2001-08-2839110REPS3035902001-08-28—————Mr SPEAKER (Mr Neil Andrew) took the chair at 2.00 p.m., and read prayers.Questions Without Notice303593035914:01:0030359Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALPLeader of the Opposition00—My question is to the Minister for Small Business. Minister, do you recall telling the House yesterday that Queensland Liberal state president Con Galtos was one of the two head office people who constructed the GST scam by requesting that tax invoices for the Costello dinner be forwarded to them as early as 21 November last year? Have you seen comments by Mr Galtos last night in which he absolutely denies your version of events, claiming that he first knew of the GST scam in January this year? Minister, now that you have been caught out again, what version of the truth will you be telling today?10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The imputation in the latter part of the Leader of the Opposition's question was inappropriate. The Minister for Small Business.30359Macfarlane, Ian, MPMr IAN MACFARLANEWN6GroomLPMinister for Small Business10—I tabled the minutes of the November meeting of the Groom FEC on the basis that they made reference to the dinner, and I thought that it was appropriate to do so.3035914:03:0030359Haase, Barry, MPMr HAASE84TKalgoorlieLP10—My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Would the Prime Minister inform the House of the government position in relation to the current status of the MV Tampa and the people on board?30359Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I am sure the House would be aware of the circumstances whereby the Norwegian vessel Tampa rescued 434 prospective unauthorised arrivals from their disabled vessel north of Christmas Island on Sunday, 26 August. Having rescued the individuals, the freighter was proceeding to the Indonesian port of Merak at the direction of the Indonesian search and rescue authority. We understand that the freighter subsequently turned back to Christmas Island at the insistence of the rescued individuals.The government has requested that the Tampa not enter Australian territorial waters and that it should continue on its original route to Indonesia. That position has been repeated in exchanges between the Australian government and the government of Indonesia. We continue to seek the assistance of the Norwegian and the Indonesian governments to secure an acceptable solution for all concerned.I can confirm to the House that Australian personnel have been flown to Christmas Island by C130 Hercules to provide any humanitarian assistance, such as food, water, medical supplies and safety equipment, that may be required. A doctor on Christmas Island is available to provide medical assistance. And the government is in the process of sourcing a helicopter with winching capacity to transfer any necessary supplies or other assistance from Christmas Island to the Tampa if necessary.I have been informed that the master of the vessel—and this has been the subject of some comment in the media this morning— has not requested any security assistance from Australia in relation to activity on board the vessel. This vessel is a very large container vessel built in 1984. It has a very substantial capacity. It is partly a roll-on, roll-off vessel. Whilst the conditions on the vessel would obviously not be comfortable, it is a very large vessel and, of course, significantly larger than many of the craft on which unauthorised arrivals have come to Australia.I should also inform the House that the government has decided to deploy HMAS Arunta to the Christmas Island vicinity. I understand it will leave Fremantle later this afternoon or early this evening and be within the Christmas Island area within a few days.3035914:06:0030359Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question is to the Minister for Small Business. I ask: do you recall telling the House last Thursday:My understanding is quite clear: those books—the Groom FEC books—have been audited. I am informed that the auditor saw nothing untoward in those books. And do you recall issuing a statement on Friday in which you backed this claim by reference to an auditor's report for the period to 31 March? Minister, why didn't you also acknowledge that there had been a previous audit by a different auditor, the Groom FEC's usual auditor, who did question arrangements for payment of the Costello fundraiser as a scheme? Minister, now that you had been caught out again, what version of the truth will you be telling us today?10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I invite the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to rephrase the last sentence of the question in order to make a question to the minister.DT4Mr CREAN—I ask: now that the minister has been shown to have been contradicted again, what is the truth of the matter?30360Macfarlane, Ian, MPMr IAN MACFARLANEWN6GroomLPMinister for Small Business10—I made an extensive statement to the House yesterday—83VEmerson, Craig, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Rankin, the minister has the call and is entitled to be heard in silence.Opposition members interjecting—QK6Sercombe, Bob, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The minister will resume his seat. I have made it quite clear to the House that the minister is entitled to be heard in silence, and I warn the member for Maribyrnong, who simply chose to continue interjecting.WN6Mr IAN MACFARLANE—Thank you, Mr Speaker. As I was saying, in that extensive statement yesterday I made reference to both those audits, and I stand by that statement.3036014:08:0030360Prosser, Geoff, MPMr PROSSERRI4ForrestLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Can the minister inform the House of the diplomatic efforts Australia is taking to help resolve the issue of over 400 boat people on board the Norwegian freighter Tampa?30360Downer, Alexander, MPMr DOWNER4G4MayoLPMinister for Foreign Affairs10—First, I thank the honourable member for Forrest for his question and for his concern about this difficult issue. My department has been in close contact with both the Norwegian and the Indonesian authorities through the course of yesterday and overnight, in an attempt to try to find a resolution to the problem of the MV Tampa and its passengers. This morning I also personally discussed the issue with the Indonesian ambassador to Australia.My department and I in all of our discussions have made it clear that we are concerned to find an outcome which addresses the humanitarian needs of the rescued passengers; but it is also critical for Australia that such an outcome protect the integrity of our immigration laws and our sovereign right to determine who enters this country. It is important that people understand that Australia has no obligation under international law to accept the rescued persons into Australian territory. I note that the fishing boat from which the 434 persons were rescued in international waters set off from Indonesia and was crewed by Indonesians.After picking up the stranded passengers—and it is very important to understand this fact—the Tampa was en route to the Indonesian port of Merak, where the passengers were to have disembarked and where the captain intended to have them disembark. The fact is that, under a form of duress, the captain of the ship was made to turn the ship around and make it head for Christmas Island. In these circumstances, we do not think it appropriate to succumb to duress. What is more, the entry of the rescued persons into Australia is neither reasonable nor lawful under Australia's immigration laws. In our view, the ship should return those rescued either to their point of departure or to the original intended destination of the ship, as would be the normal practice in these circumstances. Australia is concerned about the welfare of those on board and, as the Prime Minister said in answer to an earlier question, is providing humanitarian assistance to them, including food, water and, of course, medical attention.3036114:11:0030361Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question again is addressed to the Minister for Small Business. Minister, do you recall issuing a statement on Friday in which you said, `The Liberal Party did pay GST on the fundraising dinner'? Minister, given that the Liberal Party claimed input tax credits on the Costello fundraiser, doesn't this mean that it must also pay the tax office one-eleventh of the income of the fundraiser? Can you confirm that the Groom FEC minutes show the income as $18,350? Isn't it true that the full GST on this amount is $1,668 and it was never paid to the tax office? Given that your version has been contradicted again, what is the truth of this matter, Minister?30361Macfarlane, Ian, MPMr IAN MACFARLANEWN6GroomLPMinister for Small Business10—Mr Speaker, the shadow treasurer's understanding, or lack of understanding, of the tax system is absolutely breathtaking. I can confirm that the catering company involved was paid the GST in full by the Liberal Party. I have referred to this matter—DT4Crean, Simon, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has asked his question.ZD4Howard, John, MPMr Howard—Why don't you warn him?WN6Mr IAN MACFARLANE—The process that was followed is explained in detail in my statement, and I refer the shadow Treasurer to that statement.3036114:14:0030361Billson, Bruce, MPMr BILLSON1K6DunkleyLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, Minister for Reconciliation and Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs. Minister, does the government have proposals to deal with the issues relating to the management of illegal arrivals and people refused protection within Australia? Would the minister advise the House of any impediments to these proposals?30361Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK0J4BerowraLPMinister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and Minister for Reconciliation and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—I thank the honourable member for Dunkley for his question. The answer in relation to each of the questions the member asked is of course yes. But the issue that we have to address here is why there are numbers of people who are prepared to engage in quite inappropriate behaviour, to put captains of ships under duress, to put officials of my department and those who are charged with assisting people here in Australia under duress—what is it that drives people to behave in this way? Some would say that it is the desperation that some of these people face, but the fact is that there are very significant differences in outcome, depending upon whether you are in Australia or you are making your claims elsewhere. That is the point that I made yesterday—that if you have people from Afghanistan, or who claim to be Afghani but may in fact be Pakistani, who arrive in Australia without documentation, which we know they have had, and make their claims, they have an 84 per cent chance of being accepted; but if those same groups with documents are being assessed elsewhere, 14 per cent of the assessments by the UNHCR are accepted. That is a significant difference, and it applies not only to Afghani; it applies to Iraqi and Iranian, and that is the fact.Then you couple that with access to income support if people are found to be refugees and you couple it with access to universal health care, and you have people who are in the business of people smuggling who trade on those factors. They now go out and advertise that we have reduced the time that people might remain in detention because we have been anxious to ensure that that period is as short as possible. Australia does accept its international obligations and does so honourably. It exercises them conscientiously, but it does not accept that our refugee and humanitarian program will be managed by people smugglers.I will be introducing today legislation that will ensure that the determination process is in accordance with our international obligations and is the same process that is applied by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. It will restore the intention of the refugee convention. It will also address those issues that have evolved from our jurisprudential model—that is, the extent to which the courts have determined that in Australia we will be significantly more generous in the way in which these issues are addressed. It will ensure that there is an onus on those people who come without documents to identify themselves in a meaningful way with verifiable documents, and if they do not do that without just excuse, adverse implications will be able to be drawn. These measures, coupled with some others, will be crucial to ensuring that we reduce Australia's relative attractiveness—not because we are being dishonourable and denying genuine refugees protection, but because people who are not refugees are able to gain it. It will also be dependent upon containing the gratuitous advice as to the way in which the convention is interpreted that arises through the jurisprudential model. The opposition will have an opportunity this week or when we return to vote on the judicial review bill, and I heard the opposition spokesman saying that they are still opposed to it because it is unconstitutional. If it is unconstitutional, let the courts throw it out. But what it would mean is that all the other privative clauses used by Labor governments from time immemorial to sustain the industrial relations system of this country would also be struck down. That is what it would mean. That is the implication. If this matter is to be a contest between this place, another place and the courts as to the way in which the law will be interpreted, let it be at issue. But the fact is that, on all the advice available to me, this bill is not unconstitutional.The further point I would make is that the cost of judicial review is growing exponentially. This year it is in excess of $15 million. There are 200 people in detention awaiting the outcome of cases, despite decisions of the Refugee Review Tribunal. Those 200 people remain in detention right now because they are pursuing cases before the courts where they have already been found not to be refugees. Then we have the class actions bill, which the Labor Party is opposing, which involves some 6,000 people who are maintaining themselves here in Australia on the pretext of being lawful because they are pursuing litigation as part of a class action. The fact is that over 600 unsuccessful refugee applicants who have already had their day in court, have already had their chance before the tribunal, are using that system now to maintain themselves here in Australia.What I lament is the opposition that says, `We support 90 per cent of what you're about. We'll cherry pick and say which proposals we'll accept, but we'll knock off the ones we wish to.' The opposition were in this chamber the other day saying, `We support the measures that are designed to protect Australian workers who are managing detention centres from possible risk to their life and safety by being able to undertake searches to ascertain whether people have weapons,' but when that matter got to the Senate—after you had given us a promise of support—you joined with the Democrats and the others to send it off to a committee to delay the handling of the matter and you will not join us in ensuring that it will pass. If you are serious about these matters, there will be support for all of the measures that the government has sought to implement.3036214:22:0030362Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question again is addressed to the Minister for Small Business. I refer to statements made by him and his ministerial colleagues that the Groom GST scam was all a misunderstanding and has been fixed. Minister, isn't it a fact, as claimed by the Liberal Party stalwart David Watts, that, at the very time you were making this claim, the $826 in falsely claimed input tax credits was still sitting in the Groom FEC bank account? Hasn't your re-election account benefited from a GST scam that you say was rectified months ago? Minister, given that this is another version by you that has been contradicted, what is the truth of this matter?30362Macfarlane, Ian, MPMr IAN MACFARLANEWN6GroomLPMinister for Small Business10—In my statement to the House yesterday, I outlined a number of steps that the Groom division of the FEC took to ensure that it met its tax obligations. I stand by that statement.3036214:24:0030362Wakelin, Barry, MPMr WAKELINHV5GreyLP10—My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Is the minister aware of the results of the latest Yellow Pages business index released today? What does this survey reveal about the level of confidence by small business and its view of the economy? 30363Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I thank the honourable member for Grey for his question. I can inform him that the Yellow Pages business survey was released today. It showed that confidence levels across Australian small to medium business improved markedly in the last quarter to the highest level since November 1999. Mr Speaker, 61 per cent of small and medium enterprises feel confident about their prospects for the next 12 months. The increase in confidence was reported across most industries, including hospitality, finance, insurance, communication, property and the business services sector. I think all members of the House would say that to see a return of confidence to small business is a good thing and welcome—at least all members on this side of the House will welcome it. No doubt the Labor Party will be unhappy about small business increasing its confidence. But for the small business sector that is good news. It reflects the fact that after coming through the December quarter, which was a negative quarter, with transitional effects to the new taxation system, after coming through the international downturn, a recovery of confidence is being widely reflected in the Australian business community.The Yellow Pages also asks small business today which party it believes is better for handling taxation matters, and I thought the House might be interested in this. Small business was asked which party they thought would provide a fairer tax system, and 16 per cent said Labor; 40 per cent named the coalition—three to one. They were asked who they thought was the best for limiting tax for small business, and 11 per cent said the Labor Party; 42 per cent said the coalition—42 per cent to 11 per cent. They were asked which party they thought was the best for ensuring that interest rates do not rise: 51 per cent said the coalition and five per cent said the Labor Party. The number that supported the Labor Party was about a third of the Labor Party's maximum interest rate of 17 per cent. They were asked which party was the best for controlling inflation: 61 per cent said that it was the coalition. But this is the one I really liked: which was the best for controlling the deficit—DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—Tell them about the FEC scam.CT4Mr COSTELLO—They always interject the loudest when they like the news the least. The small business response on which party was the best for controlling the deficit: coalition, 69 per cent; Labor Party, four per cent. I do not know why the Labor Party only had four per cent, because that favourite clipping that I go to bed with every night from the Financial Review includes in it the Labor Party's promise for bigger surpluses. Why is it that only four per cent of small businesses have got the message when, after all, the Labor Party is going to roll back the GST, it is going to spend on the noodle nation, it is going to increase its expenditures on health—and it is going to do all of that with a bigger surplus. As I keep on saying: why didn't we think of that?It is probably six or seven weeks today since the noodle nation was released by the Labor Party. I think in all of that time since its release we have not had in this House one question on the noodle nation. There has not been one question on the noodle nation, which was going to be the centrepiece of the Labor Party's plan for the next election. There have been no questions this week in relation to health, which after last week's caucus meeting was going to be the great counterattack from the Labor Party, no mention of education and no mention of the roll-backwards either. These are policies of the Labor Party which dare not speak their name. It is no surprise that only four per cent of small business believe that Labor can control its deficits. In fact, one would be surprised that it was even as high as four per cent in relation to this survey.3036314:30:0030363McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN5I4FraserALP00—My question is to the Minister for Small Business. Minister, do you recall claiming yesterday that you did not shut down the Groom GST scam because you were acting on the advice of Mr Neville Stewart, a member of the Queensland state executive? Isn't it a fact that Queensland Liberal sources are telling everyone who will listen that Mr Stewart, along with Senator Brandis and Mr Santoro, was the architect of the GST scam that was being implemented in your FEC? Aren't these three people the shadowy figures who have been referred to over the weekend? Why didn't you disclose to this House that the person you relied upon in your defence was actually one of the culprits? 30364Macfarlane, Ian, MPMr IAN MACFARLANEWN6GroomLPMinister for Small Business10—I will check the record as to what I said yesterday.83VEmerson, Craig, MPMr Emerson—Which one?10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Rankin is warned!WN6Mr IAN MACFARLANE—I will check the Hansard as to what I said yesterday. In my statement to the House I outlined a number of steps that were taken by the Groom FEC and I stand by that statement.3036414:31:0030364Hull, Kay, MPMrs HULL83ORiverinaNP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Would the minister update the House on how Australia's public health care system has benefited from the increase in the number of Australians who have exercised their right to choice and taken out private health insurance? Is the minister aware of any alternative policies in this area?30364Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4CaseyLPMinister for Health and Aged Care10—I thank the honourable member for Riverina for her question. I am aware that, after the release of the exceedingly good Private Health Insurance Administration Council figures, there has been some criticism, particularly coming from the opposition, which is hardly surprising. The opposition seem unimpressed that more revenue is going into the public hospital system from private health insurance companies. In doing so, they really miss the point. That point is that, certainly in the last seven to eight years, public hospitals have lost an incredibly important revenue stream that had always been part of their overall operating budget. This was recognised by all state and territory health ministers and it was recognised by former Labor Party health ministers. Secondly, the health care agreements are worked out in many ways on the figures of the uninsured population. Insured people tend to use private hospitals and, as I said yesterday, the number of people not declaring their insurance status has dropped very dramatically. New South Wales is doing well in this respect, with schemes reported to be in place for public hospitals to actually cover the gap so that it will be more attractive for insured people to use public hospitals. If you actually look at funding going to hospitals on the basis of the uninsured population, which is how it has traditionally been looked at, we get some very interesting figures. I got my department to take these out and I am happy to table them. If you look at constant 1997-1998 dollars, the fact is that in 1993, when Labor signed their last health care agreement, the average dollars per uninsured patient was $426. Over the life of the health care agreement that Labor signed that went to $394 per uninsured patient, a decline to the states of 7½ per cent. Compare that to 1998-1999, the first year of our health care agreement: $425 per person uninsured, to $592 at the end of the health care agreement 2000-2003, an increase of nearly 40 per cent. So there is a very stark contrast here: a 7½ per cent decrease over the life of Labor's health care agreement to the states per uninsured patient; a 39.2 per cent increase over the life of our health care agreement; the sort of increase per uninsured person never previously seen.Arising from comments recently, I have challenged the Labor Party recently to rule out tinkering with the 30 per cent rebate. I have challenged them to rule out grandfathering it, to rule out taking it off ancillaries, to rule out applying it only at the base level premium, and on a number of other things, and pointedly they have refused to do so. Today in the Australian the member for Jagajaga again commented and, after being challenged by the government to rule these things out, all she would say was that Labor would keep the 30 per cent rebate. That is not the point. Keep it in what form? Labor have refused to rule out tinkering with it and have refused to rule out emasculating it. Labor do not like it and, given half a chance, they will destroy the private health rebate, as they did under the Hawke government and under the Whitlam government. 3036514:35:0030365Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question is again to the Minister for Small Business. I ask whether he has seen the leaked report by the federal Liberal director, Lynton Crosby, on the state of the Queensland division of the Liberal Party. Has he seen comments in it that say:The financial problems which the Division faces must be addressed immediately. A long term financial plan must be established which provides a secure financial foundation that eliminates the hand to mouth existence that has dogged the Division for a decade.Minister, isn't this the motive for the GST scam which was implemented by your FEC and by the Queensland division of the Liberal Party—a fundraising scam to illegally harvest input credits for party activities?WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr Reith—I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is clearly out of order. It is completely outside the minister's responsibility.5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMullan—Mr Speaker, on the point of order raised by the Leader of the House: this question is as relevant to the minister's responsibility as the previous ones have been, in exactly the same manner. They go to the question of his accountability to this House and to his motivation for acting in ways that have misled this House. All the questions today referred, as this one has, to the behaviour of the minister as it relates to the Groom FEC GST scam. This question relates to it in exactly the same way. Either the questions are all out of order or they are all in order, because this question relates in exactly the same way as all the others.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Manager of Opposition Business and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition may have noted that I had attempted to interrupt the Deputy Leader of the Opposition while he was asking his question, because I do not see how the question framed by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is involved in an area over which the Minister for Small Business has any jurisdiction.Honourable members interjecting—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I am addressing the House! I recognise that the Groom FEC is an area over which he has some control. I do not see that the management of the Queensland Liberal Party is. For that reason, I deem the question out of order.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—Mr Speaker, on the point of order: you have just indicated that the questions that we have asked the Minister for Small Business, as a Minister for Small Business involved in a scam that no other small business can get involved in, relate to his FEC.Government members interjecting—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The chair is not being assisted by any of the members on my right. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has a point of order, and I am hearing him.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—As I say, Mr Speaker, all of those questions relate to his knowledge, his involvement, in the Groom FEC. This question goes to the motive, and therefore it is relevant, I would suggest to you, Mr Speaker.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. I have already ruled this question out of order. I had no doubt that the member for Groom could be deemed to have some involvement with the Groom FEC. I do not see how the member for Groom, any more than the member for Wakefield, can have any involvement with the management of his state political party. I have ruled the question out of order.5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMullan—Mr Speaker, I have a point of order.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr Reith—This is not a point of order; it is just debating—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the House will resume his seat. I have not heard the Manager of Opposition Business.5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMullan—The standing orders allow you to rule out part of a question. Your ruling is based upon the fact that the minister is not responsible for the Queensland Liberal Party but for the Groom FEC. The last paragraph of the question—9V5Pyne, Chris, MP7T4Crosio, Janice, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Sturt and the member for Prospect are both warned! 5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMullan—The last section of the question explicitly refers to the activity undertaken by the Groom FEC. I do not agree with your interpretation of the first two paragraphs, but I accept that you are the Speaker and you are entitled to make that ruling, and we are not dissenting from that as it relates to those first two paragraphs. With regard to the third paragraph, it relates specifically to what you require—that is, it relates to the Groom FEC. Therefore, even if you disallow the first two paragraphs, you should allow the third paragraph to stand.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I have ruled the question out of order.3036614:41:0030366May, Margaret, MPMrs MAY83BMcPhersonLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Would the minister update the House on how the Howard government is further improving Medicare by using technology to, amongst other things, make it easier for Australians to claim their Medicare rebates?30366Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4CaseyLPMinister for Health and Aged Care10—I thank the honourable member for McPherson for her question. When we came to government, if you wanted to get a Medicare rebate you had to go to a Medicare office, or, if that was not available, stick your claim in the post and take your luck—that was it. We took the very strong view that we should extend this, and today there are 600 Medicare Easyclaim facilities operating around Australia, along with 226 Medicare offices. The fact is that people now have nearly four times the options that they had five years ago to claim Medicare.There seems to be a more sensible way to do this as well. As part of the memorandum of understanding with general practice that we signed some two years ago, we are exploring claiming Medicare rebates directly from doctors' facilities, or at least lodging the rebates there and having the rebates go back to the individual. We are trialling this currently at Inverell in New South Wales, at Kadina in South Australia and Helensvale in Queensland, and it has been particularly successful. It has 87 per cent community acceptance, which is very high for a new program such as this, and we are hoping to run this right around Australia by the end of the year. This will then mean that it is simple for anyone anywhere with a participating doctor to put in a Medicare claim if they wish in a way that was completely unthinkable five years ago.Electronic health has posed a great challenge for governments right round the world. No government as yet has been perceived to get it right; many governments have got it wrong. Britain in the late 1980s wasted around a billion dollars on trying to get a health information system together that in the end proved useless. A number of countries I visited overseas have had very large government reports, but not much happening on the ground. Australia has taken a much more modest approach, and I believe it will prove to be more successful than most other countries. Australia has the added challenge of having state and territory governments— there are in fact nine jurisdictions in which we have to operate.The National Health Information Management Advisory Council is just about to release its second report on health online, which is the blueprint for what Commonwealth, states and territories are doing. The Australian health ministers have recently endorsed the next stage of Health Connect. This is a two-year process of research and development prior to a decision on a full roll out of a system. By doing it cooperatively with the states and territories, we have the prospect of avoiding the rail gauge problem of different states and territories doing different things, which is something that has been elusive to us in the past and is an enormous challenge in the future.We have developed public key infrastructure for the Health Insurance Commission, which will allow secure transmission of data, and we have established a Health Electronic Signature Authority, which paves the way for cost-effective and secure transmission of health data over the Internet. In addition, 70 per cent of GPs are now writing computer generated prescriptions—and any honourable member who has recently been to the doctor is likely to have noticed a difference. Four years ago this did not exist. In the United States today, about one per cent of prescriptions are computer generated; we generate 70 per cent. The Better Medication Management System is looking at creating a secure and comprehensive pharmaceutical health record. This is something that has been elusive in the past. It offers enormous benefits to the community in terms of safety, quality and being able to track different medications provided by different doctors and different pharmacies. It is a completely voluntary system. People choose to opt in if they see benefit to it, and we expect most of the population to do so.3036714:45:0030367Theophanous, Dr Andrew, MPDr THEOPHANOUSQJ4CalwellIND00—My question is to the Treasurer. In light of the fact that certain studies have shown that the GST has had an unfair impact on certain poorer sections of the Australian community, will the Treasurer announce an immediate review of these negative impacts? Will he also announce, before the election, measures to compensate poor people by more significant reductions in income taxes and more assistance to pensioners and those on fixed incomes?10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I invite the Treasurer to respond to the question. He is aware, of course, that he cannot announce policy.30367Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I have no intention of announcing policy. I welcome the searching question from the member for Calwell, my former tutor. He taught me second year politics at Monash University. I owe him everything I know. I think he considers me to be one of his greatest creations. He gave me a lifetime distrust of left-wing politics in that second year tutorial. The course was called `The Morality of Power'—something that he has exercised ever since. Much as I have a soft spot for my old tutor, and much as the intellectual inspiration which he gave me beats within my heart, I do not always agree with him. And I do not agree with him on this occasion.83DMurphy, John, MPMr Murphy—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order and it goes to the question of relevance. We have had half a minute of nothing to do with—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Lowe will resume his seat. The parliament has just witnessed 30 seconds of good-natured banter which did not justify intervention by the member for Lowe. I call the Treasurer.CT4Mr COSTELLO—I was coming to say that, much as I admire him, I do not always agree with him, and I do not agree with the proposition that he put that recent studies have shown that poorer sections of the community are worse off because of tax reform. I do not believe recent studies have shown that.ZD4Howard, John, MPMr Howard—Quite the opposite.CT4Mr COSTELLO—Quite the opposite, as the Prime Minister said. A recent study was reported in the Fairfax newspapers on the weekend, by the NATSEM group, which showed that, as a consequence of the government's tax reforms, single income families had improved their position quite considerably. An opposition member interjecting—CT4Mr COSTELLO—Somebody throws off at Bettina Arndt from the Labor Party side of the House, but Bettina Arndt is entitled, in my view, to write up the NATSEM results. As I said earlier, NATSEM is certainly not some organisation which is beholden to the government in any way. In fact, as I recall, the Labor Party relied very considerably on NATSEM. As I also recall, NATSEM did the analysis for—most probably even drew—the Labor Party's tax policy at the last federal election. We are all entitled to have a look at what NATSEM did, and in this regard the NATSEM survey which was, yes, written up by Bettina Arndt and was in the Fairfax papers on the weekend, found that single income families had very considerably improved their position under the government's tax changes. A single income family earning $35,000, with one child under five years and a second child who is older, receives additional benefits of $87 a week as a result of tax cuts and increases in family assistance.As that material also found, a single income family that is on a government income support is a big winner. A single income family with a child under five and earning $29,000 receives an additional $59 a week. The truth of the matter is this: if the Labor Party had defeated our tax proposals, single income families today would be much worse off, all Australians would be paying higher income taxes, all companies would be paying higher company taxes, all Australians would also be paying financial institutions duty, and a whole raft of other things. I was also asked about pensions. The truth of the matter is that the government increased the pension by four per cent and maintains it, in real terms, two per cent above the CPI. That is, two per cent higher, further in front of prices, than it would otherwise have been. That is in addition to the other commitment of the government, and that is that the age pension be legislated to 25 per cent of male total average weekly earnings. That was something which had never been put in legislation before this government came to office. In relation to pensions, there was also the savings bonus of up to $1,000, dollar for dollar, for pensioners; there was the additional $2,000 for the self-funded retiree; there was the announcement in the most recent budget of $300 for age pensioners or part pensioners; there was the announcement in relation to prisoners of war; there was the increase in the Commonwealth seniors health care card; there was the reduction in taxes which are paid by older Australians over 65 years of age; there has been the $2.4 billion increase in family tax assistance, either through the tax system or the payments system; there were reductions in income taxes; and there were reductions in a whole host of other taxes. So, in answer to the honourable member's question, I do not believe that there is such a finding, and the government has made full and adequate compensation.3036814:53:0030368Vale, Danna, MPMrs VALEVK6HughesLP10—My question is directed to the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. Is the minister aware of the outcome of the Maintrain dispute? How has this dispute affected Australian working families? Minister, what is the government's response, and are there any alternative policies in this area?30368Abbott, Tony, MPMr ABBOTTEZ5WarringahLPMinister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business10—I thank the member for Hughes for her question and for her commitment to ensuring that power is exercised responsibly in the Australian community. I am delighted that this dispute at Maintrain is now over, and it is over without any acceptance of the Manusafe scheme—a scheme which is not about protecting existing entitlements but about creating new entitlements; a scheme which if fully implemented would cost some 160,000 jobs in the manufacturing industry alone; and a scheme which is, of course, fully encompassed by the policy of the Australian Labor Party.Let us be very clear about the actions of the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union in this dispute—a union which last year gave the Labor Party $680,000; a union which is currently running a half a million dollar marginal seat campaign to support the Leader of the Opposition; and a union which controls the second largest bloc vote inside the Labor Party. First, this union strategically targeted a company in the hope that rail chaos would disrupt the lives of hundreds of thousands of New South Wales commuters. Second, this union needlessly prolonged a dispute for seven weeks and cost 220 of its members some $5,000 in pay to achieve a result that could have been had on day one. Any union which is involved in an attempt to hold the general community to ransom and which costs its own members thousands and thousands of dollars in a futile dispute deserves to be condemned. Let me quote from a member opposite in responsible mode. The member for Brisbane, the shadow minister for industrial relations, last year said:It is unacceptable that one side in a dispute that thinks it has the muscle or resources to starve out the other, can simply frustrate the process and try and force an outcome irrespective of the merits of their case.That is Labor's theory, but it is not Labor's practice. There was not one word of complaint, let alone condemnation, of this dispute from any member opposite. The New South Wales government completely backed the strike and completely backed the union, even though these workers' jobs were in fact protected by a contract with the New South Wales government. Last night in this House we even had the member for Grayndler actually congratulating Dougie Cameron for `providing leadership in this area'. The reprehensible thing is that for months now the Australian Labor Party has been trying to scare Australian workers that their entitlements are at risk, even though fewer than one-tenth of one per cent of Australian workers will find themselves in the situation of losing a job because of the bankruptcy of their employer. Members opposite have been trying to scare workers at good, solid, decent companies, such as Orange Communications, which is backed by the giant Hutchison Whampoa group, and Maintrain, which is part of the Goninan group—a group which has been in operation for more than a century, which had record profits last year, which has a $1 billion order book and whose chief contracts are with the New South Wales government.It is absolutely disgraceful that members opposite are not interested in workers when they are workers. Members opposite are interested in workers only when they are victims. If members opposite really cared about the workers of Australia, they would not be scaring them about their jobs and their futures; they would be supporting the government's safety net entitlements scheme. But the Australian people are coming to know that Labor means strikes, and strikes cost jobs.Distinguished Visitors3036910000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Order! I inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon Mr Ted Grace, the former member for Fowler, a former Government Whip and, I believe, for a time a former Opposition Whip. On behalf of all of his former colleagues and the members of the House, I extend to him a very warm welcome.Honourable members—Hear, hear!Questions Without Notice303693036914:58:0030369Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, I refer to the fact that you have a representative who sits on your behalf on the executive of the Queensland division of the Liberal Party, Senator Ian Macdonald, and Minister Brough as proxy. Do you recall Minister Macfarlane claiming yesterday that the instructions to arrange the Groom GST scam came from the Queensland division head office? Do you also recall your federal director admitting yesterday that the GST scam had spread to the electorates of Lilley and Leichhardt? Prime Minister, what action did your representatives take to shut down the GST scam?30369Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question. I do not accept the description of what has occurred as a `scam'. That is my first statement. I would remind the Leader of the Opposition that he referred to a statement that was released by Mr Crosby, who, might I say, as the senior executive officer of the Liberal Party of Australia has acted throughout the entirety of this with total dispatch and complete transparency. I want to put that point on record. The detailed report that he released yesterday, far from indicating that the alleged scam—which I do not accept—had spread, indicated that, in a total of some hundreds of transactions, a very small number had been found to be in error. The total amount of the shortfall of tax was about $180.SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr Tuckey—Yeah, not $800. You keep running that line at the back.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Minister for Forestry and Conservation!ZD4Mr HOWARD—In the case of the Groom Federal Electorate Council, we have had the affairs of this parliament at question time tied up now for three days over a mistaken shortfall of $76. That is the measure of what has been involved. On a scale of one to 10, any alleged misrepresentation—Opposition members interjecting—ZD4Mr HOWARD—You talk about a scam— the misrepresentations by the Leader of the Opposition about health in Western Australia were the scam of the last month. PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order.SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Minister for Forestry and Conservation is warned. I am about to ask the Prime Minister whether or not he has concluded his answer.ZD4Mr HOWARD—No, I have not. I have only just started.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, we look as if we might get an answer then. The point of order was—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The rules as long as I have occupied the chair are very simple. I rarely, if ever, deny anyone the call; they simply wait to receive the call.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order in relation to relevance. What did the Prime Minister's representatives do to shut the scam down?ZD4Mr HOWARD—We have a mistaken shortfall, in the case of the Groom FEC, of $76. That pales into insignificance compared with the $4 million a year you get out of Centenary House. If you really want a political—Government members interjecting—PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr Beazley—Mr Speaker—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I am not being assisted by members on my right. The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. Does the Leader of the Opposition have a point of order?PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr Beazley—I do, Mr Speaker, and it goes to relevance. This is a million miles from the answer to the question of what his representatives did to shut down the scam.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. It is true that the Prime Minister made tangential reference to items that were not directly related to the question. It is not unusual in question time.ZD4Mr HOWARD—Mr Speaker, I repeat: I do not accept that what occurred was a scam. It has been explained in some detail by the Minister for Small Business. It has been augmented by the statements made on behalf of the federal secretariat of the Liberal Party, both by Mr Lynton Crosby and by Mr Colin Gracie. We have heard from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition a series of questions which illustrate only one thing: his ignorance of the operation of the new taxation system. A series of questions have been asked. I would remind the Leader of the Opposition not only of the contents of the statements that have been made by the Minister for Small Business and the statements that have been made by Lynton Crosby; I would also remind the Leader of the Opposition that, on Sunday, I announced after consultation with Senator Herron, the President of the Queensland division of the Liberal Party, that there would be a full audit by the tax office into the GST compliance by the Queensland division.I take this opportunity to confirm an understanding I had from a response by the Leader of the Opposition yesterday that, strangely, did not appear in Hansard—that is, the Leader of the Opposition's response— that the Leader of the Opposition is happy to have an audit of the Victorian branch of the Labor Party.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—What about your scam, Prime Minister?ZD4Mr HOWARD—He said that yesterday. I hope Hansard have made a note of it.DT4Crean, Simon, MPZD4Mr HOWARD—Have you written to the tax office authorising it yet? Eh? No, we have not done that! No doubt you will get around to it. Or maybe the caucus briefer will do it on your behalf.PE4Beazley, Kim, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition is running the risk of not being recognised. PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr Beazley—Mr Speaker—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat.ZD4Mr HOWARD—I thought he had a point of order.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—Yes, he does.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order that goes to relevance. We are five minutes into this answer now. What action did the Prime Minister's representatives take to shut down the GST scam? DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—Hear, hear!10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. ZD4Mr HOWARD—The short answer to the Leader of the Opposition's question was contained in the first answer that I gave. I did not accept the description of `scam'. If a scam does not exist, there is nothing to close down. But I did take the opportunity of outlining the transparent way in which the Liberal Party organisation has dealt with this matter. I remind the House again that the shortfall as a result of the events that have been canvassed in the minister's statement— the shortfall in the case of the Groom FEC— was $76. That amount has been accounted for in a subsequent business activity statement. The shortfall in the entirety of the Queensland division, according to the statement released yesterday by Lynton Crosby, the federal director of the party, is the grand sum of $180. The sum of $180 represents the totality of this alleged scam. That is $180 that has occupied the time of the man who would be Treasurer of this country. In the process, we have had demonstrated to us a pathetic misunderstanding of the operation of the taxation laws.83ERipoll, Bernie, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Oxley is warned!ZD4Mr HOWARD—On top of that, in the interests of not only the reality of transparency but also—DT4Crean, Simon, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is warned!ZD4Mr HOWARD—the appearance of transparency, we have said that we will have a total audit of the affairs of the Queensland division of the party insofar as they relate to the operation of the goods and services tax legislation.4I4McLeay, Leo, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Chief Opposition Whip is warned!ZD4Mr HOWARD—I think that is complete openness; I think that is complete transparency. The preoccupation, particularly of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, with this issue over the past few days is indicative of the policy bankruptcy of an opposition only a matter of several months out from an important general election.3037115:08:0030371Gambaro, Teresa, MPMs GAMBARO9K6PetrieLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. Would the minister inform the House of recent employment data from Queensland? Why is the unemployment rate in Queensland worse than in any other mainland state? How have Queensland's industrial relations changes hurt employment and small business in my state, and what is the Howard government doing to solve the unemployment problem in Queensland?30371Abbott, Tony, MPMr ABBOTTEZ5WarringahLPMinister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business10—I thank the member for Petrie for her question, and I thank her for her strong support for the workers and job seekers in her electorate and surrounding areas. I can tell the House that since March 1996 unemployment in Queensland has dropped from 8.7 per cent to 8.1 per cent. In March 1996 unemployment in Queensland was about the national average. I am afraid to say that now Queensland has the highest unemployment of any mainland state because of the industrial relations roll-back practised by the Beattie government. The Beattie government's workplace relations legislation allows strike pay, it virtually abolishes Queensland's workplace agreements, it stops award simplification, it abolishes the Queensland Employment Advocate, it removes the exemption from the unfair dismissal provisions for small business and it allows the Queensland Industrial Commission to declare contractors to be employees.Mr Speaker, what would you expect from a government completely under the thumb of the Australian Workers Union, which last year gave the Labor Party no less than $653,000—a classic case of cash for policy. This is just a foretaste of the kind of industrial relations roll-back that Australia would experience if the Leader of the Opposition were ever to form a government. The Leader of the Opposition would actually go further than Premier Beattie. He would force Australia's one million small businesses to enter compulsory union bargaining, which would mean that, every time there is a knock on the door of small business, it could be the union heavies demanding their right of entry and chorusing, `Have we got a good-faith bargain for you.' The Queensland experience proves that roll-back costs jobs. While the Queensland government is punishing small business, the Howard government is getting on with providing job seekers in Queensland with the world's best employment services. In the electorate of Dickson, for instance, this government has put in place some 44 Work for the Dole projects over last the three years, which have provided viable work experience to nearly 2,000 young Queenslanders. When members opposite were in power, there were just two CES offices in the electorate of Dickson; now Job Network sites are in double figures. But what would the member for Dickson know, because she is the ultimate absentee political landlord. From the deck of the Gold Coast high-rise where she lives—XW4Kernot, Cheryl, MPMs Kernot—That is not true.EZ5Mr ABBOTT—Oh, it is not true, is it? She says that it is not true.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The minister will not respond to interjections. The minister will respond to the question.EZ5Mr ABBOTT—I am sorry, Mr Speaker. From the deck of the Gold Coast high-rise—XW4Kernot, Cheryl, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Dickson!XW4Kernot, Cheryl, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Dickson!XW4Kernot, Cheryl, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Dickson is defying the chair.5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMullan—I rise on a point of order that obviously goes to relevance, Mr Speaker. Even though the information is inaccurate, whether it is accurate or not, the residence of the member for Dickson is not relevant to any matter that relates to the question nor to any ministerial responsibility of the minister.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat!XW4Kernot, Cheryl, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Dickson is doing nothing to enhance her case by defying the chair. The minister's response to this question is doing nothing to elevate the dignity of the chamber. I asked him to confine his remarks.EZ5Mr ABBOTT—I am simply pointing out—WF6Danby, Michael, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—And neither is the action of the member for Melbourne Ports, as he must be well aware!EZ5Mr ABBOTT—that, from the deck of a high-rise on the Gold Coast, you can just about see Dickson on a good day!5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMullan—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It is quite clear that the minister is defying your very proper ruling, and I ask you to deal with him accordingly.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—As any impartial observer would have been aware, I was fairly or unfairly dealing with the member for Melbourne Ports when the minister made that statement. I did not hear what he said. I will listen to his remarks. I ask him to come back to the question.EZ5Mr ABBOTT—I have been asked about what the Howard government is doing to help boost employment in Queensland, and we are doing a lot more than the member for Dickson, who does not live in her electorate and who has never lived in her electorate. Last year she even said that she was about to live in the Gold Coast.XW4Kernot, Cheryl, MPMs Kernot—That is not true, Mr Speaker, yet you let him say it every time.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Order! The minister will come back to the question without reference to the member for Dickson, or resume his seat.EZ5Mr ABBOTT—Let me simply conclude that, unlike the Queensland Labor government, we are interested in producing more jobs for Queenslanders, and the last thing that Queenslanders need is industrial relations roll-back.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr Reith—On a point of order, Mr Speaker, as a matter of clarification— 10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Order! The Leader of the House is waiting, as the Leader of the Opposition was waiting, for the call. I call the Leader of the House.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr Reith—On a point of clarification, it seems an odd ruling that a member should not be able to refer to a member on the other side, and I ask you whether or not that is your intention—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the House will resume his seat. For the information of all members, and I am sure that it is self-evident to all, there is no intention to restrict the opportunity for members to say anything within the standing orders. However, it was patently obvious that what the minister was saying was doing nothing to enhance the dignity of the House, and for that reason I obliged him to resume his seat.3037315:17:0030373Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Have you seen a report in today's Courier Mail that one of the three Queensland Liberal fundraisers at which the GST scam was used took place in the North Queensland seat of Leichhardt? Was this the Cairns fundraising dinner that you hosted in late March and, if so, why was the GST scam still operating a month after you claim it had been shut down?30373Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—The answer to the first part of the question is no, I have not seen that report in the Courier Mail. To be perfectly honest, I have been occupied on other things this morning that have prevented me from reading in detail all the newspaper reports about this particular matter. I have attended numerous fundraisers in Queensland and I have got to say that I am always proud to go to a fundraiser in the seat of Leichhardt because if ever a person identifies with his electorate and lives amongst, and works for, his people it is the member for Leichhardt. I am absolutely proud, as indeed I am to go to fundraisers for any of my magnificent colleagues. As to the details of individual fundraisers, I do not know what those arrangements are any more than I suspect you do.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—This was a scam!ZD4Mr HOWARD—Mr Speaker, I don't think the word `scam' does anything to enhance the dignity of the House.ET4Bevis, Arch, MPMr Bevis—You touched a nerve there!10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Order! The member for Brisbane is right, but it is in fact the chair that is feeling sensitive.3037315:19:0030373Lindsay, Peter, MPMr LINDSAYHK6HerbertLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs.849Sidebottom, Sid, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Order! The member for Braddon is warned!HK6Mr LINDSAY—Minister, would you advise the House of projected increases in university places? Are you aware of any alternative policies dealing with this issue and what is your response to them?30373Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPMinister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—I thank the honourable member for Herbert for his question and I acknowledge his great interest in the expansion of opportunities for young people in the electorate of Herbert to attend university. The government has taken the view that it is very important for the future of Australia that there be growing opportunities for young Australians to lift their level of knowledge and skills, and this has been a quite dramatic contrast with the attitude taken by the Leader of the Opposition when he was the minister. We remember his view that, at that time, the Australian universities were big enough; there were enough places in Australian universities. As he told the Age in February 1992:The desperation to get into higher education is really misplaced.Indeed, the Australian reported in February of that year:Mr Beazley said that Australia had `unquestionably reached a point' where people's expectations about entering university had to change. `You cannot provide universal higher education,' he said.In November of that year, he further emphasised his view that there was no need for further places in Australian universities. He said, `We are approaching the limit of our capacity to continue to expand publicly funded university places.' This is a view that has never been accepted by this government. It has been our view that young Australians with proper qualifications are entitled to attend university and to get university training. Since 1996, the total number of student places has increased, to this year, by 28,000 places. On Friday, I announced the universities where 2,670 extra students will begin their studies next year, with the allocation of an additional 2,000 new places each year in maths, science and information technology, which are vital for Australia's innovation, and a further 670 places each year at campuses in booming regional areas. Those additional new places each year will produce some 20,800 additional places in Australia's universities over the next four years. Regional Australia received more than half the places, enabling almost 1,485 additional places to be made available next year at regional campuses. I am sure that the member for Herbert will be particularly pleased that James Cook University received an additional 100 places for integrated bachelor programs in information technology and e-business and a further 25 places for other courses. Australian universities are now projecting that total university places will reach some 599,000 equivalent full-time places by 2003, which is a 30.5 per cent increase on enrolments since 1995.The fundamental difference has been that we were not prepared to take the view of the Leader of the Opposition that Australian universities were large enough and that there was no further need for additional university places. Our view is that Australia's comparative advantage in the world depends on having a highly skilled and highly qualified work force. Like some latter-day Atlantis, the noodle nation has sunk beneath the waves—it has vanished!PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr Beazley—You wish!BT4Dr KEMP—Well, say something about it!10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Order! The minister will address his remarks through the chair.BT4Dr KEMP—The Leader of the Opposition says, `You wish.' Not a single reference has been made to noodle nation or knowledge nation by the Leader of the Opposition since he launched it. It has just vanished in this House—disappeared beneath the waves. It has evanesced entirely, even though he committed himself and spent every working day trying to implement it. We have not seen a working minute in question time in this House devoted to it. The problem with the Leader of the Opposition is that he has no consistency, he has no reliability, and he will say anything in his efforts to win office. The trouble for him this time around is that the Australian people know him too well.3037415:25:0030374Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Minister for Small Business. Minister, are you aware that the Ryan FEC was approached by the Queensland division of the Liberal Party to implement the same GST scam it had implemented in your FEC of Groom? Are you aware that the Ryan FEC pointedly refused to implement the scam on the basis that it was potentially illegal? Minister, given that the rank and file members in Ryan had the courage to stand up to your state office, why didn't you, a senior Queensland Liberal MP, also have the courage and decency—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. I have noted the questions the Leader of the Opposition was asking, and I cannot see how the business of the Ryan FEC is the business of the Minister for—PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr Beazley—I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—When I have concluded my statement. I could not see how the Minister for Small Business, as a member of the Groom FEC, had any control over the activities of the Ryan FEC.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr Beazley—Further to that point of order, or the question that you have effectively asked me, the point is this, Mr Speaker: in the answers that he has been giving to questions over the last couple of days, the minister has been claiming that he and his electorate council have been in the hands of the Queensland state branch of the Liberal Party, and that has prohibited him from upholding the standards that are required of him as a minister. What I am pointing out here is the fact that another of those electoral divisions had precisely the same instructions but behaved precisely correctly, and why didn't he. WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr Reith—I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I put it to you that it is as plain as the nose on your face that this is well outside the ministerial responsibilities. I invite you, Mr Speaker, to give exactly the same ruling as you did earlier. The question is obviously out of order and should be ruled accordingly. We have members on this side who have questions to ask.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Leader of the House, my mother may not be impressed with your analogy, but, that aside, I do believe that my ruling is entirely consistent with the ruling I gave earlier.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr Beazley—On that matter—Honourable members interjecting—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Order! The Leader of the Opposition on a point of order.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr Beazley—I did not think you had made a ruling as yet, Mr Speaker; I thought you were about to make one.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr Reith—He's made it.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I will hear the Leader of the Opposition.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr Beazley—The last paragraph which I was reading I believe would make it completely clear to you and to the House that this was within the responsibilities that have been assumed for the last three or four days in this place by the member concerned, and that paragraph says this—you may not have heard it because of the hubbub when I was trying to read it—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I will listen to the last paragraph.PE4Mr BEAZLEY—Minister, given that the rank and file members in Ryan had the courage to stand up to your state office, why didn't you, as a senior Queensland Liberal MP, also have the courage and decency to shut down the Groom GST scam? One hundred per cent of one's responsibilities are—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. I thought the Leader of the House was seeking the call.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr Reith—I was, because what was being put to you was debating material after you had made a ruling. Mr Speaker, I only now invite you to follow through on the ruling you have made.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Consistent with the ruling I gave earlier, I did not see how the member for Groom could have any authority or control over the activities of either Liberal Party branches or the FEC or members of the Ryan electorate, and for that reason I had ruled the question out of order.Dissent from Ruling3037515:29:0030375Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALPLeader of the Opposition00—I move:That the Speaker's ruling be dissented from.Mr Speaker—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Before the Leader of the Opposition speaks to his motion, does the member for Makin have a point of order?0L6Draper, Trish, MPMrs Draper—I have a question, Mr Speaker.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Makin will resume her seat.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr Reith—I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.7T4Crosio, Janice, MPMrs Crosio—Come on, we're waiting for the Leader of the Opposition to be allowed to speak.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—You will not be waiting long, Member for Prospect, unless you remember your current status in the House.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr Reith—Mr Speaker, my point of order is that you have ruled the question out of order, you have not recognised the Leader of the Opposition and, under the convention, you should look to your right, and a member is on her feet seeking the call to ask a question.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Leader of the House, I ruled the question out of order; the Leader of the Opposition then rose and said, `I move dissent from you ruling.' That was the sequence of events. For that reason, I had recognised the Leader of the Opposition and had only interrupted him because of the reasonable presumption that the member for Makin, who was on her feet, might have had a point of order. I call the Leader of the Opposition. PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—Mr Speaker, it is with very great reluctance that I move this. In order to fully comprehend this debate on a dissent from your ruling, let me read you the question that you have—WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr Reith—Move the dissent!PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—I have. I think you need to talk to Dr Theophanous about politics again!10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Order! The House will come to order. The dissent has been moved. The Leader of the Opposition has the call.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—The question was this: Minister, are you aware that the Ryan FEC was approached by the Queensland division of the Liberal Party to implement the same GST scam that it implemented in your FEC of Groom? Are you aware that the Ryan FEC pointedly refused to implement the scam on the basis that it was potentially illegal?For the last three days in parliament, questions have been asked of the Minister for Small Business on precisely the affairs of his FEC, which are relevant in this chamber not simply because they are the affairs of his FEC but because, as Minister for Small Business, he has a particular charter from this government to understand the complaints and concerns that small business have of the operation of the goods and services tax. Indeed, you will recollect, Mr Speaker, that a memo has been leaked and dealt with previously in this parliament in which he, at some length, addressed the cabinet on the subject of the difficulties that small business were experiencing with the goods and services tax. He brought that submission before the cabinet; and it included within it the possibility that suggestions would ultimately be made to cabinet about the actual operation of the tax system itself because the government had asked him to do so. The Treasurer is not the only minister in this place who has responsibility—WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr Reith—I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Leader of the Opposition has a very tight remit. He has to take the words of the question and then specify how those words fall within the ministerial responsibility.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—I am.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr Reith—No, you are not. What you are talking about are matters within the responsibility of the minister. Mr Speaker, I put it to you that he has got to show how the question fits within the responsibility of the minister. We do not need a lecture on whatever responsibilities the minister may have. We need a specific statement, and the standing orders require that he sticks to that in this motion.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition has the call.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—Thank you, Mr Speaker. To that point of order: that is precisely what I am doing.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—If you had not been doing it I would have intervened. The Leader of the Opposition has the call.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—So let me continue as I was in establishing the responsibility of the Minister for Small Business for the GST system. He is, of course, not the principal minister responsible for it, who is the Treasurer, and there are assistant Treasurers; but other ministers have been given explicit responsibilities, and they include him. He has the responsibility for listening to small business on this—according to his own cabinet submission—and for bringing those matters before the cabinet and making suggestions to the cabinet on how relief might be offered to small business. And that includes the operation of the business activity statement.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr Reith—I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I do not have the full draft of the question, which I would appreciate, if there is a spare. But the opening words were, `Are you aware that the Ryan FEC was approached,' et cetera. In other words, it was a question that went to the internal affairs of the Ryan Federal Electorate Committee. What the Leader of the Opposition has to do is show how the question fits within the ministerial responsibilities. He has not even approached the subject matter.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—For goodness sake!WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr Reith—I would, of course, put to you the reason he has not. But the fact is that his obligation is to refer to the organisation of the Liberal Party in an adjoining electorate or other electorate and demonstrate how the affairs of an FEC outside of the minister's portfolio responsibilities are somehow related to them. He has not even started to approach that issue. He is therefore clearly out of order. 10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the House has made his point of order. The Leader of the Opposition, it struck me, was mounting an argument, whether I like it or not, that seemed consistent with the dissent. I call the Leader of the Opposition.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—Thank you, Mr Speaker, for dealing with the question in that way. The responsibilities of the Minister for Small Business are amply seen in that leaked cabinet document. The government has sent the Minister for Small Business around the country, devising recommendations for the government on how the implementation of that tax system might be made easier for them. There are many people in small business, and particularly many in charitable small businesses, who would be very grateful if the sort of operation conducted by the Groom FEC was an operation available to them, which is precisely why we have been asking the questions on it of him, within his ministerial responsibilities.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr Reith—I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.7T4Crosio, Janice, MPMrs Crosio—Come on! This is the third time.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I name the member for Prospect, who will excuse herself from the House under the provisions of 304A.The member for Prospect then left the chamber.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr Reith—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. My point of order is that the question of tax reform generally or the question of tax reform and its impact on small business is unrelated to the matter before the chair, which is that your ruling in respect of the question is to be dissented from. To establish that proposition, the Leader of the Opposition has to advance argument to the proposition—namely, that the question was within the confines of the standing orders that could be asked. Mr Speaker, you knocked it out. Unless he starts putting forward that proposition, which he has not even as yet done so, he is clearly out of order.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I will listen to the Leader of the Opposition.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—Mr Speaker, I do believe that it is necessary, in moving dissent from your ruling—and clearly the way in which you have ruled, and I appreciate it, enables me to do this—to establish a level of ministerial responsibility for the goods and services tax so that we can move from that to establish the reason why he has been subjected to the questioning he has been about the affairs of his FEC, and to compare and contrast them with the affairs of another FEC. A compare-and-contrast done with his FEC amounts to a question within the standing orders and, therefore, a justification for a motion of dissent from a ruling which ruled the question out of order. So in the remarks I have made to this point I have been establishing with ample clarity the fact that the government regards the Minister for Small Business as a person who reports to them on suggestions which might be made to changes in the way in which the goods and services tax operates—and that, therefore, the organisation of a scheme within his federal electorate council and the operations of a scheme elsewhere are directly relevant to the concerns that he has as Minister for Small Business.So, as I said, the opening paragraph of the question that I asked established the relationship between the Ryan FEC and the scam which has been the subject of continual questioning over the course of the last three parliamentary sitting days. The paragraph went on from the first part of the paragraph that the minister, in intervening, referred to:Minister, are you aware that the Ryan FEC was approached by the Queensland division of the Liberal Party to implement the same GST scam it had implemented in your FEC in Groom?That is, the scam that we have been questioning the minister on for the last few days. It goes on:Are you aware that the Ryan FEC pointedly refused to implement the scam on the basis that it was potentially illegal? Why is that relevant? That is relevant because questions asked of this minister have been answered by the minister to defend himself by saying, `Even though I have responsibility as a minister, even though I am a member of the government, the Ryan FEC— as can be seen from my conversations with the vice-president of the central executive and others about this matter—has been operating on the directions of the executive by implication, and therefore without the capacity on its own initiative to deal with the problem.' That was part of a 15-minute defence in question time yesterday and two answers on a censure motion. Part of this defence—and he does not disclaim responsibility for the GST as part of his defence— rests on the assumption that he is powerless or that it is irrelevant to him that he is—WI4Reith, Peter, MPPE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—That is precisely what I am doing. In fact, the state executive takes these matters out of his hands. We think it is an inadequate defence. We think it is a pathetic defence. We think it is an outrageous defence, and so does the rest of the public. But the point of the matter is that it is his defence. Therefore, this alleged powerlessness on his part, when contrasted with what was determined by the Ryan FEC, demonstrates quite completely—which is why we asked the question—that he had an ambit, an area of discretion, to personally revolt against the illegal directions of the Queensland central executive.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr Reith—Mr Speaker, on a point of order—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I would remind all members of the House that, while points of order are a matter of irritation to the chair no matter which side they come from, it strikes me that there is anything but an even-handed approach taken to the reception of points of order, depending on which side rises.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr Reith—Mr Speaker—CE4O'Keefe, Neil, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Burke is well aware of the strategy, having exercised it himself on a number of occasions.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr Reith—The Leader of the Opposition is developing an argument, which is that the minister had certain courses of action available to him. Mr Speaker, regardless of whether he had courses of action available to him, the issue before you is a dissent motion. The only matters that can be put before you are whether or not the words contained in the question which formed the substance of your ruling were appropriate questions under the standing orders. As usual, and as has been so from the very opening remarks from the Leader of the Opposition, he has failed to demonstrate that in any way or to be relevant to the basic question on a dissent motion. He should therefore in this regard, in the submission he is putting to you, now be ruled out of order and he should be asked to come back—not that he has been to it—to the point at hand.CE4O'Keefe, Neil, MPMr O'Keefe—Take your gold pass and run.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I warn the member for Burke. Matters of dissent from the chair's ruling are clearly always difficult for the chair. For that reason, some latitude has been extended.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr Reith—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I only ask you that the latitude will also be extended to—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the House would be well aware that, whether my ruling was correct or in order, the latitude extended to one side of the House has always been extended to the other, consistently.WI4Reith, Peter, MPPE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—Are you going to start on my daughter? Is that what you are going to start on? Are you going to start on my daughter? That is the relevancy. What are we dealing with here?WI4Reith, Peter, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I will deal with the Leader of the House if I need to, and I will deal with the Leader of the Opposition if he responds to those interjections, as he is aware. The Leader of the Opposition will come back to the point of order. PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—I am keeping within the framework of a dissent motion.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Leader of the Opposition, I have not frustrated you in any way—PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—No, you have not.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—and you will return to the motion and to the matter before the House.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—When it comes to an objection to the Speaker's ruling, the standing orders are actually quite limited in terms of their coverage. They therefore allow an argument to be made as to why the question is relevant. Standing order 100 states:If any objection is taken to any ruling of the Speaker, such objection must be taken at once, and a motion of dissent, to be submitted in writing, moved, which, if seconded, shall be proposed to the House, and debate thereon shall proceed forthwith.Mr Speaker, that standing order is limited; I understand that. It is not limited to the point of ridiculousness, but it is limited to the necessity to make absolutely clear why the particular question is relevant to the particular minister to whom it has been directed— because that is the subject of the ruling in this case. The point about that ruling which we are contesting here is that this minister has been answering questions on precisely these matters for some considerable period of time, and what this question was doing was a compare and contrast with what was done in another FEC in response to precisely the same problem that he as a minister himself confronted.So that goes on to the second question in that paragraph. We have dealt with the first question; now this is the second. I asked, `Are you also aware that the Ryan FEC pointedly refused to implement the scam on the basis that it was potentially illegal?' That particular scam has already been established as relevant to him. That particular scam which operated in his FEC was in fact a scam organised centrally by the state executive which some electorate councils implemented and his did not. LS4Ferguson, Martin, MP5T4Brereton, Laurie, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Batman! The member for Kingsford-Smith! Both members are somewhat out of my range.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—Under his obligations as a minister of state, he has specific responsibility to deal truthfully with the public. Under his obligations as a Minister for Small Business, he has specific responsibility to handle effectively the goods and services tax. Under his obligations as a Minister for Small Business, he has specific responsibility to deal with the concerns that small businesses have about the impact of the tax that is on them. LS4Ferguson, Martin, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Batman is warned!PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—That is why that second question asked, `Are you also aware that the Ryan FEC pointedly refused to implement the scam on the basis that it was potentially illegal?' Then the final question, which was rather lost in the welter of howling and screaming on the other side of the House, asked, `Minister, given the rank and file members in Ryan had the courage to stand up to your state office, why didn't you— WI4Reith, Peter, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the House! The Leader of the Opposition has the call.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—Mr Speaker, I might say that the member for Prospect is now cooling her heels for not one half of what the Leader of the House has been doing.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I might point out to the Leader of the Opposition that the member for Prospect had been warned earlier in question time.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—I repeat this question, which they howled down: `Minister, given the rank and file members in Ryan had the courage to stand up to your state office, why didn't you, a senior Queensland Liberal MP?' That really gets at the heart of it, because that shows the latitude that was available to the minister to uphold his obligations under the code which the Prime Minister set down for ministers. It also shows why he is accountable in this place, both on those grounds and also on the grounds of his status as Minister for Small Business—because it establishes with absolute clarity that latitude that he had. Therefore, the question went on, `As a senior Queensland Liberal MP, why didn't you also have the courage and decency to shut down the Groom GST scam?' Those are front and centre the questions that he has been asked in question after question in question time. The reason we dissent from your ruling, Mr Speaker, is that until this point we have been able to deal with that issue, until this point we have been able to hold that minister accountable. But, when it comes to a compare and contrast between people of some courage, gumption, knowledge and understanding and his own capacity, we are unable to ask him a question about that. Mr Speaker, you operate in this chair under considerable duress—I have watched the Prime Minister put you under duress in question time today—but at the same time we are entitled to have our questions asked. (Time expired)10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Is the motion seconded?5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMullan—I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.15:51:0030380Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPLeader of the House10—Mr Speaker, the government completely supports your ruling. It was the only ruling available to you under the standing orders. We have just had one of the more pathetic presentations by the Leader of the Opposition. He used to be the Leader of the House, and it is incredible that someone who had the job that I have had for the last 5½ years has absolutely no idea whatsoever about the standing orders. When he finds himself under a little bit of pressure, he moves a motion of dissent as a tactic, when their plan today was to move a censure motion. This is just political ineptitude on an absolutely grand scale. When finally he gets the chance to move his huge, politically moving, incredible motion of dissent, he cannot mount one argument in support of the proposition which he thought was—CE4O'Keefe, Neil, MPMr O'Keefe—Sit down, Flacco!10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Burke will excuse himself from the House under the provisions of standing order 304A.The member for Burke then left the chamber.QI4Price, Roger, MPMr Price—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This is a motion of want of confidence in your ruling. As has been pointed out, there is a very narrow remit in terms of the argument—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Chifley will resume his seat.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—Mr Speaker, thank you for the latitude which is being provided—not that I have as yet had recourse to that latitude in my remarks. The point I make to you is by way of general introduction, and that is that there are standing orders. The standing orders have been applied by you very fairly. When they are applied, of course the government will support decisions that see their application. In this particular case, it was as clear as night follows day; it was one of the clearest cases you could possibly get.Furthermore, Mr Speaker, it was not the first time today that it was necessary for you to make the point that a question to a minister had to be about a minister's responsibilities. Even though they had had a question knocked out earlier in the day, the brilliant tactics team on the Labor Party side still could not work it out. Their tactics were not so adaptable or flexible that they could actually take into account a ruling that you had made earlier in the day and recognise that their last question—the one that was going to bring down the minister, the question that had all the great punch—was in fact out of order. Mr Speaker, these are the people with this motion of dissent against you who later this year will proffer themselves as the alternative government. What a sick joke. They cannot even present a case on one of the most basic elements of running the House— namely, the standing order that relates to ministerial responsibilities. Let me refer to the standing order on questions to ministers, which states:Questions may be put to a Minister relating to public affairs with which the Minister is officially connected, to proceedings pending in the House, or to any matter of administration for which the Minister is responsible. Questions may be asked orally without notice for immediate reply or in writing on notice and placed on the Notice Paper for written reply. If there were any substance to the dissent motion, what the Leader of the Opposition would have done is, first of all, read out the standing order; that is what he would have done. Then he would have read out his question. Finally, he would have related one to the other. I myself would have referred to their question. I did ask the Labor Party whether they would mind passing me across a copy of their question just for the benefit of an informed debate. But no, this is the secret question; this is the question that dare not be repeated. This is the question that cannot possibly be passed over. They would not possibly pass it over. Why? Because the last thing they want me to do is simply relate their question to the standing orders.This is just doubly pathetic. Just fancy: the Manager of Opposition Business had a copy of it there, and I said to him, `Pass me over a copy.' But, like a spoilt brat, he said, `Oh no, you can't have it; it's our question.' What he is really saying is: we're so fond of our question that we are not going to make it available to you during the debate on a motion of dissent on the very question which is the subject of this whole matter. Mr Speaker, how juvenile can this opposition be: a secret question sitting in the drawer; it has been revealed, never to be revealed again. What an embarrassment.The Minister for Small Business is a very good minister. In fact, even though I have been the Minister for Small Business, I reckon that he is one of the best ministers for small business that Australia has had for many years. Why do I say that? Because, to be an effective Minister for Small Business—PE4Beazley, Kim, MPWI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—I am talking about the responsibilities of the Minister for Small Business.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I make exactly the point of order, but this time with relevance, that was made when I was up here speaking. What on earth has whether or not he is a nice guy and the best small business minister in the world got to do with whether or not the question is within standing orders?10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I will respond to the point of order. The capacity of the minister to do his job may have no direct relation to the censure motion of the chair, but the reference to the Minister for Small Business is entirely relevant.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—Mr Speaker, my point is exactly the same point that the Leader of the Opposition made when he attempted to enumerate the responsibilities of the Minister for Small Business. Having put forward my objections and having them overruled, I am entitled to exactly the same latitude. The point I want to make about the Minister for Small Business is that there is no question that he is a listening post for small business—there is no question about that whatsoever. Actually, that is one of the strengths of his position. But it is also true that, if you read the tax act, he is not actually the minister that has administrative responsibility for the tax act. The person who has responsibility for that is either the Treasurer in respect of policy matters or alternatively, and for very good reason, the Australian Tax Office. A common complaint we have from the opposition is that they want the government to be personally responsible for each and every item of tax administration. But, when Labor was in power and in the whole time that we have been in power, there has been a bipartisan view that, when it comes to the actual administration of the tax act, the only way that can properly be done to protect the interests of citizens is under the statutory authority of the Income Tax Assessment Act and the office holder—namely, the tax commissioner. Mr Speaker, the question you have to ask is: do the tax affairs not of the Groom Federal Electorate Committee but of the Ryan Federal Electorate Committee fall within the ministerial responsibilities of the Minister for Small Business? Is there anyone really on the other side who is putting their hand up for that proposition?PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr Beazley—All of us.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—Of course you would, because you are so silly that you have moved a motion of dissent and you will have no choice but to support that ridiculous proposition. They will put their hands up anywhere at any time if they think they need to because of the consequences of their own conduct. These people leave me breathless. They virtually leave me with nothing further to say, but I will fill up another six minutes. PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order, which is that members should stick close to the subject which is under debate.4G4Downer, Alexander, MPMr Downer—But you never did.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr Beazley—I stuck to it meticulously, as you would know.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I will listen closely to the Leader of the House, but my view is that to date he has been granted exactly the same latitude as was granted to the Leader of the Opposition.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—Today in question time parliament was concerned about the situation off Christmas Island. That was an issue of real substance today for many people in the parliament and many members of the public. The Labor Party's question—and I refer to the motion of dissent—was about $75.12. Would you believe that?JK6McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClelland—Are you for real?WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—Yes, I am for real. 10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the House will not respond to interjections.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—For three days we have had the Labor Party on the warpath over a matter involving $75.12, and that is putting it at its highest. The fact is that, as the minister himself has said, in his own electorate committee, when they held the function, they paid the caterer's bill and they paid the tax. I know the facts get in the way, don't they? Isn't it disappointing when you are running a political campaign in the Labor Party and the facts get in the way of a good story— whether you are talking about three hours or five hours, whether you had to go to three hospitals or none, whether you were turned away or you were not turned away.The Leader of the Opposition must somehow present facts—and, of course, there aren't any—in support of his argument in regard to this so-called scam within the minister's own electorate committee. I have heard of `bottom of the harbour', which was a tax avoidance scheme where billions of dollars were involved. I have heard of all sorts of schemes where thousands of dollars, tens of thousands of dollars and millions of dollars were at stake, and hundreds of thousands of dollars went from the trade union movement to the Labor Party. I call that a decent sort of scam and a fix. I have never heard of a scam worth $75.12. If it were a scam, this must be the most incompetent scam to have ever raised its head.I go back to standing order 142, which states that questions may be put to a minister:... relating to public affairs with which the Minister is officially connected, to proceedings pending in the House, or to any matter of administration for which the Minister is responsible.At no stage was the Leader of the Opposition able to relate matters within the Ryan Federal Electorate Committee to those three headings under the standing orders for which the minister would be responsible. We have had a lot of questions about the minister's relationship with his own federal electorate council, even though that is not technically within his responsibility as a minister.We must remember that question time is for members of parliament—opposition or others—to bring a minister to account. That is the whole idea. It is not an opportunity to ask the minister how well he played golf on the weekend or whether the minister has been successful in some other aspect of his or her life. The purpose of question time is to ask ministers to account for what they, as ministers, do. They sit on this side of the House and they have responsibility for managing and administering those functions which are provided to them when they are appointed by the Prime Minister. That is why ministers answer questions in question time and why the opposition is required, under the standing orders, to ensure that the question does not relate specifically to a minister as a personality. I should say that this minister is a personality—look at the tie and listen to the gravelly voice. These are questions which go to what the minister does as a minister. That is the reason that the standing order exists. That is why over the years all sorts of questions have been ruled out of order concerning the attitude, behaviour or actions of a member of parliament or the staff of members, or matters of a private nature not related to the public duties of a minister, just to cite two examples from House of Representatives Practice.This is not a grey area. This is the most black and white proposition that I have seen on whether a question is within standing order 142. Mr Speaker, that is why, without a skerrick of hesitation, the government will support your ruling. It was completely right; it was 110 per cent right. This is just a silly tactic by the Leader of the Opposition who started this whole thing last week because he brought his daughter into an issue and we found that he was scoring a cheap political point. (Time expired)16:06:0030383McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN5I4FraserALP00— Mr Speaker—Motion (by Mr Reith) put:That the question be now put.16:10:00The House divided. (Mr Speaker—Mr Neil Andrew) 76Abbott, A.J.Anderson, J.D.Andren, P.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.Cameron, R.A.Causley, I.R.Charles, R.E.Costello, P.H.Downer, A.J.G.Draper, P.Elson, K.S.Entsch, W.G.Fahey, J.J.Forrest, J.A. *Gambaro, T.Gash, J.Georgiou, P.Haase, B.W.Hardgrave, G.D.Hawker, D.P.M.Hockey, J.B.Howard, J.W.Hull, K.E.Jull, D.F.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.Pearce, C.J.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.60Adams, D.G.H.Albanese, A.N.Beazley, K.C.Bevis, A.R.Brereton, L.J.Burke, A.E.Byrne, A.M.Corcoran, A.K.Cox, D.A.Crean, S.F.Danby, M.Edwards, G.J.Ellis, A.L.Emerson, C.A.Evans, M.J.Ferguson, L.D.T.Ferguson, M.J.Gerick, J.F.Gibbons, S.W.Gillard, J.E.Griffin, A.P.Hall, J.G.Hatton, M.J.Hoare, K.J.Hollis, C.Horne, R.Irwin, J.Jenkins, H.A.Kernot, C.Kerr, D.J.C.Latham, M.W.Lawrence, C.M.Lee, M.J.Livermore, K.F.Macklin, J.L.Martin, S.P.McClelland, R.B.McFarlane, J.S.McLeay, L.B.McMullan, R.F.Melham, D.Morris, A.A.Mossfield, F.W.Murphy, J. P.O'Byrne, M.A.O'Connor, G.M.Plibersek, T.Quick, H.V.Ripoll, B.F.Roxon, N.L.Sawford, R.W. *Sercombe, R.C.G. *Short, L.M.Sidebottom, P.S.Smith, S.F.Snowdon, W.E.Tanner, L.Thomson, K.J.Wilkie, K.Zahra, C.J.Fischer, T.A.Swan, W.M.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative.Question put:That the motion (Mr Beazley's) be agreed to.16:15:00The House divided. (Mr Speaker—Mr Neil Andrew) 61Adams, D.G.H.Albanese, A.N.Beazley, K.C.Bevis, A.R.Brereton, L.J.Burke, A.E.Byrne, A.M.Corcoran, A.K.Cox, D.A.Crean, S.F.Danby, M.Edwards, G.J.Ellis, A.L.Emerson, C.A.Evans, M.J.Ferguson, L.D.T.Ferguson, M.J.Fitzgibbon, J.A.Gerick, J.F.Gibbons, S.W.Gillard, J.E.Griffin, A.P.Hall, J.G.Hatton, M.J.Hoare, K.J.Hollis, C.Horne, R.Irwin, J.Jenkins, H.A.Kernot, C.Kerr, D.J.C.Latham, M.W.Lawrence, C.M.Lee, M.J.Livermore, K.F.Macklin, J.L.Martin, S.P.McClelland, R.B.McFarlane, J.S.McLeay, L.B.McMullan, R.F.Melham, D.Morris, A.A.Mossfield, F.W.Murphy, J. P.O'Byrne, M.A.O'Connor, G.M.Plibersek, T.Quick, H.V.Ripoll, B.F.Roxon, N.L.Sawford, R.W. *Sercombe, R.C.G. *Short, L.M.Sidebottom, P.S.Smith, S.F.Snowdon, W.E.Tanner, L.Thomson, K.J.Wilkie, K.Zahra, C.J.76Abbott, A.J.Anderson, J.D.Andren, P.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.Cameron, R.A.Causley, I.R.Charles, R.E.Costello, P.H.Downer, A.J.G.Draper, P.Elson, K.S.Entsch, W.G.Fahey, J.J.Forrest, J.A. *Gambaro, T.Gash, J.Georgiou, P.Haase, B.W.Hardgrave, G.D.Hawker, D.P.M.Hockey, J.B.Howard, J.W.Hull, K.E.Jull, D.F.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.Pearce, C.J.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.Swan, W.M.Fischer, T.A.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the negative.ZD4Howard, John, MPMr Howard—Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.Questions to the Speaker303843038416:18:0030384Worth, Trish, MPMs WORTH8V5AdelaideLP10—I have a question for you, Mr Speaker. I wonder if you may be able to report back to the House if you are not aware of this particular article. In an article in the Financial Review today, two of my colleagues were named as reading particular material in the chamber during question time. I do not think it would be possible for members of the press gallery to read from that distance. The only conclusion that could be drawn is that high-powered camera lenses could pick up what was being read. While what was reported today was harmless, it draws my attention to the fact that if members were dealing with constituents' correspondence, as they often do in the chamber, then what was written in that correspondence could also be read. I think that is a serious matter, and I would ask you to investigate it.30385SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—There is a series of guidelines that determine what the press gallery may or may not do; particularly what may or may not be photographed. I will take up the issues raised by the member for Adelaide with Mr Farr, the press gallery president.16:20:0030385Cadman, Alan, MPMr CADMANSD4MitchellLP10— Mr Speaker, on the same issue: this is the second occasion an occurrence like this has been brought to the notice of the House. I wonder whether you would be so good as to examine the previous rules that applied to photography in the House, where only the person actually making a speech was eligible to be photographed from the gallery.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I am well aware of the rules. CT4Costello, Peter, MPMr Costello—Mr Speaker—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Does the Treasurer want to make a comment on the same issue—with indulgence, in this case?16:20:0030385Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—With indulgence, on the same issue, Mr Speaker. Could I draw to your attention that the Australian today had a photograph of the Minister for Small Business sitting on the front bench. It was a photograph which was most obviously taken during the censure debate. Mr Speaker, could you report back to the House whether or not photographs are permitted to be taken during censure debates, or any other debates, and whether that complies with guidelines? Could you also report to the House whether the caption that accompanied that photograph was accurate or not? Could you also report to the House whether or not this warrants any revision of the guidelines that have been given by you in relation to photographs?Opposition members interjecting—30385SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—Not being assisted by a number of members on my left, I should inform the House that, prior to my occupancy of this office, the guidelines with respect to the gallery were renegotiated and are no longer in sync with the guidelines that apply to the Senate chamber. It is my belief and the belief of the President of the Senate that the guidelines of both chambers should be identical—I would have thought that would be a matter that would be agreed by all members of the House—and the matter is currently being considered with Mr Farr. Clearly, the existing guidelines—and, I suspect, the previous guidelines—are currently being abused, and I will take this matter up with whatever authority I have at my disposal.3038516:22:0030385McLeay, Leo, MPMr LEO McLEAY4I4WatsonALP00—I have a question for you, Mr Speaker. You might recall that some time ago DOFA changed the rules relating to travel allowance, which required those members who drove their vehicles to Canberra rather than coming by aeroplane to validate their arrival here in a number of ways, one of which was to sign a log book—that is, to log into Canberra, and then sign the log book to log out of Canberra. A number of members on this side have been concerned about the way that arrangement has been working, which is, as you may be aware, that a log book is kept at the ministerial wing door. A number of members have indicated that the log book seems to move from place to place in the ministerial wing, and it has become very inconvenient for members. On behalf of the opposition, I wrote to Minister Abetz and asked him whether he would make arrangements to see whether those log books could be kept at the House of Representatives or Senate side door, because there are attendants there all the time. I received correspondence from Minister Abetz today. He told me that, when this arrangement was put in place in 1998 by Minister Fahey, Minister Fahey had asked the Presiding Officers to make those books available at the side doors, and the Presiding Officers advised that they were not prepared to implement such a system in the Senate and the House of Representatives.Mr Speaker, on behalf of members, and in an effort to facilitate members' arrangements, would you look at reconsidering that situation and allowing the log book that members of the House of Representatives sign to be kept at the House of Representatives side door? My understanding and recollection is that we have an attendant there all the time. If the log book were kept there and members could sign it there, it would be far more convenient for members than finding their way around the ministerial wing. It is something that would help members on both sides of the House. 30386SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I am not familiar with that decision, it having been taken before I became the Speaker. I will, therefore, consult with the President of the Senate to see if there was any reason why this particular regulation was put in place. I cannot imagine why it would have been. I will happily report back to the House. It would obviously be my intention to do what I can to facilitate the convenience of members.Personal Explanations3038616:25:0030386Stone, Dr Sharman, MPDr STONEEM6MurrayLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage10—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?EM6Stone, Dr Sharman, MPDr STONE—Yes, in two ways10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Please proceed.EM6Stone, Dr Sharman, MPDr STONE—In the House of Representatives Hansard and Votes and Proceedings from yesterday, Monday, 27 August, it is reported in the grievance debate that the member for Prospect had sent a piece of correspondence to me on 3 August 2000 that described Natural Heritage Trust applications from one of her constituent councils and that I had not responded to it. In fact, it was not 3 August 2000 that the correspondence was sent; it was 3 August 2001. I received it about four working days later; so it is in no way overdue in terms of a response. But, in any case, that correspondence on NHT applications has been sent on for consideration.Secondly, the member for Prospect claimed that I and Minister Hill had been picking and choosing grant recipients based on whether or not they were in a Liberal seat. I would like to make the point that the Auditor-General, in report No. 42, which looked at previous allegations of this sort from the opposition, found that the proportion of NHT funding and the projects approved for coalition and Labor seats closely matched the proportion of the funding and projects recommended by the states and territories. So there was no evidence of bias in this allocation of funding.Questions to the Speaker303863038616:22:0030386Ferguson, Martin, MPMr MARTIN FERGUSONLS4BatmanALP00— Mr Speaker, I would ask that, in accordance with standing order 150, you write to the following ministers concerning long outstanding answers, which I suppose goes to the very issue of accountability raised by the member for Murray.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Batman will come to the list of questions.LS4Mr MARTIN FERGUSON—I firstly go to a question placed on notice by me on 16 August 2000, question No. 1819 to the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister, concerning hospitality at the Sydney Olympics. I then go to a question placed on notice on 9 October 2000 to the Minister for Transport and Regional Services. I then go to question No. 2215 of 5 December 2000 to the Minister for Transport and Regional Services. Perhaps he will give some of these answers in his statement tomorrow on regional policy. I then go to question No. 2416 of 1 March 2001 to the Minister for Transport and Regional Services; question No. 2471 of 27 March 2001 to the Minister for Transport and Regional Services; question No. 2559 of 22 May 2001 to the Minister for Transport and Regional Services; question No. 2560 of 22 May 2001 to the Minister for Transport and Regional Services; question No. 2561 of 22 May 2001 to the Minister for Transport and Regional Services; and question No. 2581 of 23 May 2001—Government members interjecting— LS4Mr MARTIN FERGUSON—I know the Minister for Foreign Affairs thinks this is a joke, but it is about accountability—to the Prime Minister concerning wine missing from the Kirribilli cellar. I then go to question No. 2582 of 23 May 2001 to the Minister for Transport and Regional Services; question No. 2601 of 4 June 2001 to the Minister for Transport and Regional Services; and, finally, question No. 2646 of 6 June 2001 to the Minister for Transport and Regional Services. I would appreciate some answers, Mr Speaker.30387SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I assure the member for Batman that I will follow up those matters, as the standing orders provide.3038716:29:0030387Theophanous, Dr Andrew, MPDr THEOPHANOUSQJ4CalwellIND00—Mr Speaker, I have a concern about question No. 2644, to the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, pertaining to Tullamarine airport—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I only need an indication of the question number, issue and when it was submitted.QJ4Dr THEOPHANOUS—and the noise levels at Tullamarine airport.30387SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—The member for Calwell is outside the standing orders. I should indicate to the member for Calwell that I will follow up the question with the minister. His only obligation is to nominate the number and date of the question.3038716:30:0030387Edwards, Graham, MPMr EDWARDS83RCowanALP00—Mr Speaker, given Australia's magnificent win in the ashes series concluded in the very early hours of this morning Australian time, on behalf of the Australian parliament, will you write to the Australian cricket team congratulating them on their series win and for the tremendous spirit of fair play and good sportsmanship in which they played the game?30387SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I will be happy to facilitate the wishes of the House. I would be surprised if this matter had not already been pursued by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. I am happy either to join them or to do it independently, as is appropriate.Documents3038730387Reith, 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.Motion (by Mr Reith) proposed:That the House take note of the following papers:NATIONAL HEALTH AND MEDICAL RESEARCH COUNCIL 2000 Annual Report of the National Health and Medical Research Council—Section 83(1) of the National Health and Medical Research Council Act 1992. (9 August 2001 / 13 August 2001)NATIONAL HEALTH AND MEDICAL RESEARCH COUNCIL National Health and Medical Research Council Grants Book 2001— Section 83(1) of the National Health and Medical Research Council Act 1992. (9 August 2001 / 13 August 2001)Debate (on motion by Mr McMullan) adjourned.Matters of Public Importance303873038710000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I have received a letter from the honourable member for Hotham proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:The government's failure to ensure transparency and fairness in the administration of its GST tax laws.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—16:32:0030387Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—Mr Speaker, this is a very important matter, because the Prime Minister said there was no scam.Motion (by Mr Reith) put:That business of the day be called on.WI4Reith, Peter, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the House puts the Deputy Leader of the Opposition at something of a disadvantage, given that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition was earlier warned. I invite the Leader of the House to desist his good-natured exchange with the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. 16:36:00The House divided. (Mr Speaker—Mr Neil Andrew) 73Abbott, A.J.Anderson, J.D.Andrews, K.J.Anthony, L.J.Bailey, F.E.Baird, B.G.Barresi, P.A.Bartlett, K.J.Billson, B.F.Bishop, B.K.Bishop, J.I.Brough, M.T.Cadman, A.G.Cameron, R.A.Causley, I.R.Charles, R.E.Costello, P.H.Downer, A.J.G.Draper, P.Elson, K.S.Entsch, W.G.Forrest, J.A. *Gambaro, T.Gash, J.Georgiou, P.Haase, B.W.Hardgrave, G.D.Hawker, D.P.M.Hockey, J.B.Hull, K.E.Jull, D.F.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.Pearce, C.J.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.61Adams, D.G.H.Albanese, A.N.Bevis, A.R.Brereton, L.J.Burke, A.E.Byrne, A.M.Corcoran, A.K.Cox, D.A.Crean, S.F.Danby, M.Edwards, G.J.Ellis, A.L.Emerson, C.A.Evans, M.J.Ferguson, L.D.T.Ferguson, M.J.Fitzgibbon, J.A.Gerick, J.F.Gibbons, S.W.Gillard, J.E.Griffin, A.P.Hall, J.G.Hatton, M.J.Hoare, K.J.Hollis, C.Horne, R.Irwin, J.Jenkins, H.A.Kernot, C.Kerr, D.J.C.Latham, M.W.Lawrence, C.M.Lee, M.J.Livermore, K.F.Macklin, J.L.Martin, S.P.McClelland, R.B.McFarlane, J.S.McLeay, L.B.McMullan, R.F.Melham, D.Morris, A.A.Mossfield, F.W.Murphy, J. P.O'Byrne, M.A.O'Connor, G.M.Plibersek, T.Price, L.R.S.Quick, H.V.Ripoll, B.F.Roxon, N.L.Sawford, R.W. *Sercombe, R.C.G. *Short, L.M.Sidebottom, P.S.Smith, S.F.Snowdon, W.E.Tanner, L.Thomson, K.J.Wilkie, K.Zahra, C.J.Fischer, T.A.Swan, W.M.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative.Miscellaneous3038810000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I advise the House that the Deputy Speaker has fixed Wednesday, 29 August 2001, at 9.40 a.m., as the time for the next meeting of the Main Committee, unless an alternative day or hour is fixed.Miscellaneous30388Motion (by Mr Ronaldson)—by leave— agreed to:That the following bills be referred to the Main Committee for consideration:Wool International Amendment Bill 2001Education, Training and Youth Affairs Legislation Amendment (Application of Criminal Code) Bill 2001Environmental Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2001Committees30389303893038916:41:0030389Nehl, Garry, MPMr NEHLAE4CowperNP10—I present the report of the Selection Committee relating to the consideration of committee and delegation reports and private members' business on Monday, 17 September 2001. The report will be printed in today's Hansard and the items accorded priority for debate will be published in the Notice Paper for the next sitting.The report read as follows—Report relating to the consideration of committee and delegation reports and private Members' business on Monday, 17 September 2001Pursuant to standing order 331, the Selection Committee has determined the order of precedence and times to be allotted for consideration of committee and delegation reports and private Members' business on Monday, 17 September 2001. The order of precedence and the allotments of time determined by the Committee are as follows:COMMITTEE AND DELEGATION REPORTSPresentation and statements1 AUSTRALIAN PARLIAMENTARY DELEGATION TO THE SLOVAK REPUBLIC, THE REPUBLIC OF CROATIA AND THE CZECH REPUBLIC, 7—20 APRIL 2001: Report of the Australian Parliamentary Delegation to The Slovak Republic, The Republic of Croatia and The Czech Republic, 7—20 April 2001.The Committee determined that statements on the report may be made—all statements to conclude by 12.50 p.m.Speech time limits—Each Member—5 minutes.[Proposed Members speaking = 4 x 5 mins]2 Migration—Joint Standing Committee: New faces, new places—Review of State-specific Migration Mechanisms.The Committee determined that statements on the report may be made—all statements to conclude by 1.00 p.m.Speech time limits—Each Member—5 minutes.[Proposed Members speaking = 2 x 5 mins]3 Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade—Joint Standing Committee: Australia's relations with the Middle East.The Committee determined that statements on the report may be made—all statements to conclude by 1.10 p.m.Speech time limits—Each Member—5 minutes.[Proposed Members speaking = 2 x 5 mins]4 Legal and Constitutional Affairs—Standing Committee: Report into scientific, ethical and regulatory aspects of human cloning.The Committee determined that statements on the report may be made —all statements to conclude by 1.20 p.m.Speech time limits—Each Member—5 minutes.[Proposed Members speaking = 2 x 5 mins]5 Primary Industries and Regional Services— Standing Committee: Bioprospecting: Discoveries changing the future.The Committee determined that statements on the report may be made—all statements to conclude by 1.35 p.m.Speech time limits—Each Member—5 minutes.[Proposed Members speaking = 3 x 5 mins]6 Communications, Transport and the Arts— Standing Committee: Covering your arts: Art indemnity in Australia.The Committee determined that statements on the report may be made—all statements to conclude by 1.45 p.m.Speech time limits—Each Member—5 minutes.[Proposed Members speaking = 2 x 5 mins]PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESSOrder of precedenceNotices1 Ms LIVERMORE: To move—That this House condemns the complexity of the GST and the impact it has had on volunteer organisations in Australia. (Notice given 27 August 2001.)Time allotted—30 minutes.Speech time limits—Mover of motion—10 minutes.First Government Member speaking—10 minutes.Other Members—5 minutes each.[Proposed Members speaking = 2 x 10 mins, 2 x 5 mins] The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.2 Mr St CLAIR: To move—That this House:(1) acknowledges the importance of continued government investment in Research and Development in domestic and export industries to future growth of the Australian economy;(2) recognises the demonstrated strong commitment of the Howard/Anderson Federal Government to providing new opportunities for research and development in Australian industries;(3) continues to support and invest in successful partnerships between industry and government in providing up-to-date and readily available research data to Australian industry through the Cooperative Research Centre and Major National Research Facility programs; and(4) encourages further private investment in industry research and development by seeking further investigation of new options for Government-led R&D incentive programs. (Notice given 21 August 2001.)Time allotted—remaining private Members' business time.Speech time limits—Mover of motion—10 minutes.First Opposition Member speaking—10 minutes.Other Members—5 minutes each.[Proposed Members speaking = 2 x 10 mins, 2 x 5 mins]The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.303903039016:41:0030390Charles, Bob, MPMr CHARLESOT4La TrobeLP10— On behalf of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit, I present the committee's report, incorporating a dissenting report, entitled Report 382: Tactical fighter operations; Magnetic resonance imaging services; High wealth individuals taskforce—Review of Auditor-General's reports 1999-2000—Fourth quarter.Ordered that the report be printed.OT4Charles, Bob, MPMr CHARLES—by leave—This is our review of the Auditor-General's reports for the fourth quarter of 1999-2000. The committee held a public hearing on 3 November 2000 to discuss these ANAO reports with the relevant Commonwealth agencies. I will briefly discuss issues in each of the selected reports in turn.Audit Report No. 40 examined tactical fighter operations. The committee reviewed the administration of tactical fighter operations, TFOs, by the Royal Australian Air Force. The JCPAA focused its examination on air superiority and regional capabilities, and management of the fast-jet pilot work force. Air superiority, which encompasses tactical fighter operations, airborne early warning and control—AEW&C—and air-to-air refuelling—AAR—is critical to the defence of Australia. The JCPAA supports initiatives outlined in the 2000 Defence white paper to acquire AEW&C and to enhance the Air Force's AAR capability.In the second report selected, the committee reviewed the audit on magnetic resonance imaging—MRI—services. It examined effectiveness and probity of the policy development processes and implementations involved in improving access to magnetic resonance imaging services.Audit Report No. 46 on the tax office's high wealth individuals task force considered the management and operations of the task force and assessed its performance against the outcomes specified by the government. The audit report concluded that the management and operations of the task force was effective and that the task force was achieving the revenue targets set by the government. I commend Report No. 382 to the House.16:44:0030390Cox, David, MPMr COX83UKingstonALP00—by leave—In November 1995 the tax office advised the previous government that some high wealth individuals were employing strategies that allowed them to accumulate wealth, enjoy a lavish lifestyle and pay little or no tax. People with a net worth of over $30 million were returning taxable incomes of $20,000 or less, qualifying for low income rebates and Medicare exemptions, deferring HECS payments and reducing child support payments. The main tax minimisation techniques employed involved the use of trusts, and legislative measures would produce $800 million in additional revenue from just 100 wealthy individuals. Before losing office, Labor made these facts public and sought bipartisan support for legislation to end tax avoidance and evasion using trusts. By May 1996, the Commissioner of Taxation had established the high wealth individuals task force. He set it up to monitor the tax planning techniques used by high wealth individuals, recommend necessary legislative changes, conduct tax audits and run test cases. The new Treasurer provided the task force with $10 million a year, but that was the limit of his support for measures to deal with tax avoidance by higher wealth individuals. That money was provided on the expectation that the task force would achieve additional revenue of $100 million a year, which is not an unusual return from extra resources applied to tax administration. The Treasurer has withdrawn that additional funding. On the legislative front, there has been no action after five years. He will soon break the record for allowing a major area of tax avoidance to run unchecked. That record is held by the Fraser-Howard government, which left the bottom of the harbour prosecution file in the bottom drawer for seven years.A pattern has now emerged. The Treasurer promises tax cuts and to pay for them with a crackdown on the misuse of trusts. The tax cuts are legislated, but the trust measures to fund them never materialise. When the GST was announced, there was a trust measure to help pay for the tax cuts in the package. The official estimate for that measure was additional revenue of $2.16 billion over four years, but when the GST legislation arrived in the House there was no trust bill. The Treasurer said that would be dealt with in the business tax review. When the business tax review was released, the Treasurer wanted to fund a reduction in capital gains tax which would be paid for by stopping tax abuse using trusts. The official estimates of the revenue from that measure over six years were $3.57 billion at the old company tax rate, and $2.47 billion at the proposed reduced company tax rate. However, when the package of business tax legislation arrived in the House, there was no trust bill. As a condition for passing the rest of the business tax legislation, the Labor Party extracted a signed commitment from the Treasurer that he would legislate to properly tax trusts. Copies of those letters are in the dissenting report.The Treasurer produced an exposure draft of legislation but, after opposition from within the Liberal and National Parties, he announced last February that he was abandoning it. Disingenuously, he said that the cost of that decision would be only $110 million this financial year. The budget documents subsequently revealed a cost to revenue of not proceeding with the exposure draft legislation of $1.1 billion over four years. It was a less ambitious measure than the one contemplated in the business tax review. After five years, large amounts of revenue are being lost as a result of government inaction. Treasurer Costello may not be the friend of every tax evader in the country, but he is the friend of the biggest tax evaders in the country. He is their friend because for five years he has let them accumulate wealth and enjoy a lavish lifestyle, but pay little or no tax. The Treasurer is not interested in the fairness and integrity of the tax system. Until he honours his commitment to legislate to stop high wealth individuals using trusts to abuse the tax system, he will have no credibility and his promises no weight. The Liberal and National parties are the parties of the tax cheats, and Treasurer Costello has neither the backbone nor the inclination to stand up to them.16:47:0030391Georgiou, Petro, MPMr GEORGIOUHM5KooyongLP10—by leave—Report 382 of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit covers the Auditor-General's reports on tactical fighter operations, magnetic resonance imagining services and the high wealth individuals task force. Since the JCPAA has been highly and, I think rightly, critical of Defence project management in the past, it is incumbent on me to refer to the committee's observations in its report on tactical fighter operations. Regarding the ANAO's concerns that there have been some delays in some projects, the committee found that the delays in the Hornet upgrade phase 1 were based on causes outside the influence of Defence. The report states: The Committee does not hold Defence to account for the delay in Phase 1.Secondly, the ANAO found that there was a tendency to underestimate risk in the project. The committee found that Defence acted correctly in revising its risk assessment. It is important that, where organisations have a history of failure in a particular area, they need to be scrutinised closely. It is no less important that we guard against the trap of always assuming that they are bound to fail.It is worthwhile noting that the JCPAA report contains a dissenting report subscribed to by a number of the committee members. Until last week, there had been only one other occasion when that had happened—and that was in 1922. The JCPAA's long tradition is one of the committee operating in a bipartisan fashion, with its members working assiduously to harmonise perspectives so that their reports can have a real and beneficial impact on the administration of public moneys. In a parliamentary system that is highly partisan and often regarded as an arena for the relentless pursuit of sometimes insubstantial and momentary partisan interests, the JCPAA is an important institution of bipartisanship built up through decades of responsibility and restraint by its chairs and members. I think that this tradition is of inestimable value. It permits the pursuit of the general public interest through a process in which all sides of the parliament can contribute. This process in some respects approximates an often sought after ideal of the parliament as a cooperative endeavour.The results of the JCPAA's efforts over the years are not always reports with recommendations that governments of the day wish to get. However, the fact that they are bipartisan means that they command respect and serious consideration. Since the JCPAA was formed in 1914, there has been only one dissenting report subscribed to by more than one member. Indeed, until last week, there had been only three dissenting reports in the JCPAA's 87-year history, two of which were signed only by a single member. In the last seven days, the committee's traditions have been turned on their heads. Last Wednesday, we had a dissenting report on Coastwatch. Today, we had a dissenting report on report 382. We have had more dissenting reports signed by more than one member of the committee in seven days than we have had in the entire history of the JCPAA. That is a great pity.I am certainly not one who believes that consensus is to be valued above all. There may be occasions when the weight of the majority, or the intransigence of the chair, so oppresses minority opinion that dissent is demanded. All I can say is that this has not occurred in my experience, and in particular the chair has been a paragon of conciliation. Equally, there may be matters of such basic moment that, even given goodwill on the part of the participants, dissent is demanded. But what seems to be so perverse about the breach of the JCPAA's traditions is that the dissenting report before us today is so lightweight and so utterly lacking in substance. The dissent runs to 20 pages, nine and a half of which are full republication of press releases and previously released correspondence. Four and a half pages are extracts from the public hearings that are less than scintillating and which, in any event, are fully contained in the appendix to the main report. The recommendations are, to put it in the kindest terms, fatuous.I conclude by observing that traditions take many years to create but they can be undermined in weeks, and that the attempt to pursue partisan advantage in an essentially benign environment is quite short-sighted, particularly if you do not have the numbers. Ultimately, however, it is parliament that is the loser.16:52:0030392Gillard, Julia, MPMs GILLARD83LLalorALP00—by leave—I intend to address my remarks to the third chapter of this report, which records the unanimous conclusions of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit following its inquiry into the Auditor-General's report on the MRI scan scam. Let us recall that the MRI scan scam arose from the Minister for Health and Aged Care's leaking of the 1998 budget decision in relation to Medicare benefits for MRI machines, and of course we recall that the minister was involved in associated fundraising scandals. Indeed, we now have it confirmed on the public record that the minister is proud of his reputation for being bought and sold. In the most recent Australian doctor newsletter, the minister is recorded as saying to doctors who have a deal with the government: Most groups I deal with would spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on consultants, tens of thousands of dollars on political donations, tens of thousands of dollars on meals, to try and achieve what you've got for nothing.The minister should have resigned over the scan scam. Now, as this bipartisan report reveals, he should resign because as minister he is responsible for the gross incompetence of his department in relation to the MRI budget measure and its implementation. That gross incompetence includes there being no documents. The JCPAA in this report describes the department's failure to keep documentation of its pre-budget negotiations as appalling. During the course of the committee's inquiry, the Audit Office indicated that it could not rule out the possibility that departmental records had been destroyed. There was no signed agreement. The department ended up with no signed copy of its multimillion dollar MRI deal with radiologists. There were no probity processes. The department failed to deal in any way with the conflict of interest questions regarding negotiating a budget measure with radiologists who could and did financially benefit from the decision. There were no prosecutions. No prosecutions flowed from the scan scam because the relevant regulations were flawed, according to the DPP—flawed because of the use of the phrase `option to cancel'. Despite a full examination, JCPAA could not ascertain why the phrase `option to cancel' was used in the regulations. Whether it was gross incompetence or something worse we will never know.As the report details, the MRI scan scam fiasco has cost taxpayers plenty: $8.2 million in Medicare moneys given to radiologists as profits off the minister's budget leak and the overspend on the whole initiative, which was running at $53.2 million at the end of the last financial year. How many people could have been got off trolleys and put into beds in our public hospitals with that kind of money? The report details that on this minister's watch his department has been involved in an administrative fiasco—no documents, no signed agreement, no probity processes, no-one prosecuted, taxpayers' money wasted and a budget leak—and people in my electorate still cannot get local access to Medicare rebatable MRI services. The minister and the House know that it is the minister's responsibility, and he should accept it and do the right thing. He should have resigned at the time the scan scam was first revealed; it is certainly time to do so now.16:56:0030393Charles, Bob, MPMr CHARLESOT4La TrobeLP10— by leave—I move:That the House take note of the report.I seek leave to continue my remarks when the debate is resumed.Leave granted; debate adjourned.Bills30393R125630393Consideration resumed from 27 August.16:57:0030393Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLPMinister for Financial Services and Regulation10—To continue my remarks of last night, I note the support that was given by the Democrats in the Senate to ensuring that the important consumer protection measure in relation to the monitoring of telephone calls during takeovers is retained in the bill. As I said last night, I am aware of some concerns that have been expressed that the government should not introduce an amendment excluding accountants' activities from the bill. Many accountants are currently authorised as financial planners, and their work in providing financial advice to clients is an important part of the financial services industry. Many activities of an accountant will not fall within the definitions of this bill. If an accountant is doing no more than the activities described in the bill, they will not be required to come within the FSR regime. As a result of its careful consideration of submissions made on behalf of the accounting profession, the government has clarified that activities conducted by accountants as tax agents are excluded from the bill. Some grossly misinformed reports are floating around, in one or two cases from representative bodies of the accounting profession to their members. I ask that members of the accounting profession take the opportunity to look at the details of the bill and the subsequent regulations as well as various practice notes being put out by ASIC before believing everything they are told. During the Senate debate, the government supported an amendment moved by the opposition which provided protection to consumers subject to the cold-call telephone selling of financial products. We recognise that the amendments proposed by the opposition would provide additional benefits to consumers who may be subject to high-pressure telephone sales, and that is one of the amendments we have agreed with. The opposition was able to obtain the support of the Democrats in moving amendments to remove provisions from FSR that would have allowed professional organisations to take responsibility for the financial advising activities of their members. The removal of the declared professional body provisions will reduce the flexibility of arrangements available to participants in the financial services sector but, in the government's view, will not detract in substance from the overall operation of the bill. Of course, after three years of seemingly endless consultation, it is a little regrettable that such a significant provision was removed by the Senate.An amendment was successfully moved by the Democrats in the Senate that will require the making of a regulation, rather than exercising ministerial discretion, before a person or body is allowed to own more than 15 per cent of the Australian Stock Exchange. The government has a concern that this process may delay the finalisation of transactions whilst the 15 sitting day disallowance period passes. However, given that we want FSR through, we have been prepared to accept this amendment.A further amendment made in the Senate will require that a statement as to whether labour relations, environmental, social or ethical considerations have been taken into account be included in disclosure statements. The government has always supported the use of accurate marketing and information about the ethical and environmental features of investment products. The government's concern about including such proposals in legislative form has been the difficulties in defining these terms in a meaningful manner in legislation. However, we recognise that such provisions are consistent with the emphasis in this bill on providing investors with additional disclosure to inform their investment decisions.This bill has had a very long gestation period, and any attempt to name all those who have played a part in its development would take all day. (Extension of time granted) In the second reading debate in the House, before the bill went to the Senate, I endeavoured to name as many people as I could who have contributed to this landmark piece of legislation. I reiterate my thanks particularly to all those Treasury officers and the staff of my office who have done an outstanding job in assisting with this bill. I also take the opportunity to thank the people in the Senate who contributed to the debate. I thank Senator Ian Campbell, who represented me during the debate in the Senate. Also, in a bipartisan way, I thank Senator Conroy and his staff, including Claire, who worked very hard on the passage of the bill, and Senator Murray and his staff, including Leigh, who also worked very hard on the development of this bill.The fact that this bill is the first of its kind in Australia but, most significantly, is the first of its kind in the world is of great credit to the Australian parliament. It is also a great credit to the Australian parliament that, overall and in principle, the bill has received bipartisan support. We are entering into a new field. We are responding to what is a quite desperate need for our nation: to compete on the international stage. When it comes to commerce, it is vitally important not only that we keep up with world's best practice but that we seek to develop world's best practice in relation to financial services, which now represent seven per cent of the Australian economy, employ more than 330,000 Australians and are the heartbeat that pumps the blood throughout the Australian economy. It is vitally important that we not only consolidate their position as a key part of the Australian economy but develop their potential to be a major opportunity for export into the future. So this bill will put in place a regime that will change the nature of seven per cent of the Australian economy. Also, significantly, it will help to develop the financial services industry as a major and growing part of the Australian economy, particularly through export growth. Finally, I note the contribution of members of the Wallis committee. This is the final tranche of the Wallis reforms, which are widely recognised as landmark reforms. Many of the initiatives that were part of Wallis have now been adopted by other jurisdictions, such as Britain, Canada, Singapore, Hong Kong and even the United States. The Wallis report was a far-reaching and innovative one, coming from an inquiry which the coalition government initiated when it came to government in 1996. This is the final tranche in the program, but certainly no-one should assume that whatever is laid down in this bill is set in concrete forever. We need to recognise that. We are dealing with a very dynamic part of the Australian economy, so we cannot be precious about the developments we have put in place. They may not be perfect but, hopefully, they will generate jobs, wealth and a very successful future for the people of Australia.17:06:0030395Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSONUK6WillsALP00—I would acknowledge, as the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation has suggested, that the Financial Services Reform Bill 2001 is a very substantial piece of legislation. The minister was kind enough to thank opposition staff. Senator Conroy's staffer, Diane Brown, has provided very valuable assistance in enabling us to understand this bill, and I am sure that the minister's staff too have had a lot of work to do in bringing this bill to the point it is at this afternoon. I do not intend to speak at length in relation to it.Labor is supportive of this bill. It will introduce measures which will enhance consumer confidence in making financial investments. This will be achieved through the establishment of a consistent and comparable financial product disclosure regime and by ensuring that consumers can access appropriate complaint handling mechanisms for resolving disputes with financial service providers. I want to thank the government for not opposing the amendments which Labor moved last week in the Senate. I believe that those amendments will increase the protections to consumers and that they are responding to real problems which various consumer groups and community legal centres have brought to Labor's attention and to the attention of the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Corporations and Securities, which inquired into this bill.I want to use this opportunity to respond to propositions advanced by the minister in relation to a question in question time last week. In the Senate last week, Labor moved an amendment to have part 2 of schedule 3 deleted from the FSR Bill. That part introduced into the Corporations Act a requirement to record telephone calls made during a takeover to shareholders in a target company. Unlike the amendments which Labor moved, this is a new requirement, the need for which no evidence has been produced. No consumer group reported a problem which required such a costly response. Similarly, the Australian Shareholders Association was not able to inform the parliamentary committee of any problem which needed to be addressed. It is our belief that this new requirement will create problems. In its submission to the joint parliamentary committee, the Law Council said that the only justification given for this proposal in the explanatory memorandum is that it would allow ASIC and the holders of securities to investigate whether any of the statements made could amount to misleading or deceptive conduct. Since there is a universal prohibition on anyone in Australia engaging in misleading and deceptive conduct in trade or commerce, this rationale could equally be used to justify the tape-recording of all business telephone calls or, indeed, all oral communications in Australia.The Law Council suggested that the new requirement is inconsistent with global practice, is intrusive and is costly. Ms Kathleen Farrell of the Law Council said in evidence to the joint parliamentary committee: ... if you are dealing with call centre operations where you can be getting hours and hours and hours and hours of tape over a period of weeks or months, actually finding it is sometimes hard and we query whether or not finding the particular thing that you are looking for is sometimes harder ...The Securities Institute said that it would have the effect of stifling takeover activity, that it would make Australia a less attractive place to invest. Similarly, the IBSA had concerns about this proposal. They said that takeovers are perhaps the most widely regulated area of capital markets activity, so there is already a range of effective protections for investors. The requirement to record telephone conversations in relation to takeovers is ill conceived. There was no consultation on this initiative. It has the potential to be a regulatory sledgehammer to crack a peanut—an imaginary one, given the evidence that the joint parliamentary committee received.Our amendment was not saying that, where misleading or deceptive advice is provided to shareholders, no action should be taken; in fact, the full force of the law should be applied and people should be deterred from engaging in such conduct. It is not, however, yet demonstrated that a requirement to record telephone calls is justified. Our amendment in relation to cold-calling was far more responsible, balancing consumer interests with business efficiency. It is disappointing that that amendment was not accepted. I can report that the number of calls that the office of my colleague Senator Conroy has received since Thursday supports our position. The Financial Services Reform Bill does have the support of Labor, and I hope that it will provide all the information that consumers need to enable them to make better financial decisions.Amendments agreed to.Bills30396R132530396Bill returned from the Senate with amendments.Ordered that the amendments be taken into consideration forthwith.Senate's amendments—(1) Clause 2, page 3 (after line 4), after subclause (9), insert: (9A) If Parts 5 and 6 of Schedule 2 to the Financial Sector (Collection of Data— Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Act 2001 do not commence before the FSR commencement, items 276 to 278, and 290 to 325C, of Schedule 1 to this Act do not ever commence.(2) Clause 2, page 4 (after line 34), at the end of the clause, add: (18) The commencement of the items of Schedule 2, other than items 1, 2, 4, 5, 9 and 10, is as follows: (a) if Parts 5 and 6 of Schedule 2 to the Financial Sector (Collection of Data—Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Act 2001 do not commence before the FSR commencement, the items commence on the FSR commencement; (b) if Parts 5 and 6 of Schedule 2 to the Financial Sector (Collection of Data—Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Act 2001 commence before the FSR commencement, the items do not ever commence. (19) The commencement of items 1 and 2 of Schedule 2 is as follows: (a) if Parts 5 and 6 of Schedule 2 to the Financial Sector (Collection of Data—Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Act 2001 do not commence before the FSR commencement, the items commence on the later of: (i) the FSR commencement; and (ii) immediately after the Financial Sector (Collection of Data—Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Act 2001 receives the Royal Assent; (b) if Parts 5 and 6 of Schedule 2 to the Financial Sector (Collection of Data—Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Act 2001 commence before the FSR commencement, the items do not ever commence. (20) The commencement of items 4 and 5 of Schedule 2 is as follows: (a) if item 3 of Schedule 2 to this Act commences under subsection (18), the items commence on the commencement of Parts 5 and 6 of Schedule 2 to the Financial Sector (Collection of Data—Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Act 2001; (b) if item 3 of Schedule 2 to this Act does not ever commence under subsection (18), the items do not ever commence. (21) The commencement of items 9 and 10 of Schedule 2 is as follows: (a) if item 8 of Schedule 2 to this Act commences under subsection (18), the items commence on the commencement of Parts 5 and 6 of Schedule 2 to the Financial Sector (Collection of Data—Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Act 2001; (b) if item 8 of Schedule 2 to this Act does not ever commence under subsection (18), the items do not ever commence.(3) Schedule 1, item 10, page 7(lines 23 to 25), omit the item.(4) Schedule 1, items 67 to 69, page 22 (lines 20 to 27), omit the items, substitute:67 Subsection 12DL(1)Repeal the subsection, substitute: (1) A person must not send another person (the targeted person) a credit card or a debit card except in accordance with subsection (2).Note: Failure to comply with this subsection is an offence (see section 12GB).Note: The heading to section 12DL is altered by inserting “credit cards and” after “Unsolicited”.(5) Schedule 1, items 79 to 82, page 23 (line 24) to page 24 (line 6), omit the items, substitute:79 Subsection 12DL(4)Repeal the subsection, substitute: (4) A person must not take any action that enables: (a) another person who has a credit card to use the card as a debit card; or (b) another person who has a debit card to use the card as a credit card;except in accordance with a request in writing by the other person.Note: Failure to comply with this subsection is an offence (see section 12GB).(6) Schedule 1, page 24 (after line 11), after item 83, insert:83A Subsection 12DL(5) (definition of credit card)Repeal the definition, substitute:credit card means an article that: (a) is of a kind described in one or more of the following subparagraphs: (i) an article of a kind commonly known as a credit card; (ii) a similar article intended for use in obtaining cash, goods or services on credit; (iii) an article of a kind that persons carrying on business commonly issue to their customers or prospective customers for use in obtaining goods or services from those persons on credit; and (b) is part of, or provides access to, a credit facility that is a financial product;or an article that may be used as an article referred to in paragraphs (a) and (b).83B Subsection 12DL(5) (definition of debit card)Repeal the definition, substitute:debit card means: (a) an article intended for use by a person in obtaining access to an account that is: (i) held by the person for the purpose of withdrawing or depositing cash or obtaining goods or services; and (ii) a financial product; or (b) an article that may be used as an article referred to in paragraph (a).(7) Schedule 1, page 28 (after line 12), after item 116, insert:116A Subsection 12GJ(2)Repeal the subsection, substitute: (2) With respect to any matter: (a) arising under this Division; or (b) arising under Part 3 in its application in relation to an investigation of a contravention of this Division;in respect of which a civil proceeding is instituted under this Subdivision or under Part 3 as so applying: (c) the several courts of the States are invested with federal jurisdiction within the limits of their several jurisdictions, whether those limits are as to locality, subject-matter or otherwise; and (d) subject to the Constitution, jurisdiction is conferred on the several courts of the Territories.116B Paragraph 12GK(1)(a)Omit “other than the Minister or ASIC”.116C Paragraph 12GK(1)(b)Repeal the paragraph, substitute: (b) a matter for determination in the proceeding arose under: (i) this Division; or (ii) Part 3 in its application in relation to an investigation of a contravention of this Division;116D Paragraph 12GK(4)(b)Repeal the paragraph, substitute: (b) a matter for determination in the proceeding arose under: (i) this Division; or (ii) Part 3 in its application in relation to an investigation of a contravention of this Division;116E Paragraph 12GK(5)(b)Repeal the paragraph, substitute: (b) a matter for determination in the proceeding arose under: (i) this Division; or (ii) Part 3 in its application in relation to an investigation of a contravention of this Division;(8) Schedule 1, item 223, page 47 (after line 24), after subsection (1), insert: (1A) Other expressions used in this Part that are defined in Division 2 of Part 7.1 have the same meanings as they are given by that Division. This has effect subject to: (a) any contrary intention in a provision of this Part; or (b) regulations made for the purposes of this paragraph.(9) Schedule 1, item 223, page 66(after line 2), after section 1424, insert:1424A Treatment of unregulated clearing and settlement facilities operated by holders of old Corporations Act approvals (1) This section applies in relation to a clearing and settlement facility if: (a) the facility was being operated immediately before the FSR commencement by a body corporate in relation to which an approval under section 1131 of the old Corporations Act was in force at that time; but (b) the services provided by the facility as so operated were not such that section 1128 of the old Corporations Act required the operator to be so approved. (2) In this section: (a) a reference to the unregulated services is a reference to the services referred to in paragraph (1)(b); and (b) a reference to regulated services is a reference to services that, if they had been provided by the facility immediately before the commencement, would have been services to which section 1128 of the old Corporations Act applied. (3) For the purposes of section 1425 (as it operates of its own force, rather than because of section 1424), the facility is not to be regarded as a facility that was being operated immediately before the FSR commencement. (4) If the operator has, before the FSR commencement, indicated an intention that they propose to extend the services provided by the facility so that they also cover regulated services: (a) regulations made for the purposes of subsection 1424(1) may identify the facility as a proposed clearing and settlement facility, but only in relation to those regulated services; and (b) if they do so, section 1424, and section 1425 as it applies because of section 1424, apply in relation to the facility and those regulated services as if the facility did not already provide the unregulated services. (10) Schedule 1, item 223, page 66 (lines 30 and 31), omit “facility can only provide services”, substitute “licence only covers the facility providing services”.(11) Schedule 1, item 223, page 74 (table item 10, 2nd column), omit “Any other person who carries on activities”, substitute “A person who carries on any other activities (that is, activities that are not regulated activities for the purposes of any of items 1 to 9)”.(12) Schedule 1, item 223, page 74 (table item 10, 3rd column), after “class of activities”, insert “so”.(13) Schedule 1, item 223, page 75 (line 14), after “7.8”, insert “(other than section 992A)”.(14) Schedule 1, item 223, page 81 (line 23), after “representatives”, insert “—general”.(15) Schedule 1, item 223, page 81 (after line 32), after subsection 1436(1), insert: (1A) However, if a person who, under subsection (1), would be the representative of another person is a financial services licensee in their own right, the licensee, when engaged in activities covered by their licence, is taken not to be acting as representative of that other person. (16) Schedule 1, item 223, page 82 (after line 28), after section 1436, insert:1436A Treatment of representatives—insurance agents (1) This section has effect despite anything else in this Subdivision, including sections 1436 and 1437. (2) This section applies if, immediately before the FSR commencement, a person is an insurance intermediary (but not an insurance broker) within the meaning of the Insurance (Agents and Brokers) Act 1984 as then in force because of an agreement they have with an insurer under section 10 of that Act. For the purposes of this section: (a) the person is the insurance agent; and (b) the agreement is the authorising agreement; and (c) the matters dealt with in the provisions included in the agreement in compliance with section 10 of that Act, and any other matters included in the agreement that are related to those matters, are the relevant matters; and (d) the insurer is the principal.If, immediately before the FSR commencement, the person has more than one such agreement, this section applies separately in relation to each of those agreements. (3) For the purposes of this section, the transition period is the period starting on the FSR commencement and ending when the first of the following events occurs: (a) the period of 2 years starting on the FSR commencement ends; (b) the authorising agreement ceases to be in force; (c) the insurance agent has lodged with ASIC notice in writing that the agent no longer wants to be covered by the Insurance (Agents and Brokers) Act 1984: (i) from a specified date, being a date that is after the notice is given to ASIC; or (ii) from the end of a specified period, being a period that ends after the notice is given to ASIC; and that date arrives or period ends; (d) the insurance agent is granted a licence under section 913B (including as it has effect because of section 1434) of the amended Corporations Act that covers the insurance agent engaging in (as licensee) the range of activities that they previously engaged in as agent under the authorising agreement. (4) A notice (the original notice) given for the purposes of paragraph (3)(c) may before the date, or the end of the period, specified in the original notice as mentioned in that paragraph: (a) be varied to specify another date or period, being a date or period that would satisfy the requirements of subparagraph (3)(c)(i) or (ii) if the reference in that subparagraph to when the notice (being the original notice) is given to ASIC were instead a reference to when the notice of variation is given to ASIC under this subsection; or (b) be revoked.The variation or revocation must be made by notice in writing lodged with ASIC. (5) Subject to subsection (7), during the transition period, the Insurance (Agents and Brokers) Act 1984 as in force immediately before the FSR commencement, and any associated provisions, (the relevant old legislation) continue to apply (despite the repeal of that Act) to, and in relation to, the insurance agent, the principal and the relevant matters. (6) Subject to subsection (7), during the transition period, the relevant new legislation (within the meaning of section 1431) does not apply to, or in relation to, the insurance agent, the principal and the relevant matters. (7) Regulations made for the purposes of this subsection may do either or both of the following: (a) provide that specified provisions of the relevant old legislation apply (with or without specified modifications), or do not apply, to the insurance agent, the principal and some or all of the relevant matters; (b) provide that specified provisions of the relevant new legislation apply (with or without specified modifications), or do not apply, to the insurance agent, the principal and some or all of the relevant matters.The regulations may provide as mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b) even after the end of the transition period. (8) If: (a) before the end of the transition period, or such longer period during which regulations made for the purposes of subsection (7) provide for the application of some or all of the relevant old legislation, the insurance agent engages in conduct that, under the authorising agreement as then in force, creates a right to brokerage, commission or other remuneration (which may be a present right, or a future right that is dependent on matters specified in the authorising agreement); and (b) that right is still in existence immediately before the end of that period;the right is not taken to be brought to an end merely because of the repeal of the relevant old legislation or the enactment of the relevant new legislation, or because under this section the relevant old legislation ceases to apply and the relevant new legislation starts to apply. (9) Subsection (8) is not intended to affect, in any way, the determination of the question whether any other right (whether or not it is under an agreement under section 10 of the Insurance (Agents and Brokers) Act 1984) is in any way affected by the provisions of the Financial Services Reform Act 2001 or the Financial Services Reform (Consequential Provisions) Act 2001 (including the amendments made by those Acts).(17) Schedule 1, item 223, page 82 (line 31), after “Subdivision”, insert “(other than section 1436A)”.(18) Schedule 1, item 223, page 88 (line 26), at the end of section 1441, add: ; or (c) an insurance agent (as defined in section 1436A).(19) Schedule 1, item 223, page 89 (after line 34), at the end of Division 1, add:Subdivision F—Certain other product-related requirements1442A Deferred application of hawking prohibition (1) For the purposes of this section, the transition period is the period starting on the FSR commencement and ending on whichever of the following first occurs: (a) the day fixed by Proclamation for the purposes of this paragraph; (b) the end of the period of 6 months starting on the FSR commencement. (2) Regulations made for the purposes of this section may provide for specified provisions of legislation that is repealed by the Financial Services Reform Act 2001 or the Financial Services Reform (Consequential Provisions) Act 2001, being provisions that deal with the same or a similar matter as that dealt with in section 992A of the amended Corporations Act,to continue to apply (whether with or without specified modifications) during the transition period. (3) During the transition period, section 992A of the amended Corporations Act does not apply to any person, except to the extent (if any) provided for in regulations made for the purposes of this section.1442B Deferred application of confirmation of transaction and cooling-off provisions etc. (1) This section applies to all financial products issued by a person, other than financial products in a class of products that are first issued by the person after the FSR commencement. (2) For the purposes of this section, the transition period, in relation to a financial product to which this section applies, is the period starting on the FSR commencement and ending on whichever of the following first occurs: (a) the day fixed by Proclamation for the purposes of this paragraph; (b) the end of the period of 6 months starting on the FSR commencement; (c) the new product disclosure provisions (within the meaning of section 1438) start to apply in relation to the product. (3) Subject to subsection (5), the following provisions (the preserved provisions), to the extent they are relevant to a financial product to which this section applies, continue to apply, despite their repeal, in relation to the financial product during the transition period: (a) Division 6 of Part 19 of the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993, and any associated provisions; (b) Division 7 of Part 5 of the Retirement Savings Accounts Act 1997, and any associated provisions; (c) sections 64 and 64A of the Insurance Contracts Act 1984, and any associated provisions; (d) any other provisions specified in regulations made for the purposes of this paragraph, and any associated provisions in relation to provisions so specified. (4) Subject to subsection (5), during the transition period, the following provisions (the deferred provisions) of the amended Corporations Act do not apply in relation to a financial product to which this section applies: (a) section 1017F; (b) sections 1019A and 1019B; (c) any other provisions of Part 7.9 of the amended Corporations Act that are not part of the new product disclosure provisions (within the meaning of section 1438) and that are specified in regulations made for the purposes of this paragraph. (5) Regulations made for the purposes of this subsection may do either or both of the following: (a) provide that specified provisions of the preserved provisions apply (with or without specified modifications), or do not apply, in relation to a financial product to which this section applies; (b) provide that specified provisions of the deferred provisions apply (with or without specified modifications), or do not apply, in relation to a financial product to which this section applies.The regulations may provide as mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b) even after the end of the transition period.(20) Schedule 1, page 109(after line 29), after item 325, insert:325A Paragraph 63(3)(a)Omit “this Act or the regulations or the Financial Sector (Collection of Data) Act 2001”, substitute “one or more of the regulatory provisions (as defined in section 38A)”.325B Subsection 63(5)Omit all the words from and including “the provisions of”, substitute “the regulatory provisions (as defined in section 38A) applicable to the fund”.325C Subsection 63(6)Omit “this Act”, substitute “the applicable provisions of that Part”.(21) Schedule 1, page 115 (after line 13), after item 364, insert:364A Paragraph 51AF(2)(c)Repeal the paragraph, substitute: (c) section 63A does not apply to: (i) a credit card that is part of, or that provides access to, a credit facility that is a financial product; or (ii) a debit card that allows access to an account that is a financial product.364B Subsection 51AF(3)Insert:credit card has the same meaning as in section 63A.364C Subsection 63A(3) (definition of credit card)Repeal the definition, substitute:credit card means an article that is of a kind described in one or more of the following paragraphs: (a) an article of a kind commonly known as a credit card; (b) a similar article intended for use in obtaining cash, goods or services on credit; (c) an article of a kind that persons carrying on business commonly issue to their customers or prospective customers for use in obtaining goods or services from those persons on credit;or an article that may be used as an article referred to in paragraph (a), (b) or (c).364D Subsection 63A(3) (definition of debit card)Repeal the definition, substitute:debit card means: (a) an article intended for use by a person in obtaining access to an account that is held by the person for the purpose of withdrawing or depositing cash or obtaining goods or services; or (b) an article that may be used as an article referred to in paragraph (a).(22) Schedule 1, page 115 (after line 17), after item 365, insert:365A Paragraph 75AZA(2)(c)Repeal the paragraph, substitute: (c) section 75AZP does not apply to: (i) a credit card that is part of, or that provides access to, a credit facility that is a financial product; or (ii) a debit card that allows access to an account that is a financial product.365B Subsection 75AZA(3)Insert:credit card has the same meaning as in section 75AZP.(23) Page 115(after line 22), at the end of the bill, add:Schedule 2—Amendments related to possible delayed commencement of Parts 5 and 6 of Schedule 2 to the Financial Sector (Collection of Data—Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Act 2001 Financial Sector (Collection of Data—Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Act 20011 Items 92 and 92A of Schedule 2Repeal the items.2 Items 101 to 130AA of Schedule 2Repeal the items.Retirement Savings Accounts Act 19973 Before subsection 182(1)Insert:Definition (1A) In this section:regulatory provision, in relation to an RSA institution,means: (a) a provision of this Act or the regulations; or (b) any of the following provisions of the Corporations Act 2001 as applying in relation to RSA products (within the meaning of Chapter 7 of that Act) that are provided by the RSA institution: (i) subsection 1013K(1) or (2); (ii) subsection 1016A(2) or (3); (iii) subsection 1017B(1); (iv) subsection 1017C(2), (3) or (5); (v) subsection 1017D(1); (vi) subsection 1017DA(3); (vii) subsection 1017E(3) or (4); (viii) subsection 1020E(8) or (9); (ix) subsection 1021C(1) or (3); (x) subsection 1021D(1); (xi) subsection 1021E(1); (xii) subsection 1021O(1) or (3); (xiii) section 1041E; (xiv) subsection 1041F(1); (xv) any other provisions that are specified in regulations made for the purposes of this subparagraph.4 Subsection 182(1A) (after paragraph (a) of the definition of regulatory provision)Insert: (aa) a provision of the Financial Sector (Collection of Data) Act 2001; or5 Application of amendment made by item 4The amendment made by item 4 applies only on and after the day on which the reporting standards determined under section 13 of the Financial Sector (Collection of Data) Act 2001 begin to apply under section 15 of that Act to financial sector entities (within the meaning of that Act) that are RSA providers (within the meaning of the Retirement Savings Accounts Act 1997).6 Paragraph 182(2)(a)Omit “this Act or the regulations”, substitute “any of the regulatory provisions”.7 Subsection 182(4)Omit “the provisions of this Act and the regulations”, substitute “the regulatory provisions”.Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 19938 Before section 39Insert in Division 2 of Part 5:38A Meaning of regulatory provision In this Division:regulatory provision, in relation to a superannuation entity,means: (a) a provision of this Act or the regulations; or (b) any of the following provisions of the Corporations Act 2001 as applying in relation to financial products (within the meaning of Chapter 7 of that Act) that are interests in the superannuation entity: (i) subsection 1013K(1) or (2); (ii) subsection 1016A(2) or (3); (iii) subsection 1017B(1); (iv) subsection 1017C(2), (3) or (5); (v) subsection 1017D(1); (vi) subsection 1017DA(3); (vii) subsection 1017E(3) or (4); (viii) subsection 1020E(8) or (9); (ix) subsection 1021C(1) or (3); (x) subsection 1021D(1); (xi) subsection 1021E(1); (xii) subsection 1021O(1) or (3); (xiii) section 1041E; (xiv) subsection 1041F(1); (xv) subsection 1043A(1) or (2); (xvi) any other provisions that are specified in regulations made for the purposes of this subparagraph.9 Section 38A (after paragraph (a) of the definition of regulatory provision)Insert: (aa) a provision of the Financial Sector (Collection of Data) Act 2001; or10 Application of amendment made by item 9The amendment made by item 9 applies only on and after the day on which the reporting standards determined under section 13 of the Financial Sector (Collection of Data) Act 2001 begin to apply under section 15 of that Act to financial sector entities (within the meaning of that Act) that are trustees of superannuation entities (within the meaning of the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993).11 Subsection 39(1)Omit “this Act or the regulations”, substitute “a regulatory provision”.12 After subsection 39(1)Insert: (1A) In relation to a regulatory provision that states that a person commits an offence if they engage, or fail to engage, in specified conduct, a person is, for the purposes of this Division, taken to contravene the provision if the person engages, or fails to engage, in that conduct. 13 Subparagraph 42(1)(b)(i)Omit “this Act or the regulations”, substitute “any of the regulatory provisions”.14 Sub-subparagraph 42(1)(b)(ii)(A)Omit “this Act or the regulations”, substitute “one or more of the regulatory provisions”.15 Subparagraph 42(1AA)(c)(i)Omit “this Act or the regulations”, substitute “any of the regulatory provisions”.16 Subparagraph 42(1AA)(c)(ii)Omit “this Act or the regulations”, substitute “one or more of the regulatory provisions”.17 Subparagraph 42(1AA)(c)(ii)Omit “this Act and the regulations”, substitute “the regulatory provisions”.18 Subsection 42(1AB)Omit “this Act or the regulations”, substitute “any of the regulatory provisions”.19 Subsection 42(1AB)Omit “this Act and the regulations”, substitute “the regulatory provisions”.20 Subparagraph 42(1AC)(d)(i)Omit “this Act or the regulations”, substitute “any of the regulatory provisions”.21 Subparagraph 42(1AC)(d)(ii)Omit “this Act or the regulations”, substitute “one or more of the regulatory provisions”.22 Subparagraph 42(1AC)(d)(ii)Omit “this Act and the regulations”, substitute “the regulatory provisions”.23 Subsection 42(1AD)Omit “this Act or the regulations”, substitute “any of the regulatory provisions”.24 Subsection 42(1AD)Omit “this Act and the regulations”, substitute “the regulatory provisions”.25 Subsection 42(1A)Omit “this Act or the regulations”, substitute “a regulatory provision”.26 Subparagraph 42A(2)(b)(ii)Omit “this Act or the regulations”, substitute “one or more of the regulatory provisions”.27 Subparagraph 42A(3)(d)(i)Omit “this Act or the regulations”, substitute “any of the regulatory provisions”.28 Subparagraph 42A(3)(d)(ii)Omit “this Act or the regulations”, substitute “one or more of the regulatory provisions”.29 Subparagraph 42A(3)(d)(ii)Omit “this Act and the regulations”, substitute “the regulatory provisions”.30 Paragraph 42A(3)(g)Omit “this Act or the regulations”, substitute “one or more of the regulatory provisions”.31 Subparagraph 42A(4)(c)(i)Omit “this Act or the regulations”, substitute “any of the regulatory provisions”.32 Subparagraph 42A(4)(c)(ii)Omit “this Act or the regulations”, substitute “one or more of the regulatory provisions”.33 Subparagraph 42A(4)(c)(ii)Omit “this Act and the regulations”, substitute “the regulatory provisions”.34 Subparagraph 42A(4)(f)(ii)Omit “this Act or the regulations”, substitute “one or more of the regulatory provisions”.35 Paragraph 42A(5)(a)Omit “this Act or the regulations”, substitute “any of the regulatory provisions”.36 Paragraph 42A(5)(b)Omit “this Act or the regulations”, substitute “one or more of the regulatory provisions”.37 Subparagraph 42A(5)(b)(ii)After “contravention”, insert “or contraventions”.38 Subsection 42A(6)Omit “the Act or the regulations”, substitute “any of the regulatory provisions”.39 Subsection 42A(6)Omit “this Act and the regulations”, substitute “the regulatory provisions”.40 Subparagraph 43(b)(i)Omit “this Act or the regulations”, substitute “any of the regulatory provisions”.41 Sub-subparagraph 43(b)(ii)(A)Omit “this Act or the regulations”, substitute “one or more of the regulatory provisions”.42 Sub-subparagraph 43(b)(iii)(A)Omit “this Act or the regulations”, substitute “one or more of the regulatory provisions”.43 Subparagraph 44(b)(i)Omit “this Act or the regulations”, substitute “any of the regulatory provisions”.44 Sub-subparagraph 44(b)(ii)(A)Omit “this Act or the regulations”, substitute “one or more of the regulatory provisions”.45 Sub-subparagraph 44(b)(iii)(A)Omit “this Act or the regulations”, substitute “one or more of the regulatory provisions”.46 Paragraph 63(3)(a)Omit “this Act or the regulations”, substitute “one or more of the regulatory provisions (as defined in section 38A)”.47 Subsection 63(5)Omit all the words from and including “the provisions of”, substitute “the regulatory provisions (as defined in section 38A) applicable to the fund”.48 Subsection 63(6)Omit “this Act”, substitute “the applicable provisions of that Part”.17:13:0030405Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLPMinister for Financial Services and Regulation10—I move:That the amendments be agreed to.The Financial Services Reform (Consequential Provisions) Bill 2001 is self-explanatory. In the context of the Financial Services Reform Bill 2001, I take the opportunity to publicly state that we have intended to start the bill on 1 October this year. The bill has taken a little longer to pass through the parliament than we were expecting. However, because of the very extensive consultation involved in the development of this bill, we were reluctant to try to set a new time frame for the commencement of FSR. I have proposed that we have a roundtable with the financial services industry this Thursday and that the industry make a number of suggestions about the best timing for the commencement of FSR. We are also receiving legal advice as to potential timing for FSR.There are provisions that we have put into FSR that allow for a staggered commencement; however, I think the opposition would agree with me that it would be only fair to the industry that, with such a very significant bill, the industry be given an appropriate amount of time to come to terms with the legislative changes to the bill and the subsequent regulations before the commencement. That is not making a commitment either way, but certainly we want the feedback of the industry because it is very much the industry's bill. We want the feedback of the industry before we determine a date for the commencement of FSR. We will be having a roundtable in Canberra in Parliament House this Thursday, and I would hope all the stakeholders in FSR would be there to be able to determine the best starting date for the act.17:15:0030405Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSONUK6WillsALP00—The opposition agrees with the amendments which are being proposed here, so there is no controversy in relation to that. In relation to the observations by the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation about the start-up time, it will be the responsibility of the shadow minister for financial services and regulation, Senator Conroy, to comment and express opposition views on the merits of particular start-up dates. We emphasise that it is important that within the financial services industry there be as little uncertainty as possible—and there has been a fair bit of uncertainty in the way the legislation has been developed and on this question of start-up time. It is important that that uncertainty be minimised, and I hope that the minister's announcement does not contribute or add to that, but that we are able to get some certainty about commencement dates as soon as possible. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bills30406R127330406Bill returned from the Senate with an amendment.Ordered that the amendment be taken into consideration forthwith.Senate's amendment—(1) Schedule 2, page 22 (after line 23), after item 130, insert:130AA Subsection 63(5)After “regulations”, insert “, and of the Financial Sector (Collection of Data) Act 2001,”.17:17:0030406Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLPMinister for Financial Services and Regulation10—I move:That the amendment be agreed to.The Financial Sector (Collection of Data— Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2001 gives effect to the consequential amendments to the Financial Sector (Collection of Data) Bill 2001, which was passed recently in the House of Representatives and the Senate. The proposed regulatory measures in the bills are designed to streamline and simplify a number of data collection methods and systems. The bills aim to modernise and increase the relevance of data collections, thereby ensuring that APRA collects the data it requires for prudential regulation. The data APRA collects will also continue to be used in the formulation of monetary policy by the Reserve Bank of Australia.Industry and analysts will be better able to examine industry data collected by APRA and to selectively use the data as a basis for comparison with other institutions or sectors in the financial system more broadly. Financial institutions will initially face some modest transitional costs as a result of having to provide the data to APRA in a different form. However, in the long term the benefit in cost savings for financial institutions will be substantially greater than the initial costs incurred. There is a technical government amendment which simply corrects a minor technical oversight in the original drafting and does not reflect a change in policy. The amendment clarifies the power to revoke directions. I will say a few words about another matter after we have heard a response from the opposition.17:19:0030406Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSONUK6WillsALP00—The opposition supports both the bill and the amendment moved.Debate interrupted.Miscellaneous3040617:19:0030406Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLPMinister for Financial Services and Regulation10—It is a rare opportunity for a member of the executive to be able to say something about another member of the House who may be retiring. But, with your indulgence, Mr Deputy Speaker, and that of members of the opposition, I take the opportunity to say something about the member for Indi, who is retiring in the lead-up to this election. The member for Indi will, I understand, not be in the House after this week, for various reasons.I would like to say something, because, in the short time that I have been in the House since 1996, the member for Indi has struck me as one of the gentlemen of the place. He is a very genuine, honest and courageous person. He certainly has a big heart. His heart must be bigger than his hands, and he has the world's largest hands. Lou Lieberman is a person of great principle. At all times I have found him to be very genuinely concerned, not just about his constituents but about people generally. He is always interested in people. I remember a number of occasions when I have been with him. On one occasion in Melbourne, when I was with another person, Lou spent a considerable amount of time understanding that person— whom he had never met before and whom he would probably never meet again—because he is genuinely interested in humanity, which might be linked to the fact that he has had a very distinguished career.He was elected to the Victorian Legislative Assembly for Benambra in 1976. He retired in 1992 from the Legislative Assembly and was elected to the House of Representatives in 1993 and re-elected in 1996 and again in 1998. He has had a very distinguished career in Victoria. He was Assistant Minister for Health from 1979 to 1981. Before that, he was Minister for Planning, Minister for Mines, Minister for Minerals and Energy, and Minister for Local Government. Certainly, members of the opposition would join with me in saying that that is a very distinguished parliamentary career. In the House of Representatives Lou has served on many committees: privileges; industry, science and technology; Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander affairs; family and community affairs; and publications. More recently, he has served in a very distinguished manner on the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade. From 1982 to 1991, as shadow minister for health, further education, water resources and property and services, he did the very hard yards in the state parliament. In the federal parliament, he was Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Opposition from 1994 to 1996, which was a demanding period in the lead-up to the 1996 election. He had a distinguished career as a barrister and solicitor and, of course, a very distinguished career as a major in the Australian Army Reserve from 1958.I think all members of the House would join with me in wishing Lou, Marj and the children all the very best for the future. He has served the people of his electorate very well in the federal parliament. He has served the people of his previous electorate very well in the Victorian Legislative Assembly. Lou Lieberman is certainly one of parliament's gentlemen. He will be sadly missed by all, but we wish him all the very best for a long, distinguished and very enjoyable retirement.17:24:0030407Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSONUK6WillsALP00—I rise briefly to support the remarks made by the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation. Coincidentally, I was in the Victorian parliament during some of the years the member for Indi was there—0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr Slipper—Not all of them.UK6Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSON—Some of the years—and so our paths first crossed after I entered the Victorian parliament in 1988. He was then the member for Benambra. He then baled out of the Victorian parliament and became a member of this House in 1993. I stayed in the Victorian parliament for one more term. A number of reasons caused me to make the move to federal parliament, and I have to say that keeping Lou company was only one of them. But the observations that the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation has made about the member for Indi are certainly shared by us in the opposition. He is a very decent and generous human being. His career has been trotted out. I think he might have enjoyed more political success had he had something of a mean streak about him. In fact, he is a very generous person. I think the fact that he left state government in 1992 said something about his view of the government that had come to office at that time. The other occasion on which I remember having dealings with Lou relates to the Kosovar refugees and Australia's offer to assist those refugees and provide them with housing in the electorate of the member for Indi. I represented the opposition on that occasion, and the member for Indi's handling of that whole issue was first class and reflected well on him and, indeed, on Australia generally. So, from the opposition's point of view, we cheerfully support the remarks that have been made by the minister.17:26:0030407Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration10—On indulgence: I also want to associate myself with the remarks of the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation and of the shadow Assistant Treasurer. I have known Lou Lieberman. He is an outstanding member for Indi, and we will all miss him greatly.17:26:0030407Price, Roger, MPMr PRICEQI4ChifleyALP00—On indulgence: I wish Marj and Lou the very best. With Lou having announced his retirement, I want to bring up a very unpleasant point— and that is that Lou always promised me he would lead a delegation overseas when his party were in government and that I would come along as part of that delegation. He has not honoured that promise. But I can say that I have been pleased to go twice overseas with Lou and Marj, and on the second occasion I was able to take my wife, Robyn. I suppose it is a truism that we get to know each other a lot better when we are at close quarters, and that was the case with Lou Lieberman. I cannot say that I would agree with every proposition Lou brought before this House. But perhaps I can say how much I valued his contribution as a federal member of parliament and, in particular, when he was a member—with you too, Mr Deputy Speaker Hollis—of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade. He took a particular interest in defence matters, and that is when I first got to know him well. Mr Deputy Speaker, not every member of this House is as privileged as you or the member for Indi to choose the timing of their own farewell. But Lou has done this in the knowledge that he has made a significant contribution at a state level in Victoria and, I believe, again in this federal parliament. People might be surprised at my saying this, but I would like to think that I will be losing a friend in Lou Lieberman when this parliament returns—as I hope also to return. Again, I wish Lou, Marj and the family all the very best. I promise to descend upon them in Wodonga and demand my cup of tea.Bills30408R127330408Consideration resumed.10000Hollis, Collin (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hollis)—The question is that the amendment be agreed to.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills30408R133430408Bill returned from the Senate with an amendment.Ordered that the amendment be taken into consideration forthwith.Senate's amendment—(1) Page 32 (after line 24), at the end of the bill, add:Schedule 7—Other amendmentsIncome Tax Assessment Act 19971 At the end of Division 51Add:51-65 Consideration under RFA Private Forest Reserve Program Any financial consideration paid under the Regional Forest Agreements Private Forest Reserve Program to the owner of land for registering a perpetual conservation covenant against the title to that land is exempt from income tax.2 Section 116-25 (cell at table item D1, fourth column)Omit “None”, substitute “See section 116-82”.3 After section 116-80Insert:116-82 Special rule for consideration received under RFA Private Forest Reserve Program If you, as a landowner, receive financial consideration under the Regional Forest Agreements Private Forest Reserve Program for registering a perpetual conservation covenant against your land title, the consideration is not *capital proceeds for the purposes of this Part.4 ApplicationThe amendments made by items 3A, 3B and 3C apply to assessments for the 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 income years and later income years.17:29:0030408Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration10—I move:That the amendment be disagreed to.The amendment made by the Senate would exempt taxpayers who enter into perpetual conservation covenants under the Regional Forest Agreements Private Forest Reserve Program from the income tax and capital gains tax consequences of their actions. While the government does support measures to promote greater participation in perpetual conservation covenants and to enhance the protection of Australia's unique, fragile native ecosystems, the government does not believe that the amendment made by the Senate is the best way to achieve this. It is limited to covenants granted under the Regional Forest Agreements Private Forest Reserve Program, and there are technical defects in the capital gains tax amendment which could mean an unintended windfall gain to a taxpayer who created a conservation covenant. Instead, the government has announced two measures to encourage land-holders to enter into conservation covenants. The first is a change to the capital gains tax rules to ensure that land-holders who set aside land for conservation in perpetuity are not disadvantaged when compared to other landowners. Under the government amendments, at the time of entering into the covenant the landowner will apportion the cost base of the property between that part subject to the covenant and the remaining property. This will have the effect that capital gains tax will be paid on the difference between the cost base for the covenant land and any consideration received. Since many covenants will be on pre September 1985 land, no capital gains tax will be payable. In other cases, if the land has been held for 12 months or more, the 50 per cent discount will apply. Also, small business owners who grant covenants may be able to access the small business capital gains tax concessions.The other measure, announced by the Prime Minister, will allow an income tax deduction for landowners who donate land to gift deductible recipients for conservation purposes. The law will be amended to extend the existing gift provisions in relation to donations of land and other property to land-holders entering into perpetual covenants for no consideration with deductible gift recipients such as approved environmental organisations. The government's view is that these proposals are a better way to proceed than the amendments made by the Senate.17:32:0030409Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSONUK6WillsALP00—The reason the opposition moved this amendment in the Senate, and continues to believe that it would be a good idea, relates to our concern to ensure that Australia's environmental obligations are met and that we do everything we can to look after what is a fantastic continent but a continent that has been placed under stress by land clearing and other activities over the course of the past 200 years. To indicate to the House again what the issue is about here: we proposed that financial consideration which was paid under that Regional Forest Agreements Private Forest Reserve Program to the owner of land for registering a perpetual conservation covenant against the title to that land be exempt from income tax, and also that the consideration not be capital proceeds, so there would be tax advantages in registering a perpetual conservation covenant pursuant to the Regional Forest Agreements Private Forest Reserve Program. It is our view that land clearing in Australia is a very substantial problem and that it needs practical action to address it. It is noteworthy that, when issues like climate change and greenhouse gas emissions and so on come up and we discuss the Kyoto protocol, the government says, `We do not support the Kyoto protocol, but we are doing things on the ground. We are taking practical action on the ground to address these issues and to meet our environmental responsibilities to look after this great continent.' But it has been given the opportunity here—as we have done in moving an amendment which has been endorsed by the Senate—and the government has walked away from that and has said, `No. This is not the right way to go.' Basically, the government's position in relation to practical environment protection measures is that it is never the right thing; it is never the right measure for it to support. We are very disappointed that the government displays this lack of regard for the environment and this lack of regard for practical measures. It remains our position that this amendment ought to be supported in this House and, indeed, that the Senate ought to continue to support such an amendment.Question resolved in the affirmative.17:35:0030409Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration10—I present the reasons for the House disagreeing to the Senate amendment and I move:That the reasons be adopted.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills30410R135530410Debate resumed from 28 June, on motion by Mr Hockey:That the bill be now read a second time.17:36:0030410Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSONUK6WillsALP00—I move as an amendment to the motion for the second reading: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) imposing a complex and cumbersome tax system on Australian businesses rather than delivering the simpler system it promised; (2) creating new tax avoidance opportunities, despite addressing some existing avoidance opportunities in this bill;(3) increasing the compliance burden for Australian businesses thereby reducing their competitiveness; and(4) applying one set of tax rules for the Liberal Party and another for small businesses”.The Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 4) 2001 was introduced into the House towards the end of June. It is an omnibus measure that contains a number of minor and what we consider to be non-controversial amendments, most of which were not previously announced but are consistent with previous announcements or protecting the revenue. We have not received any representations suggesting amendments, nor have we sighted any media criticism of the proposals. The measures are either mechanical in nature, flowing from an earlier decision, correcting technical deficiencies in the legislation or deferring minor business tax or anti-avoidance type measures.Schedule 1 amends the imputation rules in the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 to take account of the reduction of the company tax rate from 34 per cent to 30 per cent. This is a normal mechanical amendment to make the imputation rules work properly following that change in the company tax rate, and it should be supported. The amendments apply from 1 July this year. Schedule 2 amends the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 to defer the commencement date of the review of business taxation proposals to tax friendly societies on investment income received that is attributable to funeral policies, scholarship plans and income bonds sold after 30 November 1999. Friendly societies will remain exempt from tax on that investment income until 30 June 2002. This amendment is supported by the industry and is consistent with Labor's earlier position of concern over the impact of this proposal on bondholders.Schedule 2 also defers the commencement of the new methodology for working out the capital component of ordinary life insurance investment policies until 1 July 2002. This comes into effect from 1 July this year and also is supported by us. Schedule 3 amends the income tax legislation of 1936 to make corrections such that the intercorporate dividend rebate is not available in respect of any unfranked dividends paid to or by a dual resident company, including dividends paid within a wholly owned group, and such that the deduction allowed to certain non-resident owned companies to offset the removal of the rebate from 1 July 2000 is not available in respect of unfranked dividends paid to or by a dual resident company. These amendments will apply retrospectively to dividends paid on or after 1 July 2000. These are the dividends in relation to which the rebate and deduction would otherwise be allowed in error. This is an important strengthening of an anti-avoidance provision agreed to as part of the Ralph process. Once again, it is supported by Labor.Schedule 4 amends the tax legislation of 1997 to deny refunds of excess imputation credits to non-complying superannuation funds and non-complying approved deposit facilities. The amendments will apply to assessments for income years ending on or after 22 May this year. Complying superannuation funds get the benefit of refundable excess imputation credits. This measure was apparently accidentally provided to non-complying funds in error. These are funds that do not qualify for tax concessions. These amendments simply rectify that error and, once again, we support them.Schedule 5 makes technical corrections to the franking rebate provisions in the tax act of 1936 to clarify that registered charities and gift deductible organisations which are trusts are eligible for refunds of excess imputation credits in respect of distributions attributable to franked dividends received indirectly through another trust, and to the Medicare Levy Act 1986 to correct references to the tax legislation. The amendments to the franking rebate provisions will apply to trust amounts that are attributable to dividends paid on or after 1 July 2000—that is, from the commencement of the refund of imputation credits measure. The amendments to the Medicare Levy Act will apply to assessments for the 2000-01 income year and later income years. These are once again purely mechanical technical issues and have our support. The financial impact of the schedule 1 measure has been factored into the revenue estimates for the reduction in the company tax rate made by the New Business Tax System (Income Tax Rates) Bill (No. 1) 1999. The cost to revenue of the schedule 2 deferral is expected to be $1 million in 1999-2000 and $2 million per annum in 2000-01 and 2001-02. The schedule 4 measure will protect the revenue. The gain to revenue from denying refunds of imputation credits to currently lodging non-complying superannuation funds would be less than $1 million. The financial impact of the measures in schedules 3 and 5 is nil—although there could be a significant cost to revenue were the schedule 3 amendments not made.I have moved an amendment to this bill, and I intend now to address my remarks to the amendment. I note by way of commencement that Peter Haggstrom, who was the tax ombudsman for a period of time, recently addressed the Investment and Financial Services Association conference in Brisbane. He made some comparisons between tax reform and physics. A couple of his observations were:· In space a gravitating mass curves space-time· In Tax Reform, the mass of legislation bends mindsHe also noted:· In space, the Second Law of Thermodynamics applies· the universe has an increasing tendency to irreversible disorder· In Tax Reform, Haggstrom's Law of Structural Disorder applies· what was sort of structured becomes sort of less structured (at least for a while)I think some of Mr Haggstrom's observations about tax are pretty close to the mark. It is interesting to note that some of the strongest supporters of GST in previous times have had occasion to rethink their positions. For example, I think the strongest supporter of tax reform was probably Stan Wallis, former head of the Business Council of Australia. In an address to the Minerals Industry Seminar on 27 May 1998, he put his support for GST as strongly as this:... to my way of thinking, it is simply astounding that the connection between the GST and business competitiveness is not more widely appreciated. It should be, and business should get behind the GST for this reason alone. Subsequently, Mr Wallis, in his capacity as chairman of Coles Myer, sent out a letter to shareholders on 6 August this year, in which he said:The profit downturn is also due to a very difficult and challenging economic and retail trading environment, further impacted by the introduction of the Goods and Services Tax. The GST and its implementation have severely influenced consumer buying patterns and profitability, mainly in our non-food general merchandise and apparel business. However, we expect more normal buying patterns to progressively emerge as we go past the anniversary of the GST ... We appreciate that we are testing the confidence of our shareholders.That is from Stan Wallis, once the strongest supporter of the GST, now bowling up GST as a reason for the poor performance of Coles Myer. It seems that even the GST's strongest supporters have now deserted it.As a result of the introduction of the new tax system, we have seen a plethora of concerns and issues for small business and others who have to deal with it. We have also seen evidence that the tax office has simply been unable to cope with this complex and cumbersome tax system which has been imposed on small business rather than the simpler system that we were promised. One example that I want to draw to the attention of the House concerns the question of running balance accounts. When running balance accounts were introduced by the tax office— and we in the opposition supported them— we were told that they would consolidate all tax payments and refunds into a single account. That certainly sounded like a good idea to us, and it seemed that it ought to streamline tax information. But in fact, according to reports from the accounting profession, substantial amounts of tax office resources have been spent in trying to reconcile statements. An article in the Financial Review written by Allesandra Fabro contained a quote from one of the tax partners at PricewaterhouseCoopers, who stated: It's a complete waste of manpower between tax agents, clients and the Tax Office.The article also contained statements made by the tax counsel from the Institute of Chartered Accountants, Mr Brian Sheppard. It states:... it took months after the system was introduced for taxpayers to obtain printed statements of their accounts—only to be presented with a series of debit and credit figures, with no description to explain which tax the payments or refunds related to. “The ATO says taxpayers can ring for a payout figure,” Mr Sheppard said, “But accountants have done this and found that the quoted balance was not up to date.”So we have concern from CPAs that taxpayers and their advisers are unable to get up-to-date details on their individual running balance accounts. They point out that, if a taxpayer unknowingly underpays their GST, they could be faced with a general interest charge, which is charged on a compounding basis—and is no laughing matter for business—but, without access to information about the running balance account, they have no way of knowing this. The CPAs also point out that the process of obtaining information by phoning the tax office—including getting through to the tax office—is extremely time consuming. They have proposed that the information be made available through something like a secure site on the Internet, and they have expressed the view that it is simply not satisfactory for the tax office to say that this problem cannot be overcome before 1 July next year due to a lack of systems capability and funds to address the situation. They point out that there are thousands of overburdened accountants who are having to manage without proper details of running balance accounts. Representations have also been made to my parliamentary colleagues about running balance accounts. A taxation director at the Taxation Institute of Australia has observed that `Businesses of all sizes are still struggling to receive accurate figures on their tax payments from the tax office's running balance account systems.' I had some correspondence forwarded to me by my colleague Mr Arch Bevis, the member for Brisbane, which was from a taxpayer and included a copy of a running balance account that had been sent by the tax office. It showed that the net deductible interest expense was zero and that the amount of credit interest—that is, net assessable interest income—was 1c. So the tax office had managed to send out correspondence to this taxpayer advising them of their 1c running balance account.In talking about running balance accounts, I referred to the question of getting through to the tax office by phone. It is noteworthy that I released, a week or so ago, a leaked tax office minute which indicated very widespread customer dissatisfaction with the quality of service coming from the tax office to phone callers. The minute indicated that customers are complaining about: the need to repeatedly explain an issue when a call is transferred, officers providing only their first name, officers not providing a telephone number they can be contacted on, officers not returning phone calls as promised, refusal to transfer calls to a supervisor, delays in answering incoming calls, inconsistent and unreliable answers, and being given reference numbers which prove to be untraceable. In other words, it is a situation where ordinary taxpayers cannot get through, cannot get transferred to the right person and cannot get their calls returned. Naturally enough, this causes an awful lot of grief not only for taxpayers but also for tax practitioners. Tax practitioners are saying that they have to spend a lot of extra time and do a lot of extra work, which is effectively non-billable to their clients. It is time Treasurer Costello took responsibility for the chaotic state of tax office administration. He wants to palm all this off to Tax Commissioner Carmody and Assistant Treasurer Rod Kemp. This abdication of responsibility simply is not good enough. It is the responsibility of the Treasurer to make the tax office functional once more. I mentioned in my amendment that the House should condemn the government for applying one set of tax rules for the Liberal Party and another for small business. In fact, as we have been learning in the course of this week and last week, leaked Liberal Party minutes have revealed a scam to defraud the tax office of GST payments involving a fundraising dinner attended by the Treasurer and the Minister for Small Business. On 23 November last year, the Liberal Federal Electorate Council of the electorate of Groom held a fundraising dinner in Toowoomba, with the Treasurer as guest speaker. Tickets for what was billed as a gala night of political insight and fine dining were $80. Leaked minutes of the Groom Federal Electorate Council executive have revealed an elaborate scheme to defraud the tax office of GST revenue. SE4Bishop, Bronwyn, MPMrs Bronwyn Bishop—Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think the allegations contained in the speech of the honourable member are quite outlandish and unsubstantiated. The minister concerned, the Minister for Small Business, made a total statement which is on the record of this House. This is merely political point scoring, when we should return to the substance of the bill.10000Causley, Ian (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. I.R. Causley)—On the latter point, I do believe the member was straying from the substance of the bill. Would you please come back to the bill?UK6Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSON—Mr Deputy Speaker, on the point of order: the minister may not be aware, but I have moved an amendment to the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 4) 2001. Point 4 of that amendment is:... the House condemns the Government for:(4) applying one set of tax rules for the Liberal Party and another for small businesses. It is to that amendment that I am speaking. SE4Bishop, Bronwyn, MPMrs Bronwyn Bishop—Mr Deputy Speaker, on the point of order: the member may have moved an impious amendment, but the fact of the matter is that the language that he was using was making an imputation which is quite unacceptable, and he should return to the substance of the debate.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—I think the language that is being discussed at the present time has been discussed all week. While it may not be usual in this parliament to accept that, I think the member is probably within his right to continue.UK6Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSON—Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I think you will find the words that I have been using are in other places in relation to the debate, and I do not believe the language that I am using is in any sense unparliamentary.At the time of the dinner, the Groom FEC was not registered for the GST, meaning it did not collect GST nor could it claim GST input tax credits—that is, it could not seek a credit or refund from the tax office for GST it paid on any goods or services it purchased. Evidence contained in the minutes and other information leaked from within the Queensland Liberal Party show that an arrangement was entered into so that the catering bill for the function would be paid by the Queensland Liberal Party headquarters, a registered GST entity, which subsequently claimed a GST input credit to the value of $826.41. The catering bill was originally paid appropriately by the Groom FEC, but this payment was later retrieved from the caterer to allow the Liberal headquarters to pay the amount. The Minister for Small Business was present at meetings at which this contrived mechanism was discussed and imposed on the FEC treasurer against her will. Her objections were recorded in the leaked minutes. The treasurer of the FEC, Mrs Margaret Watts, later resigned over the issue. The minutes also show that the FEC sought advice on the issue from a firm of accountants. The advice concluded that the arrangement should not be used and that, `We further express the view that the Commissioner of Taxation could attack these transactions.' The documents further reveal that the matter was brought to the attention of the federal Treasurer and that the federal Treasurer carpeted the small business minister over the issue. There is, however, no evidence that the Treasurer took any action to refer this GST avoidance to the tax office or to arrange for the evaded GST revenue to be paid to the tax office. There is also evidence that this scam was used in relation to at least two other Queensland Liberal federal electorate councils. The then Queensland Liberal state director, Graham Jaeschke, asserted that this GST avoidance arrangement was put in place on the advice of the federal Liberal secretariat. The actions of the Groom FEC treasurer, Margaret Watts, led in February this year to the federal director of the Liberal Party, Lynton Crosby, advising that the mechanism was not feasible and should be shut down. The minutes and other leaked information reveal the following sequence of events. On 23 November 2000 a dinner was held at Picnic Point—tickets $80, sales $18,240. The Picnic Point caterers raised an invoice for $9,090.55, GST inclusive—the GST amount being $826.41. On 27 November 2000 the Groom electorate council paid the Picnic Point caterers $9,090.55. On 12 December, in a private visit to Treasurer Margaret Watts, Chairman Sandy Sharman outlined the scheme. Before 19 December, Margaret Watts phoned the state director, Graham Jaeschke, and asked, `What is the basis for this transaction, as Groom is not GST registered and there is a memo on the subject? Mr Jaeschke advised that there was no memo and that it was for accounts only over $2,000 as `we would end up acting like a bank' for units of the party. He also advised that he had done this for Lilley and one other federal electorate council. On 18 December, Margaret Watts alleges that she phoned the small business minister to advise him of the matter to be brought up at the federal electorate council meeting the following night and its political ramifications if pursued.Right through this list we can see a chain of events where the Minister for Small Business clearly was aware of the things that were going on. We also know that options for ordinary small businesses and community groups are clear: either you register for GST, in which case you pay the GST and you are entitled to claim input credits, or you do not register for GST, in which case you do not have to pay GST but you are not entitled to claim GST input credits. You do not need to be a GST wizard to understand that that is the way the GST operates. Organisations whose revenue falls below their threshold amount have that option, but they cannot have it both ways. This is clearly what the Queensland division of the Liberal Party was endeavouring to do, and the Minister for Small Business stands condemned for his involvement in that; indeed, the Treasurer stands condemned for failing to pass on these matters to the tax office, when it was appropriate for him to do so.In the remaining time available to me, I would like to mention one other concern about tax office administration that has been brought to my attention—that is, the issue of the electronic commerce interface. I have had two representations about this. One is from Valpadana Australia Pty Ltd—which came via the member for Chisholm—a company that have now written to the tax office problem resolutions services after going through great difficulty in trying to upgrade their computer software to use the tax office's electronic commerce interface. In their letter they say:... we understand and accept that with the introduction of any new system, there are sure to be “hiccups” of some sort.But they have decided that they need to lodge a formal complaint. They say:We are a small company, where everyone's time is too valuable to be wasted on unnecessary time-consuming jobs ... we believe we run our business efficiently, with good systems in place. Without complaint in the past, we have gone about the necessary compiling of information for lodgement of the BAS, which in our case is due to be lodged electronically on the 21st because of our Deferral of GST on Imports obligation. On occasions when lodging our BAS electronically, and an error has occurred (not on our part) we have contacted the support telephone numbers for their help. This ... takes time and takes away a staff member from normal duties within our company.Since the new upgrade, the company have experienced a number of problems and, therefore, have made numerous reports to the call centre. They were advised to download a version of Acrobat Reader 5, and they followed all the points in the instructions. That did not rectify the problem. Downloading the program took approximately five hours and tied up their fax line and Internet access during that time. They are involved with the agricultural industry, and dealers and farmers from all over Australia need to know they can reach them at all times by fax or email when a piece of their farm machinery breaks down and they are in need of urgent parts to get them back in production. The company have gone through a long period of trying to get these problems resolved. They have not been able to get them resolved. They indicate: After 13 months, we must express our extreme disappointment at the time consuming and often incomprehensible labyrinth of compliance. Our accountant's costs have risen and our office work load has increased. If this is simplification, we reject it!I have other concerns about the use of tax office electronic software that have been passed on to my office on behalf of another taxpayer. Time does not allow me to go through all the detail of these concerns but, essentially, they say that they have been delayed for weeks in getting access to the new electronic software and that the process of recovery from a computer crash has been:... time consuming, overly complex and costly to both the “Taxpayer” and the ATO. It is considered that a level of `security' that requires a complete re-registration is excessive, time consuming, costly and unnecessary.They think the way in which the tax office is dealing with this issue, both for them and no doubt for other taxpayers, is quite unsatisfactory. They have also expressed concern about the sheer number of points of contact required, which compounds any dealing with the tax office. They say:The ATO has “Industry support terms” but they seem only able to duplicate the taxpayers efforts and are next to useless.I urge the House to support my amendment. (Time expired)10000Causley, Ian (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. I.R. Causley)—Is there a seconder for the amendment?83VEmerson, Craig, MPMr Emerson—I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.18:06:0030415Baird, Bruce, MPMr BAIRDMP6CookLP10—It is my pleasure to rise tonight in the House to support the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 4) 2001. It was interesting to note that the member for Wills spent about three minutes on the bill itself and about 25 minutes on pure politicking. There was nothing original, of course. It was the same old line about $75 that we have had all day and all week in this debate. If we could have value for money, it would be really worth while to debate the rort that was carried out by the Labor Party in locating the Auditor-General's office at Centenary House. The shadow Assistant Treasurer at the table would know about this more than anything. If you ever want to see a disgrace of the first order, a first-class honours degree in rorting, the scam of the highest order, then look at that little number. The actual rent for Centenary House increases each year by nine per cent, and the actual amount going straight to the Labor Party works out at several million dollars. During the election campaign that lies ahead of us this year, Australian taxpayers, when they see the ads on television, when they see the ads in the newspapers, can ask, `Where did the money come from for these ads?' Some of it came from Labor's own little exercises at fundraising, as we know, and they put their heavy hand on their close supporters in the corporate area, but a lot of the money will come from the rort, the scam, that they exercised in relation to Centenary House. By all means, let us have a debate on this particular issue in relation to the Minister for Small Business, but we are debating an amount of $75, which has been paid to the tax office. There was some uncertainty, but that has now been clarified by the minister, and we have now wasted 25 minutes of House time on a very minor deal.Before the member for Wills leaves the House, I would also like to respond to his comments about Stan Wallis, the Chairman of Woolworths. He said that Stan Wallis was a great supporter of the GST and now he is not because he can see that it has had a detrimental effect on Woolworths. He said that Mr Wallis did not realise that this would be the case and that he has changed his mind entirely about the GST. In fact, it shows a lack of reading of the business community in relation to some of our major companies in Australia. On this very day, share results for Woolworths have been published. The headline in today's Australian newspaper says `Woollies rings up a whopper'. The article says: Woolworths chief executive Roger Corbett fired a powerful warning to new Coles Myer boss John Fletcher yesterday, posting a massive 17.7 per cent jump in full-year earnings and promising more growth.Woolworths shares soared to 3 per cent in early trade to $11.23 ... a net profit of $428.4 million—largely driven by strong second-half sales.The nation's biggest supermarket group also reported robust earnings per share, which jumped 24.1 per cent to 40.2c.This is the organisation that the member for Wills said was struggling because of the GST. We would all like to struggle like that! This is a clear indication of the vibrancy of the economy, of how the GST has assisted the Australian economy to go on to new strengths and levels. Roger Corbett does an outstanding job as chief executive, and his chairman I am sure could confirm for you that the long-term impact of the GST has not been negative, and the results posted yesterday and reported in the paper today highlight the fact that the GST is appropriate. The member for Wills should try to keep abreast of current developments in the economy if he wants to quote what the impact has been on companies such as Woolworths.The bill before us, TLAB4 as it is appropriately called, considers a number of areas. The imputation rules in the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 will be changed to reflect the government's reduction in company tax from 34 per cent to 30 per cent, which is of course great. It is a part of the overall reforms that this government has brought in and it is a part of the changes to the economic life of this country—changes that have included the GST, the switch to a broad based tax, which enabled 80 per cent of taxpayers to pay no more than 30 cents in the dollar and enabled the business tax rate to be brought down from 34 per cent to 30 per cent on 1 July this year, following a decrease from 36 per cent to 34 per cent the year before. Under this government, the business tax rate has dropped to 30 per cent. This is what this bill is about: bringing in line the imputation rules to accommodate that.Did we see such changes under the previous government? Did they bring down the corporate and business tax rate? Of course not. They were very busy slugging the business community. They said that we would see these changes and that they were going to reduce the wholesale sales tax. `Read my lips,' said the former Prime Minister; and remember his l-a-w law tax cuts. Of course, the only law that was there was the law of the Keatingesque. His grand visions for the Berlin redesign of the Australian economy disappeared into the vapours, and what we had in fact was a continued escalation of the rate of wholesale sales tax in this country.There was no reform in the business area. There was no reform in taxation for those companies which were exporting overseas, which had seen such a dramatic increase in the level of exports. There were no changes as they continued to escalate up the cost of debt, bringing their expenditure to a total amount of $85 billion worth of debt. They racked it up. It has been this government that has repaid $60 billion of that debt. We saw interest rates rise to amazing levels of 17 per cent, and under this government of course we have been averaging between 6.5 per cent and 7 per cent. So there have been many benefits to businesses in Australia as a result of this government being in power. Interest rates is one; the fact that they have incentives for exporting is another; and the fact that the income tax rate has been reduced for businesses from 36 per cent to 30 per cent is yet another.A number of proposals for the taxation of friendly societies will be delayed due to the deferral of life insurance policy proposals until 1 July next year. The 1936 act will also be amended to ensure that the intercorporate dividend rebate and similar deductions are disallowed. Schedule 1 of the bill amends the imputation rules in the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 to take into account this drop in the business tax rate. As I mentioned, the franking account conversion legislation will also impose a small, and generally once only, compliance burden on those taxpayers affected. The conversion process that a taxpayer will be required to follow will be substantially similar to that required when the tax rate was reduced last year, so taxpayers are familiar with the conversion process.The taxpayers affected by these rules are those resident taxpayers who are required to maintain franking accounts and they include all resident companies, including non-mutual life insurance companies, all resident public trading trusts, all resident corporate unit trusts and all limited partnerships. The measures preserve the value of franking credits accumulated prior to the rate change while minimising compliance costs for corporate taxpayers. In relation to friendly societies, schedule 2 is a consequence of the deferral of the business tax review life insurance policyholder proposals until 1 July 2002. The commencement date of the proposals to tax friendly societies on investment income received that is attributable to scholarship plans and income bonds sold after 30 November 1999 will be deferred. Under this amendment, friendly societies will remain exempt from tax on that investment income until 30 June 2002. Further, schedule 2 defers the commencement of the new methodology for working out the capital component of standard life insurance investment policies until 1 July 2002. The cost of this amendment to revenue is negligible. The deferral is expected to be about $1 million in the past financial year, and $2 million per annum in the next financial year.In terms of prescribed dual residents, schedule 3 of this bill further amends the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 so that neither the intercorporate dividend rebate nor a related deduction are allowed in respect of any unfranked dividends paid to or by a dual resident company. The intercorporate dividend rebate is not available in respect of any unfranked dividends, and the deduction allowed for certain non-resident owned companies to offset the removal of the rebate from 1 July 2000 is not available in respect of unfranked dividends. These amendments are retrospectively effective to dividends paid on or up to 1 July 2001.In relation to non-complying superannuation funds and non-complying ADFs, schedule 4 amends the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 to deny refunds of excess imputation credits to non-complying superannuation funds and non-complying approved deposit funds, and it will retrospectively take effect on assessments for income years ending on or subsequent to 22 May 2001. The impact of this will be less than $1 million. There will be other miscellaneous amendments to enable franking rebate provisions to clarify the position of registered charities and gift-deductible organisations which are eligible for refunds for excess imputation credits in respect of distributions attributable to franked dividends received indirectly through another trust.In terms of the bill, there we have it. There are sensible changes relating to imputation credits. This is appropriate and in line with the government's changes and the incentives provided by the total changes to the new tax system. It is about providing incentives to business across Australia and reducing the company tax rate from 34 per cent to 30 per cent—which came down the previous year from 36 per cent. It is about real incentives to business, not the charades that we had under the previous government. Despite the rhetoric that we have heard from the member for Wills as he claimed to be debating the bill, he simply regurgitated the debate in the House over the last two days. Nothing new was added. We debated again that $75. I am very happy for the time of the member for Wills to be extended so we can hear more about Centenary House. If we wish to talk about rorts, let us talk about that. It would be the greatest rort in political terms that I have heard for many a long day. It is absolutely outrageous. There is nowhere for any of you to hide in terms of taking money directly from the taxpayers of Australia to prop up Labor Party funds so you can go into the election with millions more taken directly from taxpayers. You have rental rates in Centenary House which are well in excess of what you would pay for Chifley Square in Sydney, which is probably among the highest cost rental properties in Australia. If we look down the road here, it is a nice building, but you certainly would not pay that kind of rental. If this was a Third World country, you could understand that this might be a little deal that the local dictator made on the side, but this is contemporary Australia in the year 2001. That is a rort with first-class honours and, of course, you have the hide to come into this House and condemn the Minister for Small Business over $75. That just shows where you are at and how desperate you are to find anything. When the Leader of the Opposition was so embarrassed by the huge porkies he was telling about his daughter's health situation, he thought, `What can I do? The headlines are bad. They're showing me up to be the stunt merchant they always knew I was.' So in they came. They rolled out these allegations, with no substance. It was a desperate act. But by all means, let us talk about Centenary House and how you rorted the taxpayers of Australia to an outrageous level. In conclusion, we can be very proud of this bill because, instead of rorting the people of Australia, this puts real incentives back for businesses throughout this country.18:21:0030418Gillard, Julia, MPMs GILLARD83LLalorALP00—I rise to speak on the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 4) 2001. I would have thought that the last thing we would have heard a member of the Liberal Party refer to in this House today is the question of rorts.SE4Bishop, Bronwyn, MPMrs Bronwyn Bishop—Yes, $4 million worth.83LGillard, Julia, MPMs GILLARD—Exactly. We have heard about rorts all day, and if that is the contribution of the deputy leadership contender for the Liberal Party, I do not think we have much to worry about.The bill deals with four principal proposals. First, through schedule 1, it deals with amending the imputation rules in the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 to take account of the reduction of the company tax rate from 34 per cent to 30 per cent. Secondly, it amends the Income Tax Assessment Act to defer the commencement date of the review of business taxation proposals to tax friendly societies on investment income received that is attributable to funeral policies, scholarship plans and income bonds. Thirdly, it amends the Income Tax Assessment Act to make a series of corrections relating to the intercorporate dividend rebate. Fourthly, it amends the Income Tax Assessment Act to deny refunds of excess imputation credits to non-complying superannuation funds and non-complying ADFs. Finally, it makes some technical corrections to the franking rebate provisions and the Medicare Levy Act.The member for Wills has moved a second reading amendment, and it is to that second reading amendment that I first intend to address some remarks. I note that in that second reading amendment the member of Wills refers to condemning the government for: (1) imposing a complex and cumbersome tax system on Australian businesses rather than delivering the simpler system it promised; (2) creating new tax avoidance opportunities, despite addressing some existing avoidance opportunities in this bill ...It is important to note that less than two weeks ago the Australian community reminded the government yet again of how it views the government's imposition of the GST. That reminder came in the form of the Northern Territory election, with the breathtaking and unexpected win for Labor by Clare Martin and her team. Everybody on this side of the House wishes her well as she ends the era of cronyism in the Northern Territory and moves to an era of responsible government. In the analysis of what moved voters in the Northern Territory so overwhelmingly to endorse Labor, we have to note that the GST was a very significant point. You do not have to take my word for that, because the former Chief Minister, Denis Burke, who is now relegated to Leader of the Opposition, told the ABC's Lateline that his analysis was that the GST had caused resentment and hurt; that is, that it was an operative factor in the Northern Territory election. That was enough to seriously embarrass the Prime Minister—and why wouldn't you be embarrassed as state and territory coalition governments around Australia are knocked over, partly as a result of the GST?—so he declared it a relatively minor concern in the election. One would have thought that Denis Burke's analysis of Northern Territory politics was to be preferred. I would have thought that the GST was a substantial factor in the Northern Territory election in circumstances in which there has been a very big cost of living increase in the Northern Territory between June last year and June this year. For example, in Darwin the cost of living increase has been 5.4 per cent. The latest CPI figures—they are very important figures in terms of the sorts of problems that the price escalation caused by the GST has caused ordinary people—show that electricity costs have risen by 9.2 per cent. That is a very important factor in the climate in Darwin, where people are reliant on airconditioning and obviously have no way to power it except by using large amounts of electricity. Anybody in this House who has spoken to families in Darwin, particularly Defence Force families, will know that airconditioning, and paying for it, is a very live issue. Beef and veal prices were up 7.6 per cent, and lamb and mutton prices were up 4.8 per cent. We can see, just in the escalation of the prices of those items, as well as the escalation in the cost of living overall, that the GST has been a very important factor in the Northern Territory election.It does not stop there. If we analyse the population in the Northern Territory, we find that 9.9 per cent of voters are permanent residents of caravan parks. In relation to GST on caravan parks and permanent residents, the government has performed the most inelegant series of backflips and still has not managed to get it right. We know that, originally, long-term residents were to carry the full 10 per cent of the GST. That was a real inequity, and caravan park long-term residents rightly started campaigning against it. In those circumstances the government engaged in its first backflip, and that was to reduce the GST to 5.5 per cent, although the full 10 per cent GST would still apply to site rentals. The government came up with that formula in a desperate attempt to make it simpler for caravan park proprietors to separate what inputs would apply to that part of the business which related to permanent residents. But we know that that backflip has not achieved the results that it was supposed to achieve, and we have evidence of that from those who work in that industry and understand how it operates. For example, we have Jim Clark, the New South Wales coordinator of the Affiliated Park Residents Association, who says that even from the government's second backflip—let us remember that they have backflipped twice on the way in which caravan park rentals are supposed to be dealt with—he does not expect any change in the point of view of residents and that they will continue to pay the GST.The 9.9 per cent of voters in the Northern Territory who are permanent caravan park residents seems a high percentage until you start comparing it around the country. We find, for example, that in the seat of Kalgoorlie 20.2 per cent of those who voted at the last election are residents of caravan parks. One would have thought that the government's inability to get the issue right would make a real difference there. The list goes on in terms of the areas of Australia that it affects: Cowper, Eden-Monaro, Gilmore, Page, Richmond, Robertson, Dawson, Herbert, Hinkler, Leichhardt, Longman, Moreton and Wide Bay, to name just a few.83VEmerson, Craig, MPMr Emerson—I've been everywhere, man; I've been everywhere!83LGillard, Julia, MPMs GILLARD—Members on this side of the House could claim to have visited to all those electorates. The shadow minister has probably been to all of them twice. We know, for example, that the pain and hurt in the community from the GST is going to continue to be a factor. It was a factor in the Northern Territory election, and we would expect from that example that it will continue to be a factor in the forthcoming federal election. In particular, it will continue to be a factor in the areas that I have named, which have a disproportionate number of long-term caravan park residents. The fact that the GST is continuing to be an issue in the community is also verified by a number of opinion polls. For example, we have the Morgan opinion poll reporting that the GST remains a major obstacle to the electoral fortunes of the Howard government. It says that since the introduction of the GST the proportion of Australians who say that they are personally worse off rose from 22 per cent in August 2000 to 34 per cent in August 2001. We recall that the other side mocked the Leader of the Opposition when he described the GST as a slow burn, but when we look at statistics like that we find that that is precisely what it has been and that the hurt and resentment in the community caused by the GST are escalating, not diminishing, as time goes by. On that note, if it suits the convenience of the House, I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned.Sitting suspended from 6.30 p.m. to 8.00 p.m.Bills30420R139130420Bill presented by Mr Ruddock, and read a first time.3042020:00:0030420Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK0J4BerowraLPMinister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and Minister for Reconciliation and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.This bill is aimed at addressing two critical challenges facing Australia's refugee protection arrangements and our ability to effectively contribute to international efforts to protect refugees.First, the continuing influx of unauthorised arrivals to this country is a tangible indicator of increasingly sophisticated attempts to undermine the integrity of Australia's refugee determination process.The evidence is clear and growing that large numbers of these people have, but disposed of, identifying documentation before arrival in Australia.The smuggling operations which are providing this travel often give highly detailed information and coaching to these arrivals on appropriate claims and country knowledge and on Commonwealth assessment procedures to maximise their chance of successfully gaining a protection visa.We cannot lose sight of the fact that refugees will be amongst those people travelling to Australia without authority.But it is critical that Migration Act powers to test these claims effectively match the challenge being posed by organised and sophisticated attempts at nationality, identity and claims fraud.The second major challenge lies in the increasingly broad interpretations being given by the courts to Australia's protection obligations under the refugees convention and protocol.The convention does not define many of the key terms it uses.In the absence of clear legislative guidance, the domestic interpretation of our obligations has broadened out under cumulative court decisions so that Australia now provides protection visas in cases lying well beyond the bounds originally envisaged by the convention.These generous interpretations of our obligations encourage people who are not refugees to test their claims in Australia, adding to perceptions that Australia is a soft touch.Significantly, every protection place in Australia which is obtained through deception and every protection place which is provided to a person who would not be covered by the proper interpretations of the refugees convention because of the way domestic law has developed, represents a place taken from the neediest refugees languishing in refugee camps around the world—those, I might say, who cannot safely return home, those who are unsafe where they are and are in dire need of our support.Australia is proudly one of the few countries which has a formal program to resettle refugees in consultation with the UNHCR—one of the few: I think nine in all.The challenges to the integrity of our onshore determination processes and the broadening out of our convention obligations in domestic law directly undermine the capacity of Australia to contribute effectively to protecting refugees both in Australia and who are in refugee camps and in most need of resettlement. Our action in legislating on the application of the refugees convention is consistent with the principles recognised in international law that states have the right to define how they will implement their obligations under international treaties.The bill will include measures to allow the minister to draw adverse inferences when a person does not have identity documentation or if they refuse to make an oath or affirmation about the truth of the information they have provided. The bill will also stop the refugees convention being interpreted so broadly that people who were never envisaged to be refugees manage to obtain refugee protection in Australia.The government has been concerned for some time that the refugees convention has become so widely interpreted that it is in danger of failing the very people that it was designed to protect.Australia grants a higher proportion of claims for refugee status than even the UNHCR assessing the same caseload on their way to Australia. As I have said, for Afghans in Indonesia, 14 per cent approved by the UNHCR; for Afghans in Australia, 84 per cent approved under our system.This generosity is in itself attracting people with the means to pay a people smuggler or who can afford air fares to our region and who wish to seek a more prosperous way of life. In other words, those who have the money to pay and are free enough to travel.This is not what the convention was designed for. The bill will define the fundamental convention term, persecution, as an appropriate test of serious harm. Exclusions for serious non-political crime and particularly serious crime will also be defined to ensure that only those people who merit protection receive it.The legislation will also allow contrived claims for refugee status in Australia to be disregarded.Australia remains committed to providing appropriate protection to refugees consistent with our international obligations.However, we intend to send a strong message to people smugglers, and to others wishing to exploit our provisions, that abuse is not on.It is both Australia's right and responsibility as a sovereign state to ensure that the convention is implemented responsibly and consistently by all decision makers in accordance with the express intentions of parliament.Persecution is a key concept in considering claims for refugee status and it is not defined in either the convention or Australian legislation.Our legislation should reinforce the basic principles of persecution under the convention—that for a person to require protection the persecution must be for a convention reason, and the persecution must constitute serious harm.The legislation will also prevent people obtaining protection in particular circumstances where there is no real fear of persecution for a convention reason.The fundamental intention of the convention is to provide protection to those who fear persecution so serious that they cannot return to their home country.It was not intended to protect people facing discrimination or hardship in comparison to life enjoyed by us in Australia.The legislation will define elements of serious harm as including a threat to the person's life or liberty, significant physical harassment or ill-treatment, and other events that threaten a person's capacity to subsist.Providing a definition of persecution in the legislation will ensure that the level of harm necessary to constitute persecution will be at a level intended by the refugees convention.The legislation will also provide that to invoke protection the convention reason must be the essential and significant reason for the persecution. The convention was not designed to protect people who fear persecution for personal reasons that have little or nothing to do with the convention—for example, because they have failed to pay their family's debts.Yet a recent Federal Court case provides for this very scenario.The legislation will also prevent people from using elaborate constructs to claim that they are being persecuted as a member of a family and thus under the convention ground of a particular social group, when there is no convention related reason for the persecution.This will remove a potential avenue for criminal families to claim protection on the basis of gang wars—not those that the government would see as warranting international protection.I am also concerned about court decisions that have recognised the claims of applicants who have deliberately set out to contrive claims for refugee status after they have arrived in Australia.Such action, deliberately seeking to attract hostile attention from a home country government, makes a mockery of an applicant having a real fear of persecution.The legislation will make it clear that any actions by a person taken after arrival in Australia will be disregarded unless the minister is satisfied that the actions were not done just to strengthen claims for protection.The convention was not intended to provide protection to applicants who contrive claims in second or third countries and who have no other basis for claims to refugee status.However, in exceptional cases where a person has acted purely to strengthen their claims, and so as a result needs some protection, my ministerial intervention powers will allow me to intervene if it is in the public interest.Article 33 of the refugees convention provides that a person who has been convicted of a `particularly serious crime' and is a danger to the community does not have the benefit of Australia's international protection obligations.However, there is currently no definition of what constitutes a `particularly serious crime' in the refugees convention or the Migration Act.The legislation will provide a threshold definition to include crimes of violence against a person, serious drug offences, serious damage to property and offences within detention centres, when the crime is punishable in Australia by life imprisonment or three years or more in prison.Where the crime is committed overseas, the relevant penalties will be those that would have applied if the offence had been committed in the Australian Capital Territory.People convicted of a particularly serious crime will still need to be assessed on a case by case basis to see whether they are also a danger to the community and should be excluded from protection.These provisions will make it clear to unauthorised arrivals that if they are convicted of particularly serious crimes, including in detention, they risk exclusion from the benefit of our protection provisions. I would also like to foreshadow regulation amendments that will further strengthen the requirements that asylum seekers do not commit crimes in Australia.Asylum seekers convicted of offences carrying penalties of more than 12 months imprisonment will not be eligible for a permanent protection visa for four years from the date of a conviction in Australia.The bill will introduce provisions to ensure that persons who commit serious crimes primarily for personal reasons or gain and not for genuine political motives can be excluded from refugee protection.Article 1F of the refugees convention provides that a person is not owed protection if there are serious grounds for considering that they have committed a serious non-political crime before arriving in Australia.However, there is no definition of what constitutes a non-political crime in either the refugees convention or domestic legislation. In recent times the courts have determined that applicants are owed protection obligations if they have committed a serious crime with mixed personal and political motivations, even where the political motivation is a minor element of their motivation.The amendment will also provide that those atrocious crimes defined in the extradition act as not being political, such as hijacking and killing a head of state, will always be considered to fall within the definition of a non-political crime.There is currently no power for the minister to replace unfavourable protection visa decisions of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal with a decision more favourable to the applicant. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal deals with character and exclusion matters under articles 1f, 32 and 33(2) of the refugees convention and under the Migration Act.For example, it would hear appeals on matters relating to the particularly serious crime and serious non-political crime provisions in this bill.The legislation will allow ministerial intervention if it is in the public interest, following decisions of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal on protection visa matters. This expansion of the ministerial intervention powers will strengthen Australia's ability to provide residence in Australia in cases where the public interest may require this.This ministerial intervention power is consistent with existing powers relating to decisions by the Refugee Review Tribunal and the Migration Review Tribunal.The legislation will also provide that unauthorised arrivals and protection visa applicants may be required to give evidence on oath or affirmation and that failure to do so, after being warned, or the manner in which they do so, could be grounds for drawing adverse inferences as to their credibility.I am deeply concerned about the level of fraud by unauthorised arrivals and in the protection visa case load, and it is imperative that we do as much as possible to stop it.Recent evidence has indicated that some protection visa applicants may be discouraged from making fraudulent claims for protection if they are required to swear an oath or affirmation that information that they have provided is correct.Guidelines will be developed to ensure that the requirement is implemented with regard to cultural and religious sensitivities.This provision is not intended to compel a person to make a particular form of oath or affirmation but rather to make it clear that failure to comply with a request or the manner in which a person complies with that request may be taken into account in considering credibility—in other words, whether a person is to be believed.I have already expressed my concern about the number of unauthorised arrivals entering Australia without documentation establishing their identity and nationality.I do recognise that there are people who may have a legitimate reason for not having such a document in their possession.Others, however, have clearly had documents for the first leg of their journey and then have deliberately disposed of them.The legislation will provide that the lack of identity documentation may be the basis for drawing adverse inferences about a person's claimed identity, nationality and citizenship.The intention is to send a clear and strong message that Australia expects applicants, who are able to do so, to provide satisfactory identity and nationality documentation.The legislation will provide that applicants will be warned of the importance of providing documentation.A reasonable explanation for failing to produce documents will be taken into account.As well, the act will be amended to make clear that protection visas can be granted to spouses and dependants in Australia of a person found to be owed protection obligations even though the spouse and dependants did not have personal claims for protection. However, consequential changes are then made by the legislation to make it clear that provisions in the Migration Act that bar repeat protection visa applications relate also to a person who has not raised protection claims in their first protection visa application.Without this provision, dependants of an unsuccessful protection visa applicant who had chosen not to advance protection claims when given the opportunity to do so could apply again making such claims.Potentially, family members could apply for protection with each member taking turns to be the one advancing protection claims— in other words, it can be used as a device to ensure that family groups remain in Australia by pursuing application after application.This could prolong a family's stay in Australia for years as each applicant in turn applies and pursues appeals.The bill will extend the bar on repeat applications to ensure that all family members included in a protection visa application will be barred from making another application for a protection visa.In order to strengthen Australia's capacity to prevent people whose protection visas have been cancelled from immediately re-entering the protection visa system, the bar will also be extended to cover such people.The legislation will provide additional protection for protection visa litigants by requiring that the Federal Court and the High Court do not publish their names, including on the Internet.The publication of the identity of a person as a protection visa applicant may create a protection need and may endanger the lives of family or colleagues overseas.Although courts may currently agree to suppress an applicant's name, it is essentially a matter for the court's discretion to grant such an order, and it must be argued on a case by case basis.Australia's protection visa assessment processes at the Refugee Review Tribunal already contain safeguards preventing publication of any information identifying a protection visa applicant.The legislation will ensure that these requirements will also cover protection visa related decisions of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.In conclusion, the legislation strengthens the powers in the Migration Act to protect Australia's refugee determination processes against intentional fraud and blatant misuse.It provides clear guidance to focus refugee decision making on those who need protection, and removes opportunities for others to abuse our generosity.These amendments have been carefully drafted to ensure that refugees, as appropriately defined in accordance with the convention, will receive the protection that they properly deserve under the convention.This government remains fully committed to Australia's continuing to meet its obligations under the refugees convention and protocol in full.This bill continues the proud tradition of providing assistance to genuine refugees in need, to which our nation has been so committed.I commend this bill to the House. It deserves urgent passage to deal with issues that presently encourage many people to bypass opportunities where they are safe, to leave situations and embark on dangerous voyages because they expect different outcomes in Australia than if these same people were being considered by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees—and such a situation cannot be allowed to continue. The bill deserves and needs urgent passage, and I hope that it will proceed in the sittings of this parliament with the cooperation of the opposition. I table the explanatory memorandum.Debate (on motion by Mr Stephen Smith) adjourned.Bills30424R135530424Debate resumed.20:22:0030424Gillard, Julia, MPMs GILLARD83LLalorALP00—Prior to the dinner break, I was addressing some remarks to the second reading amendment moved by the member for Wills. I seek to continue and particularly to make some remarks in relation to the first point of that second reading amendment—that is, that the House condemns the government for: ... imposing a complex and cumbersome tax system on Australian businesses rather than delivering the simpler system it promised.The representations that this government made to deliver a simpler tax system are on the public record and are, I would venture to say, well known. But, for members of the House who might need to be reminded about those representations, John Howard, the Prime Minister, said back in 1996:It is time to get government off the back of small business and to unlock their true job creating potential. A coalition government will slash the burden of paperwork and regulations on small businesses, with our aim being a 50% reduction in our first term of office.They are the words of John Howard, the Prime Minister, on the question of business red tape. When the Prime Minister was asked specifically about the GST in 1998 and whether the introduction of the GST would reduce the number of pages in the tax act, he replied simply, `Yes, it will.' We have had the Treasurer making comparable representations. On radio in 1999, the Treasurer responded and said, in relation to the GST program:Well I think that's right. And that's why we've got to get the number of pages of the Tax Act down. That's what we're working on right at this moment.So we had clear representations from the leaders of this government that the GST system was going to be fairer, simpler and easier for small businesses, and that it was going to slash the burden of red tape.Well, here we stand; and that claim is so far away from the reality that it is simply laughable. What we know is that the income tax act has blown out from some 3,000 pages to 8,500 pages. The GST legislation now weighs some 7.81 kilograms—and many babies are born in this country weighing less than that. It has already been amended almost 2,000 times. And, as we have discovered through a parliamentary committee, the number of private binding rulings made in relation to the GST in calendar year 2000 alone was 84,287. We do not know whether they are one-, two-, three- or four-page private binding rulings, but let us give the tax office, the Treasurer and the government the benefit of the doubt and say that each is a two-page private binding ruling. That means you would have more than 160,000 sheets of paper just in the private binding rulings alone to add to the 7.81 kilograms of GST legislation.This would be bad enough, but perhaps tolerable, if we thought that we were at the end point and could say, `We might now have a tower of paperwork that you can't pick up or jump over and that needs a small truck to move it around.' But we know that we are nowhere near the end of the need to keep amending the GST legislation and that the future, if this government were to continue, would hold more of the same. In relation to that, I do not ask you to rely on my word; I ask you to rely on the word of PricewaterhouseCoopers, who today released their Retail Meter survey, which is an annual survey dealing with the question of retail industry confidence—and I will go into some details of that survey in a moment.However, the important thing to note at this point of the debate is that, in launching that survey, Kevin O'Rourke—who is the indirect tax partner of PricewaterhouseCoopers, and so is an expert in indirect tax and an expert in goods and services taxes for one of the major accountancy and management consulting firms in this nation—told the launch function that 1,000 GST amendments are now on hold until after the election. This is a man who would be in a position to know. We know that pretty close to 2,000 GST amendments have already been dealt with by this House and, according to Kevin O'Rourke, another 1,000 are in the pipeline, queued up and waiting until after the election. Perhaps the minister at the table, who at least today remains the Minister for Small Business, might want to clarify some of this. But we are told by Kevin O'Rourke, in relation to the GST legislation:There are large slabs of it which simply do not work, and that is why lots of amendments have been drafted.Mr O'Rourke goes on: But they're sitting there because no government at present is going to put those amendments through the Parliament and say that the GST doesn't work pre-election. This is a very important statement from Mr Kevin O'Rourke. We know that in the last two election campaigns, but particularly in the last election campaign in relation to the GST, the government went out and said that it was going to cut the burden of red tape for small business and that it was going to simplify the tax system. It went out and said that there would be fewer pages in the tax act. But the reality over the last few years has been that all of those things were complete untruths: red tape has got worse, the number of pages in the tax act has got bigger, and small business and even bigger businesses— but most particularly small businesses—are weighed down by the huge volume of legislation. Now we have Mr O'Rourke telling small businesses in this nation, `Whatever representations this government makes today or in the coming weeks as we run up to the election, or whatever representations it makes during the election campaign, don't actually listen to any of them, because the reality on the day after the election will be that, if the government is returned, there will be another 1,000 amendments coming through this House and thudding onto the tables of small businesses around Australia.' That is a very important statement that tells us where we are going with our tax system, should this government continue to hold office.I think the PricewaterhouseCoopers survey is important to note not only because of the comments that Mr O'Rourke has made in launching it but also because of the snapshot that it gives us as to where we are with economic confidence, and most particularly the confidence of the retail sector, at this time in Australia. As I said, the Retail Meter 2001 is an annual survey released by PricewaterhouseCoopers. Retailers were surveyed and, in this case, 97 retailers responded to the survey. The survey included business of all sizes in all sectors trading in all states and territories.What did this survey find? It found that only 12 per cent of retailers considered the environment for their businesses in the 12 months to May 2001 to have been either good or very good. So only 12 per cent gave any form of positive response in terms of the business environment in which they are working. When you break those figures down and actually have a look at the details in this survey, you find that that 12 per cent is made up of one per cent who say that the environment is very good and 11 per cent who say that it is good, with the balance saying that it is average, difficult, or very difficult. In that regard, 45 per cent of businesses are saying it is difficult and 23 per cent are saying that it is very difficult. The overwhelming preponderance of businesses are coming along and saying, `We are doing it tough.'What is almost more concerning is the way in which these figures have escalated over the last 12 months. Experience with the GST is causing businesses to be more negative about the business environment. The number who think that the environment is difficult has escalated from 22 per cent to 45 per cent over the last 12 months and the number who say that it is very difficult has escalated from three per cent to 23 per cent over the last 12 months. That is a 20 per cent increase in the number of businesses that think the environment is very difficult. That is what the GST has done to this economy.When these businesses are asked, `Why do you think you are operating in this dreadful environment?' the main reason they cite is the difficult trading environment. They say that the attendant poor business performance is related to the GST. These retailers are divided into two categories—those that retail basic spending items and those that retail discretionary spending items. When they are asked to give a reason as to why their situation is difficult or very difficult, 65 per cent of retailers who retail basic items say the GST is the reason and 80 per cent of those that retail discretionary items say that the GST is the reason. Those figures indicate that it is the overwhelming reason. No other reason is given. The number that cite the Olympic Games or the exchange rate does not come anywhere near those figures. In conclusion, I refer to the second reading amendment moved by the member for Wills. It is clear from the material that is before the House today that the GST has caused economic problems, particularly for the retail sector. Those problems are worsening the longer their experience of the GST. There is a business slow burn on in relation to the GST. There is a voter slow burn on in relation to the GST: the Northern Territory election showed that. I commend to the House that it adopt the second reading amendment as moved. (Time expired)20:34:0030427Emerson, Craig, MPMr EMERSON83VRankinALP00— The Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 4) 2001 contains a number of modest anti-avoidance provisions. They are provisions that we welcome and will support because, unfortunately, in this country there is now a culture of tax avoidance. By and large, that is a culture that has been encouraged by the inaction of this government and, in some cases, the deliberate and positive statements towards avoidance by the Treasurer of this country. Before this government came to office, when the then Labor government was seeking to crack down on tax avoidance through the abuse of executive share schemes, the then shadow Treasurer and now Treasurer boasted about the coalition's opposition to those measures. In fact, he said that he would be opposing those measures `root and branch', and that is exactly what the government did. He also boasted at one point, given that the government had tried this three times, `Once, twice, three times and you're out; three strikes and you're out.' This was a shadow Treasurer who effectively, through those sorts of statements, was telling the tax office and the Australian people that tax avoidance through executive share schemes was okay. The government's inaction on those very matters is a matter of great regret in this country because to this day, although there is evidence of rampant tax avoidance through those schemes—evidence that has been given to a parliamentary committee through the Second Commissioner of Taxation, who likened these schemes to the paper rorts of the late 1970s and early 1980s—and despite all of those warnings, despite all of that evidence, the government has failed to legislate against them. It is a pattern of inaction by this government in relation to tax avoidance.Another classic example of that is that in the government's response to the Ralph Review of Business Taxation it said that it would bring in a strengthened general anti-avoidance provision, a toughening of part IVA. There is no good reason why—given the very long passage of time since it made that statement, well over a year ago—legislation could not have been brought to this parliament to toughen the general anti-avoidance rule, but of course there is no such legislation. It is for those reasons that I support the second reading amendment moved by the member for Wills, and in particular two paragraphs—firstly, that this parliament condemns the government for:... creating new tax avoidance opportunities, despite addressing some existing avoidance opportunities in this bill;Secondly, at paragraph 4, we condemn the government for:... applying one set of tax rules for the Liberal Party and another for small businesses.Mr Deputy Speaker, today I am wearing black in anticipation of attending the political funeral of the small business minister. This is a minister who has misled the Australian people seven times in just five days.10000Causley, Ian (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. I.R. Causley)—Order! The member should read standing order 76. He cannot reflect on a member of the House unless by substantive motion.83VEmerson, Craig, MPMr EMERSON—This is a minister who has provided over the last five days a number of conflicting statements which indicate certainly a large degree of confusion on his part. In my view they indicate a pattern where he has changed his story on numerous occasions. The minister took a punt during the censure motion and the preceding question time last Thursday that Labor did not have documents, because he said:If they have any proof, have them table it ... what they are relying on are discussions that supposedly took place at FECs of the Liberal Party—10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! The member is still flouting standing order 76. I will repeat: under standing order 76 you cannot reflect upon a member in this House unless you move a substantive motion. 83VEmerson, Craig, MPMr EMERSON—I am quoting directly from the member for—10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—You are reflecting upon a member of the House.83VEmerson, Craig, MPMr EMERSON—I am simply quoting from what the member said in this parliament.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—You are reflecting upon the Minister for Small Business, who is a member of the House. Standing order 76 specifically says you may do that only by substantive motion.83VEmerson, Craig, MPMr EMERSON—I repeat: I am quoting him. If I am reflecting on him then he has reflected on himself. I am in the middle of a quote that the member—10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—I will make it clearer: if you continue, I will ask you to resume your seat.83VEmerson, Craig, MPMr EMERSON—The member went on to describe Labor's pursuit of these issues during question time as a wild goose chase. As at today there are at least seven occasions on which the minister has at the very least—10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—The member for Rankin will resume his seat.5V5Smith, Stephen, MPMr Stephen Smith—Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. I can understand you wanting to ensure that the member does not breach the standing order to which you have referred, but when you sat the member down he was simply reading into the Hansard the words of the minister himself previously. The minister is in the chamber; he is perfectly able to protect and defend himself if he so chooses. The point of order is that the member for Rankin has done nothing which would cause or warrant you to sit him down. He has made no allegations or suggestions which would fall within the general remit of requiring a substantive motion. He has simply repeated to the House the minister's own words and matters in respect of which this House is well aware, given the proceedings of the last three or four sitting days.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—The member for Perth has been in this House for some time, and I will read the standing order to him:All imputations of improper motives and all personal reflections on Members shall be considered highly disorderly.That is the standing order. If the member wants to continue with the bill, he may do so, but if he reflects upon any member of this House then I will sit him down.83VEmerson, Craig, MPMr EMERSON—During the discussion that has occurred inside this chamber and outside it over the last few days in relation to the Liberal Party's fundraising activities in the electorate of Groom, Mr Watts, who is the husband of the treasurer of the Groom FEC, made reference to shadowy figures behind the GST scam. He did that on Sunday on a television program. Shortly after, we received a phone call from Liberal Party sources, who informed us that the shadowy figure is none other than Santo Santoro, the former member for Clayfield. Clayfield is a state seat in the federal electorate of Lilley. I draw attention to the activities of the former member for Clayfield because he has now publicly admitted that he has been operating an account called the `Clayfield staff account'.I am also informed by the same sources of the purpose of the memorandum that was issued on 14 June 2000 by the then state director of the Queensland Liberal Party, which accurately sets out the treatment of the GST within the Liberal Party. I am informed that there was a particular paragraph that was directed at the Clayfield staff account. I will read from that memorandum. It says:Any branch or FEC which believes it might have a turnover in excess of $100,000 per annum should contact me at the earliest opportunity.It was strongly believed that the Clayfield staff account did have a turnover of more than $100,000. The Liberal Party secretariat in Queensland wanted the former member for Clayfield to come forward and declare that. He had not done that. He had not declared it in his pecuniary interests statement—and was forced to do so subsequently, a copy of which I have here—nor had he declared it in his political disclosure statement. Mr Santoro is one of the shadowy figures in this whole scam; the other is Mr Neville Stewart, who seconded the motion putting the Groom FEC scam into place. Mr Stewart is the Queensland vice-president, who enjoys the patronage of the former member for Clayfield. So there are two of the shadowy figures. We know why the scam was put in place—because further documents came to light over the weekend. The main reason the scam was put in place was alluded to in a report by the federal director of the Liberal Party, a copy of which we obtained over the weekend—XT4Ronaldson, Michael, MPMr Ronaldson—Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. I have looked at both the bill and the amendment, and I cannot for the life of me see how these comments from the honourable member for Rankin in any way make reference to or are relevant to either the bill itself or the amendment moved by his colleague. I would ask you to direct him to come back to the matter before the House—either the bill or the amendment.5V5Smith, Stephen, MPMr Stephen Smith—Mr Deputy Speaker, on the point of order: the second reading amendment, in part, states:(2) creating new tax avoidance opportunities, despite addressing some existing avoidance opportunities in this bill;The member was simply detailing extensive taxation avoidance arrangements.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—The amendment is very wide ranging, and I believe the member to be in order.83VEmerson, Craig, MPMr EMERSON—The Federal Director of the Liberal Party of Australia, Lynton Crosby, says in this report:How could a relatively small and resource-starved secretariat be expected to get on top of all the necessary state campaign preparations when, over the past few years, a majority of time, resources and intellectual capital were spent on internal wrangling, irreconcilable personal disputes among state parliamentarians and coalition tension over specific seats?It goes on, under the heading `Rebuild the finances immediately', to say:The financial problems which the division faces must be addressed immediately. And they were. They were addressed in part through a GST scam, which started in the federal electorate of Groom but which, we have learned, spread to other federal electorates: Lilley, within which the Clayfield staff account of the former member for Clayfield has been operating, and also Leichhardt. Liberal sources have mentioned a number of other FECs in which the scam has been perpetrated. There is further evidence of the motive behind this scam. I have just obtained a letter of 4 July this year, and it is to all Liberal supporters who supported an art union by buying tickets. The letter says:Unfortunately, due to reasons beyond our control, the art union had to be cancelled. We have been told that there is nothing to stop contributors from donating the value of their original tickets. What happened is that the art union flopped. They could not raise enough money to cover the cost, so they asked those who had bought tickets not to ask for a refund of those tickets. The letter says, `Your donation would be very much appreciated.' This is a cash-strapped state branch of the Liberal Party that was highly motivated to find new sources of money, and it did. It found new sources of money through the GST scam. The Prime Minister has called upon Labor to provide all documents. We have been providing all documents in a timely fashion, and I can assure the House that I will provide all documents as they arrive, because they continue to arrive.This is a Liberal Party that is cash strapped and went into a GST scam. It is like Arthur Daley: a nice little earner for the Liberal Party. The Liberals say, `As far as the GST is concerned, there is one rule for the Liberal Party and another rule for the rest of Australia.' The Western Australian state director of the Liberal Party recently said, `Why mess around with the GST if you don't have to?' No small business in Australia has the option. They have to mess around with the GST—this so-called simplified new tax system for a new century. But the Liberal Party is saying, `Why should we have to mess around with the GST? We are just the people who put it in place.' It put in place an Arthur Daley nice little earner. It put in place a cut-rate GST. The member for Groom said, `The Liberal Party did pay GST on the fundraising dinner.' 10000Causley, Ian (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. I.R. Causley)—The member for Rankin is transgressing again. You are reflecting upon a member of this House.83VEmerson, Craig, MPMr EMERSON—I am simply quoting the member for Groom—10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—I have told you: you are transgressing standing order 76. If you persist, I will ask you to resume your seat.83VEmerson, Craig, MPMr EMERSON—Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. The comments that were made by the member for Groom, which I will not repeat—in deference to you, Mr Deputy Speaker—were endorsed by the Prime Minister, the Treasurer and, yesterday, the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. The import of what they are saying is that the GST was paid on the fundraising activity. Every small business in Australia knows that, if you claim the input tax credit, you must pay the GST. What was the GST payable? I have a calculator with me. It was one-eleventh of the proceeds of the fundraising activity. The fundraising activity raised $18,350. If you divide that by 11—this is a pretty simple exercise—you get $1,668. That is the GST that was due on the fundraising activity. That is what any small business would have had to pay; but not the Liberal Party. They did not pay $1,668. The federal director of the Liberal Party said in a statement the other day that they paid $751. So the shortfall—$1,668, minus $751— equals $917. We have had various members of the government saying, `What is all the fuss about $75?' It is not $75. The shortfall is $917. So in fact the effective rate of GST for the Liberal Party on this nice little earner was not 10 per cent, as all small businesses in Australia face, but four per cent—a cut-rate GST just for the Liberal Party.It has been said by government members, both in this place and outside it, that it was all a misunderstanding and it was all an error. Let us understand what actually happened. There was no misunderstanding. There was no error. What happened is that a transaction occurred in November where things were done correctly, under the guidance of the treasurer of the Groom FEC. Three weeks later, the treasurer of the FEC, or someone else, had to go to the Liberal Party headquarters and get another cheque, take it back to the catering company, and say, `Will you refund the Groom FEC the original cheque, because we now have a cheque from the Liberal Party.' The caterer regarded this as and said it was very irregular, and made a diary note to that effect. We have people on the government side saying, `It was all a misunderstanding.' There was no misunderstanding. The Groom FEC knew exactly what it was doing by reversing a transaction that occurred three weeks earlier—no misunderstanding, no error. It was only when the treasurer of the FEC became so uncomfortable with this and raised it with various people, including the Treasurer and the Minister for Small Business, that the whole scam was covered up. The scam was perpetrated and subsequently covered up, and various other transactions were said to have occurred. But what is absolutely clear is that the full GST was not paid. A four per cent GST was paid.It is very interesting that the Minister for Small Business said yesterday that he did not enter parliament to engage in muckraking. I have with me a copy of the minister's adjournment speech of 30 November last year in which he smeared the member for Lilley. The minister comes in here and says, `I'm very high and noble; I don't engage in muckraking,' but he did on two occasions last year when he thought it was to his political advantage. So let us not have the hypocrisy of coming in here yesterday saying, `I'm noble, I'm well motivated and I don't engage in muckraking,' when of course he did.XT4Ronaldson, Michael, MPMr Ronaldson—Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. Even leaving aside standing order 76, there is no way known that the last 20 seconds—0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr Slipper—Twenty minutes.XT4Ronaldson, Michael, MPMr Ronaldson—That is right; 20 minutes, but particularly the last 20 seconds, of the speech from the honourable member for Rankin can in any way be relevant to this matter. He has strayed so far that it would be impossible for any reasonable person to say that he was speaking to either the bill or the amendment. The amendment has four parts to it. It does not relate to imposing a tax system, other opportunities, compliance or tax rules. I would ask you to rule that those last comments were totally irrelevant and therefore out of order. 5V5Smith, Stephen, MPMr Stephen Smith—Mr Deputy Speaker, on the point of order: paragraph (4) of the amendment talks about `applying one set of tax rules for the Liberal Party and another for small business'. I thought the member for Rankin was making that point quite eloquently.10000Causley, Ian (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. I.R. Causley)—I think the amendment does give the member for Rankin a wide scope, and he is in order.83VEmerson, Craig, MPMr EMERSON—And it is on that point that I close. The Liberal Party has implemented one set of rules for itself and another for the rest of Australia. (Time expired)20:54:0030431Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration10—I must say that the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 4) 2001, as with many other tax bills, has seen a robust debate. The honourable member for Rankin varied quite widely from the terms of the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 4) 2001. The people of Australia get sick and tired of cheap and shoddy smears when he comes in here under the guise of a certain wide interpretation of the standing orders and seeks to smear members on this side of the House and to impugn the motives of the Liberal Party and the government.QI4Price, Roger, MPMr Price—Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I need to draw your attention to standing order 76 and the imputations made by the parliamentary secretary against the honourable member for Rankin.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—I uphold the point of order. I did mention standing order 76, where you may not reflect upon a member of the House.0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER—I certainly was not intending to reflect upon him, except to say that he took a very wide ranging interpretation of the provisions of the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill and introduced a lot of matter that many people in the Australian community would be entirely disgusted to read. Tax reform is not just about the GST—5V5Smith, Stephen, MPMr Stephen Smith—Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. The parliamentary secretary now runs the risk of reflecting on you. As I recall, the member for Rankin said nothing other than that which you ruled was in order.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—I think the parliamentary secretary had concluded those comments and was moving on to the bill.0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER—I was going to say, Mr Deputy Speaker Causley, that I was not intending to reflect on you; I was indicating that the member for Rankin sought to have a very wide ranging interpretation of the provisions of the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill and his ability to negotiate his capacity to talk about matters other than what one would notice if one read the terms and provisions of this particular bill.As I said a moment ago, tax reform is not just about the GST and the removal of Labor's wholesale sales tax; it is also about broad ranging business and other income tax reforms. These reforms build on the benefits from the GST, such as improved cost structures for businesses and more competitive exports. Together with changes to excise arrangements, they create a better environment for achieving higher economic growth and improved savings. Company tax rates are down to 30 per cent, from 36 per cent just over two years ago. This rate reduction is a real stimulus to business, making Australia more competitive internationally and putting us among the lowest company tax rates in our region. Likewise, sole traders and partners benefit from the biggest income tax cuts ever. Mr Deputy Speaker, you would be aware that another initiative of this government was to make savings more attractive. The introduction of refunds of excess imputation credits and the introduction of an internationally competitive capital gains tax regime are further incentives to invest and save. For individuals, only 50 per cent of capital gains is being taxed on assets held for more than one year. These are long-term pro-growth structural changes.Turning now to the provisions of the bill, the first measure is consequential on the reduction in company tax rates. Franking credits are calculated by reference to the current company tax rates. A compensation adjustment is necessary to ensure that franking credits do not lose value in the wake of the reduction of the company tax rate. The process will be exactly the same as last year, when the company tax rate was reduced from 36 per cent to 34 per cent. A second measure defers changes to the tax treatment of friendly societies and life insurance companies from 1 July this year to 1 July next year. The business tax reform and life insurance policy holder reforms are being deferred to 1 July 2002 and, as these changes are closely related, it is proposed to defer them too. The deferral will allow more time for friendly societies to implement the changes. The other change to the tax treatment of friendly societies and insurance companies which should be welcomed by them is a change to the methodology for calculating deductions for the capital portions of ordinary life insurance investment policies.The measures in schedule 4 of the bill will deny refunds of excess imputation credits to noncomplying superannuation funds and approved deposit funds so that the refunds cannot be used to generate funds inappropriately. This is in accordance with the general policy that noncomplying funds do not qualify for concessional treatment. The other measures are technical, to make sure the law operates as intended. The first makes sure that dual resident companies cannot claim any intercorporate dividend rebate and related deduction for unfranked dividends. The amendment is consistent with the general policy that dual resident companies should be treated in the same way as non-residents in relation to the dividend rebate. The second technical measure clarifies the law to remove any doubt that trusts that are registered charities or have gift deductible status are entitled to excess imputation credits where the credits are received indirectly through another trust.The final amendment corrects a cross-reference in the Medicare levy law. The member for Lalor came in and criticised the government's treatment of the small business community. Quite frankly, her allegations simply do not stack up, particularly when one looks at Labor's appalling record during its 13 years of office. During those 13 dark years, small business was hit with the worst economic recession since the Great Depression; record small business rates of over 20 per cent; high inflation; massive government borrowing and national debt; record unemployment, peaking at 11.2 per cent, when the now Leader of the Opposition was employment minister; record business related bankruptcies—1,712 in the June quarter of 1992 compared with 1,517 in the June quarter of 2001—and, for those who do not have calculators, unlike the member for Rankin, they were 13 per cent higher under Labor. There was a $10.3 billion deficit left by the now Leader of the Opposition when he was finance minister. There was an industrial relations system that was dominated by deals among big unions, big business and big bureaucracy, and a centralised award system that restricted flexibility. There was Labor's job-destroying unfair dismissals law, which prevented small business from creating at least 50,000 jobs, according to the Council of Small Business Associations. There was no protection in fair trading laws. Every time there was a call for fair trading reforms for small business, Labor commissioned yet another review. Labor had 17 reports, reviews or inquiries during its 13 years in government, but it did nothing.The coalition have a particularly proud record. We have lowered or abolished many taxes and have delivered a stable economic environment featuring low interest rates and low inflation. Income taxes have been cut across the board and, as I mentioned before, company tax was slashed from 36 per cent down to 30 per cent as from 1 July 2001. Financial institutions duty has also been abolished. We have overseen dramatic reductions in small business interest rates, to their lowest levels since the 1960s. Small business overdraft rates peaked at 20.5 per cent under Labor in September 1989. They were at 11.25 per cent when the Howard government was elected; they are now at around eight per cent. On a loan of $100,000 this fall in small business overdraft rates, from 11.25 per cent to around eight per cent, represents a saving on interest costs of around $3,300 a year or $275 a month. We all know that inflation is at its lowest level in 20 years. Provisional tax has been abolished as part of the tax reform package. The coalition moved early to cut the provisional tax uplift factor—twice, in fact—down to five per cent from a high of 10 per cent under Labor. The government have managed a growing economy in a way that keeps inflation and interest rates down and confidence and employment growth up. The government have a very proud record in the area of small business and we absolutely reject the pious second reading amendment put forward by the honourable member for Wills. In fact, it is quite bizarre that the opposition would pretend to the House that it believes the contents of the second reading amendment. Business tax reform is giving taxpayers concrete benefits. We have cuts in income tax, company tax rates and capital gains tax, and there are other incentives for saving. There are also a range of other measures, such as the thin capitalisation debt equity measures and the simplified tax system, which remove uncertainty and complexity from the law.I also do not accept, nor does the government, that tax reform creates new tax avoidance opportunities. Any thinking person in Australia today recognises that one of the major advantages of the new tax system is that, even if people minimise their income tax, they cannot avoid the GST. However, the integrity of the tax system does not rely on the GST alone. There are strong anti-avoidance provisions, which are getting stronger as a result of the review of business taxation. For example, as part of business tax reform, we have introduced the alienation of income measure, which limits people's opportunities for using companies to reduce personal taxation. The rule that assets be retained for 12 months before qualifying for the capital gains tax discount should also help. But there are also anti-avoidance rules applying to schemes that exploit the capital gains tax concession by converting income amounts into a discount capital gain.Labor claims, quite falsely, wrongly and misleadingly, that the competitiveness of Australian business has been reduced, but the combined effect of the GST and the new business tax system has been just the opposite: Australia is now more internationally competitive, with embedded wholesale sales tax removed from exports. The price of our exports is now more competitive, and the more competitive income tax and company tax regime makes for an even better situation. The government have also moved to reduce red tape for business. So, it is important that one should have honesty and integrity in politics; it is eminently regrettable that the ALP uses every opportunity to smear not only the member for Groom and Minister for Small Business and the government generally but also our outstanding record since we picked up the shambles that was the Australian economy when we were entrusted with the keys to office in 1996. The government rejects the second reading amendment moved by the member for Wills and seeks the support of the chamber for the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 4) 2001.Amendment negatived.Original question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.30433Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.21:07:0030433Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration10—by leave—I present a supplementary explanatory memorandum and move government amendments Nos 1 to 6:(1) Clause 2, page 2 (lines 1 to 4), omit subclause (3).(2) Clause 2, page 2 (lines 5 to 8), omit subclause (4).(3) Schedule 4, item 4, page 18 (lines 29 to 32) and page 19 (lines 1 to 3), omit the item.(4) Schedule 4, item 5, page 19 (line 6), omit “4”, substitute “3”.(5) Schedule 4, page 19 (lines 8 and 9), omit the heading.(6) Schedule 4, item 6, page 19 (lines 10 and 11), omit the item.These amendments are technical corrections. They are necessary to prevent the inadvertent removal of the definition of non-complying superannuation fund from the Income Tax Assessment Tax 1997 as a result of a drafting error. I commend the government amendments to the House. Amendments agreed to.Bill, as amended, agreed to.30434Bill (on motion by Mr Slipper)—by leave—read a third time.Bills30434R137830434Debate resumed from 22 August, on motion by Dr Kemp:That the bill be now read a second time.21:11:0030434Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—The Innovation and Education Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2001 provides for the establishment of the postgraduate education loans scheme, or PELS as it is commonly known, which was announced in the government's innovation statement last January. The innovation statement was meant to make the Australian people forget about the damage that the Howard government has done to education, and to higher education in particular, in the five short years it has been in government. I am sure that my colleague the honourable member for Fremantle understands that, while the Prime Minister claimed in the innovation statement to be providing $2.9 billion for investment in higher education and research, when we saw the table indicating that 60 per cent of the extra funds were not being provided until years four and five of this five-year plan it was clear that this was a promise that Prime Minister Howard was intending to make which would be delivered after Prime Minister Howard had departed the scene. We have no confidence whatsoever that the plans outlined in the innovation statement will ever be implemented. Fancy a Prime Minister who expects to be on the golf course in 2002 expecting us to believe that he will provide 60 per cent of the extra funds for research in higher education in the years 2004-05 and 2005-06.Commonwealth funding for universities has fallen every year under this Prime Minister, from $4.875 billion in 1996 to $4.223 billion by 2002, according to the forward estimates. This adds up to $3 billion being slashed from public funding for Australian universities. In addition, an extra $2 billion has been taken from the federal government's incentives for private research and development, adding up to a Howard government record of $5 billion being taken from our universities and from private R&D incentives.Having taken $5 billion away, this Prime Minister expects credit and a pat on the back for putting back $2.9 billion while there is still a net reduction of more than $2 billion. We need only look at the words of the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, Dr Kemp, in his famous leaked cabinet submission when he said this about the extent of the crisis in higher education:The scale of these problems means that higher education will remain a contentious issue for the government through this term. Higher student:staff ratios, less frequent lecture and tutorial contact, the persistence of outdated technology and gaps in key areas of professional preparation ... are fuelling a perception of declining quality.That was the Howard government's minister for education outlining in very stark terms the serious situation facing our higher education, and outlining in detail the damage that this government has done to higher education in our country. I will comment further on that in a few minutes.We have also seen the Prime Minister pull off a triple record. The ABS has been recording statistics on private R&D expenditure since the 1950s, and for the first time ever we have the ABS recording that in the last three years there has been a decline in private R&D expenditure. How can we expect to make Australia a knowledge nation that is not only coming up with new ideas but also turning new ideas into new products and new services that will generate royalty payments and licence fee income for Australia for generations to come if we actually have a decline in private R&D expenditure? The Liberal and National parties, although claiming to represent people who invest in business, have developed a regime that has discouraged business from investing in research and development. Just as in coming years the companies that invest in training their staff and that invest in research will be the companies that secure the jobs of the future and will be the most likely to grow and succeed in future years, the countries that invest in training and reskilling their people, that invest in research and development through their public institutions and that encourage private R&D in their countries are the ones that are most likely to have the secure jobs of the future. They are the countries that are most likely to grow at the fastest rates. They are the countries that are most likely to be the successes of the coming decade. It is a tragedy for Australia that we have a government that has been slashing back public investment in education, training and research and has cut $2 billion from the incentives to encourage private businesses to invest in the future, to invest in research and development. In 2000, the number of Australian students at our universities fell by more than 3,200. While some extra university places were announced in the innovation statement—an extra 2,000 a year—it will take years even to repair the decline that we saw last year. Last Friday, we had a statement from the minister for education outlining where those 2,000 extra places will be allocated and where some extra places announced in the budget will be allocated. There was the minister for education, milking that announcement, for all it was worth, but all the propaganda in the world could not disguise the fact that the new places announced in the government's innovation statement and announced in the budget added up to less than three per cent of the university places that it has cut in the last five years. The government has presided over massive cuts in public funding and in direct Commonwealth investment in universities. If it were not for those massive cuts, in 2002 there would be 25,525 more places at universities in New South Wales, 21,832 more places at universities in Victoria, 14,643 more places at universities in Queensland, 8,108 more places at universities in Western Australia, 5,825 more places at universities in South Australia, 1,578 more places at the University of Tasmania, 494 more places at the Northern Territory University and 2,395 more places at the ANU and the University of Canberra.It is interesting to look at the universities that have been particularly hard hit by the government's cuts in Commonwealth direct investment in higher education. Universities such as Charles Sturt University in my electorate, which may have gained an extra 80 places—I am sure that the minister's announcement was welcomed by Charles Sturt University last Friday—have lost 2,692 extra places that they would have had if the government had maintained its investment in higher education. Southern Cross University, which looks after our communities in Tweed Heads, Lismore and Coffs Harbour, will receive an extra 55 places after the minister's announcement last Friday, but it will lose 901 places because of the Howard government's cuts. In my electorate, we had the welcome announcement of 30 extra places for the Ourimbah campus of the University of Newcastle, but the university has lost 2,148 places because of the cuts that the government has made to higher education. I am sure that you, Mr Deputy Speaker Hollis, would like me to touch on the figures for the University of Wollongong. While Wollongong received an extra 160 places, which I am sure it welcomes, in the minister's announcement last Friday, it has lost 1,555 places because of the cuts the government has made in funding for higher education. Even a university such as James Cook, which covers communities in Far North Queensland, received an extra 125 places, which were welcome, but it lost 1,253 extra places that it otherwise would have received if the government had maintained its investment in higher education. I will make a few other remarks about the minister's false claims about Commonwealth investment in higher education. While the government last week announced some extra places for universities, it is putting back less than three per cent of places that Australian universities would have had if the Commonwealth government had not cut its investment in universities by $3 billion. The other point is that the extra funding for research announced in the innovation statement does not change the reduction in research training places at most Australian universities. As a result of the changes that the minister has made in the implementation of his research white paper, this year there are almost 3,500 fewer research training places at Australia's universities, thanks to this minister's handiwork. You may well ask, Mr Deputy Speaker, which universities are hardest hit by that 3,500 research training place gap. It is universities such as RMIT, which lost 46 per cent of its research places; VUT, which lost 37 per cent of its research training places; Swinburne, which lost 35 per cent; or a university which provides excellent opportunities for people who live in the Ballarat community. Ballarat lost almost 41 per cent of its research training places because of the cuts outlined in the minister for education's white paper. Universities such as the University of Western Sydney and Edith Cowan University, which do a lot of good work in giving people the opportunity to study at university—perhaps the first members of their family to do so—have been hit hardest by the government's cuts in research training places.This highlights in many ways the extent to which the government has singled out postgraduates for especially harsh treatment. In 1996, when the government cut 21,000 university places, institutions were forced to make the cuts as far as possible in the postgraduate course work area as a direct result of this minister's policy. This means that HECS places for postgraduate students have been significantly replaced by full fee paying places. This has resulted in a fall in Commonwealth funded postgraduate course work places of around 60 per cent since 1996. The Council of Australian Postgraduate Associations has prepared a table based on material from the minister's own department, DETYA, that shows that by 2002 there will 15,292 funded postgraduate course work places, down from 41,315 in 1996. Fee paying postgraduate course work places will have risen 160 per cent over the same period to 32,112.Enrolments in many key disciplines have fallen alarmingly. Analysis of DETYA material, again by CAPA, shows that between 1996 and 1999 postgraduate course work enrolments in engineering fell by 19 per cent. It fell in the sciences by 25 per cent and in education it went down by 16 per cent. How can we expect to encourage our teachers to undertake postgraduate study if we have deliberate government policy resulting in a fall of 16 per cent in the number of postgraduate education students? It is certainly not the way to make Australia a knowledge nation. We believe that lifelong learning, lifelong pursuit of the upgrading of skills and lifelong professional development all play a key part in ensuring that Australia has a 21st century work force that can meet the needs of our nation. This is the scenario in which PELS was announced by the government in January this year. It is estimated that around 50,000 students a year will be taking a PELS loan by 2006. We do have some concerns about the scheme, and one of those concerns is the incentive it will give to some universities to lift their fees. Universities certainly need extra funding. Last month we heard the head of the Australian Vice-Chancellors Committee, Professor Ian Chubb, passing comment and judgment on the government's efforts to avoid its responsibilities in providing `patient capital', as Professor Chubb calls it, for our higher education institutions. He spoke about the government's announcements to date as being `small scale' and `a drop in the bucket', to quote his evidence to the recent Senate committee inquiry.We do know that Australian students are already paying quite a fair share of their higher education costs. Certainly, by international standards, Australian students are meeting a significant proportion of the cost of their study. According to OECD figures, Australian students' private contribution to tertiary study, and that includes TAFE as well as higher education, in 1998 was 0.51 per cent of GDP, which meant that Australian students were paying the fourth highest proportion of GDP in the OECD after Korea, the United States and Japan, in that order. While the current minister for education, Dr Kemp, has advanced proposals to deregulate undergraduate student fees and outlined proposals to introduce real interest rate loans to replace HECS—which would have forced the typical undergraduate student to pay $100,000 to study at university—and has at every opportunity sought to phase out the publicly subsidised postgraduate places, we already have in Australia, certainly in 1998, Australian students being the fourth highest contributors in terms of private contribution towards tertiary study. There is not a strong case from people like Dr Kemp, the minister for education, who seek to argue that Australian students should be placed under more pressure to pay higher fees for undergraduate or postgraduate study. What we certainly know from the recent study of the OECD figures by Simon Marginson is that public expenditure in Australia on tertiary education fell by five per cent between 1995 and 1998, which is the second worst performance in the OECD. For those people who argue that the minister for education is right when he advocates deregulation of undergraduate university fees, the scrapping of HECS and the introduction of real interest rate loans, I would ask them to try to justify why Australian students should be paying higher university fees. Comparing Australia with the United States, 80 per cent of total enrolments in universities in the United States are students enrolled at state universities, where the tuition fees for local students from that state are already below the fees that are commonly paid by HECS students under HECS in Australia. Eighty per cent of American students studying at their state universities are paying less than the HECS fees in Australia today, because this government doubled HECS when it was elected in 1996. There is certainly no evidence whatsoever to support this minister's attempts to increase the burden on students by forcing them to pay more.We have also expressed some concerns about how universities will react to the introduction of PELS. I have already stated that one of our concerns is whether some universities will seek to lift their fees for postgraduate students. One way we believe we can address that is to thoroughly review the operation of the PELS scheme at an early opportunity. We did propose in amendments in the Senate to have that review established after 12 months operation of the PELS scheme. We welcome the fact that the minister, in his second reading speech, has agreed to undertake a review at some time in the future. On behalf of the Labor Party, I give this House the commitment that a Beazley Labor government will certainly be carrying out a review of the operation of the PELS scheme. It will cover a number of issues. As foreshadowed in our amendment moved in the Senate some weeks ago, we would expect that this review would cover not only movements in the level of fees for postgraduate courses but also the level of participation in postgraduate course work, with particular reference to participation by women, indigenous Australians, students from low socioeconomic backgrounds, students from rural and regional backgrounds and students from non-English speaking backgrounds.We believe a comprehensive review on those grounds is the best way to ensure that no university thinks they now have a blank cheque to raise postgraduate fees for students because of the introduction of the PELS scheme. I know there are many postgraduate students who find it quite onerous to have to meet the fees up front, as is the case with many courses. In that sense, PELS is a step in the right direction. We need to make sure that the introduction of PELS does not result in universities believing that they have the encouragement of this parliament to dramatically lift fees and increase the burden on students. This is meant to ease the burden on students by allowing them to repay their PELS debt over time.One of our other concerns was the power given to the minister under this legislation to allow him or her to set a limit on student debt, covering both the total of their HECS and PELS debts. We do not think this is the fairest approach. It is not fair because it is quite common for students undertaking undergraduate study, if they come from wealthy backgrounds, to have their parents pay their HECS each year as they go, so the family can benefit from the discount offered to those students who can pay their HECS fees up front. If a student from a very wealthy background has their HECS paid up front each year by their parents, they finish their university study with no HECS debt. Students from very poor backgrounds can finish their undergraduate studies with quite a substantial HECS debt. There is also a great deal of variation among the HECS debts students have at the end of a course of study, depending on what particular course they have undertaken. So we think it is much fairer to have a separate limit on the PELS debt. We indicated in the other house that we intended to move an amendment along those lines. At the same time, as we are getting closer—some people are saying it is perhaps 11 sitting days—to the calling of an election, we do not intend to allow the introduction of PELS to be jeopardised by this minister's gross inability to persuade his colleagues that he should have priority in having education legislation dealt with in both houses of parliament. For that reason, tonight I am announcing that the Labor Party in government will be amending this legislation so that a power will be given to the minister to set a limit on a student's PELS debt totally separate from their HECS debt. It is quite possible, given the timetable for legislation, that we will not have an opportunity to amend the bill in the Senate, have it sent back to the House of Representatives and then have it dealt with in the Senate a second time. So, to ensure that the introduction of the PELS scheme is not delayed, we intend to deal with this in government, if the Labor Party have the honour of forming a government after the next election.The bill also seeks to appropriate $27.6 million for universities that have met the government's requirements under what is called the workplace reform program. We have always made it clear that we do not accept that it is good public policy to have the minister for education make funding available to universities on the condition that universities jump through his extreme right-wing workplace relations reform hoops. We believe universities have certainly got a case for additional funding and that no university should be disqualified from receiving their fair share of that funding simply because they do not satisfy the minister for education's ideological obsessions on workplace relations.This may be the last time in this, the 39th, parliament that we have a chance to debate higher education. Last week, the education minister, Dr Kemp, released a so-called facts sheet. I want to deal with six false claims that were made in the minister's facts sheet on higher education, and I will deal with them one by one. First of all, the facts sheet claims that Australian universities are enjoying record revenues. What the facts sheet does not say is that funding from the Howard government has declined every year since John Howard was elected in 1996 and it will be $652 million lower in 2002 than in Labor's last year. The facts sheet also claims that Australian universities are enjoying high enrolments. What the facts sheet does not say is that, for the first time ever, the Howard government has reduced the number of Australian students at university. In 2000, there were 3,278 fewer Australian students at university than there were in 1999. No other government has ever achieved that—to actually reduce the number of Australian students studying at university; that is a first for this government.The facts sheet also claims that the government will provide a new Postgraduate Education Loans Scheme, or PELS, to ensure that postgraduate students are not deterred by having to pay fees up front. What the facts sheet does not say is that the main reason this scheme is needed is that the Howard government's massive funding cuts have forced universities to require postgraduate students to pay full fees because the government has reduced the number of HECS places for postgraduate students by 60 per cent.The facts sheet claims that the government will provide an extra $1.3 billion of research funding over the next five years. What the facts sheet does not say is that the government has already cut funding to encourage business investment in R&D by more than $2 billion in the last five years. The facts sheet claims that the government is funding an extra 2,670 university places in 2002. What the facts sheet does not say is that the $652 million which the Howard government has cut from university funding in 2002 would have funded an extra 81,500 places— 30 times more than the measly offering we got last Friday. The 2,670 places do not even make up for the decline in Australian students in the year 2000. We face a university sector that is in great difficulty. The reason it is in great difficulty is in this chart, one that I know is familiar to you, Mr Deputy Speaker Hollis, and familiar to the member for Fremantle. I hope that the member for Adelaide studies it closely, because we intend to make sure that her constituents know about it. The black columns in this chart demonstrate a $650 million or more decline in the Commonwealth's direct investment in universities. As HECS was doubled in the 1996 budget and as the HECS revenue received by the government has expanded and almost doubled, the Commonwealth government has used those higher payments made by students to reduce the Commonwealth's direct investment in universities.That is in great contrast to what happened when HECS was introduced, when the Hawke and Keating governments gave a commitment that all of the funds received in HECS would go towards funding extra places at university, giving more Australians access to university and ensuring that universities received additional revenue, additional resources, to improve the quality of campus teaching and research. With this government, every extra dollar that students have paid as the HECS has doubled has gone into Peter Costello's consolidated revenue account for all sorts of purposes, including the government's outrageous television advertising campaigns.In the few minutes left to me, I want to place on record my disappointment at some of the recent changes that have taken place at the Ourimbah campus of Newcastle university. A reorganisation of the management at the University of Newcastle has resulted in the Ourimbah campus of Newcastle university losing its separate deputy vice-chancellor and losing the separate faculty of the Central Coast. The Vice Chancellor of Newcastle university, Roger Holmes, at least gave me a hearing at which I expressed my deep concerns about these changes; but I remain very disappointed that the final appointments that have been made by the university do not allow the Central Coast to have an advocate appointed in a senior position at the university at the Ourimbah campus of the Newcastle university to speak up for the needs of higher education on the Central Coast. I have told Professor Holmes on many occasions that the Central Coast university will eventuate. One day, Ourimbah will have its independence from the University of Newcastle. Any attempts by the University of Newcastle to cut back the independence of the Central Coast campus simply hasten that day—and I will make more comments on that on another occasion. I move:That all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:'whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House condemns the Government for damaging Australian universities through massive funding cuts, and for reducing opportunities for Australian undergraduate and postgraduate students, in particular by:(1) cutting Commonwealth funding for universities by $3 billion since 1996, thereby reducing student places by 81,500.(2) overseeing a reduction of 3,278 in enrolments of Australian university students in 2000.(3) cutting the number of research training places by 3,336; and.(4) cutting HECS postgraduate coursework places by 60% since 1996'.The Howard government will be held responsible at the coming election for the massive damage it has done to higher education, and I am sure that many students and academics are looking forward to the change of government that is not far away. (Time expired)10000Hollis, Collin (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hollis)— Is the amendment seconded?XS4Lawrence, Dr Carmen, MPDr Lawrence—I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.21:41:0030440Bishop, Julie, MPMs JULIE BISHOP83PCurtinLP10—The occasion of the second reading debate on the Innovation and Education Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2001 gives me the opportunity to address some of the outlandish claims being made about the state of higher education in Australia, where we have the opposition trying to talk up a crisis. I am thinking in particular of the remarks attributed to Senator Carr, but it seems that they are reiterated by the member for Dobell—as if saying it often enough will make it so. The Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs has rebutted these claims, but I feel it is appropriate to have them recorded in this place. University revenues are at an all-time high. This year, Australia's universities will draw in revenue of approximately $9.5 billion. Importantly, this is $1.2 billion more than six years ago, when we came to office. I note that the member for Dobell referred to the 1998 statistics but the latest statistics from the OECD, repeatedly cited in this place earlier in the year, indicate that Australia's combined private and public investment in tertiary education is 1.59 per cent of GDP. That is higher than the OECD average of 1.33 per cent and higher, for instance, than in either Germany or the United Kingdom.We have to put this into perspective. Commonwealth payments to universities have remained consistent between 1996 and 2001, when assessed both as total payments—some $5.85 billion—and as payments per fully funded student place, at $12,000 each. Our university enrolments are up. Last year there were 28,000 more student places than in Labor's last year in office. Furthermore, enrolments are expected to reach 590,000 equivalent full-time places in 2003, which would represent a 30.5 per cent increase in enrolments since 1995. Also, graduate satisfaction levels—as measured by the course experience questionnaire surveys—have never been higher, at 91 per cent. So our universities have more resources at their disposal; those resources compare favourably internationally; the Commonwealth has consistently maintained funding support for the tertiary sector; and more students are able to access higher education, those students being increasingly satisfied with the education that they receive.Yes, there is always more that we could do. There are always priorities to be taken into account when considering our higher education needs. But we need to assess our position realistically. While I would hope and, indeed, insist that we as a nation engage further in an informed and interested public debate on higher education and its funding, we ought not to collapse into the hyperbole and the disinformation that attaches itself to the opposition.Earlier this month, I had the opportunity to speak in this place in support of the States Grants (Primary and Secondary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill 2001. That bill, which related to the provision of schools funding by the Commonwealth, shares a common pedigree with this bill before the House tonight. In June, this House debated what I believe to be one of the most significant legislative initiatives of the 39th Parliament—the Innovation and Education Legislation Amendment Bill 2001. That bill sought to make into law the education and innovation elements of the Commonwealth's $2.9 billion Backing Australia's Ability program that was launched by the Prime Minister in January this year. Despite its passage through this House, the bill was stymied in the Senate and split into three fragments: higher education funding, schools funding and the Postgraduate Education Loans Scheme, PELS. The extra funding for research and higher education that was contained in the original bill was passed as the Higher Education Funding Amendment Bill 2001 and assented to last month, which is a great step forward.The third fragment—that which related to the innovative PELS—is essentially the subject of this bill. When I spoke on the original bill in June, I noted that PELS had been widely welcomed by students and potential students across my electorate in Curtin. In fact, I had the opportunity to quote one of my constituents who had emailed me and had described the scheme as a `substantial step forward for the nation'. But now I am worried. Thanks to the machinations of the Senate I am concerned that this scheme, which is intended to provide finance for education in 2002 and beyond, may be unnecessarily delayed to the detriment of Australian students and Australian universities. Significant interest in this scheme has been generated since January. I understand that the Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs has received countless inquiries about PELS, both from students and from institutions, and the scheme has been applauded by even the most partisan of the government's opponents on campus. The Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs has warned against the delay and, unless that warning is heeded, the timely start-up of PELS may be impeded.The member for Dobell raised every conceivable hypothetical scenario in relation to PELS. But PELS will enable postgraduates undertaking fee paying courses to access a HECS style loans scheme. So the Commonwealth will, in effect, pay the relevant course fee on behalf of the student who will, in turn, pay back the amount borrowed through the tax system when reaching a certain level of income. PELS debts will be treated in the same way as HECS debts—the repayment thresholds are the same and no interest is payable, although the amount borrowed is indexed.There has been some discussion about the proposed cap on student debt, the structure of that debt and PELS's wider implications for postgraduate education. I noted the member for Dobell's commitment to a review of some sort, should Labor win office. But it is appropriate to note now that the Commonwealth will commence a formal wide ranging review of PELS in 2004. That review will include data collected over the first two years of the scheme, which I think is entirely appropriate, with regard to institutions, age, gender, background, course and fee levels. As such—and I know that the minister has stressed this point to the House already—the cap provisions contained in this bill are a contingency measure only. The minister will have the discretion to impose a cap on the maximum level of debt that a student can accumulate, both from HECS and from PELS. The possibility of a cap should act as a disincentive to a minority of students building up inappropriately high debt levels at the expense of Commonwealth taxpayers. The cap will similarly act to dampen potential fee increases for postgraduate courses. So not only is the provision a matter of contingency, but any action by the Commonwealth to impose a cap could only be undertaken through an instrument disallowable by the parliament.The member for Dobell says that, if he ends up on the government frontbench should Labor win the election, Labor will amend this legislation because they think this cap would only be applicable to PELS. But, as the minister has already outlined to the House, such a measure as Labor have indicated they would introduce would simply split student debts into two different systems to the detriment of students, the ATO and, by extension, taxpayers. PELS, the Postgraduate Education Loans Scheme, has the potential to assist over 80,000 postgraduate students each year—for that is how many non-overseas students undertook postgraduate course work in the year 2000—to the tune of almost $1 billion in loans over the next five years.I think it should be noted in the course of this debate that the bill also contains a provision that was similarly cut from the original innovation legislation. I just note this in passing, but the provisions in the bill will allow Australia's universities to more easily operate in an electronic environment, in the context of the Electronic Transactions Act 1999.Items additional to the original provisions will add approximately $40 million to the operating grants offered to universities in the years 2001, 2002 and 2003. An amount of $27.6 million will be granted this financial year, pursuant to this legislation, due to the greater than expected success of the Higher Education Workplace Reform Program—a $259 million program that has accelerated reforms to workplace and management practices on campus. There is also $6 million in additional funding in the years 2002 and 2003, and that will be granted to ensure that beneficiaries in the Victorian university superannuation scheme, which is jointly funded by Victoria and the Commonwealth, can convert their benefits to a lump sum on retirement. As I said, there is obviously more we can do in the higher education area. But I do condemn the opposition for its hyperbole and its disinformation, for there are good news stories across the higher education sector, particularly in Western Australia. Only last Friday 2,000 new places in mathematics, the sciences and information technology were allocated to Australian universities, and 670 innovative new places were allocated to regional campuses. I was particularly pleased with this allocation in the science disciplines, as would be the scientists who visited Parliament House last week for the annual Science Meets Parliament Day. I know that one of the aims of the Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies is to improve the uptake of study in the scientific disciplines by our students, so this announcement of further places in these areas—in mathematics, the sciences and information technology—is to be welcomed.With regard to the allocation of regional places, I was particularly pleased to note that in Western Australia campuses in regions such as Bunbury, Peel, Northam and Albany received 70 places; and that Geraldton, as a new delivery site, was allocated 20 enrolment places so as to improve university participation rates in what has previously been an underserviced area. These grants are testament to the good work of Western Australia's regionally based members of parliament, and I think special mention should go to the Minister for Forestry and Conservation, the member for O'Connor, who has long been a strong advocate for such innovative schemes in his region.Closer to home, I was most pleased to note that the University of Western Australia, a very proud institution within my electorate of Curtin, received 50 new computer science and engineering places and 20 places for the cutting-edge study of mechatronics. These places will be funded through the Backing Australia's Ability program that lies at the heart of the bill before this House. Mechatronics, as I understand it, is engineering based on the field of mechanical engineering. But mechatronics engineers work with electronic and computer control systems, upon which nearly all machinery relies for efficient and reliable operation. These engineers build and design automatic monitoring systems; they require expertise in fields as diverse as computing, electronics and mechanical engineering. The University of Western Australia's high-quality mechatronics program emphasises more complex industrial engineering applications, and it is geared to the engineering requirements common to Western Australia and the greater Indian Ocean region.This course is of great importance to my state, and I hope that students will be attracted to it. Mechatronics undergraduates at the University of Western Australia will take a common first year with other engineering students, thus being introduced to engineering dynamics, statistics, electrical fundamentals and computer technology as well as maths and physics. In their second year, mechatronics undergraduates will begin building knowledge in a variety of engineering subjects and in mathematics, and they will undertake practical experience in computer-aided design. By their third year, these students will specialise in mechatronics by studying electronics and object-oriented programming. Their practical projects will include working with mechatronics systems, such as robots and process plant. This study involves design and manufacture, and communication skills. In their final year, the students will undertake study of the environment and engineering ethics, in common with all the engineering streams. They will also pursue a substantial mechatronics engineering project and select from a variety of more specialised topics.It will be a terrific course. It will certainly provide skills and education for a cutting-edge industry. The staff behind the mechatronics program at the University of Western Australia certainly deserve mention. They include such respected academics as Associate Professors Trevelyan, Owens and Pan, and Drs Kovesi, Kirk and Miller. I certainly congratulate the University of Western Australia and the Department of Mechanical and Material Engineering for their success in developing this program and for the places that were allocated to them and announced last week. It is very important for our continuing economic growth that we continue to pursue the objective of a generally highly educated, skilled and computer literate work force, which is still one of the major factors that influences foreign investment in this country. Only this evening I met with Mr Barry Jones—not the other one, but the Barry Jones who is Executive General Manager of Invest Australia. Invest Australia is Australia's national investment agency; it is a specialised agency established by the Howard government to attract strategic investment in Australia, and an agency that is having significant success in attracting and facilitating projects in this country. Since its inception in 1997, it has attracted and facilitated projects worth billions of dollars to this country, generating literally thousands of jobs and generating millions and millions of dollars worth of exports.Mr Jones confirmed that our work force— a work force where 45 per cent of Australians have post-school qualifications in one form or another and 31 per cent of graduates have postgraduate degrees—is one of the key elements in our attraction as a destination for productive long-term investment. It is something that we should continue to work on and build upon. Obviously one of the other very strong factors in our attraction as a destination for productive long-term investment is the fact that we currently have the strongest economic foundations in this country in 25 years.So, in introducing the loans scheme for postgraduate students, which is provided for in this bill, we have taken a particularly welcome step forward in the education of our students. I think the further provisions providing additional funding for operating grants for universities are also to be welcomed. Accordingly, I commend this bill to the House.21:58:0030443Lawrence, Dr Carmen, MPDr LAWRENCEXS4FremantleALP00—While the Innovation and Education Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2001, on the face of it, seems to amount to an improvement in the capacity of Australia to conduct research and to engage in research and development, this is really a drop in the ocean compared with what is needed. We have seen from the government in recent months some attempt to fill in the potholes that they created in the first several years of their government. In that earlier period of government, we saw substantial cuts in funding to universities and to support for research and development, and the commercialisation of good Australian ideas. Unfortunately, this filling in of the potholes is literally all it is. Taking $5 billion out of this very important area of Australia's activity and putting back slightly less than $3 billion is not going to solve the problems that we confront.We have seen wrong priorities from this government too. Some $20 billion was spent recently on a range of initiatives, very few of which go to address these problems. Indeed, in this current financial year, something less than the increase in the rate of inflation has been provided for research and development across the board—and we are asked to applaud what is here: a very modest initiative, promised earlier to Australia in the Backing Australia's Ability statement of this government. So at least this is apparently a core rather than a non-core promise.As I go around the universities and research institutes in this country, I hear a similar story from all of them: there are huge pressures on university education, on university based research, on publicly funded research—on research and development generally. Across the university sector as a whole we see the outcomes of cuts to university funding. We see very large class sizes: tutorials that are more like lectures, with a very reduced capacity for tutors and researchers to deal with the individual tuition that is required of a quality research education. We see laboratories under pressure and, indeed, in many cases students are unable to have a laboratory based education in science and technology. We see libraries under pressure as well. Full fee paying students who are needed to make up the gap in government funded education are putting pressure, along with local students, on those library resources. In many cases we have seen what amounts to a collapse in the research base of our institutions. I had a conversation this evening with the vice-chancellor of a university which shall remain nameless—I am sure that person would not want to be named here. In fact, that is part of the problem with this government: if you speak up publicly, you can find yourself in serious trouble. She pointed out all the problems to me—and perhaps by naming her gender I have inadvertently identified her, or at least narrowed the field somewhat. One of the problems that is confronted by universities generally is that they are required to get more and more of their funds from other sources: from the private sector or from individual student contributions—and that is what we are seeing here today. Course costs have gone up, postgraduate fees have increased, and the universities have been put under enormous pressure at a time when everywhere else in the world very substantial additional funding is being provided from the public purse. It is not that you do not have individual contributions; it is not that you do not have contributions from the corporate sector; but you do need that very substantial contribution from the public sector as well. There is a very substantial public benefit to be gained from investment in education and research.As we indicated in a research report that was put out, An agenda for the Knowledge Nation, we are an underperforming knowledge nation. That is not to say that there has not been a significant performance from Australia in research and education and that we have not done extremely well in some respects. But, at a time when every other nation in the world is now investing substantially in this area, we are underperforming. Our investment in knowledge is now very definitely at the lower end of the countries of the OECD, with which we like to compare ourselves. Not only is it at the lower end but it is also falling. Investment in knowledge, of course, includes the universities and public research facilities, and it also includes the private sector. And we, uniquely among the OECD, are currently investing less than we should. As the Group of Eight universities have pointed out, even with the Backing Australia's Ability initiatives outlined by the government and partly incorporated into this research, it will still do nothing to take us up to the necessary levels to compete with those other nations.That investment in knowledge in Australia collapsed very dramatically in 1996, at a time when there were substantial cuts to university funding and big increases in the amounts that came out of the private pockets of students. And, of course, business R&D collapsed as a result of cuts to R&D tax concessions. We are now 25 per cent below the weighted average of investment in knowledge of the 12 OECD countries with which we would want to compare ourselves, and 30 per cent below that of the United States. Frankly, Australia cannot afford that underperformance. That underperformance in education in particular has resulted in declining participation in schools and a slower enrolment growth in our higher education institutions than should be the case for a nation such as Australia. If you look at education funding levels you will see across the board—as the shadow minister indicated here—significant falls in Commonwealth funding for universities in particular. It has stagnated at a time when it needs to expand. We have also seen a crisis in Australia's R&D performance. It does not matter which area you look at, R&D has gone down. Very little venture capital is applied to our new ideas, and commercialisation of products is declining at a time when it should be increasing. This is a tragedy for Australia. There is a great deal of complacency on the part of the current government. They do not seem to understand that at a time when we are standing still—and, indeed, going backwards—the rest of the world is really running. If you have a look at what is happening internationally, Australia is now very much the poor cousin. Indeed, at times it looks as if we are not even part of the same family. It is not as if Australians do not recognise what is going on. I undertook a survey of my own electors recently and asked them in a very open way to simply tell me what they thought were the most important issues that should be confronted by a future government, whatever its colour. It was entirely an apolitical document that went out. I asked them to talk about things that were local and regional and national. A very interesting set of results came back. Health was number one—I was not surprised at that. Health and aged care were way out in front. But coming behind health and aged care, importantly, was education, along with the environment. People came back with a range of options, some of which related to schools and preschools and TAFE, but a number of people commented on tertiary education and particularly their ability, and their children's ability, to have access to it. What we are talking about here tonight is the affordability of postgraduate education particularly, though not exclusively. This is what came back to me from Andrea in Hilton. Hilton is a suburb in my electorate which has modest incomes and people who are not particularly well-heeled. There are a lot of people who will be wanting to go through education themselves. Andrea said:The cost of university education is a real concern, not only the cost but the issue of paying upfront—She was talking about HECS fees.If you cannot afford to pay upfront, the units you are enrolled in cost 25 per cent extra. Twenty-five per cent is equal to $200 in her case. On top of that, if she wants to do postgraduate education, those costs will be very substantial. William of South Fremantle told me that the TAFE courses were similarly too expensive, and Robert in Beaconsfield saidUniversity fees are far too high. Education should not be a privilege.Helen of Palmyra—which is, again, an area where people do not have very high incomes—said:Funding for education and research is a priority so that we can really be a knowledge nation.Graham of South Fremantle pointed out:Investment in education should be increased to enable Australia to compete in the global marketplace.He understands the problem. He goes on:In particular, science and engineering require greater emphasis based on close cooperation between government and industry, that is, a comprehensive industry development policy. He clearly does not see that happening with the current government. And Enid of Hamilton Hill, one of the more struggling areas of my electorate, said this:A good public education system that does not in any way disadvantage the poor and which provides high-level education. As a mature university student, it is important that I receive the financial support from the government to see me through. More support as far as part-time work for students is concerned.These are ordinary citizens in my electorate who understand the importance of education and can see that for many of them and for their families education is becoming increasingly beyond their reach.As one of its first actions this government doubled HECS. The cost of many courses is now extraordinary by international standards, as was pointed out by the shadow minister for education. The government also lowered the repayment threshold, so a lot of families are now really struggling with their HECS debts. They are starting to repay their HECS debts when they are really below the poverty line. That big increase recently in the HECS liability was felt by a lot of people. I am sure many of us received emails, letters and notes from our constituents saying they were really offended by the fact that, while many other people had the impact of the GST removed, in their case it simply stays there in perpetuity until eventually they repay that debt.The fees, too, have increased very substantially for postgraduate courses. As universities have struggled, it has been one of the sources of income for them, and they have had to increase the fees for those postgraduate courses. As the shadow minister has indicated, we are very worried that this loan repayment scheme will provide a temptation that many universities will be unable to resist without improvement in public funding for our universities. Those increases in postgraduate course costs and HECS debts fall particularly hard on women's participation rates in education. One of the areas where we have seen a substantial outcome already, after only five years of government, is in declining rates of participation of women, particularly in postgraduate programs, at a time when we would have hoped that we were way beyond that sort of discrimination. I want to take up some of the issues that flow from this. It was interesting that the previous speaker, the member for Curtin, mentioned the University of Western Australia having some extra places—there were fewer added than were taken away. It is of some interest to me that the University of Western Australia, my alma mater, made a submission to the recent Senate inquiry on the capacity of public universities to meet Australia's higher education needs. In a media statement they put out accompanying the document they presented to the Senate committee, the University of Western Australia— which is by Australian standards a wealthy university, part of the Group of Eight—had this to say: “Chronic underfunding of higher education in Australia has put at risk Australia's capacity to be internationally competitive,” the vice-chancellor said.He told the Senate inquiry into the capacity of public universities to meet Australia's higher education needs that, “The funding gap between Australia's universities and the world's best meant the level of funding for higher education had to be substantially increased.”He went on to say in the same press release:“A properly resourced higher education sector would secure and guarantee the nation's future by linking the direct and indirect benefits of the sector's research and teaching and learning activities to international affairs.“In addition, substantially higher investment in research and research infrastructure than proposed in the federal government's innovation statement is required if the nation is to address the serious erosion of its research capacity.”I underline that point because I think the government is complacent about this Backing Australia's Ability package. It falls far short of what is required, and the University of Western Australia clearly recognised that. They go on to say:“Funding for fundamental basic research is particularly important. It is not just about R&D or applied research. That basic curiosity driven research is critical.“Funding for fundamental basic research is particularly important because commercial research and development are usually preceded and underpinned by discoveries developed by fundamental basic research.”I was at ANU today, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker—10000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)— Not acting.XS4Lawrence, Dr Carmen, MPDr LAWRENCE—Mr Deputy Speaker, I apologise. There are so many people who occupy that chair and so many titles that go with it. The ANU pointed out to me that while they get some funds—although they struggle—from industry for their particular technology, engineering and science research projects in the commercialisation side, they are finding it increasingly difficult to do the basic research. Hence, the ideas that they are now living off in developing these new technologies are starting to be depleted. In the particular section I looked at, there are only two full-time staff. The rest are on casual appointments and they live from research project to research project.That is not the way to build a science base in Australia. The University of Western Australia is saying in its press release—and I visited the science faculty there again recently to illustrate this—that they cannot conduct anything remotely resembling the necessary level of research and development commercialisation that Australia requires without funding of that basic research, and that means postgraduate research and postgraduate programs as much as it does the science, research and infrastructure. I think that the government does not understand that this is fundamental. This is not some optional extra; it is not a little flurry that we should engage in in the lead-up to an election or a year out from an election. The government was put under enormous pressure by the universities, the science communities and the business community to put back some of the money that was there and to engage in this international debate of Australia as a knowledge based society.I think that because Labor had come out and in a sense claimed the territory of the knowledge nation the government decided they would only make a passing reference to it, and that is really all that they have done. It is a pastiche, it is a hodgepodge, and there is no commitment from this government. You do not hear anyone in this government talking about the importance of Australia investing in educational research and development, except at the periphery and under pressure. I know public servants are very frustrated by that, the universities are very frustrated by that, the CSIRO is very frustrated by that and the business community is very frustrated by that, because they see us slipping behind. We as a nation can do a great deal better than that, and that is what my constituents understand. They know that the underfunding of education at whatever level you are talking about—preschool, primary, secondary, university, TAFE, research, research and development—is criminal, because that is what we have to offer the world and our citizens. If we do not invest in education and research at all levels and if we do not understand the importance of education for citizenship, economic growth and our wealth then we clearly are not paying attention to Australia as a nation. If we get deflected into advertising and problems with migrants coming to our shores, and if we use that to excite people rather than to focus their attention on what we need to do as this nation, then we are selling this nation short. Frankly, that is what I accuse the government of. I spend a lot of time talking to people in our university sector, in our schools and in the community generally. They understand that Australians can generate good ideas, given half a chance. They understand that we can be more than a farm and a quarry, and that in those areas too we need to develop the technological spin-offs that improve productivity. It is not just about growing the resources and exporting the resources we have but adding value to them. You cannot do that without a significant investment in technology.Neither can you have a citizenship worthy of that name if you do not have decent funding of the ABC or of our public institutions generally. It is not just about the technology, it is not just about the science based work; it is also about scholarship—whether it is in the arts, the classics, or the creative arts generally. This government does not give a damn about the quality of intellectual life in this country. It seems to think that it is unimportant or that it is elitist. But without our young people enjoying music, dance and drama, and without them understanding science, this nation is impoverished. At a time when every other nation with whom we would like to compare ourselves understands the importance of creativity, innovation and investment in education, this government is paying scant attention—and only after significant pressure has been applied to it. I know that in many respects this parliament, this void that we speak into, is not taken very seriously by the wider community. That is a tragedy, because this should be the place for us to articulate these issues and discuss them. I would like to hear from the government about why, for example, they think education is so unimportant that they can make a game of it, toss figures across this chamber, and deny the evidence of their senses. How can they look at declining enrolment rates in our schools, declining research efforts in our universities and declining research and development at a time when everyone else is investing in these things, and feel comfortable about the sort of government they preside over? I would like to hear the arguments they have to make, instead of the truisms that we hear tossed around in here at question time and at other times—and I know that the people of Australia would like to hear some of those arguments too. Frankly, the people of Australia are sick and tired of the point scoring. We are Australians first and foremost, and they want to hear Australians in this place arguing for the future of this country in a way that ensures that our children and grandchildren will have a quality of life that is as good as, or better than, the one that we have been privileged to enjoy. Frankly, I am not sure I could make that guarantee to my son and to any of his offspring, if he has any, or to my nieces and nephews. I do not believe that I could say to him with a good conscience, `We put in the necessary efforts in this parliament and in public debate to ensure that your life was going to be improved.'22:17:0030447Latham, Mark, MPMr LATHAMK26WerriwaALP00— The primary purpose of the Innovation and Education Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2001 is to introduce a new postgraduate loan scheme. Like so many of the policies of this government, this bill is merely a form of compensation for past policy failures. In 1996, there were 41,400 funded postgraduate course work places in this country. Today that amount has been reduced to just 16,000. That is, we have lost 25,000 funded postgraduate course work places. It is the equivalent of Australia's sixth largest university being wiped out by the unilateral funding cuts of this government. A huge hole has been opened up in the scope of our postgraduate course work. This bill is really a form of compensation for that massive hole created by the loss of the equivalent of our sixth largest university in this vital area of postgraduate course work. Even though the bill is a form of compensation, it is not clear how sustainable the compensation will be in the medium and longer term. Professor Bruce Chapman, the author of the HECS scheme, has cast significant doubt on the loans scheme that the minister has placed in this legislation. It is a simple law of economics that the loan scheme will increase the demand for postgraduate places. In an environment where universities are allowed to charge fees for these places, there will be pressure on the universities to increase the fees, thereby making the places less affordable.I put these propositions to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, Dr Kemp, in a question on notice which he answered on 5 April. I would like to quote from the minister's response to the fears advanced by Dr Chapman and others. The minister said: I have asked my Department to monitor the prices charged for postgraduate courses and to report on these annually through the higher education reports. There will not be a cap on the amount each student may borrow each semester. However, I propose to include in the Bill to establish the Scheme provision for the Minister to have discretion to determine a cap on the total level of students' borrowings. I propose to exercise that authority only if experience indicates a need for a prudent financial limit on student borrowings or for a mechanism to dampen prices being charged.To some extent, the minister is declaring a lack of confidence in his own scheme. It is a `wait and see' approach, without guarantees to the public or the parliament that the loan scheme is sustainable. In fact, the minister is basically confessing that he will not be able to get a win-win outcome from this particular initiative. He is basically saying that, if the loan scheme is successful enough to increase demand for postgraduate coursework and the university fees go up, he is going to cut back on the loan scheme; he is going to place a cap on the scheme, thereby restricting the number of Australians who can afford access to postgraduate course work. If the scheme is a success initially, the minister will ensure that it is capped ultimately. Of course, if the scheme does not invoke higher demand among students, it will not be achieving much in the first place, so there will not be a win-win outcome from this legislation. It is regrettable indeed that this form of compensation being paid for postgraduate course work will not be sustainable, by the minister's own reservations and admission. This is a government which has a very weak performance when it comes to research and development and very little understanding of the new economy. From time to time, Senator Alston, a minister with deep responsibility for new economy and communications issues, throws a few barbs into the local newspapers in Werriwa, trying to question my understanding of the Internet. Recently, for instance, he wrote: Take for example Labor's so-called Internet savvy. Mr Latham, who has again exposed Labor's complete misunderstanding of the new technology—And then he quotes me—`If you do not have access to the Internet, please let me know by replying by email.'The senator thought this was some big point. It is true that a significant number of people have access to email, but they do not necessarily have access to the Internet. Every police officer in New South Wales, for instance, has an email address, but they do not have Internet access because of some of the abuse that occurred in relation to pornographic sites. So here is the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts thinking he has made some big telling point against me, when he is exposing his own lack of understanding about how these new information technologies work. This is a government with a very poor understanding of the new economy and new forms of information technology. It is also a government that has falsely used productivity statistics to disguise this basic weakness. The essential truth is that Australia's great productivity jump—our great leap forward— in the 1990s was due to Labor's microeconomic reform program in the 1980s. You do not get overnight productivity increases for doing anything in terms of economic management; these are lagging indicators. You get a productivity jump only once you have put in place decent microeconomic reform. It was Labor's reform in the 1980s that produced the productivity jump in the 1990s.Unfortunately, Australia is not fully reaping the productivity gains of the information revolution. The policy failure of this government is restricting the productivity benefits that might flow through Australia's uptake of the new economy. Business take-up rates are relatively weak. Let me provide just one comparison. In the United Kingdom, the percentage of small businesses connected to the Internet is 87 per cent; in Australia it is just 60 per cent—27 per cent behind the United Kingdom. When it comes to the percentage of small businesses selling on line— that is, engaging in e-commerce—in the United Kingdom it is 51 per cent, a majority of small businesses selling online. In Australia it is just 15 per cent—a massive 36 per cent behind. By international comparisons, 15 per cent is a very poor statistic. This government has a weak understanding in these areas, a weak policy performance and it has cut back substantially in a whole range of research and development and postgraduate areas. As a consequence, Australia is suffering a lack of economic performance. We are not cashing in. We are not taking up the benefits of the information revolution. This points to the need for a new economic paradigm. It is one thing to talk about the new economy, but it can be an entirely different thing altogether to know what to do. I am attracted to the new growth theories pioneered by Paul Romer at Stanford University. These theories maintain that a nation's long-term rate of economic growth will be determined by its rate of technological progress and entrepreneurial creation. This represents something of a third approach in economic thought. Historically, left wing economics has identified consumption deficits as the main barrier to economic growth, while the New Right has focused on a paucity of public sector savings as a barrier to growth. By contrast, Romer's work points to a third deficit: a nation's underinvestment in education, research and technological advancement. Unfortunately, under the Howard government, Australia is indeed suffering from this third deficit—a heavy deficit in our public and private investments in education, research and technology.In effect, we need a new tool kit for economic growth. We need new tools and policy instruments for the information age. Unlike industrial production and trade, information technology has no regard for national boundaries. This makes obsolete attempts at tariff protection, import quotas and local content rules. Likewise, the new technology is incredibly dynamic, thereby discounting the need for industry plans and direct intervention. IT picks its own winners according to technological progress and consumer demand. Government subsidies and procurement policies aimed at fostering a particular technology or company are not likely to succeed. They usually amount to a recipe for mediocrity. Even if governments were able to pick a winner today, technological change is just as likely to turn it into tomorrow's loser. This is what happened in the United States in the 1980s with government attempts to enhance computer chip and analog broadcasting technologies.There is no doubt about it: new thinking is needed in terms of research policy and economic policy. In the past, social democrats tried to plan, regulate and subsidise the development of industry sectors. In the new economy, this approach is likely to be counterproductive. It is a barrier to inventiveness and the open transfer of technology and knowledge. Public policy needs to shift to the supply side to generate the right kinds of economic inputs. We can no longer control economic plans and outcomes; we need to develop the right kinds of economic inputs. This approach places a heavy emphasis on skills development, research scholarships and competitive market structures. The dilemma with the so-called `spaghetti and meatballs' in Barry Jones's recent Knowledge Nation report was not that the diagram was overambitious or silly, in the way in which it was ridiculed by the government; rather, the diagram accurately reflects the complexity of the new economy—the dense interaction between a large number of public institutions, corporations, educators and researchers. The new economy is inherently complex. But therein lies the rub: it is unrealistic to think that government can control and plan for this kind of complexity. You just cannot control and plan for this sort of complexity. To a large extent, the new economy has made industry policy redundant. Paul Keating once told the Labor caucus a story from his early days in Canberra. Over dinner a group of Labor senators would sit around drawing up five-year plans for Australia's manufacturing industries. Keating thought to himself, `These old blokes have enough trouble filling in their TA forms; what chance is there that they could know where private sector investment is headed?' If the task of picking industry winners and the task of industry planning were difficult in the old economy, they have indeed become insoluble in the new. How can slow-moving government bureaucracies make provisions for technologies that have not yet been invented or jobs that have not yet been conceived? How can politicians second-guess the complex knowledge and decision making of a dynamic market economy? The task has indeed become much more difficult.The defining feature of the new economy is its networks of information access and collaboration. This requires a new strategic role for government. It is no longer sufficient to pour public money into the traditional areas of business support, such as subsidies and tax breaks. Governments should facilitate the networking process to leverage new partnerships and collaborative effort across the research sector. In the industrial age, R&D tended to be an individual enterprise. We know the individual who invented the steam train. We know the person who first developed the spinning jenny. In the information age, by contrast, innovation is a product of collaboration. No one person, for instance, invented the Internet. We do not really know the individual who invented the Internet—even though Al Gore once said that he did. The new economy is placing a premium on collaboration and cooperative research projects. At one level, this is hardly surprising. With the explosion in information and know-how across the global economy, it is impossible for individuals acting in isolation to master the new disciplines of knowledge. From the human genome project to digital TV, the only reliable pathway to progress lies in research collaboration. Old economy incentives, such as R&D concessions, are aimed at the scale of research expenditure rather than the formation of research partnerships and collaboration. Debate interrupted.Adjournment3045010000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 10.30 p.m., I propose the question:That the House do now adjourn.3045022:30:0030450Crosio, Janice, MPMrs CROSIO7T4ProspectALP00—I rise in the adjournment debate tonight to praise the efforts of those people who really are the champions in my electorate of Prospect. I am talking about the people who work day in and day out to help and serve others. These people oftentimes have worked tirelessly year after year for no monetary compensation. The reward they get is the feeling that, at the end of the day, they have made a difference to someone else's life. In this year, the International Year of Volunteers, I want to place on the public record on behalf of my electorate my sincere gratitude for the important contribution volunteers and their organisations make.One such organisation, of which I am proud to be the patron, is Meals on Wheels in Fairfield. This organisation does an absolutely fantastic job of providing not only meals to people in need but also companionship and a quality of life to many who are frail or elderly or who are ill and housebound. I have been associated with Meals on Wheels in Fairfield for the past 30 years and I am proud to stand up in the Australian parliament and say to them and to all the other volunteer organisations and individuals in my electorate: thank you, on behalf of our community. In Australia alone we have around 2½ million volunteers. They are people from many different walks of life who give up their time to support local communities and to help their fellow citizens in various sorts of ways. It is a fact that volunteers deserve much greater recognition for the incredible contribution they make to our communities. They have managed to leave a lasting impression about the value and the positive impact that the great tradition of volunteering in this country has had, and I hope will continue to have, on the quality of community life. This year we should celebrate the outstanding contribution that volunteers make to a strong, cohesive society. In my electorate recently, the public were invited to nominate volunteers for an International Year of Volunteers Certificate of Recognition. My office has since asked the minister's office for more certificates. To date, we have issued just over 170 certificates, and we are still going strong. I would like to put on the record my special thanks to the International Year of Volunteers Secretariat at the Department of Family and Community Services for their enthusiastic and helpful response to our inquiries.XJ6Anthony, Larry, MPMr Anthony—Good.7T4Crosio, Janice, MPMrs CROSIO—I am glad the minister is here to hear that. It is fantastic to see that so many volunteers in my electorate have been nominated. I believe it is a sign that their commitment is noted and that the community appreciates their valuable contribution. However, while I believe this is a massive response to the call for recognition of volunteers, this is only the tip of the iceberg. The number of people who have contributed to the building of community spirit in my electorate through volunteering would, over the years, run into the thousands. Whether these are the volunteers who work day in and day out helping those less fortunate than themselves, or the mums and dads who help their local school with their fundraisers or sport or in the canteen, they all contribute to building a sense of community and social cohesion.Through their time and through their energy and talent, volunteers are the people who have made an invaluable contribution to the development of the community, but particularly in my electorate of Prospect. I am so proud of them. Under the Howard government, my electorate has suffered major cuts to important community services, like our child-care centres. We have a dramatically high unemployment rate as well as a high population of elderly citizens. Many people have been affected by the Howard government's policies and have turned to volunteer organisations or individuals for help. It is important that these volunteers keep up their good work and know that their efforts are greatly appreciated not only by those whom they help directly but also by those people who, although they may have no need of support or do not use the network of volunteers, at the same time just feel so proud in knowing that their community is one that has a large network of hardworking volunteers who give of themselves to help others.In conclusion I would like to say thankyou once more on behalf of my constituents to all the volunteers in my electorate, to the individuals and organisations who too often do not receive the recognition they truly deserve. For their effort, I say: congratulations; for their tireless work, I say: please keep it up. Volunteer work, the dedication of one's time to the service of others—the elderly , the disadvantaged, the ailing and the hungry—remains today possibly one of the most selfless yet thankless acts an individual can do. While volunteer work may be unpaid, it carries its own rewards, and this is just one way, albeit just a small way, of showing recognition on behalf of the community to these quiet achievers. In fact, when I contacted the St Vincent de Paul Society, which works tirelessly in my community, they said, `No, we don't want to receive even a thankyou.' I said, `I think you deserve a thankyou. I think the volunteers who work in your centre day in and day out should have that thankyou.' They did not even want to give the names and addresses. So it was after some convincing that I said, `Look, these certificates are certainly going to go to your people. I will deliver them and you can distribute them.' It was only then that I was able to have the names of the volunteers, that wonderful group of people, who come on a daily basis to that organisation. It was with a great deal of pride that I delivered a large number of certificates to them—72, in fact—that they are able to distribute to their people individually. So there were no politics involved; it was a small way of saying, `We appreciate the work you've done. Congratulations and keep it up.' 3045222:35:0030452Baird, Bruce, MPMr BAIRDMP6CookLP10—I rise tonight to speak about a development that occurred last evening at the Sutherland Shire Council. You may recall that I spoke recently in this House of the controversy when this particular council decided that they would remove the head of Captain Cook from the logo for the Sutherland Shire and replace it with some dancing dolphins. For my part, I certainly did not want to be known as the member for dancing dolphins; rather, I want to be known as the member for Cook. This is the same council that last night, unfortunately with the leadership of the mayor, put on a little political stunt. The mayoral minute said:A new design for Kurnell/Towra Point International Airport has been drawn up and published by the International Airport Corporation.The new design replaces the original Kurnell/Sydney Airport proposal and is published in the September 2001 edition of the Australian Aviation Magazine expected to be on sale to the public in two weeks time.This ill-conceived but detailed design is attached to this Mayoral Minute. The proposal very clearly includes an international and domestic terminal, multi-storey car park and a bridge to Kingsford Smith Airport that would cut the bay in half.The mayor says:I cannot believe that any person, organisation or government would promote or support an airport in and adjacent to Towra Point Nature Reserve with its dominant habitats of saltmarsh and open woodland.She goes on in the minute that written assurance would be sought from the Prime Minister regarding this issue and that the following points regarding the Kurnell/Towra Point and its future usage should be referred to me as a matter of urgency.The first thing that is absolutely clear is that the mayor and the staff certainly did not do any research, because the IAC is not the International Airports Corporation but a private company called International Airline Crewing. It is basically an employment agency. IAC provide employment and consultancy services to the aviation industry. They have unsuccessfully lobbied the federal government on the Kurnell airport proposal for around two years now. Most importantly, they are not affiliated with the government, are not advising the government and do not represent its views. The fact that the government has rejected their preferred option has obviously not deterred them from their opinion and they have decided to continue publishing their views. We are unable to prevent them from exercising this right. With regard to the questions raised in the motion, it is important for me to emphasise that neither Kurnell nor any part of the Kurnell Peninsula are on the agenda as a second international airport or an extension of the existing airport. Federal cabinet considered and rejected this option outright on 13 December last year. The possibility of the issue arising again in the future was also written off, due to the international significance of the Ramsar site for migratory birds. I am unable to answer why IAC have redrawn their original airport design and decided to publish it. I simply refer the question for the mayor direct to the IAC, as they are in the best position to answer that question. I repeat my position that I am totally opposed to putting an airport on the Kurnell Peninsula. I demonstrated my personal opposition to such a proposal last year when I promised to cross the floor of parliament over this issue if ever a proposal was put before this House that an airport be built on the Kurnell Peninsula. I repeat that claim tonight. It is absolutely absurd on any criteria to build an airport at Kurnell. It is absurd on a heritage basis because of the great significance of Kurnell. It is absurd because it is a Ramsar site for migratory birds and it adjoins a national park. It would replace a whole community of 2,500 people. It adjoins the Cronulla peninsula with all the recreational facilities there, and the airlines would fly over Sutherland Shire, which is home to 230,000 people. So, on any criteria, in terms of the environmental factors or the heritage nature of the site, this does not make sense. It certainly does not make sense on cost grounds. From the time the Kurnell airport option became an issue last year, all levels of government in the shire have worked together to secure the peninsula's future. I continue to work for that future, to ensure that we stop the sandmining on the peninsula, that we stop the Australand development and that we secure the heritage nature of the Kurnell Peninsula for the long-term future. There are no proposals to build an international or domestic airport at Kurnell. It is only political stuntsmanship that the mayor has entered into on this question. I suggest that she leaves that, and her plans to replace the head of Captain Cook with the dancing dolphins, to another time and gets on with the serious business of managing the Sutherland Shire for the constituents in that area. (Time expired)3045322:40:0030453Morris, Allan, MPMr ALLAN MORRISFI4NewcastleALP00—A group of people are coming from the Newcastle-Hunter area tomorrow because of their concerns, and the issues at stake, regarding residential aged care. The House is now well aware that a short time ago the Catholic Care of the Aged organisation announced the closure of the St Catherine of Siena Nursing Home in Waratah, which is currently home to 67 people. For those residents, their families and others associated and involved, this is a very tragic situation. We do not have 67 beds to spare and the loss of that excellent facility is something this community cannot tolerate.That group is coming to talk to members of the opposition and I suppose they hope to talk to the minister. I wish them well with that. I think that they have been talking to Senator Tierney for some time, but they have not been getting much joy. In the Main Committee last week, the Minister for Aged Care referred to the organisation and, from her comments, I do not think that group can expect much of a response or even understanding.In the Main Committee last week, the minister referred to the decision to close St Catherine of Siena as a `business decision by Catholic Care of the Aged'. In other words, it had nothing to do with people; it was somehow divorced from the human. The decision was based on the fact that the nursing home is currently losing $1,000 a day. The minister spoke about the organisation's various other facilities and quite forcefully insisted that they actually made quite substantial profits, which in fact they do not make. She maligned them very badly in that context. She then suggested by implication that they should cross-subsidise. In other words, the organisation should be subsidising residential aged care to the tune of $1,000 a day. That, of course, is intolerable in theory and in practice. She tried to blame the closure on the fact that it is a heritage building which has three floors. That has little to do with the closure. The main issue with the closure has to do with government funding.In a speech last week, I referred to what this government did back in 1996 when it abolished the capital program for nursing homes, at a saving to the government of half a billion dollars over four years. We do not hear anybody talking about that any more. The minister does not even mention it. Eventually, after a lot of toing-and-froing, that was replaced with a program of $12 a day. The residential aged care community has been telling us for the past two or three years that that does not work. It is insufficient and inadequate to maintain and sustain the capital stock in the nursing homes of the country. The government, of course, ignores it; it never mentions it. We do not hear a word about that half a billion dollar cut. The tragedy of those cuts was not that they went into other services but that eventually all those cuts in dental care, aged care, and home and community care ended up in tax cuts last year, when half the cuts went to the top 20 per cent of income earners in the country. The cuts the government made to the people in nursing homes which are suffering now, ended up as tax cuts. The ones we have been promised for next year will come in the same way. The cuts that the Prime Minister will promise will come from the poor in the same way that the cuts last year came from the poor. Let us go further: I made the point that nursing homes no longer have to have nurses 24 hours a day. The minister now says that we do not call them nursing homes any more; we call them aged care facilities; therefore you do not need nurses because they are no longer nursing homes. Who is she kidding? This is a government with a wonderful way with words. A scam is not a scam any more. Nursing homes are not nursing homes any more; they are aged care facilities. The minister had pages of diatribe about the hospital system and about how many days it might take, but she did not mention a word about the current scam she has running, where they are cutting a million dollars a week by reassessing downwards people in nursing homes to save one million dollars every week of every year for the years ahead. They are appointing 40 extra people to find the savings, at a cost of a million dollars a week. The nursing homes of this country are going to have to continue tomorrow or next week with a million dollars less than they had this week, and the week after with another million dollars less. The minister comes in here and tries to pretend that it is all reform. It is not reform; we are going back to the dark, dismal, miserable ages. (Time expired)3045422:45:0030454Schultz, Alby, MPMr SCHULTZ83QHumeLP10—I rise in this adjournment debate to bring to the attention of the House the dedication of a Federation monument last Sunday at Murrumburrah in the Hume electorate. The monument, which was constructed by a gifted and talented local engineer, Russell Muirhead, celebrates the Centenary of Federation and, most importantly, the International Year of Volunteers. The four-sided obelisk is constructed from three sheets of polished scrap stainless steel purchased from Cargill's abattoir at Wagga Wagga. The obelisk is 14 metres in length and it is complemented by a 14-point twin Federation Star that sits on top of the structure. The seven-point star was gazetted onto the Australian flag in 1909 to symbolise the union of the six states and territories. A pyramid, which sits on top of the obelisk supporting the twin Federation Star, is built on a 1:2000 scale designed on the largest Egyptian pyramid, Corfu-Cheops.The stone surrounding the monument was sourced from Wallendbeen, which incidentally is the home of Kenneth Mackay, founder of the First Australian Horse. The properties that he lived on included Avon Park, Currawong Park and Dolly Dacey's at Murrumburrah. Symbols engraved in the four stainless steel sides of that impressive structure include the Rainbow Serpent, a red-bellied black snake called Birri Birri, the protector of children in Aboriginal legend. Grapes, cherries, peaches and wine depict horticulture in the district. Wheat, oats, barley and oilseeds recognise cereals grown in the district. Livestock is depicted by engravings of cattle, sheep, deer, alpaca, emu and ostrich, all of which are part of the rural industry in the district.The total height of the monument is 15.7 metres, including the 1.7-metre twin Federation Stars, and it weighs three tonnes. The monument stands opposite the significant Light Horse memorial, which the Harden Murrumburrah Centenary of Federation Committee is constructing with the assistance of another gifted local resident, Mr Karl Valarius, a well-known stone mason and sculptor. I was honoured also to be present on Sunday to give an address at the unveiling of the monument of a life-sized bronze sculpture of Corporal William Bradford, one of the First Light Horsemen who came out of the Murrumburrah district. That monument is stage three of a very significant effort by the community to build, in honour of the First Australian Horse, a monument which will be there for decades. The Harden Murrumburrah community should be proud of the way in which all people associated with both magnificent monuments have diligently worked towards a permanent reminder for future generations of the history of our great country, which was built on the courage, sacrifice and spirit of rural Australians and which is obviously still alive and well in the twin-town community of Harden Murrumburrah. 3045522:49:0030455Ripoll, Bernie, MPMr RIPOLL83EOxleyALP00—I would like to discuss this evening the social role of volunteers in Australia. The relevance of volunteers today can be considered by either the activities of community groups within an electorate such as Oxley or at a national level. The International Year of Volunteers is a formal recognition program that celebrates the essential role that many individuals selflessly undertake for others. Since being the member for Oxley, my electorate office has had contact with 277 community groups from within the area. Those groups provide an extraordinarily wide range of services to our community—from the Woogaroo Meals on Wheels group, which celebrated 20 years of service this year; to the Redbank Plains Junior Rugby League Club, which has representative teams for all junior age groups; to a group such as CODI, which provides daily transportation to and from the workplace for disabled people; and to Envirocare, which maintains awareness of local environmental issues.Every single one of the 277 community groups in Oxley is reliant on the generosity and goodwill of volunteers. Whether it be through the provision of emergency relief packages or the setting up of an art class at the local neighbourhood house, volunteers are vital to the success and, often, existence of community activities. These community groups are often also reliant on government funding. This year alone, I have personally provided 80 letters of support for grant applications by community groups. The majority of those grant applications are not for exorbitant or unrealistic amounts of money. Many organisations consider a grant as a means of subsidising the running costs that many individuals incur during their service to the group. Most community groups also undertake fundraising activities to bolster their coffers. In fact, I note that many of us have given donations to the Phil Botha Memorial Fun Run here at Parliament House— another indication of a great group of men and women that we work with daily who are dedicating their personal time to help others.No-one in this chamber will underestimate the value of a good raffle. Every single one of us also understands the time and effort required to pull off a good fundraiser. The people behind the scenes are crucial to the success of any of these functions, and the people behind the scenes are likely to be volunteers who are committed to the service their organisation provides to the community. They dedicate tireless hours to their cause. They undertake executive positions on committees, they prepare minutes and they make sure that tea and coffee are provided at meetings.I have decided that the general understanding on the other side of the chamber of the value of a volunteer is different from that of my colleagues. I have decided that the Howard-Costello government has redefined the coalition's understanding of volunteer to `easy target mug'. Mug because we can get all these people to work for nothing, get them to replace the social services that the government has withdrawn from the community, and then undermine their hard work by using the inaugural Sir Henry Bolte lecture as a ruse to reminisce about the heady days of the Victorian Liberal Party in the 1960s.This government also considers volunteers in Australia as easy targets. The volunteers are easy targets on which to place the onus for the failures of a socially out of touch government. Volunteers are easy targets when pitting one community group against others in the struggle for funding. It would now appear that volunteers are easy targets in being attributed the GST rorting in the Groom FEC. How dare the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation attempt on national television to remove the responsibility from the Liberal Party leadership for the GST scam or swindle or whatever you want to call it by blaming party volunteers. How dare the Minister for Small Business equate the cover up of a GST scam by Liberal Party branches as `no different from any other volunteer organisations'. I hope that every community group and organisation in the electorates of Warringah and North Sydney protest their representatives' redefinition of volunteer to `easy target mug'. I commend the hard, honest hours of work that thousands of Australian volunteers donate every year to our nation. I protest the failure of the coalition government to recognise the value that these individuals add to our communities. In the International Year of Volunteers, it is shameful to note that the Liberal and National parties of the federal parliament of Australia have failed our volunteers. Perhaps we could see the government lead by example. Perhaps we could see the Treasurer, Peter Costello, volunteer one hour of his time to help small businesses cope with filling out their BAS or perhaps their tax returns. Or perhaps we could see Dr Kemp, education minister, volunteer one hour of his time to help school kids learn to read. Perhaps we could see the government, at the very least, get off its high horse and volunteer a small piece of self-respect and trust in all volunteers and give them back some of the dignity and some of the value that they deserve. I congratulate all the hardworking volunteers that give so much of themselves to the community and everyone else. (Time expired)Question resolved in the affirmative.22:54:0030456House adjourned at 10.54 p.m.Notices30456The following notices were given:ZD4Howard, John, MPMr Howard to move:That this House:(1) notes that this year marks the 50th anniversary of the alliance between Australia and the United States of America under the ANZUS Treaty;(2) reaffirms the commitment of Australia to that alliance, recognising its fundamental importance to this nation's ongoing security; (3) recognises that the alliance has significantly contributed to peace and security in the Asia Pacific and beyond; (4) expresses its profound gratitude to the men and women of both nations who have served together throughout the world in defence of freedom and in the pursuit of peace and prosperity for all;(5) acknowledges that this is an alliance between two peoples forever committed to democracy, and its foundation stones of freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and the independence and authority of the rule of law; and(6) affirms its belief that the alliance will continue playing a vital role in a changing world, building a prosperous and secure future for our two nations, the Asia-Pacific region and the global community.XJ6Anthony, Larry, MPMr Anthony to present a bill for an act to amend the law relating to social security and veterans' entitlements, and for related purposes.7V5Williams, Daryl, MPMr Williams to present a bill for an act to abolish compulsory age retirement for certain statutory officeholders, and for other purposes.YT4Scott, Bruce, MPMr Bruce Scott to present a bill for an act relating to the application of the Criminal Code to certain offences, and for other purposes.SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr Tuckey to present a bill for an act relating to Regional Forest Agreements, and for other purposes.0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr Slipper to move:That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the Committee has duly reported: Lavarack Barracks redevelopment Stage 3, Townsville. Answers to Questions in Writing30457The following answers to questions were circulated:30457(Question No. 2223)222330457Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr Fitzgibbon8K6HunterALP00 asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 6 December 2000:What proportion of the Government's Fuel Grant Scheme in its first three months of operation was paid to mining companies operating in regions in the grant applies.30457Costello, Peter, MPMr CostelloCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:A fuel sales grant is provided for the sale of fuel in eligible location to an end user. To be eligible to register for a fuel sales grant an applicant must be a fuel retailer that sells fuel to the public. Some mining companies may be eligible to register as retailers but most would not be.Records relating to fuel retailers that are registered for fuel sales grants, that would readily distinguish companies that may also be mining companies, are not maintained.30457(Question No. 2237)223730457Latham, Mark, MPMr LathamK26WerriwaALP00 asked the Minister for Health and Aged Care, upon notice, on 7 December 2000:Further to the answer to question No. 1924 (Hansard, 2 November 2000, page 22121) and following the release of the Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook, (a) what is the cost of the 30% private health insurance rebate and (b) what amount of savings has this rebate created for the public hospital system.30457Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr Wooldridge8E4CaseyLPMinister for Health and Aged Care10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(a) The estimated cost of the 30% Rebate on Private Health Insurance was tabled at the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee Consideration of Supplementary Estimates hearings of Wednesday, 22 November 2000. (b) Refer to House of Representatives Official Hansard, Thursday, 9 November 2000, page 22632 and my Press Release, “Vital Signs Good for Health System as Private Cover Up Again”, of 9 November 2000. 30457(Question No. 2617)261730457Murphy, John, MPMr Murphy83DLoweALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 4 June 2001:(1) What will be the impact on the movement of aircraft in the air on departure and arrival at Sydney Airport in light of the proposed changes to the Slots Management Scheme (SMS), and upon what information does he base this answer.(2) What will be the impact on the movement of aircraft in the air for departures and landings resulting from the full implementation of the Precision Runway Monitoring System (PRMS) and upon what information does he base this answer.(3) Will the introduction of the proposed changes to the SMS and the PRMS effectively result in the reversion to the Bennelong Funnel; if not, why not.30457Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPMinister for Transport and Regional Services10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) and (3) It is not envisaged that the amendments to the Slot Management Scheme will result in a change to airspace management at the airport. There is no proposal to make changes to the flight path arrangements at the Airport other than those such as the `trident' which form part of the Airport's Long Term Operating Plan.(2) A trial of using the Precision Runway Monitor (PRM) for landings from the north at Sydney Airport was carried out by Environment Australia between July 2000 and February 2001. The trial examined in detail the possible changes to flight paths that would result if use of the PRM were introduced. This examination showed that during the trial the flight tracks for aircraft arriving from the south, south-west and east to perform a northerly approach extended approximately 9 km further north than would have been the case if the PRM had not been used. The PRM is used only for landings. It has no effect on departure flight paths.30458(Question No. 2665)266530458Murphy, John, MPMr Murphy83DLoweALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 7 June 2001:(1) Further to his response to part 1 of question No. 2312 (Hansard, 22 May 2001, page 25772), is he aware of best practice in airport environmental management and sustainable airport development.(2) Is he aware of world class practice in environmental management of airports.(3) Is he able to say whether the environmental management at Sydney Airport is comparable to environmental management practices at Amsterdam Schipol Airport, Zurich Airport and Arlanda Airport, Stockholm, in terms of world class practice.(4) Can an ecologically sustainable airport development and world class environmental management be achieved at Sydney Airport if world class airport management concepts, such as developing an understanding of environmental capacity of airports, are not actively incorporated into Australian airport environmental and transport law, management, development and planning; if so, how.(5) Is he able to say whether Schipol Airports total-airport environment strategy extends to environmental impacts outside the airport boundary fence, including such issues as road traffic congestion, air toxic emissions and noise. (6) Can Sydney Airport achieve worlds best practice in total-airport environmental management if impacts outside the airports boundary fence, including such issues as road traffic congestion, air toxic emissions and noise, are not taken into account.(7) Is Amsterdam Schipol Airport an internationally accepted example of world class practice in total-airport environmental management.(8) Was the Schipol Group commissioned by Sydney Airports Corporation Limited to benchmark the Preliminary Draft Environmental Strategy Document against world class practice.(9) Did the Schipol Group, in its 1999 benchmark of Sydney Airports Environment Strategy against world class practice, (a) note the strategy did not extend beyond the internal airport area and excluded environmental impacts outside the airport boundary and (b) stated that operational aircraft noise, air pollution due to aircraft, external safety risks for third parties, airport related odours and smells, land use planning and zoning, airport related groundtraffic (density, congestion, pollution, etc.), recycling/re-use of materials, recognition and compensation of environmental damage, and handling complaints would need to be addressed equally well if the aim is to become the airport with the world's best environmental management system.(10) Are all subjects listed by the Schipol Group comprehensively addressed in the Sydney Airport Master Plan.30458Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPMinister for Transport and Regional Services10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) As I have stated in my answer to Question No. 2312, each leased Federal airport, including Sydney Airport, is being encouraged to implement an Environmental Management System consistent with the International Standard Organisation's ISO 14001 standard. This standard is recognised around the world as current best practice in Environmental Management Systems.The requirement to: comply with the Airports (Environment Protection) Regulations; prepare an Airport Environment Strategy every five years; and submit Annual Environment Reports to the Federal Government, ensures that the airport lessee companies develop airport sites in line with the principles of ecologically sustainable development and continuous environmental improvement. (2) See answer to (1)(3) See answer to (1)(4) See answer to (1)(5) Schipol's Environmental Policy Statement and Action Plan 1998-2003 includes environmental impacts outside the boundary fence. (6) Environmental impacts outside the boundary of Sydney Airport are taken into account and managed in a number of ways. Specifically, air quality issues are comprehensively addressed in Sydney Airport's Environment Strategy and ground based noise issues are addressed in the Environment Strategy. Noise relating to aircraft in flight is addressed through specific legislation such as the Sydney Airport Curfew Act 1995, the Sydney Airport Demand Management Act 1997, and programs such as the Long Term Operating Plan, and the Noise Amelioration Program.(7) I am advised that Schipol Airport's environmental management systems are generally considered as a good example of sound practice in airport environmental management. (8) The Schipol Group was commissioned by Sydney Airport to benchmark the Preliminary Draft Environment Strategy (PDES). Schipol's findings are included in the Strategy document. (9) Yes, the Schipol Group did make these observations (which are reproduced in Attachment D of the Environment Strategy)in its benchmark study. Consequently Sydney Airport amended the objectives of the PDES to include environmental advancement in both actions and performance, to act as a good neighbour and to prevent pollution. As I have said above, SACL comprehensively reports on its performance to Government.(10) Sydney Airport does not currently have a Master Plan, as defined by the Airports Act 1996. With the prospective sale of Sydney Airport and the complexity of a master planning process for the Airport, and given the range of competing industry and community interests, I have asked that a draft master plan be provided by 31 January 2003 by the new owners.30459(Question No. 2724)272430459Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr Laurie Ferguson8T4ReidALP00 asked the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, upon notice, on 21 June 2001:(1) Did he announce on 16 July 1999 that work would begin immediately on assessing the impact of the UK nuclear tests on the health of Australian participants; if so, how far has this study progressed and when will the results become available.(2) How many (a) Australian military personnel, (b) non-military Commonwealth personnel and (c) civilian (including indigenous) personnel are listed on the nominal roll compiled by the Department of Veterans' Affairs (DVA).(3) Did he state in his written answer to Parliament of 2 November 2000 that an independent scientific advisory committee would shortly be established by the Government; if so, (a) when was the committee established, (b) what are the terms of reference and (c) who are the members.(4) If the independent scientific advisory committee has not yet been established, what is the reason for the delay in doing so.(5) Has the Government checked official records to establish the accuracy of media reports regarding the proposed outline of Operation Lighthouse at Maralinga; if so, what do the records reveal about that matter.(6) Has the Government checked official records to establish the accuracy of media reports regarding Operation Hurricane at Monte Bello Islands in October 1952; if so, what do the records reveal about the matter. (7) In relation to the 25 Australian officers who were deliberately exposed to radiation at Maralinga in the so-called clothing trial, and Senator Minchin's answer to the Senate of 22 May, (a) for how many of the 14 deceased personnel does DVA have health records, (b) for how many of the 11 living personnel does DVA have health records, (c) what were the specific types of cancer affecting the 3 personnel known to have developed cancer and (d) what assistance is available to these personnel, and their next of kin, for physical or mental illnesses or injuries arising from their participation in this trial.30459Scott, Bruce, MPMr Bruce ScottYT4MaranoaNPMinister for Veterans' Affairs and Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) The development of the Nominal Roll and the associated mortality and cancer incidence study were announced in July 1999. The Department of Veterans' Affairs (DVA) commenced work on compiling the Roll shortly after the announcement. However, the Department required access to records of a previous study on atomic tests participants conducted by the then Department of Health in 1983. Access to these records raised a number of legal issues. Resolving these issues led to a lengthy delay between November 1999 and September 2000. Access was finally granted to the Department in October 2000. At that point, shortcomings in the previous records became apparent, necessitating extensive manual checking of original source records. The preliminary version of the Nominal Roll of Australian participants in the British Atomic Tests Program was completed at the end of June 2001. Completion of the Nominal Roll was essential before detailed planning for the cancer incidence and mortality study could commence. To ensure that there is an effective means of communication between the atomic tests participants and the team undertaking the study, a Consultative Forum has been established. The Consultative Forum is comprised of representatives from relevant government agencies as well as ex-service organisations, including those who represent the interests of atomic tests participants. It held its first meeting on 30 July 2001.The cancer incidence and mortality study will be overseen by an independent Scientific Advisory Committee comprised of individuals with demonstrated scientific standing. The Consultative Forum was consulted about the membership of the Scientific Advisory Committee and its members will be announced at the end of August 2001. The cancer incidence and mortality study is expected to commence as soon as the nominal roll of Australian participants in the British Atomic Tests program is finalised. The final version of the nominal roll is expected to be published by October 2001. Results of the study are expected to become available in the second half of 2002.(2) The preliminary version of the nominal roll of Australian participants in the British Atomic Tests program currently contains 16,716 names, categorised as follows:· Navy - 3268· Army - 1657· RAAF - 3201· Civilians (including 10 indigenous residents) - 8590.(3) and (4) Yes. However, due to the delay in the compilation of the nominal roll as outlined in (1), and the resultant delay in the commencement of the cancer incidence and mortality study, the Scientific Advisory Committee has not yet been appointed. As outlined in (1), the members of the Consultative Forum are to be consulted about the composition of the Scientific Advisory Committee. This issue was discussed at the recent inaugural meeting of the Consultative Forum and I expect to announce the membership of the Scientific Advisory Committee in late August 2001.(5) Due to the moratorium on all nuclear testing agreed to by the British, United States and Soviet Governments in October 1958, Operation Lighthouse did not take place. Details of planning for Operation Lighthouse have been on the public record as documents in the National Archive of Australia since 1986 when they were opened for public access.(6) In its investigation of the British Atomic Tests Program, the McClelland Royal Commission considered a range of issues concerning Operation Hurricane. The conclusions of the Royal Commission include reference to the fact that there were no breaches of health and safety regulations aboard Royal Australian Navy vessels which allowed personnel to be exposed to radiation beyond the limits set and that decontamination procedures were thoroughly carried out. The report of the Royal Commission has been on the public record since its publication.(7) (a) DVA has health records for 11 of the surviving personnel; (b) DVA has partial health records for 11 of the surviving personnel; (c) These records show that 5 of this group of 25 have developed cancer. The cancers noted in these records are 2 carcinomas of the lung, 1 carcinoma of the rectum, 1 malignant melanoma and 1 carcinoma of the prostate. (d) Any member of this group can seek compensation (i) under the Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation 1988 as administered by the Military Compensation and Rehabilitation Scheme; and (ii) if any member of this group has eligible war or defence service, as defined by the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986, they may be entitled to treatment benefits for certain conditions, including cancer, under that Act.30461(Question No. 2745)274530461Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr Laurie Ferguson8T4ReidALP00 asked the Minister for Forestry and Conservation, upon notice, on 21 June 2001:(1) Did the Regional Forest Agreement signed in May 1999 include a commitment from the Prime Minister that the Commonwealth would provide Forest Industry Structural Adjustment (FISAP) funding of $15 million to Western Australia.(2) Did he issue a media release on 11 August 2000 announcing that agreement had been reached with the State Government on guidelines for Industry Development Assistance Grants and that the funding applications under round one would close on 8 September 2000. (3) At the close of applications under round one, (a) how many applications were received and (b) what was the total amount of funding sought by applicants.(4) To date what amount of Commonwealth FISAP funding, if any, has been provided for (a) Industry Development Assistance Grants and (b) other FISAP elements in Western Australia.(5) Has his attention been drawn to the recent public comments by the honourable Member for Forrest criticising the Commonwealth's failure to deliver the money owing to the timber industry in the South-West; if so, what is his response.(6) Will he undertake to honour in full the Commonwealth's funding commitments to Western Australia; if so, what amount of funding will be provided in (a) 2001-02 and (b) 2002-03.30461Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TuckeySJ4O'ConnorLPMinister for Forestry and Conservation and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) The Western Australian Regional Forest Agreement committed funding towards a joint South-West Forest Industry Structural Adjustment Program. Under a Memorandum of Understanding signed with the Western Australian Government on 4 May 1999 the Commonwealth committed funding of $15 million to FISAP in Western Australia.(2) Yes(3) (a) 37 (b) Approximately $14.6 million, excluding those applications for which an amount was not stated.(4) (a) Nil (b) $118,800 for Rescheduling Assistance paid in 1996/97.(5) I am aware of the reported comments.(6) I have corresponded with the Honourable Clive Brown, Minister for State Development, regarding both Commonwealth and State Governments' commitments made in the Regional Forest Agreement (RFA), in the light of the State Government's decision to increase conservation reserves and reduce the supply of resource to industry. The State's decision is inconsistent with the agreed outcomes of the RFA. I have advised the Minister, the Commonwealth remains willing to assist the Western Australian native hardwood timber industry through a joint Commonwealth-State Industry Development Assistance program but cannot do so until the State Government determines how much resource it will make available to individual businesses in the industry. The timing of any funding to be provided for Industry Development Assistance is thus initially in the hands of the Western Australian Government and is then dependant upon decisions to be made by businesses about their willingness to invest further, given the significant uncertainties surrounding their long term future.30461(Question No. 2796)279630461Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources, upon notice, on 6 August 2001:In developing the Fuel Taxation Inquiry, which business, transport and motoring organisations did the Minister consult with after the announcement of the inquiry in March 2001, and which business and industry organisations did the Minister write to seeking comments on the terms of reference.30462Reith, Peter, MPMr ReithWI4FlindersLPMinister for Defence10—The Minister for Industry, Science and Resources has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: I wrote to the following business, transport and motoring organisations seeking comments on the terms of reference: · Caltex Australia Petroleum Ltd· Shell Australia Limited· BP Australia Limited· Mobil Oil Australia Pty Ltd· Esso Australia Ltd· Woodside Energy Ltd· Australian Institute of Petroleum· Australian Petroleum Production & Exploration Association Limited· Motor Trades Association of Australia· Business Council of Australia· Qantas Airways Limited· Ansett Australia· Australian Trucking Association· Australasian Railway Association Inc· Australian Liquefied Petroleum Gas Association· Australian Industry Greenhouse Network· Taxation Institute of Australia· Australian Automobile Association· National Farmers' Federation· Service Station Association· Minerals Council of AustraliaThe terms of reference were also made available to other organisations and individuals who contacted my Office and requested them.I received written correspondence regarding the terms of reference from the following business, transport and motoring organisations after the announcement of the Fuel Taxation Inquiry in March 2001:· Caltex Australia Petroleum Ltd· Shell Australia Limited· BP Australia Limited· Mobil Oil Australia Pty Ltd· Esso Australia Ltd· Woodside Energy Ltd· Australian Institute of Petroleum· Australian Petroleum Production & Exploration Association Limited· Motor Trades Association of Australia· Business Council of Australia· Qantas Airways Limited· Ansett Australia· Australian Trucking Association· Australasian Railway Association Inc· Australian Liquefied Petroleum Gas Association· Australian Industry Greenhouse Network· Taxation Institute of Australia· Australian Automobile Association· National Farmers' Federation· Service Station Association· Minerals Council of Australia · Aboriginal Co-ordinating Council· Australian Natural Gas Vehicle Council· The Australian Gas Association· Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries· Australian Livestock Transporters Association· Office of the Lord Mayor, Brisbane· The NSW Fishing Fleet· Refrigerated Warehouse & Transport Association of Australia Ltd· Biodiesel Association of Australia· Pricewaterhouse Coopers.30463(Question No. 2802)280230463Melham, Daryl, MPMr Melham4T4BanksALP00 asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 6 August 2001:Is he able to say which countries have (a) allowed or (b) ceased to allow, appeals to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council since his answer to question No.1634 (Hansard, 29 August 2000, page 19602).30463Williams, Daryl, MPMr Williams7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:The source of the following information is Whitaker's Almanack 2001.(a) The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council is primarily the final court of appeal for the United Kingdom dependent territories and those independent Commonwealth countries which have retained the avenue of appeal upon achieving independence as follows - Antigua and Barbuda, The Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Brunei, Dominica, Grenada, Jamaica, Kiribati, Mauritius, New Zealand, St Christopher and Nevis, St Lucia, St Vincent and the Grenadines, Trinidad and Tobago, and Tuvalu. The Committee also hears appeals from the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man.(b) Since the answer to the House of Representatives Question No.1634, no country has ceased to allow appeals to the Privy Council.30463(Question No. 2826)282630463Latham, Mark, MPMr LathamK26WerriwaALP00 asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 6 August 2001:Can he update his answer to question No. 1605 (Hansard, 29 June 2000, page 18813) and confirm whether Australia and New Zealand have signed the Joint UNESCO/Council of Europe Convention on the Recognition of Qualifications Concerning Higher Education in the European Region, 1996 (known as the Lisbon Convention).30463Downer, Alexander, MPMr Downer4G4MayoLPMinister for Foreign Affairs10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:The Convention is no longer called the Joint UNESCO/Council of Europe Convention on the Recognition of Studies, Diplomas and Degrees concerning Higher Education in the European Region. Australia signed what is now simply called the Convention on the Recognition of Studies, Diplomas and Degrees concerning Higher Education in the European Region on 19 September 2000. The New Zealand High Commission has informed us that New Zealand is not a signatory to the Convention.