this, it is fairly clear. The Labor Party earlier this year was screaming and crying about the government having an excise on fuel and saying that we should remove part of that excise on fuel. Tell me, Mr Deputy Speaker: what is the difference between an excise on fuel and the levy on milk consumption which pays for this particular package? It is a tax. Governments do not have any money; they get the money that they distribute from tax. And yet the Labor Party has the gall to stand up there and say that the government does not have this money, when the reality is fairly obvious. I could go back to the dairy community and say, `The Labor Party is in favour of removing the 11c levy.' I wonder what it would do to the price of milk in the marketplace if there were no such thing as government money being involved in this package.I would like to take up the issue that the member for Paterson raised on quota. The state governments have continually refused to do anything about compensation for quotas, particularly New South Wales and Queensland. To stand up here and say that in 1989 the New South Wales Dairy Corporation put out a statement saying `Don't consider that quotas are of any value' is absolutely ludicrous. Talk about putting out a statement after the horse has bolted. I have dairy farmers in my electorate whose quotas were considered by the banks to be an asset; it was part of their collateral. One particular dairy farmer had $180,000 worth of quota, and the bank considered that it was collateral. Do not tell me that the state government can suddenly slide out from underneath that and say, `Now we don't believe that it is, because we might be up for some compensation.' They stole billions of dollars from the dairy farmers in New South Wales. That is what this package is trying to do: to compensate for some of that, to help these people adjust to the new marketplace. The state government of New South Wales have done nothing to try to help the dairy industry, but it is a state industry. We had the member for Corio and the member for Paterson standing up here as if it were a federal industry; it is not. They do not understand the Constitution, apparently. It is a state industry, and it has been a state regulated industry. The only reason the federal government became involved in this is that the federal government is the only government in Australia that can set an excise, and the only way that this package was going to be repaid was through an excise. That is the only reason that the dairy industry came to the federal government at all. The member for Corio mentioned the fact that we had a little stunt from the Leader of the Opposition where he had a dairy industry task force tripping around Australia, seeing what could be done about the milk industry. I have a rather interesting story about this. Up on the North Coast of New South Wales, the Labor candidate for Page was using the electorate office of Harry Woods, the member for Clarence, as his campaign office. The candidate rang up all the dairy farmers in the area of the North Coast to come and talk to the dairy industry task force about their problems. Four people turned up, out of all the dairy farmers on the North Coast of New South Wales. So, if the member for Corio then quotes some of the issues that he heard in those areas, he is not quoting from the great bulk of dairy farmers. I have been to meetings where there have been 200 dairy farmers, obviously putting mixed views across about this deregulation package. It is true to say that there have been some anomalies, such as the anomaly quoted by the member for Paterson just now. However, if he had bothered to look at this particular package before the parliament, he would have seen that that is what part of the package is designed to do: to address some of those anomalies, to address the exact thing that the member for Paterson raised. If he does his job as a local member, he will make sure that that is brought to the attention of the minister, because in this package there is the ability to address those anomalies. I have three or four anomalies in my electorate that I have taken to the minister. There is an obvious problem, and no matter what you do in a government, no matter what government puts forward a package, there will always be some anomalies at the edges that you have to deal with. That is exactly what this package is trying to do.The industry is recovering. There is no doubt that the early days of deregulation in Queensland and New South Wales were horrific. There was a sudden reduction in price to the producers. Some of that, of course, had to do with contracts with the supermarkets. There is no doubt in my mind that some of the practices of the big supermarkets need to be looked at, and I have been pushing that issue for quite some time. There should be a close look at some of the processors as well, because there is no doubt that the supermarkets and the processors took the opportunity in this deregulation period to take a greater slice for themselves. I know that the ACCC have looked at this and they have not found at this stage that that was the case. I have gone back to the minister and said that I am not happy about that issue. There needs to be another look at the take that has been taken by the supermarkets and the processors in this issue.The real issue that the member for Paterson was talking about—and what dairy farmers claim that they are paying for the package—is not the fact that the package is being paid for by the levy but that the bottom line has dropped for the dairy farmers. Where has the money gone? Blind Freddy would know that it has gone to the supermarkets. That is where it has gone. The dairy farmers are suffering from that issue. The minister is well aware of that, and I know the Prime Minister is well aware of it, and I am sure that we will hear more about that in the future.I commend the government and the minister for this package. As I said, no doubt it is aimed at those who were worst hit in the white milk market, the ones who had quotas, those who were worst affected. In the instance that the member for Paterson raised about someone who had exited the industry, they will not be getting part of this package, they have gone; it will go to the people who are still in the industry and who have been affected severely by the loss of quota—the loss of quota that has not been addressed by the state governments in New South Wales and Queensland and which only this government has had the ability to address. 10:54:0028047Adams, Dick, MPMr ADAMSBV5LyonsALP00—It is very interesting that the member for Page used terms like `the dairy industry is a state industry'. That is a ridiculous thing to say, and having been a minister in the New South Wales government I would have thought that he would have known about free trade between the states in Australia, that the dairy industry was regulated on a state basis and it was only by agreement that people did not trade across borders. This government was a part of deregulation, and to hear the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry come in here from time to time and say, `It had nothing to do with us, we were just here to help out at the edge,' is really a dishonest position for a federal minister to take and for people like the member for Page to reinforce.The Dairy Produce Legislation Amendment (Supplementary Assistance) Bill 2001 provides further assistance to dairy farmers in regions and some dairy farm lessors, who have been certainly impacted by dairy deregulation, particularly focused on providing additional assistance to dairy farmers producing liquid milk in the liquid milk market in Western Australia, Queensland and New South Wales. Those dairy farmers have been hit extremely hard. Dairy farmers in dairying regions in those states were identified in a recent ABARE report as having been particularly disadvantaged by the deregulation of this industry. The new package is in addition to the $1.78 billion already provided and comprises $100 million for increases in adjustment payments for producers who are still in the industry and who put at least 35 per cent of their production into market milk—that is, milk into the drinking milk market.There is $20 million in the package to expand the Dairy Regional Assistance Program and $20 million for discretionary payments to producers and some lessors who may have fallen outside the scope of the original package due to some unforseen circumstances. The existing dairy adjustment levy will be extended by around 12 months. Therefore, another $140 million will be raised by this levy, the consumer paying for this further into the future. It seems amazing that, after all the assurances that were given to the industry by the minister that the original levy would solve all of the problems in the dairy industry deregulation, we have had to now find another $140 million to sort out more problems. Of course, it has been found because it is an election year. The pressure about deregulation is really starting to bite for this government, starting to bite in some of the seats, and of course to sort it out they have tried to bring more money in and start throwing more money at the problem.There is a number of problems, probably not as many in the last two payouts as there were in the first package. We all remember the Beaudesert polocrosse field that people were talking about that was built out of readjustment money—just bad policy, administered by a minister who had not thought it through, who had not worked through a policy and who had not looked in any way at the real problems that were going to occur. The other one of course—and the big one—in this latest package, in this bill, is that eligibility will be determined by the minister's office and by the minister, not by the Dairy Adjustment Authority. This is not going to be arms-length. Decisions will be made by the minister in an election year. This is a scandal. It is disgraceful that a minister is going to have this sort of control over this sort of money in an adjustment package. It should be the Dairy Adjustment Authority which has that control and makes those decisions, not the minister.It certainly does not appear that farmers in my state of Tasmania are going to be able to access these funds. It is thought that almost no farm lessors—those who leased out their dairy farms and got virtually nothing from the adjustment package—will get any money from the supplementary package. I know there were 10 farmers from my electorate who talked to the Labor Party task force and explained to them how they had missed out on adjustment money, and we took issues up with the minister. But of course, unless you derive 50 per cent or more of your total income from a dairy enterprise, you missed out. In Tasmania we had mixed farms and people's full income was not always from the dairy side of their farm. The package discriminated greatly against lessors—those who had leased out their farm. The lessees picked up the package and then moved on. Of course, there were people who had actually retired and whose income was coming in from their lease on the farm who have now been forced back into dairying, forced back to the farm. This is real smart restructuring of an industry—to force people to go back into farming when they have basically retired. It just shows the failure of this minister to think through and look at this policy before it was implemented—to think about the adjustment issues and how it was going to affect individuals and the regions where it was going to impact. It would have been quite easy to look at where it was going to impact on regions and at what those effects would be, and to try and put money into those regional packages to assist in going down a different avenue. We try to deal with some of those issues in our second reading amendment to this bill in seeking to address the long-term skilling needs in the industry, to stimulate further research and development for the industry and to plan and promote further market access for dairy products—that is, looking into the long-term future of the dairy industry, which has certainly not been done. The other thing about this package—and this money for a restructuring of the dairy industry is being raised from the consumer—is that the federal government, one of the big winners out of the package, is taking its share of the tax. So we have, I suppose, a third of the money that is being raised for the restructuring going to the federal government in tax. The federal government is gaining greatly from it.I can certainly imagine where the dairy industry will go in the future and about some of the future reports by ABARE—`A decline in export' and `Where will export be?' It is very interesting to see that the New Zealanders, who are already in our dairy industry, have recently amalgamated their dairy industry, making it the fourth biggest dairy entity in the world. I have visited and spoken to New Zealanders in that industry on several occasions, and I see now that they have come to a single-desk selling position, which they are very good at. They are selling to the world from a single desk, because they have reached the conclusion that that is the best way for them to go. But I despair a bit about where we are going to sell things in the world. Only yesterday I was talking to DFAT about the WTO, and I think it is going to be some years before we make any great breakthroughs in that area which will increase exports of Australian products.So we have a deregulated dairy industry, the most efficient dairy industry in the world, and we do not know where in the world we can get the markets, we do not know the future of the industry, we have caused all sorts of grief to dairy farmers and their families, we have put all sorts of pressures on certain regions where this has impacted and we have got a government that has not thought about what sort of impact this was going to have in those regions or what sort of impact this was going to have on those families and the people within this industry. It was very bad policy—badly thought out and badly implemented—and now we are back to pork-barrelling by the minister, who has control of forking out $140 million on his own say. That is a disgrace. It is a very bad position for those dairy farmers to be in. I do not believe that this government has learnt anything from this. This is $140 million to try and patch up the original issues and the original bad policy in the first place. I support the second reading amendment.11:05:0028048Thompson, Cameron, MPMr CAMERON THOMPSON84CBlairLP10—Members opposite really have not got much to talk about when they are criticising the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry for making decisions. I applaud the minister for the decisions he has made in relation to this package, and also the earlier package, which I must remind members is the largest one that we have seen in Australia to assist a rural industry—$1.78 billion being injected into the dairy industry for the very large restructuring that is going on within that industry. Let us begin at the beginning. This has not been a very easy issue for members, no matter where they are from. This has been a very difficult issue to deal with, because the moment those Victorian dairy farmers decided that they wanted to be able to sell their product across state borders, as they are entitled to do under the Australian Constitution, there was nothing under the Constitution that could stop them from doing that. Of course, the ramifications of their decision went far and wide. I think it is all to the credit of the minister—and this government—that, when representatives of the industry appeared here in Canberra and said, `This is going to have a serious impact on our industry, and this is the package that we believe you should be looking at in order to respond to it,' he responded effectively by having meetings of people representing dairying areas and going through the package with a fine-tooth comb. I must admit there were bits of the package that I would have preferred to have perhaps gone a different way, but of course it was the package that the industry itself was proposing. As a result of that, we were able to introduce an effective package that provided $1.78 billion into an industry that really was hurting very badly. The opposition spokesman represents a Victorian electorate. It is strange that in this debate on the Dairy Produce Legislation Amendment (Supplementary Assistance) Bill 2001 we should be lectured by someone from Victoria about what is going on in the dairy industry, because it was the Victorians that made the decision in the first place that they wanted to sell across state borders, and the ramifications that flowed from that were quite serious. I think it was the member for Corio, or perhaps one of his colleagues who spoke after him, who said that a recent ABARE report, in fact released this week, said that milk prices should rise. But, instead of welcoming that, what did he do? He went into an absolute rage about some other part of the report that contained a negative comment. This is what we get all the time from members opposite. You can be in a very difficult corner and you can be working as hard as you can to find a solution to a problem and members opposite can be counted upon to carp their way through it, to criticise and to be negative about anything. We had $1.78 billion injected in the first place, and now we have got a further $140 million. This $140 million is a direct response to this report from ABARE, The Australian dairy industry: impact of an open market in fluid milk supply. I want to speak to a couple of the points that are raised within this report. It states on page 23:Outside Victoria the regional economies that are relatively heavily dependent on dairy farming include:· Eacham, Monto, Rosalie and Warwick North in Queensland ... As a representative of the Rosalie area, I am glad to be able to speak on this bill. There are of course other areas within my electorate that are heavily affected. I would pick Kilcoy and Nenango as being very heavily affected by the whole issue of the changes within the dairy industry, but of course the report has identified those places. It goes on to state on page 19: ... the largest reductions in dairy farm incomes are expected in New South Wales, Queensland and Western Australia, followed by South Australia, Tasmania and Victoria.It also says:For the majority of dairy farmers in Victoria and Tasmania, the sum of farm cash income and their DSAP payments in 2000-01 is likely to exceed their average farm cash income in 1999-2000.Isn't that interesting? Victoria and Tasmania overall, according to ABARE, are going to have more money under the deregulated system than they had previously; they will be the beneficiaries of deregulation. Isn't it interesting that from the opposition side we have had spokesmen from Victoria and Tasmania carping, whingeing and carrying on about a program that, according to ABARE, has actually benefited their local industry? The people who are actually directly affected are the constituents that I and the member for Fairfax represent.849Sidebottom, Sid, MPMr Sidebottom—Listen to what they are saying. 10000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Member for Braddon, the chair is not interested in listening to you at the moment.84CThompson, Cameron, MPMr CAMERON THOMPSON—We are taking a positive outlook to this. We are looking at the problem and endeavouring to address it. When you look at what ABARE actually found, you realise the response of the minister in coming forward with this further package of $140 million is very timely indeed. It is not the perfect outcome. Instead of having the minister producing this $140 million, we should have the state governments injecting money into this industry. Premier Beattie in Queensland, who now presides over a budget in deficit, as of last night, and has a total spend on agriculture in Queensland of only four per cent, has delivered not one zack to supporting dairy industry at this difficult time—nothing of any real impact—and yet, for example, to quote the ABARE report:Individual milk quotas were transferable assets.So these transferable assets, which in effect through their impact on the tax system at the state level have been generating income for the state government in Queensland for many, many years, have been part of the thing that supports the state government and keeps it running. Now that it has fallen into disarray, what are the Queensland government doing? Nothing. Yet they are the ones who are admirably positioned to be able to support that industry in its time of need. One of the things that happens under this package that we are debating now is that the $140 million is allocated, according to the ABARE report, to focus on states such as Queensland and New South Wales where there is a higher reliance on market milk, not manufactured milk.That means that those struggling producers in my state and in my area who produce a large proportion of manufactured milk are not going to be supported by this package. Of course, ABARE makes the point that the majority of support in effect should be going to those people more reliant on market milk because they are the ones whose incomes are most affected. Yet we have a state government which is positioned to be able to fill the gap, to be able to do something about those guys—those manufacturing milk producers—doing absolutely nothing. I find it particularly galling to read in the South Burnett Times—a newspaper that covers the South Burnett area where a lot of milk is produced—that the local former One Nation member, now an Independent, is telling everybody that this $140 million allocation is unfair to milk consumers as well as producers. I would swear she was working for the Labor Party, I would swear that she was a mouthpiece for those members opposite, because that is the kind of negative rhetoric that we get from people over there. If there is a shortcoming in this package, then let the state governments and state members like her actually do something about it instead of just spouting forth with hot air and doing nothing to support this very important industry that is so vital to local communities.One of the things that has been made a lot of by members opposite is the so-called polocrosse field. It just shows you how ignorant of the whole regime and the idea of the Dairy Regional Assistance Program that is tied in with this overall package are members opposite. Under that package we have seen $88,000 going to a pipeline to support the expansion of the pork industry in my electorate, to provide jobs and to provide economic activity to make up for the losses that have naturally occurred because of what has happened in Victoria with the dairy industry. In effect, we have seen an enterprise cooperative being formed, supported by Dairy RAP, with $26,400 in Kilcoy to grow turf. They have subsequently been able to get an $88,000 grant to expand their turf growing activities and to take up some of the slack that is caused by the impact of changes in the dairy industry. We have had $73,000 going to a very good company that is building fire tenders and rural fire brigade equipment. There are many other grants that have gone into these affected areas and they have had a very good and positive impact.We are seeing changes that have been difficult but we are now seeing people more and more finding a way through it. I applaud their activities, I applaud their commitment and, above all, I applaud them for their forbearance under these difficult circumstances. I am sure that we will see the dairy industry fighting back, and it certainly is apparent in many of the places within my area. 11:16:0028051Zahra, Christian, MPMr ZAHRA84HMcMillanALP00—The reason that we are here debating the Dairy Produce Legislation Amendment (Supplementary Assistance) Bill 2001 is because the federal government have blown it when it comes to the dairy industry. They have blown it for the second time. They had a great opportunity, with a $1.9 billion package, to set up this nationally significant industry for the future. Instead, they blew it and they blew it completely. That is why they have scurried back into the parliament today with this $140 million package to try and save their political skins. That is all this package is about. It is not about helping the people most in need, it is not about helping people going through difficult circumstances and it is not about helping people in the dairy communities that have been negatively affected as a result of dairy deregulation. This is all about creating a pork barrel fund to save some National Party ministers' seats, because the dairy farmers and the dairy communities in those areas understand that the pain that they are experiencing right now can be attributed only to the Liberal Party and National Party elected representatives that they have right now. They are sick of the duplicity of these people who run back to their electorates and say, `You know, I'm really on your side. I understand exactly what you're going through. Geez, it must be tough. I was a stockbroker in Sydney; I know a fair bit about the dairy industry.' That is what these National Party people are doing. People in those districts have got smart to this—they have got smart to the fact that these people are saying one thing in their constituencies and doing another thing altogether here in the federal parliament. That is why we have this $140 million today.Unfortunately this $140 million will be another wasted opportunity to be tacked onto the $1.9 billion wasted opportunity which we saw with dairy deregulation via the package which we were discussing in this parliament some months ago. What could we have done with that $1.9 billion? We could have done quite a lot to set this industry up in a way which would have ensured that it had not only a future where it limped along but a future where it grew and prospered and where we could see the manufacturing opportunities in the deregulated dairy industry come to fruition. We could have seen new jobs—high skill jobs, high value added jobs—being created here in our country and we could have set ourselves up as the nation internationally that produced products in the dairy industry which had a high value associated with them and which made sure that Australia could consolidate its natural advantage in the dairy sector. But we have not done that. Instead, when it comes to the dairy industry this government has tried to put in place a strategy where it could maximise only its opportunities for re-election rather than maximising its opportunities to realise the potential of the dairy industry in this country. This is a great shame.We had a lecture before from the member for Blair about what the Dairy Regional Adjustment Program was all about. He was giving us a lecture—this from a member of parliament who is part of a government whose original legislation in relation to the dairy deregulation had no component at all for structural adjustment for dairy dependent communities. Yet he is giving the likes of the member for Braddon and me a lecture about what Dairy RAP is all about and what its objectives are all about. We on this side of the House all understand, and I think the Australian people understand, that the only reason that we got the Dairy Regional Adjustment Program—$45 million; $15 million a year over three years—is because of the pressure applied by members on this side of the House, including the member for Braddon, the member for Bass, the member for Lyons and the member for Corio, the shadow minister for agriculture. That is the only reason we ended up with the Dairy Regional Adjustment Program in the first place. We know what its objectives are; we know what it should be doing. We certainly do not need any lectures from members opposite about what that program should be doing—we understand that pretty clearly. It is good to see that there has been some increase in relation to that program. We are concerned about where that money goes. We do not want to see that money go to building wine appreciation rooms in grammar schools, we do not want to see that money go to building polocrosse fields. This is disgraceful conduct on behalf of the government—an absolute insult to all the farmers who have gone through difficulty and hard times and to the communities that are dairy dependent which have gone through difficulties as well and which have gone through the awful circumstances often surrounding dairy deregulation in those communities. Those people's hardships and sacrifice should not be going into creating a fund for people who have already got a quid, who are already doing pretty well. There are not too many battlers that you see on a polocrosse field. Regarding the people who would be going across to the wine appreciation room in the grammar school, I do not think that there would be too many battlers there either. The way they have conducted themselves and the way they have divvied up the money to do with the Dairy Regional Adjustment Program is a real insult.In my own electoral district, we understand what deregulation means at the coalface. We have had a plant closure in my electoral district, in the town of Drouin. The town of Drouin has about 4,500 or 5,000 people in it. The Bonlac Cooperative closed its plant there about 12 months ago. The plant there employed 150 people. To have 150 people losing their jobs in a town which has a population of 4,500 is a big deal. It is so big a deal that, in Eden, in New South Wales, when that community lost its cannery, which employed about 180 people in a town of about 5,000 people, this federal government saw fit to give them an adjustment package to the value of $3½ million. But we in Drouin, the people of Drouin who know all about sacrifice and hurt, who have experienced the difficulties associated with the loss of that important employer in their town, did not get $3½ from this federal government. They did not get a cracker in terms of an adjustment package from this federal government. It really is outrageous that we have this type of behaviour, this complete debauching and debasing of the regional development programs which have been established by this federal government. We have a situation where one community gets it—$3½ million—but another community, in this case Drouin in my electorate, does not get any structural adjustment money at all despite very similar circumstances and almost equal loss of jobs in a town of exactly the same population as Eden in New South Wales.What we did was identify the Dairy Regional Adjustment Program as a way of getting some support for our town so that we might be able to create a few new jobs and help offset the difficulties experienced in the town as a result of the loss of those jobs associated with the Bonlac factory there. I should say that the Baw Baw Shire Council really has done a first-rate job in helping to coordinate that effort. We organised a meeting as soon as Bonlac announced that it intended to close the plant. We called together local councillors. I was there. The neighbouring state member of parliament, Ian Maxfield, was there. Representatives from the workers were there and involved. And there were representatives from the Committee for Drouin and from the Drouin Chamber of Commerce and Industry. We put in place a plan for the Baw Baw Shire Council to develop a number of projects or to work on developing a proposal. It would submit to the Dairy Regional Adjustment Program a number of projects which would help create jobs in Baw Baw shire and which would help offset the loss of those 150 or 160 jobs associated with the Bonlac plant at Drouin. The officers at Baw Baw Shire Council, including Gary Gaffney and also John Dyer, the CEO, really have done a first-class job and put together a very professional submission to the federal government in relation to this. They did this in consultation with the people associated with the Gippsland Area Consultative Committee, who gave the project the tick, who gave people support and encouragement. And up the line it went. They did not ask for a lot of money—certainly by comparison with the $3½ million which Eden in New South Wales received from the federal government. They asked for $400,000—$100,000 for each of four specific projects which they had developed, which would benefit the Baw Baw shire and which would create about 50 or 60 jobs. These proposals consisted of supporting a number of the successful industries which we have in Baw Baw shire, including the Tarago River Cheese Company, the Rowse Flowers just outside of Ellinbank, Aus Plants, which is just outside Warragul, and Flavorite tomatoes, which is also just outside Warragul. These are all outstanding companies and very successful companies, a number of which I and some of my shadow ministerial colleagues and colleagues on this side of the House have visited as part of our work. These are exactly the types of industries which you would want to support in a place like Baw Baw shire. They represent the success and the growth which can be achieved in some of these vibrant and important industries. After a lot of work, after a lot of effort, after a lot of going through the motions, the decision came back from the federal government: `No, we won't be funding the $400,000. No, we will not be funding the creation of 50 jobs in Baw Baw shire to help offset the loss of those 150 or 160 jobs at the Drouin Bonlac plant.'This is really disgraceful. A lot of people have gone through a lot of difficulty in Drouin—and West Gippsland more generally—as a result of this closure. The federal government should support these projects. They should get behind those existing industries which we have, help us develop our expertise and our natural skills in a number of key areas, including speciality cheese manufacture, and help us to develop the tourism potential of West Gippsland. It really is an indictment of the federal government that they have not seen fit to support these projects, especially when they have supported such ridiculous projects as the building of a polocrosse field and a wine appreciation room at a grammar school somewhere else in the country.11:28:0028053Somlyay, Alex, MPMr SOMLYAYZT4FairfaxLP10—There is a misconception about the problems with the deregulation of the dairy industry, and that is that it is a consequence of competition policy. I hear that everywhere I go in my own electorate. I hear it being said by people in the industry and by people in the Labor Party. Unfortunately, a misconception is also held by some members of the National Party and the Liberal Party. Recently I was at the state convention of the Liberal Party. One of the vice-presidents, in speaking about the post-mortem on the state election in Queensland, clearly stated that one of the factors involved in the result of the state election was the effects of federal dairy deregulation. Therefore, I was very disappointed that this misconception is even held by persons in my own party. Let me make it very clear. There were no federal dairy regulations. Dairy regulation was a province of each state. When the Victorian dairy industry made up their mind to deregulate, it was inevitable that there would be a massive effect on every other state. UU5Horne, Bob, MPMr Horne—What was the ultimatum given to them?10000Hollis, Collin (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hollis)—We do not want to know the ultimatum. Do not answer that. Any comments will come through the chair.ZT4Somlyay, Alex, MPMr SOMLYAY—Victoria produces 80 per cent of all of Australia's dairy products. Therefore, deregulation was going to have a massive impact on every other state. Of course the dairy industry came to us, as a federal government, and said, `Help us.' Had Victoria deregulated without some adjustment scheme being put in place, it would have been devastating for the dairy industry in New South Wales, Queensland and Western Australia. I mention these states because these are the quota states. In Queensland, dairy quotas are a tradeable commodity. They were the equity farmers had in their farm. It was the same in New South Wales. When the state government went to deregulate the dairy industry in Queensland as a part of the package of the Commonwealth's $1.7 billion package it was consequent upon deregulation in every state. Had the Beattie government in Queensland not wanted dairy deregulation, all they had to do was not deregulate and then the package could not have come into place. The danger there was that the flow of products from Victoria, where they can produce more cheaply and more efficiently all year round, would have devastated the industry, but it would have been something that happened immediately and caused problems overnight.At the request of the industry—and we had many meetings here with Pat Rowley from Queensland—the Commonwealth put together a package based on a consumer levy of 11c a litre. It is a $1.7 billion package to help the industry readjust. That was put in place. The states all legislated to deregulate their industry, but there was absolutely no assistance from the Queensland government to those people who held quota. As I said before, quota is a tradeable commodity. It was the farmers' equity in their farms. Queensland had a moral, if not a legal, obligation to compensate people for their quota.I mentioned that the dairy industry was not a part of competition policy but, as a consequence of competition policy, Queensland and the other states will attract national competition policy payments from the Commonwealth as a consequence of dairy deregulation. The Beattie government, and, I suppose, the Carr government in New South Wales, had a moral obligation to buy out those quotas—to pay the dairy farmers for the quota. They received revenue taxes, stamp duty, from the trading activity of those quotas. Therefore, they had a moral obligation to compensate every farmer for their loss of quota. Every farmer was entitled to that compensation and they did not receive it. Overnight they lost their equity. When a dairy farmer went to a bank, that quota was part of his equity and the basis upon which he would receive a loan for carry-on finance or whatever. That went overnight. The farmers were devastated. Mr Beattie had an obligation to compensate those farmers. I keep repeating this because there is a conception in the community that dairy deregulation was a Commonwealth issue. And it was not; it was purely a state issue. There was an obligation on the Beattie government to pay out these farmers for their quota.As the member for Blair said earlier, the Queensland budget came down last night. Of course, in the great tradition of Labor governments, they are in the red. Only four per cent of the Queensland budget was spent on matters relating to agriculture. With the industry devastated as it is because of deregulation, the Queensland government should have compensated these people—I say it again—for the loss of this quota. This is why we are considering the Dairy Produce Legislation Amendment (Supplementary Assistance) Bill 2001. Had the Queensland government, the New South Wales government and other state governments compensated dairy farmers for the loss of this quota, we would not be here discussing this bill. As I said, state governments had a moral obligation to compensate for quota, if not a legal obligation. But the Commonwealth was not prepared to sit back and see these dairy farmers suffer any longer.The ABARE report was brought down some six months after the deregulation of the dairy industry and it showed that further assistance was required. What this bill does is put in place an additional package over and above the $1.7 billion package. This amount is $140 million, and it is broken up on the basis of $100 million in supplementary market milk payments to dairy farmers who are most heavily dependent on market milk production, $20 million for eligible people who because of extraordinary circumstances were excluded or their entitlements were significantly lower than normal under the government's Dairy Structural Adjustment Program, and the $20 million expansion of the Dairy Regional Assistance Program.On 29 May the Prime Minister visited Gympie in my electorate and announced that a $1.6 million grant would be given to a Gympie company, Nolan meats, as part of the Dairy RAP, as a grant to create jobs in that town which is heavily dependent on the dairy industry in the Mary Valley. That will translate into 150 jobs over the next four years. The Dairy RAP is not meant to create jobs in the dairy industry; it is meant to create jobs in towns and regional centres that are affected by the downturn in that industry. Additional milk payments will be made to people with interest in farms that were dependent on market milk returns for more than 35 per cent of the milk they delivered in 1998-99. Payments will be made to people who were granted an entitlement under the DSAP and who can demonstrate that they are still actively involved in dairy enterprise. I met with a group of dairy farmers in my electorate last Friday who are at the top end of the dairy industry; they milk between 400 and 500 cows per day. They made it very clear to me that they, as efficient farmers, are not helped particularly by this package. This package is aimed at people who are most affected by the downturn. But the farmers at the top end, the efficient ones who want to keep farming, want a floor price scheme, some sort of a price where they can continue to produce in the efficient manner in which they have produced in the past. Initially it was anticipated that the price in Queensland would be the Victorian price plus the cost of freight, which is around the 45c per litre mark. As it turns out, these farmers are now receiving 36c a litre and they cannot exist on that amount of money. I commend this bill to the House and I commend the compassionate attitude the government has taken to the dairy industry. 11:39:0028055Sidebottom, Sid, MPMr SIDEBOTTOM849BraddonALP00—The fact that we are here again debating this government's response to the issue of dairy deregulation proves to me one thing—and that is that from the outset the government got it wrong. Its answer to deregulation of the dairy industry was the kind of response you get when you really do not have a response. From the start, this government had no plan, and still has no plan, for dairy farmers and dairying communities who were nervously awaiting deregulation of their industry. The coalition had no blueprint for the future of the dairy industry and still does not. Instead, what we have seen from day one is policy making on the run. Yet again this government has run into trouble. What we are seeing now is another case of policy breakdown. The Dairy Produce Legislation Amendment (Supplementary Assistance) Bill 2001 is an attempt to fix it. This amendment is yet another admission of government policy failure, the failure to properly recognise what dairy farmers in many farming communities across Australia would be in for post-deregulation, a failure that this side of the House tried to bring to the attention of the government some time ago. We were all told about the inevitability of dairy deregulation. What was this government's response? Nothing. There was no response. It sat on its hands and did nothing. It was left to the industry itself to come up with a compensation package it hoped would soften the impact of deregulation. Hence the Dairy Industry Adjustment Bill 2000. That bill made provision for a $1.78 billion package funded by an 11c a litre levy on milk consumers—a tax. These arrangements, known as the dairy industry adjustment package, comprised three programs: the Dairy Structural Adjustment Program, the Dairy Exit Program and the Dairy Regional Assistance Program. I particularly remember the last of those programs being rushed into this House late one evening, when members were given virtually no time to debate the program. It was an eleventh hour measure, hastily incorporated into legislation after the government belatedly acknowledged—due in no small part to the effort of members on this side of the House, and I certainly acknowledge the effort of the members for Corio, McMillan, Paterson, Lyons and Bass—that there was very little or no provision for the impact of deregulation on dairy communities at that stage. This, I am pleased to say, led to a $45 million program for regional areas. I supported the original bill, which was debated in this House over 12 months ago, and I support this new legislation—albeit with a number of reservations, as outlined in the amendments tabled by my colleague who is at the table, the member for Corio. The aim is to provide further help to those suffering hardship because of deregulation, in the form of the Dairy Produce Legislation Amendment (Supplementary Assistance) Bill 2001. In effect, it will provide an additional $140 million. The $140 million will be raised, again, through an extension of the milk levy—that is, from milk consumers, not the government. Of course, there are always going to be `anomalous circumstances' because of this government's inept handling of dairy deregulation. I support further assistance because it is clear that many dairy farmers slipped through the net following the original dairy adjustment package. I am very pleased also to see that at last there is acknowledgment of dairy farm lessors. There are a significant number of lessors in my electorate who have been adversely affected by deregulation of their industry, and I would like to come back to this later. The big disappointment in the whole dairy deregulation saga is that this government has once again been too slow to act. Indeed, it is a report by the Australian Bureau of Agriculture and Resource Economics, ABARE, which highlighted the continuing hardships caused by deregulation that has forced the government to further act. The truth is that from the start the government did not want to know about dairy deregulation. It was the industry that did the bidding for the initial compensation package to help farmers adjust to the challenges that lay ahead, and now ABARE has also shamed the government into action. As I have mentioned earlier, it must also be remembered that not one cent of the package is federal government money. The entire package is being funded by the milk levy on consumers—a milk tax. However, not only are consumers taxed but their tax is further taxed. The government pays nothing but collects two taxes, and therefore is pocketing hundreds of millions of dollars from a hidden tax on the money raised to help farmers adjust to dairy deregulation. Recent estimates put the tax take from the milk levy at over $400 million. Again, this money is being raised through an 11c a litre levy on consumers. At least 3c or 4c a litre from that is going straight into Treasury's coffers. I note that the supplementary assistance provided for in the bill is primarily focused on providing additional aid to dairy farmers producing for the liquid milk markets in Western Australia, Queensland and New South Wales. At this stage it appears Tasmania will not get much of a look-in—and I will get to that shortly, if I can. However, we are still waiting on the full detail. That is a worry in itself because, as we know with this government, the devil is quite often in the detail. The important thing is that farmers and dairying communities who need assistance get it. To get it, they need the guidelines, and we are still waiting for the guidelines on this particular issue. This is disappointing to me and to the many farming communities spread across my electorate: the north-west coast of Tasmania boasts some of the finest dairying country in the world. Our dairy industry, which is predominantly centred in my magnificent electorate of Braddon on the north-west coast of Tasmania, employs around 2,000 people at farm level and a further 1,600 in factories and in distribution.I have heard first-hand from many dairy farmers and their representatives in the Dairy Task Force—much derided by the other side, but a very positive initiative by this side and which will form the heart of our policy initiatives on this. Let me say that there was no token representation at the Dairy Task Force, certainly in my electorate, and there was very wide representation from that. Problems that particularly surfaced in my electorate were those facing lessors, and these were high on the list of priorities raised in the visit. The frustration of dairy farm lessors was expressed this way by Ms Lynett Griffiths, a committee member of the Dairy Farm Owners Action Group, who last week gave evidence to the Senate committee looking into the effects of dairy deregulation. Ms Griffiths said: Lessors were the first farmers to feel the effects of deregulation and were virtually excluded from receiving any packages under the dairy structural assistance plan because of the wrongly held belief that we were investors and would suffer no loss of income because of our lease. This wrongly held belief appears to be the reason for our exclusion and, even though we have made numbers of attempts to convince the minister for agriculture and fisheries ...Well, he has taken some convincing, but at last the minister has accepted another of the shortcomings of the government's response to dairy deregulation. The Dairy Produce Legislation Amendment (Supplementary Assistance) Bill includes limited provisions to make discretionary payments to lessors who earned at least 50 per cent of their gross income from the lease in 1998-99 and who have suffered a 20 per cent fall in lease income during 2000-01. However, there are concerns that there may be only a handful of dairy lessors who will benefit, because most did not earn 50 per cent of their gross income from the lease.I mentioned earlier that I want to highlight concerns that some of Tasmania's market milk producers may miss out on a share of the additional assistance. This bill is particularly focused, as I mentioned, on providing more aid to dairy farmers producing for the liquid milk market in Western Australia, Queensland and New South Wales. Dairy farmers and dairying communities in these states were identified in the ABARE report as being particularly disadvantaged by dairy deregulation. The Tasmanian Farmers and Graziers Association is worried that a number of Tasmanian dairy farmers who supply 100 per cent of their output into market milk will not be eligible for a share of the $100 million for market milk producers.As I understand it, because of the pooling arrangements in Tasmania, a group of close to 20 suppliers whose total production goes into market milk will get nothing, due to the criteria likely to be applied—another anomaly looming, I fear. The Chairman of the TFGA's Dairy Council, Mr Brendan Thompson, put it this way in a recent media report. Mr Thompson was quoted in an article in the Tasmanian Country newspaper of 25 May, as follows:We're very disappointed by the way the package has been set up. We would have thought the money would have been made available for market milk producers in all states.Mr Thompson went on to say:It won't go unnoticed that there is some political expedience involved here.Surely not political expedience! Is there an election in the air? What is that whiff that we pick up in rural and regional Australia? Surely funds raised to help cushion the impact of deregulation on farmers and dairying communities will not be used as a political pork barrel by the government!In conclusion, the response from most dairy farmer organisations to the new package has at best been lukewarm. It does, however, attempt to deal with some of the anomalies thrown up by the original package. However, anomalies still remain. It is very important that the minister listen when we make application on behalf of those that have been affected by some of these anomalies. I refer again to issues related to lessors. Even today I heard of one example of a lessor who is still not going to make the criteria, on the surface of it, and will not benefit in any way from the dairy deregulation package. It is very important that these problems be looked at and that farmers, farming communities and the families involved are dealt with accordingly.11:50:0028057Price, Roger, MPMr PRICEQI4ChifleyALP00—I am always pleased to yield to my friend the member for Braddon, who is a passionate advocate of the dairy farmers in his electorate. As you have so unkindly pointed out, Mr Deputy Speaker, I no longer have any dairy farmers in my electorate. But that does not mean that I am not interested in the plight of dairy farmers. I notice the arrogance of the government in handling the Dairy Produce Legislation Amendment (Supplementary Assistance) Bill 2001. We do not have the minister here and we do not even have the courtesy of advisers in the advisers box. I want to agree at the start with only one point that coalition members have made, and that is that this process was started by Victorian coalition or Liberal Premier Jeff Kennett, when he agreed to undertake a referendum of farmers in that state. Indeed, the referendum was undertaken under the subsequent government of Premier Bracks. That is the genesis of the change that we are debating here today. This package is about a new tax. It is a tax on every litre of milk drunk by every child in Australia. When the mums and dads of Australia buy a litre of milk, there is a new tax of 11c. It was going to be on for eight years, but now that is being extended to eight years and nine months. If this bill was about cheaper milk for consumers, I might find it attractive. But let me quote Mr Ian Langdon, the Chairman of Dairy Farmers, who said in the Financial Review:Deregulation was never going to lead to cheaper milk for the consumers.So this is not about cheaper milk for consumers. I know what it is about; I know whose pockets are being lined. It is not the dairy farmers and it is not the mums and dads in my electorate; it is the producers and the supermarkets. These are the people that coalition members champion. Coalition member after coalition member made many points about why the states are not kicking in. Maybe that is a fair point, but let me first ask the question: why aren't you kicking in? Why does it have to be the kids and the mums and dads of Australia that have to fund it? Why won't you stand up, Parliamentary Secretary, and kick in? Why won't you get the senior minister that you work for to kick in? You are not putting $1 in. It is the mums and dads of Australia in electorates like mine that are funding this.I support the principle that all Australians should help industries that are in transition. I am particularly attracted to helping battling dairy farmers. But who are the big winners out of this? The first big winner is Peter Costello and his parliamentary secretary. They are putting $500 million in the back pocket. This is a tax on a tax: 11c a litre for every litre, plus clawing back in addition to that another $500 million. What a disgrace you are!What power do the states have to put on levies? You know full well that the High Court has ruled that out. Why should the states dig into their revenue for police, for education and for hospitals when you will not put $1 in. What utter hypocrisy! Again, I want to make the point that I can live with the proposition that we should assist dairy farmers. Take my state of New South Wales: I asked Mr Truss over there, the minister who has just walked into the House—and I thank him for that—how much money is going to be raised in New South Wales with this tax. The answer is: $521.6 million is going to be raised in New South Wales, but that is only after eight years—I apologise; I do not have the figure for eight years and nine months. But how much of this is actually going to New South Wales dairy farmers? About $337 million. If you take out the Commonwealth's $500 million in the back pocket, it gets down to about $255 million net. So, for every child who drinks a litre of milk in New South Wales, that 11c goes not to New South Wales dairy farmers—although some of it does—but $184 million slips out. Who is the big winner of this dairy deregulation? It is the most efficient industry—that is, Victoria. It gets $739 million. It is the most efficient dairy sector—and congratulations to it; I do not deprecate that. It is very export oriented—I do not deprecate that; I applaud that. But it is the biggest winner here.It is not as though we are setting out to develop a proposal that really meets the needs of dairy farmers on the basis of actual need. We have already heard the member for McMillan talking about what is happening with one grant—building a polocrosse field, for goodness sake! The mums and dads and kids in Mount Druitt are paying a levy that will build a polocrosse field. This is not going to dairy farmers based on need. Indeed, some of the wealthiest dairy farmers are getting the most money out of this. What is fair about that? I have never before seen a scheme that abandons principles of equity, of trying to give measured assistance where assistance is really needed. I am going to use a quote that I have used before and it is from John Ralston Saul: Unregulated competition is a naive metaphor for anarchy.I happen to agree with that. We are seeing that in the civil aviation industry—that is, if you actually want competition, often you have to put in regulations. What has happened as a result of this dairy deregulation in my state of New South Wales? Are mums and dads actually getting cheaper milk? No, not really. The comparison used to justify the cheaper milk used the price when the farm gate price was deregulated, not the pre-existing price—a little bit of fiddling the figures there. But what has actually happened, Minister? The producers have tendered literally uneconomic prices to the supermarkets, and then they have squeezed the dairy farmers. So they have actually made this deregulation even worse. Of course now the producers are trying to get back money from corner shops. In fact there is a 5c differential.The supermarkets do not actually care what the price of milk is because they have the market power to put their margin on top of it. Minister, tell me why in your portfolio your main mission is to prop up supermarkets. Why are you the champion of supermarkets? Shouldn't you have a regard for dairy farmers? Shouldn't you have a regard for consumers? I will quote Minister Amery in a notorious letter to the National Competition Council Chairman, Mr Graeme Samuel:Our experience of deregulation in the ... milk market has demonstrated that none of the theoretical benefits of deregulation have occurred.What a damning statement. I regret that time is running out—GT4Truss, Warren, MPQI4Price, Roger, MPMr PRICE—If I am being offered an extension, I am happy to go on. I will quote a National Party member, the member for Cowper:I believe that while we must have competition—there is no doubt about that—it has to be leavened with a degree of sanity.There is no sanity in this, Minister. Listen to your own backbencher. I hope we can all learn from this abortive scheme. The idea that we can just blame the states for not picking up the mess, the trail, that the minister has left is outrageous. We have got the shadow minister here at the table. He led a task force; he went out there and talked to dairy farmers.GT4Truss, Warren, MPMr Truss—We are still waiting for the report.QI4Price, Roger, MPMr PRICE—I hope it will be released shortly. I am sure it will be more constructive than this mess that the minister has presented to the parliament. Make no mistake: what we are debating here today is a tax on kids of 11c, on the mums and dads of Australia. If you think it is going to help the dairy farmers, the biggest winners are John Howard and Peter Costello to the tune of $500 million. It is not targeted to help those dairy farmers most in need. Why have you turned your back on them, Minister? You are a disgrace. You should resign.12:02:0028059Truss, Warren, MPMr TRUSSGT4Wide BayNPMinister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry10— I am frankly appalled by the comments of the previous speaker and, indeed, of many of those opposite, who demonstrated once again Labor's clear lack of regard for the dairy farmers of Australia. Labor has been prepared to do absolutely nothing to assist dairy farmers around Australia. State Labor governments which deregulated their dairy industry have done absolutely nothing—not a cent from Queensland, not a cent from New South Wales, not a cent from Victoria, not a cent from Tasmania. The only government at the state level to provide any assistance was Western Australia, and that was a coalition government that provided some support to the dairy industry in that state. Labor did nothing. Labor has no policy for the dairy industry and Labor has no plan to help the dairy industry. It has been quite clear from the comments of the opposition speakers today that they are acutely embarrassed about Labor's failure to do anything at the state level to assist dairy farmers and by the enormous contrast with what this government has done to intervene and assist in a problem created largely by Labor state governments. We have intervened to assist while Labor has done absolutely nothing. Look at what Labor's response has been. The shadow minister put out a press statement on the issue several months ago—while the opposition leader was driving around in the boondoggle bus—in which he outlined a plan of action. The plan of action was that they would have a task force under the shadow minister himself. This task force has trotted around to one or two places around the countryside. I am told the biggest crowd they got anywhere was about eight; there was simply no interest in what they were doing. I understand that hardly any of the task force members themselves actually turned up to most of these meetings, just a token representation, and not even the shadow minister sometimes. The reality was that this task force was to have one key function, and that was to prepare a report by the end of April. Well, here we are: May, June, now the end of June, critical legislation on the dairy industry before the parliament, and still no report. So this jolly group of opposition members trotted around the countryside to talk about the dairy industry and has absolutely nothing to contribute, in a major debate, as to where Labor would go in relation to the future of the dairy industry. Even their own amendment fails to address any kind of policy issue.It was quite clear from the public statements of the honourable member for Werriwa that Labor is opposed to any assistance whatsoever to dairy farmers, and the honourable member for Chifley sailed very close to the remarks of the honourable member for Werriwa. He cannot see why milk users should make any kind of contribution towards ensuring the welfare of the dairy industry around Australia. The honourable member for Werriwa made it completely clear in his media statements that he is opposed to any assistance whatsoever to dairy farmers; and the honourable member for Chifley sailed very close to that theme. What is abundantly obvious from the record of Labor in government—and, after all, there are quite a lot of them in state governments around Australia—is that they will do absolutely nothing.A number of other totally erroneous comments were made by speakers opposite. The honourable member for Chifley and the shadow minister continue to run the quite ridiculous line that somehow or other the federal government are major tax beneficiaries out of this package. I have heard various numbers for what we will collect: $300 million, $500 million—he makes them up as he goes along. The reality is that this is an issue that has been addressed by agriculture ministers around Australia. An independent report was commissioned from Arthur Andersen and Co. on the tax implications of this package for the federal government. The shadow minister knows, because he has been told many times—and Mr Amery knows, Mr Palaszczuk knows and Mr Hamilton knows, and I am sure they have all told him as well—that the report came back and said that there were no windfall tax gains for the Commonwealth out of this package, that it was revenue neutral. That is an independent report from Arthur Andersen and Co. So don't keep peddling information that you know to be false; it is completely inaccurate.The other point we get peddled frequently by members opposite is that somehow or other this money, this near to $2 billion that has been provided to the dairy industry, has miraculously appeared and that the Commonwealth has no responsibility for the provision of those funds. The reality is that this money is being paid for by Commonwealth taxpayers in the same way that all other Commonwealth programs are paid for by taxpayers. The clear bottom line is that governments do not have money of their own—not governments on this side. We balance our budgets. Labor governments spend on the never-never: they run up bills, they run up the Bankcard bill and they do not care about who is ever going to pay. They ran up $90 billion worth of debt. On this side we pay our bills, and the only way that we can pay our bills—the only way any government can pay its bills—is if we collect taxation revenue from the people of Australia. In this particular case the tax is a special tax: it is being imposed on milk, just as we impose taxes on petrol, we impose taxes on goods and services and just as Labor, when they were in government, imposed a whole stack of taxes on all sorts of products, on goods and services. Labor imposed those sorts of taxes. This particular benefit to dairy farmers is being paid by way of a levy on milk consumers, and of course that is the way all programs have to be funded. The reality is that dairy deregulation was driven, as I think all honourable members know, by the desire of the industry to move towards a new environment, and when the opposition moved in their second reading amendment complaints that the government have no long-term plan for the dairy industry they demonstrate again their total lack of understanding. A task force has been rushing around the countryside, and they still have not come across anything of the dairy industry's plan for its future. Our vision for the industry is for it to develop into a highly competitive export oriented industry, and there is already plenty of evidence of the success of the dairy industry's capabilities to export around the world. Indeed, this year most dairy farmers in Australia, despite what we have heard from members opposite, will actually have increased incomes on those they had last year, and it is a result of the outstanding performance of our dairy exporters. It is due in part of course to the improving world prices of dairy products and the capacity of our industry to meet the market opportunities that exist, and that is indeed very much a part of the future of the dairy industry in Australia.The honourable member for Chifley complained about the `unfairness' of the package, implying that somehow or other this money was going to the wealthy. That is also a nonsense. The reality is that, under this package, five times as much money per litre goes to dairy farmers who are supplying the market milk sector compared with those who are supplying the manufacturing sector. Farmers in that market milk sector have the biggest adjustment pressure. They were the ones in New South Wales, Queensland and Western Australia who had bought quotas and from whom the state governments had actually collected taxes in many instances in relation to the trading of these quotas, so they had significant debts and significant costs in capital investment in their properties. This is where the biggest adjustment has occurred, and the package recognised that by providing five times as much assistance per litre for those who were involved in the marketing sector as those who were in the manufacturing sector.When it was proposed that we have a secondary package, a state Labor minister, Henry Palaszczuk, actually put up a proposal to ARMCANZ. I might add that all of the other state ministers, including his Labor colleagues, dumped on him heavily because his proposal would have provided the unfair assistance that the honourable member for Chifley was complaining about. He wanted supplementary support, much of which would have gone to Victoria. This new package, the subject of the bill that is before the House, is carefully targeted to those who have to make the greatest adjustment assistance. It is heavily directed towards farmers in New South Wales, Queensland and Western Australia. In fact, only a handful of farmers in the other states will qualify. The reason for that is we recognise that some farmers have had to make a much greater adjustment contribution than others, and this package is carefully targeted in that direction. The opposition spokesman has suggested that the threshold should have been lowered for eligibility to this second package. To do so would have meant that more money would have gone to those who had a smaller adjustment task. So we have targeted the assistance in this package very much to those who got the biggest adjustment. In reality, the majority of them will be in states such as New South Wales, Queensland and Western Australia.MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr Lee—In your electorate.GT4Truss, Warren, MPMr TRUSS—If I may respond to the honourable shadow minister who has entered the chamber and who knows absolutely nothing about dairying, the reality is that the farmers in my electorate will actually get a smaller payout than dairy farmers in other parts of Queensland. The reality is that it is based on the level of adjustment that will be required in relation to the new market arrangements which exist into the future. A point made by a couple of members, including one who is still in the chamber—the only one of the contributors still in the chamber, apart from the shadow minister—was in relation to a handful of Tasmanian farmers. Opposition members interjecting—GT4Truss, Warren, MPMr TRUSS—I thought the honourable member may have liked a response to the comments that he made. He raised a number of concerns in relation to farmers in Tasmania, who he claimed were suppliers to the market milk sector but will not receive assistance under this package, and indeed there are some suppliers in New South Wales, Queensland, Western Australia and South Australia who may also meet these criteria. Those producers do not qualify because of the arrangements under the old DMS scheme—the scheme lauded, I might add, by the shadow minister as having been put in place by Labor when they were in office. The reality is that the Tasmanian state government and the Tasmanian industry chose a pooling system in that state which meant that the farmers that the honourable member was talking about were beneficiaries under the old DMS scheme. Under the adjustment arrangements, naturally they would be double-dipping if they were to receive the adjustment payments as well as the old DMS payments. Those rules are consistent with this package, as applied to the previous one.This legislation provides an additional $140 million of federal assistance for dairy farmers in those communities that have been most affected by deregulation. We have had to provide this additional money because we have given up hope that the Labor state governments will ever meet their obligations to the dairy farmers in those states. The dairy farmers have just about given up any hope that Labor will provide the compensation for quotas that they were asked for and which was very much part of the package that was put to the federal government when we agreed to provide adjustment assistance. Labor have failed to meet their obligations. A range of state budgets have come down over recent days, once again failing to meet their obligations. This additional package, therefore, is targeted to those most in need—as I mentioned earlier, particularly in Western Australia, New South Wales and Queensland.Of this new assistance, $100 million will go in payments to dairy farmers who are most heavily dependent upon the market milk sector; $20 million will go to people because of extraordinary circumstances, because they were excluded from the previous package, because of anomalous circumstances or because the rules were particularly tight and may have affected their unusual situation; and $20 million will go towards expanding the Dairy Regional Assistance Program, which is doing such excellent work in revitalising many of those communities that have been seriously affected by dairy deregulation. These measures will provide further assistance to farmers. They have been warmly welcomed by the dairy industry. Whilst nothing can be done to restore the dairy industry to its bygone era—I know there are many who do not wish it to go backwards but want it to go forward and be an outward-looking and progressive industry into the future—this package will help some of those who have been most grievously affected by the states' decision to deregulate their industry. The Commonwealth has helped very significantly. This is the biggest package of assistance ever put in place by a federal government for a primary industry. It has been a monumental effort for the industry and a major initiative—something Labor never did at the state level when they should have, something Labor would never do in the future and something to which many members in the opposition have made clear that they are philosophically opposed. The reality is that we as a government recognise that sometimes assistance has to be provided for industries. We have acted where Labor state governments have failed. Once again, we have demonstrated our compassion and concern for farmers in need. Amendment negatived.Original question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.28063Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.Bill (on motion by Mr Truss) read a third time.Bills28063R132928063Debate resumed from 7 June, on motion by Dr Kemp:That the bill be now read a second time.12:20:0028063Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—My time on the Vocational Education and Training Funding Amendment Bill 2001 is limited due to agreements between the government and the opposition, so I will begin by moving my second reading amendment. I move:That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:“whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House:(1) notes with concern that the Government has failed to provide appropriate support for vocational education and training by cutting $240 million from TAFE, and contributing no growth funding for five years, thereby restricting training opportunities and damaging the quality of training; and(2) condemns the Government for allowing the Australian National Training Authority Agreement to lapse by: (a) failing to make a realistic offer of funding; and (b) finally offering an amount of funding which is even lower than the amount of previous funding cuts and which fails to adequately address the needs of Australian vocational education and training”.Many people have heard about the Labor Party's plan to make Australia a knowledge nation. It is our view that, if Australia is to fully take advantage of the opportunities that will open up for us in the coming decade, Australia has to invest more in education, training and research. Only by becoming a knowledge nation will we be able to ensure that as many Australians as possible have the opportunity for new careers and for a more secure job and to ensure that all children have the chance to study at excellent schools. Many people do not understand that a key part of Australia becoming a knowledge nation is about not only ensuring that we have excellent universities which are carrying out world-class research but developing better schools, ensuring that we have wider access to quality early childhood education and, most importantly, ensuring that as many Australians as possible have access to quality vocational education and training.I have remarked in this House before that when people of our age left school they did think they could have a job for life. Students who are at school today know that when they leave school they are going to have many different careers. The pace of change in the workplace is such that people have to have the ability to learn different skills to ensure that they are in employment throughout their working life. To have the most satisfying life they will also need the ability to obtain new knowledge and develop new skills at various times during their life, both before and after working employment. If we are to ensure that people do have the most secure job possible, if they are to have the widest possible career choices, then we need to ensure that more Australians have access to quality training.This is not just about ensuring that as many people as possible have the opportunity to study for an apprenticeship but also about ensuring that people have the ability to upgrade their skills. We need to make more training available so that more workers can upgrade the skills that they have. We need to make sure that the welder in the Illawarra has the chance to do extra training to become a welding inspector. We need to make sure that the storeman in Geelong has the chance to do extra IT training so that they can operate the computers in the warehouse where they work. There is no artificial split between new economy and old economy. We have got to make sure that the Ford workers in the car manufacturing plants have the IT skills so that they can program the pieces of equipment in their factory. It is about making sure that as many Australians as possible have got access to quality training, and it is for that reason that the funding from the Commonwealth government to the Australian National Training Authority is a very crucial part of the role of the national government. You would be aware, Mr Deputy Speaker, that the week before last the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs finally reached agreement with the state and territory training ministers for a new funding agreement for ANTA. The minister for education described this as a `major milestone'. It certainly is, but not in the way the minister tried to imply. It is a milestone because it represents the capitulation by the Howard government in a desperate re-election attempt following five years of pressure from the states and territories for a fair funding agreement for training. The federal government has finally come up with some badly needed funding for vocational education and training, after five years of keeping the VET sector on a starvation diet. This started with the cuts in 1996, further funding cuts in 1997 by the Howard government and a failure to provide growth funding, despite the fact that there was enormous demand, enormous need for many Australians for access to quality vocational education and training.The effects of the Howard government's policy are outlined in a report to state governments by Dr Vince FitzGerald called Skills in the knowledge economy: Australia's national investment in education and training. Dr FitzGerald's report says that Commonwealth funding for VET has been cut back while the states have maintained steady growth in their resourcing. It also says that despite the increase in state funds the effect of the Commonwealth's cutbacks has meant that the total resourcing for VET has ceased to grow from 1998 onwards. Dr FitzGerald also found that there had been a downward trend evident in funding per student from the mid-1990s, which has accelerated over the last few years. Dr FitzGerald said that the VET resourcing had been so squeezed that quality has been at stake. The damage done by this government and this minister for education and training to VET cannot be repaired simply by now putting back even less money than the government has taken out since it was elected. Cuts to VET since 1996-97 totalled $240 million. This offer, dragged out of the minister, does not even put back the funds that they have cut since they have been elected.You would remember, Mr Deputy Speaker, that when the minister first started negotiating this ANTA agreement his initial offer was for absolutely no growth when it was put on the table. Then, after pressure from the states, last December he was forced to increase that offer to a three-year offer of an extra $20 million in the first year, $25 million in the second and $30 million in the third. It says something about the weakness of the South Australian Liberal government that they signed up for that offer. We have a conservative state government that was prepared to sign up for only an extra $75 million over the three years of the ANTA agreement, a decision which only they could explain to the people of South Australia. As a result of the new pressure placed on the federal government by the states other than South Australia, we had the government having to significantly increase that offer to a total of $230 million over three years, which left the South Australian government looking completely stark naked, given the agreement they made earlier in the year.There is no doubt at all that VET needs to play a fundamental part in developing the country. But the Prime Minister's 2001 offer does not represent some road to Damascus conversion to a belief in the value of education, training and research; it simply represents a desire by the Prime Minister to be re-elected. There is no commitment here to provide better quality training; it is a commitment to try to get himself elected later this year. But what this government and this Prime Minister cannot escape is the actions that they have taken over the last five years. We do not forget the massive cuts to education in the 1996 budget, including a reduction in vocational education and training grants to the states and territories of $66 million; a reduction in ANTA's operating expenses of $13 million; the abolition of the five per cent real growth on the base recurrent TAFE funding, a cut of $91 million; and in the 1997-98 budget a further cut which subtracted a further $72 million from the funding had been provided to the states. This totals $240 million that could have been invested over those lost five years in expanding access to quality training. The problems of TAFE were compounded by conservative governments in Victoria, Queensland, South Australia and, to a lesser extent, Western Australia. We all know that by the end of 1998, thanks to Jeff Kennett, two of Victoria's largest TAFE colleges were facing insolvency. There have been a number of reviews in each of the states that have sought to reveal the true position of the inadequate funding for TAFE as a result of the policies of conservative federal and state governments.It is also important to look at the impact that the policies of these governments have had on the quality of training being provided. Many members would be aware of the report carried out by Kaye Schofield in Queensland which found that around 20 per cent of trainees were receiving no training at all under the user choice system so favoured by the coalition at the federal and state levels, which usually involves full on-the-job delivery of training. The report went on to say that this threat to the quality of traineeships, if not remedied, was a threat to the VET system as a whole.As far as user choice is concerned, federal Labor recognise the importance which employers place on the ability to choose a provider in order to ensure maximum flexibility in meeting their training needs, but we also recognise the rights and needs of trainees to receive quality training. We recognise that the choice is not necessarily just about different providers; it can also be about the range of courses available. We believe that there are some areas of Australia where user choice is not practicable because the population base cannot support both a TAFE campus offering everything which the community expects of it and a range of private providers catering, as private businesses naturally do, to the more profitable end of the market. Labor believe that the needs of employers can be met without putting our TAFE system at risk, while also ensuring that trainees have access to quality training.There are a number of issues that also need to be dealt with in considering this legislation. It is important that those institutes of TAFE around the country that are providing quality vocational education and training experiences receive the support and resources that they need to provide that quality training. I recently had the privilege of visiting the Box Hill Institute of TAFE, which, under its director, John Maddoch and with the help of the Victorian Labor government, is expanding to provide additional facilities and additional opportunities for training in business and IT. Certainly they are doing some very impressive work down at Box Hill.The great revolution in funding for VET took place of course under the prime ministership of Paul Keating. It was the Keating government which committed to provide an additional $450 million for just over five years in funding for ANTA and VET. It is in stark contrast to this massive increase in funding for VET that we see the Howard government simply seeking to put back—$230 million, having taken out $240 million. Compare the current government that is not even putting back the total amount that it has cut from VET with the Keating government that put in almost half a billion dollars in ramping up access to quality training for the country. This is important for future opportunities for existing workers as well as young Australians. I know there are some TAFE colleges that are working closely with schools to ensure that students who are studying through the VET in schools program or school leavers who are considering taking up apprenticeships are being offered a wide range of experiences in allowing them to choose the right trade for them to take up. Whether it is young people who are looking at careers in the building industry or people who are looking at a career in the automotive trade, it is important that we work at developing new ways to offer quality training experiences to young people both at school and after they leave the school system.It is also important that in seeking to meet the needs of the country we make sure that we are providing quality training in those industries where it is essential—in areas like IT, for example, where we hear many people talking about the severe shortage of Australians with IT skills. Some of the people skills that are required will require IT graduates. But there are many people with IT skills at the paraprofessional level, people with practical skills in IT, that do not need full university graduate status but require skills that are more relevant and more practical for IT employers. Providing quality training experiences through the national training system is the best way to ensure that those needs of the nation are fully met.Given that there is an agreement between the government and the opposition to limit our contributions to 15 minutes, I will finish there. I commend my second reading amendment to the House, because it does place on record our concerns about the government failing to offer a level of funding which adequately addresses the training needs of the Australian nation.10000Hollis, Collin (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hollis)—Is the amendment seconded?XW4Kernot, Cheryl, MPMs Kernot—I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.12:36:0028066Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVECK6MoretonLP10—I am certain that no-one on this side of the chamber will be supporting the amendment moved by the member for Dobell, seconded by the member for Dickson and written and authorised by the Australian Education Union to the Vocational Education and Training Funding Amendment Bill 2001. Of course, it is always interesting in these debates to hear contributions from those opposite, because they generally seem to have their heart and soul very much buried in whatever the particular union in question has to say.In fact, the Australian Education Union came to see me the other week about their national TAFE campaign. I was quite pleased to speak to a representative from one of the local TAFE colleges in my electorate. I am a great believer in the TAFE system and a great believer in the whole concept of further training and the technical and educative advances that people seek for themselves. Some opt in and some do it as a result of an apprenticeship but, either way, there is no doubt that the concept of training and schooling people up to give them skills in the old and new economy is vital. That is why this government has in fact funded this sector at record levels. This is the first time ever that the budget allocation from the Commonwealth to this sector has been over $1 billion. This just goes to show that this government is getting on with the job of providing real opportunities for even more Australians to gain the skills so that they can advance themselves and indeed find a job in the area of professional interest that they may happen to have.It is always sad in the extreme to hear contributions from those opposite which completely miss the point of what is occurring in the real world and completely satisfy some within the TAFE system, generally those who are active within the union behind the TAFE lecturers, but, of course, miss completely the concept of freedom for employers and indeed employees—those who use the service—to make a choice. It completely misses the fact that there are some superb private and indeed community based providers that are offering real training, giving those who participate in training at those places the sorts of skills that are needed to reach the levels of qualifications that are required. TAFE is facing this competitive regime. In my area I have a great deal of faith in the way that TAFE is rising to the occasion. While it is just outside the electorate of Moreton, the namesake TAFE, Moreton Institute of TAFE, has a joint agreement with PARTEC, an education and training institute established by the plastics and rubber technology industry. This particular organisation has gone into Moreton TAFE and said, `Look, we are not satisfied with what you have been churning out. As far as people for our industry are concerned, we want to get the real-life examples to you. We want to provide machinery to you. We will help finance the sort of operation we think you should be undertaking and we will let the professional teaching staff adapt what they were offering to train people suitable for our industry.' There is a perfect example of industry meeting some of the challenges that are always upon organisations like TAFE to keep up-to-date and to keep moving forward.The Australian Education Union's response to Schofield was reported in the Australian TAFE Teacher in August 2000. They were concerned that the historical TAFE monopoly on apprenticeship training had been broken and that recognised training was now being offered by multiple training providers of variable capability and multiple sites of variable quality. The great problem with that particular point is that, in order to get a certificate, you have to reach a `quality', you actually have to reach a standard. Anybody who is walking around with accreditation in a particular area—whether or not they have been trained at TAFE—all have to meet the same standard. If those opposite want to represent the view that what was and what always used to be must always be in the future, it really is, as I said in my opening remarks, brought about by the organised labour representatives of this whole argument, and that is the Australian Education Union. This government, I believe, has a tremendous commitment because of the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs himself. David Kemp recently visited my electorate to speak with high school students in particular. I remember very much the fishbowl roundtable—quite an amazing experience—at Clairvaux McKillop College at Upper Mount Gravatt, where the 180-strong senior body surrounded the minister, school principal and me. There were eight representatives of the student body who directly asked questions of, and made statements in a vignette sort of way to, the minister, providing examples of how they were planning their future from a school based apprenticeship basis and sharing their aspirations. We found students who are doing—which they can do in Queensland, thankfully—their senior two years over three years, which allows them the opportunity to go and get work experience. We found a student who had a school based apprenticeship; in other words, they were doing TAFE lessons one day of the week, school lessons in another part of the week and practical work in another part of the week. They were, of course, growing as young people into the profession of their choice. They were learning about life and gaining the skills that they needed.That is the sort of flexibility that this government has encouraged in the training system. Let's face it, the parlous circumstance of apprenticeships that we found when we came to office had to be addressed—and it has been addressed, in great numbers, by this government in the five and a bit years that we have been in office. We in fact now have 300,000 Australians in new apprenticeships. National Centre for Vocational Educational Research data showed that there was an estimated 303,390 new apprentices in training as at 31 March 2001. That is a record number and more than twice the number of apprenticeships in 1995. That figure alone absolutely underscores the hypocrisy of the opposition—that is the most polite way I can put it after observing the comments made earlier by the member for Dobell—because a record number, more than twice what the Australian Labor Party achieved when they were last in office, shows that there are many more young Australians gaining the opportunity to become the welder at Port Kembla, the process worker somewhere else or the production line worker at the Ford factory at Geelong. For all those examples that the member for Dobell gave, there are in fact twice as many people actively involved in gaining those opportunities. Let's face it, I come across too many examples where, in what I think were pretty standard areas in years past such as toolmaking, there is a recognised shortage of qualified toolmakers in this country. My father was a toolmaker and did his apprenticeship a few years ago now but he was very well qualified. It is frustrating to know that the sorts of things that my father learned when he was in his teens and into his early 20s and the apprenticeship that he had all those years ago have not been afforded to as many Australians as they should have been. Under this government, more and more are gaining that. 7K6Entsch, Warren, MPMr Entsch—I am a fitter-welder.CK6Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVE—The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources at the table is a fitter-welder. It is obvious always on this side of the chamber that the workers, the people who have actually gone and done things—have actually been on the factory floor or involved in productive activities—are always on this side of the chamber. We find the academics and the union professionals all too often opposite—all too often. It is that kind of influence from this side of politics in government decision making that is ensuring that the tradition of the apprentice and the fact that more young Australians are given opportunities—in fact, that is part and parcel of what this government is doing—will continue in the overall area of education and training.The minister was finally able to get agreement with the states just last week, having suggested to the states that there was a cut-off point if they did not reach agreement—they were in fact going to lose some of the opportunity for growth funds. Yes, it was a real carrot and stick approach, and it worked. It is tremendous to see that for 2001 the total sum going into my state of Queensland is $162.65 million, which is a lot of money. The Queensland government have been forced to match the $9.34 million growth. I am pleased that they have been, because the Queensland government are an equal partner in any of the TAFE activities—in fact, they are more responsible because they set so many of the programs that are made available to students through the various TAFE colleges in my area.There are so many good people who work in the TAFE colleges at Yeronga and Moreton who understand clearly the sorts of things that they would like to be able to do but are greatly frustrated by the lethargic nature of the people at head office who run training and further education in Queensland—the lethargic nature of keeping the curriculum up to date. They are not at all surprised by the fact that private training providers are kicking in and providing what industry wants at a quicker rate than can be the case through the state based system.The Australian Education Union are apparently circulating flyers around TAFE colleges at the moment. What is particularly sad about their decision to circulate a flyer with only half the story on it—targeting the Commonwealth's contribution to TAFE—is that they are letting the various state governments off scot-free. It is the same as what they did with regard to general education funding. This government has put record amounts of money into assisting state school operations, as well as providing a far better system with a greater sense of justice for the parents who contribute to meeting the cost of sending their kids to poor Catholic system schools in my own electorate—St Brendan's at Moorooka, St Bernard's at Upper Mount Gravatt or St Elizabeth's at Ekibin. The cost of the choice that they make is being better supported by this government. Moreover, parents of students at state schools—my own children go to state schools—now know that they have a Commonwealth government that is in fact meeting the cost of education in those Queensland government schools to a greater level than has ever been the case before.Madam Deputy Speaker Kelly, you are also from Queensland. You understand the hypocrisy that is practised by those members opposite; you understand the hypocrisy that is practised by the Australian Education Union as they use young children to get propaganda to condemn this fine federal government and its efforts with regard to education. I am sure that you would join with me in expressing concern that the TAFE system is now being subjected to exactly the same kind of misleading nonsense by exactly the same union whose sole purpose is to have the member for Dobell as the education minister in a Labor government. It is a would-be Labor government that cannot qualify for one moment where the money is coming from to meet the cost of the obligations that they are making often behind closed doors and behind cupped hands all around this country. The magic pudding economics of those opposite got us into trouble before. When you hear the member for Dobell in here complaining about cuts in the first couple of budgets of this government, every one of those cuts— XW4Kernot, Cheryl, MPMs Kernot—It is true.CK6Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVE—The member for Dickson says it is true. Member for Dickson, you were in the other place and you—as the then Leader of the Democrats before you swam away to join the Labor ship—had the opportunity to assist this country in a far greater way than you ever did in preventing the sort of debt level that the previous government generated. In fact, every time you hear the word `cuts' of any form to any allocation, the blame for cutbacks is always sheeted home to the Australian Labor Party, because they clocked up a $96 billion debt in the household that is the Commonwealth of Australia. They clocked up this massive debt and left young Australians—people as young as my own children, people who are apprentices today—with the circumstance of debt around their neck. Unless this government had shown the sort of responsible economic management that it had to show to get rid of that debt, and fast, this country would be in a very parlous state indeed. When those members opposite come in here and complain about cuts to government expenditure in the early years of this government, we must remind everybody that the cuts were brought about because of the poor standard of understanding of how the economy works which is in fact evidenced every day by the sorts of questions that are asked of the Treasurer and the Prime Minister by those members opposite.The Vocational Education and Training Funding Amendment Bill 2001 is very important. This bill is about providing record amounts of funding to a very important area, an area that was left languishing under the previous Labor Party, an area that this government has improved tremendously, providing opportunities to well over 300,000 Australians—double what they had in 1995. Despite their massive debt, they never directed into this sector the sort of funds that this government is. Therefore, I am happy to support the legislation and, in doing so, praise the ongoing personal effort and commitment of the minister, Dr David Kemp.12:51:0028069Kernot, Cheryl, MPMs KERNOTXW4DicksonALP00—At the outset, let me say that I have not had a single word of information from the AEU, nor have I spoken to the AEU about any of the comments I intend to make on the Vocational Education and Training Funding Amendment Bill 2001. I do not need to; I am quite capable of forming my own opinions by wide reading and by looking around with my own eyes at the places I visit as shadow minister. When it comes to believing the words of those opposite, I am reminded that the minister we are talking about, the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, is the minister who told us earlier that youth unemployment had halved under the coalition government. When this statement was made, youth unemployment had in fact fallen by 0.5 per cent—7,300 people—over five years. If we had taken the minister's assertions at face value, it would have taken another 29 years at the same rate of reduction for his statement to be true. We do see an awful lot of fiddling around and demonising by those members opposite. You never hear them talk about the NFF, ACCI or the Master Builders. 7K6Entsch, Warren, MPMr Entsch—Wonderful organisations.XW4Kernot, Cheryl, MPMs KERNOT—They never lobby, do they? They never have an opinion! They never put out flyers! It only happens with the old AEU! Let us have a look at the coalition government's record on training. It was Labor that introduced the ANTA agreement back in 1992, because we have a commitment to national frameworks and because we believed that, to get some agreement to move this country forward, it was very important to have some transferable, mobile skills. The first thing the coalition did when they got into government was to slash funding for ANTA. The member for Moreton does not like us to talk about cuts. Of course, it was Labor's fault that the Howard government made the choices that it did in the 1996 budget. In the 1996 and 1997 budgets, $240 million was taken out. Much of this was through the notorious growth through efficiencies dividend, another little piece of coalition ideology. The 1998 ANTA agreement locked in these funding cuts, as it was established at a lower base level of funding. After five years of funding being below what it would have otherwise been, the government have come back with an offer that is $10 million less than what they took out. That is the government's true record on training.Let us go back and look at this ideology of growth through efficiencies. What was the government's rationale for this? I recall them saying at the time that somehow, magically, by reducing the amount of money they put into training, they could force a more efficient use of resources and create more places at the same time—and that you could do this infinitely, so that is where you could make all these savings. While some commentators and some TAFE administrators have said that some of the disciplines of growth through efficiencies were good for them, it is very flawed to conclude that this kind of underfunding can go on infinitely. What in fact happened was that there was a significant decline in the quality of training—and that is what matters. This was starkly identified in the Schofield reports. If you want to take the coalition's usual lowest common denominator level of measurement of anything, and that is the dollar rate, the hourly expenditure on training declined significantly. In 1996 it was $11.24 per course hour and today it is $9.82 per course hour. That might not be a bad thing if, for this lower price, you were getting a better product or at least an equal product. Unfortunately, as I think the evidence now shows, this has also corresponded to a decline in quality. We often hear about household budgets in here; we always look for different ways of doing things. If we can improve ways of doing things, okay, let us do them. But there is a bottom line. You simply cannot keep taking lots of money out and at the same time expect there to be more places and no decline in the quality provided. This government—the evidence is in now—has presided over a policy for dumbing down the quality of education, both vocational and ordinary education, in this country. It has presided over what I call el cheapo training. I see a lot of this in my employment portfolio. Some Job Network providers either fail to offer the kind of training I am talking about or put up only a very minimal version of it as an alternative to quality training. I am pleased to say that Dr Kemp has abandoned his growth through efficiencies policy. Maybe he understands that you cannot get infinite efficiencies. You just cannot—and you cannot get infinite productivity either. He has had to be forced every step of the way to provide any growth money at all to this vital sector. Last year there was not one extra dollar for training provided through ANTA, despite significantly rising demand. This is what I think is the important point. It should not be about playing politics. In March of this year, to stop VET from collapsing, Dr Kemp came to the states—JT4Bailey, Fran, MPFran Bailey—What's this?XW4Kernot, Cheryl, MPMs KERNOT—We are talking about a national framework, the need for cooperation and the need for sufficient funding for rising training needs in this country. When Dr Kemp came back with his new funding offer, everyone was stunned by its miserliness. His offer would have provided an extra $13 per student per year in the first year and then only an additional $3 per student per year after that. What can you buy with that that is meaningful? With an election looming and the states unable to sign up for an agreement that would see TAFE continuing to turn away thousands of students every year, Dr Kemp came back with another offer. This was for an average of $77 million per year over the next three years. People on the other side say that this has been a most generous government. If you look at the value of this offer, it will not go very far to give places to the 45,000 Australians who are turned away from TAFE colleges every year. That is 45,000 Australians who could have had training but probably do not as a result of this. It does not go very far. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources, who is at the table, said that ACCI is a wonderful body. It is. And it has called for $130 million a year extra for vocational education and training, just for industry training, to cope with increased demand. It does not go very far compared to ANTA, which has calculated that it needs $150 million a year to keep up with demand. It is not responsible not to keep up with demand and to ignore demand. To add insult to injury, the funding was made conditional on states matching the funding. At the beginning we are told: `Oh, it's Labor's fault. We had to make all these cuts. We didn't have any priorities of our own; we just cut everything.' And now it's the states' fault because they have that wonderful bottomless pit of a GST! So the Commonwealth does not have to show the national leadership that is so required if we are to have in place a truly national framework of training. States are now asked to sign up and cough up the money that should have been there in the first place. What I think we can object to most of all is the re-dressing and the rebadging that says, `Aren't we wonderful for giving you back less than the money that we took out in the first place.'Then there is the matter of user choice. There is so much euphemistic misinformation used by members opposite about choice. Whether it is about public versus independent schools or public provision and private provision of training, there are some fundamentals. There is always a role for public provision because private providers will not go where there is no money to be made—JT4Bailey, Fran, MPFran Bailey—Parents have a right to choose.XW4Kernot, Cheryl, MPMs KERNOT—and there is a responsibility of governments to make sure not only that that public sector is available but also that it is adequately and appropriately funded. Despite the interjection that it is about people's right to choose, not everybody actually has economic choice. That is why it is the role of government to make sure that there is a strong and appropriately funded public sector, to make sure that that choice is there for those who do not have the same economic choice as those people whom those opposite champion usually seem to. We have seen, in the use of the enrolment benchmark adjustment in education, funding leaving the public sector and finding its way into the private sector. I was very interested to hear the member for Moreton say he thought the TAFE in his electorate was fantastic. That is what you find from those opposite: their one local TAFE is always fantastic but the national system and the funding for that national system is of course not required and not a major priority.Training is not just about this one-off debate here about this particular amount of money. I think we really need to talk more about a different kind of approach to training—a more seamless approach, a continuum of training—and we need to do a better job of integrating the Job Network.JT4Bailey, Fran, MPFran Bailey—That's what Jobs Pathway is about—a seamless approach.XW4Kernot, Cheryl, MPMs KERNOT—That only works in one little area. And that was our idea too. I am glad to say that in the budget some steps were taken to address the lack of training in Work for the Dole and the lack of quality accredited training being provided by Job Network providers. The money does not come on stream for at least 16 months, and $800 is only a start. Nevertheless, it does address a major defect that has been out there in the whole training continuum in this country. On top of that, I think the funding model that has been set up means that there is a disincentive for one organisation to refer an individual to another part of the continuum in case it means a lower payment from the government to them. We need to address that. Most of all, we really do need to have a nationally recognised training system. This should be the top priority for any government. We are a nation of only 19 million people. We are an innovative, entrepreneurial lot and we should be doing a much better job of ensuring that people can move freely between the states in search of employment or in search of training opportunities without having to go through the most enormous rigmarole of paperwork to have their qualifications recognised.I want to finish by pointing to the skill shortages in this country. Labor's Workforce 2010 research found that 60 per cent of all new jobs in Australia would require a post-school qualification. This figure is made very stark by the fact that only 40 per cent of the current adult population have a post-school qualification. No wonder there is rising demand. There is huge need—huge, huge need. It is ironic that at a time of rising unemployment there are still so many occupations that cannot fill their positions. It is not because people are job snobs. It is because the vacancies are skilled vacancies that require qualifications to perform. You cannot just turn up and be a chef simply because you have had a bit of practice cooking breakfast. You actually have to have some training as a chef. Australia currently has skilled vacancies in, amongst other things, child care and nursing and for pharmacists, motor mechanics, chefs, hairdressers and nurses, according to the department of employment's latest skilled vacancy survey. That is what our imperative has to be: a training system that responds, and responds as quickly as possible, to these ongoing skill shortages. If we do not, we count the cost in other ways—in higher unemployment.Labor will pass this bill. We do not want to see TAFE teachers' salaries put in jeopardy or students' schedules disrupted. But at the next election this government will have to stand on its record with regard to training, and I think there will be a lot to be said. The Australian public are very well aware of the longer term consequences of massive cuts to public infrastructure and the consequences that has for delivery of service. We have seen tens of thousands of students miss out on courses. The Australian public will not be fooled by a government that comes back five years later and lauds its own generosity for giving back less money than it took out of the system. Dr Kemp's offer does not make up for five years of neglect. More importantly, it does not meet the growth in demand that the vocational sector is experiencing. It does nothing to integrate Australia's training system into one coherent organisation that is responsive to the needs of the jobs of tomorrow.13:07:0028072Bailey, Fran, MPFRAN BAILEYJT4McEwenLP10—The Vocational Education and Training Funding Amendment Bill 2001 will give effect to the proposed new Australian National Training Authority agreement for 2001 to 2003. It will also appropriate funds for vocational education and training for the year 2002 and provide growth funding in 2001 and 2002 to the states and territories who have endorsed the ANTA agreement. In the 2001-02 budget it was announced that the Commonwealth would make available to the states and territories, over and above the base funding, $230 million of growth funding for 2001 to 2003. This was contingent on the acceptance of the ANTA agreement by the states and territories. As of 8 June all the states and territories have sensibly recognised the value of this agreement and have agreed to it in principle. It is quite disgraceful to think that the Labor states previously refused to sign up to the previous Commonwealth offers of funding. While they may have been scoring very cheap political points, they were actually placing at risk the skill level that the previous speaker, the member for Dickson, said that she was so concerned about. By choosing to play party politics, they actually showed that they had little interest in or regard for the people that they were claiming to represent, jeopardising—and in some cases denying—education and training opportunities to those most in need. Frequently, these are young people from areas like the one I represent in regional and rural Australia. If the Labor states had rejected the Commonwealth's offer and refused to share in the responsibility for funding growth, they would have forgone over $206 million in Commonwealth growth funding, money for the funding of extra training places. The government has strong support from industry and the business community, which recognise the necessity and advantages of having a well-funded national training system. Contrary to the assertions that the member for Dickson was making in this chamber—and I was paying very close attention to what she said—the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry stated that they have:... urged the Federal Government to provide leadership in this important area and they have delivered.ACCI is not a body that makes comments like that lightly, so I certainly urge those opposite, and in particular the member for Dickson, to pay regard to the accurate statements of ACCI. The new ANTA agreement will help create more than 100,000 new training places, including 20,000 new apprenticeships over the next three years. There will be uniform arrangements for registering and auditing training organisations—again one of the points that the member for Dickson was raising in her speech. This is actually being achieved. Young people can be assured that they will have the highest quality training programs available to them.Another report, released by the National Centre for Vocational Education Research, entitled Australian apprenticeships: facts, fiction and future, found that 90 per cent of new apprentices are employed three months after completion and the participation of teenagers in new apprenticeships increased from 5.7 per cent in 1995 to 7.5 per cent in the year 2000. The national vocational education and training strategy document A bridge to the future: Australia's national strategy for vocational education and training 1998-2003, which was developed by ANTA, states that to improve international competitiveness, to foster economic growth and to increase productivity Australia must build its national stock of skills. Importantly, vocational education and training deals with the training needs of young people making the transition from school to work. VET courses set out with the primary aim of developing the skills, knowledge and attitudes that employers want. One of the primary concerns of the VET field has become how to fit working people to the demands of employers. Importantly, participants in VET courses will develop abilities that employers want and are willing to pay for.Not everyone has the desire to attend university for higher education, but it must be remembered that those with lower levels of education are more likely to experience unemployment and be discouraged from seeking to undertake further learning and education. Research has shown that up to 15,000 16- to 17-year-olds alone are at risk of dropping out of study or training for life, and that is estimated to cost Australia around $1.1 billion a year. While it is important to quantify that in economic terms, what is far more difficult is actually realising the damage and the devastation that that wreaks on the lives of young people which cannot be measured. That is why vocational education and training programs have been so vital in rural electorates such as mine. As Kilpatrick and Bell noted in their study of vocational education and training in rural areas, establishing VET in rural schools provides an opportunity to assist with the creation and enhancement of links between people living in rural communities. There is enormous potential for developing mutually beneficial partnerships between schools, local businesses and regional and rural industries. There are a number of innovative programs in Australia which have been jointly established by schools, local business and community leaders and which have led to the reinvigoration of local economic activities and the re-engagement of local young people in meaningful work. In my own electorate, to just give one very quick example, students from Mansfield Secondary College participated in a vocational education and training project and, of the 16 students taking part, 15 signed training agreements after the successful completion of their training. It is also vital that schools cater for the education and training needs of all of their students—including the 70 per cent who do not go straight on to university—and provide a variety of pathways into the work force. The Commonwealth government is committed to helping provide genuine alternative pathways from school to further education, training and employment for all young people. Schools have traditionally focused on pathways to universities, but the expansion of vocational education and training in schools is an important way of better meeting the employment and career aspirations of many, many students, including those who do not plan to go on to university.Participation in VET in schools programs and skills based new apprenticeships has gained momentum right across Australia over the last few years with the injection of Commonwealth funding. The number of students undertaking VET in schools programs rose to a projected level of 167,000 in the year 2000, up from around 60,000 students in 1996. That one statistic alone puts paid to many of the negative comments that members of the opposition have contributed in this debate, especially the previous speaker, the member for Dickson. She painted this picture of doom and gloom, when in actual fact the numbers have increased and are increasing and the runs are on the board. It is not important just for a government to be able to get up and brag about how successful the programs have been; it is so important for individual young people and the effect that has on their lives within their own communities.It cannot be stressed often enough that young people must be given every opportunity to develop the skills and knowledge that will allow them to gain employment and embark on career paths that are both productive and satisfying to the needs of young people. In 2001 there are currently over 1.65 million people undertaking vocational education and training in Australia. This is an increase of over 400,000 since the government took office in March 1996. Again, that is a statistic that cannot be denied and it cannot be overlooked. In terms of individual achievement for young people, it is immeasurable. Recent figures released by the National Centre for Vocational Education Research estimate that the number of new apprentices in training on 31 March 2001 was 303,390, which represents an 11.2 per cent increase over the previous year. Wouldn't it have been good if members of the opposition had simply come into this chamber, put their political differences aside and said, `We want to give credit where it is due; we want to acknowledge the fantastic effort that has been made for the benefit of so many hundreds of thousands of young Australians'? I guess that is just too much to hope for. But I must say that that is what the people I represent want to hear, and it would be so refreshing if only it could happen.To give you some figures from my own electorate, there have been 2,485 New Apprenticeships positions since 1997—and I am very, very proud of that. I am proud to stand here as a member of a government that has placed such emphasis on training and opening up opportunities for the young people in particular that I represent. This figure is just so much better than when the opposition were last in government. As the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs has pointed out, apprenticeships were nearly dead when this government took office in 1996, and look at the story today.This government has now more than doubled this figure and continues with its own commitment to build on the work that has already been done. Recent findings show that almost half of all teenagers in the full-time work force are in an apprenticeship. We could not say that before 1996. Data from the national contracts of training database shows that between 1996 and 1999 there were more than 30 additional occupations in which apprenticeships and traineeships were undertaken—in other words, this is matching what is happening out in the work force with the apprenticeships. It is matching a very fast changing workplace. Many of the businesses providing apprenticeship and new employment opportunities are small businesses. The ABS in 1998 found that in 1996-97 small enterprises contributed 508,000 positions, or 53 per cent of total job generation. In 1998, 88 per cent of all apprentice and trainee commencements were attributable to small enterprises. NCVER conducted research that showed small enterprises, and their group training surrogates, are important employers of apprentices and trainees. Further work completed in the United States and Europe has shown that small enterprises continue to develop the majority of employment opportunities, and the Australian data supports these findings. Australia now rates fourth in the world, just behind Switzerland, Germany and Austria, in coverage of the work force by the apprenticeship system. Australia ranks well ahead of countries like Finland, Norway, France, the United Kingdom and the United States. The recent budget announced funding of over $2 billion for New Apprenticeships and incentives, including an additional $1.5 billion in incentives for employers to take on new apprentices and extra incentives for those in rural and regional areas.I realise that I am about out of time and I will conclude on just one note. The previous speaker, the member for Dickson, talked about the importance of having a seamless approach. Either she has not heard or the opposition is simply wanting to downplay the importance of the Jobs Pathway Program, which specifically targets students at that year 9, year 10 level, which is the most dangerous time for students to fall through the net, leaving school when opportunities are not opened up to them. Vocational education was not promoted in the past. This government, I am proud to say, has changed all of that. It is a very successful story right across, I am pleased to say, my electorate in particular but the nation as a whole. I have no hesitation in supporting the measures contained in this bill.13:23:0028075Worth, Trish, MPMs WORTH8V5AdelaideLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs10—I would like to thank those who have contributed to this important debate today. The Vocational Education and Training Funding Amendment Bill 2001 before the House will amend the Australian National Training Authority Act 1992 to give effect to the new ANTA agreement. It will also amend the Vocational Education and Training Funding Act 1992 to reflect the Commonwealth's commitment of extra funding. This bill is great legislation and, despite what the opposition have had to say, it is all good news. On 8 June all the state and territory ministers with responsibility for vocational education and training met and agreed in principle to the new ANTA agreement, which provides substantial additional funding to the VET sector. In fact, I have been told by more than one source that, at the end of this meeting, there was an outbreak of applause from the ministers present.MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr Lee—But they weren't applauding David, though. 8V5Worth, Trish, MPMs WORTH—They were; they were very grateful and they were very pleased with the outcome of the meeting—and so they should be. For the first time ever, funding will, under the ANTA agreement, in 2001 exceed $1 billion a year. This staggering amount represents an all-time high for the vocational education and training sector. This bill is about increased funding for vocational education and training and I am delighted to see that that is the case.However, it seems that, whenever the opposition talks about education, it just talks about the level of funding and not about outcomes and how to achieve the best results. However, this government is also concerned about attention to detail and places great emphasis on outcomes. The opposition has no credibility when it comes to figures. Its reputation in this area has been completely shattered. Last week the Leader of the Opposition—and I do hope the shadow minister did not provide him with the figures—set out to talk down Australia's skills, talents and inventiveness. He used out-of-date and selective data to—and I quote—`paint a picture of a country in deep decline', as Glenn Milne put it in Monday's Australian. As Glenn Milne rightly pointed out, that is not the view of the OECD nor is it the view of other independent bodies. Whenever the opposition talks about funding, it never talks about where the money will come from. It is a bit like the cargo cult or Field of dreams economics mentality of `build it and they'll just come' that Alan Wood wrote about in the Australian yesterday. Instead of dreaming up figures, I suggest opposition members check the report Australian apprenticeships: facts, fiction and future by the National Centre for Vocational Education and Research, which is an independent national vocational education and training research centre and, I would argue, more credible than the Chifley Research Centre. The shadow minister and the opposition have talked about quality. There is a story that the opposition should know. DETYA published a report on outcomes for completed traineeships in December last year. The report was titled Completed traineeships: a longitudinal survey of outcomes. The report presented an analysis of the outcomes of 2,000 successful trainees. Of the 2,000 trainees who completed their traineeship in the March quarter of 1997, prior to New Apprenticeships, and who were surveyed for the report, more than 80 per cent were employed one year after completing their traineeship. Almost three-quarters were employed throughout the entire year following completion, and half were still employed by their traineeship employer one year after completion. Most of the completing trainees were overwhelmingly positive about their placement, with nearly all—about 90 per cent in fact—agreeing that the traineeship and the skills provided were valuable. This also diminishes those claims made by the member for Dickson.The ANTA agreement was a major milestone for vocational education and training in Australia and should be celebrated by all of us here today. Under the agreement, all states and territories will share responsibility for increasing training opportunities. It is about the Commonwealth working with the states and territories in partnership. The economy needs highly skilled people to enable it to be innovative and competitive in a global economy, and individuals need worthwhile, skill-rich career paths. The new agreement will deliver both. Unlike Labor, our concern is for the consumers and clients—not just the providers.In this year alone the Commonwealth will provide an additional $21.33 million to meet its commitment to maintain base funding in real terms. It will also provide up to $50 million in additional growth funding for those states and territories that have endorsed the new agreement and satisfy its provisions.The appropriation for 2002 includes up to $75 million in growth funding under the agreement. Indexation for 2002 will be appropriated next year. It also includes some $3.412 million as part of the Australians Working Together—Helping People Move Forward package. In total, the recent federal budget provided more than $72 million extra funding over four years for vocational education and training places for people with a disability and those affected by changes to the income support arrangements under the working together package. This is a very clear signal that the Commonwealth is prepared to play its part in helping disadvantaged people to succeed in the labour market.As well as helping to increase vocational education and training participation for people with a disability, the funding is intended to provide additional opportunities to help parents return to work and to improve the job prospects of mature aged people. To complement the funding through ANTA for additional places, the budget also provided new funding to the Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs for a disability coordination officer program to assist in meeting needs identified in Bridging pathways, the national strategy and blueprint for people with a disability in vocational education and training. Additional to the funding provided under ANTA arrangements is the new training credit scheme that will be funded through the Commonwealth employment portfolio. This is intended to assist unemployed people to meet the up-front costs of participating in mainstream education and training, and remove financial disincentives to participation for this group through the various TAFE fee relief schemes. It is about giving people with limited means a fair chance to take up the training places that are on offer. People who need skills to obtain and remain in jobs are already a priority for the vocational education and training system. In 1999, around one in six people completing a TAFE course was unemployed when they began their training. It is pleasing to note that after their course 88 per cent of the surveyed TAFE graduates were either employed or undertaking further study. Vocational education and training is by no means only about helping the disadvantaged. A key element of the new ANTA agreement is innovation. Australia has made considerable advances in competing in the international economy, but it cannot continue to do so unless we foster inventiveness and creativity. Under the new agreement, states and territories will prepare annual innovation strategies. These will include, for example, the states assessment of industry requirements and show the shifts in training effort to support emerging industries, uptake of training packages in information technology and other new technologies, and the development of new links between vocational education and training and industry in cutting edge industry areas. This is an important investment in Australia's future.Another key element of the agreement is, of course, continued growth in new apprenticeships. Over 300,000 people are now new apprentices. The latest estimate by the National Centre for Vocational Education Research is that there were 303,390 new apprentices in training as at 31 March this year. This is a record number and more than twice as many as there were in 1995. It is estimated that nearly 45 per cent of all teenagers who are employed full time are now employed as new apprentices, providing them with confidence and opportunities for the future. According to the National Centre for Vocational Education, Australia's New Apprenticeships system now represents a bigger share of the labour market than any country except Switzerland, Germany and Austria. We are now well ahead of any other English speaking nation and set to become world leaders as a result of the decisions of this government—not that one would see such an optimistic view if one listened in to what the opposition had to say in these areas. New apprenticeships in rural and regional areas have increased at a phenomenal rate, growing from over 50,600 in December 1995 to over 99,000 in training in December 2000. This is a real boost to the skills development within communities that is fundamental to regional and local development. It is vital that this momentum is not lost. The focus on new apprentices under the new ANTA agreement will ensure that it is not. To back up the continued expansion of this highly successful initiative, the budget provided funding of almost $2 billion over the next four years for New Apprenticeships, including $1.5 billion for incentives for employers and assistance to new apprentices and $318 million for New Apprenticeships centres. It also included $81.9 million for the New Apprenticeships Access program, which helps people to bring their skills up to the standard they need to tackle a new apprenticeship.New apprenticeships are not the only sector of vocational education and training that has been expanded. There are so many very good stories that one could tell, but I understand that there is a level of cooperation being exhibited in a bipartisan way to ensure that this and other legislation passes through the chamber today, so I just reiterate that this is all good news. It is great for not only the young people of Australia but those who wish to upgrade their skills, those who wish to get ahead in a changing world. Approaches are now being taken to ensure that there is a more national approach—that the states and territories will agree that there will be some common standards so that when people cross borders to work, or for businesses that have businesses in various states, the qualifications will be the same. I commend this bill to the House. Amendment negatived.Original question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.28078Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.Bill (on motion by Ms Worth) read a third time.Bills28078The following bill was returned from the Senate without amendment or request:Export Market Development Grants Amendment Bill 2001Bills28078R133028078Debate resumed from 7 June, on motion by Dr Kemp:That the bill be now read a second time.13:38:0028078Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—I understand there is an agreement between the government and the opposition that my contribution will be limited to 15 minutes, which I will attempt to stick to. The Higher Education Funding Amendment Bill 2001 does a number of things: it seeks to provide base funding for universities for 2003, it implements a number of budget measures, it varies maximum funding levels for a number of years to reflect higher HECS receipts and the Commonwealth superannuation liability, and it amends the Australian Research Council Act 2001 to provide base funding until 2003. It is not hard to understand why the government would not want a proper debate on higher education. First, they tried to debate this bill cognately with the Innovation and Education Legislation Amendment Bill 2001, and then they bumped it until after two other pieces of legislation. They have no speaker of their own on the bill, other than the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs. This bill is going to make a number of changes—BT4Kemp, Dr David, MPDr Kemp—Are there other speakers on your side?MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr LEE—If you would like a few more, we can arrange it. The minister does not seem to understand that there was an agreement between the government and the opposition that there would be only one speaker. If the minister is seeking to upset the arrangements, I will speak for my full 30 minutes and then I will ask as many of my colleagues as possible to contribute to this debate. If that is what the minister wants to do, we are happy to meet the minister's intention to have as long a debate as possible on higher education irrespective of the polite requests from the Chief Government Whip, who is a much easier person to deal with than the minister at the table. Here is the Chief Government Whip seeking to come in and rescue the minister. He has administered some caution to the minister at the table, and it is good to see that we are going to stick to that 15-minute time agreement. The point we want to make is that there are important issues about the future direction of higher education in Australia, and this bill does not address the crisis that faces higher education in Australia today. Why is it in crisis? This government has cut $3 billion from university funding. That is why the OECD figures show that Australia's university enrolment rate increased at only six per cent from 1995 to 1999, the third lowest and well below the average growth of 23 per cent. It is also the reason why the OECD figures show that Australia was one of only five countries to actually cut public investment in universities and that a reduction of five per cent was the second worst performance in the OECD. So $3 billion has been cut from higher education funding by decisions that have been made by this government. That $3 billion could have funded many extra places in higher education at universities around the country. As the government has implemented its 1996 budget decisions to virtually double the HECS fees for Australian undergraduate students, we have seen the Commonwealth's own direct investment in higher education fall quite dramatically. If the Howard government had simply maintained its own direct investment in university funding at 1996 levels, there would have been an extra 21,000 undergraduate places in 1997, an extra 39,000 places in 1998, an extra 45,000 in 1999, an extra 52,000 in 2000 and an extra 54,000 places this year. Imagine how many of the member for Grayndler's constituents could have had the opportunity to study at university if the Howard government had maintained its direct investment in higher education. The people of Caboolture would have had a QUT campus up and running if this government had maintained funding for its own direct investment in higher education at the 1996 levels. It just goes to show what a joke it was for the government to allocate 21,000 extra places over five years in the innovation statement and a little more than 5,000 places in the budget. Those figures are really quite pathetic when compared to the impact of the cuts the government has made to its investment in higher education.One thing we have learned in all of these debates on education is that you just cannot believe anything that this minister for education says. He is the master blaster for distorting figures. He is the person who is expert at twisting figures to seek to say the exact opposite of their real meaning. There is a good example of that in the newspapers today. There has been a debate about what the staff-student ratios are in Australian universities. They have been worsening quite rapidly, especially in the last five years. We all know that, if you increase the number of students compared with the number of staff, it is that much harder for students to get the quality learning experience they are entitled to at an Australian university. If the number of students in tutorials doubles or if there is massive overcrowding in the lecture halls, it affects the ability of those students to get the education which they deserve. The latest DETYA figures show that the staff-student ratios are now around 18 to one; there are 18 students for each staff member. Yet the minister for education has been so misleading that in the last couple of days he has issued a press release claiming that the actual figure is that contained in an incorrect OECD report which claims that it is only 11.8 in Australia. His own press release contains this misleading figure. It must be quite humiliating for the minister to have John Mullarvey, the Chief Executive Officer of the Australian Vice-Chancellors' Committee, write to the editor of the Australian and say, as was published today:In 2000 there were 552,689 equivalent full-time students in 38 universities being taught by 29,332 full-time staff. Dividing the student number by the staff one results in a figure of 18.84 students for every teacher. These figures are compiled from data collected by DETYA and available to the public.The minister put out a press release this week claiming that the student-staff ratio is 11.8 to one when his own department's figures prove that it is more than 18 to one. Is it any wonder that no-one believes the claims made by this minister? In fact, the secret cabinet submission in October 1999 had the minister himself stating, `Higher student-staff ratios were fuelling a perception of declining quality.' What the minister refuses to admit in public he confirms in private in the leaked secret cabinet submission—there is an impact because of the increasing numbers of students for each of the staff in our universities.The problem is that this government is simply not addressing the funding crisis it has created in universities. The reason the minister has not addressed it in this budget or in the last couple of years since that leaked cabinet submission is that this man has a plan in his bottom drawer. This minister still has that leaked cabinet submission in his bottom drawer, and that seeks to deregulate undergraduate university fees for Australian students, introduce a voucher system of funding to study at universities, and replace HECS with a real interest rate loan. The minister at the table laughs and thinks that this is a past adventure that he went on and for which he was slapped down by the Prime Minister after there was such a massive reaction that he was forced to back off. The truth is that—and I am sure every person in the public gallery here today knows this—if the coalition is re-elected in December, even if there is a Labor member in the electorate of Cowper, this minister will be seeking to ensure that that plan in the bottom drawer is back out on the table. This is a minister who has set out on a strategy for five years to starve Australian universities of funding, and then he wants us to believe that the only way to solve the funding crisis is to have universities tax students by massively increasing the fees they would be required to pay. This is the minister who has also presided over a reduction of 800 research training places, especially at our newer regional and smaller campuses. That has been a significant reduction in research training places at regional universities. That is why the Labor Party has committed to cut back government advertising to fund an expansion in research training places at regional universities. We will be cutting back wasteful government advertising to create an extra 400 research training places that will be targeted at regional universities and regional campuses of other universities. Our national government is currently wasting $20 million a month on government advertising. The national government has become Australia's largest advertiser. The Prime Minister, John Howard, advertises more than Toyota, Coca-Cola, McDonald's or Kentucky Fried Chicken. Is it any wonder that we can come up with better ways to spend that money? Rather than giving Kerry Packer, Kerry Stokes and the Ten Network $20 million a month in TV advertising, we believe that the government can spend that money in a much better way by investing in the future of Australians by providing more research training places in our regional universities and in the regional campuses of other universities. We also believe that, by providing extra funding to those universities, such as the Southern Cross University, we can ensure that they have better access to communications links at a similar cost to those available to their metropolitan counterparts.Another issue that is not addressed by this bill is the impact that the GST has had on HECS debts for a million students. There are one million past and present university students throughout Australia whose HECS debts were increased by the CPI on 1 June. Those students will have to repay an extra amount of up to $400 per student because the GST spike is included in the CPI calculation this year. There is an extra two per cent increase in the HECS debt of every past and present university student because of that GST spike. It means that the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs and the Prime Minister are reaching into the pockets of those one million students and taking out an extra $120 million over the time that they repay their HECS debts. That is in complete breach of the undertakings that the government gave before the last election that education would be GST free. How can you argue that education is GST free when the minister at the table is taking up to $400 from each student, or in total up to $120 million from those one million students?The alternatives that we have outlined not only address the need to have extra research training places in regional universities and extra assistance to meet the higher communication costs of regional universities but also to ensure that Australian universities are ready for the future. That is why we are proposing to establish the University of Australia Online. We have two aims with the UAO: to make Australia the world leader in the provision of online education and to have 100,000 Australian undergraduate students studying through the UAO by 2010. There are some academics who say that online learning will never be as good as on-campus study. I say this to them: if you accept that distance education students are getting a quality learning experience when they receive a videotape or a book and every now and again send back an essay, how could you not be getting a better quality learning experience through an online undergraduate or postgraduate degree where you can have regular exchanges of information with the colleagues in your class through online chat rooms and where you can email your tutor or lecturer? That is certainly much more interactive and much more likely to lead to the development of critical thinking. By establishing the University of Australia Online, we intend to ensure that more Australians will have access to the opportunity to study at a university. The minister dismisses this with a wave of his hand and says, `Oh well, we've got flexible learning taking place at Australian universities today.' The University of Australia Online is all about offering extra resources to encourage Australia's 38 public universities to keep pace with other competitor countries, or fall behind, and all about Australia being at the leading edge and showing the way, making sure that Australian universities are providing some of the world's best quality online learning experiences. That is what we intend to deliver through the University of Australia Online. For these reasons, I move the following second reading amendment:That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:“whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House condemns the Government for:(1) reducing government expenditure on universities by $3 billion and shifting the burden onto students and graduates;(2) cutting 3,500 research training places, including 800 at regional universities; and(3) continuing to work towards total university fee deregulation.”10000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Is the amendment seconded?R36Albanese, Anthony, MPMr Albanese—I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.13:54:0028081Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPMinister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—To facilitate the business of the House, I will not take undue time with these comments on the Higher Education Funding Amendment Bill 2001. The government will not be accepting the second reading amendment. We have just heard from the member for Dobell another flow of fantasy about higher education. He is completely out of touch with what is happening in the education system at the present time, and you simply cannot believe a single word that he says about the current state of the higher education system.The government's policies have led to a considerable strengthening of the higher education system. Its revenues are now at an all-time high, estimated to be $9.5 billion in 2001, which is about $1.25 billion more than they were when this government came to office. So listeners to this debate can readily evaluate the truth or otherwise of the member for Dobell's claims that this government has cut $3 billion out of universities. Its total revenues are $1.25 billion higher than when we came to office, and there has been absolutely no reduction in the level of public support for higher education. Indeed, the level of support for fully funded places has actually increased under this government.Australia is a leading nation in the knowledge economy. It is a pioneer in putting into place the requirements on which to base an economy—the ideas, the research and the knowledge of its people. Perhaps the best evidence for that is that students are flocking to Australia from all around the world to take advantage of the quality of our higher education system. Indeed, we are the third largest exporter of higher education in the world after the United States and the United Kingdom. So Australia's performance is quite remarkable.Total Commonwealth expenditure on education has increased some 17 per cent in real terms—that is, in constant dollars—during the time of the Howard government. We are ahead of the OECD average of government investment in university education, in combined government and private investment in university education and in total investment in university research and development. In all of those areas, Australian universities and the Australian government are performing well ahead of the OECD averages. In other words, we are amongst the Western world's leading countries in moving Australia into the knowledge economy. Indeed, since the OECD statistics were released, the government has announced the innovation statement. That has doubled ARC grants, increased infrastructure spending on laboratories and libraries in universities by some $583 million and provided $151 million for 2,000 extra university places a year. In all areas of school—primary and secondary—post-secondary, non-tertiary and vocational education and training institutions, Australia's investment is well ahead of the average levels of investment in the OECD. The Leader of the Opposition last week was in the humiliating position of having made a statement about his so-called knowledge nation which was quickly exposed for relying on out-of-date statistics and for failing to find any funding to support the empty rhetoric it contains. We know that the Leader of the Opposition has a plan for Australia—this plan is about the size of a postage stamp. This government has an outstanding record in moving Australia forward. I support the bill and regard this as my summing up to the debate.Amendment negatived.Original question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.28082Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.Bill (on motion by Dr Kemp) read a third time.Questions Without Notice280822808214:00:0028082Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALPLeader of the Opposition00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, how can you justify spending $20 million a month on government advertising when you were only prepared to give the ABC an extra $17 million a year? Why is spending $20 million a month to save your political skin a higher priority than adequately funding the national broadcaster?28082Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I know that there is a bit of a rally or something on in Canberra today about the ABC. True to form, when there is a rally they always drag in the opposition leader. You can always rustle up Beazley to ask a dummy question.CT4Costello, Peter, MPMr Costello—He didn't organise a riot this time, either.ZD4Mr HOWARD—Is he going to go out and address them, the way he did at a rather famous riot here a few years ago? I am nonetheless delighted, and indeed indebted to the Leader of the Opposition for asking me a question about advertising and also about the ABC. I am pleased to announce that today the Minister for Foreign Affairs has indicated that the ABC has been awarded the tender for the provision of Australia's overseas television service. I am delighted to say that, as a result of tenders put forward by the ABC and SBS and another consortium, and after a proper process to select the most appropriate, the government will provide $15 million a year over five years. I do not know whether that $15 million a year was included in the Leader of the Opposition's question or whether the material on which the question was based was out of date, as was his headland speech on knowledge last Thursday. It was a headland speech on knowledge which has been unravelling ever since.Now that the Leader of the Opposition has asked me a question about the ABC, let me say that it is very interesting that in recent weeks the Manager of Opposition Business, who is the spokesman on matters relating to the ABC, has raised the notion of tied funding to the ABC—the idea that you give them the money provided they do certain things.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—Wrong!ZD4Mr HOWARD—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition says that that is wrong. That is very interesting. In an interview with the ACT branch of the Labor leadership group, the Manager of Opposition Business is quoted in the newsletter as follows: His concern about leaving it to the ABC to determine how to dispense taxpayers funds led Bob— that is the Manager of Opposition Business, in case anybody did not know—to argue for a much more direct involvement of the government minister in identifying areas of dedicated funding. This is basically what the Labor Party have in mind if they were ever able to scramble into office and get control of the treasury bench. I simply repeat the well-known position of the government. We support an independent, adequately funded ABC. We have adequately funded the ABC. We believe in maintaining and respecting its independence. We do not always agree with its news balance or news coverage and, when we do not, we openly make known those areas where we think the ABC lacks balance.2808314:04:0028083Haase, Barry, MPMr HAASE84TKalgoorlieLP10—My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Would the Prime Minister advise the House of the government's most recent initiative to fight crime and make our communities safer? How will this initiative benefit my electorate of Kalgoorlie? What has been the response to the government's announcement?28083Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I thank the member for Kalgoorlie for his question. I am pleased to inform the House that today I launched CrimTrac, which is a national DNA database and fingerprint system. I would have thought, despite the inevitable political rivalry in this place, that the launch of a nationally coordinated initiative to fight crime, to catch criminals and to protect the innocent would draw unanimous support from across the chamber. I am pleased to say that, in making this announcement, the government has delivered in full on a commitment it made in the 1998 election to provide $50 million for a national policing information service. This service will contain over two million fingerprints, and the new fingerprint system is equal to or better than the best systems of its type in the world. I am pleased to inform the House that sites for the new fingerprint system are situated in about 40 locations. Many of these are in regional areas such as Kalgoorlie, Maitland, Ballarat, Bendigo, Wangaratta and Launceston, to ensure that police in regional areas have access to the same technology as those in the city.The new DNA database will form the most powerful high-tech weapon against crime yet introduced in Australia. Today we proclaim the necessary Commonwealth legislation covering our role in using and protecting the system. From today the technology is in place nationally for DNA profiles to be entered on the system. I congratulate those jurisdictions—notably New South Wales, the ACT and Tasmania—which have adopted the Commonwealth model legislation in forensic procedures. I urge the remaining jurisdictions to complete the review of their own legislation as a matter of priority. I thank the police commissioners of the various states and territories for their important involvement in these initiatives. The New South Wales commissioner, Mr Ryan, said that today is an important moment in the history of Australian policing, which will enhance crime prevention and community safety. In a similar vein, the newly appointed Victorian Commissioner of Police, Christine Nixon, said that CrimTrac is an excellent example of how the states and territories and the Commonwealth are working together to harness technology for the benefit of the entire Australian community.CrimTrac joins a number of other initiatives of the Commonwealth, including our sponsorship early in our term of office of national uniform gun laws and the commitment of record amounts at a national level to fight drugs, which if maintained in the future—if recent indications are reliable—will make significant inroads into the availability of heroin and other illicit substances in the Australian community. CrimTrac is great news in the fight against crime. I thank the ministers and I thank the police services of Australia for the contribution that they are making to delivering a safer community. I take this opportunity in the national parliament, on behalf of the government and the Australian community, to record our ongoing thanks to all the police services of this country, who do such a remarkably good job in protecting us against crime and in delivering a safe and secure Australian community. SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The minister does not have the call.9V5Pyne, Chris, MPMr Pyne—Mr Speaker, on a point of order: some time ago you determined that it would be allowable to bring laptops and other computer things into the chamber in order to allow people to work on them during question time.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Sturt will resume his seat. The member for Sturt will be heard in silence or I will deal with those who interject. BV5Adams, Dick, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Lyons is warned!9V5Pyne, Chris, MPMr Pyne—Some months ago you determined that it was allowable for members to bring laptops into the House to work on during question time. But there are provisions in the standing orders that stop people from displaying propaganda, newspaper headlines, et cetera in the House, and some of the more juvenile members of the ALP are now taking advantage of your earlier rulings.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Sturt will advance his point of order or I will ask him to resume his seat.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Member for Braddon, Chief Opposition Whip, member for Grayndler! I remind the member for Swan, the member for Griffith, the member for Capricornia, the member for Paterson and the member for Braddon of the standing orders, of House of Representatives Practice and of the regulations laid out by Speakers Jenkins and Child, which means that what those members are currently doing ought not to continue. They will remove those signs or I will ban laptop computers from the chamber.Honourable members interjecting—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The House will come to order. 849Sidebottom, Sid, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Braddon is warned.UU5Horne, Bob, MPMr Horne—Mr Speaker, I do not wish to question your ruling at all, but I am aware that this is being broadcast by the ABC, who will be displaying this logo.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Paterson will refer to House of Representatives Practice.2808414:11:0028084Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Minister, is it correct that funding for establishment grants—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Order! The level of conversation is far too high.R36Albanese, Anthony, MPMr Albanese—It was about as successful as your attempt to get Beattie.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Member for Grayndler! The member for Dobell has the call.MG4Mr LEE—My question is addressed to the minister for education. Minister, is it correct that funding for establishment grants for non-government schools has blown out by almost $10 million, tripling from $4 million to $14 million? Is the minister aware that his department have admitted that they knew that the grants had blown out in October last year? When was the minister told about this blow-out in extra funding for non-government schools, which is not matched by any increase for public schools? Finally, why was spending $20 million a month on advertising more important than fixing this blow-out?28084Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPMinister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—The opposition really dislikes new schools and dislikes additional funding for new schools, because that has been the traditional policy of the Australian Education Union, which calls the shots in education policy for the Labor Party. The change in funding requirements for establishment grants for new schools is simply the result of parameter changes. It is of no significance when that was first known, because the government constantly brings forward parameter changes at times when it believes that that will allow the correct funding to flow through, and that is what this government has done—brought forward legislation at this time to allow that additional funding to flow through to new schools. The parameter change occurs because there is an increasing number of students in those schools. That is why the funding is required. The only obstacle to making sure that those schools are paid and do not suffer financial disadvantage is the action of the Labor Party in the Senate delaying that legislation. This gives the lie to the claim of the member for Dobell that the only schools that would be suffering financially as a result of the Labor Party's policy are the schools on the hit list of the Leader of the Opposition, because what is now obvious is that the Labor Party is planning to impose financial disadvantage on a large number of new schools that have come into existence. Many—in fact, the vast majority—of these schools are schools serving low income communities. They include Catholic parish schools and Aboriginal community schools. And we have the Labor Party getting up in this parliament and complaining that the government is helping these schools to establish themselves and seeking to make an issue of the funding for these schools. This government will stand up for funding justice for parents in communities around Australia and will continue to oppose the efforts of the Labor Party to cut funding to needy parents and needy communities for the education of their children.2808514:15:0028085Billson, Bruce, MPMr BILLSON1K6DunkleyLP10—My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, does the federal government remain committed to the Scoresby freeway? What developments have occurred since your excellent Mother's Day announcement of Commonwealth support for the project? Are there any alternative views about the Scoresby freeway?28085Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I say in reply to the member for Dunkley that the federal government is unequivocally committed to the construction of the Scoresby freeway. In fact, the federal coalition government is the only government that is unequivocally committed to the construction of the Scoresby freeway. It is also the only side of politics in this parliament that is unequivocally committed to the construction of the Scoresby freeway. The Labor Party is not committed to the construction of the Scoresby freeway. In fact, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition described as realistic a demand of the Greens that Labor oppose the construction of the Scoresby freeway in exchange for Green preferences in the Aston by-election. I have the quote:The shadow Treasurer, Mr Simon Crean, said the opposition wanted to reach agreement with the Greens—I bet you do—in exchange for a preference deal. `We'll consider those demands. They're realistic demands. There is no question about that.'Those three `realistic demands' were a commitment from the Australian Labor Party not to construct the Scoresby freeway. Of course, the hesitation factor in the Australian Labor Party about Scoresby does not end in this parliament. It runs straight down to Spring Street in Victoria where, amongst other things, the Chief Government Whip, the member for Ivanhoe—a very powerful figure in the Victorian government—in fact told a community meeting that Labor does not really support freeways and is not committed to Scoresby.Let me make it very clear that we are committed to Scoresby and we believe that the residents of outer metropolitan Melbourne are entitled to a modicum of transport justice, and they will get it from this government. As an earnest of this government's commitment to the construction of the Scoresby freeway, I wrote on 15 June to the Premier of Victoria, Mr Bracks, making it very clear that we were unequivocally committed, in partnership with the Victorian government, to the construction of the Scoresby freeway. We are ready to enter into negotiations with Victoria. They are, of course, the constructing authority and we need their assistance. What I ask of the Labor Party in this place is that it stop opposing Scoresby and show a bit of consideration for the people who will benefit from Scoresby. I say to the Premier of Victoria: stop prevaricating on this issue, put your money where your mouth has previously been, join the Commonwealth and deliver a decent outcome for the residents of outer metropolitan Melbourne.2808614:19:0028086O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr O'CONNORWU5CorioALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, why is the government spending $6 million on a multimedia regional advertising campaign encouraging farmers to apply for AgricultureAdvancing Australia funding, when a $35,000 database of all farmers in Australia has been compiled in conjunction with the campaign and a mail-out to every farmer would have cost only $100,000? Can you confirm that, for the same cost, every Australian farmer could have received 60 letters encouraging them to apply for this funding? Wouldn't simply sending a letter to every farmer have been a better, cheaper and more targeted way of delivering this information to them?10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Corio is now advancing an argument.28086Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—As I always do with questions put by the opposition that quote figures and make assertions, I take a note of them and go away and check the context. We had the Leader of the Opposition playing that little game yesterday in relation to another matter, which I realise would be out of order for me to talk about in reply to this question. The member for Corio has asked me a question about government advertising. It is fair when you are examining the issue of government advertising that you trawl through the literature on the subject. I have been trawling through the literature on the subject and I came across a very interesting piece which was first published on 24 November 1994. It was a speech delivered by the then federal employment, education and training minister, the member for Hotham—he is now the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and has been up here asking a whole lot of questions about it—when he was launching the publicity campaign for Working Nation. This is what he had to say:This campaign is all about making sure that employers know of the training and other initiatives the Government is providing to make the long term unemployed more competitive and job ready.Three television commercials starring Bill Hunter bring home the message that long term unemployed people are ready and willing to work and that the Government is willing to help employers take on these people.It is essential that all people have access to the campaign's messages, including a national 13 11 80 phone-in Employer Information Line, providing instant access to information on what is available under the Federal Government's $10.3 billion Working Nation strategy to help employers to create new jobs.The member for Corio in his question referred to a figure of $20 million and he quoted some other figures. As I say, I will have those analysed, and if there is anything I can further supplement I will. In the course of the debate about government advertising, the opposition has flung around a number of figures about claimed expenditure by the government. One of the claims that it has flung around is that, under the auspices of the Australian Taxation Office and the federal Treasury, the government has spent in excess of $500 million on advertising the GST. That claim is absolutely and totally and comprehensively false.Let me explain to the House how that figure is false. Of that $500 million, $390.4 million, for openers, could not be classed as advertising at all. It included the following: $35 million for business skills, and that was used for the development and distribution of publications and information in other forms, including ethnic programs, the GST assist call centre and web sites, and $9 million for adviser education used to develop training material and provide seminars for informal advisers. Is the opposition suggesting that, with a tax change of the magnitude of the introduction of the GST, you do not fund or conduct any training seminars? Is it suggesting that you do not send out any accounting manuals? Is it suggesting that you do not spend any money at all on explaining it? The Leader of the of Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition are running around this country saying that it is complicated and that the government has not provided enough information. But, as soon as the government gets out there, does the right thing and provides information to consumers and small business, they are in here yelling their heads off that this is an outrageous use of government funds. But the list goes on. Another item is organisation delivered assistance of $119 million, and that was used to contract peak professional and industry organisations to develop material and deliver seminars, workshops and clinics on the new tax system, business skills and the BAS. A direct assistance of $287 million was used to deliver 1.9 million certificates to small and medium enterprises to use with registered suppliers of goods and services, which would assist in the transition to the new system. And the list goes on. What you have here is the Labor Party deliberately and falsely telling the Australian community that we are spending $500 million on advertising the GST, hoping that the Australian public would think that we have spent $500 million on television or newsprint advertisements whereas, in reality, the great bulk of that money spent under the auspices of the Treasury and the Australian Taxation Office was legitimately, with every single dollar, expended on advising the Australian people of the complexities and so forth of the new taxation system. Finally, in relation to the AAA campaign, I am informed by the department that less than one per cent of the total AAA budget commitment since 1997 has been allocated to communications activities.Distinguished Visitors2808710000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Before I recognise the member for Maribyrnong, I inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon members of a delegation from the United States of America, including representatives from the state legislatures in America. On behalf of everyone in the House, I extend to our guests a very warm welcome.Honourable members—Hear, hear!10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I should also indicate that we have present in the gallery ministers from the Singaporean parliament. The Minister for Foreign Affairs indicated that to me just a moment ago. I was unaware of that and I apologise for not having been aware of it. I extend to them a warm welcome as well.Honourable members—Hear, hear!Questions Without Notice28087QK6Sercombe, Bob, MPMr Sercombe—Mr Speaker, I would be next to ask a question.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I am not aware of having taken any action that would prevent the member for Herbert from getting the call. I had not given the call to the member for Maribyrnong.2808714:26:0028087Lindsay, Peter, MPMr LINDSAYHK6HerbertLP10—My question without notice is addressed to the Treasurer. Is the Treasurer aware of proposals to change the current tax base? Would the Treasurer inform the House of the effects of such changes on Australian families and small business?28087Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I thank the honourable member for Herbert for his question. As he would know, on this side of the House the government believes in lower income taxes, lower company taxes, lower capital gains taxes, the abolition of indirect taxes on transactions, the abolition of taxes on exports, the abolition of the indexation of excise on petrol and the abolition of the wholesale sales tax and its replacement with a broad based consumption tax. Are there any proposals to change the broad based consumption tax in this country? Well, not to the detail that one would imagine. After four years of the opposition promising us that they would have a policy of roll-back, we are still very much in the dark.I for one monitor all of the media that I possibly can to try to find out more in relation to what roll-back means. One of the pieces of information that came to me recently came from the station 846AM up in the Leichhardt electorate on 13 June. I ask the House to listen to this interview, because I think it is rather a revealing piece of information as to the state of the tax debate in Australia. This is how the interview went: COMPERE: Matt Tresize was on the program the other day. He's the endorsed ALP candidate for the seat of Leichhardt. He made the comment then that as soon as he gets some news on how this rollback procedure is going to unfold, he would get back to us. And he has done that today. He's with me on the line now. Hello Matt.MATT TRESIZE: G'day, John. How are you?COMPERE: I'm all right. What did you find out about the GST rollback?MATT TRESIZE: One of the things I found out is that we still don't have as much detail as I would like and as you and the listeners would like ...`So I am just getting back to you, John, to tell you that we don't know what our policy is yet!' Then, after getting back to him to tell him that the thing that he found out was that he could not really explain what the policy was, he went on to say:You know, if the Labor Party is successful in forming government after the election, we'll then be able to start a consultative process with the community that will decide exactly what we are going to do.In other words, `We'll announce what our policy is after the election, once we've decided it.' This is an opposition which has been opposing tax reform for four years. And what can it tell you about its policy? It can only tell you that it does not know as much about its policy as it would like to know. `I'm just getting back to you to tell you that I have found out we don't know what our policy is,' says Matt Trezise in the electorate of Leichhardt. How do you go into a ballot box in Leichhardt and vote for somebody who does not yet know what his policy is but is going to find out, if he ever gets elected, after the next election? We heard yesterday that a $4 billion unfunded roll-back would put up every person's interest bill, on an average mortgage, by $80 a month. Then the Leader of the Opposition says, `Oh, well, I won't have an unfunded roll-back. I'll fund that $4 billion of roll-back.' Let me give you the figures. If you wanted to fund $4 billion of roll-back, you would have to put up the petrol excise by 12.6c per litre. No wonder he intends to announce his roll-back after the election. The Labor Party is slipping around here, hoping it can slide into office not having been asked any of the hard questions and do a repeat of what it did in 1993. Remember how he boasted after the 1993 election: `We hid our tax policy and that is why we were entitled to hike the petrol excise.' He said, `We hid our tax policy so we were entitled to put up income taxes.' He said, `We hid our policy so we were entitled to put up company tax.' That is what happened in 1993.I remind the House of the words that the Leader of the Opposition said on the 7.30 Report on 23 February 2000. He said this:People are entitled to know where the Labor Party stands on the GST and the direction in which we are going. They are also entitled to know exactly what we do in the next term of government with a GST. People are entitled to know it and not be deceived.That is what he said in February 2000. And since then he has been engaging in massive deception.2808814:32:0028088Sercombe, Bob, MPMr SERCOMBEQK6MaribyrnongALP00—My question is directed to the Leader of the Opposition under standing order 143. Could the Leader of the Opposition advise the House why notice No. 23 standing in his name should be brought on for urgent debate forthwith?28088Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALPLeader of the Opposition00—I thank the honourable gentleman for his question. That notice, of course, is the bill that we have in place to determine the integrity of the process by which the Commonwealth does its advertising. The reason why it should come on now is that it will provide an opportunity for the Prime Minister to walk back from a well-known habit that has developed, and been noted by the Australian community, and that is of his saying one thing and doing another. Back in 1995 he said this: We will ask the Auditor General to establish a set of guidelines—about these propositions. I see the Prime Minister has turned his back on this occasion. I wonder why?and we will run all of our advertisements past the Auditor-General and they will need to satisfy those guidelines.The Prime Minister said that before the election in 1996; he said it in 1995. He has since then had an Auditor-General's report setting down a set of guidelines that responded to an earlier outrage in relation to the way in which this government used taxpayer funded advertising to feather its own nest electorally. The Auditor-General came out with that, and had endorsed by a joint parliamentary committee—both sides of the House—the sorts of guidelines entailed in this bill.The reason why it is urgent is not just to simply establish a bit of integrity here, to stop the taxpayer's pocket being picked to the tune of $120 million over the course of the next few months. The reason why it also ought to be done here is to restore a bit of integrity in the Australian political process and keep John Howard's promise. If we can stop the government right now, by the passage of this legislation right now, that $120 million would become available for things like the employment of 2,400 school teachers, it would become available for elite fellowships to keep our teachers—Honourable members interjecting—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The House will come to order.4I4McLeay, Leo, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Chief Opposition Whip! WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr Reith—I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The standing orders require an answer to a question of this sort to be limited to certain procedural matters about when the bill is going to come on. As we have been ourselves in the past required to observe the standing orders, so should be the Leader of the Opposition.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition has the call. I will listen to his answer.PE4Mr BEAZLEY—The question to me was why this should be brought on now. Given the content of the bill and what is threatened over the course of the next few months, that is relevant as to why it ought to be brought on now. I appreciate your calling me on again, Mr Speaker. We have $120 million of taxpayers' funds being spent here and we can stop it. We can see this money go to schools, we can see this money go to universities, we can see this money go to the health system, to the aged care system, to restoring the Commonwealth dental program. We can see this taxpayer money being used for the ordinary people of Australia, the ordinary taxpayers, and not for the electoral prospects of the Liberal and National parties.It is important. This bill permits honest advertising that advises people of their rights and opportunities. Take, for example, the proposition under that Agriculture—Advancing Australia program referred to by one of our members in a question earlier. Each one of those farmers could be informed by one letter. Mr Speaker, as somebody who has worked on farms and has got many farming relatives, you know darn well that farmers respond quickly to any advertising on the concerns that they have. For $100,000 they could have done the job, but they could not have advertised their wares in the bush. The Prime Minister was up here defending himself as to why it is necessary—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I remind the Leader of the Opposition of the obligation he has not to pre-empt the debate, and to indicate why the matter is urgent.PE4Mr BEAZLEY—What I am doing here is establishing, to the man who has turned his back on me in the course of my answer, why it is necessary right now to bring this bill on, because that was the in-order question that was directed to me.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—That is what I am asking you to come back to.PE4Mr BEAZLEY—We are talking here about $120 million of the taxpayers' funds which could be stopped from being spent on this. I am pointing out that nobody has an objection to legitimate advertising. But fancy hiding behind the $3 million for recruitment for the defence department—the outrage that we saw last Sunday, that outrage in which $500,000 worth of advertising went in one day, none of which had anything to do with anything other than advertising the Liberal and National parties; taxpayer funds looted to advertise the Liberal and National parties. There is an outrage in this country about the way that was used. The Prime Minister defends the Unchain My Heart ads that he did for the GST. Prime Minister, whatever your excuses, the Australian people have eyes: they see the advertising, they see the so-called environmental advertising, they see the GST advertising and they see the so-called labour market advertising. They know darn well that they have been misled by you. They know darn well that this promise you undertook has been breached repeatedly by you. They know that you and your colleagues are fraudulent in this matter, and they want it dealt with.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat.2809014:39:0028090Gambaro, Teresa, MPMs GAMBARO9K6PetrieLP10—My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Has the Prime Minister's attention been drawn to recent comments on Australia's current account deficit and balance of trade? What is the Prime Minister's response to claims that Australia needs to be a greater producer of information and communications technology to address the balance of payments problems?28090Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—My attention has been drawn; it was drawn when I read a speech delivered by the Leader of the Opposition in Sydney last week? This was meant to be the knowledge headland speech; it has unravelled into a bit of a sandbar rather than a headland. One of the many things that the Leader of the Opposition said—and he was endeavouring, I know, to impress the audience and deliver a serious point—was:Australia's failure to invest in knowledge and in knowledge-based industries is directly related to the country's problems in terms of external balance, foreign debt, and the value of the Australian dollar ...The reference to the external balance clearly invites two considerations. The first of those is that in some way we currently have a very big problem with the current account deficit and, secondly, that that is in some way related to our deficit in relation to the importation of information technology. In relation to the first proposition, could I remind the Leader of the Opposition that Australia's current account deficit, as last recorded, is 2.8 per cent of GDP. That is the best result in more than 20 years, excluding the March to June quarter of 1997, which was abnormally affected by gold sales by the Reserve Bank of Australia. So the first proposition inherent in this powerful intellectual point made by the Leader of the Opposition, as he was busily trying to trash the intellectual assets of this country, was that in some way we have a problem with the current account deficit. That claim is absolutely wrong.CT4Costello, Peter, MPMr Costello—It's the best in 20 years.ZD4Mr HOWARD—We have the best current account deficit in 20 years, but the Leader of the Opposition was up in Sydney last week saying, `This is outrageous! We have a problem with the current account deficit.' So the very basis of what he claims is completely wrong, and I go on to say that so far this decade Australia's current account deficits have averaged 3.8 per cent of GDP, with an average of around 4½ per cent over the past two decades. And the recent good outcomes on the balance of payments reflect the outstanding performance of Australian exporters, including, amongst other things, our mining industry.But leaving aside Australia's recent, improved balance of payments performance, the Leader of the Opposition also—and this is a habit of his—holds up the United States as an ideal. Far be it from me to criticise the performance of the United States economy. There are a lot of things about the United States economy I admire: the great flexibility of the United States economy is one of its great strengths. But it is very interesting if you translate the argument. There is no question that the US economy has benefited from its leading role in producing and using information technology. I have been trawling through a lot of the literature on this subject because the Leader of the Opposition in just about every single sentence in his speech was either out of date or plain wrong or absolutely deceptive. I found that in June of last year the US Department of Commerce released a report on the digital economy which found that, paradoxically, although America's IT producing companies are clearly world class, the United States regularly runs large trade deficits in IT goods, and it was an estimated $66 billion in 1999. So therefore not only was the claim made by the Leader of the Opposition—that we have a current account deficit problem—completely wrong, but how can you have a problem when you have got the best current account performance in 20 years? The Leader of the Opposition said that we have a problem with our external balance, when in reality it is the best that it has been for 20 years. So he is wrong on that account—wrong, misinformed and deceptive. But he is also wrong in the claim that there is a connection in some way between performance in IT and the external balance, and that is demonstrated by the paradoxical figures that I have quoted in relation to the United States. The Leader of the Opposition tried to talk down the Australian economy. He trashed the national interest in his own selfish political interest. He was caught out on that by the outstanding economic figures that were released in relation to the March quarter. He has now turned himself to the so-called investment-knowledge issue. Not only does he not have a policy; we have a Leader of the Opposition whose statistics are out of date. His understanding is inadequate, but his capacity to deceive and mislead is absolutely boundless.Distinguished Visitors2809110000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I inform the House that we have present in the chamber this afternoon members of a parliamentary delegation from the National People's Congress of the People's Republic of China, led by Madam Li Shuzheng. On behalf of all members of the House, may I extend to our Chinese visitors a very warm welcome.Honourable members—Hear, hear!Questions Without Notice280912809114:46:0028091Causley, Ian, MPMr CAUSLEY4K6PageNP10—My question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Transport and Regional Services. Would the Deputy Prime Minister advise the House what steps the government is taking to improve levels of technology and skills in rural, regional and remote Australia? Is he aware of any alternative policies in this area?28091Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—I thank the honourable member for his question. The use of technology and skills in rural and regional Australia is a very proud story. Listening to those opposite, you would think that they were still lost in the past with those references we used to get from one of their former leaders when he used to talk about Australia being a `quarry' and a `farm by the beach'. Do you remember that sort of gratuitous advice we used to get? The reality now, of course, is that rural and regional Australia is well and truly on the Net and in touch with the world through developments in telecommunications: whether it is mobile phone coverage now reaching 97 per cent of Australians—and rapidly increasing for the remaining three per cent—whether it is Internet access for all Australians by satellite in remote areas, whether it is the BITS program—nearly $80 million for seed funding for new IT businesses—or $40 million to promote the development of innovative, new telecommunications networks or whether it is the delivery of untimed local calls for people in the most remote parts of Australia. We never hear the opposition spokesman for telecommunications talking about that one: that is a practical, improved outcome in telecommunications—not something they are interested in. On the way is access to Internet dial-up speeds of much faster rates for virtually every phone link in the country. We have runs on the board in education, too: another 670 student places at regional universities and campuses. Also, there is $10 million for work placement coordinator arrangements and $35 million for Backing Australia's Ability. Then there is health and the use of modern and sophisticated technology, nine-year rural clinic schools, three university departments and the basis of a new national rural health education and training network, providing specific rural health training and encouraging medical and other health professionals to take up rural practice.In terms of skills training, there is a record $7.6 billion over four years on vocational education and training programs. Training opportunities in rural and regional areas have been boosted by $230 million. New apprenticeships, wanted for years in rural and regional areas, in rural and regional areas have doubled since December 1995, from around 50,000 to 100,000. There has also been a dramatic increase in the number of New Apprenticeships centres, up to 197 in the last 12 months. All this tells a story of a very high uptake of new technologies, particularly in the telecommunications area—the upgrading of skills that puts us at the cutting edge of the true use of knowledge, combining often with our traditional industries to put them right at the forefront globally.I was asked about alternative policies. I do not know about policies; there is an approach. It is a discussion paper called Knowledge Nation, but it almost completely misses the point. On the one hand, it acknowledges that Australia is open to technology and has competitive farm and mining industries, a strong knowledge base and a rapid uptake of new technologies. That is what it says on the one hand. But then its author, the Leader of the Opposition, goes on to describe us as an `obsolete economy'. I do not know how you say that to the wine industry, exporting its technology back to France, or what you say to wheat growers now using satellites and on-board computers on their tractors so that they can microfertilise their crops according to the precise requirements of each individual part of each individual paddock, let alone the overall farm, or what you say to cotton producers trading around the world out of their own farmhouse offices. The bottom line is that the Leader of the Opposition misses the point altogether. When it comes to people in rural and regional Australia, they do not want to sit around drinking caffe latte and talking about technology and a knowledge economy; they want to use it, and they are using it.2809214:50:0028092Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLINPG6JagajagaALP00—My question is to the Minister for Aged Care. Minister, can you confirm that your department received complaints about the death of a resident in the Yagoona Nursing Home early last year after she was admitted to Bankstown Hospital with an infected pressure sore? Are you aware that the New South Wales health department investigated this incident, found serious breaches in the care of the resident and expressed `extreme concern' at the failure of the Yagoona Nursing Home to ensure proper treatment of residents? Can you also confirm that this was the second such death in the nursing home in the last two years? Minister, given this appalling history and evidence that the problems remain, why was the recommendation to close Yagoona Nursing Home overturned, and why haven't any sanctions been imposed on the provider?28092Bishop, Bronwyn, MPMrs BRONWYN BISHOPSE4MackellarLPMinister for Aged Care10—The Yagoona home, as with every other home in Australia, was subject to accreditation procedures between September 1999 and 31 December 2000. In that 14-month period every home was indeed inspected and a site audit conducted and a judgment made about whether or not accreditation would be given. In that process 190 homes were either closed or relocated. At the time of 31 December the Yagoona home had reached the standard required by the agency. Subsequent to that, because all homes must commit to continuous improvement, there is a continual process of visits—both support visits, which are on a time frame, a timetable, and spot checks. The review audit that was carried out with regard to Yagoona had a recommendation from the assessor that the home had in fact failed to meet the standards on two out of the four standards and, if my memory serves me correctly, they had a critical rating. I would draw your attention, as I did in a debate we had in this chamber earlier, to a state government home in Victoria, the Reg Geary home, which was in a similar circumstance. In fact, it rated four criticals. In the Victorian circumstance there was no recommendation to revoke; in the New South Wales circumstance there was a recommendation to revoke.In each case the decision is made by the agency itself, and it takes into consideration, in accordance with the legislation, a whole lot of other factors when it makes a decision of what is to be done. In both cases—that is, in the state-run Victorian home, which had four criticals, and in the Yagoona home, which had two criticals—there was a downgrade of the accreditation. In the appendix which accompanies the recommendation of the assessors there is a statement that says what will happen if there is a critical or unacceptable standard noted in a review audit. It states that it is then the task of the agency to work with the home to bring it up to standard so that it rates at least satisfactory. That is precisely the process that is gone through for every home. The agency is an independent body set up for the purpose of carrying out those inspections, and that is the process that is carried out for every home, without favour and without fear.2809314:55:0028093Elson, Kay, MPMrs ELSON6K6FordeLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Does the minister have any further information about alternative proposals for school funding? Will these proposals reduce funding for schools? What are the implications for schools and parents should these proposals come into being?28093Kemp, 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 Forde for her question and I acknowledge her great interest in and support for improving education standards in her electorate. This government has increased funding for all schools in the government and non-government sectors. So far, what we know about the opposition's policy is that there is a hit list to cut funding to a mixed group of schools and an intention to rewrite the formula for funding the entire non-government sector. Yesterday in a personal explanation the member for Dobell confirmed that the Labor Party intends to write the formula for the non-government school funding and clearly left open the possibility—one might be more accurate in saying `probability'—of more wide ranging cuts to non-government school funding, because the Leader of the Opposition, as we know, is so desperate to find more funds to fund his other programs that he has decided to cut non-government school funding.The entire non-government sector now knows that if the Labor Party were ever to be elected to government the funding arrangements that the whole sector has agreed to and supported after extensive consultation will be smashed by the Labor Party. None of the two million parents who send their children to non-government schools at present has any idea how much the funding for their school and support for the education of their children will be cut. They do know that there will be immediate cuts if Labor comes to government, and they know that there is a plan for further substantial medium term reductions.But that is not the end of the story, because Labor know that once the bill stripping funding from the hit list schools goes to the Senate it will require the support of the Australian Democrats, and it is quite clear that the Democrats are trying to make a number of strong demands on the Labor Party for immediate further cuts to other schools. The Democrats have made this clear in a letter that they sent to the National Council of Independent Schools in April of this year. Senator Vicki Bourne wrote to the Chief Executive Officer of the National Council of Independent Schools as follows: Removing the SES funding increases to category 1 schools affects only 61 schools, mostly in the eastern states. It was also discriminatory and inconsistent, as under this plan category 2 and 3 schools would receive their funding increases intact.So the Democrats will be demanding that the cuts be extended to categories 2 and 3. But the Democrats' criticism goes much further than this: the Beazley hit list, in their view—PE4Beazley, Kim, MPBT4Dr KEMP—Well, you will not get your hit list through the Senate without getting the Democrats' support for it. The Beazley hit list, in their view:... does not address that most schools will be quarantined from the formula, either by having their present funding levels maintained—the no disadvantage provision—or by virtue of being a Catholic systemic school. The Democrats believe that any fair funding formula should be able to be applied consistently with variations made according to genuine need and not on the ability to do deals.Leaving aside that last insult to the Catholic system, it is plain that the Democrats believe that many of the funding-maintained schools should have their funding cut and it is plain that they believe that the entire funding system for the Catholic systemic schools should be reworked. Getting the hit list of the Leader of the Opposition through the Senate is going to be made very difficult unless the Labor Party compromises with the Democrats, and the Democrats are making very much greater demands for school cuts. So now two million parents of students at non-government schools have complete uncertainty about the impact on their school funding and their support from the very unfair and inequitable policies of the Labor Party. All they know is that, if the Labor Party were ever to get into government, the whole of non-government school funding would be thrown into the melting pot, and the Leader of the Opposition will be stripping funding from other schools as well to fund his programs.2809415:00:0028094Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Minister for Aged Care. Minister, do you recall claiming on radio 2GB that the first you knew about the problems at Yagoona Nursing Home was in May this year when you read about them in the newspaper? Can you confirm that the grieving son of the resident who died in Yagoona Nursing Home, as referred to in the previous question, contacted your office as early as March last year with serious concerns about his mother's care prior to her death at Yagoona? Minister, given that your office was contacted way back in March last year and your chief of staff responded through this letter in June of last year, why did it take you more than 12 months to learn about the appalling circumstances at Yagoona Nursing Home?28094Bishop, Bronwyn, MPMrs BRONWYN BISHOPSE4MackellarLPMinister for Aged Care10—The Leader of the Opposition, despite his feigned concern, would know very well that my answer in that interview related to the review audit about which the questions were asked. I have already pointed out to you that every home in the country was subject to the accreditation process of assessment and of a complete audit, and a decision was taken by the agency—and surveillance continues. My answer remains the same as I gave you previously.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I seek leave to table the letter, with the privacy details removed, that was sent from the minister's office, detailing the fact that she and her office knew a year ago of the circumstances.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition has identified the letter.Leave granted.2809415:02:0028094McArthur, Stewart, MPMr McARTHURVH4CorangamiteLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. What has the government done to strengthen its ties with Singapore?28094Downer, Alexander, MPMr DOWNER4G4MayoLPMinister for Foreign Affairs10—Mr Speaker—Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The minister has been recognised and will be heard in silence.5T4Brereton, Laurie, MP4G4Mr DOWNER—The honourable member for Kingsford-Smith interjects. Suffice it to say that we know who pays for my trips—it is the Australian taxpayer. We would like to know who pays for yours. Is it the bodgie McKell Foundation? Shonky indeed!10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The minister will come to the question.4G4Mr DOWNER—A very interesting question! The government today is hosting the third Australia-Singapore joint ministerial committee meeting. I would just like to say that it has been a very great pleasure to have with us here in Canberra over the last two days my friend Professor Jayakumar, the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Law for Singapore; BG Yeo, the Minister for Trade and Industry; and BG Teo, the Minister for Education and Second Minister for Defence.As the meetings have demonstrated, both last night and today, our two countries enjoy very strong links in defence, trade and investment. Singapore is Australia's largest trading and investment partner in South-East Asia. In 2000, our two-way trade was $9.5 billion and, at the end of last financial year, two-way investment was about $29.6 billion. Singapore is the largest source of overseas students enrolled in Australian higher education institutions and one of our largest sources of tourists. We have strong and longstanding defence links, with joint exercises and military training underpinning our relationship. So this morning my counterpart, Professor Jayakumar, and my colleagues the Minister for Trade and the Minister for Defence exchanged views—UK6Thomson, Kelvin, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I will deal with the member for Wills!4G4Mr DOWNER—on a large number of issues which are of mutual interest to Australia and Singapore. It is also worth recording that we had a most productive dinner last night as well.Opposition members interjecting—4G4Mr DOWNER—It was not paid for by the McKell Foundation. We agreed on the need for political stability and continuing economic reform in our region—XS4Lawrence, Dr Carmen, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I warn the member for Fremantle!4G4Mr DOWNER—and the great benefits of trade liberalisation. Our negotiations on a free trade agreement, a very important negotiation for Australia, are proceeding well. We aim to conclude a substantive and comprehensive agreement, providing a strong and enduring platform to expand our bilateral economic and trade relationship in both goods and services. I do not think there is a relationship which is closer in ASEAN than the relationship we have with Singapore. It is an extremely productive and extremely strong relationship, and the joint ministerial committee meeting that we have had over the last two days has demonstrated that in spades.2809515:06:0028095Wilkie, Kim, MPMr WILKIE84GSwanALP00—My question is to the Minister for Aged Care. Minister, are you aware that when your assessors from the standards agency visited the Yagoona Nursing Home earlier this year they told staff that `the owner knows people, nothing will be done'? Minister, haven't those words proven to be true? Isn't the owner of the Yagoona Nursing Home, Millie Phillips, getting the special `do nothing' treatment predicted by your own standards agency?10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Swan has asked a question which in fact unnecessarily identifies an individual, and I would warn him against that practice continuing.28095Bishop, Bronwyn, MPMrs BRONWYN BISHOPSE4MackellarLPMinister for Aged Care10—I would refer to my earlier answer and point out the following. The assessors, who are the assessors of the agency, the independent body which carries out the assessment and accreditation processes, found that there were two out of the four standards which were critical. I then compared it with one in Victoria owned by the Victorian state government, Reg Geary House, where the assessor found that four out of four standards were critical. Despite that, the agency found, and found properly, as it is entitled to do under the act—and I will read from its findings: Following the presentation of a report on the review audit of the service—this is the Victorian state government service—consideration of submissions by the Department of Human Services, Western Health and the service, and having regard to the expiry time for the current accreditation decision, I have decided, in accordance with section 3.241 of the Accreditation Grant Principles of 1999, not to revoke the accreditation and not to vary the period of accreditation.That compares with the action that was taken in New South Wales where two out of the four standards were found to be critical, where there was a downgrading of the accreditation period, not as the decision was in Victoria where the Victorian state government was the owner and where there was no action taken at all. The whole process is an independent process and the agency makes the decision on the merits of the case. For the member for Swan to suggest otherwise is an absolute slant and a slur on the work of the agency and, quite frankly, will not be tolerated.2809615:09:0028096Schultz, Alby, MPMr SCHULTZ83QHumeLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Would the minister inform the House how Australians with private health insurance continue to benefit from the Howard government's reforms of the private health insurance industry? Is the minister aware of any recent statements in support of the government's policies on gap insurance?28096Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4CaseyLPMinister for Health and Aged Care10—I thank the honourable member for his question. In addition to the 30 per cent rebate and premium stability, which has actually seen premiums show a slight decrease in the last 12 months for the first time since records were taken, the government has been moving ahead with reform in this area. Last week I was pleased to be able to release a discussion paper on informed financial consent. The current voluntary financial consent is not working. We need to make sure that we can progress this and we listed a whole range of options from a continuation of the present system through to legislative change.Also this week we have seen most health funds start to list on the Net doctors who participate in no-gap schemes. This is a terrific step forward. Last night, for example, I checked Medibank Private's web site: there were 22 cardiac surgeons in Melbourne that you could choose from that charged no gap whatsoever. It has had a very good response. Mr Matthew Blackmore from the Consumers Health Forum described it as:... a fantastic innovation. Consumers want information about the costs of doctors and if you want to find a specialist, this is more convenient than the Yellow Pages.We have had the ACCC support it as well. One Sydney based health fund, CBHS Friendly Society, has also taken the innovative step of allowing online membership verification by GPs. All these innovations are to be commended.Of course, to be able to advertise gaps you need to have gap cover schemes. Today, around 70 per cent of all inpatient services are provided on a no-gap basis, up from 50 per cent of 12 months ago and, of course, up from zero per cent four years ago. On radio station 2GB on Thursday last week the former Labor Minister for Health Graham Richardson gave us an insight as to why gap schemes were so slow in coming. He said:Personally, as Health Minister, I wanted to do this—that is, gap cover schemes—but the Labor Party didn't like the idea. I always thought that some form of gap insurance was absolutely necessary because I just thought it would be impossible to hold people in private health insurance unless you offered it.So here we have it: in government, the Labor Party complacent, the Labor Party refusing to act on things of interest to consumers. No wonder they are embarrassed about the government talking of its success.2809615:12:0028096McLeay, Leo, MPMr LEO McLEAY4I4WatsonALP00—My question is to the Minister for Aged Care. Minister, do you recall saying on 6 June this year that the Aged Care Standards Agency had been established to be an independent body in order to ensure due process and to keep it at arm's length from the government? Will you confirm that a close Liberal associate of yours, Mr John Lang, is a board member of the agency and has been paid up to $80,000 for this role? 10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I remind the Chief Opposition Whip that in fact I just obliged the member for Swan not to go down that course. If the Chief Opposition Whip is prepared to rephrase his question, I will hear him. He will otherwise resume his seat.4I4Mr LEO McLEAY—No, absolutely not. Mr Speaker, it is absolutely pertinent to the question.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Manager of Opposition Business is seeking the call.5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMullan—Mr Speaker, there are two reasons why in this particular circumstance—SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MP83ZIrwin, Julia, MPMrs Irwin—I wish you would go to a nursing home, Tuckey.SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr Tuckey—All you do is slander people.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Minister for Forestry and Conservation and the member for Fowler! The Manager of Opposition Business has the call.5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMullan—Thank you, Mr Speaker. There are two reasons why, in this particular circumstance, the specification of the name of the person concerned does not fall in—83ZIrwin, Julia, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Fowler is warned! The Manager of Opposition Business has the call and may start his comments again.5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMullan—Thank you, Mr Speaker. There are two reasons why the mentioning of the name explicitly in this question does not fall within the standard House of Representatives Practice and standing orders concerns which you have raised in the past. One is that this person's membership of the board is a matter of public knowledge. It is not some special secret matter—this is a published list. The second is that it would be impossible in any circumstance to ask a minister whether a particular associate of theirs had been associated with them in any inappropriate conduct if you could never name that particular associate of them, and the whole question of accountability would collapse. So, while we accept your general point, we think in this case it is not appropriately applied.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I would remind the Manager of Opposition Business, as he is I trust well aware, of standing order 144 and the fact that statements should not contain the names of persons as he has indicated unless they are strictly necessary to render the question intelligible or to authenticate the question. I will listen to the member for Watson, the Chief Opposition Whip, and I will expect there to be some authenticity necessary through the name.3K6Cameron, Ross, MPMr Ross Cameron—Mr Speaker, on the point of order—7T4Crosio, Janice, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Parramatta has the call. I will deal very promptly with the member for Prospect, who as an occupier of the chair knows better.3K6Cameron, Ross, MPMr Ross Cameron—The prohibition in the standing orders is not intended to protect the government but to protect the citizen, who has no natural justice opportunity to respond to the accusation being made. In terms of the accountability of this government, nothing about this question requires the naming of any individual citizen.Honourable members interjecting—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—There are members interjecting unnecessarily, including the member for Lalor, who might care to check the standing orders and discover the distinctive difference between questions and answers. As I said, I recognise the point made by the member for Parramatta. I have not as yet heard anything said by the Chief Opposition Whip which would indicate that the person so named was being vilified in some way. I will listen to the Chief Opposition Whip's question. 4I4Mr LEO McLEAY—Minister, will you confirm that a close Liberal associate of yours, Mr John Lang, is a board member of the agency and has been paid up to $80,000 in this capacity?SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr Tuckey—That is more than you got.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Minister for Forestry and Conservation is warned.4I4Mr LEO McLEAY—Minister, how can nursing home residents and their families have any faith in the agency and its independence at arm's length while a close political associate of yours is on the board?HK5Andrews, Kevin, MPMr Andrews—Mr Speaker, under standing order 144, the reference which the Chief Opposition Whip makes to `close associates' and similar words to that effect which he used clearly contain inferences and imputations. Secondly, may I point out that under standing order 144 it says that questions should not contain:(a) statements of fact or names of persons unless they are strictly necessary to render the question intelligible and can be authenticated;None of this has occurred in this regard. In my submission, the question is out of order on at least three grounds.4I4Mr LEO McLEAY—Mr Speaker, on the point of order, if one follows the logic of the honourable member, it could be said that it is vilification of Mr Lang to mention his name in conjunction with the minister. But the important thing about my point of order is that, in a question earlier today, one of my colleagues asked the minister whether it was a fact that the staff were told that the owner knows people and that nothing will be done. Maybe Mr Lang is the person that the owner knows.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The further intervention of the Chief Opposition Whip has only confirmed the concerns expressed by the member for Menzies, in my view, and for that reason I will indicate to the Chief Opposition Whip that he may place the question on the Notice Paper, as he is aware, but we will not respond to it here.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I take a point of order on that. Irrespective of anything that the Chief Opposition Whip may have said, if you are not able in this place to ask a question referring to a person who is in public office and who is in receipt of public funds when there is an obvious doubt over all the circumstances associated with this particular nursing home and it is a concern for the public, and if you are not able to ask a minister whether there is a linkage between her, an individual and outcomes, then this place is irrelevant.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I remind the Leader of the Opposition that in my occupancy of the chair I have endeavoured to allow questions of a wide ranging nature to be asked. In this instance, I was in fact cautioned by the member for Menzies but was prepared to entertain the question until the Chief Opposition Whip, in my view, made it even more difficult for the question to stand. I have invited the Chief Opposition Whip to place the question on the Notice Paper.SE4Bishop, Bronwyn, MPMrs Bronwyn Bishop—On a point of order, Mr Speaker: what has occurred here is that the Chief Government Whip—PE4Beazley, Kim, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I had done nothing more than reach forward to listen to the minister. I do not require instructions from the Leader of the Opposition.SE4Bishop, Bronwyn, MPMrs Bronwyn Bishop—The point of order is that this man's name has been slurred and that slur cannot be allowed to stand unanswered.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The minister will resume her seat. I have indicated that I do not believe the question should stand, and if the Chief Opposition Whip wishes to pursue it he should place it on the Notice Paper. I call on the honourable member for Hinkler.SE4Bishop, Bronwyn, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Minister for Aged Care is warned.2809815:21:0028098Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLEKV5HinklerNP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Defence. Would the minister outline the government's policies relating to the protection of our coastline? Is the minister aware of any other policies in this area? 28099Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPMinister for Defence10—I thank the member for Hinkler for his question. I am certainly aware, to answer the second part of the question, of alternative policies. I heard the Leader of the Opposition on ABC radio this morning and he announced that the Labor Party's policy—would you believe they do have a policy?—is a policy to replace the Royal Australian Navy on the Australian coast with a new system to be known as the coastguard. He was very specific. The Leader of the Opposition said that we would have, under the opposition, if they were to be elected, a coastguard the same as they have in the United States. You would have to give them credit for being ambitious. They are an ambitious opposition. Not only do the US have a shorter coastline than Australia; they have 42,000 people in their coastguard and it has a cost of $7.2 billion a year. This must be the greatest unfunded promise ever made by any opposition in Australian political history. We have a promise of a system similar to that of the US, with a cost of $7.2 billion, and presumably a bit more to account for the fact that our coastline is more—CT4Costello, Peter, MPMr Costello—It would put interest rates up.WI4Mr REITH—That would jack up interest rates a hell of a lot—160 bucks a month just for starters—CT4Costello, Peter, MPMr Costello—Yeah, in Aston.WI4Mr REITH—And in Aston to boot. I suppose, when looking at that more carefully, we might think that perhaps he did not mean a duplication of the American system. Perhaps he was simply deceiving people about what his intentions were. Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition's intentions were to have a coastguard similar to that which was examined when he was the relevant minister back in the early 1980s. If you go back to that report, and you fund it in today's dollars, that is a cost of about $2 billion. So now, instead of a $7.2 billion unfunded promise, it is $2 billion. We have got it down to $2 billion. But what is interesting is that, back in the early 1980s, when the now Leader of the Opposition examined this policy, he himself was opposed to it. His reason was that it would be a waste of resources to establish a new bureaucracy to undertake a task that is being done. I presume a second reason that he was opposed to it was that behind this proposal is a proposal to take the Australian Navy out of the essential job that it does today on the Australian coast. Let us look at what the Navy did, for example, in the year 2000. They boarded over 270 foreign fishing vessels. They escorted 1,756 unlawful persons. We had 1,800 days of the Royal Australian Navy patrol boats around the Australian coast doing a job that I believe only the Navy can do. On top of that, we had 250 hours of RAAF maritime aerial surveillance. Just to mention one incident, the ADF was involved in the incident with arresting the South Tommy for illegal fishing in the last few months. On this side of the House, we say that only the Navy should do this job. On that side of the House, the Labor Party has an impractical proposal that they themselves were opposed to and for which they have not one dollar put aside to make it happen. This is the typically irresponsible lack of position from the opposition. This is a policy not even the Leader of the Opposition supported. It is just cheap populist politics, at the expense of properly protecting Australia's coastline and at the expense of the Royal Australian Navy.2809915:26:0028099Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is addressed to the Minister for Aged Care, and I refer to your answer to my previous question. When did you personally first know about the substandard care at the Yagoona Nursing Home? 28099Bishop, Bronwyn, MPMrs BRONWYN BISHOPSE4MackellarLPMinister for Aged Care10—I have already answered the question. I have nothing to change.2809915:27:0028099Cadman, Alan, MPMr CADMANSD4MitchellLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. Would the minister inform the House of examples of intimidation by members of organisations registered under the Workplace Relations Act? What is the government doing to protect honest Australian workers and small businesses, and are there any alternative policies in relation to this issue? 28100Abbott, Tony, MPMr ABBOTTEZ5WarringahLPMinister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business10—I thank the member for Mitchell very much for his excellent question. I state for the record that this government believes that honest workers and honest unionists should be able to do their job free from intimidation and thuggery. In particular, they should be free from thuggery associated with power struggles inside the union movement or inside the Australian Labor Party, such as the fight to the death now going on between the old BWIU faction and the old BLF faction inside the CFMEU—between the Moscow line communists and the Beijing line communists—for control of one of Australia's largest and most militant unions. In the Financial Review, one of these CFMEU factions accused the other of plotting violence. We had John Sutton saying:They are going to push their muscle forward. In response, we had the other faction saying:... we will be crashing the sites, and if you want a bit of biff, it is on.Both these violent factions happened to come together in Sydney yesterday on Macquarie Street. The same union that is regularly shutting down building sites because it believes that it is above the law yesterday tried to shut down the oldest parliament in this country because it believes that it is above the law. We had a union picket saying to members of the state parliament that they would not—PE4Beazley, Kim, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition!EZ5Mr ABBOTT—They would not be admitted to the parliament unless they agreed to a union demand. This is a disgraceful attempt by this union to bring the `no picket no start' rule from the building sites into the heart of the oldest parliament in this country. I wonder how many members opposite, confronted with a parliamentary picket line, would have the guts to put their duty to the nation ahead of their loyalty to the union. There are plenty of honest Labor people who have been prepared to condemn this union violence, this union thuggery. The one person who has not been prepared to condemn it is the spineless one sitting opposite—PE4Beazley, Kim, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—If I were to apply the standing orders and make the same demands on the Leader of the Opposition as I have made on the Minister for Aged Care and the Minister for Forestry and Conservation, he would no longer be in the chamber. I ask him to remember the courtesies he is expected to extend to others. EZ5Mr ABBOTT—The Leader of the Opposition was asked this morning on national radio about the disgraceful violence and intimidation that shut down the parliament of New South Wales yesterday, and what did this so-called leader say? He said:I am very glad that he has indicated that he is prepared to keep talking.That is the Leader of the Opposition's response to the most disgraceful attempt at intimidation that any parliament in this country has seen for some years. All he is prepared to do is say, `Let's keep talking.' As the Leader of the Opposition has more than demonstrated in this House today, he is very good at huffing and puffing but, when it comes to any hard policy, he could not make an impression on a soft cushion. When it comes to actually taking on the unions, he could not go two rounds with a revolving door, as was said of one of his predecessors.ZD4Howard, John, MPMr Howard—Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper—PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr Beazley—Mr Speaker—Honourable members interjecting—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I will recognise the Leader of the Opposition in just a moment, when the House has come to order—so at least he can be heard. I gathered the Prime Minister had not concluded his statement—ZD4Howard, John, MPMr Howard—Mr Speaker, I was seeking to table a letter that I referred to in an earlier answer—that is, a letter dated 15 June this year by me to the Premier of Victoria. 10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Prime Minister is, of course, able to table the letter as he wishes. I now call the Leader of the Opposition.Personal Explanations2810115:32:0028101Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALPLeader of the Opposition00—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Does the Leader of the Opposition claim to have been misrepresented?PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—I do indeed—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Please proceed.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—by the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. The minister, who has just spoken, half-quoted me. You will find in that statement, Mr Speaker, that I supported Bob Carr—unlike Chikarovski, who walked through that picket line negotiating with the unionists.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat.Honourable members interjecting—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The House will come to order.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPWI4Reith, Peter, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition! The Leader of the House! Is it really necessary for the chair to be on his feet to get some of the most prominent people in the House to simply comply with the standing orders?15:33:0028101Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Does the Deputy Leader of the Opposition claim to have been misrepresented?DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—I do, by the Prime Minister.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition may proceed.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—In question time today the Prime Minister accused me of opposing the construction of the Scoresby freeway. I have done no such thing. The Prime Minister quoted out of context answers I gave to an ABC journalist on questions about Green preferences in Aston. At no stage did the questions include any mention of the Scoresby freeway. The Labor Party unequivocally supports the construction of the Scoresby freeway.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has indicated where he has been misrepresented and will resume his seat.Honourable members interjecting—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I issue a general warning.15:34:0028101McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN5I4FraserALP00—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Does the Manager of Opposition Business claim to have been misrepresented?5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN—I have been misrepresented by the minister for communications and by the Prime Minister in quoting the minister for communications in that misrepresentation.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Manager of Opposition Business may proceed.5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN—Thank you. The minister for communications and the Prime Minister have sought to misrepresent me by misquoting a reference from an article in the Friends of the ABC ACT newsletter in which they combine quotes from me and their commentary on what I said and, in fact, purport to say that I said I wanted more ministerial intervention in identifying areas of dedicated funding; whereas even in their fuller, although still somewhat inaccurate coverage of that interview, they said, correctly, that I came across as having very real doubts on the capacity of ABC board and management to deliver. That is true. What they said in the newsletter is accurate and what the Prime Minister said is not.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Manager of Opposition Business has indicated where he has been misrepresented and will resume his seat. 15:35:0028102Cox, David, MPMr COX83UKingstonALP00—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Does the member for Kingston claim to have been misrepresented?83UCox, David, MPMr COX—I do, Mr Speaker.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Kingston may proceed.83UCox, David, MPMr COX—In the appropriation debate I presented a table derived from the ABS government financial estimates in the budget papers showing that the government's reduction in net government debt was more than entirely attributable to asset sales.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I would like the member for Kingston to come to where he has been misrepresented.83UCox, David, MPMr COX—In today's Sydney Morning Herald the Treasurer responded to me, saying my analysis was `false', throwing into question either the Treasurer's confidence in his own budget documents or his competence at arithmetic.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Kingston must indicate where he has been misrepresented.Questions to the Speaker281022810215:36:0028102Bevis, Arch, MPMr BEVISET4BrisbaneALP00—Mr Speaker, I have a question to you. Can you confirm that the catering contract for the staff dining room and Queen's Terrace café has been awarded to the Hyatt Hotel, replacing the former caterers, Delaware North Australia? Can you confirm that this change of caterers takes effect, I believe, tomorrow? Are you aware that, as of today, employees of Delaware North Australia are still uncertain as to their continued employment? Can you assure the House that the employees of Delaware North Australia will not be disadvantaged in their employment opportunities by this decision, and can you also advise whether staff who do continue to be employed in either the staff dining room or Queen's Terrace café will have their length of service and terms and conditions of employment transmitted to the Hyatt Hotel caterers? Further, will you seek assurances that the current staff will be provided with ongoing employment opportunities?28102SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I will respond to the member for Brisbane by indicating that, consistent with what has been the practice of the parliament for eight years or so, the tender was advertised and has been awarded to the Hyatt. The matter was discussed widely this week with the Joint House Committee, and the Joint House Committee were reassured by the report by Mr Bolton that in fact all of the necessary procedures had been appropriately covered. A question was asked about staff entitlements and Mr Bolton indicated that they too had been appropriately negotiated. I cannot answer specifically about the issues raised by the member for Brisbane. I will refer them to Mr Bolton and get back to the member for Brisbane.Documents2810215:38:0028102Reith, Peter, MPMr 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 Importance281022810210000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I have received a letter from the honourable member for Perth proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:The adverse consequences for the Australian community of the Government's sustained financial and political attacks on the ABC.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—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I call the member for Perth. In the light of comments from both my left and right, I remind all members that a general warning has been issued. 15:39:0028103Smith, Stephen, MPMr STEPHEN SMITH5V5PerthALP00—Every day with this government we see examples of how they are out of touch. Every day with this government we see examples of wrong priorities. Every day with this government we hear them say one thing, but another thing happens. And literally every day we see examples of policy backflips, with the motivation of either saving the government's political skin or admitting guilt about the mistakes they have previously made. They are out of touch, they have wrong priorities, they say one thing but another thing happens and they have policy backflips. There are plenty of examples, but today, as on most occasions, the ABC is perhaps one of the best examples.Let us look at those four criteria so far as the government's treatment of the ABC is concerned. Just look at how this government is so out of touch with community concerns about its treatment of the ABC. Today at question time we heard the Prime Minister again essentially refusing to even acknowledge community concerns about the government's treatment of the ABC, refusing to acknowledge community concern about a sustained political and financial attack by this government on the ABC for the past five years. We have also seen this consistently from the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, Senator Alston, who refuses to acknowledge community concerns—refusing to such an extent that he now parades those people who publicly articulate those concerns—10000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. The member for Swan will remove that sign. He has been warned. 5V5Smith, Stephen, MPMr STEPHEN SMITH—Literally every day we see Senator Alston, the minister for communications, refuse to acknowledge community concerns about the government's treatment of the ABC. We now even see Senator Alston taking that one step further, essentially articulating that those people who publicly articulate community concern about the ABC are the real enemies of the ABC. So far as wrong priorities are concerned, these were no better articulated than by the Leader of the Opposition in his question to the Prime Minister today: how could a government spend more money on government advertising per month—which was designed to save its political skin and get itself re-elected—than it could allocate by way of additional funding to the ABC per year in the last budget? This government spent $20 million a month on paid government advertising designed to save the government's political skin but gave only $17.78 million per year extra funding in the budget for the ABC. Even that allocation had only one motivation, and that was to save the government's political skin against the rising tide, particularly from rural and regional Australia.This government's third criterion is saying one thing and having another thing happen. What did we hear the minister for communications, Senator Alston, say in the tally room when the government were elected in 1996? He said, `We will maintain ABC funding.' That was the commitment. And in the coalition's election documents in the run-up to the 1996 election there was an indication of their support for the notion or the principle of independence of the ABC. But what did we see within months of the government being elected? We saw the government, in 1995-96, rip $66 million out of the ABC's recurrent funding, and it was not replaced. With regard to the coalition's theoretical commitment to the principle of the independence of the ABC, we have seen that trampled on on a regular basis over the last five years.As to the fourth criterion, policy backflips, what did we see today? Today we saw the Prime Minister at the dispatch box at question time. Firstly, he refused to acknowledge community concerns about the government's treatment of the ABC. Secondly, he was mantra chanting and mouthing something that he does not believe in—the independence of the ABC. Thirdly, there was another policy backflip: he made a virtue out of the fact that the government has belatedly awarded the tender for Australia Television to the ABC. Some people interested in the ABC will actually remember that, as a consequence of the government ripping $66 million out of the ABC in 1995-96, we saw a debacle so far as Radio Australia and Australia Television was concerned and a debacle so far as this nation's overseas national public broadcasting was concerned. And we have seen today the government finally acknowledge its guilt in that public policy crime—seeking to redo a good public policy measure when, for the last five years, we have had enormous public policy damage done to our credentials internationally. Every day, in the government's treatment of the ABC, we see these recurring themes continuing. The government is out of touch, it has wrong priorities, it says one thing but another thing happens and it has a policy backflip every day. In the last week or so, we have seen Senator Alston engaged in three memorable activities so far as his responsibilities as the minister for the ABC are concerned. Firstly, we saw him try to close down Senate estimates when Labor senators sought to hold ABC management responsible and accountable to the parliament in the normal course of events. For the first occasion in a number of years, we saw the minister responsible for the ABC seeking to close down Senate estimates so that the normal accountability processes could not be embarked upon. Then on Saturday, in the Age, to anticipate the Friends of the ABC rally in Melbourne on Sunday, we saw an article by the minister for communications, Senator Alston, entitled `Exposed: the real enemies of your ABC'. In that article at the weekend in the Saturday Age Senator Alston says: The fact is that any threats to the ABC come from a misinformation campaign by the Friends of the ABC.So these days, if you actually have the audacity to articulate community concern about the ABC and the government's treatment of it, you are described by the minister for communications as a real enemy of the ABC.Finally we saw a memorable performance, a memorable appearance by the minister for communications on the Channel 9 Sunday program where he was interviewed by Laurie Oakes. Mr Oakes asked him a question about the government's intended reappointment of the chairman of the ABC, Mr McDonald, and Senator Alston had an answer along these lines: it is okay for the chairman of the ABC to engage in inappropriate political activity in the 1998 election campaign but it is terrible and shocking for people interested in the ABC to publicly indicate their concern about the ABC and to exercise their democratic political rights at a public, peaceful demonstration.XH4McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGauran—You are verballing him. Use the transcript.5V5Smith, Stephen, MPMr STEPHEN SMITH—The minister interjects. I am happy to quote the transcript—I will get to that in due course. So here we see the minister responsible for the ABC seeking to close down Senate estimates to avoid and eliminate accountability and scrutiny of the ABC so far as the parliament is concerned and then bagging those people in the community who might have the temerity to stand up and say that there is community concern about the ABC. What can a government of the day do, so far as the ABC is concerned? There are, if you like, three pillars of responsibility so far as a government of the day is concerned. Firstly, there is the policy approach or the philosophical, intellectual or emotional approach which says that the government of the day has a commitment to the principle of the independence of the ABC. Secondly, there is the commitment of a government of the day to ensure that the independent national public broadcaster is adequately resourced. Thirdly, there is the notion of respecting the independence of the ABC. So, firstly there is the need for a philosophical attachment—XH4McGauran, Peter, MP10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! The honourable member for Perth will resume his seat. I remind the minister that Mr Speaker has issued a general warning. If you wish to remain here to be the second speaker in this discussion, you will be silent now. The member for Perth has the call.5V5Smith, Stephen, MPMr STEPHEN SMITH—Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Firstly, you have that philosophical attachment to the notion of the existence of the independent national public broadcaster; then you have the responsibility to adequately resource it; and, thirdly, there is the respecting of the independence of the ABC. How has the government scrubbed up as far as these three pillars of responsibility are concerned over the past five years? When have we seen the government of today out there proselytising about the merits and the virtues of the ABC? When have we seen the government of today out there saying that the ABC is an important institution and an important part of our national cultural values? We do not see that. What we see on a regular basis are indications of paranoia, disregard and disrespect. So there is no philosophical commitment so far as this government is concerned. XH4McGauran, Peter, MP5V5Smith, Stephen, MPMr STEPHEN SMITH—The minister calls for examples—interjecting, against your urgings, Mr Deputy Speaker.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—I don't need you to point that out. Continue.5V5Smith, Stephen, MPMr STEPHEN SMITH—I do not mind the interjections. On four occasions in five days in December of last year, the minister for communications refused to rule out the privatisation of ABC Online, Triple J and ABC Enterprise shops and refused to rule out some of the commercialisation proposals found in the Bales report that would have led to a two-tier ABC where one group of people got one array of content and another group of people who could afford to pay for it got a different array of content. So this government would prefer to see parts of the ABC commercialised and privatised rather than respect the notion of an independent public broadcaster.Secondly, there is the question of resources. This government ripped $66 million out of the ABC in 1995-96. In the meantime, it has failed to adequately fund the ABC for digital broadcasting, and we have seen those adverse consequences for Radio Australia, ATV and the ABC's programming. In a desperate attempt to save its political skin in rural and regional Australia, we saw the government in the last budget funding the ABC an extra $17.78 million—not making up for the $66 million that it dragged out in 1995-96, and only $17.78 million out of the $40 million that the ABC asked for by way of national priorities at the end of last year. No-one should be under any illusions: the only reason the government gave the ABC those funds was an attempt to save some of its political hide in rural and regional Australia. The consequence of those funding cuts over the past five years has been disproportionately adverse effects in rural and regional Australia, disproportionately adverse effects in the outlying states and disproportionately adverse effects so far as news and current affairs programming is concerned.I noted today the Prime Minister and the minister for communications trying to make a furphy out of allegations about tied funding. The best two examples of suggestions of tied grants or tied funding so far as ABC funding is concerned were Senator Alston's letter to the Chairman of the ABC, Mr McDonald, when the last triennial funding came around and Senator Alston's cabinet-in-confidence document which was leaked shortly after Mr McDonald became chairman of the ABC. Both of those documents show you that the government of the day would very much love to inveigle itself into the detailed funding disbursements so far as the ABC is concerned. I note that in the minister for communications' press release today he does not put in any of the quotations from me. On 15 May, in the context of the budget, I had this to say on the question of tied funding:Thirdly, this funding increase may set a dangerous precedent, whereby the Government of the day will effectively direct the ABC as to where it wishes its funding to be spent. This has the potential to undermine the independence of the ABC.Governments should provide the ABC with an adequate general level of funding. Generally, they should not provide the ABC with funding for specific and selective purposes, except in special circumstances, for example, the transition to digital broadcasting.Or indeed, for overseas broadcasting—which is precisely what the government have done today, five years after they should have left it alone. Third is the notion of independence, of a genuinely independent and genuinely national broadcaster. We have seen for five years this government putting the ABC under financial and political pressure. There is probably no better exposition of that than the commentary by Mr Greg Barnes, the former chief of staff of finance minister John Fahey, on ABC Radio National last month. When he was asked in the course of the conversation about the ABC, he said this. Remember that this is a person who sat around the expenditure review table with Prime Minister Howard, Treasurer Costello, minister for communications Alston and finance minister Fahey. He said:... I think the real issue is the fact that you do get a little bit of cowering and you're currently getting it because relentless attacks by Ministers in the Government and Board members of the ABC eventually wears with you down. That's the real issue.That gives the lie to the articulation of the Prime Minister today in question time that the government is walking the walk rather than just talking the talk insofar as the independence of the ABC is concerned. The problem for the Prime Minister and the problem for the minister for communications and the problem for the government is that, when they talk the talk about the ABC's independence and adequate funding, no-one believes them. No-one in the community believes they have an attachment to those important principles.What are the adverse consequences of all these things that I have outlined? The first and most important one is that, as far as ABC staff are concerned, there is now essentially a climate of fear in the ABC. We have seen the adverse consequences on ABC programming and content. The ABC has given evidence at the Senate estimates committee that it needs to have about 1,000 hours of TV programming in store, but it is now down to 400 hours or less. The adverse consequences are also seen in news and current affairs programming and in programming to rural and regional Australia and to the outlying states.At the next election the Australian community, insofar as the ABC is concerned, will have a clear choice. They can return the Howard-Anderson government, which is out of touch with community concerns about the ABC and which has the wrong priorities in relation to the ABC. It will spend more money on advertising than on the ABC. It will say one thing about the ABC's funding and independence and do another thing. And, when it gets to that point in the cycle where it wants to save its political skin, it will do backflip after backflip. The Australian community will have a clear choice: if they want a government which will respect the independence of the ABC, they can have a Beazley Labor government. (Time expired)10000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—I call the Minister for the Arts and the Centenary of Federation.5V5Smith, Stephen, MPMr Stephen Smith—Mr Deputy Speaker, the minister challenged me to—10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—You do not have the call at the moment.5V5Smith, Stephen, MPMr Stephen Smith—I am seeking leave to table an interview that the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts gave on the Sunday program last Sunday.Leave granted.15:54:0028106McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGAURANXH4GippslandNPMinister for the Arts and the Centenary of Federation10—The starting point of this debate on the matter of public importance is the terms that the opposition have submitted:The adverse consequences for the Australian community of the Government's sustained financial and political attacks on the ABC.That is untrue. It is as simple as that. The terms expressed by the opposition in their matter of public importance are a complete falsehood. I will summarise the shadow minister's case in support of the outrageous accusations and allegations contained in the wording of the MPI. His allegations against Senator Alston in terms of his MPI are as follows: firstly, that he closed down the Senate estimates committee hearing a week or so ago; secondly, that he wrote an article in the Saturday Age which was titled `Expose the Friends of the ABC' and, thirdly, that he somehow—and I am not quite sure how—in an interview with Laurie Oakes on last Sunday's Sunday program, excused the chairman's alleged political behaviour but accused the Friends of the ABC of acting in a political way. The member for Perth has only just tabled the transcript of that interview. We have to question why he did not quote from it. But I know why: he was verballing Senator Alston. I need to study that transcript, because I listened to that interview and that was certainly not the explicit meaning, nor the implied meaning, of Senator Alston's answer to Laurie Oakes. So those are the accusations. On the other hand, the member for Perth has claimed that, to be sustainable and to be influential, the ABC needs three pillars and that the government has failed on each of them. Let me summarise them. They were that the ABC needs a policy approach which acknowledges its existence and a commitment to its independence, that there has to be adequate resources funding and that there has to be respect for independence, which is really just a repeat of the first pillar.I want to deal with all of these. They are pretty easily despatched. The first allegation against Senator Alston is that he closed down the Senate estimates hearing. That was a sensible and necessary cooling off period because the thuggery and brutality of Senator Faulkner and of Senator Schacht had got out of hand. There was nobody who witnessed that Senate estimates hearing who did not think that it was a very good idea to adjourn for 20 minutes. The blame—if there is to be any blame for a mere adjournment of 20 minutes after a long day—lies with the Labor Party senators because of their line of questioning and because of the rudeness and arrogance they displayed towards the ABC general manager and staff.The second allegation against Senator Alston is that he accused the Friends of the ABC of being overly influenced by politics. That is pretty easy to substantiate, because we know that the Friends of the ABC are very heavily influenced by the CPSU, the union of the ABC. How do we know that? Well, we know that the CPSU jointly organises—and I suspect funds—these Friends of the ABC rallies out of entire self-interest. But the real giveaway was revealed by the Australian Financial Review edition of 9 June this year. About the Senate estimates questioning, which had to be adjourned for 20 minutes because of the behaviour of the Labor senators, the newspaper said:Three Labor senators attacked in rotation falling ratings, restructures of restructures, scheduling upheavals, resignations, payouts, Media Watch, leaked documents, police raids—it was all there.When Faulkner had worn out one line of questions he would hand over to Chris Schacht and slip back to the public seats for a briefing with the Community and Public Sector Union representative, Graeme Thomson.So Graeme Thomson, the secretary, was giving the bullets to the Labor senators and they were firing them. This is the same CPSU which, with the Friends of the ABC, jointly organises these rallies which attack the government. I suggest that those sincere and genuine—however misinformed—Friends of the ABC should distance themselves from the handmaidens of the CPSU who seem to be leading them. It is very disappointing to me and to a great many others, particularly in regional areas which depend heavily on and support strongly the ABC, especially its regional radio network, to see the Friends of the ABC captured in this way. This is the same CPSU which has donated $76,000 to the Labor Party over the last two years.No wonder Faulkner and Schacht were getting their riding instructions from the CPSU; they were merely paying their dues. They were doing exactly what the CPSU wanted, and it influenced their behaviour. The brutality of their performance will live long in the memory of those who watched it. So the second allegation against Senator Alston, as laid out by the member for Perth, collapses down around his ears. On the third allegation, regarding the Sunday program, I would need to study the transcript, which has only just been tabled. Quite frankly, Senator Alston has been completely and utterly misrepresented; otherwise, if there is a smoking gun, if there is an accurate accusation against Senator Alston, the member for Perth would have read from the transcript. Let us deal with the three things that the member for Perth claims the government is failing on. The first was a bit general but it was along the lines that there had to be, as a policy, an emotional, spiritual, conceptual commitment to the existence of the ABC. Well, you have got it. We know how valuable the ABC is as a cultural institution, as a disseminator of objective news and current affairs, as an educator and enlightener on arts, science and legal matters—the list goes on. I grew up with the ABC, like everybody else, and took much of my cultural nourishment from it. I cannot say I took a great deal of my spiritual nourishment from the ABC, but many people do. The Compass program on a Sunday night is a very good program and shows much of the religious and cultural diversity of Australia. So if you want it, we will say it—we always say it. And what follows from that is a commitment to the independence of the ABC.The second thing is adequate funding. Look, this government is funding the ABC $96 million more today than Labor did in its last budget. The only cut to the ABC was the 10 per cent cut in 1996 across all government departments except Defence. The ABC was not singled out. Every government department and agency had to have its funding reduced because of Labor's black hole: a $10 billion deficit. When are the Friends of the ABC going to factor that into the public debate? When are they going to say that it was not just the ABC; it was every government department? Quite frankly, it is cowardly of the Friends of the ABC and cynical of the opposition not to explain that reason. So the idea that the ABC was singled out is completely false.The third pillar that the member for Perth wants us to build the ABC upon is respect for independence. Well, let me just say this: I do not know of any member of the National and Liberal parties who has had a public statement issued by the Chief Executive Officer of the ABC claiming that there has been opposition intrusion on ABC independence. That is an allegation that Brian Johns, a Labor Party apparatchik and appointee, made against the member for Perth in February 2000. The heading is `Opposition intruding on ABC independence'. The hypocrisy, at worst, and inconsistency, at best, of the member for Perth is breathtaking. I quote from Mr Brian Johns's statement:I find it ironic that the federal Opposition and others in the name of protecting the independence and integrity of the ABC are intruding on that very independence by seeking a parliamentary inquiry, an inquiry, incidentally, which would follow last week's intensive examination of the proposed agreement by Senate estimates. The Opposition is seeking to intrude on our rights.So there you have it: the attackers on the independence of the ABC. But the hypocrisy of the opposition attacks on the government knows no bounds on this issue of independence. The member for Perth actually said that the $70 million over four years that we have granted to the ABC in the last budget is somehow tied. The ABC came to the government and made an argument for a number of areas that they believed needed increased funding, and one of them was regional services. So they put it forward. We have not tied the money. But, presumably, if they argued they needed $70 million for regional services, that is where they will spend it. Not like the ALP: in 1998 they went to the election with a communications policy that, yes, did give the ABC an extra $100 million over three years, but it had to be spent in the following ways: $12.5 million, Radio Australia; $19.5 million, Triple J; $78 million for the sole purpose of financing their migration to digital broadcasting. That is from the ALP policy platform 1998, Kim Beazley's `Plan for the nation: rebuilding the ABC'. They tied the funding explicitly, and they are still at it. The Friends of the ABC's Canberra newsletter—this is fascinating—summarises the discussions they have just had with the member for Fraser, a senior member of the Labor Party's leadership group in this parliament. It quoted him as follows: Bob McMullan wants a strong and robust ABC—Who doesn't? We all do. But we want it independent and we want it objective in all of its coverage and all of its commentary. It goes on:On the key question of funding, Bob was guarded, assuming the Labor Party were to win the election, and sought to get across the message of not to expect too much too soon.Don't expect too much too soon! How much funding are the ALP going to actually direct towards the ABC? We know Bob McMullan has told the Friends, `Don't expect too much too soon.' Funny, they are saying that to everybody. It is remarkable, isn't it, how they are guarded and hedging their bets? But in the context of this debate about tied funding, he goes on to say:... his concern about leaving it to the ABC to determine how to spend taxpayers' funds led Bob to argue for a much more direct involvement of the government minister in identifying areas of dedicated funding.The member for Fraser sought to take a personal explanation. It was gobbledegook; he ducked and he weaved. But now from the Friends of the ABC, who claim to be the natural allies of the ALP—why, I do not know; the ALP are the ones with the track record of interference in independence, as Brian Johns has said; they are the ones with a record of tied funding proposals, which is hitting at the independence of the ABC, according to the member for Perth—we see it is backed up by Mr McMullan. He was not the only one; there were others interviewed for that purpose. We see people like the member for Canberra, Annette Ellis, who is quoted as saying:She was not completely comfortable with the idea of tied funding—that is to her credit, but—she would have fewer reservations if real priorities were the object of tied funding.The Labor candidate for Eden-Monaro, Steve Whan, is quoted as saying:He saw himself as possibly accommodating tied funding.The only person interviewed who rejected the idea of tied funding and sought to maintain the legislative as well as the cultural and social independence of the ABC was the member for Eden-Monaro, Gary Nairn. According to the newsletter, he says:He did not think the government should dictate too much on how the ABC should spend funds allocated to it.So he stood up for them. Political interference: this is the oldest furphy. Does the name Rod Cameron mean anything to anybody? Rod Cameron, the Labor Party's pollster throughout the decade of the 1980s, a key strategist, is now still an informal adviser to the ALP. He is a board member. Does the name John Bannon ring a bell?NV5Forrest, John, MPMr Forrest—It does.XH4McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGAURAN—John Bannon, the former Labor Party Premier of South Australia? Good heavens! He was a member of the ABC. David Hill, former chairman and chief executive officer—84BSt Clair, Stuart, MPMr St Clair—He was a candidate.XH4McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGAURAN—For which party?84BSt Clair, Stuart, MPMr St Clair—The Labor Party.XH4McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGAURAN—Good Lord! Surely the ALP in government would not appoint Labor Party hacks to the ABC board and management team! Brian Johns I have already dealt with—also an ALP insider. As for bullying, this is beautiful: Greg Turnbull, a press secretary, a good fellow when he was a journalist in the press gallery, as I remember him, was reported in the Australian on 8 March this year as blasting Mark Willacy, a current affairs reporter with the ABC, by saying that he had `gone too soft' on an interview with the Treasurer. He called him `a sycophant' and `too soft' and he said this, which is quoted in the newspaper:Wait until we're in government, we've got a long memory.There is political interference for you! There is an impingement on the ABC's independence! So the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Perth should be judged by the actions of their henchmen, whether it be Senator Faulkner or Greg Turnbull. The final word on this should go to the last Labor appointee on the ABC board who, on his departure, was quoted in the Sydney Morning Herald on 6 February this year. He said this in regard to the government appointees to that board: Almost without exception the people on that board have the ABC well in front of any political allegiance.He went on to say that the ABC was not the target of a coalition government for funding cuts. The ALP ask one token question at question time, one question only; if they were serious about the ABC, they should have made it the issue of the day. This is merely grandstanding to the Friends of the ABC in whatever numbers they may have assembled here in Canberra. They talk down the ABC; they do not celebrate the greatness of the ABC and support it in the way that the Liberal and National parties do. (Time expired)16:09:0028110Roxon, Nicola, MPMs ROXON83KGellibrandALP00—I might say that for those on this side of the House it is a bit rich being lectured by the Minister for the Arts and the Centenary of Federation about issues of independence. Talking about independence, this minister has the audacity to stand up and say that, because we have senators in our Senate estimates process who may talk to members of the CPSU, we are somehow totally lacking in independence in the questions we ask because the CPSU give us, the Labor Party, donations. The very minister making these allegations earns more—he makes more money—per year from his ownership of a pub, a gaming facility, in my electorate than the CPSU give per year to the ALP, and he thinks there is no conflict of interest when he is actually handling a piece of legislation that deals with interactive gambling. I must say it is a bit rich to be lectured about independence by a minister who does not see that there is any issue of conflict in that sort of situation. However, the matter of public importance that we are debating is this government's sustained financial and political attacks on the ABC. I was disgusted, when I was in question time today, to see how totally dismissive the Prime Minister was of a question asked about funding for the ABC. He could not care less about the community's concerns and really did not deign to answer the question at all. This sort of dismissiveness actually turns to maliciousness with this government, because they have form when it comes to trying to silence their critics. They have real form: for the past five years they have taken every opportunity to silence critics and to withdraw money not just from our public broadcaster but from every small charitable organisation that has dared to say anything against them, such as community legal centres that might bring some sort of action against governments, as they are often wont to do. The government have been withdrawing funding from the Australian Youth Policy and Action Coalition, AYPAC, withdrawing funding from women's groups, and attacking HREOC when one of the human rights or sex discrimination commissioners has the audacity to disagree with them. This government just cannot handle criticism, so when it comes to the ABC they see it as another opportunity to continue on in their entirely consistent manner and make sure that anybody that might say anything against them is silenced.The latest disgrace on this front is the attack that the government is making on charities. The Minister for Family and Community Services is seeking to restrict the capacity of charities to speak out and to even issue a press release on any matter without it being cleared 24 hours beforehand by the minister or the department. I am surprised that the government has not been asking the ABC to perhaps run some of their news items past the minister. Perhaps the minister who was previously speaking on this would like 24 hours notice of any issue that might actually be raised on the news. I think it is ridiculous that we get to the stage that the Minister for Family and Community Services is seeking to add gag clauses to the funding contracts the government has with peak welfare groups, such as ACOSS and the Federation of the Homeless, vetting press releases by welfare groups 24 hours beforehand and vetoing material prepared for publication if it contains departmental facts and figures. What next? You must wonder about the reason that the government is so determined to ensure that the ABC do not have sufficient funding to be able to be critical of governments, no matter what government it might be. The ABC run news and current affairs programs. They should, as an independent public broadcaster, make sure that we are accountable—that is their job. But you do have to wonder if the reason that the government goes so hard on the ABC and does not worry so much about the other news services is that it can buy its advertising on the other news services. The government does not have to worry about what is said on Channel 9, Channel 10 or Channel 7 because it makes sure that the ads between any of the news items are paid for by it and send its message. That is what we have been seeing for the last week. It has been paying with our taxes millions and millions of dollars in advertising its message, making sure it can say whatever it likes. It does not care what the news and current affairs message is on any other radio and news station because it just buys the ad time in between. That is the government's real concern: it cannot buy any advertising on the ABC; it cannot buy the message that it wants.We have seen their sensitivity to criticism. The member for Sturt in his absolutely pathetic display in question time today showed yet again just how touchy he can be on these issues. I cannot believe that a member of this House could be worried or offended by a sticker being displayed in this House which reads: `Independent media: simple as ABC'. I think that Mr Pyne may not have learnt his ABC as well as some of the rest of us did. He obviously was not a friend of the ABC as a child and still is not. He did not learn his ABC or his 1-2-3, I do not think, when he was watching Play School. He clearly is the sort of killjoy, the dobber in class, who would want to jump up and turn off the television if everyone else was enjoying Bananas in Pyjamas; he would be the first to turn it off. This government have done a bad enough job in the way they have slashed funding to the ABC, but if someone like the member for Sturt were actually responsible for it I worry what the funding cuts would be like. As the member for Griffith mentioned before, we need not worry about the privatisation of Telstra: he would be privatising Bananas in Pyjamas. He would start with B1 and, if the Nationals agreed to it, he would then be on to B2, and it would just go on from there. I really think that we need to be worried about what this government are up to when members of the backbench can be so offended by a simple sticker that says `Independent media'. That is something that I would have thought everybody in this House supports. It looks to me like the member for Moreton might be the second speaker in this matter and, as he comes from the media, it would be disgraceful if he did not stand up and talk about the independent media. Admittedly, he comes from commercial media; he probably knows what it is worth to buy advertising on commercial radio stations, and no doubt he will be telling us about that. Maybe the member for Moreton might be able to shed some light on what it is actually worth to a commercial radio station when a government is out there in the marketplace spending $20 million a month on advertising. What is it that commercial radio and television actually want? How much can you buy for that sort of money, and what can you actually buy? Just a spot? Advertising? Or are there other things that you can buy? The member for Moreton might like to enlighten us on this.Importantly as well in this debate, one of the things that the government likes to brush over all the time is something that the Minister for Trade has just slipped in in recent times, something that is of great concern to the ABC—that is, his suggestion that our local content rules should be put on the table in negotiations with the US over a free trade agreement. This is something that I find quite staggering, and it is no doubt the type of ill-considered comment that fuels community concern about what happens in trade negotiations, where we know that there are very sensible agreements we need to reach. This content issue, however, is an area where we need to be concerned. The Leader of the Opposition and the shadow minister responsible, the member for Fraser, have already clearly said that we are concerned to maintain our local content rules the way that they currently are. I must say that I have a vested local interest in this. Not only is my electorate of Gellibrand home to many Australian actors but it is also the `filming home' of both SeaChange and Blue Heelers. It is something that brings a lot of prosperity to the electorate, and we are very proud that we feature in those TV shows. The actors are very proud that they live in our area, and we would like to do everything to encourage the growth of successful programs and the increase of Australian content. We do not want the government to be constantly attacking the ABC, putting the ABC under pressure, taking money away from them so that they struggle to be able to meet the local content requirements and struggle to be able to do their job properly in a way that we would all like to see. So I hope that this government understands how strongly the community feels about this issue. The importance of our having an independent national public broadcaster cannot be underestimated, and I hope the trite comments that were made by the minister will be improved upon by the next speaker, although I do have some fears that we may just get more of the same.16:19:0028112Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVECK6MoretonLP10—I am actually pleased for the member for Gellibrand that her time has expired. Normally these MPIs really are a matter of `union' importance, and today I would say that it is the MCPSUI—it is the matter of the Commonwealth Public Sector Union's importance. It was a very sad contribution just made by the member for Gellibrand, so I suspect even that union is somewhat embarrassed by her contribution today. I have no doubt about the importance of an independent public broadcaster. I actually worked for the ABC for 10 months, so I have a little bit of an understanding of the value that the ABC brings and the sense of responsibility that independent and individual staff members have towards the product that they produce. I am, of course, gravely concerned that during the 13 years of the previous government we saw a disembowelling of what was the ABC. We saw the `Sydney Broadcasting Corporation' evolve under the stewardship of Labor Party member David Hill. When David Hill was in charge of the ABC, we saw in my city and in my state, in Brisbane and in Queensland, ABC facilities being downgraded while the Ultimo centre was constructed and while Sydney became far more important than it should have been in the overall scheme of things. So, in a lot of ways, it is a misnomer to call it the Australian Broadcasting Corporation because of the style of approach that the Labor Party adopted during their time in government and because of their deliberate appointment of David Hill to that position.What this government has been trying to do is restore some of the Australianness of the ABC. In fact, in meeting the quite legitimate and reasonable request from the ABC for additional funding for regional services, we are in fact restoring and improving the prospect of great growth of ABC services targeting, and also sourced from, rural and regional Australia. You have to understand that, in the ABC scheme of things, anything outside Sydney and Melbourne is regional. So in cities like Brisbane, where TV studios have been mothballed for years, and in major cities like Rockhampton and Townsville where radio and television studios have been essentially mothballed and hardly ever used except by occasional people passing through, I think that there would be some cause for great excitement about what is going on within the ABC.But the CPSU has infiltrated the once noble Friends of the ABC. I have got to say that I have met with the Friends of the ABC on many occasions, and there are many quite impressive and pleasant people amongst them. But the sad part about it is that they have now been so infiltrated by those who do not want to see the sorts of changes that are taking place in the ABC and who do not want to see the restoration of services and focus back on the whole of Australia, getting outside of the Ultimo Centre. The CPSU has infiltrated the Friends of the ABC to such an extent that you cannot tell them apart. What is worse again is the CPSU's co-sponsoring of rallies, events, propaganda and stickers—and we have seen those opposite blatantly disregarding standing orders today through the use of slogans and so forth in this chamber today. All of those things are jointly funded by a union—a union which contributes heavily to the Australian Labor Party—and there you just see the full circle now being completed. It is sad in the extreme that those opposite should get up and try to condemn this government for in fact being part of a process of funding an independent ABC which has made a decision to get its operation outside of the Sydney comfort zone and get more people on the ground in towns like Longreach, Townsville, Geraldton and Albany—towns that I have visited this year as part of this House's Standing Committee on Communications, Transport and the Arts, which has been inquiring into regional radio services and has found shocking things, like the ABC turning off the short-wave service that used to support vast areas of the member for Kalgoorlie's electorate. There are people in Australia who cannot receive ABC radio broadcasts. That is a decision made over a period of years when those opposite were in power. The focus has been on what is good for Sydney must be good for the ABC and must be good, therefore, for Australia. There is a lot more to Australia than what is going on in Sydney.For those opposite to come in here and try to prevent the change to restore reasonable services, reasonable support in the placement of personnel in country towns—the sorts of things that I understand the ABC management now want to do with the extra funds that we have provided—shows how stupid this matter of public importance debate actually is today. To think that they could term `adverse consequences' as part of the matter before us today! I think I have rather successfully outlined that the adverse consequences of the pre-1996 style of running the ABC gradually, slowly but surely, unpicked the way the ABC used to work, the way the ABC used to provide not simply something being transmitted on relay out of Sydney but faces on the ground, people on the ground. This is something that this government is certainly determined to try to encourage the ABC, through funding, to do. `The sustained financial and political attacks on the ABC' is mentioned in this MPI. The fact is this year we are funding them $96 million more than in the last year of the previous government.XT4Ronaldson, Michael, MPCK6Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVE—$96 million. The Chief Government Whip had not heard my first comment. $96 million does not sound anything like a sustained financial attack on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. In fact, that $96 million is more than the Australian Labor Party spent in their last year in office. In fact, $70 million will be spent over the next four years to back up ABC management's attempts to get the organisation back out into rural communities.I have got to say that the ABC in Brisbane do a marvellous job. It is almost loaves and fishes country in the city of Brisbane for the ABC. Their staff numbers have been hacked down. During the time I was at the ABC in 1987—when the Labor Party were in government—we were watching people taking all sorts of redundancy packages, we were watching people being forced out, and at the same time we were watching from Brisbane the bloat of staff numbers in Sydney. So Brisbane was being sacrificed for Sydney. In fact, regional and rural areas all around Australia were being sacrificed for Sydney, and I think that those opposite attempting to try to justify that by condemning the government and its efforts to back reasonable measures to try to get these sorts of things reversed over a period of years is disgraceful in the extreme.The Australian Labor Party certainly cannot be friends of the ABC. I would say to the Friends of the ABC to break the nexus that is now exposed between you and the Australian Labor Party. Break this nexus completely, because if you had any credibility left as a result of what we now know you would in fact be condemning the history of the Labor Party in government over 13 years. XT4Ronaldson, Michael, MPMr Ronaldson—The leadership of friends.CK6Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVE—The leadership of friends need to be purged of the Labor Party links that they now have, those CPSU links that they now have—their $57,000 worth of funding of rallies. There is a lot of pieces of silver caught up in that. After all, if the ALP was a real friend of the ABC, then the Friends of the ABC would not let their friends do what they did to the ABC. We on this side say, `Friends don't let friends vote Labor.' I would say to the Friends of the ABC, `Don't let the ALP get back into government ranks to do what they did in years past,' because of their lack of understanding of the need to properly resource areas beyond the comfort zone of Sydney, beyond the comfort zone of Melbourne—and, for that matter, even places like Brisbane, Adelaide, Perth and Darwin, which struggled for all of those years as their staff numbers were being cut, as they were having to wind back on local production, as studio cameras were being loaded onto the back of trucks and taken off to Sydney and as studio services were being mothballed. You could walk past TV studios in Brisbane and you could look in and see, like Daleks, the leftover cranes that the television cameras sat on. They were just sitting there with little bits of dust on them. People with white coats would go in every so often and oil them and then hop on the plane and fly back to Sydney. This is what the Labor Party did during their time in office to the ABC. They unpacked the Australianness of the ABC. This government is all about bringing the `A', the `Australian', back to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. I am pleased to see these sorts of efforts. They are things that I have been very well aware of for many years. As I said, 1987 was when I was with the ABC. It has been going on since that time, and we as a government at least are now starting to address the need to undo the damage done by the Australian Labor Party. The ABC management under Brian Johns said that the Friends of the ABC were an embarrassment to him. They certainly must be an embarrassment today. Their nexus with the CPSU does them no credit at all, nor does the pound of flesh, the many pieces of silver, they take from their Labor Party connections do them any credit either. (Time expired)10000Jenkins, Harry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Order! The discussion has concluded.Bills28114R129328114Debate resumed from 5 April, on motion by Mr Ian Macfarlane:That the bill be now read a second time.16:30:0028114Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—You would think that the last country in the world to bring in a GST would be able to get it right, but not this government. As you know, we have opposed the GST on many grounds but, whether people agree or disagree with the GST, it is not the GST that the people were promised. The government have comprehensively botched the implementation of the GST, and many Australians are suffering as a consequence.Let us just go to the promises that were made about this GST, because I think that is pretty instructive. The point I want to prove is that not one promise made about it, not one thing said in its favour, has actually been borne out. Take the fact that the government—and the Treasurer and the Prime Minister in particular—claimed that everyone would be a winner under it; that all Australians would be better off under the new tax system. The opinion polling consistently shows that most Australians feel that they are not better off under the GST.WN6Macfarlane, Ian, MPMr Ian Macfarlane—Have you told Australia about roll-back, Simon?DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—I notice that the Minister for Small Business is at the table. He might, instead of interrupting, just listen and do something constructive for his constituency for once. `No small business will go to the wall,' was another great promise that was made by the Treasurer back in May last year. But, since the GST has come in, bankruptcies have increased—by 25 per cent in the March quarter of 2001. A third claim made about the GST was that small business red tape would be slashed. I am pleased that the minister is at the table, because he is responsible for this. Remember the promises, Minister—`A coalition government will slash the burden of paperwork and regulations on small business, with our aim being a 50 per cent reduction in our first term in office'? That was John Howard in January 1996. He went on to say that tax legislation had become a tidal wave which threatened to overwhelm small business. When asked in August 1998 if the tax act would be reduced by the introduction of the GST he said, `Yes, it will.' But what do we see? The GST legislation and explanatory memorandum are thicker than three telephone books and already the government's simple new tax has had to be amended 1,800 times. As for the claim about reducing the tax act, instead of slashing small business red tape by 50 per cent the income tax act has blown out from 3,000 pages and will soon be running over 8,500 pages.Another claim made was that the GST would produce more jobs. The truth? Since the introduction of the GST, the rate of job growth has almost halved and the unemployment rate has risen. Another claim is that, under the GST, the black economy will disappear. But the truth again is that, if you listen to tax experts around the country, they now concede that the black economy has probably increased under the GST. Peter McDonald, National Director of Taxpayers Australia, is reported in the Herald Sun on 18 June this year as saying:Anecdotally, the feedback we are getting from a number of sources is the black economy is going ballistic.Another claim is that the GST will not be a tax on a tax. We have the Minister for Trade, Mr Vaile, saying that the first principle is that you do not impose a tax on a tax. Yet what is the truth? The GST applies to the final retail price of goods and services, which often includes other taxes. Well-known examples of where you get the tax on a tax, despite what the government said, are petrol and other fuels, alcohol and tobacco.Another claim made of the GST was that all people over the age of 60 would get $1,000. On 25 August 1998, John Howard said:You get a $1000 savings bonus for all people over the age of 60.The truth? A total of 40 per cent of Australians over 60 got nothing and a further 10 per cent got less than $50. Then there was the government's attempt to try and meet this promise in the most recent budget, where people were paid $300—$300 in $1,000, 30 cents in the dollar, to try and buy their way out of this broken promise. Even the creditors of the HIH collapse are expecting more than that. Another promise was that pensioners would get a four per cent pension increase. The Treasurer claimed, on 23 August 1998, that social security and veterans pensions would be boosted by four per cent. The truth? The government clawed back two per cent of the four per cent rise in March 2001.Another claim is that health and education would be GST free—the Treasurer said that on 23 August 1998. But again the truth is that many health and education items are subject to the GST. Education costs such as school uniforms, school shoes, public transport, books and school bags all face the GST. Many health items also attract it, including skin creams, denture repairs, sanitary products, vitamins and minerals. Another claim of the GST was that the Aussie dollar would be worth more. Again, to quote the Treasurer back in 1998, he said that lower costs for exporters will be reflected in a moderately stronger exchange rate over time. Since the GST has come in, the Australian dollar has depreciated significantly.Another claim about the GST is that nothing will go up by the full 10 per cent. Again, the Treasurer said that in August of 1998. But consumers know that many items have gone up by more than 10 per cent since the GST came in. The minister at the table was asking us to talk about roll-back and polling. The recent Quadrant poll, reported in the Herald Sun on 18 June 2001, shows that 68 per cent believe that most goods and services have increased by more than 10 per cent. The other claim made by this government was in regard to petrol prices. `Petrol prices won't increase as a result of the GST,' the government claimed. John Howard, in August 1998:The GST will not increase the price of petrol for the ordinary motorist.When the GST was introduced, fuel excise was cut by 6.7c a litre, but the GST added 8.2c a litre. That is what yielded a 1½c hike in taxation, which itself was indexed. Of course, it was the outrage around that broken promise that led to that huge backflip by the Prime Minister on petrol taxation.I go through these things because what we are dealing with today is more GST roll-back—roll-back forced upon the government because of pressure from the Labor Party but in circumstances in which the roll-back is demonstrated again to be necessary since what people thought they were getting with this GST they have not got. They were misled about the GST, and that list of things that I have gone through demonstrates that nothing that the government asserted about the GST has been proved correct. They should be condemned for it. Nevertheless, we are stuck with the tax as a consequence of the deceit.It is not just in the general sense that this deceit has been practised, because the business community did not get the tax it thought it was seeking. The truth of it is that the business community was part of the cheer squad for the GST, but it has been left seriously disappointed and frustrated by the botched ineptness of this government in its introduction. That is why the roll-back package in this Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 3) 2001 has been forced on the government, because they just could not get it right. They are not the first amendments that have come from them. Remember that the amendments in this bill, which total 160, take the total number of amendments from the government to their supposedly simple and new system to over 1,800, the figure that I mentioned before. These 160 new amendments cover the areas of GST returns in payments, payments of GST by instalments, substituted accounting periods, correcting GST errors, pay-as-you-go instalments and deferral of due dates. But, importantly, the bill before us proposes to enact the BAS backflip package announced by the Treasurer on 22 February this year. It was a package hastily conceived and announced in reaction to the administrative nightmare that was engulfing small business under the original BAS proposals. Of course, we know there will be more to come. There have to be, because there have to be better steps to simplify the collection of this tax. The government just has to get it right, and if it does not we will—WN6Macfarlane, Ian, MPDT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—because this is a botched effort on the part of a government that thought that all it had to do was to pass the legislation through the parliament and the rest would look after itself. This is not a simple new tax and that is what the small business community is finding out. Everyone knows that the GST needs to be made simpler. The government ridicules Labor, and you still hear the Minister for Small Business at the table saying, `Who wants roll-back?' I tell you what, Minister: the small business community in this country wants roll-back, because they want the tax to be made fairer, they want it to be made simpler—and they have told us so because they have welcomed the initiatives that we have announced. Go and ask COSBOA what they had to say in welcoming Labor's initiatives. Labor's initiatives are roll-back to make this tax simpler, and the small business community is very interested and supportive of them.9K6Gambaro, Teresa, MPDT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—I ask the member who is interjecting, `Who disagrees with making this tax simpler?' Does the member for Petrie disagree that we should try and make the GST simpler? Is that what she is saying? Is she opposing measures to make the GST simpler? Is that what you are saying, Member for Petrie?9K6Gambaro, Teresa, MPMs Gambaro—You are making it more complex.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—That is not the question. I am asking you: do you oppose making this tax simpler? It is a simple question.10000Jenkins, Harry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Order!DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—If you want to interject, at least be prepared to answer. Do you oppose making it simpler?'10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will not encourage the honourable member for Petrie to interject and the honourable member for Petrie will cease interjecting.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—Let me make this point: Labor supports making the GST simpler, and it is Labor that is committed to effecting roll-back that does make the GST simpler. The government can ridicule that as much as they like, but we know that we are getting the sympathetic ears of the small business community around this country. The people that disagree are a government that are obsessed about the view that this GST is the best thing since sliced bread, but they are also a government oblivious to the criticism and concerns about the complexity associated with it. I ask again: who is opposed to making the GST simpler? It is only the government that are frustrating this process.Remember that it was the Treasurer, Peter Costello, who claimed over a year ago that the legislation was fine. He told Neil Mitchell on 24 January 2000:Well, it does mean that we're not changing the legislation, that we've got it right. There goeth the Treasurer back in January of last year saying that there was no need for legislative changes, but he has been in here ramping the amendments up—1,800 we have clocked up now with the meter still ticking—to the simple new tax that he said then required no change. Of course it requires change, because it is a botched implementation, and we are going to continue pursuing that which is necessary to effect its change. But the government still has not got it right and it is the Labor Party that has been forcing its hand. It was Labor that announced—Government members interjecting—DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—You can laugh up there at the back, but I just remind you that it was Labor that first announced the simplification package for the BAS. This was to allow business to choose to remit an instalment based on a simple ratio of the net GST payable over a previous period to the turnover of the firm for the particular quarter. That is what Labor put out last February: let us identify the ratio of net GST remittances based on past performance and give the option to small businesses to apply that to the actual quarter in which the turnover occurs. When we put that out last February, the Treasurer—smart as ever, sharp as a tack—said that it could not be done. He said it was impossible to do and that Labor was just on about some hoax and was raising expectations. But it did not take long. Within a fortnight the Treasurer had been forced by the Prime Minister to turn up at a press conference—I remember seeing him in the blue room—trying to pretend that they had not had to do a backflip—LS4Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin Ferguson—He had that lovely smile.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—He had that lovely smile—the smirk doctors had not worked this day. The smirk doctors had obviously failed on this occasion, because there he was— Cheshire cat and all—trying to make out that this was his initiative. The truth is that it was forced upon him; he does not believe in it. Left to his own devices, he would not have done it. But at least the Prime Minister saw the pressure that was building and said, `Well, I'm being told that what Labor is proposing makes some sense. You'd better do something about it,' and so the Treasurer did. But he did not adopt precisely what Labor was proposing and they still have not got it right. The government said that their option was: `Let's give businesses the option of paying for the March and June quarters of this year what their GST remittance was for the December quarter of last year.' Anyone who knows anything about small business would know that the December quarter, in the vast majority of cases, is their biggest quarter. It is the Christmas rush period; it is when sales are high. So the government really was not giving them much of a choice at all. It was saying, `As a simpler method you can choose to pay what in certain circumstances might require you to pay more than otherwise.' We know that many businesses had the downturn in the March quarter, because that was the quarter when we saw the greatest mugging of the economy by the GST. Our proposal was to apply the ratio to the actual quarter, so that if the economic cycle of the business turns down in the quarter they only have to pay the appropriate amount. The ratio stays the same but the total remittance goes down because the turnover goes down. It makes sense. It is a flexible application and it is simple. But no, the government could not bring itself to the circumstances of bipartisanship, agreeing with Labor on a sensible initiative. It could not bring itself to doing the proper simplification. As a result, many small businesses have opted to continue with the old system, because to do otherwise will further worsen their tentative cash flow situation. So it is another example of the government having to be forced, kicking and screaming, to do something and then botching it when they get the chance. They are too arrogant to adopt a bipartisan position with us and they are still not listening.One example of them not listening is a small business in the electorate of Aston. We have heard the government talking about the electorate of Aston a couple of times over the last few days. This is what a previously committed Liberal supporter had to say, and it is quoted from the Herald Sun of 17 June:But for the first time since he first voted, Mr Ferguson, 53, says he will not vote Liberal at the 14 July by-election.In case there is any confusion with my friend and colleague sitting at the table with me, this refers to a Mr Michael Ferguson who runs a small business in Bayswater in the seat of Aston. He goes on to say:`The GST has been a debacle for small business.' Mr Ferguson has had to lay off one in 10 of his staff. `I never realised the GST would change my life so much,' he said.He then goes on to list the things that hit him under this government. First of all, he was hit with a double taxation because of an overlap between the tax systems. Then there were the long delays in getting refunds from the Australian Taxation Office, which choked his cash flow. Then there was the fall in the Australian dollar against the Japanese yen, the country from which he imports his engines. Then the GST crunched used car prices, driving many car dealers out of business. And then he was also being hurt by second-hand vehicle restrictions, which he was assisted in, interestingly enough, by the member sitting at the table with me, Mr Martin Ferguson. This must have been the Scots getting together to work things out. He was a previously committed Liberal voter, he had his business drastically curtailed because of the introduction of the GST and other initiatives, he got no support from the Liberal Party and he had to turn to the Labor Party for support. This is one of the small businesses in the seat of Aston.The electors of Aston have another opportunity to continue to send the wake-up call to this government, because the government is still not getting it, even in the wake of the Western Australian election result that saw a Labor government returned, the Queensland state elections that saw the state government of Peter Beattie returned and the federal by-election in the seat of Ryan, vacated by the former Minister for Defence, which Labor won. All of these electors were sending this desperate call to the government through both state and federal opportunities: `Please wake up and fix the problems with the GST.' But they still have not got the message. There is another opportunity with the Aston by-election to send the message to Canberra: `You're still not listening. You're still not acting. There still needs to be simplification. There still needs to be fairness. There still needs to be roll-back of the GST.' The fact of the matter is that the Labor Party has listened to the community through the tax debate. Just as with the committee process that we had looking at petrol prices, which came forward with recommendations which we forced the government to adopt and which saw the GST spike flushed out of the petrol pricing arrangements, we established a committee to look at the problems of small business, with the small business community being crushed under the BAS red tape. We were out there with the committee chaired by the shadow Assistant Treasurer, the member for Wills. That committee has had 18 hearings around the country, in every state, with more planned. We have received hundreds of submissions, both oral and written, and we have made recommendations and announcements based upon what we have been hearing. We have not just been consulting and listening; we have been prepared to make changes based on those consultations. Out of those consultations, two things keep recurring—two particular areas that need attention: simplicity through a reduction in the compliance burden and the problems associated with cash flow. The consultation process has produced a further simplification model, a proposal that I announced last month at the National Press Club: a further refinement based on what we put out earlier, building on the notion of utilising—giving people the option to exercise—past performance as an indicator of the ratio of net GST remittances. WN6Macfarlane, Ian, MPMr Ian Macfarlane—Explain it.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—Think about it in terms of a business. Every business—WN6Macfarlane, Ian, MPMr Ian Macfarlane—I will, if you can just explain it.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—If the minister wants to listen instead of stupidly—WN6Macfarlane, Ian, MPMr Ian Macfarlane—Explain roll-back.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—If the minister would just listen instead of blathering, he might be able to understand what we are talking about. By the first year of operation, every business—think of this, Minister—is going to have had a net remittance of GST receipts of somewhere between 0 and 10 per cent. It is the personalised, simplified accounting method, if you need it put in any simpler language. Based on that performance, people should be able to opt to remit that to apply it to the GST turnover for the quarter—to the turnover of the business for the quarter. WN6Macfarlane, Ian, MPMr Ian Macfarlane—Provided you don't have roll-back.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—The blatherer continues, Mr Deputy Speaker. This is a person not interested in listening. This is the whole point I am making. We are in the middle of trying to explain it to him so even he can understand it, and all he chooses to do is interrupt.WN6Macfarlane, Ian, MPMr Ian Macfarlane—You need a whiteboard.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—I know that the small business community has given up on you, but let me continue to explain our proposal. What we are saying is this: give them the option of applying that ratio to the quarter in question so that the net remittances of the GST adjust according to the business cycle. We have proposed that, if it can be done in a revenue neutral way, and we think it can, we could be able to get away from the need for an annual reconciliation. Wouldn't that be great? Not only have we got away with getting rid of the quarterly reconciliation which this government insisted on; we are prepared to look at getting rid of the annual reconciliation. This is something that the small business community has welcomed, Minister. If you continue to smirk and reject the notion that these things matter to it, again you are not listening. The aim of our proposal is simple: to free small businesses from the nightmare of GST reconciliations in a manner which protects the revenue for the community. The commitment is to do it in a revenue neutral way, and the committee that we have announced will have the task of ensuring that is the case. We think it can be done in a simple way and in a fair way. We will be establishing a specialist GST review committee to advise us on the implementation of aspects of the new option. WN6Macfarlane, Ian, MPMr Ian Macfarlane—Not another committee!DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—This is the government that established its own Vos committee to advise on the implementation of the GST. Why shouldn't there be the equivalent body to advise on roll-back? Or is there some double standard, Minister? The trouble is that you are trapped whichever way you go on this. You have a mess; you know it needs to be simplified. Labor is putting forward constructive proposals for simplification, and we are prepared to put an expert committee together to guarantee the parameters against which those initiatives are undertaken. That body will advise government on the implementation of the roll-back it will announce before the election, it will provide workable options for further GST roll-back for both the first term in government and beyond and it will ensure that we do not add to the complexity. The basic commitment is to ensure that our commitment to roll-back makes the GST simpler and fairer. The community will have its voice on that committee—unlike this government, which treats members of the community with scant regard, which takes no notice of them. At the small business summit run by COSBOA, I also announced another important part of simplification. I think the minister might have even been at the summit. I announced an initiative to try to assist small businesses with some of the cash flow pressures from the GST. The fact of the matter is that a high proportion of businesses are struggling under the new tax system because of slow payment causing major cash flow problems. Small businesses in particular are being squeezed by their major customers. This is an area where government can make an immediate difference. Government is a major consumer of business goods and services. There are certainly concerns about governments being slow payers. It was a Labor government that introduced the 30-day rule for the payment of bills by the Commonwealth. It is this government that has let those standards slip. It has not insisted upon them. Labor will ensure that all Commonwealth agencies comply with the 30-day payment rule.So there you have the situation where we are dealing with a bill that involves the government being forced to roll back the GST, being forced by the pressure of the Labor Party to do something to simplify the methods by which we collect the GST. We believe it can go further. It is only the Labor Party that is putting up constructive proposals to address this issue. I am astounded that the Minister for Small Business, who is sitting at the table, is not prepared to embrace these measures in a bipartisan way. I think that the small business community deserves better. It has had a bad deal from this government, and it has been a party that has traditionally supported the government as it stands today. But it is also a constituency that has become mightily disillusioned. Labor will continue to work with the small business community to find more effective means by which we can simplify this GST. The business community deserve it, and under Labor they will get it. (Time expired)17:00:0028120Prosser, Geoff, MPMr PROSSERRI4ForrestLP10—I rise tonight to speak in support of the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 3) 2001. The bill provides for the simplification of the reporting processes for the GST and pay-as-you-go system. Change is never easy. When the change is momentous, as it was when we moved to the new tax system, teething problems are bound to result. When we think about the million-plus businesses that dramatically changed the way they interact with the Australian Taxation Office and the way they collect and pay their tax, we realise what an enormous undertaking changing to the new system was.By the same token, the ATO also had a large workload, particularly when we think about the components of the new tax system, including the introduction of a goods and services tax and related wine equalisation tax and luxury car taxes; personal income tax cuts; increased family benefits; the introduction of the pay-as-you-go system for instalments and withholding taxes; new fringe benefits tax measures; the introduction of a savings bonus for older Australians; the introduction of binding oral advice for individual taxpayers with simple tax affairs and simple inquiries; the introduction of the Australian business number and establishment of the Australian Business Register; the introduction of the business activity statement; registration and endorsement of the exemption and gift deductibility status of charities; an extension of the diesel fuel rebate for off-road vehicles; and introduction of the Diesel and Alternative Fuels Grants Scheme for certain on-road transport and the Fuel Sales Grants Scheme for regional and remote service stations. This was a heavy workload. However, there was no excuse for some of the confusing, complicated and contradictory correspondence which was sent from the ATO to individuals and businesses. I have seen letters three pages long which really only needed to be one page in length, or longwinded letters which indicated that the liability was zero. In the end, some businesses felt like they were being swamped with paper from the ATO. These things did not help the introduction of the new tax system and I think ended up confusing matters and blurring the real issues.Some examples of the real life issues that were brought to the attention of the Treasurer and the Assistant Treasurer included a notice of assessment for a diesel fuel rebate sent out by the ATO which looked like an account that needed to be paid. It said on the form, `Please see reverse for important details about your assessment'. On the back of the assessment it listed details about how to pay the ATO. Several businesses paid back to the ATO the diesel fuel rebate they received in their bank accounts. It was not really a notice of assessment but a statement of how much they had been paid. Again, because the paperwork was not clear, it created unnecessary confusion. In other words, instead of saying `assessment', which for every taxpayer meant `this is a bill', it should have said, `This is a remittance advice.' For most businesses, if the ATO had used the simple term `remittance advice', that part of the confusion would have been removed completely.The second example involved a voluntary payments book, which was sent out by the ATO. After the small business had to phone to find out, the ATO advised that the book was for people who wanted to pay any of their tax in advance. The letter accompanying the book made no reference to its being voluntary. The letter did, however, state that it could only be used for `the tax type for which they are designed'. There was no mention in the letter of the tax type for which the payment was designed. These examples serve to highlight that the majority of problems with the new system were largely administrative and not legislative.I made contact with some of the larger accounting firms in my electorate, and we sat down around the table and discussed some of the possible positive changes that could be made which would preserve the system but make compliance easier for small business. We came up with a number of suggestions, which I put to the Prime Minister and the Treasurer. One of the more important points that were raised was that the standard of correspondence from the ATO needed to be lifted. Many of the suggestions thrashed out at the meeting have been picked up in this bill.The extension of time required to lodge the BAS is an important change. This bill provides a permanent extension so that the lodgment dates will now be 28 July, 28 October, 28 February and 28 April, which shows the government does understand how difficult it can be over the Christmas and holiday period. Most taxpayers will have the option of the ATO calculating the quarterly pay-as-you-go for them, which will mean that they will not have to calculate income on a quarterly basis. Sole traders, partnerships, companies and super funds with a turnover of under $1 million will have access to this option. Entities paying GST by instalment will only be required to lodge one return for the year, or part of the year, during which they are instalment payers, although instalments of tax will have to be paid quarterly on the same date as the quarterly returns are due. Primary producers and other special professionals will have two instalments per year. These taxpayers are subject to income averaging due to the fluctuating nature of their income, and it is viewed that twice yearly GST instalments could enable some of the fluctuations in GST accounting to be smoothed out. To be eligible for two instalments, such people must have had a profit from the relevant activity in the last tax year. I think this will be of particular benefit to small producers in my electorate. When the annual return and quarterly instalments are used, the difference between the amount paid by instalment and the liability calculated in the annual return will be payable at the time the annual return is lodged. For businesses that currently report quarterly, GST payments can now be made on a simple remittance form with an annual information statement. This will need to be lodged with their annual income tax return.A further option has been introduced for businesses with a turnover of less than $2 million. Those businesses will have the option of paying quarterly GST instalments based on the amount adjusted by the GDP factor. Naturally, variation provisions will be available. As every business knows, income and revenue are never constant. In the building industry, in particular, there are ups and downs, and sometimes those ups and downs in the business cycle have nothing to do with profitability. Those businesses that choose the GDP adjusted amount will pay the ATO calculated amount and, in time, the ATO will send out preprinted customised forms. I understand from the ATO that, by removing boxes which are no longer needed, it will endeavour to customise BAS as much as possible for each business.I am pleased with the IAS changes as well. Taxpayers with investment income of up to $8,000 will be able to pay annually if they wish. They will also have a choice of getting the ATO to notify them of the amount of tax they need to pay. Those taxpayers with investment income of $250 or less have been removed from the new system. Those taxpayers with investment income of more than $8,000 per year will still have to pay on a quarterly basis. However, those individuals can also, if they choose, get the ATO to advise them of the amount of tax payable. These are positive changes.I received an email from an accountant in my electorate, which states:I am not aware of a single client taking up the so called easier methods.By this he means the methods in this bill. He goes on to say:All stuck to full calculation sheet or derived from accounts. Even more interestingly is, I can't find anyone outside of our client base who has switched.So, if the compliance is such a terrible thing, why is there such a low take-up rate of the easy options? My suspicion is that this is not an isolated experience. My view is that it is important to allow businesses and taxpayers to have these extra and more flexible options. I also want to alert the House to one more change I would like to see made, although it must be made by the ATO at an administrative level and not at the legislative level. I would like to see additional flexibility applied to meat processors, who, because of the way the new tax system was altered in respect of food, have been caught up in a cash flow squeeze. This is because these businesses pay significant amounts of GST on their business inputs while selling products that are wholly or substantially GST free. There is a provision in the pay-as-you-go withholding legislation that could offer substantial relief to these businesses. This provision authorises the Commissioner of Taxation to allow a large withholder who is an employer who withholds in excess of $1 million annually in tax from salaries or wages to pay as a medium withholder. A medium withholder is required to remit amounts withheld from salaries and wages to the ATO on a monthly basis, and a large withholder is required to remit on a weekly basis. This will enable large withholders to better manage their cash flow. Being able to directly offset the pay-as-you-go-withholding amounts against GST credits with monthly accounting for both amounts would provide significant relief to businesses suffering cash flow detriment arising from the implementation of the GST. The meat processing businesses in my electorate that have applied to the Commissioner of Taxation to seek access to this provision have had their applications refused. The reason given for the refusal is that the commissioner does not have the discretion to make the change on the basis of cash flow. In actual fact, the commissioner does. The ATO has merely set up a list of criteria which will be applied to this decision. It is my argument that this was not the intent of the legislation. I have looked to the Prime Minister and the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry for support in this matter, and I will continue to lobby the ATO for change in this area. This is a matter of great import to the processing sector and the many employees of the processing sector in my electorate. I am determined to assist them to maintain a very healthy industry. The measures outlined in this bill provide additional flexibilities for taxpayers and small businesses, whether or not they take up their options. I commend the bill to the House.17:12:0028123Crosio, Janice, MPMrs CROSIO7T4ProspectALP00—The Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 3) 2001 is just another piece of ad hoc legislation which we can now add to that never ending pile of evidence to show that this is an economically incompetent government which is mean spirited and deceptive and simply cannot manage or understand the real impacts of its own taxation policies.Since the GST was introduced on 1 July 2000, all we have heard from this government is that the GST is a great relief to the taxpayers of Australia. We have heard how it would reduce red tape for small and medium sized businesses by 50 per cent. We have heard from the government how Australian families would be better off with their tax cuts. And we have heard how the GST would cut down the black economy. As a matter of fact, we have heard a whole range of predictions, myths and untruths from the Treasurer and the Prime Minister about their GST. Who could forget the Prime Minister on radio saying that the price of ordinary beer would not rise by more than 1.9 per cent. We all know what happened there. The Prime Minister said that the price of petrol would not rise as a result of the GST. We also know the truth about that one. But probably the biggest untruth told by this government was that no-one would be worse off under a GST.Maybe in the Treasurer's and the Prime Minister's own world these predictions and myths about the GST have come true. Maybe, as the Prime Minister sits in his home at Kirribilli House, looking over Sydney Harbour, he thinks to himself, `Everyone is better off thanks to my government's GST.' Well, perhaps those living near Kirribilli House are doing better under the tax package; I am sure they were doing pretty well before and that they will continue to do so in the future. But, if the Prime Minister took his blinkers off and bothered to step outside his comfort zone, he would see that the majority of people live in the metropolitan suburbs of our capital cities. They live in electorates like mine, like the electorates of my colleagues and the electorates of his government's own backbench—even electorates like yours, Mr Deputy Speaker Hollis.The Prime Minister will, I hope, realise that there is now an overwhelming consensus among the people, the families, the workers and the business community that no-one is better off under this government's GST. The main part of this bill aims to reduce the amount of time that small business owners spend on the much despised business activity statement by allowing it to be lodged annually rather than quarterly. This is something this government was dragged kicking and screaming to do, I might add. It is something that the government said could not be done. This government said it was too difficult. But it was something that we in the opposition have constantly said needed to be acted on, and now.The Treasurer stood in this chamber only a few weeks before he made the announcement of a roll-back on the BAS and said that the GST was set in concrete. He said that there would be no more changes to the GST package and then started to go on with his ramblings about how unworkable a roll-back would be. We even had the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation—you know: the Coca-Cola man—in this House saying why the tax burden on small business owners could not be eased and why the business activity statements could not be lodged annually. I quote the minister from the Hansard of 6 February this year: ... you cannot change the tax base and expect to have comparable quarterly figures. You cannot have roll-back and deliver an annual return. You cannot do it ...That is what the minister said and, despite what the Treasurer and the Prime Minister want to call this piece of legislation, whether they call it streamlining the tax package or just a logical seamless progress, to call a spade a spade, it is a roll-back. But it is not the way we would do it.The main difference between this government's roll-back and Labor's plan is that Labor's plan revolves around simplicity and listening to the concerns of small business owners in order to make this tax easier to manage, while the government's plans clearly do not do this. This latest roll-back demonstrates just how out of touch the Howard government is with the real needs and concerns of Australians. It took a concerted effort from the opposition and the small business community, and two devastating state electoral defeats of the Liberal Party, for this government to wake up to the red tape BAS disaster it had created.But do not just take my word for it, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Financial Review's Alan Kohler reported on 27 February that through this roll-back this government has not, as the government claims, decreased the amount of red tape for small businesses by 50 per cent. Instead, Kohler argues, it has increased the amount of red tape for businesses. Kohler wrote:... the volume of small business red tape has taken three or four steps forward and now one small step back. Far from cutting small business red tape by 50 per cent, the Howard Government has increased it by 50 per cent in net terms.Kohler argues that seeing that all other taxes, such as PAYG withholding and PAYG instalments, still have to be paid each quarter, most small businesses will continue to keep filling in the BAS each quarter so that they avoid making further reparations or end of year catch-up payments or being charged interest if their quarterly calculations turn out to be incorrect. This, Kohler argues, would result in more red tape and more work for our small business owners. He described this government's decision as the `Great BAS Roll-back'. His article stated that it was:... the perfect political announcement: it produced ... headlines for a day or two ... but was almost entirely bereft of substance and will actually save, rather than cost money.It is not the taxpaying small business owners who will be advantaged, mind you, but the Australian Taxation Office. He continues:The only fly in that ointment is that small-business people are not stupid and generally know a pup when they have been sold one.The GST is the brainchild of this government, which claims that it is on the side of small business owners but, when it comes to the crunch to help the small businesses out, this government increases their workload, digs into their cash reserves and ruins their chances of making a profit and taking on new employees. This is why we on the Labor side have said constantly that the GST would be a slow burn. The reason we have said it would be a slow burn is that we know about small business. We listen, we understand the concerns of small business owners and we know that it is crucial that small business owners put some cash away for a rainy day or emergencies, and that this creates a safety net for possible future hard times due to circumstances which are beyond their control, such as economic downturns or the prolonged sickness of a valued employee. However, due to the GST, many small business owners have used up their cushion of cash reserves in the first GST instalments so that, by the time the second and third payments have now come around, businesses no longer have these cash reserves. This situation places them in danger of falling on hard times and not having the extra cash reserves that are meant to save them from hitting the wall. The government would have you believe that we on the Labor side are all from the union movement and know nothing about small business. I say to the government members that I was a small business owner myself before entering parliament, as were many of my colleagues, and I was still a member of a union. So we do feel that we know the pressures and the stress that a high taxing, unsympathetic and out-of-touch government such as this one can cause for small business.Every time it made a change to the new tax system, the government made it clear that there would be no further changes. These comments show just how little this government is willing to make the tax easier for small businesses to collect. The Treasurer himself was adamant last year that there would be no more changes to the business activity statement. The Treasurer's repeated mantra—in countless question times and in statements to the media when he was selling the GST—was that there would be no more exemptions to the GST, that the GST would not change and that the GST was set in concrete. It might surprise the Treasurer to learn that this bill makes the grand total of changes to the GST package exceed 1,800 since it was first proposed and voted on—1,800 amendments and changes. So, if the Treasurer wants to come into this chamber with his infamous smirk to ridicule roll-back, it is about time he realised the joke is now on him.This bill shows that the government belatedly realised that the political cost of being stubborn and only reluctantly allowing exemptions and changes to the GST package, of its bungling of the introduction of the GST and of the BAS disaster was far too high and that something needed to be done. This bill would not have been necessary if the government had delivered on the GST when it meant to stamp out the so-called black economy. It was the crackdown on the black economy that was a major drawcard when the government was running around the country trying to sell the GST. The black economy, or the cash economy, is a major tax evasion loophole, reported to be worth as much as 14 per cent of our national output, or roughly $100 billion per year.The government has sung its song loud and proud about how it has reformed the tax system and has been able to stamp out things like the black economy and tax avoidance, but the record speaks for itself. In fact, the black economy has flourished under the GST tax system. In other countries that have a VAT or GST system, the evidence has clearly shown that black economies can thrive under consumption taxes—and it looks as though it is occurring here as well. The Daily Telegraph reported on 7 May 2001 that many businesses are offering customers cash discounts to avoid the customer paying, and the business collecting, the GST. Malcolm Farr reported:A national survey has revealed that since the new tax system came into force last year millions of consumers have received offers of lower prices if they pay cash.The article stated that 31 per cent of people surveyed by TMP Worldwide had been offered a price with the GST component removed. This government promised a $3 billion crackdown. It said the GST would not stop unreported income but would eventually catch tax dodgers, because it was charged on their basic input, distribution and other basic costs. But this evidence shows that the black economy has already shrugged off the constraints of the GST.This is a government which is soft on tax avoidance. It slugs ordinary people with its GST, deceives and uses dirty tricks to get the tax package supported by the public and then allows tax avoiders to avoid paying their fair share of taxes. This is a government whose high taxing policy has made life more difficult for pensioners, self-funded retirees, students, the unemployed, workers, families and small business owners, and has failed to stamp out the black economy. In conclusion, this bill before the parliament shows that this is a government which is in a desperate panic. It has been out of touch for so long that it has forgotten how to listen. All Australians know that the government has been forced into making changes to make the tax system easier and fairer. Everyone knows they it has tried to copy Labor's policies and that it has failed dismally. This bill shows that this government cannot be trusted to keep its word. Two weeks before it announced the changes to the business activity statement, which are contained in this bill, the Treasurer was in this House ridiculing the very same changes to the BAS which this bill now enacts. The most notable of these changes occurred this year on petrol and on beer, and now we have a backflip on the BAS. The Treasurer was reluctant to legislate all these changes until, of course, he saw the election results in Western Australia and Queensland and in the Ryan by-election. The Treasurer now insists that this is the last change to the BAS/IAS. This is an admission that the coalition does not want to listen to the small business community. It is comments and attitudes like those of our Treasurer that allow small business owners to realise that the Treasurer no longer cares about the concerns of the small business community and their problems with this tax. Labor will continue to listen to these concerns long after the Howard government has lost interest.17:23:0028126Bishop, Julie, MPMs JULIE BISHOP83PCurtinLP10—In speaking on the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 3) 2001 this evening, I thought I would throw in some words from perhaps the greatest of philosopher parliamentarians, Edmund Burke, who said in 1775:To tax and to please,no more than to love and to be wise,is not given to men.I am sure the member for Prospect would agree with me that, 226 years later, Burke's judgment has not been faulted, dare I suggest, with regard to either taxation or love. Nevertheless, while governments require revenue for the provision of public goods, taxation remains a necessary evil. What is incumbent upon governments is to ensure that the taxation collected from citizens is collected in a fair and efficient manner and is in turn spent in a fair and efficient manner. And by `fair' I do not mean the `fairness' that so proliferates the comments of some members of this House. But I refuse to believe that the state confiscation of not only more of one Australian family's income than another's but an ever increasing proportion of that family's income is somehow fair.Income taxation is a burden on Australians, particularly on Australian families, that ought to be reduced to as minimal a level as is possible. On this side of the House we believe in lower income tax rates, lower company tax rates and lower capital gains taxes. We support the abolition of taxes on financial transactions and taxes on imports and the abolition of excise on petrol. And the community knows that. We have done the hard yards in tax reform.Prior to the Howard government's taxation reforms, our taxation system was unfair, inequitable and unwieldy. Just cast your minds back to prior to July 2000. Australia was encumbered with an ancient, inefficient, indirect tax system. The burden of tax lay on incomes. Australian families faced income tax rates that applied at 34 per cent after only $20,701, at 43 per cent between $38,000 and $50,000 and at 47 per cent after $50,000. On 1 July 2000 this government cut income taxes by $12 billion, raising the threshold to $6,000, and reducing rates to 17 per cent from $6,000 to $20,000, to 30 per cent from $20,000 to $50,000 and to 42 per cent from $50,000 to $60,000. This extraordinary achievement now ensures that 80 per cent of Australians pay an income tax rate of 30 per cent or less.Considering all that has happened between then and now, it is vital that we contemplate just how rotten the old tax structure really was. Yes, it was disappointing that the original tax cuts that the Liberal Party openly took to an election were blocked in the other place, and I do hope we will be afforded a future opportunity to revisit this issue. Personally, I believe that it is imperative that future economic reforms in Australia include the further reduction in marginal income tax rates. How long can we, for example, continue to punitively tax the earnings of our most successful professionals and scientists and other achievers? In fact, in last night's debate on the Innovation and Education Legislation Amendment Bill 2001 I sought to make this point, with particular regard to the retention of our best and brightest scientists and researchers in Australia. I was seeking to indicate that it was not only hypocritical but downright negligent for the opposition to cry crocodile tears about the so-called brain drain, while supporting punitive income taxation which would affect our best and brightest. The opposition's incredulous position in this regard was highlighted by the contribution of the member for Rankin, who is considered, I gather, to be one of the more moderate members of the opposition and one of the few members of the opposition who is not a reflexive socialist. And, yet, in his contribution to that debate, he dismissed out of hand that the wholesale confiscation of the incomes of professionals, whose expertise is in demand elsewhere, might be an incentive for those professionals to seek employment in more tax welcoming environments. That is a disappointing position indeed, but, as he will no doubt agree, disappointment is relative to expectation. Perhaps he will redeem himself, for I note from the speakers list that the member for Rankin will have the opportunity later this evening to engage in this debate on income tax rates, and I welcome a more spirited, or at least an informed, response to my proposition on lower income tax rates.While I intimately appreciate the benefits that tax reform to date has brought to Australia, all public policy requires a process of adaptation and reform, and the bill before the House brings into law the changes announced by the government in February this year in relation to GST and PAYG reporting. These changes will allow entities that presently account for GST on a quarterly basis the flexibility to report and remit GST in the present manner—that is, reporting and remitting actual GST amounts quarterly—or to remit quarterly and report quarterly but save detailed information for an annual return, or, if eligible, to pay GST instalments and lodge an annual GST return. Many more taxpayers will be able to make PAYG instalments based on an amount advised by the ATO, rather than through quarterly calculations of instalment income, unless they prefer the present reporting requirements. The bill also allows for special rules for primary producers and other averaging entities or taxpayers such as artists, authors and other professionals, so that they are in fact required to complete only two GST PAYG instalments in each year. As a consequence, their taxation requirements will better match their fluctuating income cycles.Other changes include the extension of the business and income activities statement deadlines to the 28th of the month after the end of the quarter, with special recognition of the needs of business over the Christmas and New Year periods; the release of entities using substituted accounting periods from the requirement to account for GST monthly; and the allowance for minor GST errors to be remedied in future BAS returns rather than through the completion of an additional BAS. These reforms have arisen from close consultation between the government and small business. This is consultation that has been applauded by the Institute of Chartered Accountants, CPA Australia, the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry and the National Farmers Federation. It will make compliance with the PAYG system much easier for taxpayers and it will both simplify and streamline the GST requirements placed on smaller businesses.This close consultation is to the credit of the Minister for Small Business, who I am pleased to see is in the House. I am particularly aware of the very real interest the minister has had to ensure that there has been wide consultation. I appreciate the minister's natural affinity with the interests of small and medium sized enterprises, as I have had the opportunity to bring together small business proprietors from the electorate of Curtin to meet with the minister, as he will recall, at a consultative forum in Shenton Park in my electorate in April. The minister met with over 90 local business people and I know they greatly appreciated the opportunity to speak directly to the minister, to tell him of their experiences and their concerns and to discuss their needs. I am aware that those businesses found it to be a valuable opportunity, for the minister listened, he asked questions and the government has responded. It is important to note that those businesses who are comfortable with or accustomed to their present reporting and remittance arrangements are not obliged to adopt these changes. I also note that the government's proposed amendments in this bill will ensure that GST registered businesses entitled to claim input tax credits will be entitled to claim full input tax credits for motor vehicles acquired or imported by those businesses on or after 23 May this year. This measure will also apply to some trailers and vehicle bodies that have also been subject to the phasing-in of input tax credits. This further initiative, announced as part of the 2001 federal budget, will be a major boost to Australian businesses and particularly to the motor vehicle industry. It is estimated that, as a result of the bringing forward of input tax credits, the cost of vehicles to businesses should fall by around nine per cent.It is with some disappointment that I note that the opposition has chosen not to welcome these necessary modifications to tax administration, but has instead signalled that it will seek to make political capital out of undermining good public policy. Already the claim has been made that these changes represent a roll-back of the kind advocated by the opposition. Of course, in the light of day this argument is paper thin. But you have to ask: why was Labor's roll-back so poorly received by taxpayers? Why was roll-back quickly stuffed in a bottom drawer, only to be revived as and when the opposition is stuck for an answer on its non-existent policies? Because it promised nothing and everything to no-one and everyone. But when you filter out the grains of substance from Labor's voluminous rhetoric, `roll-back' means removing the application of GST from certain goods and services and raising alternative taxes to compensate, or, for that matter, to overcompensate, for the resulting lost revenue. In short, it means changing the fundamentally broad based application of GST to goods and services along arbitrary lines to meet the needs not of taxpayers but of the news cycle.Quite how this reinjection of unfairness into the indirect taxation system equates with the gradual and considered improvement of taxation administration is not immediately clear; nor has it been clarified to date by the contribution of opposition members to this debate. Perhaps they have been too busy talking down the Australian economy. I note their performance has been somewhat flat since the release of the most recent national account figures, which absolutely rebutted the suggestion that Australia might have stumbled into recession, as hoped by the opposition. Those national account figures revealed that, in the March quarter, economic growth rebounded, with seasonally readjusted GDP rising by 1.1 per cent in that quarter and by 2.1 per cent for the year.The opposition tried to peddle the line that tax reform was leading us into recession. Far from it. The national account figures largely confirmed the cautious assessment of economic performance in late 2000 and early 2001 as resulting from anomalous factors such as the end of the Olympic Games, changes in the construction industry and the transitional impact of legislative reforms. But of particular note is the strong performance in the services sector, given that services were not previously subjected to a tax; and the strong performance in the net exports sector, which has had taxes removed from it. This sector contributed 0.8 per cent to the quarter's growth and helped drive the current account deficit down to 2.8 per cent of GDP. At the same time, inflation remained low and the forecast growth of 3.25 per cent in 2001-02 appears to be accurate.The opposition have criticised the fact that the government is introducing changes to simplify compliance with the new tax system. The member for Prospect seems incensed that we are simplifying compliance. Well, they would say that, wouldn't they? They do not want small business to have the advantages that will come about as a result of the removal of burdensome taxes, the reduction in income tax rates and company tax rates and the abolition of taxes on transactions, financial institutions duties and the like. The government makes absolutely no apology for seeking to ensure that the taxation system meets the needs of taxpayers. That is what we are seeking to do with these bills. It would be a foolish government indeed that ignored those concerns. We have taken them on board and, as such, I commend to the House Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 3) 2001. 17:36:0028129Edwards, Graham, MPMr EDWARDS83RCowanALP00—Pre-GST, the Prime Minister promised every pensioner in Australia $1,000 compensation because of the GST. He later reneged on that promise. As a result, some pensioners received as little as $1, some received nothing and some received part of the $1,000 he promised and were asked subsequently to pay it back. The latest round of promises, of $300 to offset the GST, is also full of holes. For instance, we had the disgraceful situation where the Minister for Veterans' Affairs wrote to veterans and war widows advising them that they would receive the full $300. As I demonstrated in the House yesterday, he then had his department write and advise an unknown number of veterans and war widows that the minister was wrong and that they would not receive the promised funding. It is interesting that the minister who wrote the first letter did not have the decency or the courage to write the second letter and respond as a man of character would have done. These pensioners will join all other pensioners under age pension age who have been excluded from this very targeted funding of the government. I raise these issues because, as everyone but—DK6Hockey, Joe, MPMr Hockey—I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. If the member for Cowan wants to cast aspersions on another member in this place, there are proper ways of doing that; otherwise I would ask him to withdraw his comments about the Minister for Veterans' Affairs.10000Hollis, Collin (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hollis)—I think it was used in very general terms; he was not specific. If you insist on it being withdrawn, I would have to put it to the member, but I would hope that we could let it go and let the member continue with his remarks. I really do not think it was a point of order.83REdwards, Graham, MPMr EDWARDS—Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank you for that ruling. I would be more than happy to debate in this chamber that issue with the Minister for Veterans' Affairs if ever he has the courage to come in here and address that issue, but he has not.DK6Hockey, Joe, MPMr Hockey—I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The member for Cowan was reflecting on the character of the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. There is a proper way of proceeding with that debate. I ask the member to either withdraw his aspersions on the character of the Minister for Veterans' Affairs or to move the proper motion.10000Hollis, Collin (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hollis)—I would put it to the member for Cowan that, although I gave the ruling, the minister is insisting that the comments be withdrawn.83REdwards, Graham, MPMr EDWARDS—Mr Deputy Speaker, I am happy to withdraw them, but I do note that the minister had to hide behind the Prime Minister yesterday and behind this minister today. I am not surprised that the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation, who is at the table, this minister who has so poorly mishandled the whole HIH issue, is sensitive about the needs of pensioners and battlers in our society! This minister is part of a government that wants to spend millions upon millions upon millions of dollars telling taxpayers how good the government is, yet the moment it is asked to front up and explain or look pensioners and battlers in the eye, it cannot do it—and this minister is just one of many. But I do not want to get waylaid or ambushed by this minister, because I know that he wants to keep me away from the things that I want to talk about in relation to this bill, the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 3) 2001. I want to look at just how this bill is impacting on some of those people in our electorates who really are feeling the pinch of this GST, some of those people who, for instance, did not get a penny of the $1,000 that the Prime Minister promised or those Veterans Affairs' pensioners who did not get a penny of the $300 which the Minister for Veterans' Affairs promised or those people who join others, such as those on disability support pensions, who are getting nothing, and lots of other pensioners under the age pension age who will get nothing from this government and nothing from this Prime Minister. I am very fortunate to have some advice provided to me by Baron John de Clifford from Wanneroo, a very fine part of my electorate. He has been keeping very tight records, very close records, since before the introduction of the GST, and he wrote to me in November 2000:Subject: The True Effect of the GST upon PensionersAs a retired professional accountant, i.e. Group Internal Auditor, Western Mining Corporation Limited, for ten years, I was interested to learn of the effect of the GST upon widowed pensioners, me for example.In order to achieve a reasonable result, I maintained records of income and expenditure for the four months prior to introduction of the GST (namely for the months of March, April, May and June 2000) and compared the results to the four months subsequent to the introduction of the GST (namely for the months of July, August, September and October 2000).The end result was, unfortunately, far worse than I had ever expected and at the end of October 2000 my net expenditures were $232.12 more, with GST contributing $108.71 to the end result.He further wrote to me in February of this year:On 16 November 2000 I wrote to you concerning the effect the GST might have upon pensioners. At the time of writing, however, I was unable to ascertain the true effect because all specific details were not available to me. Now I can positively confirm that during the last seven months since the GST was introduced (from 1 July 2000 up to and including 31 January 2001), I personally have had to pay a total amount of $171.09 extra just for GST alone.He wrote to me again on 18 June:Attached please find how the GST has affected a widowed 80 year old pensioner during the period from 1 July 2000 up to and including the end of May 2001.He also says:I have summarised the amounts below and have also provided specific details of the attached.This widowed age pensioner has set our very clearly, under a number of headings, how the GST has impacted on him. For instance, under `Supermarket shopping' he has broken a number of columns up under the side headings of `Coles' and `Rules'. He has the dates. He has the number of purchases that he has made. He has the cost of those items. He has separated them from GST and non-GST items. He has also provided the cost of the GST items along with the non-GST items. He has put in one column the GST tax, in another column the total number of items he purchased, and the total cost. He has done that, as I said, under `Supermarket shopping' broken into `Coles' and `Rules'. He has done it under `Car running', setting out a number of mechanical costs, costs which you could expect to have over the course of a year, things that include new tyres, RAC membership and car licence. Of course, it does not include petrol. If it had, there would have been a far more marked effect. He has also set it out under the headings of `Electricity', `Medicine' and `Telephone', and at the end he has summarised all of his GST expenses: `Supermarkets' $140.73, `Car running' $95.15, `Electricity' $44.44, `Medicine' $7.93 and `Telephone' $89.04. His summary of GST expenses for the 11 months comes to $377.29.He set these things out very accurately. He appears to be a person who, in accordance with accounting practices, has kept very well tabulated and very accurate figures, and I compliment him on doing so. He shows that for 11 months some of his GST expenses amount to $377.29. Of course, the $300 that he may get from the government if the Prime Minister keeps his word this time will not cover those expenses. But the other thing is this: those expenses will be with him year in, year out; and you would expect them to increase, because the Prime Minister keeps telling us that the GST is a growth tax. However, on the other hand, this $300 is a one-off payment. I am also beholden to Mr and Mrs Taylor from Lakelands in my electorate, who have also been keeping track of their expenses. They have sent me some information which they tabulated between 1 July 2000 and 31 May 2001. In the left-hand column of the table they have provided, they show a number of items. The middle column shows the gross cost of the items, and they have included in the right-hand column the GST on those items. For example, for groceries the additional cost, the GST cost, was $85.10. For electricity, the GST was $26.78. For gas and delivery, the GST was $17.10. For telephone, the GST was $37.70. For household insurance, the GST was $20.29. For car insurance, the GST was $30.30. For hearing aid maintenance, the GST was $2.75. For car registration, the GST was $21.68. At the chemist, the GST was $8.12. At the shoe store, the GST was $4.68. At Kmart, the GST was $7.89. And at Big W, the GST was $21.63. It is interesting that the big-cost items for people like these are their cars and things like their telephones—and those are the sorts of things that older people rely on. Of course, when you throw in the cost of food, you see just how much this GST has impacted on and hurt seniors and those on smaller and fixed incomes in our community. It is no wonder that the mob opposite are now having to spend millions upon millions of dollars of taxpayers' money trying to complement the thing they do very well in here—that is, to tell everyone how good they are. At the end of the day, when you push aside the camouflage and the rhetoric, what you see is a sad, sorry lot on their way out of government with their tails between their legs, not yet even understanding or realising just how much they have hurt seniors and those on pensions and fixed incomes in our community. The sooner the government bring on the election the better; let us see how good the minister at the table is then.17:48:0028131Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVECK6MoretonLP10—I am pleased to join the debate on the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 3) 2001 to discuss further initiatives of this government to make the streamlined GST and pay-as-you-go reporting processes available to small businesses across Australia. I speak in recognition of this government's good understanding of the needs and aspirations of people who are involved in small business, recognising that the introduction of the new taxation system is the biggest change in Australia's history to the system of collecting revenue to assist in the payment of what government provides to its citizens. It is a change to the taxation system that was long overdue—and was never considered by those opposite, who have a very limited understanding of how revenue is generated, of how it is reported and of spending priorities, evident in their failures over 13 years through borrowing so much—and is a matter that has been part of the government's agenda since taking office 5½ years ago.The Australian Labor Party over the next couple of months are going to spend a lot of time telling small business, `We will try to make this new taxation system simpler.' They are saying a lot of things to a lot of groups behind cupped hands and behind closed doors, never quite actually giving the final analysis of how they are paying for what they are talking about doing. But one of the things that is very obvious to small business in my electorate of Moreton is that every time the Labor Party in their previous governmental incarnation did anything for small business it cost small business something. Every time the Labor Party say to small business, `We will help you, we will assist you, we will give you something,' further control of their business is lost to government through increased red tape, forms and reporting processes. In one sense, that is fair enough, because if government money is expended one has to account for it. But the big trade-off for small business in doing deals with the devil—the Australian Labor Party—in the past has always been the impost of additional paperwork and additional control demanded by government and government agencies. That is certainly one of the reasons why small business in droves supported the coalition in 1996 and in 1998 and, of course, will do so again before this year is out. You have only to look at what the Australian Labor Party did while they were in office to know that these claims are very easily proved. We on this side understand the need to allow business to organise themselves in the way they see fit, obviously understanding that they have a responsibility to pay tax as they earn it and to collect the goods and services tax, which is passed by the Commonwealth completely on to the state governments. Small businesses all around this country are collecting the GST—which, in a lot of ways, is really the general states tax—and giving it to state governments completely to meet the costs of providing police, hospitals, roads and other things.What the government has done in the legislation before us this evening is to provide for amendments to the tax laws to allow entities accounting for GST on a quarterly basis to have three choices in the way that they report and pay GST. These choices are: all quarterly entities can continue to report, pay and claim GST amounts quarterly; they can pay and claim GST amounts quarterly, report less information quarterly and lodge an annual information report on goods and services tax activities; or they can pay GST instalments and lodge an annual GST return. We are simply saying that small business can organise itself as appropriate, particularly the very smallest of small businesses: the one- and two-person operations; the mum and dad businesses—the backbone of this country, the sorts of people who have the capacity, if government assists them by keeping out of their way, to get on with the job and to create more jobs, to grow their business into something larger, to realise something for themselves, to get a return on the investment that they have made—their idea, their aspiration, their perspiration, their hard earned capital, their putting their houses on the line—and also return something to the broad community, to get their family advanced as we travel through the journey of life.This legislation meets the expectations of small business in that variety of ways, understanding that with such a massive change to a taxation system there was always going to be the need to revisit things, to make these sorts of adjustments, to make these sorts of possibilities available and, best of all, not in the way that the Australian Labor Party are running around the country with this roll-back policy, which we hear about every so often, fashioning their roll-back. The Labor Party will probably suggest that what the government is doing in this legislation is our own form of roll-back, but the big difference between what we are doing and what they are talking about was evidenced just last week by Chris Murphy, the Australian Labor Party's economic modeller of choice, who said that for every $4 billion of roll-back—that is, less GST collected, less money going to schools, less money going for police, less money going for roads controlled by the state governments—we can see interest rates in this country going up one per cent.One of the things that small business in my electorate remembers very clearly the last time the Labor Party were in government was the 23 and 24 per cent interest rates that they were paying on overdrafts, 17 per cent home loan interest rates and the way that people were not spending, as they were trying to survive the payments on their business and survive the payments on their house. I do not believe any thinking Australian wants to analyse the lack of detail from those opposite, the great rhetorical offerings that are being scattered all around this country currently. When the detail, if it is ever found, is released people will realise that this government has had to take the hard yards to try to bring about a fairer taxation system, a system that encourages people to spend by giving them less tax to pay as they earn it and giving them more pensions so that they can go and spend money. This sort of `encouragement to spend' taxation system that we currently have in this country is one where, if you start fiddling around with it the way of the Labor Party are wanting to fiddle around with it, you are going to have the sorts of problems that we have had in the areas of mixed businesses—businesses that have some GST items and some non-GST items inside their door. Every complaint that I have about tax reform as the government has presented it over the last 12 months can be actually sheeted back to the tampering by the Senate with the government's proposals promised at the last election. Every complaint, every complication and every additional burden has in fact been imposed upon people by the efforts of the Australian Labor Party.8K6Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr Fitzgibbon—What rubbish!CK6Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVE—I am often having to remind people, and obviously I have to remind the member for Hunter opposite, that the Labor Party's disregard for the government's promised agenda, legislated, delivered in full in this House and passed by this House—the disregard for the government's agenda when it came to the Senate, the tampering and the deliberate bastardisation of the government's attempts—has created complications that have affected a lot of people.You have only got to look at the way personal income tax scales were not dropped for middle income earning Australians to know that the Labor Party—which does not have respect for the majority of people in this place, supported by the majority of constituents in their electorates at the last election—not allowing the level of reduction for income tax purposes for middle income earners is still hurting a lot of people and is something that this government will continue to try to do something about.Against all of this not really understanding the small business background, I am astonished to note that the Labor Party last week in my electorate issued some propaganda about a few things to do with packaging and pricing and made a quite startling accusation which I think underscores Labor's lack of understanding of the way business operates. The warning from the Labor Party is to watch for changes over the next six months as retailers may try to retrieve margins that they lost post-GST. What the Labor Party are in fact saying to constituents in my electorate is that local small business operators are ready to cheat and that local small business operators are ready to try to rip off consumers. I think this is a quite distasteful observation by the Australian Labor Party. It does absolutely underscore, as Opposition Leader Beazley said, that Labor is not naturally a party for small business. It does naturally try to create the sort of class warfare kind of suspicion that the Labor Party always has for anybody who has actually done something about getting some capital, some investment and some property and has invested in themselves, creating jobs and running with a good idea in the form of a small business. It does actually underscore some of the reasons why the Australian Labor Party is not fit to govern in this country.I have a completely different view about small business operators in my electorate, because they are rising to the challenges of change. In fact, most small businesses now are getting on with the job, and the legislation before us today allows them to get on with the job in a number of different ways. I believe, from talking with small businesses in my electorate, that many of them will stick with what they were doing, despite the offerings in this legislation, because they have got their systems in place and they are operating well. Others will take up the opportunity to avail themselves of other reporting mechanisms. In this regard, this government is being completely consistent with its understanding of small business needs. Its response shows that we know that there are different types of small business, different styles of small business and different expectations from different small businesses.We know that small businesses that have a responsible attitude to running their business properly and ensuring their books are in good order and that have an understanding of the need for organising their cash flow appropriately are doing extremely well as a result of the changes to this taxation system. We know that there are some businesses which are having problems, and a lot of their problems can be sheeted home not only to the way things were manipulated by the Senate but also to the misleading approach of those opposite, who have gone around and blamed everything, including the great plague in 1640, on the introduction of the goods and services tax. They have continued with their scare campaign of four or five years duration, yet straight after this next election the first thing they will do is keep the goods and services tax. What hypocrisy from Labor! But what else would you expect? 18:00:0028134Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr FITZGIBBON8K6HunterALP00—It does disappoint me that the member for Moreton is about to leave the chamber, as it disappoints me that the government has restricted the time available to the House to debate this very important bill, the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 3) 2001, that is going to deny me the opportunity to speak about some of the bill's other measures, particularly those relating to the IAS. I need to focus on its impact on small business and I intend to do so. Never have I seen a government or a member, such as the member for Moreton, in such a state of denial. In the five years that I have been in this place, never have I seen a party in such a state of denial. Let me share with the House a quote on the impact of the GST on small business: I'm not sure how many businesses went ... out of business because of it—the BAS—but I certainly know that marriages were strained, small business were taken away from ... running their small business ... ... ... ...... the Government was sorry for foisting such an “undue burden” on small business ... “It was an unwelcome imposition ... The date of the quote: 26 February 2001. The person being quoted: Ian Macfarlane, the Howard government Minister for Small Business. I will give the Minister for Small Business credit for one thing. He has not had too many wins since he became the Minister for Small Business. He was rolled on a range of budget initiatives that the small business community was expecting. He has been ineffective in driving home changes to the BAS. He has been promising for months now that we would see BAS mark 2—you might even describe it as mark 3—but we have seen nothing. But I do give him credit for finally conceding on behalf of the government the damage that the GST has caused small business. It has not damaged every small business. I am happy to say that some have been able to tackle the issue very well—those who were highly organised and had the money to invest in the equipment, including the software, necessary to cope with such massive change. But overwhelmingly small business has been damaged by the GST. The member for Moreton says that the only pain which has been inflicted on the small business community is that which flows from the government-Democrat deal in the Senate, not the Labor Party deal. We have only ever had one position on the GST and that is not to have one. DK6Hockey, Joe, MPMr Hockey—Are you going to get rid of it? 8K6Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr FITZGIBBON—I am happy to respond to the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation at the table. No, we will not get rid of it, because businesses have invested around $80 billion gearing up for the thing. Would the minister now like us to turn it over? This has involved a whole change in state-Commonwealth financial relations— something that is impossible to undo. But the Labor commitment is to do all it can to roll back the burden on small business. The member for Moreton says that the only pain being inflicted on small business is that which flows from the Democrat-government deal in the Senate. What absolute rubbish. You know that the government is in trouble with the small business constituency when it goes back to interest rates and when it goes back to unfair dismissal. Here we were last night in this chamber debating important amendments to the Trade Practices Act—a welcome backflip from the government. The Minister for Small Business came in here to talk about those amendments and all he could talk about for five minutes was unfair dismissal. He knows that that has resonance out there in the small business sector, given the way they have cranked up the issue. When you have got nothing else to say, start talking about unfair dismissal or interest rates. The member for Moreton obviously did not read the assessment by the Australian Financial Review of the comparative economic performances of the Hawke-Keating governments over 13 years and the Howard and Fraser governments over 12 years. MP6Baird, Bruce, MPMr Baird—What about the 17 per cent interest rates? 8K6Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr FITZGIBBON—I know that interest rates were high in Australia at one stage, as they were around the world. The intensive investigations by the Australian Financial Review showed that Labor's economic credibility is very strong and, on a range of economic indicators, was stronger than that of those who sit opposite. But when you are in real difficulty with your small business constituency you run out and tell them that, if the Labor Party is elected to office, interest rates are going to soar. What a lot of rubbish. When you have got nothing else to say, you trot out the rubbish. This bill, amongst other things, puts into place the business activity statements package announced by the Treasurer on 22 February this year. It also contains many measures that were not announced by the Treasurer, again highlighting the fumbled approach by the government to these issues. As the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has pointed out again, these were changes that the government was dragged screaming to. We proposed that small business be given the opportunity to report on an annual basis. The Treasurer said that that could not be done. A short time after, he changed his view and decided that it could be done. With the limited resources of opposition, we are putting forward proposals to address these issues. In stark contrast, the government, with all its resources, constantly says that no changes can be made, except from time to time it is dragged screaming on the back of Labor Party proposals. We will continue to put those proposals forward, as the shadow Treasurer did at the National Press Club recently in his response to the budget when he said that Labor would further investigate a proposal which would allow small business the option—I underscore `option'—of accepting a ratio from the Taxation Office which can be simply applied to their turnover to determine their GST viability. I heard the Minister for Small Business on radio saying, `Oh, this is going to be a terrible thing. Small business is going to be paying more than it is liable for.' What rubbish. The government already has a similar proposal under the simplified accounting method: small businesses are already choosing to take a ratio of their GST and non-GST related goods. It is happening already and it works, and it can work in its simplification for small businesses generally.There are not too many variables involved here. The only possible variable involved which could cause a small business to pay more than it was liable for would be additional expenditure on capital purchases. It might be an additional computer, desk or furniture within the business. It might, indeed, be an additional purchase of petrol, because for some reason the small business proprietor travelled much greater distances in the quarter involved. But Labor's proposal would provide a mechanism for making adjustments to take into account those things. It is a very simple proposal. I suspect, given the history of the government so far, that in the not too distant future it will be agreeing with us—the government will again be adopting Labor's proposal. And so it should, because the small business constituency is screaming for some assistance. As I said earlier, the small business constituency was dudded in the 2001-02 budget: no compensation, no simplification, no extensions for the period of immediate write-off for GST related capital purchases and no changes to the many thresholds that take you through the simplified accounting method. These were all expectations of the small business community. It sincerely believed that, having had so much pain thrust upon it by this government, the government might attempt to make up some lost ground and give it some relief. It was very, very disappointed. The Labor Party have indicated that they will support these changes. Of course we will support these changes—most of them were Labor's ideas—and we will continue to support any change from the government side which goes some way towards making this very difficult exercise simpler for small business. We on this side will continue to work for more change. Our business activity statement committee continues to consult widely and receive submissions from the small business community. Some very good ideas are coming out of that process. We will continue to hold the government to account. We will continue to hold the government to account on its broken promises—its promise to reduce small business red tape by 50 per cent, its promise that the GST would be good for cash flow and its promise that the GST would be good for small business profitability, ideas now that, if they were not so serious, would be laughable.18:10:0028136Baird, Bruce, MPMr BAIRDMP6CookLP10—It is my pleasure to rise tonight in support of the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 3) 2001. It was particularly interesting to hear the comments of the member for Hunter. His speech was not long on any understanding of the issues; it was the normal Labor rhetoric. It was even more interesting to hear how embarrassed he was on the issues of interest rates and unfair dismissal. It is clear by his own admission. He knows what small business have had to say about Labor's track record when it was in government. They remember well the 17 per cent interest rates they had to pay. Usually that was just the beginning; many small businesses had to pay 22 per cent on a very regular basis. The thought of that returning horrifies them. Even though some of them may have complained about completing the BAS, it pales into insignificance compared with what they think about interest rates. If you want to provoke small business, talk to them about your reluctance to support the changes that we want to implement in regard to unfair dismissal. I am glad to see that you acknowledge your vulnerability in that area. You can expect us to continue to talk about that ad nauseam, because that is what people are interested in. You do not actually show that you have got any real understanding of the changes to BAS. You did not even mention it.This bill shows that this government is listening to small business. It has made the changes. In speaking to small businesses in my electorate and to other small businesses, a significant group have said to me, `I actually find that the GST is working well for me. It helps me to account for my business's cash flow. I have now got it on the computer, I can complete it pretty quickly and it assists me in planning my business.' There is a sizeable group of small businesses who believe that. You know that. I know that the member for Hunter is a fair man, and he would have to acknowledge that it is one of those things that many small business people tell him. They do like it, are used to it and find that it is working well in their own area. Of course, there are those who say, `There's too much paper collection,' and this is what this bill is about: making it simpler for small business and giving people the option of continuing with their quarterly payments and completing the form every quarter or simply having the Australian Taxation Office do it for them. It also sets out penalties for those who underestimate their tax liability. That is the thrust of the bill.I would have thought that, as the shadow minister for small business, the member for Hunter would be standing up in this House and congratulating the government for listening to small business, for understanding some of the problems that people are having in completing the form, for responding with these changes to the forms and requirements, and for allowing people the option to choose the way they want to go. But, no, we get the tired rhetoric. We also got the interesting admission that they are vulnerable in the two areas of skyrocketing interest rates that were experienced under Labor and the unfair dismissal bill.In relation to this whole area of roll-back, I believe that the opposition are quite vulnerable. They talk about what they are going to do for small business without actually being able to quantify where the money is coming from. Also I believe that small businesses are starting to count up the cost of the promises that are being made. As the Treasurer has outlined, we are up to, without any problems at all, $4 billion, which is certainly going to push interest rates up, and that is one thing that small business does not want. This legislation is clear evidence that small businesses in my own electorate are being listened to. The Minister for Small Business—the first minister whose responsibilities solely relate to small business that we have had in this House—Ian Macfarlane, the member for Groom, did an outstanding job. He came to my electorate, listened in a roundtable conference to all of the problems being experienced by small business, took on board some of the issues and responded, and some of the changes that we see here tonight are as a result of that listening program. He is doing that right around Australia. In relation to the mechanics of the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 3) 2001, there are the questions of filling out the business activity statement and the government's decision to provide three options. That means that you will fill out fewer boxes—you complete only three boxes on the BAS and then lodge an annual GST return. These boxes are labelled G1, 1A and 1B on the BAS statement. Obviously that is important in terms of simplification. The tax office calculates an amount and businesses with a turnover of less than $1 million can choose to pay an amount worked out for them by the tax office and can then lodge an annual GST return to make up any difference or recoup any losses. The amount nominated by the tax office will be based on the business's return from last year. This option is also open to businesses which lodge monthly. However, these businesses must have a turnover of less than $2 million. Appropriate penalties are put in place for those that misuse it. For instance, a penalty will apply if the total instalments for a financial year are less than 85 per cent of the actual amount due for that period. The penalty will be calculated by applying the general interest charge to the GST instalment shortfall. Businesses will be able to continue to report and pay or claim their GST returns quarterly as they were doing previously. It is important to recognise, as I said before, that many small businesses have coped well with the transition to the new tax system.Kate Marshall wrote in the Australian Financial Review on 9 March as follows:The transition to the new tax system has generally been smoother for small businesses that have mastered the business activity statement by installing efficient record-keeping systems and exerting the necessary discipline over their records, invoices and GST transactions.Small businesses that do not want to change do not have to, emphasising the flexibility of this legislation. Of course, these comments are made by independent people from the Financial Review and other papers and they reflect what I am hearing out in the community. The member for Hunter would do well if he reflected some of this as well.In terms of PAYG reporting, for individuals registered for the GST, such as sole traders and partners, and for small firms and super funds with an annual turnover of less than $1 million, the government is now providing the option of having their quarterly instalment amount nominated for them by the tax office, as I indicated before. The amount stipulated by the tax office will be determined by the individual's previous year's income adjusted by a GDP factor. Briefly, one of the government's amendments to this legislation will also allow PAYG medium sized withholders who pay monthly to pay amounts that they have withheld on the 28th of the following month if another BAS amount is due on the same day. This will give additional flexibility to around 650 medium sized withholders, most of whom are wheat farmers.There is also an extension of lodgment dates. The bill extends the due date for the lodgment of the BAS forms to the 28th day of the month following the end of the quarter, the exception being after the Christmas break, when it would normally be due on 28 January—that has now been extended to 28 February. That is a very good day—it is my birthday—so I look forward to that particular day. Previously businesses had to lodge their returns on the 21st day of the month following, so it is appropriate that we have those changes. Regarding special professionals, the bill will allow certain groups of professionals, such as artists, sports people, authors, playwrights and primary producers—many of the first group live in the electorate of the member for North Sydney; a very fine constituency it is indeed—to make only two GST and PAYG payments each year. This provision recognises the more erratic income flows of professionals in these groups. So again we are not only supporting small business but we are helping the artists who are struggling to establish their own activities. This shows that we are listening to that particular group, particularly the minister at the table, the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation. Further, we have input tax credits for motor vehicles. That is a very popular change recognised by small business and applauded by all of the distributors and retailers of automobiles throughout Australia. Michael Tynan, who is a major automobile distributor in my electorate, rang me and said what an outstanding job the government was doing in listening to small business about their concerns. People have responded very positively. I am sure that Madam Deputy Speaker has found a very positive response from industry in her electorate, including in the Whitsundays. Previously it was planned that businesses would be able to claim 50 per cent of their GST in the next financial year. That has been brought forward to 1 July so that the full amount can be claimed. There are other minor amendments as well. This bill makes a myriad of minor technical and consequential amendments.The reaction to the government's announcement back in February has been very positive. Jocelyn Morton, the national president of the CPA, said:The changes will lead to a significant reduction in compliance costs for small business. The changes mean small business operators can get back to doing what they do best—business.The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry said:It is clear from the government's announcement today that they have been listening to the concern of the business community.So what this is about is that we have a government that is listening and that has made the changes. It provides small business with the choice of whether they want to have quarterly returns in their BAS—quarterly payments—or whether they want to do it annually and have the tax office provide an estimate based on their previous earnings. Professionals in certain areas can provide returns twice a year. This bill provides for input tax credits on automobiles, which is a great boon for small business. So overall it is a great plus for small business right across Australia. It has been well received in my electorate and I am sure in most areas of Australia. I certainly commend this outstanding bill to the House.18:22:0028138O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr O'CONNORWU5CorioALP00—The previous Liberal speaker in this debate, the honourable member for Cook, has just indulged himself in the greatest bout of self-delusion I have seen in this House for a long time. If the honourable member really believes that the amendments that are contained in this legislation—forced upon the government by the opposition and the Australian community—are the end of the matter politically, he has another thing coming. The primary purpose of the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 3) 2001, according to the Minister for Small Business's second reading speech, is to ease the compliance burden for taxpayers in the PAYG system and to simplify and streamline GST reporting arrangements for small business. I find this an extraordinary admission by the government of its failure in this key area of policy. This bill is an overt admission by the government that it has absolutely botched the introduction of the GST and the new tax system. If it had got it right in the first place, if it had not botched the introduction of the GST so completely, there would be no need for this legislation in the parliament today. This is the second time today that I have had to rise in this chamber to address the problems created in the community by this government's incompetence. The first time today related to the government's supplementary assistance package for the dairy industry in the wake of the botched deregulation of that industry by the government. In that speech, I made the comment that on 1 July 2000 the dairy industry faced two momentous changes. The first was the deregulation of their industry; the second was the introduction of John Howard's GST—or, as it is known out in rural and regional Australia, Costello's curse on rural and regional households. Many dairy farms are small business enterprises. In complying with the GST, they have had to cope with the same problems as other small businesses in the economy. Not only have they had to contend with the government's botching of the deregulation of their industry, which has seen farm gate prices fall and incomes and land prices plummet for many Queensland and New South Wales dairy farmers; they have also had to bear the increased compliance costs associated with the introduction of John Howard's GST, or Peter Costello's curse on Australian households. The wreckage of this government's policy incompetence is strewn all over rural and regional Australia. Without going into the detail of this legislation, let me restate the government's own statement of the purpose of this legislation: to simplify and streamline GST payments and BAS reporting arrangements for small business. It is designed to provide a simpler option for business activity statements. According to the government, this bill allows businesses that are happy with the current BAS arrangements to continue along the same lines. It allows businesses that report quarterly to now also pay GST quarterly—complete only three boxes on the BAS quarterly return and lodge an annual GST information report. It allows businesses with a turnover of $2 million or less to choose to pay an amount each quarter, worked out by the tax office, and then lodge an annual GST return. Primary producers, as well as authors, artists and special professionals, will have to make only two GST or PAYG payments each year, one in April and one in July. The quarterly due dates have been extended for BAS and instalment activity statement lodgments and payments. The December quarter return has been extended to 28 February to allow for the Christmas-New Year break. The bill makes minor adjustments, in that businesses with substituted accounting periods will not have to account for GST on a monthly basis and entities will be able to make changes to the current BAS. This will correct a small GST mistake in the previous legislation. What does this bill say about the government's competence? It must be galling for member after member on the government side to come in here with their GST tails between their legs, eat humble pie and get up here to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. When this bill is boiled down, this is all the evidence the Australian people need—and especially small businesses in my electorate of Corio and in the Geelong region—that this government is absolutely incompetent and has botched the introduction of the GST. History will record that this Prime Minister's and this government's great contribution to the national economic agenda of this country was to introduce a 1960s tax. That will be their great contribution to Australia's economic history. I guess you could argue one way or the other—after all, it is just another tax. It does not make the wheat grow any quicker, it does not give us a better quality of milk out of the cow in the dairy, it does not make the sun come up in the morning and it does not put the kids in a better mood when they come home from school. If you listen to the Treasurer day after day, you would think this GST had some magical qualities. But, after all, it is just another tax. The sad thing about this is that it is a 1960s tax and, of course, this was one the Prime Minister said he would never, ever introduce.I feel sorry for government members who stand up in here and try to justify this bill. They tell us how they have been out there listening, how they have made these changes and how flexible they are in their approach to this legislation. But if they had got it right in the first place, they would not be here today. That is the reality of it. How incompetent can you be? This was going to be the simple tax. This was going to be the tax that reduced the compliance burden on Australian business. And here we are, almost a year since its introduction, with record bankruptcies attributed to the GST and small business people tearing their hair out over the compliance burden. Government member after government member has had to come in here with their tail between their legs and justify this legislation to the Australian people. Of course, you can justify it to the Australian people on one simple proposition: the government botched it in the first place. That is why this legislation is necessary. It is important, when we consider this legislation, to reflect on the Prime Minister's original promises in relation to the GST and the new tax system. This whole taxation saga is a sad tale of deceit and betrayal. Firstly, we had the never, ever non-core promise concerning the introduction of the GST. Madam Deputy Speaker Kelly, you are a person who has stood on the high moral ground on a whole range of issues in your electorate. I would have to ask you this question: if your child came to you and said that they had made you a non-core promise, what would you do? I know what my old man would have done to me. He was a pretty tough customer. He was a dairy farmer from the Western District, an onion grower and a spud grower. I tell you what: I would not have been game to say, `Oh, dad, I've just made you a non-core promise.' If he said, `Never, ever,' he meant it. Not this Prime Minister. When he makes a never, ever promise it is non-core. What a heap of gobbledegook that is. But he made it. He said, `I will never, ever introduce it,' and many Australians took him at his word. They have been terribly betrayed, including many people in rural and regional Australia.The Prime Minister then went further in this whole taxation issue. He said, `We will introduce no new taxes.' That was another non-core promise. At the last count there were 113 of them. That is not a bad record for somebody batting at the crease on a non-core promise never, ever to introduce a GST and not to introduce any new taxes. But that was not the end of the story. The Prime Minister said, `We're going to cut red tape.' They have cut it all right. They must have been cutting off a big roll of paper, because the taxation act has grown. It has increased by thousands of pages. The government have indicated that they wanted to reduce administrative and compliance costs with the introduction of the new tax system. Go and tell dairy farmers, wheat farmers and horticultural producers that their compliance burden, their costs and the red tape have been reduced.There is one reason why this government is back here with its tail between its legs with this legislation, and it is very simple: Western Australia—National and Liberal parties decimated in the state election; Queensland—Liberal and National parties decimated; and Ryan by-election—Liberal Party loses the jewel in the Queensland crown. That is why the legislation is before us today. That is why this government comes in here with its tail between its legs trying to justify a bill before this parliament—a bill that is necessary because of its own incompetence.18:35:0028140Lindsay, Peter, MPMr LINDSAYHK6HerbertLP10— Madam Deputy Speaker, I can assure you and the House that I do not have my tail between my legs as I stand here this evening. When you have the biggest change in the tax system in Australia's history, it would be pretty incredible if you expected to be able to get everything right the first time round. It was just a huge change in so many areas of the taxation system. I think that the Australian public and Australian business understand that there were always going to be transitional issues. The government said there were always going to be transitional issues. The Labor Party calls it a botched introduction, but I think that what the government is doing with the presentation of the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 3) 2001 before the parliament tonight is entirely sensible. It is to the government's eternal credit that we are prepared to stand up and say, `There needs to be a change.' That is what this bill is about. There needs to be a change. If you cannot get up in front of the Australian people and say, `We agree; it wasn't quite right. We should do something about it,' and then do something, it would be a pretty sad day. The government gets points and gets marked up for being able to recognise that something was not quite right and should be attended to, and that is what we are doing. It is to John Howard's credit that the Prime Minister is able to say to the Australian people, particularly people in the GST system, that we are going to make a change that makes things better for them. I do not think it is a case of botching at all. Did you notice the content of the member for Corio's remarks to the parliament this evening? I did not hear one suggestion, one idea, about how things might be made better for Australian businesses. I just heard a tirade and a thumping of the dispatch box, but not one new idea. I also did not hear that the Labor Party would be getting rid of the new tax system. Despite all the tirade that we heard, the Australian Labor Party are keeping the new tax system. Hasn't that been their track record all the way? The Australian Labor Party, for their own cynical, political purposes, have opposed a new tax system for Australia.But what has the new tax system delivered? Is the member for Corio unhappy that at this moment we probably have the best performing economy in the world? Is he unhappy with what the new tax system has done for our export industries in terms of our terms of trade and the returns that our farmers are now getting? You would know about that, Madam Deputy Speaker Kelly, coming from a regional seat. Is he unhappy that exports are up 20 per cent? Our exports are now cheaper because there is now no internal tax on them. Is he unhappy about that? Would he get rid of that? No, of course he would not get rid of it. We hear the emotive words `Costello's curse' but I can tell you that there are a lot of businesses out there that do not believe that the new tax system is a curse. This bill does not say anything about the government's incompetence; it says something about the government's competence. It says that we are prepared to stand up and make a change because we have identified a transitional issue that needs attention.The Howard government is the only government that has listened very carefully to small business. It understands the importance of their role in our community and it values their contribution. I have come out of small business and I know how hard it is to make a dollar. I know how, as the years go on, it seems to be harder and harder and you work longer and longer, and that the last thing you need is more complexity. That is why this bill—and the amendments it announced—was warmly welcomed by the business community. The bill makes amendments to implement the changes to GST and PAYG reporting as announced in February and further changes that have been announced since.Late last year the Treasurer came to Herbert, which has Australia's largest tropical city—the twin cities of Townsville and Thuringowa—and had the opportunity to listen to a group of local accountants and to hear first-hand how things were going in our community. He listened; I sat with him. The local people of Townsville were able to access the Treasurer of Australia and tell him what they saw as the transitional issues. Their views were listened to and acted upon, and that is what this bill is about. The accountants in my electorate who brought those concerns to the Treasurer certainly are very happy indeed that their views were listened to. It demonstrates how in this great country of ours local communities can make a difference on the national scene, particularly when we have a government that listens to their concerns. Many people from Townsville and Thuringowa small businesses came to me after the first two quarterly BAS returns and told me that they wanted a simpler option for the business activity statement. This bill gives them that. It cuts red tape, something which we all know small business can do without. It is important to note that these changes do not and will not force businesses to change the way that they complete the BAS. I certainly know of a number of businesses which, although they are not required to, continue to lodge a monthly BAS. They find that it is just so simple now. They have got into the way of doing it; their computer systems are set up. They say to me, `We want to do a monthly BAS.' They also say to me that they now know far more about their business than they have ever known in the past; that, in management, they have got information that they have never had before, that it has been very good for their business and that they recognise that. But businesses have the choice and, if they want to make arrangements other than reporting monthly, they can do that if they so choose. Businesses with a turnover of $2 million or less are also able to choose to pay an amount each quarter worked by out by the tax office and then to lodge an annual GST return. Taxpayers now have the choice to make PAYG instalments based on an amount notified by the tax office. They will no longer have to make a quarterly calculation of their income unless they choose to. And the bill allows taxpayers who have variable incomes a better way to meet their obligations.Other changes made by this bill include ensuring that businesses with substituted accounting periods will not have to account for GST on a monthly basis, and that entities will be able to make changes to their current BAS to correct a small GST mistake in a previous BAS. These are all changes for the benefit of small business, and certainly they are welcomed. The bill also changes the quarterly due dates for the BAS and instalment activity statements—and that has been welcomed too, I know, as businesses have spoken to me about the way they operate their business and the timing cycles that they need to adhere to.The government also recognises that the Christmas-New Year period for small business is always hectic—and it is—and so the quarterly return date has been extended to 28 February. Businesses were saying to me that they could not go away in January for a holiday, because the BAS was due in. This is a sensible change. It is a transitional issue. It is not a botching, as the member for Corio was saying; it is the government responding to concerns of small business and meeting those concerns. You cannot mark down a government for listening to the community and responding in an appropriate and sensible way.These changes have been embraced by the small business community in Townsville-Thuringowa, and I am very proud to be part of a government that has listened to small business and has acted on their concerns. I am not in here with my tail between my legs at all. I am here to say to the Australian community that the government has listened, has delivered and will continue to deliver. In doing that, I support this bill.18:46:0028142Morris, Allan, MPMr ALLAN MORRISFI4NewcastleALP00—It is a shame that the government is not proud of the amendments. It is quite clear that it has chosen to schedule the debate on the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 3) 2001 on a non-broadcast day, because it does not want the community to hear this debate. It does not want the community to hear the embarrassment of its members trying to defend the indefensible—the member for Herbert no more so than others.I must confess that I sat listening with some amazement—I guess I was not quite as awe-struck as the member for Lindsay was when he had the Treasurer there—that it seems that it is somehow rather remarkable that people talk to the Treasurer. I found those comments quite bizarre. How awe-struck can you get? His community should be really grateful that the Treasurer spoke to them! Aren't they lucky, having a Treasurer who gave them a dog of a tax and then talks to them about it! What a pathetic little exercise that was. I do not quite know how much further we will get with a government that starts talking to the community in that way.The member for Herbert is proud that the government listens. The point of this whole exercise is that the government has brought in a dog of a tax. It is sending people broke in their thousands. Look at the escalation of bankruptcies. Look at what is happening to our business people. Isn't it lucky that the government talks to them! I am talking here about another 70 pages of amendments and 113 pages of explanatory memorandum for one little thing, just to adjust the BAS. This government has brought in 5½ thousand pages of new tax legislation, and is now bringing in hundreds of pages a week. Aren't we lucky! Aren't those business people fortunate! I tell you what: the government has deliberately made sure this debate was not broadcast, because it does not want the people to actually hear its defence of itself and the complications and problems that the tax system it has brought upon the Australian community is having—and not least the problem I mentioned earlier, the bankruptcies. We have a government that talks in one voice about tax simplification, and we hear it talk about cutting red tape and simplifying the tax system—at the same time that we are getting hundreds of pages of tax amendments a week coming into the parliament. What kind of hypocrisy, what kind of contradiction, what kind of nonsense is that? The starting point the government has is that this is all wonderful. We now have a new phrase. I often take delight in the new words that become trendy. We have Transition with a capital `T'—or is it all in capitals? We have `transitional arrangements' and `transitional problems'. But you cannot actually launder this problem. People are being destroyed.This is not transition; it is terrorism, destruction. People's businesses and lives are being destroyed, and the government uses a word for it: `transition'. It talks of `transitional arrangements' and `traditional impacts' and says that `we are almost past the transitional effects'. Well, the aim of governments is actually to avoid these issues. Good government does not put its people through transitions. It brings in legislation that does not require thousands of amendments and many thousands of pages. The last time I checked at the end of last year, we were up to 1½ thousand amendments. We must be up to about 3,000 or 4,000 by now. The government says that good government is botching it up and then listening. That is all wonderful admission. The member for Herbert is actually admitting that good government is about botching it and then listening to people saying how it has been botched—nine months later.The fact is that we also know that these amendments do not solve the problem. They solve just a little bit of it. They make it just a little less complicated, but they do not make it simple. We see the audacity of this government to stand here day after day, saying to the opposition, who have no access to Treasury, to the ATO or to the myriad ministerial staffers, `How would you fix it?' It is asking us to fix its problem and asking why we will not tell it how to fix it. In other words, it is our responsibility to tell the government how to fix its mess and, because we will not tell it today, somehow that is all our fault.I must confess that the fact that the mess is still not fixed may be our fault: perhaps if we had told the government a bit earlier what it could do, it might have picked up at least some of it a bit earlier—because this is what the government is doing. Day in, day out, it is actually trying to pick up opposition ideas and proposals, whether they be on the Job Network or on the minister for employment's new and wonderful thing called tax credits. Where did he find that? In the last elections, it was in Labor Party policy in detail. It is all there, an excellent system, and he is finally admitting it.This government actually starts on the wrong side of the coin. The opposition starts with the position that this tax was not necessary and, furthermore, in the framing of it and in its legislation, the government did not understand what it was doing and really did make a God-awful botch of it. Our starting point is that it has to be simpler. Roll-back is simply taken as a starting point, as this system can be simplified and made fairer and easier. That is our starting point. The government's starting point is that it is all perfect—nothing wrong with it: `We knew what we were doing, we're the experts and we've done it properly.' Go back to the Treasurer's speeches month after month on the BAS: it did not need fixing. `Business should feel lucky to see that they now have a system that lets them know more about their business.' Aren't they lucky! Aren't they fortunate! `We don't need to fix it and we don't need to change it, because it ain't broke. What we've done is correct.' Then, of course, the government eventually brings in legislation to change it. What we are seeing today is yet one more backdown by the government and one more admission of its incompetence. That is what it is about. It is the government admitting that it is incompetent: 69 pages of legislation and a 113-page memorandum about just the BAS and nothing else—not about the rest of the amendments that we are seeing. That is a massive admission of incompetence. I was talking last week to a person in business about how things were going. He is a computer man who services businesses and his main clients are business people. So he is mainly a business servicer. He said, `I know when the BAS is due because, for two weeks beforehand and for two weeks afterwards, I have no business. It stops while businesses assemble their money. I could not work it out at first. Suddenly my business would just stop dead, and then a month later it would pick up again. I could not work out what had happened. When I asked my customers, they told me that, for the fortnight before they put in their BAS returns, they have to start saving their money to get it ready to put in, and for the two weeks afterwards they are skint. So for three months a year my business is closed down. It is very tough because I cannot afford not to have any business for three months of the year.' He was not political. I raised the issue with him. I was just curious because of the particular line of work that he does.It gave me a good insight into the issue that is most affecting people at this stage, which is cash flow. The government now say, `We will make it simpler; we will get it from you twice a year—in April and July.' Why April and July? They are three months apart. So you are going to have two belts: you are going to pay the year in two goes but they are only three months apart. It does not seem to me that that is actually going to solve the problem. It is more likely to solve the government's problem because they will be able to say, `We are doing something.' All that is about is perception. The government want to tell people, `We are fixing it. We have made these amendments.' The fact that the amendments might not fix it does not matter, but they had to make some amendments to actually answer the accusations.The amendments are a concession of failure, but the results are not successful. This has been the case with the GST all the way through. We have had amendment after amendment, but they have not actually solved the problem. A lot of the problems are still with the design and the philosophy. To quote a previous parliamentarian, `As sure as night follows day, the GST will be extended.' As sure as night follows day, we will see a GST on food and on everything else. We know this government wanted it on everything and it will move towards that. We are seeing a government which, after saying for months and for years that this does not need fixing, is trying to pretend it is making it better and fixing it; but, at the same time, in its back pocket, it has a plan to extend it. The hypocrisy of this government is just unbelievable. I just find it so difficult when I hear the words `transitional arrangements', because they are talking about people being bankrupted. The way they put it, it is as if there is some minor hiccup somewhere along the line. We are talking about people being destroyed. People who have been in business for 20 and 30 years are having their businesses destroyed. Yet the member for Herbert got up and said that people are now better informed about their business. Well, thank you very much, members of the government! Thanks for what you have given me! I should be grateful that I am going broke, because I am going broke for the right reasons! Is that the answer? Is that the government's position—that I am going broke for the right reasons?Years ago John Button told me a story about how the CEO of one of our major car manufacturers told him that he had a car which was a real dog and it just was not selling. Everything was wrong with it. Button asked him what he did about it. The CEO said that he just ran a $1 million advertising campaign. That was the answer. That used be the answer of Australian business: rather than get the quality right and fix it, just advertise it. It seems to me that that idea has been recycled—that this government is doing exactly that. If you have a dog of a tax, what do you do? Just spend more money advertising it. If you have a dog of a system out there in a whole range of government areas, what do you do? Just spend more money advertising it. But in John Button's story the CEO was spending company money, whereas here the government is spending public money. In other words, it is the audience who are paying for the advertising, not the producer, and I think that is a great insight. Certainly, the methodology harks back to the fifties and the sixties when it was at the root of Australian business and manufacturing problems. It is now up front and forward in the problems of the Australian government. The amendments in the bill are useful but do not solve the problem. I am supporting the bill, with massive reservations. My community needs much more and deserves much more than this. 18:58:0028145Secker, Patrick, MPMr SECKER848BarkerLP10—I assure the member for Newcastle and the rest of the Labor Party that they would be the last people that we would ask for advice because, frankly, they have not got any policies anyway. The member for Newcastle has got only complaints—no answers. He shows his ignorance about why there is a twice-yearly reporting period of April and July. If he understood anything about farming, he would know that the quarter leading up to July is when most farmers incur the costs of growing their crops, and of course a lot of their income comes in in the quarter leading up to April. That is the very simple reason why farmers have that option. That just shows his complete ignorance about what happens with the farming industry here in Australia. He even put forward the suggestion that the GST will be extended. He might be right, under Labor. If Labor won the next federal election and if they won the state election in South Australia early next year, they would be in government in New South Wales, Queensland, Victoria, Tasmania, South Australia, Western Australia and federally, and then they would have the trigger to actually increase the rate of the GST.We have never yet heard in this parliament a commitment from the Labor Party that they will not increase the rate of GST. It is only this government that has made the commitment that it will not increase the rate of GST. So where is the Labor Party when it comes to increasing the rate of GST? Will we have a 12 per cent rate under Labor? Will we have a 15 per cent rate under Labor? Who knows, because only then would they have the possibility of having the trigger to increase the rate of GST.It gives me great pleasure to speak in support of the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 3) 2001 because it introduces a measure to further advantage the business sector in Australia, which is so important for providing jobs and security for Australian workers. I am also immensely pleased because, thanks to good management of our economy, this government not only has delivered on another promise on tax reform but also has delivered it early. Just as we have delivered taxation benefits early and backdated for our superannuants of pensionable age, we have delivered this enormous benefit to business and transport in my electorate of Barker and, of course, in the rest of Australia.One of the great things about the tax system we have brought in is that we now have an effective, efficient and inexpensive transport system, which is so important to the electorate of Barker, with an area of 54,000 square kilometres. To service the constituents it is important not only to get consumable goods to and from the households but also to service the many businesses and farmers throughout the electorate. It might interest you, Mr Deputy Speaker Nehl, to know that there are more trucks per head of population in the south-east of South Australia than anywhere else in Australia, largely because there are so many varying businesses and so much productivity. The forest industry, for example, is worth nearly $2 billion annually in my electorate, and that is set to expand even further when the blue gum industry gets into full swing. The wine industry is another growing example of what the producers of Australia can achieve, and we are helping them with the measures introduced by this bill. Both these industries are major exporters. It is no coincidence that we now have a tax-free environment for our exports which has partly resulted in this country having the best trade figures for decades, with continuous trade surpluses. They would be even better if we were not still paying off some of the debt that Labor ran up in the last five years of their last time in government, with resulting high interest rates. It took Australia 90 years to accumulate $16 billion worth of debt. Kim Beazley doubled that in one year—not in 90 years but in one year—and then he continued that trend for five years. In five years, from 1991 to 1996, Kim Beazley—10000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—The Leader of the Opposition.848Secker, Patrick, MPMr SECKER—Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Leader of the Opposition, Kim Beazley, took Australia's net debt from $16 billion to $96 billion. It is no wonder we had high interest rates, high unemployment and the recession we had to have. It is very interesting that even their own preferred modeller, Chris Murphy, has come up with modelling that suggests that $4 billion worth of roll-back will produce another one per cent increase in interest rates. And it certainly does not take much to get $4 billion worth of roll-back. The Leader of the Opposition, when he was the Minister for Finance, took the debt for every man, woman and child in this country from less than $1,000 to more than $5,000. That meant that the average family was saddled with a $20,000 debt, thanks to the Leader of the Opposition. By the end of the year, this government will have repaid $58 billion of that $80 billion in extra debt run up by none other than the now Leader of the Opposition, Kim Beazley, who has the dream of becoming Prime Minister. Talk about a nightmare for the rest of Australians!This government has reduced the debt to less than $2,000 for every man, woman and child and we will continue to reduce it further because we know how to manage economies, we know how to reduce debt and we know how to get business moving again, even though the Leader of the Opposition, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and the rest of the Labor Party have tried to sabotaged those efforts at every turn. They continue to oppose tax reform and GST, but they will keep it. They continue to attack the GST and tax reform, but they will keep it. They say they will have a roll-back, but they will not say how they will fund it. That was until Senator Conroy let the cat of the bag and raised the spectre of increased taxation under Labor. Will it be increased company tax? Will it be increased taxes for rich people? Will it be increased Medicare levies? Or will it be the reintroduction of their CPI increases in petrol tax? Whatever it is, it will be increased taxation of some form, and probably to the tune of at least $3 billion annually if the Leader of the Opposition is going to try the same trick he did after the 1993 election when he was finance minister. I remind the House that, with this government's repayment of Beazley's debt, we now save $4 billion every year that we can spend on things like health, education and many of our other good social needs, instead of paying that money to banks. It is money for jam.The Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 3) 2001 is a good bill because it will allow most entities to have the choice of several options brought in by this government as a result of substantial consultation with the business sector. I congratulate the Minister for Small Business on the job he has done since he has been in that job. There was dissatisfaction expressed to the members of this government and to the ministers. Like any good government, we have listened to those concerns, unlike the opposition Labor Party who are not listening to small business because they do not want a bar of roll-back—that quaint little cliche that expresses a con job on the general public and will lead only to higher interest rates that hurt businesses, home owners and anyone who has to borrow money. This bill also extends the deadline for quarterly payments and gives several options for business to go about their normal quarterly payments. Small business can continue to go about their reporting in the same way they have since this tax system was introduced. I am sure many if not the vast majority of businesses will continue to operate in that way. They have got used to the system now and can see the benefits from having a better handle on the way their businesses are operating and how they are faring. They can opt for a system that has much less reporting, they can opt for a system that lets the Taxation Office work out the figure for them and they can do an annual reconciliation, much like they did in previous years.Farmers also have a fourth option of reporting only twice a year because of the special seasonal circumstances that the member for Newcastle could not seem to understand. I know a lot of farmers are really noticing the benefits from receiving their record stock prices with the GST on top, because they get to keep that GST for up to three months, and that is extra money that they can use for cash flow purposes. So, all in all, I think these amendments make a lot of sense. They certainly give businesses a lot more choices as to how they do their reporting. Certainly they will be very helpful for the smaller operator, but frankly I think that a lot of people will continue operating in the way that they have been because we have introduced a system that now suits the vast majority of businesses quite well. I certainly support this bill, I have been quite happy to speak on it and I agree that this parliament should pass it at the first opportunity.19:07:0028147Mossfield, Frank, MPMr MOSSFIELDMK6GreenwayALP00—A double backflip with two and a half twists in the pike position—unfortunately bellyflops do not count for much with the judges. The judges in this case are of course the Australian people. Once again the government, bereft of original ideas and scrambling for all they are worth to save their political hides, have had to resort to stealing from Labor the very policies that they claim do not exist. The Treasurer's fingerprints and those of the Prime Minister are all over this little theft and, because of their ineptitude as burglars, this piece of legislation proves that they cannot even steal properly. The purpose of the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 3) 2001, as defined in the BillsDigest, is:To allow most entities required to lodge quarterly business activity statements to have the amount of payment calculated on their record of previous payments adjusted for changes in gross domestic product; extend the deadline for quarterly reporting and payment by a week; and to extend the range of people who may make pay as you go payments on amounts notified by the Australian Taxation Office.The bill covers various areas of this so-called simple new tax system with 160—count them—new amendments in the areas of GST returns and statements, payment of GST by instalments, correcting GST errors, PAYG instalments and deferral of due dates. The bill proposes to enact the BAS backflip package announced on 22 February 2001. This bill is a belated response to criticism by small business of the enormous amount of paperwork that they now face as a result of this government's `simplification' of the tax system. If this is simpler, I would hate to see the government decide to make the tax system more complex.Small business owners are now unpaid administrators and tax collectors for this government. Small businesses are now so tied down with paperwork that it has increased their working hours and reduced their profitability. There is no doubt that the GST has diverted the focus from other small business issues such as access to finance, e-commerce, training, retail issues, cash flow and marketing. How can businesses look to the future when they are too busy catching up on the work of the past? How can they build e-commerce solutions if they are so mired down in the paperwork of this regressive tax that they have no time or money to pursue this new technology? What the government needs to do is to reduce the amount of paperwork business has to do and to compensate small business firms for doing the work of government administrators and collecting revenue. We must never forget that John Howard's government was quite happy to force this extra administration cost on small business. The government has been saying one thing to small business while doing something completely different. Government policy is increasing the burden on small business, not reducing it. This is a simple fact that the government cannot escape from. Under John Howard's government, bureaucracy and reporting have increased considerably, despite promises to cut red tape. It now appears obvious to everyone that the red tape reduction promised was not a core promise and therefore was easily discarded by a government that does not seem to care about the practical realities of its theoretical and ideological policies. But now, with a number of electoral setbacks in Western Australia, Queensland and Ryan and after the infamous Shane Stone memo, the government is desperate to be seen to be doing something. The trouble is that it is only being seen to be doing something; in fact, it is not doing anything.The infamous Shane Stone memo, written after the electoral wipe-out in Queensland, highlights a number of the shortcomings this government has. Mr Stone quoted members of his government saying such things as `our leadership is not listening', `the government won't even listen to our own people so what hope the public?'—indeed, what hope the public?—and `all we have achieved is to raise the anxiety levels of ordinary Australians'. Mr Stone also complained of `forms, forms and more forms'. He said:We have buried our supporters under a sea of documentation.Also:There is a clear view that we are reactive rather than proactive and have to be `dragged screaming'to fix things and are just so far behind public sentiment on a range of issues.In summing up, Mr Stone wrote that `the recurring theme was that government was dysfunctional, out of touch and hurting our own'. I do not find myself agreeing with too many on the other side of the House, but on this occasion I believe that Mr Stone and the Queensland backbenchers have got it right and should be congratulated for their directness. I do not know whether the Minister for Small Business, who is at the table, was a backbencher at the time.The government have been slow to move. As Mr Stone pointed out, they need to be `dragged screaming'. The Prime Minister and the Treasurer appeared from newspaper reports to have conflicting views on the business activity statements. The Prime Minister, in his recently acquired guise of a knee-jerk reactionary, wanted action immediately, while the Treasurer took the hard line, insisting that small business would get used to the system the longer they worked under it. However, the pressure from small business continued, and the government fell into line with Labor's proposal and indicated that they would allow small business to report annually instead of quarterly, although they would still have to pay the GST every three months. The Treasurer still appeared to be dragging the chain on the change and was reported as saying that business would be forced to wait at least six months for any big change. After spending over $210 million on GST advertising—there seems to be some conflict as to how much money has been spent on advertising the GST, but I will be conservative; the conservative figure that most people agree upon is $210 million—the small business community is still unconvinced of the GST's value. The effect of this unfair tax has been to chain and lock small business into a prison of administration and to throw away the key. It has put pressure on margins, it has put pressure on profits and it has mugged the economy. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, in the March quarter this year company profits before income tax are down by a seasonally adjusted figure of 11.2 per cent over the same period last year. Total new capital expenditure is down by a seasonally adjusted figure of 9.6 per cent over the same period, the 12 months to March. Prices have gone up by six per cent over the 12-month period to March, with essentials like food rising by 6.6 per cent, clothing by 5.6 per cent and housing by 7.4 per cent. Alcohol and tobacco are up over 11 per cent. Average weekly earnings have not kept pace, and full-time adult earnings in the private sector are up by only 3.9 per cent. Prices are up, profits are down and it all comes down to the new tax system. This was supposed to be a simple new tax system. The Treasurer said as far back as February 2000:Well, it does mean that we're not changing the legislation, that we've got it right.As Margaret Thatcher once said, `The lady's not for turning.' But we have now seen over 1,800 roll-back amendments to this confusing new tax, with 160 in this bill alone. So much for getting it right; they have not. So much for not changing anything; they have. Industry sources are suggesting that there are still more to come, and many more amendments will be required to make this confusing new tax acceptable to industry. An incoming ALP government's position on the GST is well known. When we are advised as to what finance is available, the leader, Kim Beazley, will announce details of our policy.WN6Macfarlane, Ian, MPMr Ian Macfarlane—When?MK6Mossfield, Frank, MPMr MOSSFIELD—When the information that we need becomes available. If the GST were wiped completely, as a lot of our supporters would like us to do, we would have a further three years of total confusion like the confusion that we have had over the last two years, and there would be increased administration costs and further taxpayer expenditure on education and training—and on advertising no doubt. As has been pointed out on a number of occasions, you cannot unscramble an egg. You can make a fairly decent tasting omelette out of it, but you simply cannot unscramble it. The most responsible position for an incoming Labor government to take in our first term would be to make the GST fairer and to remove some of the administrative costs incurred by small business. The Leader of the Opposition has announced that, when he becomes Prime Minister, we will remove the GST from charities. A second- and third-term Labor government, under the prime ministership of Kim Beazley, would then be in a better position to respond to public demands in a responsible fashion. There are many changes that could be made to make this regressive tax a little less regressive and a little fairer. In Canada, for example, people on low incomes can claim back at tax time some of the GST that they have paid out during the year. I am not announcing any new policy here—after all, I am only a backbencher. I am simply pointing out that there is a whole host of suggestions out there that need to be investigated in order to make this dog's breakfast of a tax a little bit fairer on those that it hurts most.19:19:0028149Macfarlane, Ian, MPMr IAN MACFARLANEWN6GroomLPMinister for Small Business10—in reply—In rising to speak on the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 3) 2001, I will firstly address some of the statements made during this debate by those who sit opposite. They are quite right when they say that this tax is not as simple as we would have hoped. The only way we could have achieved that simple tax would have been to have had some bipartisan support from the Labor Party—support promised by the Leader of the Opposition in the lead-up to the 1998 election. But, like so many of their election promises, both then and in the past, they reneged as soon as the election was over. So we have had to battle our way through, with some compromises to the system.I have to remind all those in this chamber that this was the biggest tax change in Australia's history. There was always going to be a requirement to finetune the system. What assistance have we had from those who sit opposite? None. What is their approach to the GST? They have a twofold approach. First of all, they are so opposed to the GST that they are going to keep it. In fact, their Labor state colleagues are so opposed to the GST that they cannot get their hands on the money fast enough. The other approach that they have is to talk the economy down and to blame the GST for everything. When interest rates went up, the Leader of the Opposition said, `That's the fault of the GST.' When interest rates came down, the Leader of the Opposition said, `That's the fault of the GST.' It is clear from the debate here tonight that those who sit opposite, firstly, know little about the economy and, secondly, know little about the need for tax change. It is their colleagues who are taking the greatest slice of this tax. The state premiers are taking all the GST; all the GST is returned to the states. It is those state Labor premiers who are exploiting the system by making sure that they put their state taxes on before the GST is charged. In terms of what we have seen from the Labor Party during this debate to date though, there are some interesting hypocrisies, to say the very least. We hear them talk about roll-back, and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and shadow Treasurer was quick to quote Rob Bastian and small business support for roll-back. Let me read to the House what Rob Bastian actually said about roll-back. He said:We don't know too much about what Labor is ... and of course we are frightened about the roll-back statement. The opposition has been trying very hard to convince us—that is, COSBOA—that we are talking about rolling back complexity. But of course if we are rolling back coverage of the GST, that will increase complexity and that will cause a lot of pain.Is not just COSBOA that is concerned about our roll-back; we have seen a series of surveys, and they talk about the reaction of small business. Pitcher Partners released a survey which showed that 70 per cent of small business think roll-back will be detrimental to their business.ET4Bevis, Arch, MPWN6Macfarlane, Ian, MPMr IAN MACFARLANE—The member for Brisbane can interject, but the reality is that this is not the only survey. Morgan and Banks: 90.5 per cent of respondents rejected roll-back. Yellow Pages: 66.6 per cent of respondents oppose roll-back. Even the Labor Party is not game to road test its roll-back policy. It did not include it in its BAS inquiry. The Labor Party knew that the roll-back policy was on the nose with small business, and that is why it did not take it out there and include it in this inquiry. Having an inquiry into a tax system—the cornerstone of which, according to the Labor Party, is going to be roll-back—and not including roll-back only shows that roll-back is shallow and deceptive and really will only add complexity for small business.As if roll-back was not bad enough: we then had an ill-considered and dishonest proposal put forward by the shadow Treasurer a few weeks ago about having small business pay their GST on the basis of a ratio intended to reflect their liability. I challenged the shadow Treasurer tonight to explain to me how a business could take a ratio from the ATO and then be confident that it was not paying too much tax when the ALP introduced its roll-back policy. Where does roll-back actually fit in this ratio tax policy? They are like oil and water: they do not mix. Despite his angry response, he failed to explain how that policy would work. He could not even in this House when challenged explain to me how what are now seen as the two central planks of the Labor Party tax policy actually fit together. How does a business do its GST on a ratio when Labor is behind its back changing the ratio? I would not be so suspicious if as part of that policy there was an annual reconciliation. So Labor changes the tax base and the business keeps paying on its historical basis, and what happens? The business pays too much tax. No wonder small business is so suspicious of the Labor Party.7T4Crosio, Janice, MPMrs Crosio—Read it. Read the bill.WN6Macfarlane, Ian, MPMr IAN MACFARLANE—I hear some chuckles from opposite. Let me explain it to you. A newsagent gets his or her ratio from the ATO and under roll-back, I understand, although I can never get these things confirmed, the ratio gets changed, the tax base gets changed, books get exempted and the newsagent is still including in his ratio the percentage figure that includes books. Time is not going to allow me to talk about the shadow minister for small business and his inane contribution to the debate tonight. Let me just say that he admits that unfair dismissal is an issue for small business and he admits that low interest rates are important to small business. Those are two areas which this government is trying to address and which those who sit opposite continually oppose. May I just say a few words in summing up. I thank honourable members for their contributions to the debate. I acknowledge the opposition speakers and also the fact that even those speakers have acknowledged that this bill is good for business. This government spend their time talking to small business and understand that their needs have to be taken into consideration, and we act accordingly. This bill will help business by giving them options that will significantly ease their reporting requirements. I commend the bill to the House.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation for the bill and proposed amendments announced.28151Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.19:27:0028151Macfarlane, Ian, MPMr IAN MACFARLANEWN6GroomLPMinister for Small Business10—by leave—I present the supplementary explanatory memorandum to the bill and move government amendments Nos. 1 to 9:(1) Clause 2, page 1 (after line 9), after subclause (1), insert: (1A) Part 5 of Schedule 1 is taken to have commenced on 23 May 2001.(2) Schedule 1, page 36 (after line 19), at the end of the Schedule, add:Part 5—Phasing in input tax credits for motor vehicles etc.A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax Transition) Act 199969 At the end of subsection 6(2)Add:Note: Subsection 20(8) provides a rule stating when motor vehicles and other goods covered by subsection 20(1) are taken to be removed.70 Subsection 20(2)Omit “1 July 2001”, substitute “23 May 2001”.71 Subsection 20(3)Repeal the subsection.72 Paragraph 20(3A)(c)Omit “, (3)”.73 Subsection 20(4B)Omit “Neither subsection (2) nor subsection (3) applies if you make the acquisition or importation before 1 July 2002”, substitute “Subsection (2) does not apply if you make the acquisition or importation before 23 May 2001”.74 Subsection 20(4B) (definition of original input tax credit)Repeal the definition, substitute:original input tax credit is the amount that would (but for this section) be the amount of the input tax credit on the acquisition or importation.75 Subsection 20(4C)Omit “1 July 2002”, substitute “23 May 2001”.76 Subsection 20(6)Repeal the subsection.77 At the end of section 20Add: (8) For the purposes of applying subsection 6(2) to determine when an acquisition to which this section applies is made, the goods in question are not taken to be removed until the goods are physically removed: (a) by the entity acquiring the goods; or (b) if the entity acquires the goods for supply by way of lease—by that entity or the lessee of the goods. (9) Subsection (8) does not by implication affect the application of subsection 6(2) to acquisitions to which this section does not apply. (10) For the purposes of this section, an importation takes place when it becomes a taxable importation.78 ApplicationThe amendments made by this Part of this Schedule apply in relation to acquisitions and importations made on or after 23 May 2001.(3) Schedule 2, item 8, page 40 (line 31), omit “45-50(5)”, substitute “45-50(4)”.(4) Schedule 2, page 60 (after line 14), at the end of the Schedule, add:Part 3—Consequential amendmentsIncome Tax Assessment Act 193654 Section 160APA (subparagraph (a)(iabb) of the definition of applicable general company tax rate)Omit “PAYG rate variation credit”, substitute “PAYG instalment variation credit”.55 Section 160APA (subparagraph (a)(iabd) of the definition of applicable general company tax rate)Omit “PAYG rate variation credit”, substitute “PAYG instalment variation credit”.56 Section 160APAInsert:PAYG instalment variation credit means a credit under section 45-215 or 45-420 in Schedule 1 to the Taxation Administration Act 1953.57 Section 160APA (definition of PAYG rate variation credit)Repeal the definition.58 Section 160APA (subparagraph (ab)(i) of the definition of termination time)Omit “PAYG rate variation credit”, substitute “PAYG instalment variation credit”.59 Section 160APA (subparagraph (ab)(i) of the definition of termination time)After “45-215”, insert “or 45-420”.60 Paragraph 160APBB(2)(c)Omit “or 45-215”, substitute “, 45-215 or 45-420”.61 Section 160APBCRepeal the section, substitute:160APBC Application of PAYG instalment variation credit If a company: (a) is liable to pay a PAYG instalment; and (b) has a PAYG instalment variation credit;the PAYG instalment variation credit must be fully applied to reduce the liability for the PAYG instalment before any other credit or payment can be applied to reduce that liability.62 Paragraph 160APBD(3)(a)Omit “PAYG rate variation credit”, substitute “PAYG instalment variation credit”. 63 Paragraph 160APBD(3)(b)Omit “PAYG rate variation credit”, substitute “PAYG instalment variation credit”.64 Subsection 160APMAB(3)Omit “PAYG rate variation credit” (wherever occurring), substitute “PAYG instalment variation credit”.65 Subsection 160APMF(1)Omit “PAYG rate variation credit”, substitute “PAYG instalment variation credit”.Note: The heading to section 160APMF is altered by omitting “PAYG rate variation credits” and substituting “PAYG instalment variation credits”.66 Section 160APVIOmit “PAYG rate variation credit”, substitute “PAYG instalment variation credit”.67 Subparagraph 160APVJ(1)(a)(ii)Omit “PAYG rate variation credit”, substitute “PAYG instalment variation credit”.Note: The heading to section 160APVJ is altered by omitting “PAYG rate variation credit” and substituting “PAYG instalment variation credit”.68 Paragraph 160APVN(a)Omit “PAYG rate variation credit”, substitute “PAYG instalment variation credit”.69 Subsection 160APYBAB(1)Omit “PAYG rate variation credit”, substitute “PAYG instalment variation credit”.Note: The heading to section 160APYBAB is altered by omitting “PAYG rate variation credits” and substituting “PAYG instalment variation credits”.70 Subsection 160APYBAB(1)After “45-215”, insert “or 45-420”.71 Subsection 160APYBAB(2)Omit “PAYG rate variation credit”, substitute “PAYG instalment variation credit”.72 Section 160AQCNCAOmit “PAYG rate variation credit”, substitute “PAYG instalment variation credit”.73 Subparagraph 160AQCNCB(a)(ii)Omit “PAYG rate variation credit”, substitute “PAYG instalment variation credit”.74 Subparagraph 160AQCNCD(1)(a)(ii)Omit “PAYG rate variation credit”, substitute “PAYG instalment variation credit”.75 Subsection 160AQCNCE(1)Omit “PAYG rate variation credit” (wherever occurring), substitute “PAYG instalment variation credit”.Note: The heading to section 160AQCNCE is altered by omitting “PAYG rate variation credits” and substituting “PAYG instalment variation credits”.76 Subsection 160AQCNCE(1)After “45-215”, insert “or 45-420”.77 Subsection 160AQCNCE(2)Omit “PAYG rate variation credit”, substitute “PAYG instalment variation credit”.78 Paragraph 160AQCNCJ(1)(b)Omit “PAYG rate variation credit”, substitute “PAYG instalment variation credit”.79 Subsection 160AQDAA(2A)Omit “PAYG rate variation credit”, substitute “PAYG instalment variation credit”.80 Subsection 160AQJC(1A)Omit “PAYG rate variation credit” (wherever occurring), substitute “PAYG instalment variation credit”.81 Subsection 160AQJC(3)Omit “PAYG rate variation credit” (wherever occurring), substitute “PAYG instalment variation credit”.82 Subsection 160AQJC(3)Omit “PAYG rate variation credits”, substitute “PAYG instalment variation credits”.83 Section 160AREAOmit “PAYG rate variation credit” (wherever occurring), substitute “PAYG instalment variation credit”.84 Subsection 160ARYC(2)Omit “PAYG rate variation credit” (wherever occurring), substitute “PAYG instalment variation credit”.85 Subsection 160ARYC(2) (formula)Repeal the formula, substitute: Total of class CThe adjusted amount in0.1 x franking creditsrelation to the PAYG instalmentthat arose in thevariation credits referred to infirst franking yearparagraph 160AQJC(1A)(c)Taxation Administration Act 195386 Subsection 6-5(3) in Schedule 1After “your”, insert “GDP-adjusted notional tax or your”.87 Subsection 6-5(3) in Schedule 1Omit “each”, substitute “a”.88 At the end of subsection 45-232(2) in Schedule 1Add:acceptable amount, of your instalment for an *instalment quarter in an income year, has the meaning given by subsections (3), (3A), (3B), (3C) and (3D).89 Subsection 45-232(3) in Schedule 1Omit “The acceptable amount of your instalment for an *instalment quarter in an income year is”, substitute “If you are a *quarterly payer who pays 4 instalments annually on the basis of GDP-adjusted notional tax, the acceptable amount of your instalment for that instalment quarter is”.90 After subsection 45-232(3) in Schedule 1Insert: (3A) Subject to subsections (3B), (3C) and (3D), if you are a *quarterly payer who pays 2 instalments annually on the basis of GDP-adjusted notional tax, the acceptable amount of your instalment for an *instalment quarter in an income year is: (a) if the amount of the instalment is worked out under paragraph 45-112(1)(b) or (c)—the amount worked out using the table in this subsection (which can be a negative amount); or(b) otherwise—the amount notified to you by the Commissioner under paragraph 45-112(1)(a) as the amount of your instalment for that instalment quarter. Acceptable amount of an instalmentItemIf the *instalment quarter is:The acceptable amount of your instalment for that instalment quarter is:1the third *instalment quarter in that income yearthe lower of:(a) the amount that the Commissioner notified to you under paragraph 45-112(1)(a) as the amount of your instalment for that *instalment quarter; and(b) 75% of your *benchmark tax for the income year (which the Commissioner works out under section 45-365).2the fourth *instalment quarter in that income yearthe lower of:(a) the amount that the Commissioner would have notified to you under paragraph 45-112(1)(a) as the amount of your instalment for that *instalment quarter if the amounts of all your instalments for that income year had been required to be worked out under Subdivision 45-L; and(b) the amount worked out by subtracting:• the *acceptable amount of your instalment for the earlier instalment quarter in that income year; from:• 100% of your *benchmark tax for the income year (which the Commissioner works out under section 45-365). (3B) If: (a) you are a *quarterly payer who pays 2 instalments annually on the basis of GDP-adjusted notional tax; and (b) the Commissioner first gives you an instalment rate during the second *instalment quarter in an income year;the acceptable amount of your instalment for an instalment quarter in that income year is: (c) if the amount of the instalment is worked out under paragraph 45-112(1)(b) or (c)—the amount worked out using the table in this subsection (which can be a negative amount); or (d) otherwise—the amount notified to you by the Commissioner under paragraph 45-112(1)(a) as the amount of your instalment for that instalment quarter. Acceptable amount of an instalmentItemIf the *instalment quarter is:The acceptable amount of your instalment for that instalment quarter is:1the third *instalment quarter in that income yearthe lower of:(a) the amount that the Commissioner notified to you under paragraph 45-112(1)(a) as the amount of your instalment for that *instalment quarter; and(b) 50% of your *benchmark tax for the income year (which the Commissioner works out under section 45-365).2the fourth *instalment quarter in that income yearthe lower of:(a) the amount that the Commissioner would have notified to you under paragraph 45-112(1)(a) as the amount of your instalment for that *instalment quarter if the amounts of all your instalments for that income year had been required to be worked out under Subdivision 45-L; and(b) the amount worked out by subtracting:• the *acceptable amount of your instalment for the earlier instalment quarter in that income year; from:• 75% of your *benchmark tax for the income year (which the Commissioner works out under section 45-365). (3C) If: (a) you are a *quarterly payer who pays 2 instalments annually on the basis of GDP-adjusted notional tax; and (b) the Commissioner first gives you an instalment rate during the third *instalment quarter in an income year;the acceptable amount of your instalment for an instalment quarter in that income year is: (c) if the amount of the instalment is worked out under paragraph 45-112(1)(b) or (c)—the amount worked out using the table in this subsection (which can be a negative amount); or (d) otherwise—the amount notified to you by the Commissioner under paragraph 45-112(1)(a) as the amount of your instalment for that instalment quarter. Acceptable amount of an instalmentItemIf the *instalment quarter is:The acceptable amount of your instalment for that instalment quarter is:1the third *instalment quarter in that income yearthe lower of:(a) the amount that the Commissioner notified to you under paragraph 45-112(1)(a) as the amount of your instalment for that *instalment quarter; and(b) 25% of your *benchmark tax for the income year (which the Commissioner works out under section 45-365).2the fourth *instalment quarter in that income yearthe lower of:(a) the amount that the Commissioner would have notified to you under paragraph 45-112(1)(a) as the amount of your instalment for that *instalment quarter if the amounts of all your instalments for that income year had been required to be worked out under Subdivision 45-L; and(b) the amount worked out by subtracting:• the *acceptable amount of your instalment for the earlier instalment quarter in that income year; from:• 50% of your *benchmark tax for the income year (which the Commissioner works out under section 45-365). (3D) If: (a) you are a *quarterly payer who pays 2 instalments annually on the basis of GDP-adjusted notional tax; and (b) the Commissioner first gives you an instalment rate during the fourth *instalment quarter in an income year;the acceptable amount of your instalment for an instalment quarter in that income year is the lower of the following amounts: (c) the amount that the Commissioner notified to you under paragraph 45-112(1)(a) as the amount of your instalment for that instalment quarter; (d) 25% of your *benchmark tax for the income year (which the Commissioner works out under section 45-365).91 Subsection 45-450(1) in Schedule 1Omit “(except Subdivision 45-D)”.92 Subsection 45-450(1) in Schedule 1 (note)Repeal the note.93 Subsection 45-450(3) in Schedule 1Omit “(except Subdivision 45-D)”.94 Subsection 250-10(2) in Schedule 1 (table item 115)Omit “45-60”, substitute “45-61”.95 Application(1) The amendments made by this Part of this Schedule apply in respect of the 2001-2002 year of income and later years of income.(2) In addition, the amendments of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 made by this Part of this Schedule apply in respect of an instalment quarter that is a transitional quarter within the meaning of item 49 of this Schedule.(5) Schedule 3, item 20, page 67 (lines 6 and 7), omit “ if the PAYG payment period is a March, June or September”, substitute “unless the PAYG payment period is a December”.(6) Schedule 3, item 24, page 67 (lines 27 and 28), omit “the month of March, June, September or December”, substitute “a month”.(7) Schedule 3, item 24, page 68 (lines 1 and 2), omit “if that amount is withheld during March, June or September”, substitute “unless the amount is withheld during December”. (8) Page 73 (after line 6), at the end of the Bill, add:Schedule 4—Amendments relating to Treasury Note yield rate and general interest chargePart 1—Amendment of the Taxation Administration Act 1953Taxation Administration Act 19531 Section 8AADRepeal the section, substitute:8AAD What is the general interest charge rate? (1) The general interest charge rate for a day is the rate worked out by adding 7 percentage points to the base interest rate for that day, and dividing that total by the number of days in the calendar year. (2) The base interest rate for a day depends on which quarter of the year the day is in. For each day in a quarter in the second column of the table, it is the monthly average yield of 90-day Bank Accepted Bills published by the Reserve Bank of Australia for the month in the third column of the table. Base interest rateItemFor days in this quarter...the monthly average yield of 90-day Bank Accepted Bills for this month applies...11 January to 31 Marchthe preceding November21 April to 30 Junethe preceding February31 July to 30 Septemberthe preceding May41 October to 31 Decemberthe preceding August (3) If the monthly average yield of 90-day Bank Accepted Bills for a particular month in the third column of the table in subsection (2) is not published by the Reserve Bank of Australia before the beginning of the relevant quarter, assume that it is the same as the last monthly average yield of 90-day Bank Accepted Bills published by the Reserve Bank of Australia before that month. (4) The base interest rate must be rounded to the second decimal place (rounding .005 upwards).Part 2—Consequential amendments of other ActsDiesel and Alternative Fuels Grants Scheme Act 19992 Subsection 16B(3) (method statement, step 4)Omit “Treasury Note yield rate”, substitute “the base interest rate”.3 Subsection 16B(4) (definition of Treasury Note yield rate)Repeal the definition.4 Subsection 16B(4)Insert:base interest rate for a day has the same meaning as in section 8AAD of the Taxation Administration Act 1953.Income Tax Assessment Act 19365 Subsection 214A(1)Repeal the subsection, substitute: (1) In this section:base interest ratehas the meaning given by section 8AAD of the Taxation Administration Act 1953.6 Subsection 214A(2)Omit “Treasury Note yield rate”, substitute “base interest rate”.Product Grants and Benefits Administration Act 20007 Subsection 24A(3) (method statement, step 4)Omit “Treasury Note yield rate”, substitute “the base interest rate”.8 Subsection 24A(4) (definition of Treasury Note yield rate)Repeal the definition.9 Subsection 24A(4)Insert:base interest rate for a dayhas the same meaning as in section 8AAD of the Taxation Administration Act 1953.Part 3—Application10 ApplicationThe amendments made by this Schedule apply to each day of each quarter mentioned in subsection 8AAD(2) of the Taxation Administration Act 1953 (as amended) where the quarter begins on or after the day on which this Act receives the Royal Assent. (9) Page 73, at the end of the Bill (after proposed new Schedule 4), add:Schedule 5—Technical amendmentsTaxation Administration Act 19531 Subsection 45-30(2) in Schedule 1After “45-215”, insert “or 45-420”.2 Subsection 45-30(2) in Schedule 1 (note)Repeal the note.3 Application of amendmentsThe amendments made by items 1 and 2 apply in relation to assessments for the 2000-2001 income year and later income years.19:27:0028159Bevis, Arch, MPMr BEVISET4BrisbaneALP00—The Minister for Small Business might like to actually make some contribution to the debate about the amendments that are before the chair because, as I understand it, the government had not made those amendments available prior to this time, which is a different understanding from that which I had. Certainly when I gave leave for the matter—10000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—If I could advise the honourable member, the amendments were circulated in the House at 10.17 this morning.ET4Bevis, Arch, MPMr BEVIS—I stand corrected. But that is not the advice I have. Can I simply say, in trying to facilitate a proper debate on this matter, that the minister should fully explain to the chamber the provisions in the amendments that are before the House now so that they can be properly dealt with.19:28:0028159Macfarlane, Ian, MPMr IAN MACFARLANEWN6GroomLPMinister for Small Business10—These amendments are moved by the government to implement the budget announcement allowing GST businesses that are entitled to claim input tax credits to claim full input tax credits on motor vehicles acquired or imported on or after 23 May 2000. Under the new tax system the availability of input tax credits was covered by phasing-in arrangements. The govern-ment's decision to allow full input credits ahead of schedule is a major boost to business, and purchasers of new motor vehicles will be major winners from the reform.The government is also introducing amendments concerning the pay-as-you-go instalment regime. These amendments will provide the basis for calculation of the general interest charge where there is a shortfall in instalments. This is necessary after variation by a taxpayer who pays only two instalments each year under the simplified GDP adjustment system. Technical corrections will also ensure that the correct amount of the PAYG instalment is credited against the taxpayer's assessment. The government is moving amendments to ensure that all amounts due in this particular month are payable at the same date and notified at the same activity statement. Debate interrupted; adjournment proposed and negatived. WN6Macfarlane, Ian, MPMr IAN MACFARLANE—In terms of the issues that I have covered, by way of explanation PAYG withholders will be able to pay amounts withheld to the 28th of the next month or 28 February amounts within December if the BAS amount is due on that day. As I said, there will be changes to the general interest charge and the way in which it is calculated. It is our intention that the monthly average yield of the 90-day bank accepted bills will replace treasury notes as the benchmark rate. This rate correlates closely with the former treasury note yield, has a similar maturity length, reacts in a stable fashion to market changes, is continually updated and is readily accessible. Amendments are also necessary to ensure that the interest charge payments are calculated with reference to the new benchmark rate. The amendments will also provide for a reduction in the margin added to the benchmark rate for the purposes of GIC from eight per cent to seven percentage points. The government considers that a seven percentage point margin is sufficient to support the policy objective that taxpayers should pay their tax liabilities on time. The amendments do not alter the manner of calculation of the interest amounts or the circumstances in which interest is paid or changed. The GIC amendments will apply for the first full quarter on or after the royal assent to provide continuity with the current GIC arrangements. Full details of the amendments in the bill are contained in the supplementary explanatory memorandum. I commend the amendments to the House. 19:32:0028160Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSONUK6WillsALP00—The opposition regard it as grave discourtesy that these 65 amendments have been circulated today. The opposition have had no opportunity to consider this Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 3) 2001 through its proper, formal processes, much less engage in any consultation with the broader public and people who may be affected by this legislation. Having said that, to facilitate the passage of the bill through the House, we will not be opposing or debating these amendments. I can assure the government, however, that we will be endeavouring to scrutinise them when they are dealt with in the Senate in order that proper parliamentary processes of accountability and scrutiny are observed. Amendments agreed to.Bill, as amended, agreed to.28160Bill (on motion by Mr Ian Macfarlane)by leaveread a third time.Adjournment28160Motion (by Mr Ian Macfarlane) proposed:That the House do now adjourn.2816019:34:0028160Crosio, Janice, MPMrs CROSIO7T4ProspectALP00—I rise in the adjournment debate tonight to bring to the attention of the House the need for proper and official commemoration of one of Australia's most significant, important and costly military campaigns of the Second World War, the battle for Australia. The allied campaign against the advancing Japanese forces in the Pacific between 1942 and 1945 and in Malaya prior to the fall of Singapore in 1942 is known as the battle for Australia. The various campaigns involved more than 200,000 Australian and American allies. More than 10,600 Australians gave their lives. Thousands were wounded and many Australians were taken prisoner of war, where they were subjected to some of the most inhumane and intolerable conditions imaginable. It is said that the Gallipoli campaign of the First World War carved out a national identity for Australians and forged a long-lasting Australian ethos of mateship, courage, determination and egalitarianism. Similarly, it was in the Pacific and in the islands to our north during the years 1942-45 where those values of mateship, determination, courage and egalitarianism were revisited and were further entrenched into the Australian ethos. Following the surrender of Singapore to the Japanese in 1942, the Australian Prime Minister, John Curtin, announced to the Australian nation that `the fall of Singapore opens the battle for Australia'. For the next 3½ years, Australian forces fought the Japanese in places such as Rabual, Papua, New Guinea, Kokoda, Milne Bay, Buna, Gona, Sananada, Wau-Salamaua, Lae-Nadzab, Huon Peninsula Sattelberg, the Bismark Sea, Port Moresby, Bougainville, New Britain, Borneo and other places in the Pacific. It was during the battle for Australia that Darwin was bombed by the Japanese, sinking 10 ships and killing 243 people. Darwin suffered a total of 64 air attacks between 1942 and 1943 and the Western Australian towns of Port Hedland, Broome, Derby and Wyndham, Townsville in Queensland and Katherine in the Northern Territory were also reported to be subjected to Japanese air raids. The bombing of Darwin was the first enemy attack on Australian soil in the history of the Commonwealth of Australia. On 31 May 1942, Japanese midget submarines were found in Sydney harbour and for the first time the war had come to Australia. Australia was no longer a part of the war effort which involved thousands of Australian men and women defending distant and foreign lands. The war was now on our doorstep. These events marked a turning point in Australia's thinking about its place and importance in the war and brought home to Australians the need for an allied victory in the Pacific.One of the strategically significant victories in the Pacific in the defence of Australia was the Battle of the Coral Sea, where the Japanese forces attempted to isolate Australia by seizing Port Moresby and other nearby ports. An allied force of US ships fought the Japanese in the Coral Sea to Australia's east and eventually forced a retreat, thus marking an important and strategic victory for the allies. Prime Minister Curtin announced after the victory that the success in the Coral Sea had `undoubtedly saved Australia from a definite and immediate threat'.The Japanese then attempted to take Port Moresby overland by travelling along what is known as the Kokoda Trail. Australian troops stationed in New Guinea held the Japanese advances and forced a retreat back along the Kokoda Trail. This was a campaign which, like Gallipoli, entrenched unique Australian values upon its participants. The Kokoda Trail is associated with the courage of the wounded Australian soldiers who found valuable help from the indigenous people of New Guinea, known to the troops as the `fuzzy wuzzy angels'.The Japanese continued to be active in the Pacific right up until their surrender on 2 September 1945. Australian forces were instrumental in stopping the Japanese advances in the Pacific and thus protecting and securing Australia's freedom and the lifestyle that many of us enjoy today. It is only fitting that we honour and commemorate the battle for Australia and remember the thousands of Australian and allied servicemen that fought in the various campaigns in the battle for Australia between 1942 and 1945, including those who served in the earlier defence of Malaya.It was during these years and these campaigns that many of the classic images and special memories of Australians at war were created. These are the images and memories which now encompass the spirit of the original Anzacs: for example, the images of the fuzzy wuzzy stretcher-bearers carrying wounded Australian soldiers in New Guinea, images and stories which depict the hardship suffered by the Australians on the Kokoda Trail, the plight of those Australian men who were taken prisoner by the Japanese following the fall of Singapore in 1942 and the invaluable hope and help that the Australians received from the indigenous people.This year the battle for Australia commemoration will be held on Wednesday, 5 September. I must express my view that this is a day which is in need of more promotion and the battle for Australia needs a national day of commemoration. This year of the Centenary of Federation provides us with a great opportunity to promote Australian history and other significant issues so that Australians who fought in the battle for Australia are given the proper recognition and commemoration they deserve. I believe that Australian children and our schools should take an active role in the commemoration process. By teaching our younger generations about Australia's war heritage, the legacy of those who fought for all Australians will remain in their memory. Next year will commemorate 60 years since the fall of Singapore, the bombing of Darwin, the Battle of the Coral Sea and Australians on the Kokoda Trail. These are all events which have had significant implications for the battle for Australia and they must be nationally commemorated. There are many people in my electorate—the old diggers—who would like to see that happen and I speak on their behalf.2816219:39:0028162Katter, Bob, MPMr KATTERHX4KennedyNP10—In rising to speak tonight I briefly make mention of the sugar industry which is desperately in need of a prosperity package, and that prosperity package really is very simple: Australia needs to get in step with other countries who all provide some sort of protection for grub damage, particularly with respect to the cane crop at the present moment. More importantly, by far and away the best solution would be to use sugar for 15 per cent of our petrol in this country—put it into our petrol tanks and pay $370 a tonne for that sugar on long-term contracts. That would be the basis of recovery, along with a very small subsidy for interest.I turn to the very vexed question of the tobacco industry. People in Australia would smoke tobacco even if it were illegal. We believe that, if people do smoke, it is better that they smoke Australian tobacco. In this battle that has gone on for a very long time, I want to thank very much people like Remzi Mulla, Sid Rantucci, the late Warren Curry, Mick Borzi, Tom Braes, Barry Simpson and Peter Soda; and three ladies, Yvette Godfrey, Lynne Margante and particularly Cathy Fabris. I will never forget just how upset and distressed Cathy Fabris was when she realised that the parliament here in Canberra was not going to help the industry and the implications that that bore for her family of five children whom she, along with her husband, is raising. I also mention Bernie O'Shea, Johnny Gambino, Eddy Bernebei, Max Srhoj—all of those people that put on the very famous national rural action rally which 1,500 people turned up to. The Deputy Prime Minister was there as well. To all those people we say thank you.A 17 per cent tariff is still available to this industry and is badly needed. It is one of the very few tariffs that was not reduced to zero and can be put back up. I have been told—and I emphasise that I do not know whether this is true—that the United States Congress passed legislation increasing dramatically the amount of subsidy paid to United States producers after the introduction of the WTO.The city of Mareeba has some 15,000 people and there are still 150 tobacco farmers left in the area. Tobacco is still one of the three or four industries there and is the backbone of the economy. It is a very labour intensive industry. It is very hard to see how Mareeba can survive and prosper unless something is done about this industry. Those 150 farmers directly employ, on average, some four employees. That equals 600 jobs or 750 people when you include the farmers. On the basis of a one-for-one follow-on, at least 1,500 jobs will vanish if this industry is left to die. That is the situation at the present moment.To those people who talk to us and tell us that we should grow something else, 23 other crops have been tried in this area. We have tried everything known to man in the area. Millions of dollars were spent by the state and federal governments in the choices program and the net result of that program was that the DPI is not really confidently advising anyone to grow anything up there. There is nothing that they can make money out of. Mangoes, tea trees, pumpkins, avocados, sugar, citrus and grapes were just some of the many things that were tried up there. There is probably no-one up there that would say that we are making a quid at the present moment from any of those things. All that Australian farmers get out of a packet of cigarettes is 6c. So 1,500 jobs in this country will be sacrificed for 6c. The economic rationalists give us the great message, `Oh, you'll get cheaper tobacco in Australia if it is grown overseas.' It costs $9 for a packet of cigarettes and the farmers are only getting 6c, so to save 2c on a packet of cigarettes we are going to sacrifice 1,500 jobs and a whole community which is depending desperately upon us.There is an answer, and I want to bring that to the attention of the House this evening. BAT, the British American Tobacco Co., which buys 60 per cent of the Australian crop, have informed the Mareeba farmers that they will simply buy nothing off them this year. BAT must be told that either they buy Australian or they suffer not only a 16 per cent tariff but also a $1.50 to $2 levy per packet. And that levy will be needed and will help cancer research, protect against damage to the Australian environment through imported agricultural product and damage to Australian agriculture, and remunerate the farmers for quota loss. They must be forced to the table. (Time expired)2816319:45:0028163Emerson, Craig, MPMr EMERSON83VRankinALP00—Much of the public discussion about the need for Australia to become a new economy treats manufacturing as old economy and therefore a sector that ought to be abandoned. In making the transition to a new economy, it is vital that policies be formulated that recognise that Australian manufacturing is not old economy and low value. Rather than pursuing policies that are inimical to manufacturing, government should seek to enhance the competitiveness of Australian manufacturing and service industries in mutually reinforcing ways. The last major review of the future of Australia's manufacturing sector was conducted in 1990 for the Australian Manufacturing Council. It concludes:No modern economy has managed to stay wealthy without substantial diversity and a strong manufacturing base.The importance of manufacturing to a nation's prosperity has been summarised by Dr Peter Brain in these terms:Over the past two centuries, the place to look for technological change has been manufacturing industry. This is true, despite all the talk of a post-industrial age. If anything, manufacturing has been increasing in importance, because elaborately transformed manufactured goods have increased as a proportion of world trade and hence as a conduit of prosperity and depression between nations.For the past decade, manufacturing in Australia has accounted for about half of the business investment in research and development. Although this ratio is expected to decline during the present decade, manufacturing will remain an important incubator for research and development by the private sector. Just as manufacturing can act as an incubator for private sector R&D, so can policies that facilitate the transition to a new economy enhance the international competitiveness of a nation's manufacturing industries; that is to say, manufacturing and information technology can be mutually reinforcing. This has been recognised, for example, by the government of Singapore, which has embraced a strategy of promoting service enhanced manufacturing and clusters of development. This emphasis on clusters draws from the work of Professor Michael Porter in The Competitive Advantage of Nations. Within the analytic framework of service enhanced business clusters, it is not nations that develop a competitive advantage in particular activities but regions. It follows that government policies for capacity building, while possessing some generic features, such as improvements in high school retention rates, must also inevitably focus on particular regions of Australia. In that context, a very important report, Industries in the regions, was released today by the Australian Industry Group. That report provides yet another condemnation of the Howard-Anderson government's abandonment of regional development. In fact, of the 635 firms surveyed, only 17 per cent thought that the federal government's position on regional development was either very supportive or supportive—only one per cent said it was very supportive. So there is a real problem here. As the report says: A coherent regional development policy needs to be articulated to regions, which not only sets out a broader agenda for action but also identifies how each region is to be assisted in developing its industry base.While information technology can add great value to manufacturing, it can also make manufacturing enterprises more globally footloose. All manufacturing production becomes tradeable and e-commerce lessens the importance of support personnel being located in proximity to the manufacturing operation. Consequently, if a nation loses its edge either in the particular manufacturing activity or in the personnel and R&D capacity that support the activity, it can lose the lot to another country. So to maximise the value in the new economy we must embrace policies that build capacity for modern, internationally competitive manufacturing and services sectors through the formation of new and relevant skills in the Australian work force, that facilitate research and development in both the services and manufacturing sectors to enhance their international competitiveness in mutually reinforcing ways, and that disseminate within manufacturing industries information based technological advances, such as just-in-time stock ordering systems that lessen delivery times and warehousing costs, and marketing through e-commerce. Of course, we also need active regional development policies.So manufacturing is central to a knowledge economy. We must have active government programs to support the modernisation of Australia's manufacturing base, not only in capital cities but in regional Australia as well. Let us not get carried away with new economy as if it were some sort of breatharian lifestyle—Australia needs within the new economy a strong, modern manufacturing base.2816419:50:0028164Gambaro, Teresa, MPMs GAMBARO9K6PetrieLP10—Tonight I would like to speak about the $40 million funding for stage 2 of the Bruce Highway that was announced on 3 April. It was fulfilling an election promise that I made in 1998 to obtain more funds for the Bruce Highway. This has been quite a controversial decision and the state government in Queensland has acted rather disgracefully in the whole process. Yesterday, a press release was issued by the transport minister, Steve Bredhauer, announcing that $22 million had been set aside in the 2001-02 transport and main roads budget to enable work to begin on a further two sections of the inner northern busway. In that, he said that it was part of the additional commitment of $56 million from the state government to complete the $135 million project. He went on to say:The Howard Government withdrew funding of $65 million for public transport in Brisbane under the Centenary of Federation Funding redirecting $40 million of those funds to National Highway projects.I want to put on the record tonight that that particular $65 million was set aside for an inner light rail project which was agreed to by the Premier of Queensland. He and the Mayor of Brisbane, Jim Soorley, were at considerable loggerheads in that whole process and were fighting night and day over the terms of the project and how it would occur in the CBD. They made a decision to abandon the $65 million inner light rail project that was especially earmarked out of the Centenary of Federation funding. Then the Prime Minister took the funds back and decided that they would be allocated to Queensland. Mr Beattie, in his wisdom, put his hand up for an inner bus system. Those funds were never intended for an inner bus system.The people of the northern region of Brisbane are absolutely delighted. Work had already begun on the first stage of the Bruce Highway: $35 million was committed in 1998 and that work began in January 2001. The first stage has already started, from the Pine River bridge to Dohles Rocks Road at Murrumba Downs. It will mean that the Pine River bridge will be extended and will have an additional two extra lanes in each direction and that the Bruce Highway has been widened to six lanes to Dohles Rocks Road. It is wonderful to drive past there and see that stage 1 has already commenced. The new bridge is being worked on; the roadworks are ahead of schedule. That $40 million will mean that in stage 2 the Dohles Rocks road to Anzac Avenue can be extended to eight lanes, and that will have some tremendous implications for the people of my region. The road will go right up to Anzac Avenue and later to Uhlmann Road. There will be provision for eight lanes in the future. That is one of the worst traffic areas in Brisbane. Every morning one only has to switch on the radio to hear the traffic reports that go on about the Dohles Rocks exit. It is a parking lot. Cars are parked for five kilometres end to end. This funding will alleviate a lot of that problem. Every day—I was absolutely staggered when I got the figures—72,000 vehicles use that Pine River bridge and travel between Pine River and Caboolture. Nine per cent of those vehicles are commercial. This upgrade will improve the travel time for commuters and delivery time for agriculture and manufacturing goods to the city from those regions north of Brisbane. There is no other way to get agricultural goods from those farming regions. The highway has to be used. The upgrade will also be good for commuters in the area, and delivery times will be reduced. Tourism is one of the fastest growing industries in Australia. Some two million tourists visit Australia, and out of those 50 per cent come to Queensland. One in six use car transport to get around. Some of those tourists travel to the northern coast regions, including Noosa and Caloundra. The city of Redcliffe will also benefit considerably. Some 67 per cent of the work force there travel to Brisbane. They will now have a world-class highway to enable them to do that. The Mango Hill area, which will have another 25,000 people in the next 10 to 15 years, will benefit. The highway has been well received by the people in those northern regions. They deserve a world-class motorway. The people of the southern regions of Brisbane have that in the Gold Coast motorway. I welcome the $40 million, as do the people of the Redcliffe region and the Mango Hill and Rothwell areas, and also the many tourists who will travel along that road and benefit the Queensland economy.2816519:55:0028165Livermore, Kirsten, MPMs LIVERMORE83ACapricorniaALP00—The federal government has a perfect opportunity before it at present to make it up to the people of Central Queensland for the neglect of the past five years. The Prime Minister has on his desk right now a letter describing a proposal that will help Rockhampton to meet its full potential as a major regional centre in Australia. The community of Rockhampton is calling on the Prime Minister to support the development of a world-class exhibition complex in our region that will enable us to host the 2003 Beef Expo and to expand on the success of previous beef expos.The triennial beef expos are an integral part of Rockhampton's reputation as the beef capital of Australia. They are a chance for our region to highlight to Australia and the world the quality of the beef produced in Central Queensland as well as the research and technology that make Australia a world leader in beef production and processing. Beef expos have been held in Rockhampton for 13 years now; they are a very important part of our identity and also our economy. Each expo has built on the success of previous expos, and visitor numbers have increased throughout that period. The expo held in 2000 attracted 44,000 visitors, including 1,700 international guests from 29 different countries. From those figures, it doesn't take much to work out that the expos represent a huge economic boost to Central Queensland and a valuable chance to create long-term markets and opportunities for our products and industry expertise. At Beef Expo 2000, however, it was clear that the expo has outgrown the existing facilities available in Rockhampton. If future beef expos are to be of a truly international standard, we must have a suitable exhibition facility in our city. Everyone in Rockhampton knows that the future of the beef expos in our city depends on this new facility. I have been supporting this project from the start, when Rockhampton Enterprise Ltd was first commissioned to explore possible sites. The project has moved on from there, and there is now a comprehensive proposal in place, but the federal government is still refusing to commit to the project. The state government put its cards on the table in yesterday's budget; it is now time for the federal government to get behind us in Rockhampton. We have been continually ignored by the Howard government, but surely they can see the merit in this project. Rockhampton is the beef capital of Australia, and we are very proud of that title and the successful beef industry that stands behind it. Here is a classic example of a regional centre trying to build on its traditional strengths to create a sustainable future. We have done the hard work over the last 13 years and now want some support to help us seize the opportunities Beef Expo promises for the future of Central Queensland. As I said before, the Prime Minister has that letter sitting on his desk. The next beef expo will be in April 2003, and we need to get this project moving now. It cannot wait for an election campaign; it cannot wait for some perceived political mileage that the Prime Minister might see at the end of the year. He has to make a decision now if he is serious about supporting this project that is so important to Rockhampton, Central Queensland and the beef industry. I urge him to do that immediately.Moving to a sadder tale from Central Queensland this week, I want to mention the news that Flight West will be going into liquidation after 14 years of servicing towns throughout Queensland. It is sad most particularly, from my point of view, for the towns of Barcaldine and Longreach in the central west of my electorate. The news of Flight West's liquidation and cessation of operations is absolutely devastating for the towns of Longreach and Barcaldine. I do not think it is stretching it too far to say that Flight West provided a lifeline for the communities in the central west. Everything that happened in those communities depended on having that regular flight service into those towns: industry development; the tourism industry, which is of growing importance to the towns; medical services; family connections; arts—you name it. I would urge the three airlines currently operating in Queensland to look at picking up the services between Brisbane and Longreach and Brisbane and Barcaldine. I note that Sunstate is already offering daily flights from Brisbane to Longreach, and I congratulate them for that move, but I would also ask them to please consider the needs of the community of Barcaldine. Barcaldine was getting three flights a week from Flight West from Brisbane, and those flights were full. I also ask Flight West to honour the tickets that people in those towns are holding and to think about things like the raffle prizes and community events that Flight West had sponsored. I urge Flight West, its liquidators and the other airlines to keep those in mind because that community connection is very important. The service to these towns is absolutely vital for their future development, and also just for a reasonable life in those towns. I hope that the other three airlines in Queensland will honour obligations to help those people. 10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 8 p.m., the debate is interrupted.20:00:0028166House adjourned at 8.00 p.m.2001-06-20—————Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins) took the chair at 9.50 a.m.Statements by Members281672816709:50:0028167Sawford, Rod, MPMr SAWFORD3J4Port AdelaideALP00—It appears that it is ingrained in the psyche of the federal Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs that he must do all in his power to bludgeon and marginalise public education. In case that statement is regarded as overstated by those opposite, let me prove it to all in this chamber by referring to the only statistic that means anything in the expenditure on education. The percentage of GDP expended on education is falling, and falling dramatically. In 1996-97, it was 2.06 per cent. For 2001-02, it will be around 1.6 per cent. That is a 20 per cent cut. That is the real truth—forget all the other statistics. They account only for inflation and increased enrolments.Historically, elitist conservative forces in Victoria have always tried to marginalise public education. It is part of the psyche in certain quarters in that state. It is still the case, particularly, with the current education minister. This minister is to dogma as propaganda is to indoctrination—George Orwell describes him most accurately. He continues a long line of elitist conservative propaganda agents in Victoria who have always tried to marginalise public education.Those of us who are from states other than New South Wales and Victoria are often bored by the many senseless debates between proponents of those states. However, one comparison between New South Wales and Victoria is particularly edifying when it comes to public and private education. A Victorian educational researcher found that in New South Wales over half the people with entries in Who's Who were educated in public schools. But when it came to Victoria, over half came not only from private schools but from just five schools: Scotch College, Wesley College, Geelong Grammar, Melbourne Grammar and Geelong College. How much more elitist conservative can you possibly get? The minister obviously wants to keep it that way—just look at where the Victorian contingent of cabinet frontbenchers went to school.This continues an evil tradition of conservative forces in Victoria when it comes to education. In the early 1900s the so-called top private schools in Victoria were successful in limiting the breadth of curriculum offerings in public schools. That is what they went in to bat for, and they actually won it—hard to believe, but true. At various times, even in the 1950s, that divisive debate was continued by elitist conservatives in Victoria to retain for private schools a competitive edge. Of course, the practice of cherry picking the most able from public schools operated then as it does now.Judgment day comes for people who do harm to the future national interest of this nation. Sometimes that day can be very slow in coming, but as certain as night follows day it does come. (Time expired)2816709:53:0028167Baird, Bruce, MPMr BAIRDMP6CookLP10—As somebody who went to Cronulla Public School and the Sutherland school which became Port Hacking High School, I rise to draw the attention of the Main Committee to the results of a survey that I have undertaken of residents of Kurnell village and the north Cronulla area in my electorate of Cook. The survey canvassed residents' opinions of four proposals that impact upon their area. Residents were asked to indicate their reaction to each proposal and then to rank each one from 1 through to 4 in order of preference. The proposals were to restore the heritage site at Captain Cook's landing place, to build a museum of reconciliation to celebrate and recognise the meeting of two cultures at Kurnell, to purchase three parcels of privately owned land—zoned 7b—to restore it environmentally for conversion into national park, and to allow the Australand corporation to proceed with its development proposal. In total, 392 completed surveys were received in response from the two areas—144 from Kurnell and 248 from north Cronulla.In regard to the purchase of 7b lands, over both areas the buyback of the degraded lands proved the most popular option, with 351 of the 392 respondents either strongly agreeing or agreeing with it. It was also the proposal that produced the most polarised opinions, with only 14 people indicating that they were indifferent to it. In addition, 73 per cent of respondents rated this as their most preferred option, while only four per cent rated it as their least favourite option.The buyback was more popular amongst North Cronulla residents than Kurnell residents with 75 per cent of North Cronulla respondents rating it a top priority as against 66 per cent in Kurnell. The Australand development proposal was the most unpopular proposition—233 of 392 strongly disagreed with it and 30 disagreed. While 96 either strongly agreed or agreed, only 25 people were indifferent. Sixty-two per cent of respondents across both areas ranked it at No. 4 or least preferred option while it was the favourite option of 14 per cent of respondents. Australand was far more unpopular amongst North Cronulla residents with 70 per cent of them citing it as their least favourite option as opposed to 46 per cent in Kurnell. Improvement of the existing heritage site and inscription points so it better reflects the important place it holds in modern history was the second most popular option. Three hundred and thirteen of 392 respondents agreed or strongly agreed while 30 disagreed and 41 were indifferent. The Museum of Reconciliation concept also received considerable support, 226 agreeing with it while 59 disagreed. By way of conclusion, my survey has conveyed a fairly strong message from the residents of Kurnell and North Cronulla. For the most part they are very keen about the proposal to purchase the degraded lands of the peninsula. Having said this, it is very difficult to move forward a significant way with this proposal without having a concrete land evaluation at this stage. I have heard estimates ranging from as low as $2 million to $3 million up to several hundred million. Clearly this is not a focused enough figure to have a meaningful dialogue. (Time expired)2816809:56:0028168Gibbons, Steve, MPMr GIBBONS83XBendigoALP00—The Howard government plans to spend almost $20 million a month in advertising in the six months up to October in a desperate attempt to save its political fortunes. The Senate estimates show a massive advertising bombardment on both tax and social issues is planned in the next six months in a desperate attempt to make the Howard government look good. The campaign includes advertising of a $300 bonus that some pensioners will receive automatically through their bank accounts. Other campaigns to be conducted in August and October are the $6.9 million Telstra Besley response, the $5 million campaign on the abolition of the financial institutions duty—state tax—and a $4.2 million campaign at the end of the year on the Work for the Dole program. The barrage of advertising will not fool Australian voters and most will be very angry at the scandalous $150 million taxpayer funded advertising blitz. A small fraction of this outrageous and corrupt use of taxpayers funds would license much needed MRI equipment at the Bendigo Health Care group. The total amount along with the state contribution would almost complete the Calder Highway duplication program. Mr Howard is definitely attempting to advertise his way out of trouble while pouring millions of taxpayers' dollars into the pockets of television advertising companies. In September 1995, Mr Howard attacked the current guidelines on government advertising and promised that he would ask the Auditor-General to draw up new rules for government advertising. The Auditor-General stated: There were no guidelines or protocols on information in advertising ... covering matters such as distinguishing between government and party political advertisements, the distribution of unsolicited material and the conduct of campaigns in the lead-up to an election. The Auditor-General then proposed draft guidelines to rectify the matter. The Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit issued guidelines based on the Auditor-General's report in September 2000 with the unanimous recommendation that they be adopted. Mr Howard in parliament yesterday was touting guidelines he attacked in 1995 and is now ignoring the advice of the Auditor-General, advice that he sought or requested in 1995. This advertising campaign is a blatant and scandalous taxpayer funded, party political attempt by this coalition to attempt to hide the tricky, mean-spirited and out of touch image that this government is so renowned for. As I have already said, a small fraction of this scandalous misuse of taxpayer funds would have licensed much needed MRI equipment at the Bendigo Health Care group and the total amount along with the state contribution would almost complete the Calder Highway duplication program. This coalition is not fit to govern and deserves to be annihilated at the next election.10000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—No member rising to seek the call, in accordance with standing order 2750 the time for members' statements has concluded.Bills28169R130428169Consideration resumed from 19 June.Schedule.09:59:0028169Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—I suggest that it might suit the convenience of the Main Committee to consider the items of proposed expenditure in the order and groupings shown in the schedule which has been circulated to honourable members. The consideration of the items in groups of departments has met the convenience of the House and the Main Committee in past years. I take the opportunity also to indicate to the Main Committee that the proposed order for consideration of departments' estimates has been discussed with the opposition and the Independent members, and there has been no objection to what is proposed.The schedule read as follows—Attorney-General's DepartmentDepartment of Employment, Workplace Relations and Small BusinessDepartment of the Environment and HeritageDepartment of Transport and Regional ServicesDepartment of Communications, Information Technology and the ArtsDepartment of Family and Community ServicesDepartment of Health and Aged CareDepartment of Agriculture, Fisheries and ForestryDepartment of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs Department of Reconciliation and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs Department of Defence Department of Veterans' AffairsTogetherDepartment of Foreign Affairs and TradeDepartment of Industry, Science and ResourcesDepartment of Education, Training and Youth AffairsDepartment of Finance and Administration Department of the Treasury Department of the Prime Minister and CabinetTogether10000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Is it the wish of the Main Committee to consider the items of proposed expenditure in the order suggested by the minister? There being no objection, I will allow that course to be followed.Attorney-General's DepartmentProposed expenditure, $1,558,652,000.10:00:0028170Sercombe, Bob, MPMr SERCOMBEQK6MaribyrnongALP00—I take this opportunity to raise with the Attorney-General the support his department might extend to Australians in the international arena when they face complexities with the operation of overseas criminal justice systems. In 1998 and 1999 I spoke in the House, during the adjournment debate, about the frightful circumstances of constituents of mine, a family whose son was murdered in Greece in the middle of 1998. This boy's name was George Karalis.The matter is, obviously, deeply grieving to the family because of the essential circumstances—it was a particularly horrific murder—but their grief has been added to dramatically by the extreme difficulties they have been experiencing in getting the necessary degree of cooperation from the Greek authorities. Inadequate cooperation has been given not only to them but to Australian judicial bodies, in this case the Coroner's Court in Victoria. In 1998 the Victorian Coroner issued an order, which I am quite happy to provide to the Attorney-General, for the supply of a significant amount of information. Well over a year later, that order was—through the efforts of the Australian post in Athens, I think—largely complied with but not completely, according to my information. On 4 September 2000, the Victorian Coroner's Court issued a quite detailed request—which once again I would be happy to provide to the Attorney-General—for further information. This request relates to obtaining statements by homicide police officers, the harbourmaster of the port of Rafina and forensic examiners, telephone records and the like. From the detail that the Victorian Coroner is seeking, clearly he is satisfied that there are substantive matters for him to look at, yet this considerable time later we do not seem to be getting anywhere through the post in Athens with the appropriate Greek authorities.This is not a matter of an Australian investigating body seeking to put its nose directly into a matter that ought properly to be within the investigative jurisdiction of an overseas country. We have a situation where clearly the way in which Australian courts, in this case the Coroner's Court in Victoria, seek to carry out their work is not being successful in the way it ought to be. Certainly there is some criticism by the family and by the family solicitor of the way in which DFAT has operated in this matter. They are matters I will raise more directly with the Minister for Foreign Affairs at a later stage in this process. Meanwhile, I take this opportunity to raise this matter with the Attorney-General. He would not be briefed on it at this point, I am sure; nonetheless, the opportunity is too useful to miss. I raise this general matter with him and will seek his advice in due course. The solicitor for the family, in correspondence with the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade on 5 March this year, has also raised the question of the circumstances in which the Australian Federal Police might be able to liaise with Greek police in matters of this type. The solicitor for the family refers to a report in 1997 by the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee which refers specifically to the disappearance of David Lindner in Iran. That report stated that the presence and liaison of the AFP officer in Nicosia:... encouraged Iranians in their endeavours, and kept that case going when otherwise it might well have ceased to be in the in tray.The family is drawing a comparison with the circumstance of that investigation where, apparently, a foreign jurisdiction was encouraged by its relationship with the AFP to more vigorously pursue an investigation. The suggestion is very strongly made that there may well be a role for the AFP in this case, in terms of encouraging the Greek authorities to, frankly, get off their backsides and handle this matter with the diligence it deserves. That certainly has not been the case. I will raise some of those matters with the Minister for Foreign Affairs, but it would be most helpful, at this point, to get the Attorney-General's view on the general position of his portfolio in these sorts of circumstances, and, in due course, to seek his more detailed advice. (Time expired)10:05:0028171Cox, David, MPMr COX83UKingstonALP00—There is one matter that I wish to raise relating to the funding of legal aid, and that is with respect to family law. I raised this matter in the same debate a couple of years ago with the Attorney-General, and got what I thought was a completely unsatisfactory answer. The answer was that all I was seeking to do was to line the pockets of family law lawyers. The particular issue that I am concerned about is the number of—mostly male—non-custodial parents who find themselves in the Family Court unable to afford proper representation and unable to get legal aid. They usually face their spouse, who does have legal aid and is therefore at a considerable advantage. Many of them run up bills of $10,000 to $20,000 before they realise that their lack of legal aid is going to leave them bankrupt if they persist; they then start to represent themselves and the results of that are normally fairly dreadful. They enter the court and they believe that they are going to get justice. They raise a series of matters that they believe are important and relevant and find that, as far as the court is concerned, they are totally irrelevant, and this adds to their disillusionment and disenchantment.I realise that it would be extremely difficult for the Commonwealth to get itself into the situation of funding both sides of actions, the progress of which is determined by the parties, and that the parties in these situations are at odds with each other and are not necessarily going to behave reasonably, and the costs could be quite inordinate. There is one proposal that I put to the Attorney-General a couple of years ago, and I would like his comments on it now—even if he is not going to comment on the need for more legal aid assistance funding. That is a proposal to allow the cost of family law—at least for an initial set of orders—to be treated as a charge against the assets of the marriage. So that both parties, if they are seeking to preserve as much of the assets of a marriage as they can, would then have a motive for settling the matter, and it would not be a situation where one side was represented and the other side could not afford to be. I think that would be beneficial, I think it is worthy of some exploration and I would be very grateful for the Attorney-General's views on it.10:09:0028171Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—In response to the member for Maribyrnong, I can mention a few things. He correctly surmised that I am not briefed on the particular case. We have had some problems in dealing with Greek authorities in relation to criminal matters. It has not been an entirely satisfactory relationship generally. QK6Sercombe, Bob, MPMr Sercombe—Is there a treaty?7V5Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS—Off the top of my head, I am not aware whether there is either an extradition treaty or a mutual assistance in criminal matters treaty. Certainly, we have the capacity, through the AFP, to provide assistance to criminal authorities in Greece if it is requested. Here, the circumstances seem to be the other way around—although the offence is committed in Greece, the investigation is in Australia. I would be happy if the member for Maribyrnong were to either write or speak to me, to my office or the department about the circumstances. Basically, dealing with the Greek authorities is the responsibility of DFAT. The AFP has liaison officers in a number of different locations around the world, as the member for Maribyrnong is probably aware. They may be able to provide some assistance if the requisite action is not being taken in Greece. I issue an invitation to the member to raise the matter in a formal way.On the subject of legal aid, raised by the member for Kingston, the circumstances in relation to legal aid that pertained two years ago are really quite different now. It has been the case for some time that issues relating to contact with children between warring spouses have been a running sore in members' and senators' electorate offices. Within the last two years, we have taken two major steps that we hope will alleviate some of the problems. One difficulty that many separating spouses face is the cost of proceedings in the Family Court. Specifically to address that problem—where, for example, a father goes to a lawyer and is told that he will have to put down $10,000 in order to commence a case in the Family Court and he will probably have to pay more, when all that he is seeking is regular contact with his children—we have established the Federal Magistrates Service, which is specifically designed to provide a cheaper, faster and simpler service. In fact, it is doing that. It has been a very successful institution and is now readily accessed both by lawyers and by unrepresented litigants.The second step that we have taken is to amend the Family Law Act to make provision for better enforcement of orders relating to contact with children. We have instituted a three-step process under which, at the time of separation, the parents are given some counselling. If there is a subsequent breach of the order, they may be ordered to participate in a counselling process. If breaches continue, at the third step there may be penalties invoked. It only came into operation at the end of last year, so it has not had a long time in operation in order to test the effectiveness of it, but we will obviously be monitoring the process to see how it is working.On the proposal specifically mentioned by the member for Kingston to allow the cost of the initial set of orders to be a charge against the assets of the marriage, my initial reaction is that this is unlikely to work. It does not seem to be a matter of money for many of the people who have intractable problems, particularly in relation to residence of, and contact with, the children. I do not specifically recall this proposal being raised two years ago, but we will look at it and, if we see any merit in it, we will see what can be done. The difficulty will be that the parties will have, at some stage, divided the assets, and most of the problems do not seem to arise in relation to contact where one party is legally aided and the other is not at the time of separation, they seem to arise further down the track when the parties have been separated for some time and the property has been divided. It is a complex issue that we will never fully address, but the measures I have mentioned—the creation of the Federal Magistrates Service and the three-step enforcement of contact orders process—will assist. The syndrome of the male `non-custodial'—that is the word used by the member for Kingston; I would urge him not to refer to `custody' but to refer to `residence', as the 1995 amendments of the Family Law Act do—parent being unable to afford legal aid with the spouse having legal aid is not as common a situation, I suspect, as is represented. While there is no doubt both merits and demerits on both sides of the issue, legal aid is not the only thing that is going to resolve the issues between parents who are squabbling over the custody or residence of their children. In this context, we anticipate in the very near future a report from a body set up by the former Minister for Family and Community Services, Senator Newman, and me called the Family Law Pathways Advisory Group. That body was set up to look at the routes taken by participants in the family law system and how we can better direct people to resolve their issues without ending up in court or in dispute. We look forward with some hope to that report providing a better means for resolving those sorts of issues. Proposed expenditure agreed to.28173Proposed expenditure, $1,638,730,000. 10:17:0028173Morris, Allan, MPMr ALLAN MORRISFI4NewcastleALP00—Mr Deputy Speaker Nehl, you will be aware, because of your period in this parliament, that oppositions are constantly being squeezed out of speaking time in the appropriations bill debate—the major legislation of the year. Many of us have not been able to make the kinds of speeches that we think appropriate because of the lack of time provided by the government in the speaking program. Over recent months the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business has made some criticisms of a survey that I conducted in my electorate asking people to respond to the Job Network and how they found it. I had a fairly large number of responses and, following that, I convened a meeting of many of the people who had responded to establish what they saw as being the issues and the concerns—thinking that the minister would be interested in how it was working and what people were saying. Apart from being blackguarded by him in terms of the survey, it is interesting to note that he has been doing similar things himself in recent times. The meeting was quite useful. In more recent times I convened a meeting of the Job Network providers to discuss with them the issues that have been brought forward. Out of all this a number of things came forward. One is my very strong suspicion that the network providers are under enormous duress from the government not to talk. There was a great deal of apprehension as to how they would be seen and how they would be interpreted, and this affected what they said. The second thing that is extremely difficult within this portfolio area is the government's failure to indicate or to have any transparency as to what the providers or network members are being paid to assist job seekers. That creates a very real problem for the job seeker, who goes to an agency thinking that they are there to help them only to discover—in fact, they do not discover most times—that the agency gets paid only if it finds them a position. That is not the expectation because the job seeker does not think that they are going in there only to be supported if they end up in employment.Of course, the agency says, `How much is it worth spending on this person? What are the chances of getting them a job?' So the more difficult to place people are not very good investments. That conundrum, that almost impossible contradiction between the job seeker and the Job Network member, is at the hub of the discontent and the resentment that is now building up. The fact is the government created a massive expectation that here was a better system. The government kept telling the world how wonderful it was. This was terrific. The job seekers said, `This is great. This is good for me. The government is going to help me.' They go in expecting some help and discover, (a) their material does not get filed, (b) there is no follow up, (c) they may not be entitled to any help at all, and (d) the level of help they get will be dependent on the judgment of the Job Network member of the chances of employment. If they think the person may be hard to place, they are a bad investment, in both time and money. In a place like Newcastle this can be quite soul destroying. The number of people that I have now spoken to have been to network provider after provider. They have handed in their material at place after place and are now thoroughly disillusioned. They now get to the next stage, which is a really nice sting in the tail, where the network provider is now required to breach. I had a very simple case not long ago of a man who had an appointment with a Job Network member on a Friday. His son was going to hospital for what was supposed to be minor surgery. He got a call from the hospital that morning that it had turned serious and he spent the whole day in hospital with his son and his family. On the Monday morning he rang the provider to apologise and to explain his circumstances and was told he had already been breached. Within hours of missing the appointment he had been breached. That is the kind of penalty that is happening.It has gone from a situation where there was an expectation of support and help, and all the government's talk about that, to a situation where these hurdles to jump and hoops to crawl through are now very difficult. What is happening is that people have given up. They accept the punishment. They are not complaining. They have been battered into submission by a combination of a network provider looking at its fiscal interest and a government looking at its political interest. To see the advertising campaigns and the promotion by the government of this program in this kind of way is taking a gross liberty with our community. (Time expired)10:22:0028174Crosio, Janice, MPMrs CROSIO7T4ProspectALP00—I was going to bow to my colleague. I thought that, due to the fact that he had not had an opportunity to speak on the appropriation bills, he wished to pursue other matters, but I am only too happy to go in this particular area of responsibility on the budget. The first thing I want to raise—and I am glad the minister is in here—is the latest unemployment figures in my electorate. We have now seen that the Fairfield local government area, in this quarter, the March quarter, has gone up to 12.5 per cent, the highest level since June 1999. I well remember, and I am sure others would agree with me, that when the Howard government brought in the GST, one of the commitments that was given to the community at large was that it would definitely not affect employment, or unemployment throughout the regions. I can tell you, Mr Deputy Speaker, this must have been another core promise on behalf of the Prime Minister and his government because not only has it affected unemployment in my area and sent it up, it has also made a definite increase. One only has to look at where the July figures began in 2000, at the beginning of the GST, when there was 8.7 per cent unemployment. I still regarded that as a little high in my area, but I thought, `Fair enough, we will work towards bringing it down.' I then saw September. It gradually increased in that quarter to 10.2 per cent. I then saw in December 2000 it went up to 11.1 per cent. In the March quarter that has just recently been released, in the Fairfield local government area it is now 12.5 per cent. I then went a little further in my investigation to find out what is happening to the unemployed in my electorate. Needless to say, I was rather disturbed because we all remember the 1996 slash and burn budget of the Howard government when $1.8 billion was removed from training and job assistance programs. I believe that is what my electorate is suffering from. We are actually seeing the long-term effects. I am very proud of my electorate. I am proud of the cosmopolitan part of the electorate and I also understand and appreciate it is sometimes harder for our new arrivals to get settled in, firstly with the English language, and then with employment. But at least they had the opportunity of participating in some schemes that were training them to find jobs in the future. What have we seen this do in the budget, in the allocation in the last year, and particularly just recently? My area now has the highest rate of unemployment in any metropolitan local government area in New South Wales—I am talking about metropolitan areas, not the one rural area where it is higher than in mine. This government has allocated two additional Job Network sites to my electorate in the last 12 months. I thought, `At least it is a start; it has given two more sites than we had previously to help train, assist and provide opportunities. At least the jobs are there for unemployed people.' I then went one step further and looked at my neighbouring electorate of Parramatta, the unemployment figures for which are a lot lower than mine. I found that, while the electorate of Prospect had received two new Job Network sites, the electorate of Parramatta—which would probably have half or even less than half the unemployment rate in my area—received five new Job Network sites. I say to the minister, `If we are establishing these sites throughout the areas to assist those in need, how can the government blatantly give two sites to an area that has the highest unemployment rate in metropolitan Sydney and five to the neighbouring electorate that probably has a third of the unemployment rate?' There has to be an explanation for this. I do not believe, and I suppose I am saying this facetiously, that this minister would be so politically bent that he would be looking after what is classified as a marginal seat—Parramatta. The minister knows that they do not have a hope of winning the seat of Prospect. That is one conclusion that I could come to, but I do not wish to do that. I have certainly voiced my feelings, and I am sure the minister has a logical explanation. I am glad he is in the chair and I hope he gives an explanation when he has the right of reply.I do feel that—and, Mr Deputy Speaker, even you would agree with me—if you, as a government, are going to create these Job Network sites, you should look at Australia as a total, divide it down to the states, from the states to the local regional areas, and from there to where the unemployment need is greatest. Surely that is where you would then make provisions to overcome the problems. Unfortunately, we have now seen this on not one but numerous occasions. I am bringing this one up now only because this is the latest scam—two network sites allocated to my electorate of Prospect and five to my next-door neighbour. I might add that the division between the two seats is virtually a road. So you say that on one side of that road they need five extra sites and on the other side two extra sites. I could even go so far as to say that we could join in and share some of the responsibility, but I can assure you that the ones in Parramatta are very much concerned with the seat of Parramatta, as I presume the ones in Prospect are concerned with Prospect. (Extension of time granted) In deference to my colleagues, I will be quick as there is another matter I would like to raise while I am on my feet—that is, the perennial problem this government has with employees' lost entitlements. The reason why I say it is a perennial problem, as the minister would realise, is that I was the first to introduce a private member's bill into the House to deal with the total protection of workers entitlements—not the $20,000 cap, which is what we see now with regulation, but 100 per cent protection of workers entitlements. At that stage, as I repeatedly said, I thought we would see some action along the line. I have reintroduced that bill on four separate occasions. The Labor Party have accepted that as part of our overall policy and I am pleased that, when the Labor Party are elected into government at the next election, that is one of the first changes that we will be making to workers' rights and entitlements. I think it is appalling that, time and time again, commitments have been given and promises have been made, and yet firm after firm suffers from insolvency through bad administration and the people who still lose out in the end are the workers who lose their entitlements. In the estimates I went one step further, because the estimates show us the figures: we have forward budgets. After June 2003 there is no guarantee of any employee entitlements or finances for that particular area. I say to the minister—and perhaps he will also answer this—what happens after 30 June 2003? After all, there has been no legislation. The intention of the government was given to us by the then minister, Minister Reith, who said in parliament—not in a doorstop interview—on 31 August 1999:The intention of the government in respect of our legislative scheme is to work to put a national scheme in place by 1 January. One only has to add it up: if that was 1 January 2000, it is now 93 weeks since then and we still have not seen any legislation. If we have not got a scheme in place by legislation, we have only got it as an administrative scheme, what do we say to the workers out there who are being continually disadvantaged, at times by the collapse of their employers' businesses? I believe most members would realise that, when you have a person who has worked for a firm, possibly for 20 or 30 years, and given their lifetime to the job, and then finds, when the firm has gone bankrupt or belly-up—as the common saying is—that they are left without any entitlements whatsoever, it is not good enough to say, `But we are a government that has put a scheme in and we are probably going to pay them about 20 cents in the dollar.' They could end up with no more than $20,000. You will find that most of the payments that have gone out, and there have been very few to date, average about $4,000 to $5,000. There are too many Australians out there who are now being affected by this. It is about time that we as a government, particularly the Howard government after the commitments they have repeatedly made, start putting into place a legislative scheme that guarantees the rights of the workers. That has not come in. The Prime Minister has certainly said on numerous occasions that he is very concerned about the workers, that he is going to act for them and that he is concerned about their families losing the entitlements. I wish he would use the same speed, diligence and determination to act for them that he did when he so miraculously introduced the GST—that he was never ever going to have—into this nation last year. At least on this occasion, with workplace entitlements, we have actually heard a number of ministers, from the Prime Minister down, saying, `Yes, we are very supportive. Yes, we are going to act.' But, of course, what we see, both in the budget papers and in the forward estimates, is that we do not have a legislative scheme in place; we have a regulation where funding is no longer going to be guaranteed after 2003. That is not good enough. More importantly, it is not good enough to give an employee part of his entitlement. If I—and I have used this analogy on many occasions—were caught stealing, I would be sent to jail, and rightfully so. But, if an employee is robbed of his entitlements, no-one—and I mean no-one—in this country wants to stand up and do anything. It is not good enough to say that the regulative scheme that is in place is giving them everything they deserve. It does not; it does not go anywhere near it. It is not good enough not to have legislation in this parliament. I know the excuse is going to be given by the minister that the states have got to come into it as well but I believe he should have a national scheme in place. If you have a national scheme in place, you are strong enough to bite the bullet and then you can surely bring the states in under the umbrella of the Commonwealth. This is what the workers out there are demanding. This is what the workers want and they will settle for no less. The cap, the regulative provision that is in there now, is not good enough and more work has got to be done in this regard. (Time expired)10:33:0028177Andren, Peter, MPMr ANDRENKL6CalareIND00—I too was squeezed out of the debate on this substantial Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2001-2002 and I just want the committee to bear with me as I include on the record those comments which were pertinent to the particular departments. I begin, in a roundabout way, with small business. I note the comments that consumer savings are not a great problem. The Prime Minister says that increased consumer spending shows that $12 billion worth of tax cuts are still, in his words, `being enjoyed'. I can tell you that in my electorate there are not a lot of people who are enjoying spending. My electorate, apart from the Lithgow sector, is, according to statistics, one of the most economically buoyant rural electorates in the country, with its mix of education, a booming mining sector, a strong public sector and a farming sector which—after years of being downtrodden and having negative returns—is showing signs of sustained returns. I did a spot survey of small business people after the so-called positive growth figures that came out recently, and businesses described their results over the past 12 months as `patchy at best'. In Lithgow, a major retailer of a clothing store said that their had been no sales to speak of in the key areas of clothing or shoes since July of last year.The retail story from Orange was not much better. The people in business who I spoke with felt that they were treading water. Savings are down and people are forced to use credit for even their most basic groceries. They have little hope of meeting anything other than the minimum monthly payment, so they are accruing debt which, obviously once it hits their credit limit, is going to cause severe problems. Many of them are feeling that now. The tax burden on middle to lower income people is the same or worse—not less. In particular, it is worse for lower income workers. There seems to have been a massive shift in taxing from the relatively well off to the lower income groups. A reduction in tax for lower income people does not have the impact it has for those on a higher level of income. Although there have been tax cuts for all, the impact of the GST has been on those least able to pay. Credit seems to be driving consumption and it is unsustainable. In the first three months of the year, total credit card debt reached a record high of $18 billion after an unprecedented boom in card use during the Christmas-New Year period, particularly during the January sales period, with falling interest rates making debt more attractive and, indeed, a necessary option. Total credit card debt has risen 30 per cent since the March quarter last year, and any boost of growth in spending is false growth indeed. Growth in spending figures per se can be very misleading. Unemployment is again rising, although only gradually, thank heavens, and underemployment is a fact of life. When I look about me in the shopping malls of Orange and Bathurst, I see young people with young families—many of them in the most basic clothing. Both parents rely on part-time or casual work, if they have jobs, or a mix of family support payments, the dole or whatever to get by. I am glad that commentators are now picking up on the underemployment issue, pointing out that one has to work but an hour a week to not appear in the unemployment statistics, and yet, by any judgment, many of these people are as good as unemployed. It amazes me that it has taken so long for that fact to filter through to mainstream commentators.Underemployment has been the hidden poverty of the deregulated labour market and the downturn in regional areas in recent years. There are people who do not feel by any means comfortable with their way of life. (Extension of time granted) If we continue to throw at these people the fact that interest rates are low, unemployment is looking good and we have created hundreds of thousands of jobs, is it any wonder that they become cynical about that process when they know that things are not warm and comfortable for them? While a training component for Work for the Dole is long overdue—and I certainly welcome it—the training must be meaningful. Training in information technology has the potential to unlock the lives of the unemployed. I had dinner with a person the other night who is very closely connected with the IT industry—a person of my vintage. She asked me, `Do you know anyone who actually makes anything?' I had to struggle to think of people I know who make things, apart from the people who work at ADI in Lithgow and so on. In terms of close acquaintances, we here in the parliament are moving in areas where information technology is part and parcel of life. We are running into people all the time who live on information creation. That was the point this woman was making. She said that people—even those who in the past we would have regarded as the least skilled manually—can sit in front of a computer and be very computer literate. They know how to handle the technology and they know how to find their way through it. Her argument was that we do not have the sorts of divisions that I have been talking about. We do not have those divisions now, particularly amongst young people, but we need to tap into and encourage the latent ability that is out there amongst so many who are nominally unemployed and who think they have no hope in the older economy.In Lithgow, for instance, their expectations rest with the future of heavy industry. I am trying to suggest—with Lithgow now the first learning city in New South Wales; I launched it a few months ago—that people look over the horizon and beyond heavy industry for their future. People who feel there are no jobs in the mines or in the electricity industry and therefore there is no future have the potential, so close to Sydney, to develop these new technologies and to encourage their kids. I really do think we have an enormous well of talent among people we may have written off when thinking in terms of traditional jobs. If we do not help them to develop the expertise—and I think IT may be the secret here—we will have long-term disconnection, cynicism, suicide and all of those accompanying effects.A few years ago I spoke with Mr Reith about re-badging CDEP—and I have spoken, too, with ATSIC about it—to include the environment. It strikes me that there are any number of training options available in horticulture, irrigation technology, biodiversity and so on that could engage our Koori community in a very positive way. Perhaps they might have some secrets to share with us that we can use to repair our desperately damaged environment. Drawing on their love of the land could probably do a lot for reconciliation. I hope the minister will be able to respond to this.10:42:0028178Ripoll, Bernie, MPMr RIPOLL83EOxleyALP00—I want to record my disappointment that I did not get an opportunity in the House to speak on Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2001-2002. I want to draw to the minister's attention one particular problem in my electorate, and I think it may be a much broader national problem, and that is the inflexibility of the Job Network system. In my area I have a high level of indigenous unemployment, which I am sure applies in many parts of Australia. I have people who work within the community—social workers, other providers, people who either are trying to give skills to these people who are unemployed or are actually placing them into jobs—who are not within the Job Network system and are therefore not recompensed for finding people work. They do not begrudge that fact, but there seems to be a system creeping in whereby people in the Job Network who are trying to find jobs for, say, indigenous unemployed people are struggling to do that so they are going outside and getting people in the community to actually find jobs for these people, but then the Job Network people reap the rewards. There seems to be inequity in the system when people can go into the Job Network system and be categorised very early. When they walk in that door they are categorised as `Easy to get a job', `Very difficult to get a job' or `Not interested.' The onus as to whether you have any hope of finding a job remains with the person at the reception desk when you walk into a Job Network agency. It is not just about how employable you are; it is about what hope you have of getting past that first person in the reception area. I think this is a really big problem that the minister needs to look at. Perhaps he can look at ways to make the system more flexible so it can address these issues. Constituents have come to me and said, `Look, I am finding it hopeless going to Job Network providers because they are not interested in me. I don't fit into their neat categories of who might be easiest for them to make a profit from. Because I don't fit into those categories, I don't get looked after—there is nothing there for me.' I use the example of indigenous employment in particular but I am sure it is a wider problem. Perhaps the minister could look at this situation where outside agencies and other providers who are not part of the Job Network system are actually doing the hard yards, doing the work of trying to find jobs for people but who are then, at the end, finding that it is the Job Network providers who are actually picking up the money for placing those people into work.10:45:0028179Abbott, Tony, MPMr ABBOTTEZ5WarringahLPMinister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business10—I would like to begin by thanking the members opposite for their contributions. I think all the members opposite who have spoken in this debate have spoken with goodwill and great sincerity, and all of them have raised important and interesting points, which I will attempt to address as best I can in this response.I will begin with the comments made by the member for Newcastle. Essentially, he made three points. The first point he made was that Job Network members in his electorate were, he said, reluctant to speak out publicly about defects in the system. The second point he made was that people going into the Job Network did not have enough of an idea of the resources that might be available to them through the network. The third point he made was about Job Network allegedly breaching people.I would like to make it very clear that, as far as I am concerned and, I am sure, as far as the government generally is concerned, there is no attempt whatsoever to limit debate nor to restrict people's contributions to building a better society. Obviously, the more that people who know the system speak about the system, the better. However, I think members opposite need to understand that every time a Job Network member damns the system, he or she runs the risk of damning his or her own operations and, if people are not as ready to criticise the system as members opposite might sometimes like, it is probably because they have, on balance, quite a good opinion of the system and they understand that, while simply running things down might make sense in a political context, it rarely makes sense in a context where people are out there trying to do the right thing as best they can under the ordinary difficulties that people face with the system that they have.As members opposite should know by now, the Job Network is a result of a tender process, and the strict prices at which Job Network members are awarded contracts are commercial-in-confidence. However, generally speaking, if we are talking about intensive assistance, there is an up-front payment to the Job Network member of a little over $1,000, with an outcome payment of a little over $2,000 after 13 weeks and another outcome payment of about $1,000 after 26 weeks. Those amounts vary, depending upon the job seeker's degree of disadvantage and the particular bids that different Job Network members have put in, but that, broadly speaking, is what the average job seeker referred to a Job Network member for intensive assistance can expect will be available.The idea that, just because someone has been categorised in a certain way, the Job Network member has no more than a particular amount to spend on them is misleading. Job Network members do not just deal with individuals on a one-off basis; they are also dealing with the collectivity of unemployed people in their area. There are some people who go into intensive assistance and quite quickly get work. The Job Network member gets paid outcome payments for those people which the Job Network member is then expected to invest in other job seekers. So some clients may well have far more spent on them than $4,000 or $8,000 or whatever the actual allocation for that client is. In the end, it is really up to the good faith of Job Network members and, while I am sure that there are some people in the Job Network, as there are in all other areas of life, who think a little bit too much of themselves and a little bit too little of others, by the same token the vast majority of people in the Job Network are extremely sincere and dedicated people. It is not easy to work with job seekers, particularly long-term job seekers, and I do not think there are too many grasping and avaricious capitalists out there in the Job Network. Finally, on the question of breaching, Job Network members are expected to notify Centrelink if their clients are not playing by the rules, but no Job Network member actually breaches anyone. In the end, the enforcement role is the responsibility of Centrelink, the government agency, and that is the way it ought to be. (Extension of time granted) The member for Prospect has been a very long-term, distinguished and senior representative of her part of Western Sydney and I would not for a second doubt the member for Prospect's commitment to her people and her area. I do think that sometimes she rather exaggerates the difficulties that some people face. The member for Prospect does not quite seem to have appreciated, at least for the purposes of this debate, that the Job Network is not something which is micromanaged by the government. The government does not decide, for instance, that we need two Job Network members in Guildford and five Job Network members in Parramatta and three in Liverpool and four in Chatswood and one in Manly. That is not how the Job Network operates. The Job Network operates like this: different members or would-be members bid to provide services in particular sites and, on the basis of the way those bids conform with the tender conditions, we then award contracts. There are certainly more Job Network members in the electorate of Prospect now than there were CES officers in the old days. Given the mobility in a metropolitan area such as Sydney, I understand the member for Prospect's point, but I think that Job Network members in Parramatta are quite capable of helping job seekers in Prospect, just as Job Network members in Prospect, for that matter, are quite capable of helping job seekers in Parramatta. That is the way it ought to work, and that is my understanding of the way it does normally work.On the question of entitlements, congratulations to the member for Prospect for her long campaign on this subject, which I think actually began under the former government—a government which did not actually do anything for the entitlements of workers. This government has. I accept that there are many people who think that more should be done, but the fact is that this is what is being done. I do think it would help the workers of Prospect and other parts of Australia if the member for Prospect were just as eager to get the state government to do its bit under the existing national scheme as she is to promote the virtues of an alternative national scheme which might possibly be put into place one day, if her friends are ever put into government.I was pleased to hear the contribution of the member for Calare. I was recently in the electorate of Calare as part of the Pollie Pedal. I am sorry that the member for Calare was a bit too busy to join us; nevertheless it is always a pleasure to be in that particularly magnificent part of central western New South Wales. It is always possible to get nods of agreement from any audience by telling them how tough life is. I do not accept the member for Calare's point that the tax burden on low-paid and badly off people has increased. The statistics certainly do not bear him out. Even conceding that it might be true in some instances, the fact is that that tax is being spent on government programs. You cannot on the one hand complain that taxes are going up and on the other hand that government programs have been cut, because the arithmetic simply does not work out. Underemployment is not a recent phenomenon. The ABS has been running statistical surveys on this for a couple of decades now, I think. At the height of the last recession, when the Leader of the Opposition was the minister for employment and unemployment hit close to 11 per cent, the ABS underemployment statistics showed commensurate problems. If you were to add the numbers of underemployed people to the numbers of unemployed people then, in the way people want to do now, unemployment would not have been about 11 per cent—it would have been about 18 per cent. If you want more work, obviously it is frustrating when you do not have it, but sadly this is not a recent phenomenon. Certainly, the quantum of work appears to be greater now than at any time in the recent past.On the subject of CDEP, I take the point that the member for Calare made. I was in Mossman Gorge in Far North Queensland the other week and they are proposing just that kind of thing—to run a CDEP scheme which will focus on guiding services to tourists in the national park which abuts their community. But CDEP, a little like Work for the Dole and the Job Network, is actually a ground up program. (Extension of time granted). It is driven by the grassroots. If indigenous communities wish to reorientate their CDEPs in this direction, there is nothing to stop them from doing so, and if indigenous communities would like to begin CDEPs along these lines, certainly there would be nothing to stop them putting in applications. I would do whatever I could to try to encourage communities to do that kind of thing, and I would do whatever I could within the constraints of funding to try to make sure it was allowed to happen.Finally, the member for Oxley raised the issue of people who are attempting to help job seekers but outside the ambit of the Job Network. I understand this issue. It does not just happen with indigenous people. There are a number of labour hire companies, for instance, that are outside the Job Network and who believe that they are sometimes subjected to unfair competition from Job Network members. There is nothing to stop anyone or any institution or agency that thinks it is able to deliver employment services from bidding to provide those under the Job Network. There will be a new Job Network tender in about two years time—less, in fact; I think in about 18 months time—but this issue of job matching payments and how we try to ensure fairness is certainly one that I have under review, one on which I do not believe we have necessarily reached the last word on optimal outcomes. So he makes a fair point. It is something that I am conscious of and something I hope the Job Network can tackle better in the years to come.I will finish with a remark that might apply to a number of the contributions that have been made by members opposite. I have a great deal of faith in the integrity of Job Network members. While they are only human and while it is true that junior Job Network member staff may well, life being what it is, sometimes get impatient with people, sometimes categorise people unfairly and sometimes perhaps write people off too soon, at the end of the day we have only a certain amount of resources and we need to invest them in the most sensible possible ways, and some job seekers are very hard to help. That does not mean that we should not do our absolute best, but it is right and proper that we should make intelligent decisions about the best way to invest those resources. I think that is best done at the local level by organisations that know the job seekers, know the communities and know the employment circumstances of those particular areas. Certainly I say to the member for Oxley and to anyone else in the parliament who is concerned about this: if you honestly believe that a particular constituent of yours is not getting a fair go from the Job Network, talk to the relevant Job Network member, tell them that you think this individual is not getting a fair go and, if you do not think that the Job Network member has responded adequately, maybe talk to another Job Network member. If there is a problem with getting someone who is on Intensive Assistance with one institution, and is not getting on very well, transferred to a different agency, that is the sort of thing ministers can sometimes help with, and it is the sort of thing that departments can sometimes look at. Job seekers will do better and our society will be enriched if we have as much communication as possible. I accept that there will always be ideological and philosophical differences between governments and members of the opposition, but there is no reason whatsoever why we cannot come to good practical arrangements to the benefit of our own people. As I said, I would certainly encourage members opposite who believe that individuals are not getting a fair go to make contact with the Job Network, the department and, if necessary, my office and we will see what we can do to help. Proposed expenditure agreed to.28182Proposed expenditure, $743,095,000.11:00:0028182Crosio, Janice, MPMrs CROSIO7T4ProspectALP00—I rise this morning to bring to the attention of the parliamentarians sitting here and those who may be listening to this debate page 103 of Budget Paper No. 2. It covers the particular area I am interested in, and that is the Department of Environment and Heritage allocation in 2001-02 of $5 million. I quote the explanation:The Government will provide a grant of up to $5 million in 2001-02 to the Goondiwindi Town Council to develop a recreational facility at Serpentine Lagoon, Goondiwindi. The facility is needed because Boobera Lagoon is to be closed to current facilities as a result of a declaration of protection under the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984. The new facility will satisfy relevant Commonwealth, state and local legislative requirements.I raise that and use it possibly as a vehicle for what I am going to say because I was very disturbed—not that I am denying these people the right to have this money allocated to them, even though I admit and acknowledge that it is in the seat of the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, the Hon. Bruce Scott. I had an opportunity on Saturday, 9 June, with our council—the Fairfield City Council—and accompanied by the mayor, Councillor Robert Watkins, to launch a five-creek strategic plan in Fairfield. One may ask, `What are you doing launching a five-creek strategic plan in Fairfield City Council?' After all, it is a metropolitan council so how has it got five creeks? Well, within our area we happen to have the Prospect Creek Catchment area, which covers approximately 98 square kilometres and includes the following five creeks: Prospect Creek, Orphan School Creek, Clear Paddock Creek, Green Valley Creek, Burns Creek and even part of Long Creek. There are something like 2,500 flood affected properties, and I will speak in another area of debate about that. But they are looking at the waterways, the catchments, sewer outfalls and modified and affected fauna habitat.I have brought it up because this council has been able to put a plan into place with no assistance whatsoever from this Commonwealth government. When we look at all the allocation of funds and all the uses for it, that one in particular, I believe, sticks out like a sore thumb. I am particularly proud of what the council have been able to do and I praise them for being such an innovative and progressive council, particularly where urban creek restoration is concerned. I was particularly pleased too that they brought in a cultural mapping group—a placebo art group—which is the first time it has ever been done, I understand, in an area such as ours. These people went to individual schools, factories, clubs or whatever that in any way, shape or form were involved in creeks and got the residents to come along and design with them what they, the residents, would like to see around the creeks in our area. That is what came to the forefront in the launching of the strategic plan—funding not provided by any government department but through the ratepayers and by the council itself. The strategic plan launched on that Saturday is part of an evolving approach for those five creeks and it is being seen and treated by our community as what we would like to see in the future. The creeks, we know, are changing all the time, and I believe this plan will continue to evolve and change. But I then wonder—and bring to the attention of the House—how much more could be done. I am using my council as an example because they at least have taken the bit between the teeth and have gone ahead and said, `Look, we have got an environment problem here. We have got a problem that needs fixing. We certainly applied to the relevant government departments for funding; that hasn't been forthcoming, but our community is saying that more needs to be done.' Possibly 100 years ago European settlers did all their boating and picnicking in this catchment creek area—and I should imagine that our first indigenous settlers used it as a lifeline to support themselves—and yet today we are seeing growth, pollutants and the degradation of a local environment area. A council is willing to start restoring it, but how much more could have been done if they had even a part of that $5 million that has been allocated to one lagoon. If we are realistically looking at allocating our taxpayers funds, let us look Australia wide as well. I could go on further about what is happening with the natural heritage allocations. People may ask, `Why didn't you get some of that money?' Well, that did not go too far in our area either, and there is certainly nothing I can point to in saying how great that is going to be as part of the contribution for an electorate like mine that probably has in the vicinity of 200,000 people and yet we are very limited as far as funds are concerned.I say to the Fairfield City Council and to their mayor: keep up the good work. To the staff and all those people who were involved in putting the strategic plan together, I say: you are to be commended and congratulated. I believe that this is the beginning of what we are going to be so very proud of in the future. More importantly, we have finally seen a local government area get together in saying, `We have a concern; we have a problem; let's now start to rectify it and change it and, more importantly, change people's perceptions of what our creeks are all about.' (Time expired).11:05:0028183Andren, Peter, MPMr ANDRENKL6CalareIND00—Much was made of the extra $1 billion set aside in this year's budget for an extension of the Natural Heritage Trust. I said at the time of the budget that it appeared to be a smoke and mirrors exercise which appeared to shift money from other, established environment programs and re-badge them as new initiatives. Apart from the interest generated from the minimum legislated balance of the trust—that is $300 million—it is just not enough to even begin to tackle the $60 billion price tag that the National Farmers' Federation and the Australian Conservation Council place on the repair bill for the Murray-Darling Basin alone. Unless we find alternative sources of funds to selling off Telstra, our environmental efforts are doomed to fail. I believe we need a levy such as that recently suggested by a committee of this parliament, as an environmental tax—let us be frank and call it what it is—and we need policies that seriously encourage investment in alternative energy. We cannot even commit to a Kyoto greenhouse target that we had already doubly exceeded by 1997-98. How absolutely pathetic is that, and what a betrayal of our future generations it is, if we do not put in place some meaningful targets and some meaningful long-term policies. I well remember in the debate during the sale of the first tranche of Telstra, the former shadow minister—later minister—Ian McLachlan was in the House, and I said then that the Murray-Darling Basin 2001 program was indeed a Murray-Darling Basin 2101 program, if we were going to be realistic about it. In a quiet chat afterwards with him he totally agreed. That is the dimension of the program, and the challenge that we have ahead of us, in that sector of the Australian environment alone. If we are to be a clever nation and an innovative one, then we have an opportunity to apply it to the most pressing crisis that faces the globe. It is the environment, and Australia is ideally placed to be the engine room, if you like, of innovation in terms of environmental studies and environmental options. We do not even know what our supposed carrying capacity is in this country, and while there are many anxious to say we have got enough in this country, that we need to protect our environment, we must remember those millions of people who are on the subcontinent and China. Imagine once all the Chinese put down their bikes and hop into motor cars—which many of them will do in the next few years—what an enormous impact on our greenhouse contribution that will be. We really need to be quite objective about this. If it means that we do stretch our environmental capabilities in order to perhaps take pressure off elsewhere, we should look at that. We should look at what we need in terms of infrastructure to handle larger populations in regional Australia. But we should start doing it now, in a serious way, and not leave it for perhaps the next generation, the next term of parliament, the government after this or whatever it might be. Of course, the Australian public, not only us as legislators, as a parliament, have a role to play here. I notice in Ross Gittins's article in the Herald today that Australians say the environment is important, but they are not prepared to even commit to green energy. I suggest part of this is a failure to understand how the existing industry can be a user of non-green resources and also be a promoter of green energy. It strikes me that there needs to be a completely separate supplier that the consumer can recognise as an independent broker of green energy and not one involved in chewing up our resources to create the non-green energy that we rely on. I know we rely on it, and we have to accept that. In my own small, modest way I am trying to encourage ADI in Lithgow. They assemble generators and equipment for wind power generation. (Extension of time granted) I know that ADI are involved in assembling wind power generators from overseas in one of their Victorian plants. I think it would be a very creative move for ADI, with government support and encouragement, to develop that technology in a place like Lithgow where we already have the beginnings of a wind power industry supported by the existing energy infrastructure in the area, to develop these alternative energies and the jobs, creativity and IT that go with them alongside our traditional energy sources—the coalmines. Then the children of the miners can move into the new energy that has to develop over the next couple of decades. If we do not do that, we will sit on our hands and leave our kids with an environment that I know my young fellow, at 19 or 20, agonises over—not as an activist or anything else—as to what we can do to turn the ship of old energy around and to really do something positive. He believes—and I certainly do—that Australia is in a prime position to create that expertise.11:12:0028184Murphy, John, MPMr MURPHY83DLoweALP00—I spoke in the House on 26 March and again on 2 April on my concerns about the level of greenhouse gas emissions. I have spoken about climate change—in short, global warming—and the failure of the government to deal appropriately with the Kyoto protocol because of the position of the United States government, primarily President George Bush. It was very heartening for environmentalists to view the images which came to our screens last week, when President Bush travelled to Europe, and the outrage that was expressed by Europeans on behalf of all people on this planet who have grave concerns about the level of greenhouse gas emissions that are being spewed out on mother earth on a daily basis.The Australian government should be taking a greater stand against the position of the United States. I do not believe that Senator Hill is doing enough. It is just not good enough for us to blame the US. The US seems to have the view that the economy is far more important than the environment. Quite honestly, if you do not have an environment, you do not have an economy. Global warming is the most serious environmental issue facing us today and Australia should be showing greater leadership in speaking out against the behaviour of President Bush. I have wondered many times what would have happened had Al Gore won the last election. Al Gore is a very outspoken environmentalist who has grave concerns for the future of this planet. Unfortunately, he missed out on being elected as President of the United States of America. It seems that Mr Bush's cabinet is stacked with oil, lead and aluminium business executives who are motivated only by economic imperatives and not by the consequences of global warming on the environment. I take this opportunity to send a strong message on behalf of the many constituents in my electorate of Lowe who have expressed grave reservations about the weak-kneed approach of Senator Hill in not standing up to President Bush. He should be encouraged to take a tougher stand. Unless more countries take on the United States in the interests of saving the planet, as obviously the Europeans are prepared to do, the United States of America will continue to be concerned only with economic imperatives and we would all pay a great price for that.11:16:0028185Stone, Dr Sharman, MPDr STONEEM6MurrayLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage10—In summing up the debate, I thank the members for Calare, Lowe and Prospect for their contributions. It is very important that we consider that this government's environmental credentials are under scrutiny, both domestically and internationally, just as all governments' environmental credentials and investments now are. We have a new consciousness that, for the first time in history, there are more environmental refugees around the globe than there are refugees created by war. That is the case for the first time in human history. We see water resources running down or being polluted across the globe, and we see issues like climate change through human intervention, which is a very serious issue and is now acknowledged to be something that all nations must address most urgently.I will come to the issue of climate change that the member for Lowe and the member for Calare addressed. To begin with the member for Prospect's contribution, she was concerned about the five-creek strategic plan in her electorate. It sounds like a very commendable plan, and I add my congratulations to hers for an effort well done by her councils. She was concerned that they were going it alone, so to speak—that they did not seem to have been tapping into Natural Heritage Trust funding. Let me say to her that we have been very conscious of urban environments and the degradation of water supplies, air quality and noise abatement. There is a whole range of urban environmental issues that the Natural Heritage Trust specifically identified and addressed. In the vast majority of cases the natural resource issues that we have to address are in regional and remote Australia, but there are, too, of course—7T4Crosio, Janice, MPMrs Crosio—In marginal seats, more like it.EM6Stone, Dr Sharman, MPDr STONE—No, I am sorry; that is a reality. There is a very significant program of urban funding, including urban Waterwatch, under the Living Cities program. The Commonwealth announced in the 2000-01 budget statement an amount of over $12 million over three years for the urban Waterwatch program in order to improve the health of urban waterways through community monitoring in urban areas. As a result of budget requirements, the urban Waterwatch component of the Living Cities program was reallocated.I say to the councils who are involved with the five-creek strategic plan that they should talk to Environment Australia and explore those specific NHT programs. They should also talk to Environment Australia, to me specifically or to DETYA about Green Corps. We have put $88.8 million into the Green Corps program across Australia. A significant number of those wonderful young Australians, aged between 17 and 20, who are involved in Green Corps work in urban catchments, just like the catchment the member for Prospect described. They are often from that region, so there is the advantage of young people working in a local area. Green Corps engages with other service groups or voluntary groups in the community. Green Corps is a magnificent program, one we are very pleased to see has been taken up very enthusiastically across the country. The budget for that Green Corps program is substantial. I commend the Green Corps project to the member for Prospect to pursue, as well as the Work for the Dole programs, which have seen numbers of individuals and teams of people who have dedicated their efforts in a voluntary capacity to programs of renewal of urban streams or other open places. Again, it just might be that the councils in the member for Prospect's electorate are not fully aware of those opportunities, and I commend those to them. Let me assure you that our environmental budget does pay a very substantial amount of attention to urban issues, in terms of both climate—7T4Crosio, Janice, MPMrs Crosio—We have knocked on every door, Parliamentary Secretary. EM6Stone, Dr Sharman, MPDr STONE—Please come and knock on my door as well because, as parliamentary secretary, I am able to help people just like your five-creek plan group on very many occasions. Of course, the realities are that it is always a competitive process but, as you describe it, this is a very worthy project.I will refer to the member for Calare's contribution. (Extension of time granted) I agree that we certainly have had the NFF and the ACF make a substantial attempt to quantify just what a repair bill for the Australian environment could be. I think the NFF-ACF estimated $3.7 billion a year for 10 years as a minimum. The point of course is that this government have put more funding specifically into environmental repair and natural resource conservation and protection than any other government in the history of Australia. We began in 1996, needing to look at where to find those funds since we inherited a deficit, as the member for Calare would be only too aware, and we were able to have a win-win situation by partially privatising Telstra and using those funds to retire a lot of inherited debt and to invest in the Natural Heritage Trust. The good news is that, by very careful management of our economy, the Howard government are now able to go beyond simply relying on the proceeds of sale of some assets. With five years of surplus budgets we have now been able to draw our environmental funding from consolidated revenue. That is exactly how we hoped it would be, but we could not wait until we got the deficit down before we were able to commit billions of dollars. We could not wait for the surplus; hence, we began in 1996, as we did.The member for Calare was concerned that, as he said, we do not even know what the carrying capacity of the country is. We could have waited five years for the National Land and Water Resources Audit to do that base study work—we are now beginning to get excellent outcomes from the investment in their research and development; they have just recently produced audits of salinity and water quality in our country—but we felt that we could not wait five years for that work to be done, so we commenced in 1996 understanding the scale of the problem and understanding the level of expenditure that needed to be undertaken as soon as possible. We are doing two things: we are investing in on-the-ground work to make sure our agricultural production is sustainable and our natural resources protected and, at the same time, we are doing that research and development work that is needed so we can monitor and assess what we have achieved and whether we are heading in the right direction so we can understand the scope and the scale of the problem that is with us now and which is going to continue as we continue to be naturally resource based in many parts of our economy.The member for Lowe was understandably concerned, like most Australians, about the issue of climate change and how our government is responding to our responsibilities as one of the world's highest per capita emitters of carbon. He suggested, I think, that our Prime Minister, John Howard, had somehow not done enough. Then he went on to acknowledge that this is an issue that requires international cooperation, and the difficulty is now with a USA administration which does not share the same level of commitment to Kyoto that was exhibited in the previous administration. Our country, Australia, leads the world in dedication of funds to greenhouse gas abatement. We have the world's first national greenhouse office. We have put over a billion dollars into long-term work which includes research into alternative energy sources and helping industry commercialise alternative energy technologies. The member for Calare will be interested in that too, because that was one of his concerns. We are very realistic and, as our minister has said in the Senate in response to questions about how we are going to cope with the fact that the United States is not as concerned about progressing the Kyoto agreement as the previous administration, we are acknowledging that it is going to be very difficult. We are continuing to support the Kyoto protocol moving forward and being accepted. (Extension of time granted) In particular, we are concerned that developing countries participate in identifying the issues and finding solutions to the problem because we know that in the very near future developing countries will have significantly more emissions than developed countries. We are in the process of further negotiation on the implementation of the protocol. There is no go-slow; there is no sitting on our hands. We are pressing forward as hastily as we can, given the current political circumstances that are in the community of those addressing these problems. I am very proud that it was our government, the Australian government, that put on the table at Kyoto discussions on the issue of vegetation: the significance of carbon sequestration and carbon sinks using vegetation. That was one of the first serious discussions about the role of vegetation and its retention, in that global forum, and now Australia is very much respected for the work that we have done in that regard. I think Senator Hill needs to be commended for the work that he is doing. Certainly our government has put our money where our mouth is in terms of significant commitment to the Australian Greenhouse Office and the range of programs that go with that. In conclusion, let me say that Australia has a very significant problem as a consequence of the last 250 or so years of management of our natural resources. They have not always led to the most sustainable outcomes. We understand that. We are learning, now, how to manage this country in a way so that our future generations are not going to inherit a degraded water supply or air pollution standards which leave many sick with asthma. We understand the needs of our Bureau of Meteorology. That has been significantly funded in an ongoing fashion. We understand our responsibilities in the Antarctic. We are one of the first countries in the world to have an oceans policy and to persist in making sure that our endangered species are protected. Therefore, I am proud to be a part of the Howard government that has been, as I said, the first in the history of Australia to commit the level of funding that now is dedicated to the environment. I am quite sure that the community of Australia is with us in understanding that this level of investment is essential for our futures.11:28:0028187Cadman, Alan, MPMr CADMANSD4MitchellLP10—I want to raise the issue of the Natural Heritage Trust and the Howard government's initiative in repairing the environment and how significant that has been in the electorate of Mitchell. I will mention some of the things that have flowed from the decisions for funding community organisations and the scope that the trust funds have used in sustainable development, in sustainable alternative agricultural techniques and in the retention of biodiversity in the plant and animal life of the huge area which surrounds the Hawkesbury-Nepean catchment areas. Community groups in the Blue Mountains, in the electorate of my colleague Kerry Bartlett, and in the electorates of Lindsay, Macarthur, Mitchell, Berowra and Robertson, have been most anxious to take up the advantages of further repairing and restoring the environment.As the development of Sydney presses out into the Hawkesbury valley, we are finding that there is increasing pressure on the environment. Greater care is needed to ensure the health of the Hawkesbury River, to make sure that the blue-green algae bloom that occurs on a fairly regular basis in that river is contained, that fish life is preserved and that the water quality in the Hawkesbury is retained. Unfortunately, a recent decision by Mr Amery, the state minister, to abandon the main funding mechanism, the Hawkesbury-Nepean Catchment Management Trust, means that there is no organisation that is capable of receiving the funds and making decisions on resource allocation as to how the federal government should apply the Natural Heritage Trust funds. I do not know how it is going to work. The decision by Amery to wipe out this organisation, which was established by my colleague Mr Kevin Rozzoli, was incredible. It is an organisation which has served the people of Western Sydney extremely well. It has focused on water quality retention and it drew together instrumentalities such as the water board and five or six local government bodies which have fought and failed to take action to retain or improve the health of the river. In fact, Mr Amery, with one stroke of the pen, dismissed this group. 7T4Crosio, Janice, MPSD4Cadman, Alan, MPMr CADMAN—The honourable member probably supports Amery's decision. You are talking about the destruction of the environment of the Hawkesbury and Nepean rivers. I stand alongside my colleagues in the state house who seek an inquiry as to why this organisation has been disbanded. You have left the Commonwealth without any mechanism to fund or make priorities in that area. The member who has interrupted is from Western Sydney. She knows jolly well there is no replacement body. She knows that to fund Penrith City Council, Hawkesbury City Council or those sorts of bodies is a piecemeal approach. She knows that the Hawkesbury-Nepean Catchment Management Trust was the only body capable of administering these funds and making the right priority decisions. It is a most appalling decision. I believe that there should be an upper house inquiry. I appeal to the parliamentary secretary to use her powers of persuasion with her state colleagues. We will certainly, from this level, be seeing what alternative funding processes can be used. I believe an inquiry should be conducted to assess the impact of the trust's closure on the environment, the effectiveness of the trust's work in improving the health of the catchment and whether government activities have affected the trust's functions. I suspect that the trust has been critical of the government's decision to expand development and housing on the former ADI site. The trust says this is environmental sacrilege and it should never happen. The trust has been sacked because it opposed the development policies of the New South Wales government.Honourable members interjecting—10000Quick, Harry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Quick)—Order!SD4Cadman, Alan, MP10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! The honourable member for Mitchell has been asked to restrain himself. 9V5Pyne, Chris, MPMr Pyne—What about the member for Prospect? She is intimidating us.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order!7T4Crosio, Janice, MPMrs Crosio—Mr Deputy Speaker—10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Resume your seat. The member for Prospect—7T4Crosio, Janice, MPMrs Crosio—Would you like a hankie?9V5Pyne, Chris, MP10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! The member for Sturt! 9V5Pyne, Chris, MPMr Pyne—I have not heard you once call the member for Prospect to order; not once.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—I remind the member for Sturt that I have called him to order. I have called the member for Prospect to order. The parliamentary secretary now has the call. 11:35:0028189Stone, Dr Sharman, MPDr STONEEM6MurrayLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage10—I thank the member for Mitchell for his final remarks. As you understand, I was closing the debate just before he spoke; he would not have realised that. Let me say that the member for Mitchell raised some significant issues. He highlighted the fact that in natural resource management we need cooperation between jurisdictions, whether it is local councils or state or federal governments. One of the problems of federation has been that the Commonwealth government alone does not have the ability to legislate across the country for setting national standards or requiring natural resource management activities to take place in states or territories.In fact, the Natural Heritage Trust has been groundbreaking in the bilateral agreements developed with the states and will continue to be groundbreaking as we develop state-Commonwealth bilateral agreements for our new national salinity action plan. Where something breaks down, as it seems to have done in the Hawkesbury River, we need to work very seriously with the state government again and, for the good of the environment, make sure we have the optimal outcome. I am sure that, with the local community understanding the impacts of what has gone on, we will get some of that cooperation back into the system quite quickly because otherwise the environment will be significantly damaged. I thank the member for Mitchell for his contribution and I am pleased to commend the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2001-2002 to the House and particularly to the Department of the Environment and Heritage.Proposed expenditure agreed to.28189Proposed expenditure, $503,678,000.11:37:0028189Crosio, Janice, MPMrs CROSIO7T4ProspectALP00—There are a number of issues I would like to raise under this area of responsibility. I am pleased the minister is here to hear them. First I would like to touch on the Western Sydney Orbital. I have had questions on notice—and I know a number of my other colleagues have as well—looking at classifications of national highways and tolls. At least the minister has acknowledged that no other national highway in Australia is going to have a toll on it as this one will. I am rather displeased about this. If you look at Western Sydney and where we are geographically located, you will see that we will now have something like four roads with tolls on them, and here is one that is going to be a so-called bypass. A lot of the traffic lights and signals are now in existence, particularly along the Cumberland Highway. But it is going to be at a cost to the residents that I represent.In fact, when I asked the minister, in a question without notice, what the cost would be, in his reply he indicated that electronic tolling is proposed, although not finally decided on—that is to be addressed in the tender process—but it is likely that a toll of about 25c per kilometre would be charged up to a maximum of about $5, in year 2000 dollars. This road will eventually be finished by about 2008 and 2010. I know the minister will probably get up and say that residents have a right to use other roads and they do not have to use this one. But, if they choose to use this one because they want to get to work quicker, they are going to have to pay in the vicinity of the equivalent of $5 in year 2000 dollars. When we look at expenditure reviews and costings of the future, they could be paying anything up to $10 a journey going each way. I think that is far more than they could afford to pay. More particularly, it is most unfair that a road that is going to be built in Western Sydney is going to have a toll while other so-called national highways do not. Another area of concern with the orbital—I put a submission in on this because an environmental impact statement was issued—was Horsley Drive, which goes right through the centre of my electorate. That was originally classified as a road that was only going to be a feeder road in the future, but the traffic volumes indicated by the EIS show that when the orbital is built off Wallgrove Drive, Horsley Drive east of the proposal will have a 51 per cent increase in traffic over the volume of traffic now using it. If anyone cares to use that road during what is classified as a busy time, particularly coming to the Cumberland Highway—going east or then going west—they will find that between the hours of 7 a.m. to 9.30 a.m. and 4 p.m. to 5.30 or 6 p.m. it is actually a parking station: we cannot move on it now.There is no money allocated or even a desire at this stage to make that a four-lane expressway to feed these tollways or orbital roads. This is a residential road and it is going to go right through an area where certainly the council does not have the responsibility but I know the state government does. I am not worrying so much about the funding for that but I am concerned about traffic volume. In fact, people have always been told that that was going to be an internal feeder road throughout the municipality, which is now the city, and that it certainly would not be affected by any future expansions. In the minister's own words, that is now going to happen.I am also a little disturbed about the government's ownership of the Badgerys Creek site. In answer to my question on notice—and in answer to a question on notice from my colleague the member for Lowe, who, I am sure, will have more to say about it—the minister said:The Government has decided to retain ownership of the Badgerys Creek site and to legislate to protect the site from incompatible development in surrounding areas which may prejudice its future use as an airport. The Government will further review Sydney's airport needs in 2005. No site other than Badgerys Creek is currently being considered for a second major airport.That answer was given on 4 June 2001. I find that answer rather disconcerting when we realise now, when they are looking for the sale of Sydney airport, that they are going to have carte blanche as to whether they go ahead and build another airport, wherever it may be. Why aren't the government honest with the people of Western Sydney? They are saying, `We will not have further use for that site; therefore, we are not going to require that site,' but people in my electorate will not take that as an answer. As far as they are concerned, all we have done with Badgerys Creek is put it on hold. More importantly, we do not seem to be looking at the overall problem of what is happening in New South Wales as far as transport and transport studies go. I want to touch on that very briefly so I will come back to it later.I also want to touch on the Roads to Recovery program again. I raised this in the House in December of last year when it was reported in the papers that money being allocated to Western Sydney—$13-odd million—was all going to the electorate of Prospect. (Extension of time granted) I must admit that when I read the $13.2 million was all going to go to the electorate of Prospect, I grabbed the paper and ran round the table. However, when I looked further, I saw that it was not going to the electorate of Prospect at all. It was going to be shared by the electorates of eight colleagues and about four different councils. So the one bit of money was being recorded in the electorates of the members for Chifley, Reid, Lindsay and Greenway, in my electorate and, dare I say, in part of Parramatta and Strathfield. So when we are talking about this $13.2 million from the Roads to Recovery program that was to be expended in Western Sydney, I can assure you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that there was very little we got of that.In the allocation here today, I would also like to touch on flooding and flood mitigation programs. I want to bring up the flooding because of what we saw happen in 1996. When this government came to power, they set up a National Commission of Audit and used that as the excuse to cut $80 million out of all flood mitigation and urban, rural and regional communities' programming. I understand that after intensive lobbying, probably again from some of the marginal seats, a much weaker regional flood mitigation program was reintroduced in 1999. But you have to look a bit further than that. It was reintroduced in the rural areas with much fanfare but only $20 million was put back into it over three years, again into rural towns and regional centres. I am not saying that the need is not great there, but not one penny has been allocated to urban flood mitigation programs in Western Sydney. I am glad the member for Parramatta is here, because he put out a press release stating that certain flood mitigation funding was coming to the seat of Parramatta. Of course, being ever observant, I was ready to scream, `Why is that money going to one particular urban area and not to the other?' only to find that it was just a misrepresentation on the member for Parramatta's behalf, that the money did not go there at all, that he was looking at all of this so-called extra funding coming in. Of course, it was not the case.We had the member for Mitchell talking about what is happening to the Hawkesbury River and to the catchment program there. Of course, he did not want to acknowledge who actually set it up and how it was funded. Under the Keating government, the previous Labor government, we had flood mitigation programs going on what we called 2:2:1—in other words, for every $2 from the Commonwealth, $2 was supplied by the state and $1 by local councils. That has been completely wiped. Forget that many local councils and areas like mine have $30 million worth of flood mitigation work still outstanding.I represent three particular council areas that are massively inundated when flooding occurs. Just recently, with the showers that we had, two schools had to close in my electorate. I am talking about the Patrician Brothers, which had to close its school and 1,500 kids were sent home. Shops were inundated and they had to close the doors. It all comes from urban flood mitigation problems.Councils are continuing to work on this. They are still at least getting cooperation from the state government, but there is not one cent coming any more from this federal government. If we are talking about needs and responsibilities, with respect to the heritage funding, the parliamentary secretary who spoke previously talked about paving new ways of doing things and going in new directions. I say: what was wrong with some of the old directions? If you want a job done, what is wrong with bringing state and local government money into it? If you want a job done in the urban areas, then certainly it needs Commonwealth funding.There are some tremendous problems happening now because of the residential build-up in areas. In fact, when I spoke previously about the environment and creeks, one of the reasons we are looking at using another method to clear floodways and clean up the creek system is to assist and help in flood mitigation programs. It boils down to the fact that flooding comes without warning. If we do not take action prior to flooding, then for the people who are going to be affected in the long term, it is going to be a lot more costly to overcome.In our area we have been raising houses so that they are above the flood mitigation levels. People could say that in the fifties and sixties they should never have been given consent to build there, but try to tell that to people when they have bought their land in good faith and they have built their house on it. What we are doing there in regard to flood mitigation is to raise those houses so that at least people's lives and properties are not damaged when those creeks flood. This is part of the Georges River and Prospect Creek management.We have not had one penny allocated by this government since they came to power in 1996, following that national audit excuse which was used to cut out the $80 million funding. It is all very well to have lobbying by rural and regional areas, even though they are getting a paltry amount of money—$20 million over three years is not going to fix one iota of the concerns and problems that rural and regional centres have. (Extension of time granted) More particularly, I say to the government: you have to look realistically at where we are going. They cannot stand here preaching on the one hand about how great they are on the environment, having regard to the Natural Heritage Trust, and selling off all the family silver by way of Telstra, without taking into account on the other hand programs that were in place, programs that were doing a good job, programs that were working, with the cooperation of the local and state governments, and at least putting the money in— Government members interjecting—10000Quick, Harry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Quick)—Order! I remind members of standing order 55—members should be heard in silence. Members have had the opportunity to have their say. In this debate, members have five minutes in which to speak. I ask people to refrain from interjecting.SD4Cadman, Alan, MPMr Cadman—Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order—10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—The honourable member for Mitchell will resume his seat. There is no point of order.9V5Pyne, Chris, MPMr Pyne—I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—There is no point of order.9V5Pyne, Chris, MPMr Pyne—Mr Deputy Speaker, under standing order 80, any member may raise a point of order at any point in the debate, as you should well know. How can you determine that there is not a point of order until you have actually heard the point of order?10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—I call the honourable member for Sturt on a point of order.9V5Pyne, Chris, MPMr Pyne—I take my cue from the Manager of Opposition Business in the House, who does this on a regular basis. My point of order is that you have said that the member for Mitchell does not have a point of order and you sat him down before you even had the opportunity to hear his point of order. Under standing order 80, he has a perfect right to make his point of order and you have to listen to it. That is what the standing order requires.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Does the honourable member for Mitchell have a point of order?SD4Cadman, Alan, MPMr Cadman—Mr Deputy Speaker, you were not in the chair earlier in the day. I would like to see deputy speakers apply the rule of non-interruption consistently. I had consistent interruption from the member for Prospect when I was speaking. I did not interrupt her when I walked into the chamber, but she constantly interrupted me. If she is going to do that to us, we will respond.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—I call the honourable member for Prospect to continue her remarks.7T4Crosio, Janice, MPMrs CROSIO—I also want to speak further to the point of order that has just been raised by the honourable member for Mitchell. I would like to have him and the House informed as to what part of the standing orders say that when he walks in and suddenly feels that I am going to interrupt him at some time in the future that he can take a point of order. That is an absolutely ridiculous statement. I think, with his experience and the number of years that he has been in this political process, he would know that there is no point of order. Mr Deputy Speaker, I will take on board what you were saying and be not the least bit disturbed. I will continue to talk on what I have been talking about, flood mitigation. I am glad the member for Mitchell has come into the Main Committee because I will be able to go to his councils and say that he got up and objected to my statement that the Commonwealth government needs to fund, through the state governments and local councils, further flood mitigation in Western Sydney. It will give me great delight to inform the councils that he represents that he objects to me stating that, if we are going to give consideration to adequate funding, we have to look not at the $20 million being spent over three years in rural and regional Australia but at what is happening with the flood mitigation program, where $80 million was wiped by the Howard government following that pretentious `national audit' in 1996. Councils will be delighted to know that this is what the honourable member for Mitchell thinks of them and their attempts to get the flood mitigation program going—that he feels it is unjust for me to get up and bring to light during a budget debate that not one cent of the $80 million that was wiped in 1996 has been restored to this funding program. Not one cent from 1996 has been restored to urban flood mitigation. Not one cent in these budget papers or in the forward estimates for flood mitigation programs is going to be allocated in the future for Western Sydney.As the honourable member for Mitchell knows—and we have been involved in a number of projects both with the Western Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils and with the councils that we represent—one of the largest cries from councils in Fairfield, Blacktown, Penrith, Baulkham Hills, Parramatta, Hawkesbury and Nepean is that this government wiped the flood mitigation program. How proud the member for Mitchell must be! He will not even get up and support a program in which the prime objective of all of the councils involved—the 10 councils that make up the Western Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils—is to put pressure on this government, to lobby this government through their local members of parliament, to have commonsense prevail and have part of that $80 million that was taken out of the program in 1996 restored. But that is fine, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will take on board what the honourable member has said. (Time expired)11:53:0028193Cadman, Alan, MPMr CADMANSD4MitchellLP10—Firstly, on a personal explanation. I have not said the things the member claimed. 10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Quick)—Order! The honourable member for Mitchell, we are debating the Department of Transport and Regional Services—SD4Cadman, Alan, MPMr CADMAN—Yes, I am aware of that. I was absolutely misrepresented.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—and I would ask the member to speak to the bill.SD4Cadman, Alan, MPMr CADMAN—I intend to. I am just saying that the member for Prospect completely misrepresented my statements. She feels that she has the right to interrupt other members but that she is not allowed to be interrupted herself. In fact, the point of order I took was about the way in which the rules of this chamber were being applied. I want to congratulate the Minister for Transport and Regional Services for the decision on the orbital road. I think that was a far-sighted decision and one that has been on the drawing board for many years. It was the Labor Party that first investigated it but did nothing towards it. They had a line on a map and that is as far as it got. It took the arrival of this government to do the environmental studies and to make the financial commitments. This was something the Australian Labor Party could not do because they were stony-broke and in debt. Therefore, there was no way they could make a commitment of the type—with the vision—that this government has made. I congratulate the minister for the way in which he has launched this magnificent national project to build a highway of high quality around Sydney. I say to the minister—and I know the members for Robertson and Berowra would agree—that the areas we represent would be very keen to see the continuity of the project, and that there be no pause in the process. The people of our areas need to see a continuity of good management in government if they expect to see a process of bringing this to finality. I say to the minister that the area that I represent, as well as the areas represented by the members for Robertson and Berowra, are very keen to see that the project continues and that there is no pause in the project. People in our areas need to see a continuity of good government management if this process is to be brought to finality.IK6Lloyd, Jim, MPMr Lloyd—It will only happen with cooperation from the RTA.SD4Cadman, Alan, MPMr CADMAN—It will indeed, and it will only happen with the cooperation of state governments and the continuation of a federal coalition government. The fact is that, if we were not in government, Carl Scully would call the shots over a federal Labor transport minister, and goodness knows where that would finish up. It would be a great crime to see the project half finished.With respect to transport issues, I also want to raise Sydney airport and the slot scheme discussion paper that has been put out. On behalf of residents in my area, I inform the minister that we have seen a very vocal group of people who are conscious of Sydney's airport needs and noise pollution, and who are based around the inner city suburbs. On behalf of the residents of outer suburbs, who are also affected, I would like to thank him for entering into this slot scheme discussion, because I think that the scheme has merits, and residents in the electorate of Mitchell see great merit in the proposals. They say that the enforcement of curfews and hourly capping is an advantage. They refer also to making more uniform in time the movements in and out of Sydney, and making sure that the number of aircraft will not increase, by encouraging larger aircraft to cater for the inevitable increase in passenger numbers and encouraging some regional flights to bypass Sydney.However, they are seeking information about possible flight paths in and out of Bankstown and the way in which Bankstown may be used. They are also concerned that the handling of movements for Bankstown has not been made public at this point. I have informed them that, in my opinion, the Bankstown decision is certainly the best of those available. Certainly, Badgerys Creek was not an option, but moving towards the use of Bankstown is a very good decision in a long-term, measured way, with the proviso—and I know the Leader of the National Party of Australia understands this—that nobody in rural New South Wales should be disadvantaged. That is an absolutely golden proviso because people in regional areas have, I believe, equal rights to those of people living in urban areas, and they must be looked after in those terms. It is okay for people travelling between Sydney and Melbourne to say that they want to run the airlines their way, but the protection of regional services is vital. (Time expired)11:58:0028194Hoare, Kelly, MPMs HOARE83YCharltonALP00—I take this brief opportunity to talk about a road project in my electorate of Charlton which missed out on funding in this budget. Following the budget, the Australian Local Government Association put out a media release which criticised the Commonwealth for its failure to address the serious shortfall in national road funding. The President of the Local Government Association, Councillor Ross, stated: ... Australia's degraded road infrastructure still requires substantial and sustained additional funding, well beyond the measures ... announced over recent months. He was talking about the Roads to Recovery program. He continued:“The Government has missed this golden opportunity to build on last year's Roads toRecovery initiative. Indeed, the forward estimates released today show that by 2004-2005, total road funding will fall by 25% in real terms,” ... At the beginning of this year the Mayor of the City of Lake Macquarie wrote to me seeking my support for Commonwealth government funding approval for the integrated transport strategy, under the Roads to Recovery program. He stated:Lake Macquarie is the largest regional centre North of Sydney, and acts in a pivotal role as the gateway to the Hunter. This project will provide an important part of an essential arterial route, to improve connections from the Hunter Region's largest employment zone, to the National Highway and the Port of Newcastle. The Newcastle and Hunter Business Chamber views the project as one of regional significance within their regional infrastructure Strategic Plan, and therefore have endorsed the project.I wrote to the minister at the table supporting this proposal and the application for funding under the program. The council applied specifically for funding for a project under the Roads of National Importance program. The Lake Macquarie City Council has proposed an integrated transport strategy as an important infrastructure project for the Hunter region and is seeking Commonwealth funding assistance. It has also proposed that funding of $26 million will come from the New South Wales government and $1.4 million from council.The funding for the planning of the new railway station and transport interchange was announced in the New South Wales state budget. The project is a major infrastructure development for the Hunter region and will generate job growth, improve access to public transport and provide environmental benefits for Lake Macquarie. In the past 10 years in excess of 1,000 new employment positions have been created in Lake Macquarie, most within the Cardiff Industrial Park in my electorate of Charlton. It is proposed that the estate be expanded and further developed. The industrial area houses major transport firms, such as John Farragher Transport and Logistics, and Powerdown Australia, a major manufacturer and exporter of bus chassis.However, businesses are hindered by treacherous and inefficient road links to the F3 freeway. Lake Macquarie City Council's proposed integrated transport strategy will alleviate this problem. The Hunter region has suffered significantly following the closure of BHP and the downturn in our manufacturing industry. I believe this proposal will greatly assist the maintenance and extension of employment opportunities in the region. I supported the application for funding under the Roads to Recovery program for the Lake Macquarie integrated transport centre and I recommended it to the minister for his favourable consideration. The City of Lake Macquarie is one of the fastest growing areas in New South Wales. It is centred on Australia's largest coastal lake and is flanked by both mountains and the Pacific Ocean. It has unique environmental and economic potential to become one of the most desirable areas in which to live in Australia. As the city's role as a major urban and tourism centre develops, our challenge is to realise this potential by providing and improving facilities to encourage and facilitate economic growth within the Hunter region. Today, its population of 185,000 and work force of 96,000 are major economic drivers in the Hunter region. The Lake Macquarie integrated transport centre is an infrastructure project that addresses job creation, improves road safety and increases public transport accessibility for a large proportion of Lake Macquarie and western Newcastle residents, and provides improved access to the national highway and the port of Newcastle. I understand that the mayor and the general manager of the city met with Senator Ian Macdonald earlier this year and held discussions with him. However, we are yet to get a response from the minister about the funding of this nationally important project.12:03:0028196Lloyd, Jim, MPMr LLOYDIK6RobertsonLP10—I welcome the Roads to Recovery package and, in particular, the $80 million which has been allocated to the F3 freeway. I am very pleased that the Deputy Prime Minister is in the chamber today, and I record the thanks of the thousands of Central Coast commuters who regularly use the F3 freeway. It is the main road transport link between the Central Coast and Sydney. I heard the member opposite speaking about the rapidly expanding area of Lake Macquarie, and, of course, for that area the only main road transport link to Sydney is the F3. When I was first elected to parliament in 1996, I was shocked to hear that the previous Labor government had done absolutely no forward planning with regard to the F3, despite the fact that it was the most heavily trafficked road in New South Wales and that it was obvious that the surrounding areas were expanding rapidly. So I was behind the eight ball when I was elected. I made a commitment to the people of the Central Coast that I would do everything I could to ensure that funding was made available. Certainly, when the coalition government were elected we found that there was virtually no money in the bank. We had to address the huge deficit that the Labor Party had left us. We worked hard on that, and now we can start to return some of that money to the Australian community in the form of better roads through the Roads to Recovery program in projects such as the F3.I have to record my anger with, and disgust at, some of the actions of the New South Wales government in relation to this funding. Firstly, their roads minister, Mr Scully, when we announced this money, said `Oh well, it's not enough; there should be more.' Then he had the audacity to say that the money was not available now and would not be available until 2004. The money is available today. If the RTA can get their act together, can get their planning done and can get their costings done, we can start widening the freeway by the end of the year. But the Labor Party continue this campaign of misinformation. Only today I have received a letter that a constituent received from the Labor Party candidate in Robertson who continues this myth that the money is not available and that it will not be available until 2002 or 2004. It is totally untrue. Already the Deputy Prime Minister has written to the New South Wales government assuring them that that money is available. In fact, on 24 May 2001 the Prime Minister wrote to the Premier of New South Wales, Bob Carr. I will read some of that letter into Hansard:My dear PremierI am writing to you concerning Commonwealth funding for widening of the F3 Freeway between the Hawkesbury River and Calga. It is reported that the NSW Minister for Transport, the Hon Carl Scully MP, has claimed that the Commonwealth Government is holding up funding for this project. These reported statements by Mr Scully refer to the absence of Commonwealth allocation to the F3 for 2001-02. I am advised that the absence of an allocation in the coming year reflects advice from the NSW Roads and Traffic Authority that commencement of the widening project would need to await substantial planning and environmental assessment work. In relation to this, I would point out that the Commonwealth has today received a request from the RTA for preconstruction funding of $2 million in 2001-02 and this has been approved pending submission of a formal project proposal report.The last paragraph of this letter could not be clearer. This is from the Prime Minister of Australia to Premier Carr:I wish to assure you that the Commonwealth funding of $80 million will flow as soon as construction starts. If it starts this year, funding will flow this year. I would ask therefore that you instruct your transport Minister to begin construction work by the end of this calendar year.That is very clear. It is very plain. It is what the commuters of the Central Coast of New South Wales want. It is what they are demanding. I am demanding that the RTA get their act together, that the minister makes sure that his department get their act together and that they get their planning in place so that they can start construction of that urgently needed widening of the F3 freeway between Calga and the Hawkesbury River so that the commuters of the Central Coast will not continue to suffer the constant delays that they now suffer simply because of traffic congestion. Every peak hour the traffic delays are considerable. Particularly on Friday evenings delays can be up to half an hour or an hour—not through any accident but just through the sheer volume of traffic coming down from three lanes to two lanes at Mount White. As a community we have worked hard for five years to secure this funding. The funding is there now. It is the responsibility of the New South Wales government and the RTA to start the construction, to start the widening, this year. 12:08:0028197Andren, Peter, MPMr ANDRENKL6CalareIND00—I want to move to an issue that was part of the speech I made in the longer debate which was somewhat truncated. This issue, the lack of an infrastructure program in this country, impacts greatly on regional Australia. I am disappointed to see that one key recommendation, recommendation 6 of the report called Time running out by this parliament's regional affairs and primary industry committee, of which I am a member, has yet to be acted upon. It calls for the establishment of a national infrastructure advisory council with expertise from public and private sectors to facilitate the efficient and equitable provision of national infrastructure. At the moment infrastructure planning is largely marked by short-term politics and adhocery. One only has to look at the Sydney-Canberra VFT project or, indeed, the Adelaide-Darwin rail line to see start-stop planning and ill-directed funding largely based on political considerations rather than nation building purposes. I am glad that the National Party now wants to own the Parkes Inland Marketing Corporation project. A few years back it did not even wish to honour a 1996 election undertaking to fund a feasibility study. Another issue that has received scant attention from the National Party is the plan jointly promoted by the Central Regional Organisation of Councils and the Institute of Chartered Accountants for regional enterprise zones. If there has been any movement on this front in the last few weeks I would be interested if the minister could bring that to my attention.I attended a seminar organised by CENTROC in Cowra late last year. It detailed the potential for targeted assistance zones. We heard from a former aide to the Clinton administration about just how effectively the United States has used such a system to promote growth in many of its less naturally endowed rural areas. Declaration as an enterprise zone would be available to areas experiencing economic distress, particularly those experiencing high unemployment. The Commonwealth government would assist the zones through wage subsidies and tax concessions, and the institute assures me that the proposed arrangements are constitutionally valid.The study, which was launched by CENTROC and the Institute of Chartered Accountants in April this year here in Parliament House, called for a parliamentary taskforce to develop targeted incentives for regional Australia, with this work to be completed by September this year. I would like to know whether that deadline has been acknowledged by the government, and whether any positive process has been put in place to address that call. I understand the opposition has indicated some sort of commitment to the concept, but I look forward to both the opposition and the government officially spelling out any commitment in the weeks and months ahead. Such a commitment would, I suggest, require a quantum shift from government about its role in economic development, and a recognition that the free market alone does not deliver opportunity and jobs equally across Australia. I live in hope, remembering my first meeting of the 1996 parliament's Primary Industries and Regional Services Committee. At that time, a senior Labor Party member seemed to suggest that regional development—and indeed rural development—inquiries should involve the committee examining the economic opportunities and problems of Newcastle, Wollongong and Geelong. It was quickly pointed out by those members from rural seats that the crisis then facing us was the future of rural and regional centres, meaning places like Tamworth, Dubbo and Lithgow. The enterprise zones have been championed by the central organisation of councils, encompassing most of the council areas in the central west of New South Wales. The inspiration for the zones has been generated and driven by Cowra Shire Council's economic development manager, Graham Apthorpe. He recently provided me with some data from a company involved in the sad business of relocating Australian businesses offshore. In the 2000 calendar year, this company helped with the relocation of a dozen businesses to locations such as New Zealand, China, South Africa, Thailand and Sri Lanka. The businesses include a printed circuit board manufacturer, a textile manufacturer, a door manufacturer, a small electrical motor manufacturer, an air-conditioning maker and a plastics manufacturer. In recent weeks, the Canobolas wool top plant in Orange could have been added to that list. It has decided to close its doors at the end of this month becausesurprise, surprise!the production of wool tops and scoured wool can more economically be provided from a factory in China. (Extension of time granted)People are asking how we can more proactively support that industry. I certainly have not got the answers. I know there are good examples around the country of successful wool topping and early stage value adding to wool, but it strikes me that we have a product which we are so ready to export so minutely value added that we are giving away a lot of the value of the product to people offshore, including people in Japan and, I guess, Italy. With the proper support mechanisms, we have the capacity, I think, to develop a supportable textile industry with a distinctly Australian product from paddock to coat hook.Another issue needing urgent attention, and one that seems to be placed in the too-hard basket, is the provision of a proper transport corridor across the Blue Mountains. While spending on the Roads to Recovery program is very welcome, it is the road across the mountains which is the main economic stimulus that the west of the state needs to play its share in both business coming to the west and getting its product to the markets. Along with this, we need to be looking seriously at the north-south transport links into the ports of Newcastle and Wollongong. I would love to see the submission by councils and chambers of commerce for a feasibility study into the road across the mountains, because although it was declared a RONI prior to the last election—and that was welcome—it seems to me that we are creating a major urban arterial route through the mountains. I travel it regularly, and trying to get through there on a Sunday afternoon is no mean feat, I can tell you. We have still got 60, 70 and 80 kilometres per hour zones through there and I presume we will always have them, because it is becoming a quicker route to Sydney. It seems to me that we will never have a national highway by upgrading that route. We will have an equivalent of Pennant Hills Road and probably, down the track, we will also have all of the daily commuter dramas that that road is creating in the northern suburbs of Sydney. I do not believe it is going to serve the purpose that one would hope it could, of being the major—and I think it should be national—highway through to the vast food bowl of inland New South Wales. I certainly have not got the answers, but I think that, irrespective of the fact that we now have a wonderful new World Heritage park in the Blue Mountains and Wollemi and so on, there are environmental difficulties that have to be addressed. We need to look at how we can create a corridor through there—perhaps the Bell's Line of Road—and it really does need a commitment from the state government and the necessary support from the federal government. Rail should also be looked at as part of the transport corridor through there, and it should be upgraded so that we are not putting $300,000 rigs over the mountains all the time. Perhaps a lot of the transport operators say, `We would prefer it if we had a roll-on, roll-off process to do our transport.' I would be interested to hear what the minister is thinking along those lines about that particular route. Recently, the Mount Panorama motor racing circuit has become the subject of much debate in the electorate. It is something that is going to be there as a national icon long after I depart this place. It really does need to be looked at as an international circuit needing to be brought up to international sporting standards. I know that a submission looking for some form of government assistance will be coming the way of the state and federal governments in the short term. I would hope that it is looked at with a long-term vision rather than a short-term political periscope, or whatever you look at these things with.12:18:0028199Murphy, John, MPMr MURPHY83DLoweALP00—On Monday I spoke in the House during the grievance debate about the sale of Sydney airport and the failure of the government to deliver on its promises to fix Sydney's aircraft noise problems fairly. Mr Deputy Speaker, as you would be aware, I have made many speeches on those topics, in relation to the sale of the airport and also the long-term operating plan for Sydney airport. I have also moved many motions successfully at the Sydney airport community forum. I was pleased that the minister was here a moment ago. I notice that he has walked out of the chamber, but I presume he will be coming back. I would like to start on a positive note, because I have been very critical of the government on this issue since my first speech in this House on 12 November 1998. I have been critical of the government because it is the most important local issue for my electorate. There are approximately 1,300 people in my electorate who just happen to think that a 747 droning over their home at all times of the day and night is more important to them than some of the important national issues like the implementation of the GST, education, health and other issues.In terms of this issue, I would like to start on a positive note, at least, and thank the minister for the courtesy that he has extended regarding the very numerous questions that I have placed on the Notice Paper in the time that I have been a member of this House—unlike his colleague the Minister for Health and Aged Care, who refuses to answer legitimate questions. I can say that he has answered my questions truthfully and honestly—and I am pleased the minister is walking in as I am saying this. Although, Minister, in the main I do not like the answers that you are giving me on behalf of my residents in terms of the sale of Sydney airport, the introduction of Bankstown, the shelving of Badgerys Creek and the failure to implement the long-term operating plan fairly—and I will talk about that in a moment—I do want to thank you most sincerely, on behalf of my constituents, for at least answering my questions. Please convey that to your staff, who obviously do quite a bit of researchas my staff do, and as I have done, because I have spent an inordinate amount of time representing my electorate on this issue. Why? Because on almost a daily basis I get complaints to my office about aircraft noise. I would like briefly to go through the history of this issue, because under the coalition's aviation policy of 13 February 1996, titled Soaring into tomorrow, the then Howard opposition went to the people of Australia and said, `We're going to fix aircraft noise.' In those days, certainly, aircraft noise was a very hot issue in Sydney and particularly in my electorate of Lowe. The then sitting member, Mary Easson, who was a member of the previous government, explained the implications of what the coalition was promising to visit on the people of Lowe, should it be elected. That showed quite clearly what the flight paths would be. The candidate from the coalition, a member of the Liberal Party, said that this was not a Liberal Party policy—which has been shown to be false—and that the Liberal Party had the answers and that they would halve the number of planes flying over Lowe. We know that that is not the case. Very shortly after the Howard government was elected in 1996, in August 1996, the Airports Bill went through parliament. There was bipartisan support for the future sale of Sydney airport, but that was conditional on fixing the problems associated with aircraft noise. (Extension of time granted) That meant the implementation of the long-term operating plan and also a decision to be made at a future time to build a second airport for Sydney, to take the pressure off Kingsford Smith Airport. When the bill was debated in the parliament, Minister Sharp, who was in the job at that time, promised to fix the aircraft noise problems associated with Kingsford Smith Airport, and also foreshadowed the future construction of a second airport for the people of Sydney. We have subsequently learned that that debate was all about an expectation that whoever purchased that 50-year lease for Sydney airport would only have an option to build a second airport. The clear understanding, by all people who had been associated with the debate, was that the agreement to the sale of Sydney airport was on the clear understanding that a second airport would be built. That is what people effectively meant. It would appear, certainly from the campaign I have run by placing questions on the Notice Paper to try to get answers, that the government is in a position to effectively run away from the commitment to build a Sydney west airport—which is Badgerys Creek—in the foreseeable future.Why are they doing this? They are doing it simply to maximise the sale price of Sydney airport. The lease sale price, as I understand it from various reports, is about $4 billion. If the government were to require the purchaser of that lease to also build a Sydney West airport, no doubt the sale price for Sydney airport would be significantly less than $4 billion. Obviously, in this whole debate about resolving the aircraft noise problem for the people of Sydney the government are more concerned with the economic imperatives of maximising the sale price for Sydney airport and accommodating the vested and sectional interests that want to see Sydney airport stay where it is.The grave concern for my electorate, Minister, is that the expansion of Sydney airport by effectively making Bankstown airport an overflow airport—a de facto second airport, if you like—for the people of Sydney has disastrous consequences for people of the inner west, particularly my electorate. If you maximise Sydney airport you will slowly see a return to parallel runway operations and we know what the PRM is all about. The western end of my electorate will suffer because of the increased air traffic from Bankstown airport. It is a very serious issue for the people of Lowe. I asked you a question, Minister, on the notice paper on 28 March—and thank you for your reply of 7 June 2001. Inter alia, I asked you if there was now a satisfactory solution to the current aircraft noise problems in Sydney and, if so, upon what criteria this conclusion had been reached. The answer you provided was:The government has introduced the long-term operating plan to address Sydney airport's noise issues. The plan has been very successful in sharing the noise generated by the airport compared with the situation that existed immediately prior to March 1996.Today I have put a further question on notice in response to the reply that you gave me. I just want you to clearly understand, because I do not think the message is getting through to the people who are advising you, that we are getting 60 per cent more air traffic movements to the north than were foreshadowed in the long-term operating plan for the residents of Sydney. It is not truthful or fair for you to say to me that the long-term operating plan has been `very successful in sharing the noise', because that is not the truth. The people who are to the north and the north-west of Sydney airport are suffering the most and the planes that are flying over my electorate are avoiding the Prime Minister's electorate. (Extension of time granted) I would like to think that you could leave this chamber this morning and go back to your officers and insist that they get a reduction in the horrendous levels of aircraft noise. As I said, we are getting 60 per cent more air traffic movements than we were promised under the long-term operating plan. We, on our side of the House, think that the long-term operating plan can work but we also believe that we need a second airport for Sydney. We do not think that Bankstown is the option. I would like to know from you, and it is foreshadowed in my questions on the Notice Paper today: when will the long-term operating plan be fully implemented? In other words, I would like to know when the people of Lowe are going to get only 17 per cent air traffic movements to the north. What is your long-term plan for building Sydney West airport at Badgerys Creek for the citizens of Sydney? What is the time frame for your agenda to sell Sydney airport? If I am not mistaken, I think I heard you on radio last week in Sydney saying that you wanted to have Sydney airport sold by the end of the year. If you want to have Sydney airport sold by the end of the year, Minister, the least that you can do for my constituents, who are concerned very much by this issue, is to have air traffic movements to the north at 17 per cent and some answer with regard to how soon we can start building Badgerys Creek. Thank you.12:30:0028201Sawford, Rod, MPMr SAWFORD3J4Port AdelaideALP00—One of the great frustrations with transport—and it certainly must be for a minister, whether federal or state, or even for people involved in local government—is that the debate on road and rail investment in this country is appalling, and it has been appalling under all fashions of governments for far too long. Let us look at expenditure since 1996—and I am sure the Minister for Transport and Regional Services will correct me if I am wrong. We have spent about $8 billion on roads in this country but about $250 million has been committed to rail. That is an incredible imbalance. A country railroad in the electorate of, perhaps, the member for Hinkler loses a couple of million and everybody in this country goes ape. Yet we spend billions and billions of dollars subsidising roads and road transport companies in this country and we do not seem to blink one eyelid. The debate loses a considerable deal because we do not look at all the imperatives and all the impacts of funding for rail or road. For example, a recent German study showed quite clearly that if you invested a billion deutschmarks on rail, road or light rail there would be very different impacts in terms of an employment dividend. If you invest in roads, you get about 10,000 to 12,000 jobs; if you invest in heavy rail, you get about 22,000 jobs. If you invest in light rail, you get about 24,000 jobs. Maybe that is an issue that the minister ought to take on board—as should, particularly, his department, which has a particularly narrow view of anything other than road transport.I would like to make one comment about this budget: $600 million has gone towards company cars and subsidies for transport rigs. I think the minister's own group, the Australian Rail Track Corporation, has shown that, if you spent $500 million or $600 million on rail instead of transport rigs or company cars, you could shift two or three million tonnes of freight off our roads and onto rail. It would be far more efficient, with a better employment dividend, and much better for the country.The subsidy for roads in this country amounts to billions and billions. It is a hidden subsidy, one that is forgotten in any debate—freight insurance, hospitalisation, road trauma, road maintenance, the list goes on and on and on. I am not suggesting that we should not invest in roads. That would be a stupid point of view to put forward. But the investment in and the balance between other forms of transport in this country is just simply appalling. As for the debate, I have to say that even when we were in power you never looked for any initiative or any creativity or any innovation from almost anyone in transport in this country. Professor Peter Newman, who was a transport expert in Western Australia, convinced the then Labor government to build a northern suburbs railway. It was a big investment, nearly $300 million, but it proved it worked. All the gurus who were here said that he was stupid, that the Labor government was wasting money. It was not a waste of money. That was not even a freight service, but a passenger service. Why is the debate so minimalist? Why is it so narrow? Why doesn't it look at a wider circle than just roads, such as rail, shipping and air? Our investment in shipping in this country—and I will not go into that right now—is laughable for a trading nation, in the sense of the millions of jobs, or potential jobs, we lose because we send all our money in terms of insurance and shipping overseas. Absolute rubbish! Unfortunately, no government in this country has had the guts to take shipping seriously, but you have to say that no-one takes rail seriously either.I notice that the member for Hinkler is here. He chaired a parliamentary committee which produced what I thought was an admirable report. The report suggested a whole lot of new investment in rail. Unfortunately, that has not been taken up. In this budget there is probably only $26 million for rail. When will governments take note of the findings of bipartisan committees—committees led by people with a bit of commonsense, like the member for Hinkler? But your government does not take any notice. (Time expired)12:35:0028202Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLEKV5HinklerNP10—I was not going to speak in this debate on Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2001-2002, and it grieves me to disagree with my colleague the member for Port Adelaide, but—IJ4Snowdon, Warren, MPMr Snowdon—It's good to hear you grieving.KV5Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLE—I do grieve—he is one of the few people in this place whom I genuinely admire.IJ4Snowdon, Warren, MPMr Snowdon—What about me?KV5Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLE—You're all right. I think there is a bit of oversimplification here. This government has committed $250 million to rail. 3J4Sawford, Rod, MPMr Sawford—You recommended it.KV5Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLE—Yes. It is true that our committee recommended that $200 million a year should be spent for a decade. You are quite right that, in the great scheme of land transport, $200 million is a drop in the bucket. Nevertheless, it is not just a simplistic problem of rushing out and spending money on rail. There is a perception that, because we linked Melbourne to Adelaide back in the seventies or the eighties, we had this seamless corridor from Brisbane to Perth. It was not quite that simple. There were 23 operating standards and 14 different radio standards, so it was not a seamless corridor. In other words, for rail to achieve its full potential on that major trunk route from Brisbane to Perth—and I presume that that is what you are talking about—there are some other intermediate steps. Amongst them is the New South Wales government's inability to grant proper access through the ARTC. This government has put the ARTC in place, and it is the access organisation. If you can get clear and transparent access from Brisbane through to Perth, you are more likely to use rail, and there is then greater justification for the government to upgrade the track. It is true that along the east-west corridor 70 per cent of the freight task goes on rail. On the north-south corridor, it is 10 per cent. Part of the reason why is the access. I am a great believer in upgrading the track. If you get the below track operations right—and I see that the member for Lowe is here; he is another supporter of this committee—you will attract state rail authority trains or private trains and you will get greater utilisation of the track. But it is not a simplistic thing whereby the government just throws money at the track itself—much as I would like it to be that way. The other thing you should recognise is that the government has also put money into Compton's ATEC proposal for a track from Melbourne to Darwin. A lot of people said, `That's pie in the sky—that'll never happen.' I have known Everald Compton for 30 years and he has never not made a success of something he has put his hand to—never. He has been in charge of rebuilding university colleges and things in England, and he is a master at putting major projects together. He is not saying that you should rush out and throw a lot of Commonwealth money at this thing; in fact, he wants only very modest amounts of Commonwealth money. Everald Compton says that it can be done commercially if the government gives certain support, and the government has done so—it has funded a prefeasibility study from Melbourne to Brisbane and it has funded a freight study from Toowoomba to Gladstone, which proved positive. It said that if you got these new coalmines in the Serap Basin going then that was justified. The government has encouraged this organisation to prove each step of this thing. You do not build a train right through to Darwin and expect it to pay. You take it through the most productive part of Australia—central Victoria, central western New South Wales, southern Queensland to Toowoomba, with a branch down to Brisbane; that is feasible. The study says it is feasible onto Gladstone. Then a fortnight or three weeks ago, the minister gave another $250,000 to do the prefeasibility study for the section from Toowoomba to Gladstone.I do not think that shows the government stepping away from it. I, like you, would like more spent on the below-track infrastructure. I firmly believe that that is where we can have a huge increase in usage. An example of this is the line from Brisbane to Rockhampton, which successive Queensland governments have done up to tilt rail standard, which has halved the travel time from Rockhampton to Brisbane. We could be doing this all over Australia. I agree with you in principle but I do not think it is necessarily fair to be bagging the government, because this minister has been quite supportive.12:40:0028203Sawford, Rod, MPMr SAWFORD3J4Port AdelaideALP00—I do not want to put down the contribution of the member for Hinkler, but we have never spent big on rail in this country. There is a fallacious argument that gets put forward. I remember a fellow who used to advise our side of parliament in 1983, from New South Wales railways, a fellow called David Hill. I remember his contribution when the Adelaide-Darwin railway should have been built by us in that early period of the Hawke-Keating government, and was not—for all the wrong reasons. The wrong reasons were—and that was part of the fallacious argument put forward then—`You don't solve the problem by throwing money at it.' That is a pretty glib statement, because we have not thrown money at rail in this country for 50 or 60 years. So let us not talk that sort of nonsense, for goodness sake. I said I would be brief and I know there are other people who want to speak in this debate. I would like to say something of a positive nature. I understand, in the way government operates in this nation, that if you are the minister for transport, state or federal, you have a very difficult go because it is not part of an intellectual debate. The debate is far too narrow. No-one looks at the employment dividends. No-one looks at the dividends in terms of the trauma and the injuries that you see in Australia—the people who live all the rest of their lives crippled and maimed, unnecessarily, because of road accidents. I have just come back from New Zealand. It is just amazing the people you see on the street, young and old, who are crippled. When you talk to them they say how they were crippled: road accidents. They have one of the greatest rates of road accident trauma in the world, partly because of their road system and partly because, except in Wellington, they do not even have a commuter train system. It is only a country of 3.4 million people but they did have commuter train systems. There are other impacts than just the road or rail debate. There is an employment dividend. There is a care of citizen duty that often never comes up in the road or rail or shipping debate. There are defence aspects, as well. I must say, even though I would have liked to have seen a far greater contribution—and I am sure the member for the Northern Territory supports this as well—that creating a north-south land bridge on the only island continent on earth, the Adelaide-Alice Springs-Darwin railway, is a great thing. I do not think, in the debate, anyone has explored the possibilities of what can be done not only for the eastern seaboard, on the eastern side of the Dividing Range—which so much debate in this country seems to boil down to—but for Australia. The member for Hinkler mentioned that 70 per cent of the freight from Adelaide to Perth goes on the rail. It ought to be 100 per cent. There is no reason for any semitrailer, B-double or whatever, to go from Adelaide to Perth. There is a company in my electorate called Air-Ride. I am sure you are familiar with it; I am sure you have been there. You can load up 100 semitrailers on a train in two or three hours. Yet no-one has invested in that company. I say to the member for Hinkler that in the United States they have tens of thousands of these things on their freight systems. They are highly efficient and it gets the trucks off the road. We have trucks going from Adelaide to Brisbane on a daily basis. That is just stupid. Under what conditions do those semitrailer drivers operate? Some of them are taking loads up there and hanging around so long, trying to get a job to get back, that over a period of time they are actually losing money because their margins have been pushed so hard by some of these so-called logistics companies. We need a new approach to transport. I am one of the few people on this side who actually has had a bit of time for you, right from the first time you came in here, Deputy Prime Minister. I actually think you have, in many ways, a sensible approach to problems. But I would like to see you, in this term of government—which might not be much longer—look at it in terms of much broader perspectives than you do now. (Time expired)12:45:0028204Snowdon, Warren, MPMr SNOWDONIJ4Northern TerritoryALP00—The railway issue is not the subject I intended to speak upon, but I will make some comments in passing. I am pleased to see that the government has lived up to its commitment to fund its portion of the Darwin to Alice Springs railway, which has bipartisan support. Kim Beazley committed the Labor Party to that funding prior to the last election. It is worth noting, however, that it would have been a lot cheaper if it had been built in 1984, when it was offered to the Northern Territory government on a 60-40 split but the then Northern Territory Chief Minister, Paul Everingham—who later became the member for the Northern Territory—refused the offer. That rests fairly and squarely in the lap of the Northern Territory government and the CLP, this government's partners in the Northern Territory.Having said that, I think the Darwin to Alice Springs railway can—and may—bring great benefits. I am certainly hopeful that it will. But there are some downsides which we ought to contemplate. I do not quite share the views of my colleague from Port Adelaide on the issue of road transport, because I think the road transport industry is a very efficient industry. Whilst the margins are being cut for a whole range of reasons, not the least of which is the GST, the fact is that it provides timely delivery of goods which cannot be provided by rail. It is not my intention to go into that debate. I want to make the observation, however, that the development of the Darwin to Alice Springs railway has started and, while even as we speak facilities are being developed in Tennant Creek and Katherine, there is some concern in Alice Springs that people in the communities there who are well equipped to do the work may not get the jobs that are available because the major contractors involved may be bringing their workers from interstate. To me that means that, whilst it adds substance to the Northern Territory economy in terms of money coming in, people in the Territory may be missing out. I think the focus of employment in this rail project should be on employing people locally, on training up people in the Northern Territory to do this work and on subcontracting to Northern Territory firms. I come now to the main concern I want to express today. I do not share the view of my colleague about the Deputy Prime Minister. Unfortunately, I see him as being a very partisan person who has used the Roads to Recovery program to rort the Treasury of this country for his own political purposes. I would like him to explain to me how he could possibly get to the position where his own electorate could receive, I think, $43 million when the Northern Territory received only $20 million in road funding under the Roads to Recovery program—4K4Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson—Because we used the Labor Party's Grants Commission approach, that's why.IJ4Snowdon, Warren, MPMr SNOWDON—Oh, did you? Let me just ask you this question. If you used the approach of the Labor Party you would have understood that, using state shares of local government grants, the Northern Territory traditionally receives $28.1 million. Under your formula it received $20 million. You are $8.1 million shy. What is the answer to that? Where did that go? Whose backyard did that fill in? Can you explain how you got $43 million?10000Gash, Joanna (Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER)Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mrs Gash)—Would you direct your questions through the chair, thank you.IJ4Snowdon, Warren, MPMr SNOWDON—Through you, Madam Deputy Speaker, I say to the Deputy Prime Minister: be left in no doubt about how you are perceived in the Northern Territory, because you have used your position. I note that all of the 17 electorates receiving funding of more than $25 million are held by coalition government members—KV5Neville, Paul, MPMr Neville—That's not surprising.IJ4Snowdon, Warren, MPMr SNOWDON—No, it is not. Let me ask you this question. The seat of Gwydir is an area of 114,000 square kilometres. The seat of the Northern Territory is an area of 1.34 million square kilometres. The number of voters in Gwydir is 72,930. The number of voters in the Northern Territory is 105,048. The population at the 1996 census for Gwydir was 111,146. The population of the Northern Territory was 190,000. The amount of money given to the seat of Gwydir equates per voter to $581 per head. In the case of the Northern Territory it is $190 per head. Per square kilometre it is $372 in Gwydir and $15 in the Northern Territory. (Extension of time granted) Even if you use the formula which is used to allocate local government road funding, where I believe the Northern Territory is underfunded, we are still at least 25 per cent shy of what we should be entitled to. There can be no valid explanation as to why people in the Northern Territory should be robbed blind by the Deputy Prime Minister through the Roads to Recovery program while he allocates resources to his mates. Let us be clear about it. Another issue which needs to be comprehended here is that the Northern Territory has special needs. I note, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the Deputy Prime Minister will use the justification that money has been made available to local government areas. Of course he knows, as do his advisers, that large areas of the Northern Territory roads are on unincorporated lands. As I understand it, no substantial allocation has been made. Of the Northern Territory government total, less than $2 million has been allocated for unincorporated roads. The literally thousands and thousands of kilometres of roads in the Northern Territory on unincorporated land are not funded. What is the result of that? Let me tell you. There is one community—and this goes hand in glove with the issue of flood mitigation—at Robertson River, which is about 150 kilometres south of Borroloola, to which my colleague and I paid a visit earlier this year, that has been without road access to that community since November of last year, when it was flooded. 5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMullan—It would not be tolerated anywhere else.IJ4Snowdon, Warren, MPMr SNOWDON—It would not be tolerated anywhere else in Australia. This happens to be an Aboriginal community. I rang them the other week to try to find out what the price of fuel was. They could not tell me. They said, `We can't tell you what the price of fuel here is because we do not have any. Why don't we have any? Because we can't get it delivered.' That would not be tolerated in the member for Gwydir's electorate. It would not be tolerated in the electorates of the members for Maranoa, Kalgoorlie, Wannon, Parkes, McEwen, Kennedy, Indi, Farrer, Mallee, New England, Flinders, Gippsland, Murray, Riverina or Ballarat. All these electorates will receive $25 million or more under the Roads to Recovery program.The most disadvantaged people in Australia, the poorest people in Australia, bar none, live in the Northern Territory. The most disadvantaged in terms of transport infrastructure live in the Northern Territory. What this government has done is to treat them with contempt. We will get some response from the Deputy Prime Minister no doubt trying to justify his position. Let me ask you, Mr Deputy Prime Minister: if you are not responsible for these roads, who is? If you are not prepared to provide the funding for these roads, who should? If you do not accept responsibility for every Australian citizen in terms of this government and road infrastructure, who should? I understand the Northern Territory government have got a responsibilitythere is no doubt about thatbut, if they have that responsibility, where do they get the money from? Should they get it from their own resources, or should you be reviewing the Grants Commission formula to ensure they get more money? There has got to be an answer to this, and thus far it has not been forthcoming. It is not only in this area, of course, that this is a question. I am conscious of the fact that other people want to speak, but I do want to raise another issue that really compounds this question of roads infrastructure, and that is the question of the impact of the GST on fuel. Let me ask the Deputy Prime Minister: do you think it is appropriate that people who live in my electorate, or at least some of them—in this case the people who live in Milikapiti on Bathurst Island—should pay an extra 10.3c tax on a litre of fuel as a result of the GST, whereas people in the Prime Minister's own electorate pay 2.58c extra tax as a result of the GST? That comes about because of the price of fuel. When the price of fuel is $1.80 a litre and you are paying huge amounts of extra tax, there has got to be an answer. I recall vividly the former Deputy Prime Minister visiting my electorate prior to the last election, with his Akubra—hail fellow, well met—saying to everyone who wanted to listen to him that the price of fuel need not rise. We had the then Northern Territory Chief Minister, now President of the Liberal Party, saying that the price of fuel would fall by 7c a litre. (Time expired)12:55:0028206Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLEKV5HinklerNP10—I would like to clear up two things. The first one is to do with rail. We spoke about going from Melbourne to Adelaide. When we were on that committee and examined that track, it was a disgrace. We saw strips 20 and 30 metres long where the rails sat in a permanent puddle of mud. The Hon. Ralph Willis was with us at the time and he was Treasurer. Even he was outraged, because he could remember the amounts of money that he had allocated to that. We went to a marshalling yard where there were literally thousands of concrete sleepers that had never been used. They actually put the new concrete sleepers on old ballastnot retamped, I might addand then put second-hand track on top of the new sleepers. What a shambles. I am not saying that to criticise any government. But, to take the point made by the member for Port Adelaide, it is not simply a matter of throwing money. I was not being glib when I said that you could not throw money at it. There has got to be a strategic plan. To get a strategic plan you have got to have the states cede a certain amount of their power, whether or not it be in access through the ARTC, so that people are going to use the track. That is the first thing. The second thing is that I believe the answer is—and it is a recommendation in the report—that the main trunk line from Brisbane to Perth, via both Broken Hill and Melbourne, should be treated like the national road highway. It should be ceded to and controlled by the Commonwealth, either through the ARTC or through another corporation. Then you would get some of the benefits that you have spoken about. I think that should be a long-term ambition and a bipartisan position of all parties in this parliament. On the matter of the Roads to Recovery grant, the argument from the member for the Northern Territory is exactly the same argument that I get from some of my larger but small area cities against the shires. They say, `Why does the city of so-and-so get so little money, when the shire of so-and-so, with only a tenth of the population, gets so much more?' It is because the formula is based not just on population but on the distance of roads. It is not based on area. It works out at about 80 per cent of the council's federal assistance grants. Those federal assistance grants, which are Commonwealth money, are allocated by the states through their grants commissions. It is hardly fair to start blaming the Commonwealth. You control all the states in Australia now bar South Australia. How can the member for Northern Territory start blaming the Commonwealth government because of the formula? It should not be a surprise to him that electorates like Gwydir, Maranoa, Kennedy and Leichhardt—IJ4Snowdon, Warren, MPMr Snowdon—It is no surprise. We know it is not a surprise.KV5Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLE—Yes, because within those electorates there are quite a few local authorities—I imagine 11 or 12 in each electorate—that have long distances of road. In fact, you rather selectively left out the electorate of Capricornia. I think you will find that your colleague the member for Capricornia was also treated very generously—not because it is a Labor electorate or a National Party electorate or a Liberal electorate, but because it has a population base for each of those shires and a length of roads that have to be attended to. Quite frankly, while I understand the member's concern for his area—and I do not quibble with that at all—this confected outrage because the formula—5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMullan—Go to the Robertson River and tell them.KV5Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLE—If the unincorporated areas of the Northern Territory are a problem, then surely that is a matter for the Northern Territory government to take to the Grants Commission, or for you, as the local member—IJ4Snowdon, Warren, MPKV5Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLE—That would seem to be the answer. But certainly, Madam Deputy Speaker, the formula is fair. I have not found one shire, or even those cities that want a bit more, that has complained about having the money. It has made a huge difference to the shires, cities and towns of my electorate, and I am pleased to have it.13:00:0028207Snowdon, Warren, MPMr SNOWDONIJ4Northern TerritoryALP00—There is no doubt that there would not be a community in Australia that would not welcome the money. Give people the resources and they will accept them—there is no question about that. However, this is not about whether or not they should accept the money. This is about the mal-distribution of resources. This is about the mis-allocation of government money. This is about understanding the need around Australia and allocating money so that it gets to where it ought to be going.KV5Neville, Paul, MPMr Neville—It is based on a formula. IJ4Snowdon, Warren, MPMr SNOWDON—Let's go to that argument. This document is from the minister's own adviser talking to the Senate estimates committee. He made it very clear that—and he provided a table which demonstrates it—the Northern Territory government, even if you use that formula, is $8 million shy. KV5Neville, Paul, MPMr Neville—Why?IJ4Snowdon, Warren, MPMr SNOWDON—Ask the man sitting over there, Madam Deputy Speaker. The government seems to believe that they can parade around the country, doing as they like, when they like, how they like and to whom they like, and no-one is going to say anything. That is wrong. Get the Deputy Prime Minister to come to some of these committees and explain why people cannot travel on their roads and why the roads are inaccessible for some months of the year—and not just because of the weather. There are some roads in communities in my electorate which heavy vehicles will not travel on because of the state of disrepair. That imposes a huge cost on those communities—the poorest communities in Australia. And yet the Deputy Prime Minister does not bat an eyelid.I was talking about fuel prices, and I was retelling a story about the former Deputy Prime Minister parading around Northern Australia saying how the price of fuel need not rise. Let me ask this question of the Deputy Prime Minister: as a result of the GST, people at Milikapiti pay—10000Gash, Joanna (Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER)Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mrs Gash)—Order! You will direct your questions through the chair.IJ4Snowdon, Warren, MPMr SNOWDON—As a result of the GST, the people of Milikapiti pay $1.80 a litre for fuel. The extra tax they pay within that $1.80 as a result of the GST is 10.37c. The good burghers of North Ryde, when the price of fuel was 94.9c a litre—which was only a couple of weeks ago; I am not sure what it is today—paid 2.61c a litre in extra tax. How do you explain to the people in my electorate—people who live in remote communities and pay anywhere between, in Darwin, $1.03 to, in some places, $2 a litre—that the GST is a major component of the final price of the good, and it is different for them than it is for people living in Sydney and Melbourne? Why should people in the Northern Territory who live in remote communities pay more tax on their fuel as a result of the GST than the Deputy Prime Minister does in his own electorate? Why should they? What possible justification is there for people in the Northern Territory paying more total tax on their fuel when you include the GST than any other Australians? These are the poorest Australians, and they get the double whammy: not only do they pay more for their fuel with the extra impost of the GST but they do not get the resources to fix the roads on which they drive their vehicles.A cartoon was published in the Northern Territory News of 28 May—`Wicking's View'. I commend it to honourable members. The cartoon shows a male and a female sitting in a room. `Snowdon is calling on the government to spend more on roads,' says the woman to her husband. Outside the window is a motor vehicle. The male says, `That we can't afford to drive on.'It is pretty true. If you live in the Northern Territory, you suffer because of what this government has done, and we have had no reasonable explanation as to why the people of the Northern Territory should be discriminated against and disadvantaged in the way in which they have been by this government. Whilst the member for Gwydir might believe that somehow he is doing himself a great favour in his own electorate, he is doing no favours for the people in my electorate, and no favours for the people of Northern Australia generally, because this is not only a question for the Northern Territory. One day he will come to understand the folly of what he has done and the malicious nature of the way in which he has distributed these resources to the disadvantage of the poorest and most vulnerable people in this country. 13:05:0028209Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPMinister for Transport and Regional Services10—I thank those who have contributed to the debate. The member for Prospect raised the matter of the Western Sydney orbital. In an ideal world, roads would be free, I suppose—as should petrol—but they never will be. The approach that we took there, worked up in consultation with all of the stakeholders, enabled us to bring forward by many years the construction of this major piece of very badly needed infrastructure in Western Sydney. There will be real savings in time and energy, and there will be business and personal benefits from the construction of the road. Motorists will have the option of using other roads if they choose not to pay a toll, of course. On balance, it is a reasonable way forward. I was keen to see it brought forward; I believe Minister Scully in New South Wales was as well.There was quite a bit of talk about the airports and airport related matters in Sydney, not just by the member for Prospect but by other members as well. The government sought to take a balanced decision in the interests of the various sectors of the community which have a very real concern about Sydney's future airport needs. It became very apparent to me, as I looked at what had happened internationally and listened to the players here, that for commercial reasons—the aviation industry seeking to meet the needs of its customers—people would not use another airport for a very long time into the future. The airline companies would adopt what are euphemistically known in the industry as coping strategies, which is to say that they would rearrange their schedules so that some flights overflew Sydney, in other cases there would be a rationalisation of the number of small planes, running effectively shuttle services between Sydney and other capitals—all sorts of measures would be used to avoid having to use other airports for as long as possible into the future, at least for the next decade. There is little point engaging in spending a whole lot of money somewhere else on what would be a white elephant, and we will review the matter in 2005.I make this commitment to the people of Sydney who are affected by noise—and I understand that it is a real issue. The member for Lowe raised this matter; I understand that he is perfectly sincere in that regard. The curfew will remain, the cap on movements per hour will remain, the regionals will remain—which, of course, is important for the residents. You understand that if many of the regionals pulled out, they would immediately be replaced by a noisy jet. That is not lacking in substance in terms of the issues that the member's constituents face, and I appreciate his concerns for them.83DMurphy, John, MPMr Murphy—I've got no problems with the regionals.4K4Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON—It is just that it has a spin-off benefit, as you would know.83DMurphy, John, MPMr Murphy—And that keeps 747s out of the area.4K4Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON—Yes. The other point that I wanted to make, apart from the fact that the curfew will remain and the cap will remain—80 movements an hour—is that we will continue to strive to make LTOP work. We believe that we are effectively sharing the noise in a fairer way than in the past and that people are getting substantial periods of respite. I know full well that people will always have concerns about aircraft noise. I get complaints about aircraft noise from the most extraordinary airports in the country. Some of them only have a very limited number of planes flying in and out of them. But if it happens at the wrong time, people become concerned about it. And we try to strike a reasonable balance; we really sincerely do.The member for Prospect covered a number of other issues. The Roads to Recovery program has been mentioned by many members. It is a $1.2 billion program, and there was an additional $400 million for expansion of RONIs—although not exclusively RONIs—in the outer metropolitan areas. This recognised the built-up need for some extra funding for infrastructure on such projects as the F3, a project that the member for Robertson raised. There is $80 million for that and there is a contribution to the Scoresby Freeway coming out of that money, which will make a real difference. The Roads to Recovery program has been very widely welcomed. Most of our local roads were put down during the fifties and the sixties. They have now reached the end of their design lives—and are well past them in many cases. There are horror stories told by councils all around the country about how far behind the roads are. Of course, the distribution was based on the state's grants commission. (Extension of time granted) We actually did that quite deliberately, because we knew that there would be those who would say that we did not seek to be fair and reasonable. So we thought that we would find a formula that is pretty closely tied to one that has been used not only by us but also by previous governments. I just have to record my contempt, quite frankly, for the language used by the member for Northern Territory in this chamber. 5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMullan—Go to Robertson River and look them in the eye. Explain that to them. 4K4Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON—This is $1.2 billion, plus some extra money brought in for the unincorporated areas—which are the responsibility of the states and the territories anyway—to help them. That was never committed to by the ALP.IJ4Snowdon, Warren, MPMr Snowdon—That is not right.4K4Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON—It was never committed to by the ALP.IJ4Snowdon, Warren, MPMr Snowdon—You cancelled a $15 million road project as soon as you got into office. Tell the truth.10000Gash, Joanna (Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER)Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mrs Gash)—Order! Member for the Northern Territory!4K4Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON—I ask that that be withdrawn. I have not told an untruth.IJ4Snowdon, Warren, MPMr Snowdon—You have.10000Gash, Joanna (Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER)Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER—Member for the Northern Territory, withdraw that remark.4K4Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON—He accused me of speaking an untruth. I have not spoken an untruth.5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMullan—On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker, there is absolutely no precedent for requiring that a statement that somebody has told an untruth be withdrawn. It is both parliamentary and regular, and it is often used by government ministers at question time. If that precedent is to be established then we will enjoy it at question time and we will use it at question time. I think that skin is thinner than is warranted by proper parliamentary process. We ought to get on with the debate.10000Gash, Joanna (Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER)Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER—The statement was not made through the chair. The statement was made directly to the minister. I ask that it be withdrawn.IJ4Snowdon, Warren, MPMr Snowdon—Hang on—10000Gash, Joanna (Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER)Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! I have asked you to withdraw that statement.IJ4Snowdon, Warren, MP5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMullan—We'll have to close the committee down if you go on like this—10000Gash, Joanna (Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER)Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER—Don't threaten me in the chair.5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMullan—I am just telling you the facts of the standing orders. 10000Gash, Joanna (Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER)Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! You will sit down whilst I get some advice.3J4Sawford, Rod, MPMr Sawford—On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker, I think that the comment made was, `That's an untruth.' It was not an accusation; it was just, `That's an untruth.' To assist this chamber, I say to the minister: let us just continue the debate.4K4Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON—I repeat that I made the point that Roads to Recovery was not a Labor program. It was a program that we instituted and put in place. The member for Northern Territory, in his own extraordinary style—in which there is room for no grace, no understanding, no legitimate debate, no legitimate exchange of views—accuses me of an untruth in relation to a matter that I have not covered. That is the point.IJ4Snowdon, Warren, MPMr Snowdon—Yes you did. Check the Hansard.4K4Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON—I will not waste any more time on it except to say that one of the things that I suspect the community regards as unacceptable behaviour on the part of politicians is when they will never extend a willingness to acknowledge a valuable program and when one is twisted into something that it is not or into something that is distorted and corrupt, which is effectively what the member opposite accuses me of. It is really quite obvious that the formula is very closely related to that of the states grants commissions and it takes into account, across the nation, a combination of road distance and population. It is a valuable program and there have been many members of the Labor Party who have acknowledged that, including some in this chamber today, and I thank them for it.In relation to the Great Western Highway, which the member for Calare raised, I make the general comment that we have, as you know, made a contribution to the Great Western Highway of $100 million. It is a state road, it is not part of the national highway. We have expanded funding well beyond the Great Western Highway. (Extension of time granted) We have expanded road funding into a number of categories that were not previously funded—that is one—but the RONIs program, the resurrection of a Black Spots program and Roads to Recovery are all road programs that were, if you like, specifically excluded after the early 1990s agreement, under the previous government, whereby the funding of the national highway grid only would be undertaken by the Commonwealth government. As funds have become available we have sought to work cooperatively with other levels of government on roads of strategic and other importance—that being one of them. I am aware of the calls to look at a second major highway over the mountains. I would have to say that there are very mixed views on whether it is wise to proceed with that but I acknowledge that you raise quite a concern. Traffic jams and the congestion on that transport link are very substantial.Let me come to the member for Port Adelaide and to the more general issue that the member for Calare raised about transport planning and about rail. Let me return the compliment. I too have a regard for the member for Port Adelaide, a decent and fair parliamentarian who is always prepared to be gracious about people on the other side of the House and not to personalise his views, which makes it much easier to have a constructive and meaningful debate.I would like to make some general comments. I understand your enthusiasm for rail and I believe too that we ought to be doing more to advance interstate rail competitiveness, if I can put it that way, across this nation. The points that the member for Hinkler was raising were very important and germane to this argument. Now, about 77 per cent of the freight that crosses the Nullarbor goes on rail. 3J4Sawford, Rod, MPMr Sawford—It should be 100 per cent.4K4Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON—That would be a nice target. It might interest members to know that it is actually the highest level of freight support of any similar rail length in the world today. It is actually the highest; it is much higher than it was. The cost has come down and the transport times have come down with a surprisingly modest investment in track. It is a good model and we ought to pursue it. As the member for Hinkler said, the next major step—it is really quite logical if you stop to think about it—is the north-south freight corridor between Melbourne and Brisbane and the points between and beyond. It has about 10 per cent of the freight task at the moment. An audit report by the ARTC was commissioned after the very valuable reports that had come from the private sector and from this place. They were valuable reports and I thank those responsible for them. We commissioned the audit report by the Australian Rail Track Corporation to have a close look at how we ought to rearrange these things. They again identified the need for more money but said that, until you get the management structures right and the management issues sorted out, you are not going to get the traffic volumes that you want. The key issue is unquestionably getting the New South Wales Carr government to get serious about track access, signalling and consistency of arrangements. I do not say that as a partisan remark because there are other governments of both persuasions that have helped us to secure seamless interstate track operations, but we need them on the north-south corridor. I urge those opposite, in the spirit of bipartisanship, to help us do everything we can to get the New South Wales government, which for various reasons is pretty focused on what is happening with its passenger transport network around Sydney, sorted out.We have had money on the table now for a couple of years, for a dedicated freight line through Sydney, and nothing has happened. In the last budget I pulled that back, and we put it into Australian Rail Track Corporation instead, and said that they are to fund it only on the basis of improvements in management and access arrangements. I think there are all sorts of very sound reasons why we need to be rejuvenating rail. Energy conservation is one and greenhouse is another, but there are all sorts of other efficiencies: congestion in the capital city ports and what have you. All of those are very sound reasons for supporting the redevelopment and expansion of rail in this country.I think that broadly covers the major issues that were raised. I notice fuel excise mentioned again—I always think that, if you want to enter the debate and make some critical comments, you have a lot more credibility if you acknowledge the good work that was done first, and in relation to fuel excise several things need to be acknowledged. One is that we have dramatically reduced the fuel excise on transport, including rail. It has all gone. We have actually taken the excise off rail, and that is a very worthwhile reform. (Extension of time granted) I think I heard the member for the Northern Territory say that he thought the trucking industry was an efficient and important industry, and he praised them up. They of course very much welcome what we have done in abolishing sales tax and indirect taxation burdens on their industry. It has made a very big difference, particularly in areas like the Northern Territory which are freight export oriented, and in which freight costs can impose real difficulties on local communities. In addition, it needs to be remembered that we have dedicated something like $900 million to rural and remote areas to offset the impact of the GST on petrol prices. All of us regret higher petrol prices—IJ4Snowdon, Warren, MPMr Snowdon—Yes, 5c a litre more, thanks to the GST.4K4Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON—I notice that extension of great graciousness again from the member for the Northern Territory—and he wonders why he is not given much credibility. We ought to remember that for every four barrels of oil we are using at the moment we are only discovering one new one, and that is something that Australia only has limited control over, but that ought to be of real concern to us all. In addition, I would point out that fuel excise rose by 500 per cent when the Labor Party was in power—I repeat, 500 per cent. By comparison it has slowed to a trickle under us, and we have now scrapped Labor's automatic indexation of fuel excise. So there is another side to the story that ought to be told. In conclusion, can I thank members opposite and members on this side for their contribution to the debate. If there are any further detailed questions that people would like to place on notice, I will happily seek to agree to handle those. I notice the member for Lowe has indicated he has some more detailed questions coming to me on notice. I again thank members. 13:23:0028213Murphy, John, MPMr MURPHY83DLoweALP00—When you leave here today, Minister, could you focus on the threshold question I gave you about the 17 per cent air traffic movements to the north, which your long-term operating plan promises, but I remind you that we are getting 60 per cent more movements to the north. I am asking whether you have something in your power to reduce that level of noise.13:24:0028213Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPMinister for Transport and Regional Services10—I know the member for Lowe's constituents want to hear this. We have not succeeded in getting to the targets as often as I would have liked, and I understand that that is of concern. The only point I want to make, apart from saying, `Yes, I will look at it seriously,' is to say to you that we are sincere in seeking to give people decent respite periods, if I can put it that way—decent breaks from something that we understand does affect their lives.13:24:0028213Snowdon, Warren, MPMr SNOWDONIJ4Northern TerritoryALP00—I want to make some comment on the gratuitous advice given to this place by the Deputy Prime Minister. I asked a very simple question—10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MadamMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mrs Gash)—I allowed the member for Lowe to put his point of view across. The member for the Northern Territory now has the floor.IJ4Snowdon, Warren, MPMr SNOWDON—The specific question I asked in relation to the GST in case you have forgotten or did not hear it related to the amount of extra tax paid as a result of the GST by fuel consumers of the Northern Territory. Just answer that question: why should the people in Milikapiti pay 397 per cent extra GST as a proportion of—10000Gash, Joanna (Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER)Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mrs Gash)—I assume the member for Northern Territory is directing that question through the chair?IJ4Snowdon, Warren, MPMr SNOWDON—I am looking at you, Madam Chair.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MadamMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER—No, you weren't.IJ4Snowdon, Warren, MPMr SNOWDON—Well, through you, Madam Chair—10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MadamMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER—Thank you.IJ4Snowdon, Warren, MPMr SNOWDON—Through you, Madam Chair, could you ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he would not mind responding to me—if that is the way I am supposed to ask this question—as to why the people in the Northern Territory, the people at Milikapiti, should expect to pay 397 per cent extra GST as a proportion of the price paid by the people at North Ryde. Why should the people of the Northern Territory be required—and I ask the Deputy Prime Minister through you, Madam Deputy Speaker, if he would bother responding to the people of the Northern Territory—to pay more GST on their fuel than any other Australians? Perhaps also the minister could explain to the people of the Northern Territory why they should believe anything that he or his party says, because you will recall that I started off my earlier contribution by making the observation that the then Deputy Prime Minister had said the price of fuel need not rise as a result of the GST. What is the answer, Deputy Prime Minister?13:26:0028214Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPMinister for Transport and Regional Services10—As is my custom in these things, I will check the figures of the honourable member for the Northern Territory and I will seek to respond to him. I make the point again that his constituents ought to take note of the very real reductions in fuel excise in a number of areas that are of critical importance to people living in far-flung places like the Northern Territory, particularly in relation to transport fuels, and again I emphasise that a constructive debate always requires a degree of goodwill and recognition—by parties on all sides—of gains as well as losses. 13:27:0028214Snowdon, Warren, MPMr SNOWDONIJ4Northern TerritoryALP00—Just to enlighten the Deputy Prime Minister: at Milikapiti, under the old regime, excise was 44.137c a litre, which you will recall. Under the new regime it is 38.14c a litre currently, and extra GST is 10.37c. Whichever way the Deputy Prime Minister tries to portray it—I accept that fuel excise has come down, I accept that you have abolished indexation, I accept all of that; that is not my query—my query is why should people in the Northern Territory and people who live in high cost areas pay more as a result of the GST for goods and services than other Australians? In this case it happens to be fuel. Can you answer that question? Why should people in my electorate, who are, as I repeat, amongst the poorest of Australians with some of the highest costs of living, when they drive to and from work or into town, in a case such as that of Milikapiti be required to pay so much more for their fuel as a result of the GST than other people in Australia? That is a simple question; it should receive a simple answer.13:28:0028214Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPMinister for Transport and Regional Services10—The thing has to be viewed in totality; that is the first point I would make. You mentioned they were paying something like 40c in excise per litre. I think you will find that about 32c of that was imposed by the Labor Party. I will check the figures and I will come back you, but you have to view taxation imposts and the burden in any specific area in the totality of the taxation and other financial frameworks that pertain to that community.Tax reform was very much needed in the interests of rural and regional Australia. I make no apologies for saying that. I believe that rural and regional Australia is better off for it. There is the reality that some types of taxes will accumulate a little more in some areas than in others, but I have noticed, on average, a closing of the country-city price differential in recent times. You can always find examples where it has gone the other way. If they are excessive, we can have them looked at, but I will respond in full when I have checked out the figures in the claims.Proposed expenditure agreed to.Sitting suspended from 1.30 p.m. to 4.06 p.m.28214Proposed expenditure, $2,101,107,000.16:06:0028214McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN5I4FraserALP00—I want to speak particularly about the arts aspect of this budget allocation and raise a number of issues of concern. Because of the overlap some of my remarks will also deal with issues in the communications sector.This budget is very disappointing for the arts community. There is no new money for the arts in this budget. There are no new ideas in this budget about the arts. That might be disappointing for a lot of individuals who have a passion for and a commitment to the arts, either as participants or as consumers who enjoy the product produced by artists in the various areas of our society. I am in that category—I am not a participant because I do not have the talent, but I am an enthusiastic consumer.My concern is that the knowledge nation of the 21st century requires not only those aspects that are commonly referred to, such as science, engineering and research and development; in the 21st century content is king. The countries which are producing the content that will drive the information technology and other products of the 21st century will be the countries which succeed. And that requires encouragement of the creative people in our community, protection of their intellectual property, incentive for them to produce, and a climate in which they feel respected, acknowledged, appreciated and encouraged. All of that is lacking in this budget. I have made those comments before but I repeat them because it is a source of great disappointment to me. I want today to deal with some specific matters. I hope that the Minister for the Arts and the Centenary of Federation, when he arrives, will be able to respond to some of these specific matters. I want first to deal with the issue of contemporary music. I am extremely concerned that there is nothing in this budget for contemporary music except cuts. In 1998, the government was under pressure on the issue of contemporary music in the lead-up to the election because of its disastrous decision about parallel importation of CDs and its consequences for young artists and Australian recording companies. It was under pressure, the arts community was campaigning, and it responded by throwing in $10 million. It is very typical of this government, in the lead-up to an election, under pressure, to decide to provide taxpayers' funds to bail out problems it has created. So it provided a $10 million fund for contemporary music export, to assist business planning and market development, the development of an online strategy, specific programs for particular states, a contemporary music touring program and community broadcasting.That $10 million program runs out on 30 June this year. To continue, it needed funding in this budget, and there was not one cent. It was an unannounced, unheralded $10 million cut in support for contemporary music, which is the art form of the young generation of creative Australians that young Australians listen to and enjoy. The most important loss to the contemporary music industry will be the touring program that used to be operated through Playing Australia. The disappointment that this program was not continued was best summed up by the Music Managers Forum, which labelled the abandonment of the contemporary music touring program with disappointment and regret and said:The government must acknowledge that despite a huge financial windfall from the music industry, its reciprocal reinvestment in the sector and its commitment to the development of a valid powerful youth culture is minimal.This industry faces the continuing impact of parallel importation, but the compensation package is gone. It is once again typical of this government. It is like the GST. The GST continues forever, but the compensation is only temporary. (Extension of time granted) The contemporary music industry will continue to be hit by this flawed policy with regard to parallel imports, but the compensation package has been eliminated. The cynics amongst us might suggest that the government's plan is to allow this to lapse so that, come the election, they can announce it again and it will be a new policy. It is called filling in the hole you dug for yourself and calling it progress. So they have dug a $10 million hole for the contemporary music industry. I would be pleased if they went to the election offering to fill it in again, but I am very doubtful. What I am really concerned about is the future of the contemporary music touring program. Will the government commit to it again? Am I right in assuming that it has been abolished? If it has been abolished, what assistance is there for the contemporary music industry? I await advice from the minister.That example is being painfully followed by the book industry now. The book industry knows exactly the two problems the contemporary music industry faces: one, the threat of parallel imports; and, two, the risk that the damage to their industry will continue while the compensation package gets eroded. We are having a debate on a bill in this parliament at the moment about the extension of the parallel importation principles of the book industry. There have been some, not surprisingly, eloquent critiques of that by some of our great Australian writers, such as Frank Moorehouse, who appeared before the Senate committee and in a very devastating manner illustrated the flaws in the government's approach and the threat to young Australian writers and Australian publishers if this flawed policy is continued. The book industry knows the nature of this government's attitude. It already feels threatened because of what it has seen happen to contemporary music. The industry is not being offered any compensation for the impact of parallel importation, but it is aware that it has already been severely hit by the GST. It was offered a compensation package in return for that, but just like the parallel importation effect, the GST is in forever but it is not sure how long the compensation package will last. There is no compensation for the book industry for the threat that it faces from parallel imports. So I am really concerned that this government continues to attack the arts. It attacks the fundamental basis of intellectual property protection and the capacity of creative Australians to earn income from their intellectual property. It does not just affect artists; it is also true in the software industry—but that is not my brief for today; I have spoken about that elsewhere. All of those people feel that their capacity to earn income from their creativity is under threat by this government. What is the 21st century about? It is about countries gaining income from their ideas, from their brainpower. So this government puts in place policies to make it impossible.The third thing I want to talk about is the cynical exercise by the government with regard to the Young and Emerging Artists Initiative and the Major Festivals Initiative—two proposals introduced by the government in 1998 with great fanfare. In the budget, they announced renewed support for them. But, if you read the fine print for those two programs, this renewed support means they have got 12 months to live: they are on death row. They will be abolished straight after the election. They have not been abolished now because young Australians resent enough the attack on the contemporary music industry. They do not want to see their new and emerging artists program attacked as well. But they are under threat. The only salvation might be that same cynical view that the government are merely withdrawing funding in this budget so that nobody can plan—the major festivals are in crisis—so they can emerge and make an announcement at the election to say, `Aren't we clever? We are proposing to fill in the hole we just dug. We will renew these two programs if we are re-elected.' But major project planning takes longer than that and this is a disastrous approach. (Extension of time granted)I assure others here that this will be my last extension because I know others wish to have a chance to speak. There are many other matters that I wish to raise but, having spoken about my concern about the general problem in the budget and with this government, of lack of commitment to the arts and creativity and my concern about contemporary music, the book industry, the Young and Emerging Artists Initiative and the Major Festivals Initiative, I want to turn briefly to the ABC.Like many other Australians, I am extremely concerned about the lack of Australian drama on ABC Television. The amount of BBC reruns such as Yes, Minister, Fawlty Towers, One Foot in the Grave is now beyond a joke. As much as I may have enjoyed some of those programs when they were first run—and I quite enjoyed them the second, and I did not mind them even in the third—I really got a bit disappointed recently to see at the end of a Yes, Minister program, when they have the credits at the end that the copyright was dated 1975. A terrific program it wasvintage you might call itbut, in terms of showing Australians the stories told by their fellow Australians, creating jobs and opportunity for creative Australians to produce programs and participate in programs, write music, act, write scripts, produce, direct and provide their technical expertise, it produces nothing. Australians should be able to turn on the ABC and hear their own stories. Of course, there are alarming allegations—and I would like the minister to assure the Main Committee that this is not true—that the ABC was bidding for the rights for The Weakest Link and that one of the reasons why Gail Jarvis was dismissed was that she was unsuccessful in winning the rights to The weakest link. We want to know if that is true. But I am more concerned about the decline in drama production on ABC television and, what is less noticed, the impact on ABC radio. The ABC radio drama on ABC-FM, Soundstage, which went for years and which was very successful, has now been undermined. Soundstage was on ABC-FM for 25 years and has now gone. We have had cuts to artists' fees on ABC radio. I want to know where are the resources for drama production on TV and radio? In drama production I include documentary production—Australian new material with Australian stories told by Australians to Australians. That is why we provide money to the ABC. It is why it is such a great icon in this country, because it is how we see and hear our own stories, things that do not appear anywhere else. It is being cut, hacked and pulled back.Since 1996 we have had substantial cuts to ABC funding, and this is a hole the government has not even filled in. The government is claiming great virtue in providing $17 million, which goes a very small part of the way to filling in the hole—and as best as we can tell none of that money is available for ABC drama production on TV and radio. Ostensibly it is available for any purpose but it appears that there are agreements between the government and the ABC that this money will be supplied for what seem to me to be very worthwhile purposes, of which I am not critical, but there seems to be nothing for drama production for TV and radio.The last point I have time to make is that the minister has claimed in his media release that the ABC in Perth has been financed to purchase and construct a new office. That is quite a good thing, but what he neglects to mention is that, in the move, the ABC has sold the purpose-built home for the West Australian Symphony Orchestra and provided no new home. So we have the West Australian Symphony Orchestra—one of the great orchestras of this country and very important for the most isolated capital city in the world—with the threat of no home, a state government trying to come up with ways to rescue that terrible situation, and silence from the federal government. We have a budget that is disastrous for the arts and artists and for Australians who love the arts, and that flies in the face of what a knowledge nation in the 21st century should require.16:21:0028217Murphy, John, MPMr MURPHY83DLoweALP00—I would like to begin by supporting the comments by the member for Fraser in his invaluable contribution to this debate, particularly regarding parallel imports in relation to the book industry, and his support for the ABC. The ABC is an important national institution and I am here this afternoon once again to support the ABC. Anyone who has any doubts about my credentials on this topic need look no further than the Hansard records of 21 June 1999, 9 August 1999, 22 November 1999, 31 October 2000 and 6 December 2000, when I participated in the MPI debate in respect of the funding cuts to the ABC and also questions on notice. I will get to that in a minute.My concern is that under this government over the last six years we have seen $66 million of cuts to the ABC budget. In some piecemeal approach the government has restored $17.78 million per year. If you want any indication of the significance of that against the background of the significant funding cuts over the life of the last two parliaments under the Howard government, you have only to refer to this question which we all heard the Leader of the Opposition ask the Prime Minister today: Prime Minister, how can you justify spending $20 million a month on government advertising when you were only prepared to give the ABC an extra $17 million a year? Why is spending $20 million a month to save your political skin a higher priority than adequately funding the national broadcaster?This is further evidence of the dishonesty of the Howard government in terms of its attack on the ABC, that the best that it can offer is a restoration of $17 million a year when it is quite happy to spend $20 million of your money, Australian taxpayers' money, to be re-elected. It is a very cynical exercise. What could be more important than maintenance of the national public broadcaster? Unfortunately, in Australia most of the public opinion is manipulated by the Murdoch group or the Packer group.I have expressed concern on many occasions about our media laws. If we continue to erode the funding to the ABC, as has occurred under this government, we are going to be left, particularly in this digital age, with more of Mr Packer and more of Mr Murdoch. Clearly, that is not in the public interest. The greatest threat to our democracy is concentration of the media. If we do not get a further opinion—that is, an opinion from the public broadcaster—God help this country.The criticism which is being levelled at the ABC at the moment—that it is biased and is presenting the views of, or running an agenda to support, the opposition—is not a fair criticism. You only have to look at the history of the ABC: the criticism was levelled at the ABC when we were in government, both in New South Wales under Premier Wran and more recently in federal government under Prime Minister Hawke and Prime Minister Keating. There was considerable criticism of the ABC from our side of politics. As I have said before in this chamber, if the ABC runs an editorial of the day which is against the interests of government, state or federal, people are going to cry that there is bias. We have to truly make the ABC independent and properly resourced. We have to fund the ABC.I have a clear recollection of Minister Alston prior to the last federal election promising that he would preserve the funding and independence of the ABC. What have we seen of the behaviour of Minister Alston? More recently we had that fiasco in the Senate estimates hearing where he did not like the very rigorous scrutiny that was being visited by the committee on Managing Director Shier in terms of his accountability to the taxpayers of Australia for his management of the ABC. He attempted to shut down that committee. Senator Alston could not cop the heat and attempted to hijack that committee or even usurp the role of the chairman of that committee. That clearly shows the duplicity of Senator Alston because he promised to maintain funding and independence, and he attempted to shut down the committee. (Extension of time granted)In addition to the grave concerns that we all have with the management of the ABC at the moment, we also have concerns with the board of the ABC, as I have said on a number of occasions in this House. The board, for a very long period of time, has been stacked by supporters on both sides of the parliament, and clearly that affects the independence of the ABC. The time has definitely arrived to get a truly independent ABC. What could be a better time than the Prime Minister taking the bit—2V5Swan, Wayne, MPMr Swan—It's time.83DMurphy, John, MPMr MURPHY—Yes, it is time, as the member for Lilley has just chimed in, to give very serious consideration to not renewing the appointment of Donald McDonald. Donald McDonald, Chairman of the ABC, was present, as we all know, at a very prominent Liberal Party fundraiser and he cannot be seen or perceived as someone who is truly independent and who could truly have the interests of the independence and the future of the ABC at heart. Obviously, the chairman of the ABC is doing the work of the Prime Minister in trying to sabotage the ABC. The government should find another job for Mr McDonald or put him out to pasture—have him rusticate—because he is obviously only going to do irreparable damage if he stays in this job. He has a managing director who appears to be out of control, given all the dissatisfaction of the staff of the ABC and the low morale. I had just been reading Mr Shier's address to the Sydney Institute yesterday. This is a good read and, if one could live up to it, one would have some hope that the ABC would have a future. But, unfortunately, Mr Shier's track record is not terribly good. He is pretty good at mouthing the rhetoric but not at delivering. Hence, the mass resignations and the unrest in the ABC. One thing I have a real concern about in terms of the funding relates to a question that I put on notice to the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts on 2 November 2000. I asked the minister:Will the Minister allow the Australian Broadcasting Corporation to become a fully-fledged business in e-commerce, deriving advertising revenue from its web sites or associated web sites?What do you think his response was? He said:The ABC is an independent statutory corporation established under the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Act 1983. The Government has no role in programming or operational matters. Section 25 of the Act empowers the ABC to enter into contracts, acquire and dispose of property and do other things incidental to its powers. It is the responsibility of the ABC Board to ensure that any activities undertaken by the ABC, including any online activities, are consistent with the Act and do not in any way affect the ABC's editorial independence.What we have here in writing, enshrined in Hansard on 28 November 2000, is the minister's acquiescence with regard to the ABC being able to raise revenue to obviously plug the hole from the very savage budget cuts that the Howard government has visited on the ABC.This is a very serious issue because I believe that the ABC should have a finite budget which is given to them at the start of the financial year so they know exactly what money they have to manage their full operations. They should not be reliant on raising revenue. The other thing that Mr Shier seems to be keen on is to raise the ratings of the ABC and to popularise the ABC. The member for Fraser mentioned here a moment ago that Gail Jarvis resigned because of Mr Shier's desire to put The Weakest Link on the ABC. It is outrageous that you would put such a program on the ABC. Do we ever want to see an ABC where there are programs such as The Weakest Link or The Footy Show? The ABC was never meant to have those sorts of programs. The ABC is supposed to provide news and information, education and science programs, entertainment and the arts. (Extension of time granted) I promise to wind up and give others a go because I am sure I am preaching to the converted. 5K6Ellis, Annette, MPMs Ellis—On this side, John.83DMurphy, John, MPMr MURPHY—I think even the member for Fairfax would agree with me. There should be a bipartisan approach to this. We have to stop politicising the ABC. We have to allow the ABC to be truly independent. We have to fully fund the ABC. We have to stop stacking the board of the ABC. For too long this has gone on under Labor governments and under coalition governments. I can see the member for Fairfax is in agreement with what I am saying. The time has arrived where we have to put all that behind us because of our concern for the public interest of Australia. As I alluded to earlier in this debate, if the ABC is allowed to wither on the vine we are going to get more of Mr Packer and more of Mr Murdoch, and that is clearly not in the public interest. If our media laws are such that there is further concentration and less opinion given by fewer masters, then that is going to be the greatest threat to democracy, the greatest threat to the future of Australia. On the subject of media laws, I am all for opening the media laws to allow other players in and for Mr Packer and Mr Murdoch to go and find interests in industries other than communications. They truly have an enormous amount of power and influence in Australia. I have no problem with media proprietors from Europe or from North America controlling parts of our media. We have seen in the history of the Fairfax group of papers that the Herald flourished under Brierley and under Conrad Black, and can be properly managed. We do not need Mr Packer sticking his nose in and buying the Fairfax group of papers, nor do we need Mr Murdoch buying Channel 7. We must all support the ABC. I will stand here in this parliament—until I am voted out—defending the ABC and imploring both sides of the House to get together and ensure that we truly support an independent and properly funded ABC. Thank you.16:34:0028220Andren, Peter, MPMr ANDRENKL6CalareIND00—While I sympathise with many of the comments from the member for Lowe, I certainly do not see the answer to our localism and media diversity in the hands of the offshore operators of our media, given the sorts of things that are happening in regional radio at the moment, which I will mention in a moment. Talking of the budget allocation to the ABC, from a regional perspective one can only welcome the commitment of $17½ million per annum to regional ABC, but I suspect it has been targeted for political rather than cultural reasons. I hope it enables the local ABC to generate truly local programming and inject local regional items into national radio and television on a more regular basis.I remember the enthusiasm of the launch of ABC Online here at Parliament House several years ago when Brian Johns, the then chairman, unveiled the sorts of things that he hoped the ABC would be able to do on a regional basis, with local video inserts into web sites showing not only the local headlines but in vision the sorts of events that had been happening around there. This was far removed from the reality of the situation, where there have been cameras sitting in regional ABC offices for some time with no expertise there to operate them. I hope that, finally, we might see a move towards the ABC generating some video as well as more broadcast material from the regions.I endorse the comments of the member for Fraser about the demise of new Australian material on the ABC and his allusion to repeats of repeats of repeats of Fawlty Towers,et cetera. I must admit I cannot get much of a laugh from Fawlty Towers these days.With a 2,500-strong local petition delivered to my office calling for, among other things, funding to be restored to 1995 levels, I do not think that is an unreasonable request, given the demand for new technologies—the online, the digital and so on—that have developed since those quite savage budget cuts of the mid-1990s. The need for a strong, independent ABC is quite obvious now in a regional sense. In recent times, we have seen a serious decline in localism in both commercial radio and commercial television in regional areas. As one with a long background in regional radio and television, I feel more than competent to speak on it. An inquiry has almost been completed into the decline of localism in regional radio, where long-standing AM licences have been turned into slave stations of a city-based network. FM licences—too many of them—were introduced into most regional centres under the name of competition. What we have in many cases is a monopolisation of the market by similar interests—and I refer here particularly to the Daily Mail group—and a reduction of local content to bare, minimal proportions.In television, the demise of Prime Television news services in three major centres after years of cutbacks and the forcing of generic material onto others has so diluted localism in all markets as to make an absolute joke of the reasons for the Labor government's aggregation policies of the late 1980s. Aggregation was never going to work other than to deliver an advertising market to absentee owners and to sacrifice local employment and content for half-hour strip network programming. Might I say, along with this, we see the demise of quality training of young journalists, broadcasters and announcers who once were the source of talent for the city stations. They are not taking on their responsibilities for training people. They are relying on the Charles Sturts of this world to train their young journalists, who in turn have fewer and fewer opportunities to do their work experience at the regional stations where their training was honed, if you like. WIN Television and the other Nine Network affiliates are the only operators consistently providing local news services to all their markets. However, even that is a long way short of the varied news, sport and entertainment that localism once provided under the licence requirements in the former incumbent regional station markets. (Extension of time granted)I remember preparing details for licence renewal hearings that would require a listing of towns and shires, and the number of stories, the number of information programs and so on that you had provided for all of those. It was a very worthwhile exercise—time consuming, but one that constantly reminded the licensee of his or her responsibility to that market. That sort of thing does not occur any more, and I ask: why? Members of the former government may want to promote the virtues of aggregation and say that this government is now standing mutely by while TV and radio services are delocalised, but there was never any intention to do other than maximise returns from licence sales and let the media operators do as they wish. The Ten Network affiliates were at least quite honest about what they regarded aggregation as—simply a licence to print money, with nothing by way of localism returned. They have never provided a news service in anything other than their incumbent market.The taxpayer should be informed that the Prime Network alone received $32 million of public funds to help it gear up for aggregation and will receive a $56 million subsidy, as far as I can ascertain, to ease it into the digital world. Also, it can ride on the back of the Seven Network's signal in those markets where it was not the incumbent. The Ten Network affiliates in similar circumstances have taken similar public funding and run, with no regulatory framework to insist on localism.What we need, but no government is inclined to take on the media owners, are regulations requiring adequate and comprehensive localism from each licensee in each market; not contributing to but providing localism—and that is the key point. Anything else, any other inquiry recommendation from the radio inquiry now under way, would be, to use the Prime Minister's current favourite term, pure humbug.I want to move quickly on to Telstra and rural communications. I opened the Telstra Countrywide office last week in Orange. While it is good to have people on the ground who can listen to the problems and see the frustration and delays in connections and repairs, it is but a reincarnation of Telecom local offices, minus the corporate knowledge of that network. That is what they are lacking, Minister: the corporate knowledge. If you pick up the phone and ring Gavin Priestley, the manager in Orange, and have a chat to him, I think he would quite frankly admit that they came in there not knowing the extent of the network or how many repairs they had. They had contractors coming in to dig the trench and they found that they did not have enough capacity on the line. That is in suburbs of Bathurst; it is not at Tibooburra. Gavin Priestley knows the extent of the problem now but he does not have the resources to do the job. Local subcontractors are being kept on a drip, fed by major contractors such as Lucas and Thiess, who are giving them unsustainable rates. Telstra continues to be top heavy and is only just beginning to come to grips with the work needed to bring rural telecommunications up to speed. That includes areas within 25 kilometres of the Bathurst Post Office.16:43:0028222Hoare, Kelly, MPMs HOARE83YCharltonALP00—In the short time available to me to address the issues within this portfolio, I would like to talk about Telstra, and emphasise the fact that the budget still includes the proceeds from the sale of Telstra in aggregate form in the headline cash balance from 2002-03. Previously the proceeds were included from 2000-01. Estimated proceeds from the sale have never been disclosed in any detail. Although still unsatisfactory, Budget Paper No. 1 does provide some information about the estimated net impact of revisions since the mid-year economic forecasts on the fiscal and underlying cash balances. The bottom line is that the government is trying to have its cake and eat it too. On the one hand it says that Telstra will only be sold after satisfactory implementation of the Besley measures, but on the other hand it is keen to keep it in the budget, potentially to use the estimated proceeds in the election campaign. Back in July 1999 Brian Toohey writing in the Sydney Morning Herald forecast this when he said:With the telecommunications giant valued on the sharemarket at more than $110 billion, Telstra could easily be capitalised at well over $120 billion by the time the next election is due in 2001.Brian Toohey on that occasion had it right. Two years down the track, that is exactly what this government is doing. This is a double standard and, should this mean and tricky government be re-elected, it surely will push ahead with the sale of Telstra.I am sure members will be aware that in recent days Telstra announced planned changes to its local call zones. It is astonishing that the minister, Senator Alston, has claimed credit on behalf of the government for Telstra's response to Telstra's own call zone review. Surely, any benefit that this government can claim for Telstra's response can only have come about because of the government's majority ownership of Telstra, and remember that, in the unfortunate circumstance that the government is returned at the next federal election and it goes through with the full privatisation of Telstra, this ability to encourage or influence Telstra to improve its services to the people of Australia will be lost.Senator Alston has also claimed that it would be a recipe for disaster for a majority government owned Telstra to play a nation building role as advocated by the Leader of the Opposition. Again, it is interesting to note that the minister advocated such a role for Telstra recently. He said the government certainly sees telcos as having a crucial role to play in nation building. What extraordinary hypocrisy from the minister.However, there is another example that I would like to raise of this government's attitude to the government ownership of Telstra. Recently, Cable and Wireless announced the sale of Optus to SingTel, a company with majority ownership by the Singaporean government. It seems that it is all right for a telco to be owned by a government as long as it is not the Australian government. SingTel and Telstra are both excellent examples amongst others around the world of very effective telecommunications carriers partially owned by the public.In March this year, we saw the dividend that has been paid to the government by Telstra. When Telstra cemented its position as Australia's biggest earning company, reporting a record $2.6 billion after-tax profit for the six months to December 2000, a $500 million dividend cheque went to the government as Telstra's 50.1 per cent majority owner. But at that stage, the Prime Minister backed away from full privatisation saying that the government would not sell its stake until services in the bush were fixed, and in March he said, `I am not satisfied at present.' However, in May it is there in the budget papers. The Prime Minister, if he is re-elected, will sell Telstra at any cost.Despite this government's blatant and shameless hypocrisy, the full privatisation of Telstra will be a reality in the final year of the next parliament, should the Howard government be re-elected. The government had decided to put the sensitive issue of privatisation on the backburner, but the public remains committed and the Labor Party remains committed to the preservation of the remainder of Telstra under public control as the only guarantee of quality service. 16:48:0028223Hall, Jill, MPMs HALL83NShortlandALP00—In rising to make my very brief comments, I am sure that the minister will be enthralled with my contribution and will give me the assurances that I need.2V5Swan, Wayne, MPMr Swan—Keep it simple for him.83NHall, Jill, MPMs HALL—I will keep it simple, yes. I very briefly want to say that I was extremely disappointed with the treatment that the ABC received in the budget. I feel that it behoves the government to properly fund the ABC and to ensure its independence. Since it was elected, it has continually attacked the ABC and eroded its funding base.The other aspect of the ABC that I really want to raise—and I am very pleased that the minister is here—is the attack on the independence of the ABC. I think that there is nothing more important than that we have an independent public broadcaster, a broadcaster that is equally critical of the government and the opposition, a broadcaster that says things that upset both sides of politics. My argument is that you do not censor those sort of comments, because I really believe that they are very important in a democratic society. The government's action in stacking the board and giving jobs to its mates, who in turn give jobs to their mates, has really attacked the independence of the ABC. I ask the minister and the government to look at that and return the ABC to its independence and the status that we should have in a national broadcaster.I would quickly like to touch on the subject of commercial television. This has been brought to my attention over the last week or so particularly, with Prime removing its local news services from Newcastle, Canberra and Illawarra. This is a real blow for our community, because this was the one source of competition between news services within our areas. We have NBN, which provides an excellent service, but to get a truly local service you need some sort of competition and you need to have different views being put to the public.I have written to the minister, Senator Alston, asking him to launch an urgent public inquiry into the cessation of Prime's local news service and the effect that this will have on their licensing. It is my understanding that, when they were granted the licence, there was some obligation that they would provide a local news service. This is very disappointing for the people of the Hunter—and, I know, for those in Canberra and Illawarra as well—so I urge the minister to do what he can to try to ensure that there is competition and that an alternative news is being broadcast by local news services in regional areas. This is a government that pays lip-service, I am sure, to providing services in the regions. If they are really serious about it, they will get in there and ensure that the regional areas of Australia have strong local news services.Finally, I would like to touch on Telstra. I welcome the changes to the zones but, in doing so—and as somebody who called for the government to look at those zones because the Central Coast area, part of which falls within the electorate of Shortland and has been disadvantaged by those zones, as have people living in the Lake Macquarie and Swansea areas who have not been able to call other areas of Newcastle and the Hunter—I am disappointed because the changes are so selective. The people who are in the Central Coast part of the Shortland electorate will still not be able to enjoy the benefits enjoyed by the people living in Robertson. I question whether that may be because Robertson is held by a member of the government and the government is trying to shore up that seat for itself in the next election. I also quickly add that I am disappointed that the zone changes only apply to Telstra: subscribers who have their services with Optus, AAPT and other providers will miss out. 16:53:0028224Snowdon, Warren, MPMr SNOWDONIJ4Northern TerritoryALP00—There are a couple of issues which I would like to address this afternoon. Firstly, I would like to make a brief comment on the announcement made at question time by the Prime Minister that the ABC would be given $15 million annually—for a number of years, as I understand it—to re-establish Australian television to Asia.XH4McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGauran—No, to take it over: it already exists.IJ4Snowdon, Warren, MPMr SNOWDON—No, no, understand: it is not operating.XH4McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGauran—Yes, sure.IJ4Snowdon, Warren, MPMr SNOWDON—Yes. Look, mate, I was there when we launched Australian television to Asia from the ABC studios in Darwin. It was terrific. You mugs came into office in 1996, and what did you do? You got rid of it. Not only that: you sold off the Radio Australia antenna at Cox Peninsula. Now, what have we had over the last little while? Renegotiations by the ABC on behalf of Radio Australia to get access to the Cox Peninsula antenna, so that they can broadcast back into Asia. Secondly, we now have an announcement this afternoon—writ large—that the government has made a terrible mistake by not allowing the ABC to continue Australian television when it should have been doing it from 1996 onwards. As a result of the stupidity of this government, there has been huge embarrassment for Australia in terms of our relationship with South-East Asia and in terms of the community's need to know.What have they done? This outfit is very progressive. The only person who supported this position, Shane Stone, who was Chief Minister of the Northern Territory when the ABC was given the responsibility for running Australian television, bagged it. He is the progressive who is now the President of the Liberal Party, which gives you some commentary on where the Liberal Party is coming from—ZT4Somlyay, Alex, MPMr Somlyay—And I was minister for territories.IJ4Snowdon, Warren, MPMr SNOWDON—And he was the minister for territories—poor thing! It is very clear that we have seen again this afternoon how the government has recycled Labor Party initiatives because it is unable to sustain the initiatives it put in place itself. I have mentioned a number of them this afternoon, but this is very important. At least now we will get a quality service back into Asia.XH4McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGauran—Used they to get one?IJ4Snowdon, Warren, MPMr SNOWDON—They did. They used to get one. XH4McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGauran—Did they? It went broke.IJ4Snowdon, Warren, MPMr SNOWDON—No, it did not go broke. Channel 7 went broke; the ABC did not.10000Mossfield, Frank (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Mossfield)—Order! I remind both the minister and the member speaking to make your remarks through the chair.IJ4Snowdon, Warren, MPMr SNOWDON—Through you, Mr Deputy Speaker: he does not know what he is talking about. What I want to pay particular attention to this afternoon is the Remote Air Services Subsidy, RASS, for Australia Post. An issue on which I hope the Minister for the Arts and the Centenary of Federation can respond—and if he cannot respond I would like him to get back to me about it—is the question of remote communities who are currently receiving the RASS and what happens to them when the company providing the air service pulls out.I have in mind a particular circumstance, the community of Kaltukatjarra, in the south-western corner of the Northern Territory. They have been informed recently by Ngaanyatjarra Air, who have been providing them with Australia Post services twice a week, that they will no longer be provided with an air service. As a consequence, at the end of June they will no longer have access to mail. I hope the minister is listening, because potentially we are seeing, at the end of next week, a remote community in the Northern Territory no longer getting access to their mail by air. The difficulty we have here is that although RASS applies to the region there is no carrier. There is no carrier currently flying into this community. I would ask the minister to ascertain how we can ensure that this community will not, as of the end of June, be denied a mail service, the right of every Australian. We are talking about a community of some 300 or 400 people. In the past—and this goes over into another portfolio area—Ngaanyatjarra Air have supplied the service on the basis that they could carry passengers, and they carried those passengers and delivered mail to remote communities. What has happened subsequently is they have been denied the right to carry passengers on these services unless the planes become regular passenger planes on regular service schedules. They cannot do that because of the state of the airstrips. (Extension of time granted) This issue, which has been raised with the Department of Transport and Regional Services, is significant because not only will it affect Kaltukatjarra but it could affect other communities in the very near future.The bottom line is that we as a community have a responsibility to ensure that communities, wherever they might be, have access to a mail service. If there is no ability to fly the mail into this community some 900 kilometres south-west of Alice Springs, it seems to me incumbent on the government and Australia Post to ensure that the people there get their regular mail services in some way. I am happy to provide the minister with appropriate information about that if he requires it. In fact, I will write him a note and ensure he gets a copy of it tomorrow. I would like a response as soon as possible because, clearly, this community will be affected as of the end of next week.The other issue which I want to raise and which I have raised in this place on a number of occasions is in the area of telecommunications. I am a great supporter of Telstra and Telstra Countrywide. But I am not a great supporter of some of the decisions which have been made by the Telstra board, one of those decisions being to sell off its Commander phone system.You will recall, Mr Deputy Speaker, that I have raised this in the parliament before. What it meant was that, by selling off a portion of its business to a company of which it owned 30 per cent, it effectively privatised the business and started to charge people the full cost of providing a service. I will give you an example. The Ngadunggay Homelands Resource Centre was quoted a purchase price for a new Commander phone system of $2,582 plus an estimated $300 service fee for installation. Then there was to be a discount of $120 for the old equipment, and then travel costs for the installation, of $2,450. This has arisen because Telstra personnel can no longer put in place these services. This not only affects remote Aboriginal communities but also businesses in remote parts of Australia. PlesTel and PlesTel's agents are only in Darwin and Katherine and Alice Springs in the Northern Territory. For the travel from Darwin or Katherine or Alice Springs to wherever the community might be, they are charging the travel time, the cost of the travel, plus the time on the job. Remember, these people previously had a contract with Telstra. Telstra put in place the systems. Now we are in a situation where these people are being penalised for the fact that Telstra has sold a part of its business. I am advised, Mr Deputy Speaker, and through you to the minister, that it is possible that the PABX system may go the same way in the future. Of course, because I am talking to a minister who says he knows something about regional Australia, he would understand the import and the impact of selling off these little bits of Telstra bit by bit and then charging full costs to clients when these bits are sold off in such a way, and what it means in terms of the cost structure of small business and of community based organisations such as those that predominate in Aboriginal communities. The answer is pretty simple. Telstra has got to assert its right to ensure that its technicians are compelled to and can fix Commander phone systems, whether by licence or by agreement with PlesTel. They ought to do it as soon as possible. This is one of the very reasons why people in remote Australia will not tolerate the further sale of any bit of Telstra. What I say to the government and the minister, is that, if they believe that somehow or other the community believes it is advantaged by what they have done with Telstra and the fact that Telstra is now selling off little bits of itself to companies of which it is a part owner, I think they are sadly mistaken. The community is not being advantaged by it; it is being handicapped by it.To my way of thinking we ought to be contemplating what `universal service obligation' properly means. I do not believe it means the right for Telstra to withdraw services and then compel people in these remote communities to pay full costs. Something must be done about it immediately. (Time expired)17:03:0028226McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGAURANXH4GippslandNPMinister for the Arts and the Centenary of Federation10—I was unable to be here for the entire debate as I was detained in the House on a totally spurious matter of public importance on the ABC. Some of the themes have been rehashed here again this afternoon during this particular debate. So I was spared the ill-informed, totally mischievous contributions by Labor Party members. Sadly, I did not miss them entirely, as I had to endure the members for Charlton, Shortland and the Northern Territory. I will work backwards as best I can and look at each of those members' contributions. The problem with dealing with the member for the Northern Territory is that he believes his own misrepresentations. He is one of those people who rewrite history to suit their own political point of view. ATV, Australia Television in Asia, was Michael Lee's and David Hill's biggest folly. I have not looked at the files—even if they were available to me—but Michael Lee, as communications minister, must have signed off on the contractual aspects of that. That was in deep financial trouble long before we came into government, and it was the ABC that unloaded it onto Channel 7. You make the accusation that as soon as the coalition government came to power, we disbanded or transferred—or some generalised accusation like that—ATV broadcasting into Asia. So there you go. It is a very good thing that the government believe that there should be a presence now.I am not going to get sidetracked. I want to deal with the one serious matter that the member for the Northern Territory raised, and that was on behalf of a constituent body, a remote community, that is at risk of losing their postal services. Isn't it interesting that he raises this a week before it happens? The member for the Northern Territory comes into the Main Committee and says the government have a deadline of one week to save the postal services of this remote community, which I want to do. What has he been doing on this issue? He has been asleep at the wheel—one week! What sort of local member are you to just unload it? Where are the papers? Has the member done anything with Senator Alston, the relevant minister? Of course not; so much grandstanding. How unlucky are they to have you representing them? That is total negligence on your part. We will do what we can as speedily as we can, but, at the moment, apart from the brief notification you have given, we know nothing about the issue. The Labor Party gave the usual generalised criticism of Telstra. The interesting thing about Telstra is that the Labor Party will not come clean on this. Just what is it that you plan for Telstra? Will it be by way of direction? Will the Labor Party do something that they never did in 13 years in office and direct Telstra under legislative powers to allocate resources in certain areas or for certain purposes? Of course not, they are bluffing. It was the Labor Party in 1990 that required Telstra to act as a commercial entity, as a business in competition with competitors. The Labor Party are just grandstanding.Let us move on to the member for Shortland, who started by saying that she is disappointed by the budget's treatment of the ABC. It seems that $17.5 million new, extra funding for the ABC is not enough. How much is the Labor Party going to give the ABC?83NHall, Jill, MPXH4McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGAURAN—You will not say because you are not going to give the ABC anything. I asked the member for Perth the same question in the House this afternoon and he would not say. What we do know is that the Friends of the ABC—or the friends of the ALP, ACT chapter—have published a newsletter in which they paraphrased Bob McMullan. He tried to distance himself from their representation of this comments after question time by way of personal explanation. That was not very convincing at all—a very gobbledegook explanation. What they said is that he opened a meeting by telling them not to expect `too much too soon'. That is typical Labor Party strategy—giving the impression of promising the world to one and all but not committing to any specifics.With regard to the comments from the member for Shortland about the ABC, all who cherish the ABC know that the $17.5 million extra per year is a good thing. It is in addition to the $15 million extra announced today for each of five years with regard to television broadcasting into Asia. The bottom line on this—and just one phrase says it all—is that the coalition's funding for the ABC is $96.5 million more than Labor's last budget for the ABC. (Extension of time granted) Is there anybody on the opposition side who would like to contest that figure, that the coalition's funding for the ABC is $96.5 million more than their last budget? The member for Shortland pleaded with the government not to interfere with the independence of the ABC. She believes the ABC should be equally critical of the government and the opposition. In fact, the ABC is more critical on this issue of independence of the Labor Party than it is of the coalition. I presented a statement by Brian Johns, the then chief executive officer, to the House in February of last year. The headline read `ALP attacks independence of the ABC'. He went on in the statement to criticise severely, in unambiguous terms, the member for Perth for threatening the independence of the ABC. The problem is that the ALP has form on this issue. Whether it is Greg Turnbull, press secretary to Kim Beazley, personally intimidating Mark Willesee of A Current Affair and warning him that the ALP will remember this in government or whether it is the ALP's policy of tied grants to the ABC, it is the ALP threatening the national broadcaster's independence. The problem with this whole ABC debate that has been generated by members of the ALP and the Friends of the ABC is that it is so much hype. It is exaggeration built upon generalisation. Tell us, member for Shortland, where there are examples of a coalition threat to the independence of the ABC. Give us some examples. At least do us the honour of telling us what actions of the government threaten the ABC's independence.83NHall, Jill, MPMs Hall—Take a look at the board for a start, and its appointments.XH4McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGAURAN—In regard to the board, Rod Cameron, David Hill, John Bannon and Brian Johns are all paid-up Labor Party strategists. The member for Lilley must be smiling because he would have had a lot of experience with Rod Cameron, who was the party's pollster for many years and who profited very nicely from government contracts. He knows very well that the ALP interfered at board level with the ABC. On the departure of the last remaining ALP appointee to the ABC board, a Mr Bates, he said on 6 February this year in the Sydney Morning Herald that he did not believe that the coalition appointments to the ABC board meant that political considerations were placed ahead of the interests of the ABC. So you might like to find some examples of how we have acted politically in terms of our appointments to the ABC, which were necessary because we have been in government for five years and some of the board members' terms had expired. I am afraid the member for Shortland is like everyone else on the other side; she just makes generalised accusations and thinks and hopes they will stick. With the help of the CPSU and the Friends of the ABC, you believe that they will.The member for Charlton—this was a great classic—said that, because the possibility of the full privatisation of Telstra is included in the budget papers, that means the government must be committed to it. Does she realise that all privatisations by this government have gone to reducing Labor's $96 billion debt, which has now been reduced by $60 billion, and that we do not take it off the recurrent funding? In other words, no privatisation affects the funding of the budget. Do you understand that? Every time the Labor Party privatised a government business or entity, they would use it for recurrent funding.Honourable members interjecting—10000Quick, Harry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Quick)—I would remind honourable members that the Speaker has issued a general warning in the other place, and that is transferable to this place. Standing order 55 says that members are able to stand and speak without interruption.XH4McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGAURAN—Mr Deputy Speaker, I have just remembered one other phoney piece of grandstanding by the member for the Northern Territory in regard to Telstra. He said that the universal service obligation should be employed to greater effect. Upon coming to government, we strengthened the universal service obligation very considerably, and we have instituted the customer service guarantee—both things that Labor did not do in their 13 years in government. No doubt it was another 14th-year-in-government initiative which was on the member's and the former government's agenda. I think the Minister for Community Services is getting impatient. I am just beginning to warm up. I have got a lot more to say about a lot of other things. (Extension of time granted) I undertake to my colleague and friend that this will be my last five-minute session. Let me keep dealing with the member for Charlton. So with respect to the debt of $96 billion left to us by the Labor Party, we have reduced it by two-thirds, using privatisation as the major mechanism to achieve that necessary outcome. With respect to Telstra, I notice every now and then we read in newspapers that Labor Party strategists are predicting that Telstra is a winner; that Telstra is red hot out there and they can use Telstra as an issue to attack the government. We have seen a lame attempt by the member for the Northern Territory and the member for Charlton to do that here today. Country people are very pragmatic about Telstra. They remember Telecom and the PMG. What they want are legislative and regulated minimum service guarantees and the like. Don't worry; if you think you can whip up a scare campaign simply by employing the rhetoric of fear, you are going to be sadly let down.The member for Charlton attacked the government for claiming any credit for the call zone benefits that Telstra announced over the weekend. So it is all the government's fault when anything happens in communications, as evidenced by the attack by the member for the Northern Territory today in regard to Telstra. It is all our fault if there is some decrease in service, some failed connection, some delayed repair, but when they announce a major initiative that will benefit hundreds of thousands of country people, it has nothing to do with the government. You can't have it both ways. Let me deal quickly with the comments by the member for Calare. He spoke at great length about aggregation. This was entirely predictable. I was part of those debates in the late 1980s. We pleaded with and begged the government of the day, `Don't aggregate.' They gave in to their big network mates. Make no mistake about this: anyone who was around at that time will tell you what was driving this policy, and I do not think it is talking out of school to say that the minister for communications at the time, Michael Duffy, was never very comfortable with the special deals that Hawke and Keating struck with the broadcasters at that time. We knew what aggregation would do to regional broadcasters, and it all happened within a matter of years. I do not know why the member for Calare, in the year 2001, 10 or 12 years after the event, expresses concern. We predicted this at the time; it happened very quickly. What is happening to Prime's local TV service at the moment is very regrettable.He had a go at Countrywide. He is wrong on Countrywide, and I am happy to work to convince him otherwise. I have had Countrywide in my electorate for about six to eight months. It is the best thing that could have happened. Peter Ward heads the most dedicated people. They criss-cross the electorate; they visit people in their homes. It does not matter how remote you are, they will go to your doorstep and help you with connections or with mobile phone coverage. They are a great organisation. We have just announced the upgrade of 53 exchanges throughout Gippsland. I do not get many chances to speak about Golden Beach, which is a small community of about 300 people, but we launched the first upgrade of those 53 Gippsland exchanges there only last week. I implore the member for Calare to give Countrywide a chance. It is the real McCoy.With respect to the comments by the member for Lowe, we have heard all of this before—the ABC's independence, concentration of media by Packer and Murdoch. Well, fine, but the trouble is there is only so much breast beating allowable before it gets very repetitious and you devalue the currency.I should really have dealt longer with the remarks by the member for Fraser, because he is the shadow minister for the arts. But the problem is that I have heard it all before. It was a very unoriginal contribution. Of course, money was not mentioned; he just listed the problem areas while providing no solutions in policy terms, let alone in funding terms. You are not going to get away with this. You try to be all things to all people; you promise the world and there is never a dollar figure attached to it. As the Treasurer said not long ago, he is going to remind opposition members of this day in and day out. In that he will be aided by each and every one of his colleagues. The member for Fraser spent some time on the book industry and parallel imports. He has once again allied himself to special interests, against the interests of consumers. Parallel importing of books is in the interest of consumers; parallel importing of CDs was also in the interest of consumers. We were told the world would collapse; it has not. Quite frankly, the member for Fraser is just a mouthpiece for special interests against the interests of the broader community. Apart from that, I thank the member for Calare for his contribution.Proposed expenditure agreed to.28230Proposed expenditure, $2,833,202,000.17:19:0028230Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN2V5LilleyALP00—The gaping hole in the middle of the government's recent budget was its failure to do anything for struggling Australian families. As we know, families provide the learning and caring environment for children that enhances their chances of success and our economic stability. But our families are under threat.First of all, I think they have been hit for six by the GST. Under the government's GST, families are paying more for the necessities of life—things like children's clothes and electricity. They are also paying more for many other goods. The ABS consumer price index shows electricity is up 12 per cent, gas is up 10.4 per cent, insurance is up 35 per cent, telephone bills are up seven per cent, whitegoods are up 5.8 per cent, medicines are up six per cent, sporting fees are up 12.2 per cent, children's shoes are up 7.3 per cent, kids' glasses are up 6.4 per cent, bread is up four per cent, kids' haircuts are up 11.7 per cent, petrol is up 7.8 per cent, books are up 9.2 per cent and education is up 4.5 per cent. The budget ignores these pressures on families that arise squarely from the imposition of the GST, and the government did not take the opportunity to address the looming family payments crisis that will see debts raised against low income families from July.This appropriation bill contains no item that will address the very real problems that lie at the heart of the government's family payments system. The government claims that it is family friendly because it will index family payments on 1 July, but in a mean clawback the government is going to recoup much of this amount by hitting struggling families with many family payment debts that will come out of their tax returns. As always, what John Howard gives with one hand he takes away with the other.Families whose income has changed during this financial year face debts at tax time of up to $1,000 because of the legislation introduced with the GST. There are three family payments that are affected by the government's new system which was supposed to be simple and fair: family tax benefit part A, family tax benefit part B and child-care benefit. The appropriation for these three payments will total approximately $11.5 billion in the coming financial year, so it is important that the money is fairly administered but it is not.For each of the three family payments, families have been asked to estimate their income a year in advance. These are the only government payments that operate on a yearly estimate made in advance. Because the government's new system is a zero tolerance one, every dollar they underestimate their income by will produce a debt, as compared to the previous system where a 10 per cent tolerance was allowed. The government now has a zero tolerance family policy, which is going to be very tough on many low income Australian families, and if a family contacts Centrelink to revise their estimate of income during the year, this will not necessarily prevent them from incurring a debt after 1 July this year.To give you the size of the potential problem, you need to look at how many families are getting these payments and how many have changing income over the financial year. There are 1.8 million Australian families getting family tax benefit A, while 1.2 million families get family tax benefit B and 500,000 families receive child-care benefit. Senator Vanstone's department has said that up to May 833,000 families had registered income changes during the present financial year, and so many of these people do not yet know that after July they will face a hefty bill from the government. You can safely assume from the department's advice that some of these 833,000 may have changed their estimates more than once. Families in which there is a shift worker or someone working casually are likely to have a great many fluctuations in their income over the course of a year—something the government's payment rules try to ignore.The trouble is that the government will not come clean on how big the problem could be. The department has admitted in estimates hearings that around 200,000 of the 500,000 child-care benefit payments may produce debts, but they are unable to tell us how many of the three million FTB A and FTB B payments will produce debts for customers at tax time. They guess it is less than 40 per cent, but they are not sure. So all we know is that they expect less than 1.2 million payments to be affected. If history is any guide, the problem is big. The minister's own departmental annual report records that there were 51,000 debts raised against families in 1999-2000, an average of $955 per family, and that was before the government's zero tolerance family policy was introduced. The government could have addressed the problems at the core of its zero tolerance approach in the budget, but it did nothing and actively chose to do so. Instead, Centrelink officers, at the direction of the government, are telling families who come in to change their income estimate to falsely overestimate their income to try and make a dent in the debt that they are going to get at tax time. It is just another tricky approach for the government to avoid its responsibilities. (Extension of time granted) In some cases, they are telling them to cancel their payments so they can avoid a debt at the end of the year. Put simply, the government is encouraging families to mislead to save its own political hide, and they have to sign the form to cement the government's deception. It is quite a unique situation. You have Minister Anthony only a few weeks ago crowing about Centrelink fraud detection figures, which include families who innocently incur family payment debts. It is not just Minister Anthony. The government has been very tricky and sneaky all along when it comes to family payments. Senator Vanstone insinuated in April that only families rorting the system would receive debts because of massively underestimating their income. She falsely claimed that a family would have to underestimate their income by $18,000 to receive a debt of $1,000. However, a yearly income estimate from a family could be out by as little as $1,500 to incur a $1,000 debt for one child. For a family earning $30,000, this amounts to an error of just five per cent. For the government, being 95 per cent just is not good enough. That is a direct result of its zero tolerance family policy. Debts accrue against each payment the family receives, not just the child-care benefit. Either the minister is not across the detail of her portfolio or she was being deliberately misleading when she made those statements. So you have ministers out there trying to paint the families who are innocently caught up in this system as fraudsters to ease the political pressure from the debts that they have created through their new system, and you have Centrelink, on instruction from the government, telling families to falsely estimate their income. The problem is that, for too many families, the government's family payment system is very unfair. It is a dog and it bites.Olaf Meier, from Crestmead in Brisbane, has had his income increased from $32,700 to $35,950. He is facing a debt of around $700. He and his family are doing it pretty tough. They have just bought their home and they cannot afford not to be receiving family payments through the year. But now they face a debt approaching $1,000, courtesy of the Howard government's zero tolerance family payment rules, and there are tens of thousands of families like the Meier family. These families cannot afford to provide an overestimate of their income, as Centrelink is directing, because they just cannot make ends meet day to day, week to week. These families, the ones who are doing it toughest, are at the top of the list to get $1,000 or more in debts in July or August this year. Many more families do not know about the debt problem, and they are going to find out for the first time what they owe when the tax office comes back to them with a bill instead of a cheque in July and August. Families receiving family tax benefit B, a payment to help a dependent spouse caring for a child, are also a real problem. It is this payment that produces the debt for families when a spouse moves into the work force during the financial year. Just today, Professor Peter Macdonald has come out in a Monash University journal to explain the consequences of this payment on the lives of Australian families and the implications for Australia's birthrate. Peter Macdonald's work makes very clear why the government should have done something about the family payment system in the budget. He explains how the family tax benefit B payment penalises dual income families, which many young families are these days, forcing one parent to remain at home. Macdonald points to the case of a couple with a young child where the husband is earning $45,000 and the wife wants to return to work for 12 hours a week to help with the extras. From the $204 she would earn each week, the wife would lose $16 in tax, $20 in transport costs, $30 in child-care costs and $50 in family tax benefit B. Put simply, she would be working for $88 a week. If, however, her husband takes on an extra 12 hours a week, the family gains $225 a week in extra income. According to Macdonald, this means the payment rewards families where the husband absents himself more and more from his family. How perverse can you get. Our Prime Minister's world and the world of Minister Anthony and Minister Vanstone is the world of the 1950s, where wives may have stayed at home while fathers worked nine to five and had constant incomes. But the rest of us, Minister, are living in the 21st century, where Australian families are trying to survive with intermittent overtime, casual work and a 10 per cent GST. So despite all of the admissions by the minister's department in estimates hearings and all of the families coming forward with evidence that they are about to be saddled with debts, the government continues to pretend that anyone getting a debt is some kind of cheat, and that is deeply insulting to these hardworking Australians. Just a week ago, Senator Vanstone claimed the government was very family friendly. She put out this statement saying `Family friendly government'. (Extension of time granted) She claimed that her system of family payments `is a fair and equitable policy that will enable families to receive what is rightly theirs'. She said that it reflects the Howard government's commitment to pay people what they are entitled to—no more, no less. Once again, there is the clear implication that people who receive debts are doing it deliberately. Once again, there is the smear that these people may be defrauding the system and are not victims of this government's system.The fact is that this minister is determined to prop up an unfair zero tolerance family payments system by blaming the struggling families who fall victim to it. The fact is that Australian families do not have crystal balls to predict their future income and most do not have the accounting software to deal with the government's complicated zero tolerance family payments policy. John Howard is not supporting battling Australian families; he is out there creating more of them. Tens of thousands of families are being put under extreme financial pressure. Only someone as out of touch and cold-hearted as our Prime Minister and his ministers would introduce a family payments system that punishes families who work harder and punishes parents who return to work after taking time out to care for a child. John Howard's zero tolerance family payments system is just another mean GST compensation swindle. John Howard's zero tolerance family payments policy sits proudly alongside his other achievements—the bogus savings bonus and pension clawback—in the coalition's GST compensation hall of shame.17:31:0028232Hall, Jill, MPMs HALL83NShortlandALP00—This is a high taxing government, a government that has delivered a tax to the Australian people that is really affecting their lives. It is taxing families in a way that they have never been taxed before. I visited one of the schools in my electorate last week. When I arrived at that school the students asked me about the GST. When they asked me about the GST they identified the fact that they had started paying tax. They also identified their feeling that this was not the way it should be; rather, that you should start to pay tax when you started work. They felt it was very unfair that they were being hit in this way. Probably the greatest disappointment to me in this budget was the fact that the government failed to acknowledge that they had dudded people who live in residential parks and caravan parks. They continue to impose this 5½ per cent GST on these very vulnerable people who are generally on fixed incomes. The Minister for Community Services, who is present in the chamber, knows about this, because he, like me, has a lot of residents who live in these parks. These people have made the decision to have this lifestyle. They are people who own their own homes. They are people who have invested significant amounts of money—some nearly as much as $200,000—in buying their homes. It was really brought home to me last weekend when I was talking to residents who were living in parks how hard it is for them. When the GST was introduced, a number of owners of parks imposed a rental increase; others imposed the GST. Now we are finding an about-face by some of those owners who applied the GST because they can see the writing on the wall. They see that the government may lose the next election, and if they lose the next election they know that the Labor Party has promised that the GST, that unfair GST that has been charged on people who are living in residential parks, will be removed. Because of that, I am finding that within the area that I represent park owners are sending letters to the residents saying, `We've decided the GST's not the way to go, we're going to put in place a rent increase.'I think that the government should have admitted that it made a mistake. In admitting that it made a mistake, it should then, in this budget, have remedied that situation. (Extension of time granted) It has already rolled back the GST on excise. It has already had to introduce rollback in a number of areas—or, should I say, as I think it is more appropriate when I am referring to the government, rollover, because it is only when they have the pressure put on them through the polls and the ballot box that they actually revisit any of these issues.The minister should be very aware of this because of the electorate he represents. I would have thought that he would have been leading the fight for the residents of these parks because it will have an impact in his electorate. Even putting that aside, I think that on moral grounds he should be fighting for these people. I honestly do not see how members on that side of the House can live with the fact that the government is spending $20 million a month on advertising whilst, at the same time, it is hitting the most vulnerable people within our community with taxes like the GST on people in parks.The shadow minister spoke about the debts that are being levied against families. I have already seen some of those families—they are coming into my electorate office. The zero tolerance on debts incurred on the family benefits A and B is hurting families and will continue to hurt families. This matter needs to be revisited, Minister. You need to re-introduce the 10 per cent leeway. Because of the way this government has attacked the job market, more and more people are working in part-time and casual jobs and being forced to work long hours, and that does have an enormous effect on their incomes. It is very difficult to estimate how much you are going to earn when the hours you work vary from week to week.This is not a family friendly government. It is a government that uses all the rhetoric. It says, `We care about families. We are there for the family. We support family values,' but it is nothing more than rhetoric. What it does support is being re-elected. What it does support is an outmoded picture of what it thinks Australia is and should be, and then goes about trying to achieve it by hitting the people that it is supposed to be supporting. I feel that the government has failed miserably in the area of family and community services. It has not looked after the people. It has not provided the support for the people in our community that are most vulnerable. The other area I should quickly touch on is the number of breaches that are being imposed by Centrelink. The simple fact that a large percentage of these breaches are administrative has been borne out by some of the answers that the minister has provided me with to questions in relation to the Shortland electorate and the people who have been breached there. Every day we have people coming into our electorate office who have been unfairly breached. It takes time, both within our office and within Centrelink, to actually turn around decisions that have been made by Centrelink. I think that the minister would do well to provide extra staff and extra training to Centrelink. Probably if he could give a little bit more support in that area it would be appreciated, not only by the staff at Centrelink but by the people that rely on Centrelink for their payments.17:39:0028234Cox, David, MPMr COX83UKingstonALP00—I would like to identify myself with the concerns expressed by some of my colleagues about the very great problems that are being caused to Australian families as a result of overpayments of family payment. I would like to raise a particular area of that collection procedure and that is the interrelationship between it and the Child Support Agency. This is a matter that I have already written about to Senator Vanstone and to the Treasurer and I will briefly outline the problem for the benefit of other members.The person who brought this to my attention had custody of her two children for most of the year. She had been claiming a full family tax benefit. Relatively late in the year, the residential arrangements for one of the children changed, so that that child then resided with his father, giving his father an entitlement to part of the family tax benefit for those two children for the year. That father had a child support debt to the mother of many thousands of dollars. Her concern was that her ex-husband would claim his share of the family tax benefit through Centrelink, and a debt would be raised against her, and Centrelink would not take that money and apply it against his child support debt. She had correctly assessed the situation, as I have subsequently found out from my own inquiries.XJ6Anthony, Larry, MPMr Anthony—We have some legislation going through to solve that problem.83UCox, David, MPMr COX—I hope you have got some legislation going through to solve the problem. The thing is that, as the minister has just said, presently there is no legislative arrangement that links the Child Support Agency with Centrelink as far as debt collection goes.I then explored the issue of what would happen if the father claimed the money in his tax return. I thought, `There are links between the ATO and the Child Support Agency in relation to the resolution of child support debts.' However, I found that the administrative arrangements are not as I would have expected. The father could put in his claim but, because the mother had claimed a full family tax benefit, the claim would be rejected. At that point, his income tax assessment would be issued. If, for other reasons, he had a repayment due to him of any tax, that would be applied against the Child Support Agency debt. However, in a lot of these cases fathers are in circumstances where they are not necessarily going to receive a refund and, therefore, the child support debt is not going to be dealt with at all.The next step is that the father has to apply for a review, so that he can get access to his share of the family tax benefit. When he does that and it is processed, a debt will be raised against the mother and the money will be paid to the father. At that point, there is no link between the tax office and the Child Support Agency for the purposes of clearing child support debts. So, the mother who is owed several thousand dollars by the father continues to be owed several thousand dollars by the father. He receives part of the family tax benefit—that is paid to him in his hand—and she has a debt raised against her. I think that is an extremely inequitable situation, and if the minister, as he has said, has some legislation coming forward that will resolve the problem in relation to overpayments claimed through Centrelink, that is great. Then I would hope that he would also follow up the issue of the payment system with the tax office. (Time expired)17:44:0028235Andren, Peter, MPMr ANDRENKL6CalareIND00—This is part of a speech I had prepared for the main debate, so it may be a little fragmented. However, I would suggest that the reaction out there after the budget is one of some cynicism even among those who have enjoyed some of the rewards of that budget. I think the general feeling is that, stung by the impact of the goods and services tax on pensioners, the government has moved to placate that sector with a targeted election year handout. I think that, if governments continue to use that sort of tactic, more and more people will gravitate to that 20-30 per cent of the population who are looking for candidates other than those from the major parties to represent them.You just cannot sit back and say, `Those preferences will drift back to us anyway so we do not have to worry about it.' I think the political system has to worry very sincerely about the fact that there is a disillusioned 20 to 30 per cent out there who, I believe, will only be reinforced because of a repetition of a variation of the whiteboard hand-out mentality, if you like.I said on budget night that the one-off $300 handout for each person receiving a pension or part-pension looked like a blatant election bribe, and everything I have seen or heard since confirms that analysis. Those who got it can perhaps pay off their winter fuel bill—or part of it—in my electorate, where four per cent, with a sunset clause, compensation for the GST in the first place was never going to be enough, particularly in a rural cold winter electorate where fuel prices for heating, although not the government's fault, have indeed gone through the roof. The costs have risen significantly post GST—some of it no doubt unexpected with those skyrocketing fuel prices—but just like the fine print had to be read with the famous promise of that $1,000 bonus to pensioners to compensate for the GST, so too the fine print had to be read with this budget bonus. Many missed out on the $1,000 and many have missed out on this. Disability support pensioners and non-pensioner carers or non-pension age carers also feeling the post-GST price hikes have angrily contacted my office to ask why they did not receive this payment. One constituent says:The recent announcement of a one-off payment to pensioners of $300 is (like the $1,000 GST bonus promise) again misleading and hurtful to many gullible enough to take the leader of the Australian people at his word. I am unaware of the ratio of aged pensioners to the sum of all other categories of pensioners, but that figure would closely reflect the number of vulnerable Australians hurt and disillusioned by the continued misrepresentation of the truth.He goes on:I am a disability support pensioner. That I can recognise the existence of the ambiguity/deception inherent in the continued misuse of the term `pensioner' when it is intended not to apply to all pensioners, should at least call into question the candour of those so cavalier with its use.These words, among others, are from Paul Collins in my electorate. If there is one thing clear to me after six budgets in this place, it is the fact that all too often measures announced as black and white with such conviction on budget night, and reported as such the day after quite uncritically by the media, turn out to be ambiguous or deceptive on further analysis. As another example, self-funded retirees could have been forgiven for thinking after budget night that they would all benefit equally from the government's proposed changes to the low income rebate system. But that was not the case, with income cut-offs meaning many self-funded retirees will receive no benefit whatsoever.In the same way as the much heralded scheme to allow farmers to pass on their property to their family failed to live up to its promise to enable 10,000 farmers to access the pension—and it would have if that rate had been of $800,000 value instead of half a million, but it delivered for only 2,000—so, again, measures promoted as helping many will only aid the few. That real or perceived deceit is undoing much of the positive reaction the government might hope to gain from these initiatives and any amount of advertising will not turn this around. 17:49:0028236Albanese, Anthony, MPMr ALBANESER36GrayndlerALP00—I rise to be part of this debate on the budget to express concern for an organisation which has not been guaranteed funding in this budget—that is, the Women's Emergency Services Network. Today, I met with people from WESNET, the peak women's organisation working to eliminate domestic and family violence. Some three years ago this organisation had its funding threatened. A lot of other peak organisations—such as AYPAC, in terms of the youth sector, Shelter in terms of social housing and the Australian Pensioners and Superannuants Federation—have had their funding withdrawn by this government. WESNET's funding runs out on 30 June and it needs the support of the government. I call upon the government and the minister to give it its funding, which is pretty minimal. The organisation has, for the last three years, been getting $110,000 per year. This amount was given after some pressure on the government but, nonetheless, it has enabled it to carry out its very important role. A letter to WESNET dated 18 May 1998 from the then Minister for Family Services—the then federal member for Bass, Warwick Smith—states:WESNET has a role in advising the Partnerships Against Domestic Violence Taskforce on national priorities for work to prevent domestic violence and he is well placed to maintain and build on the momentum generated by the partnerships. In addition, I believe WESNET has the capacity to embrace the opportunity provided by these particular funds to conduct projects in research that may advance the work of the Taskforce in order to reduce the incidence of domestic violence and encourage better practice service responses to both victims and perpetrators.Having established the Australian Federation of Homelessness Organisations, it would be extraordinary for WESNET, as one of the bodies which make up AFHO, not to have its funding. That would leave a gaping hole; one we cannot afford to leave. Domestic violence is a crime and it is something all governments should be working towards eliminating. It is an issue which causes great pain and suffering to families in this nation. This government, through this measure, is showing what a compassionless government it is. WESNET currently only gets $13,000 in funding from the Australian Federation of Homelessness Organisations. This is funding specifically to have two conferences, as the national peak organisation, per year. The loss of funding will mean the expertise that WESNET has built up through its personnel will be lost, and once you lose those skills and that experience it is very hard to rebuild and get it back again. The government has not even notified WESNET or responded to correspondence from it over a period of months as to what it will do. Given it is just 10 days before that funding runs out, I call upon the government to find a heart, to take up the rhetoric of the Leader of the National Party in the joint party room yesterday. He raised domestic violence as a very important issue, at the same time as the government is defunding the peak organisation. This is an outrage. It is an outrage because of the impact that it will have. It is an outrage for what it says about the lack of government priorities and it is an outrage because of the failure of the minister, Senator Amanda Vanstone, to respond to correspondence that WESNET has sent. WESNET's program is designed to ensure the safety of women and children, empower women to live free of violence and to improve the social, political and economic status of women. Surely, this organisation deserves the support of government.17:54:0028236Anthony, Larry, MPMr ANTHONYXJ6RichmondNPMinister for Community Services10—I know that quite a few contributions to this debate today have been made by members of the opposition, but perhaps I can start with some of the contributions made by the member for Lilley. He started with an almost confected indignation regarding the GST and what sort of impact that has had, particularly on families, and of course he was being very indignant about the dramatic increase in assistance that we have given, particularly to families, through the new taxation system. Part of that has been the substantial increases in family tax benefit. There was $2.2 billion of new money that came through after 1 July this year to compensate families for any possible price increase that might have come about due to the new taxation system—$2.2 billion. For low income families, particularly for some of those receiving family tax benefit, that was an increase in the order of $40 to $50 per week in family tax benefit. We also increased family tax benefit part B. This was done to give families choice when one of the primary carers might not wish to enter the work force, and assistance is now given to those individuals. We do believe in choice, which is fundamentally important in the new taxation system. We have given them a substantial increase in funding through the family tax benefit, but there are also benefits to families, particularly through reductions in income tax rates, which are also substantial. But the best thing that this coalition government has done to assist families has been our stewardship over the last five years in ensuring that there has been a reduction in interest rates. These major reductions in interest rates—which are now at their lowest levels for decades—have meant that the cost of living is far more manageable for families, particularly mortgages. When Labor was at its zenith, particularly when the Leader of the Opposition was minister for finance, interest rates for home mortgages were at 17 per cent. So this has been a very family friendly budget, and these measures are certainly pro-family.He also commented on the issue of reconciliation. Yes, we do have a policy to ensure that families get their estimates accurately. That is why we have now put on a lot more staff at Centrelink—to ensure that, if their circumstances do change, families can make contact either through their customer service centre or through the call centre to ensure that the estimates they get are correct. Under the old system, the Labor Party had 12 different types of payment for families—very complex and very confusing. We simplified that from 12 to three: family tax benefit part A, family tax benefit part B and child-care benefit—in which there has been a substantial increase. If we talk about child care, the last ABS statistics show that there has been a 10 per cent fall in the cost of child care. This has made it far more affordable than it ever was under the Australian Labor Party. Under reconciliation, for the first time if families underestimate their income—and they did not have this under the Labor Party—they will receive a top-up of up to 10 per cent.But we are conscious of the need for families to have their reconciliation accurate. That is why, through all the campaigns that we have run over the last couple of years, families are being educated about such things. Because they are receiving a lot more in taxpayers' money through family tax benefit, we must ensure that their reconciliations and their estimates are correct. There are 2.2 million Australians who are receiving family tax benefit. Of those, 1.2 billion will receive family tax benefit part B, which is up to $108 per fortnight—and that is substantial.Regarding the comments made about fraud and detection figures, it is certainly this government that wants to ensure that taxpayers get their correct entitlement—not more, not less. We certainly will not tolerate individuals who deliberately go out of their way—not through wrong estimates—to try and defraud the Commonwealth and other taxpayers. (Extension of time granted) That is precisely why—because we have spent $56 billion in this budget—we have to ensure that taxpayers' money is used accurately and appropriately. We do not step away from that, in contrast with the ramshackle days when the Department of Social Security was administered by the previous Labor government, where there was very little accountability.The member for Lilley also spoke about an article by a leading academic that appeared in the paper today—again, an article about family tax benefit. As I mentioned before, what I believe has failed to be acknowledged is that family tax benefit, particularly part B, is there to give families choice. It is there to give families an option in the event that both parents want to return to the work force or perhaps one parent wishes to stay at home, particularly when their child is young. And yes, we have weighted it. If one partner wishes to stay at home and look after their child who is under the age of five, then there is a substantial increase. But, of course, if that particular partner returns to the work force, there is a reduction there. I believe that is very family friendly, and I disagree with some of the content of Peter Macdonald's article in the paper today. Talking about the savings bonus, it was this government that, for the first time, compensated older Australians for a reduction in purchasing power through the introduction of the new taxation system—and that was never ever done when the Australian Labor Party were in government, particularly with their constant increases in wholesale sales taxes. These were hidden taxes that continued to go up: from 10 to 12, from 20 to 22. On it went, a plethora of hidden taxes, with there being absolutely no compensation being given to any Australians. What did we do? We were quite deliberate, when the new taxation system came into place, in stating that if you had a certain amount of savings, if you had been thrifty—particularly an older Australian—you would be entitled to a saving bonus. And I might add that the average payment for the savings bonus is around $743 and, from memory, that went to about 1.8 million Australians. That was substantial. There was also recognition given to self-funded retirees through the supplementary bonus, and that was payable up to $2,000. The previous government never gave any compensation for any of its failed tax policies and its broken promises with income tax cuts that occurred in 1983-84.VU5Griffin, Alan, MPXJ6Anthony, Larry, MPMr ANTHONY—I will take that interjection. Was there any compensation when wholesale sales taxes were introduced? Absolutely not. The member for Shortland, as well meaning as perhaps she is, comes in here preaching virtues; she says that there has been a lack of attention to the job market. Why is it then that we have created 840,000 new jobs since our stewardship here? There have been more jobs created now. There is lower unemployment; it is now under seven per cent, and it was well over 11 per cent when the Leader of the Opposition was minister for employment. She talks about breaches. At least we have a gradual regime in place for Centrelink—it was never there under the Department of Social Security, which was administered by the Australian Labor Party. They had a one-breach policy: you got breached and you lost your total entitlement. Again, from memory, there were about 80,000 breaches in Labor's last full year, with people losing their total entitlement. What we did was to introduce a gradual system whereby you had a number of warnings before you lost your total entitlement. That was part of a recommendation that came to us from ACOSS and other welfare groups because of the draconian types of policies that existed in that area before.As far as Centrelink is concerned, a comment was made about extra staff. We are putting on extra staff. There will be substantially more staff going on under Australians Working Together, which is the core package of this appropriation bill. This is a very good thing, because we are starting to tackle some of those individuals who have been left behind—mature age workers, long-term unemployed, and particularly those people who are on disability support. The area that the member for Kingston spoke about, which I thought was a constructive contribution—unlike some of the others—was the interrelationship between the Child Support Agency and the new family tax benefit scheme. I think he was perhaps also referring to elements of shared care. We do have amendments to legislation now—(Time expired)18:04:0028239Griffin, Alan, MPMr GRIFFINVU5BruceALP00—One cannot help but stand at some time during the minister's dissertation and raise a few issues that he does not seem to have addressed in his own comments tonight. I will speak very briefly because it is getting late, but I will make a couple of points first. The main area of employment growth that appears to have been occurring under this government in recent times is that of advertising executives. We are talking about something like $120 million over the next six months being spent by this government in terms of advertising things that they have done, wish to do, or are misrepresenting. We are certainly talking about unchaining the wallets in this case. I bring up a particular example which relates to this portfolio area: some $4.1 million around the question of advertising for older Australians. The minister mentioned that there were different benefits going to different individuals and types of individuals. I will raise the issue about carers between the age of 55 and aged pension age, some 15,000 people. If we took the money that is being spent on advertising the government's activities to older Australians, we could easily ensure that the $300 bonus went to those carers. We are not only getting TV, radio and newspaper ads, we are also getting a personally addressed letter from Senator Vanstone. Now, I ask you: what older Australian deserves an addressed letter from Senator Vanstone? They will receive a copy of Centrelink's Age Pension News. Age Pension News is sent directly to people in these circumstances and, basically, it outlines these same benefits. Surely that is enough. But not happy with actually sending letters out to people to explain once, twice and three times what they are getting, they also sent a bunch of letters to people who in fact were not getting anything. They went out there and basically sent letters to a range of people who, because of their age, were not going to receive the benefits that were outlined. So they are not only causing them to suffer by sending them a letter, they are also misinforming them in those letters. I think the minister ought to look at some of those issues and see that that is really what this government has been doing in recent times—wasting money in a profligate manner.18:07:0028239Charles, Bob, MPMr CHARLESOT4La TrobeLP10—I had not intended to impose myself on this debate but the contribution just made by the member for Bruce requires me to make a few brief comments. There has been an awful lot of hypocrisy flying around the joint lately on this business of government advertising. I have to say, first of all, that I do not accept the figures as put forward by the member for Bruce for the expected advertising expenditure over any future time span. Secondly, he calls into question the government's credentials in terms of the need for advertising. I have to say that to the best of my knowledge the government, aided by the Public Service, which has a statutory requirement to follow guidelines, follows the advertising guidelines which were brought down in, I believe, 1993 by an Australian Labor Party led government. If those guidelines were good enough for Labor in 1993, I have no reason to find them suspect in 2001.They are good guidelines. They require honest responses. They require there to be a demonstrated need for the advertising. They require research to prove that this advertising is required. It needs to be budgeted, done properly and not be party political. The Australian Labor Party can crawl all they like and try to make cheap political points about government advertising. But there is a need to clearly explain to the community new services and new processes, not to deceive the public but to make sure they understand what their rights and their entitlements are, and what government programs have changed so that they know how their lives are going to change as a result. I wanted to put that on the record. We have had enough of this hypocrisy from the other side of parliament on this issue. Let us get down and debate substantive issues, in this case about the budget for the Department of Family and Community Services. 18:10:0028240Albanese, Anthony, MPMr ALBANESER36GrayndlerALP00—I wish to raise the substantive issue of the fact that post this budget there is still a GST on caravan park rents. I want to refer specifically to one quote, because the member for Page is in this chamber and the Minister for Community Services, the member for Richmond, is in this chamber. On AM on budget day in the lead-up the Courier-Mail had had a front-page story that the GST, this unfair tax, this discriminatory tax, against these residents was going to be removed. 4K6Causley, Ian, MPMr Causley—Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order, I ask you to ask the member what line item he was talking about in the budget.10000Mossfield, Frank (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Mossfield)—There is no point of order.R36Albanese, Anthony, MPMr ALBANESE—The revenue stream that is going to the government from the GST on site fees: that is the revenue stream that I am talking about.4K6Causley, Ian, MPMr Causley—I raise a point of order. Which government is the money going toto the state government?10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—There is no point of order.R36Albanese, Anthony, MPMr ALBANESE—It is no wonder that the member for Page is sensitive about this issue, because he went on AM on budget day, on Tuesday 22 May, and was asked this question by Alexandra Kirk. She said: But he is now looking beyond the budget—referring to Mr Causley—and like many in his party believes the government still has a problem with the GST on caravan parks ...Then the quote from the member for Page was: The GST on the rental of caravan parks, I'm still hopeful. We've been pressing. Larry Anthony and I have been pressing in this particular area. We don't know. We'll have to wait and see.We have seen. It was not fixed. It shows how pathetic and hopeless the member for Page and the member for Richmond are at representing their constituents. Maybe the Minister for Community Services might respond now about why he has been so inadequate in representing the 6,649 residents in his electorate and the more than 3,000 in the electorate of Page. It is pathetic and it is the reason why Labor will win both Richmond and Page at the federal election.18:13:0028240Anthony, Larry, MPMr ANTHONYXJ6RichmondNPMinister for Community Services10—I will respond to some of that diatribe later on. I want to come back to some of the thoughtful contributions that the member for Kingston made regarding the interrelationship between the Child Support Agency and the family tax benefit. One of the things that we are trying to do now, which unfortunately is not getting the support of the Australian Labor Party, is to integrate the taper rates, one should say, between family tax benefit and child support. The changes that we put into place for family tax benefit, particularly for shared care, now mean that if you care for your children for more than 10 per cent of the time that will be reflected now in the family tax benefit. Under the old system of family payments you had to have 30 per cent care before you were recognised for any type of Commonwealth payment. That is the criterion that is also used in the Child Support Agency: you have to have care for more than 30 per cent of the time to see any reduction in your child support liabilities.We made a number of very sensible contributions and legislative changes to bring child support thresholds of 30 per cent down to 10 per cent, but they have been knocked back and not supported by the Australian Labor Party. I cannot understand the reason why. I see the member for Shortland is here, and she seems at times to be a compassionate lady. Why can't we have the two systems integrated? If yours are among the 860,000 children going through the Child Support Agency, if you are the payee or the payer, but particularly if you are the payer, and you have care for your kids for more than 10 per cent of the time, why can that not be reflected in the child support formula, because it does cost? Or how about 20 per cent of the time? But no, the Labor Party are opposed to that, which is bad policy, bad politics and bad for those kids growing up in these families, as many more families now seem to separate for all sorts of reasons. The member for Kingston acknowledged an issue in relation to the family tax benefit, and we are making changes to amend that. If you do not pay your child support payments and you have debts then you should not be entitled to the family tax benefit. These amendments will be debated in the Senate, if not tomorrow then certainly by the end of next week, and will ensure that, if you are not making your child support payments—you will be given the chance, of course, to rectify that—you will not receive your family tax benefit. The FTB is distributed through the Department of Family and Community Services, and we are trying to ensure that there is a relationship between the payments that are made from there and the Child Support Agency—which is ultimately an independent agency, but there is obviously a relationship there.It is sad because none of the speakers have contributed anything about the budget. There have been red herrings or references to particular social issues, but it is a shame that there has not been a contribution on the budget. The member for Calare, in his usual style, said how bad it was that we gave $300 to older Australians of pensionable age. What is wrong with that? It is a great thing. Actually, by tomorrow, up to 2.2 million people will be entitled to this, but at least 1.8 million pensioners will receive that $300.83NHall, Jill, MPMs Hall—You won't buy their votes, though, Larry.XJ6Anthony, Larry, MPMr ANTHONY—It is about compensating. It is about rewarding them for their efforts and for the contributions that they have made to this country. Of course, the other contribution we made was the $25,000 payment to war widows—something the Australian Labor Party never did. Then the member for Calare went on to talk about other price increases, particularly electricity price increases. He is probably best to look towards the state government in New South Wales, because they are controlling electricity. He also talked about fuel prices. It was this government that removed indexation, which was introduced by the Australian Labor Party 17 years ago. But, of course, many of the costs for fossil fuels are caused through their relation to international prices. He went on to talk about savings bonuses—which I have mentioned before—and about the disability support pension. The old age bonus was never intended for people on disability support pension. The bonus was age related: you had to be over 65 and of a certain income level. We have done an enormous amount for people with disabilities, and that will be happening in this budget. We believe it is important to focus on their abilities rather than their disabilities, and there have been substantial new places through the Australians Working Together program. (Extension of time granted)In conclusion, this has been a terrific budget as far as family and community services are concerned: $56 billion. There has been a major contribution for older Australians. There has been a big revamp of, and greater assistance to, Centrelink, which is doing a terrific job and I congratulate the agency. Of course, all the other reforms are making this country a stronger place. God help us if the Australian Labor Party were ever to regain the treasury bench.Proposed expenditure agreed to.28242Proposed expenditure, $2,796,146,000.18:19:0028242Cox, David, MPMr COX83UKingstonALP00—There is one issue that I want to raise with the minister, because I understand that he will not be here for long: that is the provision of MRI machines in public hospitals. In some hospitals they are not available at the moment. This matter came to my attention because a former constituent of mine had a son with a brain tumour who was airlifted to Adelaide. He rang my office very distressed because he had been told that his son had been placed on a waiting list for an MRI in order to find out the extent of his ill health.I spoke to the patient's doctor, and he said, `Well, the problem is not that there is a waiting list. The problem is that there is no MRI machine at the Women's and Children's Hospital in Adelaide'. I was surprised at that. We have had a considerable increase in the number of MRI machines in Australia. According to the Auditor-General, we have had an increase of about $50 million in the costs of MRI benefits over what was anticipated in the budget a couple of years ago, yet we still have not got them in the places where they are most needed—public hospitals like the Women's and Children's and the Queen Elizabeth Hospital in South Australia where an MRI machine is in a position to do the highest valued work that it will probably do and provide the most benefit to the community. Instead, we have them in radiological practices all over the country and they are probably doing lower valued work.I have had a look at the Blandford report and I found that it did not recommend putting an MRI machine in the Women's and Children's Hospital. I have had a look at the annual report of the minister's own department, which has some discussion on this matter and points out that there are particular difficulties in relation to the provision of MRI services for children because it requires more sensitive care in relation to anaesthetics. This was confirmed to me by the staff at the Women's and Children's Hospital, who said that when they send a patient to the Royal Adelaide to have an MRI scan they have to send a team of anaesthetists with them. They are away for several hours, which obviously disrupts the rest of the workload at the Women's and Children's Hospital. I am greatly concerned by this absence. I have raised it with the state health minister, Dean Brown, and he seemed to be fairly oblivious to the problem. He was aware that the Women's and Children's Hospital or the health commission had put out a tender for one of the private MRI machines to be bought into the hospital, one that had benefits attached to it under the arrangements. What he was not aware of was that, despite cabinet having made that brilliant decision, when the tenders were called there was absolutely no interest.So there has been no progress. The state government does not appear to have a plan to correct the situation. I have people in my electorate who are extremely concerned about the issue, including a young lad named James Bodin who was the best friend of the child who was ill. He `was' the best friend, because the child, Lachlan Wasley, died about three weeks later. He had an inoperable, malignant tumour on his brainstem and died within a week of surgery. It is a very emotional issue. There are an awful lot of parents around South Australia who are deeply concerned about it. James Bodin has been out there running an absolutely wonderful campaign. He has raised more than $10,000 for childhood cancer research and it has been put into a fund in the name of Lachlan Wasley, his best friend who died and brought this matter to my attention.18:23:0028242Griffin, Alan, MPMr GRIFFINVU5BruceALP00—I will speak briefly regarding a matter that relates to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, in particular a leaked copy of the Productivity Commission's work in progress report into international pharmaceutical price differences, which showed that complaints by the pharmaceutical industry that the Australian pricing system for new drugs is too tough are largely unfounded. The purpose of the study was to compare prices that manufacturers received for pharmaceutical products in Australia under the PBS with those obtained in countries with similar and dissimilar arrangements. It was commissioned by the Commonwealth government and arose out of discussions with the pharmaceutical industry working group. There were seven comparison countries selected: the US, Canada, the UK, France, Spain, Sweden and New Zealand, with France, Spain, Sweden and New Zealand considered to be similar to Australia. The preliminary results show that manufacturer prices in Australia for the top 150 pharmaceuticals are much lower than those in the US, Canada, the UK and Sweden, but manufacturer prices in Australia are closer to those in France and about the same as prices in Spain and New Zealand. However, it also made some points about the types and classes of drugs within that. For example, prices paid by the Australian government for truly innovative drugs—new chemical entities—are similar and in some cases higher than in comparable countries. The greatest price discrepancy is in this area of me-too drugs—that is, newer drugs that are more expensive but have similar therapeutic outcomes to older and cheaper drugs, where Australia pays less than comparable countries. The highest prices paid for pharmaceuticals are in countries where there are no real government controls on pricing, such as the US, where prices are almost double that paid in Australia.I believe this shows that under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme companies are awarded for true innovation and that prices for drugs that show little benefit over existing medications reflect their real rather than marketing benefits. It also shows the sort of cost-effectiveness controls established under the Hawke Labor government in 1998, which ensured that the high prices paid by consumers in the US are not being afflicted on the Australian taxpayer.The report, I believe, proves once and for all that, if the government sticks to the PBS pricing process and stops interfering at the behest of industry, the industry will be rewarded for real innovation and Australians will be rewarded by having a manageable scheme that provides effective and safe medicines to all at affordable prices.18:26:0028243Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4CaseyLPMinister for Health and Aged Care10—The member for Kingston raised a serious concern. I will attempt to give him a serious reply. One of the difficult things about being minister for health is that, even for someone who might be medically qualified such as me, it is hard to form a view about technology. It is hard to form a view on highly technical matters. Similarly, the PBS, which I will come to in a second, is another highly technical matter.What you tend to do is take the view of experts. This is proper. You set up expert committees. You try and get a range of views and then you try and force an expert committee to come to a consensus and give you a view. There will always be another expert who has a different view. We have seen it recently with the listing of the pharmaceutical Zyban and a researcher in Sydney getting a lot of publicity for taking one point of view yet the balance of opinion on my expert committee was to the contrary.The whole MRI process has been debated at very great length. But I guess, given the way it played out and given the behaviour of some in the area, the capacity for me to do anything other than take expert advice is very limited. I set up an expert committee under Professor Blandford. At no time did I seek to influence the outcome of that committee's deliberations. I asked them what their expert view would be on the further extension of this new technology. We have substantially increased it in the last five years, even if some of it was by accident rather than design. Off the top of my head, I think you are looking at around $3 million per machine. The demand is limitless, so the only way you can try and put some cost control on it is to put some controls around the supply.South Australia has three machines. Had the expert committee said to me, `Every children's hospital in Australia needs one of these,' I would have done everything I could to have implemented that. But that is not what the expert advice was. Again, unfortunately, in health care you find professionals who will use the public or use a particularly compelling case to try and argue for their own personal benefit. I am sure every radiological department in Australia would like one of these, but they are not going to get it unless the Commonwealth is prepared to chip another $100 million or so into radiologists' incomes. I am not sure that is the best use of public money. In the specific case of South Australia, there are three funded machines. I accept completely what the honourable member says, that it necessitates a trip from time to time from one hospital to another to get a funded scan. I think that is probably a lot cheaper than putting a whole lot of extra machines in. I am sorry to hear the story the honourable member tells about his constituent child dying of cancer. It is an enormously traumatic thing. It does sound, in this case, given that he died three weeks later, it would have made very little difference one way or the other.I would be very roundly criticised by the opposition were I to act other than in accordance with the way my experts have advised me. So I am damned if I do, and damned if I do not. I sleep okay at night because I know that I have not attempted to influence a committee. I have asked for the advice of experts and this is what they have given me. It is always open another time for another committee to come back.On the issue of the state hospitals, of course it is open to a state government at any point in time to put a machine into its own hospital. It does not need Commonwealth authority or approval. There are a few spare machines going cheap around Australia if a state government wished to do that. I do not mean to single out South Australia because all the states behave similarly in this—they would rather blame the Commonwealth—but they could have a machine in a week in that hospital if they saw that as being the highest priority in the state for their health care. On the honourable member for Bruce's comments about the PBS, I agree with that study. Of course, he can point to no single occasion in the 5½ years I have been minister of my having sought to interfere with, or alter the outcome of, expert committees' deliberations.18:31:0028244Griffin, Alan, MPMr GRIFFINVU5BruceALP00—I will just raise one other issue with the minister while he is still here. It will be a bit disjointed because it is about one issue but it is off a range of points. I am not asking for any action at this time, but I think it is an issue that he will recall. It is currently in the news and therefore it is worthy of some further consideration.I suspect the minister will remember that in something like September 1999 there was an issue regarding, the month before, a 15-year-old boy in Melton in Melbourne collapsing after drinking an alcoholic food essence. The minister came to parliament on that day with a bottle of the essence and announced several degrees of action which he was taking. One was to write to the ATO to ensure that these essences were actually reviewed in terms of the excise duty paid, so that they would actually pay the excise duty of full alcoholic drinks rather than be treated as a food. He referred the matter to ANZFA regarding the labelling of such products to ensure that there was a better labelling regime put into place. I think he also wrote to state and territory governments alerting them to the issue and seeking to ensure that such products were put into the licensed areas of premises in order to minimise the opportunity for minors to actually access such material.At the time I commended the minister for his action, although I did raise a question several weeks later about the fact that I thought the matter should have gone a bit further because of the concern I had that I had gone to the same supermarket several weeks later and the material was still in the open area of the supermarket. I fully understand that that is an issue for the Territory with respect to that. Frankly, the way I got it removed was actually raising it again a week later with the management of the supermarket and saying that, if they did not remove it, I would be calling the police. I would just like to update the minister on some aspects of this. He may or may not be aware that the actual inquest into the young lad's death is currently under way in Melbourne, and there has been a range of issues considered and covered in the media over the last couple of days about what has actually occurred. For example, although the minister's expectation—and I must admit it was also mine—was that the change in excise duty would in fact lead to a situation where the alcohol essences that we were talking about were largely withering and dying on the vine, there appears to be significant anecdotal evidence that they are still out there. Partially I think that is a situation of old stock still being sold. The action that was taken was not going to take that into account, and I understand that.There are also some issues being raised about the question of duty being avoided on imports rather than product produced in Australia. That appears to be a problem with Customs, which has also been raised recently and could partly explain why some of those sorts of essences are still available. I would certainly urge him to comment—and I may well make some public comment myself in the next few days—about the fact that the labelling issue perhaps needs to be looked at again. I have some concerns about the decision taken by the ministerial council in this area and I would ask him to acquaint himself with that, because ANZFA made some recommendations to the ministerial council, which, with some reason but probably not sufficient reason, adjusted that decision. There is also the question of whether further action should be taken to remove these products from state and territory locations all up.The minister, at the time I raised that aspect of the issue, made the point that that is a state and territory power and responsibility. I raised the point at the time, though, that I believe there may well be, under the Trade Practices Act, a capacity to act federally. I am not saying necessarily that that is the most appropriate way to do things, but I do think that we probably ought to have another look at the incidence of this product. Obviously there is an inquest going on, so I think we also need to look at what comes out of that inquest. I do think that there are some issues there and I certainly offer our support to look at what might be done. I think we would both agree that these particular essences ought not to be available publicly, in my view not even in licensed premises. I made some inquiries at the time at some 10 or 15 stores in the area that I represent and spoke to people about it. Essentially what was said was that two types of people were getting it: people who appeared to be buying it for minors and people who were pretty much derros. For those reasons I think these essences should be banned. (Time expired)18:36:0028245Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4CaseyLPMinister for Health and Aged Care10—It is truly a question without notice and I am without my question time brief pack, but I will do my best to answer. I do recollect the case and I have noticed some of the publicity in the papers in recent days. I gave several undertakings at the time and they have been carried out. The first is that we have reduced the size available. The honourable member is correct. Two or three years ago you could get 500-millilitre bottles of black sambuca essence, and I am not quite sure why one would want that. One of my staff told me the other night that she actually bought a bottle and tried to make some rumballs and she could not understand why anyone would bother to buy it to eat either.Today you are limited to 50-millilitre bottles, or 100-millilitre bottles in the case of vanilla essence. The Australian Taxation Office has changed the taxation treatment of this and it is now taxed as any other form of alcohol. That removes the price incentive to buy such a product. ANZFA has adopted the labelling. That took a while but it is now in place. I noticed—I cannot remember whether it was today or yesterday—that the Age newspaper did a survey of a number of stores in Melbourne and found that in fact there was no old stock. It is possible that there is some old stock in other parts of the country, but I was heartened to find that they could not locate any. We do have a food ministers meeting coming up in a couple of weeks that I will be chairing. I would be happy to give the honourable member an undertaking to raise it with state and territory ministers, because they are the ones that are very easily able to deal with a consumer recall like this—because that is effectively what we are talking about. On the issue of duty on imports, that question would have to be directed to the minister for customs. I am afraid I have no knowledge of that.18:38:0028246Hall, Jill, MPMs HALL83NShortlandALP00—Whilst the minister is here, I will raise one issue and then go on to some other issues that I want to raise. Maybe he could just take on board what I am saying and consider it a little later. In the area that I come from—the Central Coast, the southern part of Newcastle—there is a chronic doctor shortage. It is an area where there is quite an elderly population. In fact it is the 16th oldest area in Australia, according to the ABS figures taken at the last census. What is happening there is that elderly people are having to wait between seven and 14 days to get a routine appointment with their local GP, particularly in the Central Coast area of the electorate.Some submissions have been sent to the department, and they have been rejected without even being considered, because of the classification of the area. It is classified as a RAMA 1 area. Those submissions have been sponsored by the local council and by the GPs in the area. They have the support of the Central Coast urban division of general practice and of the local pharmacist. They have my support as well, of course, as well as that of the local state member. To refuse to look at a submission just because of a classification and to refuse to allow some overseas doctors into the area—which is what we are hoping will be allowed—is a restrictive method of assessment. Minister, if you could look into that, I would be grateful. I will now move on to the other part of my contribution.The other thing that is a problem in the area that I come from is the shortage of GPs who bulk-bill. I was really disappointed that there was no move in the budget to encourage GPs to bulk-bill. We have a situation where we have an elderly population and a large number of people who are dependent on some sort of Centrelink assistance living in the area. The simple fact that they are unable to access a general practitioner who bulk-bills creates enormous hardship for them. When you add that to the fact that there are no local Medicare offices and people have to travel long distances, it is easy to see that the lack of a bulk-billing GP really does create problems for these people, especially those in the Central Coast section of the electorate where there is only a private transport provider. Therefore, I feel that the government really needs to act and to demonstrate a greater commitment to Medicare than just lip-service. The real commitment comes from ensuring that the pensioners in my electorate—and in every electorate, for that matter—can access bulk-billing. I find it very disturbing that we are seeing so much money being put into advertising which is directed towards the private health industry, while in my electorate I have a chronic shortage of doctors and many people who are missing out on being able to access bulk-billing.I would quickly like to move on to the issue of aged care. I am pleased to see that the minister is here. I want to hark back once again to the point I just made: the Shortland electorate is the 16th oldest electorate in the whole of the country. It is the 16th oldest electorate in the whole of Australia, and there is a problem with a shortage of beds in that area. I know that, if you look at the Hunter, it can be said that there are sufficient nursing home beds there, although there is a chronic shortage of hostel beds for people living in the Hunter, and the figures bear that out. If you look at the Central Coast, you find once again that there is a real shortage of beds within that area. You also have to understand that area to see that, even if you look at Lake Macquarie, which falls within the boundaries of Shortland and Charlton, for an elderly person to be given a bed in a nursing home on the western side of Lake Macquarie—(Extension of time granted)I will quickly conclude by saying that this is an issue that needs to be looked at urgently. I feel that beds need to be allocated fairly and evenly throughout the electorate. I would also like to express my concern about the fact that the beds that are being allocated within the area are being allocated more to private providers than to the community sector. I feel that the minister needs to take seriously some of the concerns that were raised with her when she met with providers in Gosford recently. They understand the area, and they understand the issues, and they were really disappointed that their concerns were not taken seriously.18:44:0028247Bishop, Bronwyn, MPMrs BRONWYN BISHOPSE4MackellarLPMinister for Aged Care10—I have a couple of things to say about the last speaker's comments. First, I was very pleased to meet with providers in Gosford fairly recently and to get some very positive information for them. I do think they felt that their concerns were certainly being listened to.With regard to some of the points that were raised by the last speaker, I would like to make the point that in 1998 when the Auditor-General did a review of aged care he found that the previous Labor government had left a deficit of 10,000 places. He found that this was systemic, that it had occurred over a number of years and that, in order for the situation to be remedied, there was a need to inject an additional 10,100 places, in addition to providing for growth in numbers. I have followed the Auditor-General's report, and in the time that I have been minister I have issued 32,000 places, counting the 9,500 places for the year 2001. With regard to beds, the Auditor-General also found that, in order for those to come on stream, it takes something between two and 2½ years for infrastructure to be made ready for the beds to go into but that it is necessary to release the beds so that the providers can then build the infrastructure knowing that their funding is guaranteed. The problem was that through the 1990s the Labor Party failed to release the beds, thus failing to get the process of building infrastructure to begin. We are having to deal with this as it was inherited. We can fix it prospectively but not retrospectively. Releasing those new beds means that the places are guaranteed, and they will bring them on as quickly as they can.With regard to the Central Coast, that area does need attention paid to it. The initial announcement was about how many beds were being released, and it showed that that was just over 9,500 for the year. With the allocation that will be advertised very shortly, the coming advertisements will show which areas are to be targeted. So that you understand the way in which the department recommends to me which areas should be the targeted areas, I will explain the process. Each state has a committee called an ACPAC, which is an aged care planning advisory committee. Each of those committees meets and considers the ABS figures, with five-year projections. Each committee considers the special needs groups, which are listed under the legislation. Each committee considers special issues and special pleadings that may come to them. Each committee then makes a recommendation to the department which then makes a recommendation to me.I would very much expect the Central Coast to be on that list, because the figures clearly show that it falls behind the ratio we strive for of having 100 places per population of 1,000 people aged 70 and above. That ratio was set by the Labor Party, but they never met it. Indeed, from 1986, they ran it down. We have actually allocated enough places to meet that benchmark, but they are now having to come on stream. As soon as the infrastructure is built and a bed is ready, the money flows automatically. That is why I say that, once the beds are released, they are guaranteed. That is the job we have had fixing up the legacy that was left to us, and we are doing it. As I said, the Auditor-General found that the legacy was that the previous Labor government had failed to issue 10,100 places. 18:49:0028248Andren, Peter, MPMr ANDRENKL6CalareIND00—I also want to speak about aged care policy. I think this government can be praised for taking a difficult area of policy and embarking on quite radical reforms, but I think perhaps it runs the risk of promising far more than is actually delivered, or at least of creating that impression in the aged sector. Therein lies the problem.Perhaps I have the germ of a solution. There are four nursing homes in the Lithgow district. They came to me recently to point out that they believed they had had an allocation of what the media were starting to call `phantom beds' where they were given places but they did not have the resources to create the infrastructure. Having listened to that—and I think the minister would agree with me that I have been fairly constructive in my approach to the aged care dilemma over the past four or five years with the three ministers I have dealt with—there seemed to be a need to bring together all of the aged care providers in Lithgow, as an example, to discuss their particular difficulties, to see whether they could find common goals and whether there was a duplication of demand with the same people on each other's lists. It turned out that there were people on more than one list. Having said that, one of the really worrying things as far as I was concerned was that with one of those providers—Tabulam Cottage at Portland—the community had been assessed as being able to self-fund the accommodation required for a number of awarded places when it was quite clear that it could not. The department recommended that it was vulnerable, yet when its application for capital funding was rejected it was told that it was because it had the capacity to raise funds, which the department admitted at the meeting the other day was quite incorrect. The very competent trio of departmental people sat and listened to each of those providers and then I joined them at the end of the day to work over those difficulties. So it looks like we will have to review the Tabulam Cottage situation. The other provider is Three Trees, a brand new-facility, which has been granted 12 places—I think it is. Three Trees has no history of capital raising. It is left with places and not much prospect, it believes, of raising funds when other providers in this not affluent area are trying to do the same thing. Despite the 100 per 1,000 formula for aged care places for those over 70, it seems to me that there is a substantial unmet demand across my electorate. Perhaps part of the answer is to run these interfaces between all providers and the department community by community. I know it sounds cumbersome. If the minister wants to speak to me later, the people from that department were, I think, very enthusiastic about the model as a way of working through the problem. They identified perhaps some over demand and duplication and some people who could get together to share facilities and resources. It might be something as simple as laundry and it might be something like looking at whether or not they can be converted into community care packages rather than going down the costly infrastructure route.I think a lot of this demand can be satisfied in a non-capital investing way and I certainly would like to see more of the sort of exercise that we organised last week in Lithgow to bring that aged care community together, to work for the common good of the communities, not for individual demands within the community group. I had Catholic and Masonic people who started these places and who, historically, have not talked to one another about aged care delivery now doing so. That is some progress, I can tell you. This model may be too cumbersome but I think it is the way to go. 18:54:0028248Bishop, Bronwyn, MPMrs BRONWYN BISHOPSE4MackellarLPMinister for Aged Care10—Thank you for some of those comments, because I found myself that, by bringing homes which are in a geographic region together, there are things they can do to minimise costs, such as sharing laundry, being in a cooperative for buying food and so on. Indeed, it is being done in certain areas across Australia. One of the things I noticed when I took over this portfolio was that it grew up as a cottage industry and that good management is very important, because good management gives good care. Regarding the comments on Portland, I will check with the department on their outcome. The capital stream that has been put in place—being the money that flows from bonds and the accommodation charge—is money that can be used for repaying loans which you can get from the bank. This is bankable. After all, this money is paid monthly in advance; it is a constant and guaranteed stream of money which is very bankable, to use those terms. Many homes are taking this up and, in good management terms, are able to fund the infrastructure for the new beds and the recurrent stream that flows from that. I have been concerned that in parts of rural Australia there are some management problems, yet when I visit the home in Yeoval, which is run by the community, I see that the work they have achieved and the outcomes they get are just tremendous. It is a multipurpose service with acute beds as well as aged care beds, and the way it is managed by the community can be held up for a lot of other people to follow and copy.There is provision for conversion to community aged care packages. They can apply under the round—and the 2001 round will be advertised, I expect, within a couple of weeks—to convert places to community aged care packages. Allowing people to remain at home, where they really want to be, is a very strong part of the policy that I am pushing, developing and administering. The member for Calare said that there is often the same name on many lists for different homes, and this is perfectly true. I was told by somebody who actually is close to the industry that a family had met together and decided they would put their mother in a home, so they put the mother's name down for 12 separate homes. The only problem was that, when the mother's name came up, the mother said, `I'm not going into any home. I'm staying in my home.' That became a statistic.The thing that has been very important to me in the last few months, and which I am promoting very hard, is the Commonwealth Carelink Centres. These centres provide information about the range of services we provide which enable people to remain at home. Up until now, this information was so hard to find. If you suddenly found that you needed services to help you bathe and dress in the morning, to help with the shopping and all those sorts of things that you need to remain independent, how would you find it? By ringing Commonwealth Carelink—1800 052 222—people can now find out where those services are. I hear from my 32 partners around the country who manage those Carelink Centres that the most plaintive plea is from people who ring and say, `They want to put me in a home. What services have you got that will keep me in my home?' That is why community aged care packages are so well regarded and sought after. There were 4,000 of them when we came to government; we now have 24,000. With regard to the people who might want to look at that option, there is the provision to apply in the round when they are applying for whatever it is they might decide to do.Proposed expenditure agreed to.28250Proposed expenditure$478,850,000agreed to.28250Proposed expenditure, $865,685,000.19:01:0028250Hollis, Colin, MPMr HOLLISDH4ThrosbyALP00—I am pleased to make a contribution to this appropriation on migration expenditure of $865 million plus. Mr Deputy Speaker, as one of the naïve, out-of-touch members without a life and lacking life experience who put their name to the report on visits to detention centres, I would ask the minister that some of this $865 million go to dealing with an increasing problem that we are having in Australia with those hell holes that we now call detention centres. I ask the minister to, instead of having a knee-jerk reaction to one recommendationwhich, incidentally, I stand bylook at all the recommendations—the other 19 made in that report. As everyone is saying, no-one is wanting to send signals or green lights to people smugglers, but the system is not working and that is the hard, cold reality.The world is facing a new reality today of people's movements. There are people moving for all sorts of reasons around the world, through ethnic cleansing, through fear of persecution, through actual persecution and through wars and upheavals. Some, God forbid, are even looking for a better economic future. Call them what you will—boat people, illegal immigrants or asylum seekers—they will continue to come to this country. But always bear in mind that the number of people who come to this country is minuscule compared with the number of people arriving in many other parts of the world. How we are dealing with that is an absolute disgrace. We are out of tune with expectations and realities. This country has a good record, built up over many years of dealing with refugees and resettlement, but we are tarnishing that record before the international community today. Other countries are dealing with much greater numbers of people. They are dealing with them in a more humane way and they are not having the riots. I have seen the film of the riots in Port Hedland so many times and yet no-one ever asked what caused that riot. Of all the media reports, there has never been a report from a detainee there. We only have the minister's view. We only have the departmental views or the views of the thugs who run these centres.Most of the people who run these centres are ex-prison officers. I have spoken to them, and most of them come from a prison or corrective service background. They bring that whole custom into that society, and you wonder why there are riots in there. Go and spend a day in Woomera, Curtin, Port Hedland, Maribyrnong or Villawood and think about if you were there for eight, nine, 10, 12 months or two or three years whether you would not riot after a while, too. These people are stressed for all sorts of reasons. I know that the guards and everyone else have to be protected, but we are going about it totally the wrong way. It always amazes me that there have been so few riots; I would have expected that there would have been many more riots there. Now that the minister has joined us, I say this: there will be many more riots in those centres. There will be many more people coming there, and we are dealing with it in a completely inappropriate way.If I see those photographs of those weapons again! When I went round the detention centres the only weapons I was shown were a few bits of wood in Curtin. I ask: who found those weapons and where were they from? It is too convenient for the same people—the minister and the people who run those centres—to always appear on the television after a disturbance and that same photograph of those same weapons always appears. I do not envy the minister his job; it is a very difficult portfolio. It is a very difficult issue. I know the minister is, once more, going to label me naive. Well, that is fair enough: history will show who was naive, whether it is me or the minister. But I say with the greatest possible respect to the minister: we are dealing with it in an inappropriate way. We are just building up. It is going to happen time and time again until we change the policy as it affects these people. 19:06:0028251Plibersek, Tanya, MPMs PLIBERSEK83MSydneyALP00—I wanted to agree with the comments the member for Throsby has made in relation to detention centres. Unfortunately I do not have time tonight to go through the comments I had on detention centres, because there is another matter that I want to address. It relates to the treatment of people who are HIV positive who apply to come to Australia in the interdependency category. I am pleased that the minister is here, because I know that this issue has been raised with him by a number of my constituents. I want to refer to a letter that was written to me. Obviously I will not use the constituent's name. He wrote to me on 27 February 1999:I met the man I will spend the rest of my life with. We are a defacto couple, very much in love and sure of our future together.My correspondent's partner is a Canadian physician who is working in Sydney as a doctor. The man himself is also in the health care profession. Both of them are employed currently. Both of them have been contributing to the tax system. Both of them are keen volunteer workers. They are members of their local tennis club and go to yoga regularly. They are people who are contributing to the Australian economy and making a contribution as well to society. Let us call my correspondent's partner `D'. He writes that D and he:completed all of the requirements set out so that he may become a permanent resident of Australia including a medical whereby he declared his HIV status. According to information that we have received from our case officer at DIMA, and an immigration lawyer working on our behalf, it is likely that our application for—D's—Permanent Residency will be rejected on the basis of his HIV status. We have been advised that the current government considers that applicants with HIV pose an undue burden of cost on the Australian health care system. I want to point out that neither of us has ever been symptomatic of HIV illness, nor ever hospitalised because of this diagnosis. We are both on anti-retroviral medications that are working well to keep us both healthy. In fact—D—has an undetectable viral load and his T cell count has only improved since moving to Australia.The key point is that when DIMA make an assessment of how much someone who has the HIV virus is likely to cost the Australian community, they are working on figures that I presume were developed in the 1980s when HIV inevitably progressed reasonably quickly to full-blown AIDS. Of course that is not the fact at all these days, with the more sophisticated drug treatments on the market. The Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs assume a cost of about $239,000 over an unspecified but shortened lifespan for someone who has HIV. I have spoken to a number of specialists in this area, and their figure for drug treatments is $11,000 to $12,000 a year. The point I make is that both of these men are employed. They are in the work force. They are paying much more than $12,000 a year in tax, I am sure, and they are making a very important contribution to the community. There are also non-economic factors that must be taken into consideration when we are making decisions about whether people's interdependency visa applications should be agreed to. This couple own a home together. They have shown a great commitment to one another and are accepted by one another's families as their life partners.This brings me to another matter when it comes to carers for people who become ill. Many people who are HIV positive do not have blood relatives who are willing to come to Australia to take care of them. DIMA has to consider that the definition of `family' should also include people who have shown a genuine long-term commitment and, if they are prepared to come to Australia to care for an Australian citizen who is sick with AIDS, that that should be something the Australian community applauds rather than discourages on the basis that they are not a blood relative but are, in fact, just someone who is in a relationship with someone who is sick. I am pleased that the minister is here because these are two areas where perhaps the thinking of his department is somewhat out of step with new treatments in the area of HIV and AIDS and out of step with the general community. 19:11:0028252Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK0J4BerowraLPMinister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and Minister for Reconciliation and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—I do not want to exclude other members, but others will speak no doubt on the same matters that the member for Throsby raised. Essentially the health criteria have to be addressed in three contexts. The first is whether or not somebody has a disease which is contagious. AIDS is not contagious in that sense, if people manage their contacts appropriately. The second matter is the extent to which people's requirement for services might prejudice the needs of the Australian community. There are certain areas in which we have limited facilities and resources and in which, if you take people with a particular condition, it could prejudice the extent to which an Australian might be able to access those services. The third is the ongoing and potential cost. The assurance I would give the honourable member is that, in relation to HIV status, people are not automatically excluded. The costs are looked at very closely because there have to be briefs prepared, many of which come to me for a judgment as to whether or not the circumstances are so compelling that there should be a waiver. In the interdependency cases, the sorts of factors that you have mentioned are taken into account. We do take into account the nature of the relationship. We do take into account the extent to which people have resources to be able to assist the particular individual and we weigh those factors against the potential cost. I have not sought to draw attention to these matters, but the fact is that, even with amounts of the order of $1 million or so, grants have been made where it is seen to be compelling. One of the things I have been concerned about is that people might see me as being unduly soft in relation to these matters.QI4Price, Roger, MPMr Price—We will defend you from that accusation.0J4Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK—I am glad to hear that because I saw on the last statement that was published in some Senate estimates that I had acceded to something like 41 out of 43 applications that had come in for a health waiver. I am glad to hear that I have not been unduly soft in relation to those matters. I would say to the honourable member that there is not an automatic bar to people who have HIV.In relation to whether we should establish for people who have certain medical conditions a wider group of carers than a close relative—which is really what you are asking—you would have to look at the implications of that for migration generally. Are you establishing a category of entry which the very creative profession of which I am a part—the legal profession—would find to be another gateway to providing access to a wider group of people? Generally speaking, I would say in circumstances like that that it would be best to push an application to see whether or not the circumstances are such that a minister would exercise discretion in the particular case.19:15:0028252Price, Roger, MPMr PRICEQI4ChifleyALP00—Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for affording me the first opportunity I have had in this chamber to speak on a report on visits to immigration detention centres. I wish to defend all of my committee member colleagues, particularly the coalition members, against some of the savage accusations that have been levelled against them, such as that we have not done the hard yards. Minister, ask me and I will seek the committee's approval to release the eight hours of transcript of evidence from your departmental officials and ACMs that occurred after those visits. Ask me, because I wanted them published. I did not want to have in camera hearings. I wanted them on the public record. If you think the hard yards have not been done then let us release the transcripts. I am surprised that Alan Ferguson can be accused of being anything other than a loyal defender of your government. It is true that on three days we sat to discuss what we had seen, what we had heard and what were appropriate recommendations. Minister, I did not get every recommendation up that I wanted. I believe the biggest problem with detention centres is the lack of scrutiny. In our own state, Minister, we have an inspector-general of prisons who can do inquiries at the direction of a minister, who can do his own motion inquiries and who can hear complaints; and the Ombudsman's role is not interfered with. You have that additional protection. We have an official visitors procedure. I would have liked to have seen an official visitors person for each detention centre. We did not follow that model, but we followed an independent one—one that you have so much disparaged. I believe that it is in all of our interests that we lift the lid on detention centres. Minister, you ask what message we are sending through the proposals that we offered. You are piloting a family—10000Jenkins, Harry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—The honourable member will refer his remarks through the chair.QI4Price, Roger, MPMr PRICE—Minister, through you, Mr Deputy Speaker, you are proposing a pilot scheme for families. We supported that. I wanted to go further, but the committee members said that you were taking action. I endorsed that, but you will note that the report said that the condition and treatment of families was a critical priority for the committee. We proposed that a target be set—and I can see that you have done a lot to reduce the processing time—of no longer than your current funded processing time. But we linked another recommendation to it that you have conveniently ignored: sponsorship, so that, yes, people can be released provided they are sponsored by an appropriate organisation. If they do not have a security clearance, if they are not sponsored, they are not let out of detention centres. Why has there been so much dissembling on this issue? Why won't you give that a try, Minister? You ask what message softer treatment of people in detention centres sends back. What is the message, Mr Deputy Speaker, that the minister sends back by having 58,000 overstayers in this country? It is not bringing the country to its knees, Minister. In the year 2000, there were 2,800 people who arrived by boats and who were held in detention centres. What was it in the Netherlands? It was 50,000. In France it was 75,000. It was nearly 100,000 in the UK. Good luck to you. We have a minuscule problem compared to other countries. I congratulate you on that. But why can't you and your departmental officials get it into perspective? Why do you deceive the Australian people so much?I only have 50 seconds left. This is a good report. It was honestly arrived at by men and women of goodwill from all political parties. It deserved consideration. I can understand when a report or its recommendations are not agreed to by governments. But what was most hurtful was the government's attack on coalition members and the fact that the report did not receive careful consideration. I know that we should act according to conventions, but the strongest imperative here is Australian standards—the Australian sense of a fair go about what is right and what is wrong. I have confidence in the Australian people in the long term. (Time expired) 19:20:0028253Theophanous, Dr Andrew, MPDr THEOPHANOUSQJ4CalwellIND00—I am not a member of that committee, but I did go to Port Hedland and I visited 18 of the people who are now in Hakea Prison, in Perth, for allegedly inspiring a riot in relation to these matters. As the honourable member for Chifley said, the recommendations of the committee are very moderate compared with the need for action. Let us just mention one fact. Not only is the policy, and its implementation, quite wrong at the moment but we are spending more than $100 million in these detention centres. To achieve what? It is supposedly to send a message back to people that Australia is not a soft touch and that people will be treated in a certain way in relation to refugee status if they come in a boat—or if they are desperate enough to end up having to come in a boat. This is one of the biggest wastages of public money in social policy that we have had for a long, long time. The minister well knows that more than 90 per cent of the Afghans and more than 90 per cent of the Iraqis will be or have been accepted as genuine refugees. Notwithstanding this, we have had people in detention—and they have not merely been in detention. In talking to the people in Port Hedland and in Hakea Prison, I was stunned to hear that about 50 per cent of those who were allegedly accused of various incidents in relation to the 11 May event had been in the notorious isolation cell in Port Hedland prison—or Port Hedland Detention Centre. I used the word `prison' but it is worse than a prison. The conditions in Hakea Prison are much better than the conditions in Port Hedland Detention Centre, there is no doubt about that. What did this isolation policy mean? It meant that people could be in this isolation centre for seven or eight months—and, in the case of one man, 16 months—before they had their first interview. I do not know who authorised this policy. I cannot believe that the minister authorised the policy that people would have to wait for seven months before they even had an interview—never mind how long they had to wait before there was a judgment about whether or not they were going to be given refugee status. That was before the first interview.We know from the parliamentary committee and from what we have been told by others—including what I was told—about the conditions of the especially notorious Juliet Block. I was not able to see Juliet Block and nor was the parliamentary committee. There is a very good reason for that: it is a total disgrace. It would in fact be condemnatory in international terms—not only the physical conditions but also other conditions, including not being able to contact their own wives and children for more than seven months. That is your policy, Minister. You may not be aware of all this. I think that you are not aware of this. I think you have been misled. You have been told lies. I am sorry to say that you have been told lies by officers and by people in the ACM who are trying to cover up.I was shocked at the atmosphere in Port Hedland; you could cut it with a knife. And the tensions and hostility between the two groups, the detainees on the one hand—and I am talking about all the detainees, not just the trouble makers—and the ACM people on the other hand, were really unbelievable to me. But has the minister really understood this? Is he really interested in resolving this? Is this the heritage that you want to go on with, Minister? I think that you should answer the questions that I have put to you that will appear in the Notice Paper tomorrow.19:25:0028254Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK0J4BerowraLPMinister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and Minister for Reconciliation and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—I thank the honourable members for Throsby, Calwell and Chifley and acknowledge also the member for Sydney—I made some observations on her comments earlier. In relation to the members who spoke and who were part of the Human Rights Subcommittee of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, there are times when it is important that you read in context fully what people have had to say. I did read your report.QI4Price, Roger, MPMr Price—In question time.0J4Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK—I read it very quickly, and some of the comments I have made should reflect that reading. I have not said that, in relation to every recommendation you have made, I have dismissed them. I did focus very much on a number of recommendations that had been tried and failed. I may have misunderstood what was mentioned, but the words used were clear. The words used by the committee in the recommendation made it clear that people should be released within 14 weeks, provided they had had a security clearance. The word used was `should'. QI4Price, Roger, MPMr Price—Two recommendations had `should'. It's a majority report. The two are together.0J4Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK—All I was going to say about that—and I will repeat it—is that it is not a matter of trialing it; we had a trial. When I came in as minister, I was still having to defend accusations about false imprisonment that occurred under a policy where there were time limits and where the courts got into the business of deciding that certain clock-stopping events had not been effective and that people were falsely imprisoned.QJ4Theophanous, Dr Andrew, MPDr Theophanous—There is a way around that problem.0J4Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK—I do not believe there is, member for Calwell.QJ4Theophanous, Dr Andrew, MPDr Theophanous—Why don't you have a discussion, or a debate?0J4Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK—I am happy to have debates and discussion. We were on a committee together and we dismissed those sorts of propositions at that time. I have not dismissed all of the recommendations—I make that very clear—and I will look positively at those. I make the further point and it is relevant to what the member for Calwell and the member for Throsby have had to say: I am not about having an inhumane policy of detention—it has to be humane. There are certain expectations and people do have entitlements to complain to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission—and they are advised that they do. They do have an opportunity to complain to the Ombudsman. I believe that there should be an independent monitoring of what was happening, and that was the reason I set up the detention advisory group, which included two former ministers—John Hodges and Gerry Hand. It has included a number of the members of the Refugee Resettlement Advisory Council: Mr Paris Aristotle, who deals with torture and trauma issues; Professor Harry Minas, who is a leading psychiatrist; and Major-General Warren Glenny. The status of those people is beyond doubt.You raised the issue of sponsorship. My concern about what is happening here is not in relation to finding refugees—I think we do find refugees. The member for Calwell talks about Afghanis. The real problem is that we have probably been finding many who are not refugees to be refugees. If you look at what the Afghani community is saying at the moment about the extent to which Pakistanis are part of the caseload, I think we still have a major problem in relation to those matters. A lot of people have come who have relatives in Australia, and I suspect that many of them are looking for family reunion outcomes. They would find sponsors. If you are going to bring people who are looking for family reunion outcomes and link them with their sponsors and have them in the Australian community, if what they are looking for is migration outcomes, then they have achieved it. That is one of the concerns that I have about those sorts of suggestions.I cannot comment on everything, save to say in relation to the member for Throsby's comments about the people who are misbehaving that, in general, that occurs because they have reached the end of the road; they are being held for removal and there is a certain amount of desperation. I understand that. They are more difficult to manage and I appreciate that, but I do not think any degree of amenity is going to alter that possibility or probability. I will conclude by saying that I will ensure, as I have before, that the honourable member's questions on notice are properly and quickly dealt with. (Time expired)10000Jenkins, Harry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Before we proceed further, I ask that the honourable member for Chifley apologise to the Main Committee for allowing his mobile phone to ring. QI4Price, Roger, MPMr Price—Yes, I do apologise. I did not realise my phone was on.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—I might take the unusual step and seek some guidance from the Main Committee about how it wishes to proceed, because there was a loose understanding that we were to sit through until 7.30 tonight.QI4Price, Roger, MPMr Price—I just want to make one statement. I do not want to detain the Main Committee much longer.4K6Causley, Ian, MPMr Causley—Mr Deputy Speaker, do you need an extension of time?10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—No, there is no extension of time, but I could use a device which would close down things fairly quickly. I want to seek some guidance about where we are at.19:31:0028256Price, Roger, MPMr PRICEQI4ChifleyALP00—I will be very brief. I accept, if you like, a degree of fault in the committee, but I will say that recommendation 10 should be read together with recommendation 12. I think then you get a better understanding of where the committee was coming from.19:31:0028256Theophanous, Dr Andrew, MPDr THEOPHANOUSQJ4CalwellIND00—I just want to notify the chamber that I am writing privately to the minister about some concerns which I think have to be dealt with in relation to my visit to Port Hedland. I want those matters to be looked at. The other issue is: when will the minister actually formally reply to the committee, as distinct from the media response?19:32:0028256Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK0J4BerowraLPMinister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and Minister for Reconciliation and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—There is a requirement to respond within three months. It will be a whole of government response, and I will do that as quickly as I can. It will get a normal and full response, and it will not be dismissive of those recommendations that can be sensibly and easily implemented. I just make that point clear. I thank the honourable member for Chifley for his suggestion that I read recommendations 10 and 12 together. I was conscious of both of those recommendations, but I did not read them as being dependent upon each other.Let me say to the member for Calwell that, when people are endeavouring I think to use the opportunity to win an argument in relation to the detention system, they want to see the demise of it, and they are putting us under duress in relation to those matters. That is how I see it. If there are serious allegations about inappropriate behaviour, they should be properly and fully investigated and we should have a situation where we can establish what the facts are. I do not like dealing with allegations that are made in the media which are not always clear and precise as to who they apply to and which are not capable of immediate and appropriate response and investigation. If the member receives serious allegations and he wants to put them to me, I will ensure that they are fully and properly investigated; I will ensure that happens. I think it is a far preferable—QJ4Theophanous, Dr Andrew, MP0J4Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK—No, I don't think you should be naming people at all. I think it is a far preferable way of dealing with these issues. Let me just say to the honourable member that, when I facilitate a visit in good faith to enable you to hear what people have to say and when I explore with you how we might follow up those issues later by a proper investigation of any allegations that might be put to you, I do not expect, particularly when I am away, as I was last week, to then find those matters that are raised as allegations traduced in the media as generalised comments which I then have to deal with by way of response. I do not think that is fair to me, and I do not think it is fair to the department. If we are going to facilitate visits, which I am more than happy to do, I have an expectation that, if you receive complaints, you will enable them to be dealt with properly and fully. I do not expect to see one side of the case put in the public media, in a situation where we cannot respond and we cannot deal with them appropriately. I think—and I have said this to the honourable member face to face—that there was a lack of good faith in terms of the assurance I gave you and the way in which you dealt with it.QJ4Theophanous, Dr Andrew, MPDr Theophanous—Mr Deputy Speaker, I thought we were going to conclude this, but the minister has raised an inappropriate comment in relation to this.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Is the honourable member raising a point of order?QJ4Theophanous, Dr Andrew, MPDr Theophanous—You stated one side of the case in the media. I stated the other side of the story. I did not say that I believed the other story. I simply said—10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! The honourable member for Calwell will resume his seat. There is no point of order.Proposed expenditure agreed to.28257Proposed expenditure, $1,164,143,000.Debate—by leave—adjourned.Main Committee adjourned at 7.37 p.m.Answers to Questions in Writing28258The following answers to questions were circulated:28258(Question No. 2535)253528258McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 22 May 2001:Does the Australian Government have a position in respect of the Chinese Bear Farming Industry and in particular to bear bile and associated products; if so,(1) what is that position.(2) has he, or will he make any communication with the Chinese Government in respect to bear farming and the trade in bear bile and bear bile products.28258Downer, Alexander, MPMr Downer4G4MayoLPMinister for Foreign Affairs10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) The Australian Government views with concern the issue of cruelty of animals and concerns about reports of ill-treatment of bears in the Chinese Bear Farming industry, in particular reports concerning the ill-treatment of the endangered Asiatic black bear. Under the Commonwealth Wildlife Protection (Regulations of Exports and Imports) Act 1982, the import of Asiatic black bear products, including bile, is not permitted unless they are taken under a captive breeding program registered under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). There are currently no bear farming operations in China registered under CITES.(2) Australia has made representations to the Chinese authorities under CITES about traditional medicines containing prohibited products, including those of endangered bears, and will continue to do so. Separately, the Australian Government has strengthened legislation governing the trade in products derived from endangered species to make it easier to prosecute infringements of the legislation. It has also conducted a targeted public education campaign to promote awareness of wildlife conservation issues in order to reduce the demand for traditional medicines containing products of endangered species and to promote more appropriate farming practices.28258(Question No. 2564)256428258Danby, Michael, MPMr DanbyWF6Melbourne PortsALP00 asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 22 May 2001:(1) What is the cost of the building of an Australian Representative Office in Ramallah, in the areas controlled by the Palestinian Authority.(2) When and who made the decision to build such an office.(3) What is the size of the Palestinian economy, in terms of GDP per annum, that this office will service.(4) What is the size of the Israeli economy in terms of GDP per annum.(5) How many Australian embassies or consulates have been opened or closed since 1996.(6) What was the size, in terms of GDP per annum, of the economies served by Australian diplomatic missions that have closed since 1996.(7) How does the Australian Government justify the cost of operation and construction, as well as future expansion of the Australian diplomatic presence in Ramallah, compared to the missions that have been closed.28258Downer, Alexander, MPMr Downer4G4MayoLPMinister for Foreign Affairs10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) The office is a leased floor of a seven storey commercial building in Ramallah. The lease commenced on 29 September 2001 for a period of 5 years. Rent is A$48,580 pa.The office fitout, including furniture and fittings, is scheduled for completion in October 2001 and has been budgeted at A$450,000.(2) The decision to lease premises in Ramallah as office accommodation was taken by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade in September 2000. The decision was taken in accordance with standard Commonwealth property guidelines for office accommodation and followed a survey of accommodation options, other mission practice, and available office space in Ramallah. (3) The Economist Intelligence Unit (1999) reports that the Palestinian GDP is USD$4.75 billion.(4) The Economist Intelligence Unit (1999) indicates that the Israeli GDP is USD$100.8 billion.(5) Since 1996, 7 posts have opened and 4 have closed. PostsOpenedAbu Dhabi1999Copenhagen2000Dili1999 (closed temporarily during 2000 unrest)Lisbon2000Los Angeles1999 (upgraded from Austrade office)Ramallah2000Zagreb1999PostsClosedAlmaty1999Copenhagen1997Damascus1999Nauru1997(6) The International Monetary Fund, International Financial Statistics, May 2001 and the Economist Intelligence Unit, report the GDP figures as:· Copenhagen, Denmark USD$151.23 billion (1999)· Damascus, The Syrian Arab Republic USD$16.2 billion (1999)· Almaty, Kazakhstan USD$16.9 billion (1999)· Nauru USD$50 million (1998)(7) Decisions on overseas representation reflect many interrelated considerations. They focus on maximising Australia's economic and political standing to influence regional and global developments to advance Australia's national interests, and take into account various strands of external policy, including foreign, trade, defence, immigration, and development co-operation considerations.Other factors may include the expansion of commercial contacts to help generate inward and outward investment, and the need for consular and passport services to Australians travelling and living overseas and to their families in Australia. Considerations of efficiency are relevant, both in terms of comparative costs in different locations and configurations, and in maximising our investment in the existing network.In relation specifically to Ramallah, the decision was taken following the Prime Minister's visit to Israel and the Palestinian territories in April 2000.I regret that the honourable member does not support the opening of this Post in contrast to the views of the Member of Kingsford Smith.