2001-09-2539110REPS3135302001-09-25—————Mr SPEAKER (Mr Neil Andrew) took the chair at 2.00 p.m., and read prayers.Questions Without Notice313533135314:00:0031353Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Are you in a position to announce today the nature and scale of Australia's defence commitment to international antiterrorist operations, the objectives of Australia's defence commitment, the time scale of Australia's commitment, the resource implications and any domestic security changes necessary to deal with emerging threats posed by global terrorist networks?31353Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I thank the Leader of the Opposition for what is an important question. As I speak, we have not received any request from the United States. When a request is received—and I use the word `when' advisedly—we will naturally consider it. It will be considered in a positive light against the background of the statements I have previously made about the willingness of this country to assist the United States, because this challenge is a challenge to free peoples everywhere and it is not a challenge that should be borne by the United States alone. That is the view of this parliament, as enunciated in the resolution that was carried last Monday.The Leader of the Opposition will be aware from the time that he was in government that in circumstances such as this governments give consideration to a range of possibilities, so far as potential requests are concerned. That has obviously been what this government has done. We have had a number of discussions with the Chief of the Defence Force and our other service chiefs, and we are satisfied that this country will have a capacity, if requested, to make a positive and important contribution. But I repeat: no request has been received. I can indicate to the Leader of the Opposition that, consonant with my desire to see our cooperation with the Americans remain on a totally bipartisan basis, it will be my intention, when I receive a request and after it has been considered by the National Security Committee of cabinet, to ensure that the Leader of the Opposition is briefed on the intentions of the government. It is important that we remember that, if Australian forces are to go abroad, they will go abroad in the name of Australia; they will not go abroad in the name of any particular government. They will go abroad in the name of our entire country and I am sure they will have the goodwill and the prayers of the entire country.3135314:04:0031353Charles, Bob, MPMr CHARLESOT4La TrobeLP10—My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer advise the House of the government's fiscal policy settings? Is the Treasurer aware of any alternative budget plans?31353Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I thank the honourable member for his question. As the House now knows, the last five budgets before this government was elected accumulated $80 billion of deficits and additional debt. In 1995-96, the deficit was $10 billion, in 1994-95 it was $13 billion, in 1993-94 it was $17 billion, in 1992-93 it was $17 billion, and in 1991-92 it was $11 billion. After its election, this government determined to put the budget back into surplus, which it did over a two-year period. The final budget outcome for the last financial year, which will show four consecutive surpluses, will be released, I hope, this week. We have now been able to pay back $60 billion of the Labor Party's $80 billion run up during their last five years.I am asked whether I am aware of any alternative budget plans. I am aware of a number of contradictory statements but of no plans coming from the opposition. It is very hard to get a handle on where the opposition now stand in relation to economic management. One day they stand for bigger surpluses; the next day they stand for more spending. One day they stand for roll backwards; the next day they do not stand for roll backwards. Private health insurance was described as a complete and monumental failure, but they intend to keep it. Work for the Dole was described as a shoddy piece of public policy, but they intend to keep it. Non-government schools funding was described as wrong headed. The GST was described as inherently unfair, but they intend to keep it. The border protection legislation was bipartisan for four hours, then it was opposed for one week and now it is supported. On the air ticket levy, the opposition said, `We think it's a stupid idea, but we support it.' Yesterday, the Leader of the Opposition decided he would call a press conference to accuse the government of fiscal management which was irresponsible. `They have been quite extraordinary in the way they have allowed the budget to deteriorate,' he said. This is the finance minister who had two budgets—one was $10 billion in deficit and the other was $13 billion in deficit. `They have been quite extraordinary in the way they have allowed the budget to deteriorate,' he said, but he thought he would begin the press conference by calling for $200 million of additional spending. So he calls for $200 million of additional spending and finishes up by accusing the government of being financially irresponsible!One of the phrases that we have not heard used in the parliament for quite some time is `roll backwards'. The roll backwards policy seems to be dying a very slow and painful death. On the one hand, the GST is the worst thing that could possibly happen and has to be rolled backwards as far as possible, and, on the other hand, he has to spend more money. This is what he told the caucus today: ... Mr Beazley noted that the GST had weakened the economy considerably and this was being seen in a number of closures. What is emerging is the particular collapse around the country of significant companies like Ansett, One.Tel (and) Coles Myer.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPCT4Mr COSTELLO—Your spokesman is quoted on AAP as saying—PE4Beazley, Kim, MPCT4Mr COSTELLO—I suppose this is the Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital all over again, is it? The spokesman got it wrong again? The spokesman is quoted as saying:What is emerging is the particular collapse around the country of significant companies like Ansett, One.Tel (and) Coles Myer.Coles Myer has not collapsed. Coles Myer is not in danger of collapse, and it is utterly irresponsible, for political advantage or otherwise, for anybody to suggest otherwise. One of the most irresponsible things you could possibly do at a time like this is to stand up and suggest that Coles Myer is in danger of collapse. It is absolutely irresponsible for a spokesman to be doing that at meetings of journalists. It is something that should be withdrawn and apologised for immediately, because there are thousands of employees of Coles Myer who need the public to have confidence in relation to them.I thought it was only going to be a matter of time before the GST got blamed for Ansett and One.Tel. The GST is now responsible for One.Tel and Ansett. Apparently it has nothing to do with the directors of Air New Zealand; they have just been cleared. It has nothing to do with the management; they have just been cleared. It has nothing to do with Air New Zealand itself; they have just been cleared. It is complete political opportunism which now knows no bounds and draws no distinction in relation to Coles Myer. You ought to be ashamed of yourself.3135414:11:0031354Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Have you seen today's announcement by Coles Myer that 1,000 of its employees in Melbourne and Geelong are to lose their jobs? Do you recall the Chairman of Coles Myer, Stan Wallis, telling ABC radio:The GST caused a lot of dislocation and it has probably fallen on the retail industry more than any others.And, Prime Minister, do you recall him telling his shareholders just last month that the GST and its implementation have severely influenced consumer buying patterns and profitability? How can you claim Australian families are so much better off under your GST when so many are losing their jobs?5I4McMullan, Bob, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Does the Manager of Opposition Business believe that, in some unique way, he is excluded from the standing orders?31355Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—In answer to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, I am aware of a news release that came out today from Coles Myer. I assume that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has turned to the second page of the news release. In the event that he has not, can I just take the House through the relevant paragraph—and no doubt the deputy's question is based on this statement. It says: As a result the organisational structure of GM&A will operate with approximately 1000 fewer positions in its head office and support areas.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—That is job losses.ZD4Mr HOWARD—Yes, I am aware of that. It goes on to say:Importantly, our confidence in the future remains high with the expectation that Coles Myer new store openings in Victoria will create approximately the same amount of jobs in stores over the next year.Honourable members interjecting—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Prime Minister will wait while the House comes to order.ZD4Mr HOWARD—For the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to selectively refer to this matter in that blatant fashion goes beyond even his performance on other occasions in this House. Can I say that I will regret, as any member of this House will regret, any redundancy in any position in Australia, no matter what the circumstances, even though there will be compensating jobs created in other parts of the company in this case. I would remind those who sit opposite who seek to seize on this and try to make some cheap political capital out of it that the job creation record of this government since it came to office has been quite outstanding. The truth is that, based on the last set of figures that are available, we have generated something in the order of 892,000 additional jobs since we came to office. Only on the weekend, I read a briefing paper from my department that indicated that the level of full-time unemployment in Australia at the present time is, I think, at a 10-year low.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr Beazley—What?ZD4Mr HOWARD—I am sorry, long-term unemployment. Long-term unemployment is at a 10-year low. So not only do we have record levels of job creation—almost 900,000 jobs in a year—PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr Beazley—In a year?10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Prime Minister has the call and he will be heard in silence.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—He's misleading us.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I will take action if I am defied, as I have just been defied by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. The Prime Minister has the call.ZD4Mr HOWARD—Nine hundred thousand jobs since this government came to office. We have long-term unemployment at a 10-year low. We have, as the Treasurer pointed out, an economic record which has seen the repayment at the end of this financial year of close to $60 billion of the $96 billion of government debt that we inherited in March 1996.So, yes, I have seen the announcement about the redundancies in Coles Myer. Yes, I do regret that. I have also seen the prediction by Coles Myer that, as a result of new store openings, they expect an equivalent number of jobs to be created in stores over the next year. That is the statement that has been made. If the Deputy Leader of the Opposition seeks to come to this debate as a serious contributor, as distinct from just a cheap political point scorer, he will acknowledge the full context in which that statement was made.I join the Treasurer in condemning the Leader of the Opposition for talking down Coles Myer. The Leader of the Opposition, not content with talking down the Australian economy, has now trained his sights on individual Australian companies. He shakes his head. They must have another young mistake maker doing their party room briefings. They apparently did not learn from the Charles Gairdner experience. Either the Leader of the Opposition is talking Coles Myer down or they have another young mistake maker on trainer wheels giving the caucus briefing. It is all here in quotation marks in this news report today. It said:A caucus spokesman said Mr Beazley noted that the GST had weakened the economy ... and this was being seen in a number of closures.CT4Costello, Peter, MPMr Costello—Closures.ZD4Mr HOWARD—Closures—not job losses, not redundancies, but closures. Mr Beazley was then quoted as saying: What is emerging is the particular collapse around the country— Collapse and closure—not redundancy, but collapse and closure. That is basically what he is saying. I think it is irresponsible of the Leader of the Opposition, and I think it is irresponsible of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to deliberately and selectively quote from a press statement.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order.ZD4Mr HOWARD—I have finished.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Prime Minister has concluded his answer, and in any case I did not deem his answer at any stage to be other than relevant to the question he was asked.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—Can I just address the point of order?10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I have dealt with the point of order. DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—He didn't even mention—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I have dealt with the point of order. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. 3135614:20:0031356St Clair, Stuart, MPMr St CLAIR84BNew EnglandNP10—My question is addressed to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Transport and Regional Services. 4I4McLeay, Leo, MPMr Leo McLeay—He's glad you're taking the bullet.QK6Sercombe, Bob, MPMr Sercombe—How's the Windsor knot?10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—When the member for Maribyrnong and the Chief Opposition Whip have decided they can exercise the sort of courtesies that we should take for granted—9V5Pyne, Chris, MPMr Pyne—He'll be back.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—And the member for Sturt might care to join them in reflecting on his participation so that the member for New England can be heard. R36Albanese, Anthony, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Grayndler!84BMr St CLAIR—My question is addressed to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Transport and Regional Services. Would the minister advise the House of any new government initiatives—R36Albanese, Anthony, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Grayndler is warned! The member for New England will commence his question again. 84BMr St CLAIR—Thank you, Mr Speaker. My question is addressed to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Transport and Regional Services. Would the minister advise the House of any new government initiatives to assist Kendell Airlines to resume services? Is the minister aware of any alternative policies regarding Ansett group companies?31356Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPMinister for Transport and Regional Services10—I thank the honourable member for New England for his question. While the Leader of the Opposition has been floating all sorts of proposals which vary from one side of the day to the other as to what they might mean, and while the alternative transport minister of the nation has had absolutely nothing of any substance to say about the current serious situation in aviation, we have been working extremely hard with all parties to seek to restore services wherever we can. Last week we assisted Skywest in Western Australia with a $3½ million loan under our rapid recovery program for regional areas.Opposition members interjecting—4K4Mr ANDERSON—They laugh, but in Western Australia, as I think a lot of members have acknowledged, that program has got vital services back. It demonstrates again that the opposition is not interested in outcomes; it is interested in politics on this issue. Earlier today the government provided a similar loan to Kendell Airlines that will enable them to resume flights in South Australia. As from Thursday, Kendell will resume services from Adelaide to Port Lincoln, Olympic Dam, Whyalla, Broken Hill, Coober Pedy, Mount Gambier, Ceduna and Kingscote. Services from Melbourne to Burnie, Devonport and King Island—King Island having been a place very much in need of services because it is so heavily dependent upon them—will resume shortly as well. That is extremely welcome news. It reflects our absolute commitment to grappling with this problem on an hour by hour basis and to finding resolutions to the issues. This stands in contrast to the idea floated by the Leader of the Opposition yesterday: the rescue plan based on the idea that $2 billion of debt could simply be mystically floated away. As part of that, it is worth noting that journalists asked the Leader of the Opposition whether he was envisaging a new business entity. His answer was:That is correct, but it would have to be worked through with the administrator. All those other issues of debt—Two billion of them! He continued:and the rest of it would have to be worked through in their discussions and consultation.This is leadership from the opposition! So journalists then asked the Leader of the Opposition the obvious follow-up question: Doesn't a new entity mean that the Minister for Transport is right when he says that, unfortunately, the old Ansett is dead?Answer from the Leader of the Opposition:It would be a new Ansett in a sense, but it would also be the body which would employ the people who are associated with Ansett and resolve the administrator's problem.There is only one translation you can put on that: he is saying I am right. That is what he is saying. So, while he is out there with the union movement offering a false hope, he is in reality conceding that I am absolutely right. The Leader of the Opposition was then asked whether the new entity would need to be restructured to address issues such as the generosity of workers' packages. The journalist, interestingly, even asked, `What are we actually talking about?' which I think was a very good question, and the Leader of the Opposition answered:Obviously, all these issues would have to be worked through with the work force, wouldn't they—by the people who were the new owners of the operation.This is doubletalk posing as statesmanship. It is directionless and meaningless.There is another matter that I want to draw to the House's attention. There are a lot of hours, including by members of my department, going into working through every issue as it arises, including a lot of consultation with the administrator. As the administrator comes to us with proposals for re-establishing services, we are putting a lot of work into each part of those, and I think that is very important. I now hear that the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee is planning to hold tonight a hearing into the Ansett collapse. That, obviously, will be another exercise in political point scoring by the Labor Party.LS4Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin Ferguson—It's accountability.4K4Mr ANDERSON—They call it `accountability', but can I just make this point, because it is obvious they have not thought through the importance of how this might impact on what they say is their objective of trying to get Ansett employees back into jobs, of trying to refloat as much of the operation as might be possible: it has just been drawn to my attention that the administrator, having learned about that, has expressed his very deep concern indeed that this little exercise may severely prejudice our negotiations with key stakeholders and thereby lessen the likelihood of the Ansett group business continuing in existence. So I urge the ALP and that committee to look long and hard at the administrator's real concerns that, far from helping to resolve the situation—far from helping Ansett employees—this exercise may very well have exactly the opposite effect, and therefore they ought to reconsider their position on the matter.3135714:28:0031357Kernot, Cheryl, MPMs KERNOTXW4DicksonALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, have you seen the announcement by Daimaru that it will be closing its Victorian and Queensland stores, with another 1,000 jobs to go? Prime Minister, have you been advised by Daimaru, as I have today by their director of operations, that:... increasing competition and the introduction of the GST have not assisted with the company's efforts to turn the stores around.Prime Minister, how can you claim Australian families are so much better off under your GST, when so many are losing their jobs—70,000 at Ansett, 1,000 at Coles Myer and 1,000 at Daimaru? 31358Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—In answer to the member for Dickson, I have not sighted that communication. I am not saying that it has not been sent, but I have not sighted that communication. I have, however, sighted an interview between Michael Donovan, the state secretary of the Shop Distributive and Allied Employees Association, and John Fayne on Melbourne radio this morning. I think he was being pretty objective. He is the secretary of that union and I guess he votes Labor, but I am not absolutely certain. Not all shoppies vote Labor, but I think one or two of them do, and one or two vote elsewhere as well, I know.Opposition members interjecting—ET4Bevis, Arch, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Prime Minister has the call. The member for Brisbane has drawn his interjections to my attention for the third time. The member for Dickson has asked her question and the Prime Minister is responding to it.ZD4Mr HOWARD—Mr Donovan actually said, `No, it is not totally the GST.' He then went on to say, `Daimaru's problem has been that it has not been making money in Australia, so obviously the company has made a decision that it is not going to make money so it is going to close.' I think what the secretary of the union was doing was acknowledging that the level of competition in the retail industry was such that some companies had done better than others. Clearly, what has happened in the Australian retail industry over the last couple of years is that Woolworths has outcompeted all of the other major operators. One of the reasons why Coles Myer is not doing as well as it used to do is that Woolworths has done extraordinarily well. If the thesis being advanced by the member for Dickson and by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition were correct, presumably the same thing would be happening to Woolworths and to all retailers as is happening to Coles Myer. The reality is that, if you look at the retail sales figures over the last year, they have been very strong, despite all the predictions of doom and gloom from the opposition.ET4Bevis, Arch, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I warn the member for Brisbane!ZD4Mr HOWARD—Retail sales have been one of the elements of the Australian economy that has held up extremely well. I happen to have in front of me a news release from Woolworths, which says, `Woolworths announces a double-digit growth year. Sales profits and dividends rise double-digit. Sales up 10.1 per cent, earnings before interest up 13.7 per cent, average return on funds employed up 35 per cent, normal operating profit after tax up 17 per cent, earnings per share up 24.1 per cent, dividend per share up 17.4 per cent.' That is the performance, and that happened under the GST.Incidentally, the Labor Party, if they win the election, are going to hang on to the GST for dear life. If the Labor Party win the election, you can bet your bottom dollar that they will not be abolishing the GST. They will be clutching the GST to their collective bosom with great enthusiasm and great energy. Let me simply say to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and also to the member for Dickson that, if the GST were the ogre you argue it is, two things would occur: its impact on retail sales would be across all companies and, secondly, the Australian Labor Party would embrace a policy, if they win the election, of getting rid of it. The reality is that in the retail industry Coles Myer has not fared well in the face of very strong competition from Woolworths. For the reasons outlined by the shoppies, Daimaru has had great difficulty in making money in the whole time that it has been operating in Australia, and it has been operating in Australia now for a number of years.I also remind the House that Coles Myer is not closing down. Coles Myer is not in difficulty. Coles Myer is proposing to retrench 1,000 people in its head office, and it believes that it is going to replace that number of people through new store openings in other parts of Victoria. I say to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, who represents a seat in Melbourne, that, instead of trying to talk down the employment prospect of Victorians, instead of trying to spread doom and gloom, instead of trying to talk down a great Australian company that has had a great tradition of serving the people of Melbourne, he should be out there encouraging Coles Myer, he should be out there looking in a very positive way and he should abandon his doom and gloom talk. It failed in relation to the Australian economy, and it will fail in relation to Coles Myer. XW4Kernot, Cheryl, MPMs Kernot—Sixty-seven thousand full-time jobs.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I remind the member for Dickson that she is among those who, rightly, are most anxious to be heard in silence when at the dispatch box. I expect her to extend precisely the same courtesy to those who are at the dispatch box.3135914:36:0031359May, Margaret, MPMrs MAY83BMcPhersonLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Community Services. Would the minister outline to the House how Centrelink is helping workers affected by the Ansett collapse? Are there any special arrangements in place for affected employees?31359Anthony, Larry, MPMr ANTHONYXJ6RichmondNPMinister for Community Services10—I would like to thank the member for McPherson for her question. Indeed, as neighbours we share a concern for those Ansett employees who worked at Coolangatta airport. The reason she has asked this question is that, true to form, the opposition unfortunately has been spreading a lot of misinformation and, quite frankly, has been using scare tactics on those 16,000 employees. I would like to address this issue later on in my answer. What they need at the moment is support, and that is exactly what this government is offering them.Centrelink does have an important role to play, particularly in helping those Ansett workers. I would just like to commend and also to thank the staff of Centrelink for their tremendous effort in responding to this urgent situation over the last three weeks. Certainly the Centrelink call network has been answering many questions. We have also been holding over 80 seminars now, right across the country, to inform people of the options that are open and particularly, of course, provide information about the claim for income support. As at 20 September, around 1,300 Ansett employees have already attended these sessions. Since Friday, 14 September, Centrelink has been accepting intentions to claim. This means that former employees will be paid from the earliest date possible.We have been working with the ACTU and, of course, with the administrator to make this process as simple and as easy as possible for affected workers. Ansett employees applying for payments will not have to lodge a separation certificate to be eligible, by special arrangements with Centrelink. Obviously this saves considerable time, and what we are trying to do is to speed up the payments. To date, we have received over 3,500 claims. Another important point is that employees laid off because of the Ansett collapse who are not direct Ansett employees will be able to supply a separation certificate, as is the normal requirement.I have to say that this government has been bending over backwards to ensure that we assist the Ansett employees. Of course, what we have already done is the major announcement last week by the Prime Minister and by the relevant minister to ensure that 100 per cent of statutory entitlements are met as a backstop by this government. You never did it. You never did it when Compass went under. You never did it with Adsteam, Bond, Bell—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Minister, address your remarks through the chair.XJ6Mr ANTHONY—You never did it when Compass failed—Compass 1 or 2. You never did with Adsteam or Bell or Bond or Budget or Qintex or Hooker or any of the TV stations that went down in the halcyon days of the Labor Party during the eighties, and you certainly are not providing that support now. What we have been trying to do is provide a fair and equitable—LS4Ferguson, Martin, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The minister has the call.XJ6Mr ANTHONY—But, of course, what the Labor Party are doing— LS4Ferguson, Martin, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I warn the member for Batman!XJ6Mr ANTHONY—They are trying to use the Ansett employees as pawns in a political game to score their own points, which I think is quite regrettable, particularly in the situation where we see press releases being put out by the member for Lilley and also by the member for Dickson, knowing full well what the entitlements are that Centrelink can provide, but claiming that we are turning people away from Centrelink's office. That is absolutely incorrect. What this has shown is that this government and the Prime Minister 100 per cent—and John Anderson—have displayed impeccable leadership when it comes to trying to resolve this crisis that you never have; it is unlike the flip-flop attitude of the Australian Labor Party. The question you got to ask yourself is: can they govern themselves? Well, even in the federal seat of Richmond, the most important person, the head of the FEC of the Richmond Labor Party, has stood down and is running as an independent Labor Party person because she is fed up with the factional brawling and the incapacity of the Leader of the Opposition to govern. If you cannot govern your party—Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Minister, resume your seat.Distinguished Visitors3136010000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon members of a delegation from the parliament of Sweden, led by the Speaker of the Swedish parliament, the Hon. Birgitta Dahl. On behalf of all members of the chamber, I extend to our Swedish friends a very warm welcome.Honourable members—Hear, hear! Questions Without Notice313603136014:42:0031360Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Transport and Regional Services, and it follows an earlier answer. Minister, are you aware of reports that the deal with Qantas to lease Ansett aircraft has collapsed, dashing the hopes of thousands currently out of work? Will you now get behind efforts to get Ansett flying again?31360Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPMinister for Transport and Regional Services10—I thank the honourable member for his question. I can confirm to the House that it is my understanding that negotiations between Qantas and the administrator over attempts to build extra capacity based on the use of Ansett planes have come to an end. Beyond that, what I would want to say is this: we seek at all times—I want to make this plain—to ensure the best possible outcome from an unfortunate situation. The suggestion that we have not worked at every available angle, every possible opportunity, to seek to, firstly, keep it flying but, secondly, over and beyond that since then, to work with every possible alternative proposal that is put up to ensure that jobs are preserved, that opportunities are delivered upon, is just nonsense. We have.I just make the point that the administrator, as he has said publicly, cannot see a way clear to do what the Leader of the Opposition seems to believe is possible—in one moment; he changes his mind the next moment—and refloat Ansett in the form that it was in. But, quite plainly, he wants to maximise the use of the assets and of the potential in the marketplace that is there for the benefit of all, including Ansett employees. Any suggestion that we are anything other than fully committed to those outcomes is just ridiculous. I think, on reflection, it is relevant for me to table the letter from Andersen's in which, amongst other things, they confirm their own commitment to and their own work program towards, in the first instance, stabilising the Ansett business and, more recently, the analysis of a phased partial recommencement of operations.We are seeking to facilitate that happening in every way, while the Leader of the Opposition does nothing but play cheap politics with this. He failed to show any leadership at all when we challenged him last week on the issue of the rallies around the country. Do you think we might now ask him to show a modicum of leadership and respond to the administrator, who plainly has a concern that, far from helping Ansett and its employees, the inquiry proposed in the Senate will prejudice their chances of a decent outcome? Will he respond to that? Will he show some leadership for the first time? I table the letter. 3136114:45:0031361Draper, Trish, MPMrs DRAPER0L6MakinLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs. Will the minister advise the House what steps the government is taking to maintain the integrity of Australia's refugee and humanitarian program in the face of continued activities by people smugglers? Is the minister aware of other policies to deal with this insidious problem?31361Ruddock, 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 Makin for her question and acknowledge her interest in these matters over a long period. First, I very much regret having heard some comments and observations, with support, we are led to believe, from the opposition, about the way in which policy is conducted in Australia by this government. In relation to the approach that we take to these matters, I have heard some comments that have suggested that we are reintroducing the White Australia Policy and that it constitutes apartheid. When I hear comments of that sort, I am generous in saying that I think that they are misguided, but pejorative comments of that sort do those who offer them no credit and they indicate a very significant lack of understanding about the way in which Australia, over a long period of time, has assisted and aided refugees.Refugees who have come to Australia under resettlement programs that have been conducted over many years have come primarily from countries in Africa, the Middle East, the Balkans and Asia. They do not come from Europe, in the main, and they certainly do not come from North America. If you were going to constitute policies of that sort and describe them as the reintroduction of a White Australia Policy, nothing could be more misconceived. We have developed a range of measures to ensure that our refugee and humanitarian program continues to operate and to provide resettlement opportunities for people who are in desperate need of resettlement. I make the point very strongly that with 23½ million refugees in the world and with a little over 100,000 resettlement places available, 100,000 places into 23½ million do not go. There have to be some choices, and those choices are not made by identifying people who have the money to travel and are free enough to travel and to engage people smugglers.83MPlibersek, Tanya, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Order! The member for Sydney.0J4Mr RUDDOCK—The choices are made by seeking out those who cannot stay where they are, who are not in a position of safety and security, who cannot return home and who need to be assisted.83MPlibersek, Tanya, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Order! The member for Sydney.0J4Mr RUDDOCK—I tabled last week a paper which I hope honourable members have read, because it outlined very fully the range of measures that we have put into place to deal with these issues. I have been engaged over the last three or so years in trying to get a focus of the international community on what has been happening in Pakistan and Iran. After 20 or so years, a lot of countries were turning their backs on what had happened there, resources were being withdrawn, the UNHCR's budget was contracting, and there were inadequate resources to deal with the very significant problems and to get people back, if that was possible, into situations of safety and security. That approach is one that we have continued to address and have enhanced by the measures that we have announced: we would fund the UNHCR to bring governments together to discuss and find solutions to what has been happening in that part of the world; an extra $4 million to deal with the registration of people, for whom the UNHCR does not have the resources at the moment, in Pakistan; and an extra $10 million to focus on what has been happening in that part of the world, through NGOs and the UNHCR. That was an effective doubling of the support that Australia has been giving to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.We also have sought to deal with pull factors, and pull factors are involved in the legislation that is presently before the Senate. I do not wish to go into the package of measures in any detail, save to say that they are about strengthening the integrity of our border protection arrangements and ensuring that refugee determination procedures here in Australia are equitable; that is, equitable with those people who are languishing abroad— let me make that very clear—not in terms of giving people who are not refugees migration outcomes but in terms of ensuring that people who are making claims in Australia are making claims on the same basis as they would if they were in Indonesia, Pakistan or Malaysia. That is not the situation that obtains at the moment. As I read some of the comments about what we are doing in another place, the focus on the issue of judicial review does not surprise me, but it is a focus by some who are more worried about their income stream than about humanitarian issues when they seek to maintain that sort of system in place, which is ripping out hundreds of millions of dollars here and in other places where people want to test the limits of refugee determination in places where it is comfortable enough to do so. 83MPlibersek, Tanya, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I warn the member for Sydney.0J4Mr RUDDOCK—I am aware that the measures that we have announced have had the support of the opposition, and I welcome that support. I welcome it on the basis that it is good policy. I would be very regretful if, as has been suggested in other places, the reason the opposition came to a view that these bills should be supported was because they wanted to get off the hook of what they might perceive to be a political problem. I would hope that it is because, as the Leader of the Opposition has said, it is good policy. But I very much regret it when I read some statements, one by the shadow minister which says that if Labor was elected it would implement its own plan if it won office, and I am concerned when I read Senator McKiernan in another place saying:I give notice now that I shall do whatever I possibly can to get this changed ... when Labor win office at the forthcoming election. Or when I hear Senator Schacht saying about the bills, `It will not work in a number of ways,' and then going on to say on Adelaide radio this morning, `When we get back into government, we will review any number of areas and make adjustments accordingly.' If this is good policy, support it because it is right and take the credit because it is right, but don't have this idea that you can come in here and say that it is good policy and then have some of your backbenchers and some of your frontbenchers walking away from the commitments.3136214:53:0031362Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister and follows the questions that were directed towards the Deputy Prime Minister. Prime Minister, do you recall strongly advocating a deed of arrangement during the administration of your brother's company, National Textiles, because, as you said at the time:It is widely understood, quite separate and apart from the circumstances of this particular case, that in these situations deeds of arrangement speedily concluded will often produce a better outcome ... than if the company goes into liquidation. Prime Minister, why won't you apply this principle now to Ansett? Why were you willing to work so hard to stop your brother's company going into liquidation when you will not lift a finger to stop Ansett being liquidated and to save 70,000 jobs?31362Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I will take a risk and accept that what the Leader of the Opposition has said I said at that particular time is accurate. I do remember a debate about a deed of arrangement. As I recall it, it was not in the context of an injection of resources into getting the company going again; it was not in that context at all. My recollection—I will check this, and I may be wrong, because I do not have the file with me—is that the deed of arrangement issue was raised by my critics at the time with the allegation that in some way, by entering into a deed of arrangement, some wider examination of the affairs of the company was prevented. I might add as a rider that wider examination of the affairs of that company was not avoided. In fact, an examination was carried out by ASIC, and that examination found— PE4Beazley, Kim, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Order! The Leader of the Opposition!ZD4Mr HOWARD—My memory is of that; that it was in the context of criticism that, by having a deed of arrangement, you avoided the more searching examination by a liquidator. The answer was that it was in the interests of the creditors of the company that there be a deed of arrangement, not to avoid any kind of searching examination. In fact—PE4Beazley, Kim, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Order! The Leader of the Opposition!ZD4Mr HOWARD—I remind the interjecting Leader of the Opposition that there was an investigation carried out, I think by ASIC, and that investigation gave a clean bill of health to the then chairman of the company.PE4Beazley, Kim, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Order! The Leader of the Opposition expects that I will at least maintain order in the House while he is asking questions. He also knows that he is obliged to listen to answers and, if he believes that he has been misrepresented, there are other facilities of the House to allow him to address that—facilities that have never been denied him. Has the Prime Minister concluded his answer?ZD4Mr HOWARD—Yes, I have.3136314:57:0031363McArthur, Stewart, MPMr McARTHURVH4CorangamiteLP10—My question is to the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. Will the minister inform the House what the government is doing to protect the right of freedom of association? Minister, what has the government done to remove the union thuggery and intimidation from Australian workplaces and are you aware of any alternative policies in this area?WU5O'Connor, Gavan, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Order! The member for Corio has been nothing but a persistent interjector ever since the question was asked. I call the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business.R36Albanese, Anthony, MPMr Albanese—You're scaring the children, Tony.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Order! The member for Grayndler was warned some time ago. He has persistently interjected since, and he will now excuse himself from the House under the provisions of standing order 304A.The member for Grayndler then left the chamber.31363Abbott, Tony, MPMr ABBOTTEZ5WarringahLPMinister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business10—I thank the member for Corangamite for his question. I am aware of examples of union intimidation and thuggery; in particular a smash-and-grab raid mounted on two Victorian businesses and led by none other than the Victorian Secretary of the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union, Craig Johnston. This is the bloke who reckons that the way to have a conversation with business is to smash down the front door with a crowbar. This is the bloke who controls more than 10 per cent of the votes of the Victorian state conference of the Australian Labor Party—whose union has given $680,000 to members opposite and whose political allies are now trying to nobble a police investigation into these offences. Let the Australian people know that the Leader of the Opposition and members opposite want to give more power to people like Craig Johnston.The latest development is that two senior Victorian union officials have lost their jobs because they refused to pay a compulsory levy to meet Craig Johnston's legal fees. This is but a foretaste of what would happen in Australia should the Leader of the Opposition ever become Prime Minister. It is Labor's policy to allow unions to impose a $500 a year levy on non-union members. This means that up to six million Australians would face a $500 a year union tax to create the greatest political slush fund of all time.ET4Bevis, Arch, MPMr Bevis—That's a lie, Tony.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Some time ago in question time I warned the member for Brisbane. He has persistently interjected in spite of that fact. He will excuse himself from the House under standing order 304A.The member for Brisbane then left the chamber.EZ5Mr ABBOTT—In Saturday's Sydney Morning Herald, the Leader of the Opposition said:If you take a real hard stance on a real hard issue politically, you are likely to get flayed.What would the Leader of the Opposition know about anything like that? Mr Flip Flop has never taken a hard stance on anything.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Minister!EZ5Mr ABBOTT—The Leader of the Opposition now has the chance to show whether his jawbone is connected to his backbone.QI4Price, Roger, MPMr Price—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Standing order 80 is about referring to members by their correct title.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Chifley may have noted that I did interrupt the minister at that point.EZ5Mr ABBOTT—He needs to say exactly whether he supports Craig Johnston.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Has the minister concluded his answer?EZ5Mr ABBOTT—The Leader of the Opposition has a chance in this House to say exactly where he stands. Does he support Craig Johnston, or does he support the unionists who have lost their jobs? Does he support the union tax, or does he support freedom of association?Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The minister has the call. As should be self-evident, I do not tolerate the language I heard earlier. I will interrupt him if he is acting in an unparliamentary way. I need no assistance from those on my left.EZ5Mr ABBOTT—The Leader of the Opposition has an opportunity to demonstrate to the Australian people whether he will stand up for Australia or whether he will stand up only for the interests of the union movement. The Australian people want to know exactly where the Leader of the Opposition stands. They will be weighing carefully his behaviour over the next few weeks, because they have come to the conclusion that, if he is not allowed to govern his own party, he should never be allowed to govern the country.3136415:06:0031364Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, do you stand by your claim that the GST would create more jobs? If so, why have 76,400 full-time jobs disappeared in the last five months and 87,700 since the GST was introduced? Isn't this before the impact of the Ansett collapse, Coles Myer labour shedding, Daimaru's close-down and all of their downstream impacts?Government members interjecting—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will continue the question from the point at which he was so rudely interrupted.PE4Mr BEAZLEY—Prime Minister, how can you claim Australian families are so much better off under your GST when so many are losing their jobs?31364Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—In thanking the Leader of the Opposition for his question, I take issue with the central claim—that is, that there has been a decline in the number of jobs. The truth is—DT4Crean, Simon, MPZD4Mr HOWARD—The measurement of a part-time job, according to my understanding—DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—Full-time!10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is warned!Government members interjecting—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I would remind members on my right that they are perfectly at liberty to discuss these matters with me in my office. The Prime Minister has the call.ZD4Mr HOWARD—The question was posited on a decline in full-time jobs. The difference between a part-time job and a full-time job under the current classification is that a part-time job is under 35 hours a week—5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMullan—And above one.ZD4Mr HOWARD—Above one and under 35.8I4Martin, Stephen, MPZD4Mr HOWARD—By definition, it would have to be above one. The reality is that you cannot look at just full-time jobs. Given the character of the Australian labour market and the far greater level of female participation in the labour market, in order to get the overall job structure you cannot look at just full-time jobs. The Leader of the Opposition conveniently does that to try to score a point. I would say to the Leader of the Opposition that, if you are honest and objective about this issue, you would look at both full-time and part-time jobs, just as you look at short-term and long-term unemployment. The undeniable truth is that the unemployment rate in Australia is now below seven per cent. It was at 8½ per cent when we came to office. It had averaged 8.7 per cent in the time that the Labor Party were in government. We have generated almost 900,000 new jobs, based on the most recent employment data. In those circumstances, there is no credibility in the claim being made by the Leader of the Opposition that the GST has cost jobs in this country.There was a downturn in the December quarter of last year. The government responded very rapidly and very effectively to that in relation to the housing industry. The doubling of the home savings grants for new homes has led to a spectacular resurgence. We do not hear very much about this from the other side—it is rather uncomfortable— but it has led to a spectacular resurgence in the housing industry and many jobs have been added in that sector.I have to say to the Leader of the Opposition that he has now had 5½ years to carve out an alternative vision for the future of this country. All he has done in that 5½ years, and particularly since the introduction of the GST, is to say his prayers every night in the vain hope that the economy would fall over as a result of the introduction of the GST. That has not happened, and he is now paying the price for putting all of his political eggs in the basket of total negativity.3136515:10:0031365Prosser, Geoff, MPMr PROSSERRI4ForrestLP10—My question is to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Can the minister advise the House of any threats to the payment of school funding entitlements?31365Kemp, 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 Forrest for his question. I am aware of threats to the payment of school funding entitlements. Those threats come from the Australian Labor Party, which is opposing the granting of money to the government which would enable payment of their legal entitlements to 54 schools, including Catholic parish schools, a Jewish day school, low fee Christian schools, Montessori and Steiner schools and the poorest non-government school in the country, the Nyikina Mangala community school in the Kimberley. All these schools have had their legal funding entitlements put at threat because of the opposition of the Labor Party to the payment of establishment grants to these schools.The Leader of the Opposition has a very inconsistent statement on the record in relation to the Labor Party's current position. On 6 August he made a personal explanation to this House. He said:... the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs has said ... that I am threatening the funds to Catholic schools and to low income private schools. We are not; we support the grants that go to those schools.He says, `We support grants to those schools,' but they oppose the legislation that will fund those grants. On the one hand he supports the grants and on the other hand he opposes the funding of those grants. On the flip side he supports the grants and on the flop side he opposes the grants. Under pressure from the extremist union leaders, he is forced to compromise. So on the one hand he takes a publicly stated position and on the other hand does something entirely different. The Leader of the Opposition flip flops and the Nyikina Mangala community school—the poorest non-government school in the country—will miss out on their estimated October payment of $4,500. The Leader of the Opposition flip flops and the Jubilee Catholic Primary School will not receive their estimated October payment of $26,000. The budget of the Murray Bridge Christian College is thrown into disarray because they will not get their October payment unless the Leader of the Opposition stands up to the unions. The problem is that the Leader of the Opposition has never stood for anything. He will say anything for the moment to try to gain a bit of credit or make a point, but when there is a bit of pressure imposed that position is abandoned. The unions push him around. They push him around like a battleship in a bathtub: they push him to this end and they push him to that end, and there is a compromise all the way. It is no wonder he is beginning to take on a bit of water. The Leader of the Opposition is a battleship in a bathtub. That is all he is to these lobby groups behind him, pushing him from one end to the other. He stands for nothing and the Australian people are finding that out.The hypocrisy of the opposition's position on these establishment grants is extraordinary. The Leader of the Opposition says that he opposes funding to rich schools but, when you look at the reality, you see that he is opposing funding to some of the poorest schools in Australia and he is saying that these schools are getting their funding at the expense of government schools. Last week, Archbishop Pell, the Catholic Archbishop of Sydney, said that the Catholic families `would not appreciate any suggestion that they might be taking money from their State school neighbours'. Yet that is precisely the suggestion that the Leader of the Opposition is making. So we have a Leader of the Opposition who stands for nothing, who flip flops from one side to the other, and that is becoming very obvious to the Australian people.3136615:15:0031366Short, Leonie, MPMs SHORT9V8RyanALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, have you seen reports that airline passengers are experiencing a significant increase in the cost of flying, following the collapse of Ansett? Are you aware that, at the beginning of September, the cost of a Qantas one-way air fare from Brisbane to Adelaide, purchased on the Internet, was $121 and that today that same fare costs $626? Are you also aware that a one-way air fare from Brisbane to Canberra that cost $154 at the beginning of September today costs $407? Prime Minister, doesn't this show why we need to get Ansett into the air again: to get Australians flying, the tourism industry moving and to save 70,000 jobs?31366Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I say in response to the member for Ryan that, as a result of developments in the Australian aviation industry, and particularly flowing from the grounding of Ansett, there has been an increase in some of the airline prices. I accept that; she is absolutely right in saying that. The member for Ryan asked me whether it automatically followed that getting Ansett operating again was the solution to the problem. I would have to say to the member for Ryan that that might superficially seem to be the answer, but the reality is that one of the many reasons that Ansett got into difficulties was that it could not handle some of the discounting of airline charges that went on. The reality is that some of the discounting that went on—5T4Brereton, Laurie, MPMr Brereton—They were killed by competition!ZD4Mr HOWARD—The fact of the matter is that, in the long run, when you have a very strong price war, the strongest competitor is always the one that is able to withstand the discounting, and the strongest competitor was Qantas. I would say to the member for Ryan that we all like cheap air fares and that the way you have cheap air fares is to have as many competitors as possible, but you only have competitors if they can be sustained commercially. It is just unrealistic to imagine that you can build a competitive airline industry on the basis of government subsidies. You might imagine that, in the short run, some kind of government surveillance or involvement is beneficial. I have to say that I do not. I think that the experience of competition policy in this country has been that, where you have seen significant reductions in consumer prices and they have been sustained over a long period of time—XW4Kernot, Cheryl, MPMs Kernot—Like milk.ZD4Mr HOWARD—No, actually I have in mind interest rates and telephone charges, which are two very spectacular examples of how competition has been beneficial. Ansett got into financial difficulties for a whole host of reasons: bad management, the behaviour of the board of Air New Zealand, some very uncompetitive industrial relations arrangements—and I notice that the member for Ryan nods her head. The reality is that, if some of the arrangements in the industrial relations area that were made in the old Ansett era had not been made, I do not believe that airline would have got into the difficulty that it did over the last few years. If there is to be any chance of a slimmed down Ansett reviving for a sustained period of time— LS4Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin Ferguson—Rubbish!ZD4Mr HOWARD—The member for Batman says, `Rubbish'. If the member for Batman really cares about the long-term interests of Ansett workers, he will not pretend to them that they can return, without any amendment, to the old industrial relations structure, because that is completely unrealistic. People who hold out the hope of being able to do that have no regard at all to the interests of the Ansett workers. One of the reasons why Qantas survived and Ansett did not was that Qantas had a more realistic industrial relations system. That is one of the reasons why it survived. So I would say to the member for Ryan, who I know asked this question very sincerely: yes, there has been an increase in air fares; I accept that. That is self-evident.YU5Tanner, Lindsay, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Melbourne is warned!ZD4Mr HOWARD—The only way in the long term that you can return to a situation of more price competition in relation to airline tickets is to have commercially sustainable competitors, and you do not have commercially sustainable competitors by the government pumping $200 million into one of them.3136715:21:0031367Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLEKV5HinklerNP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Would the minister update the House on how the Howard government's 30 per cent private health insurance rebate is continuing to restore balance to Australia's health care system. Is the minister aware of the significance of today's date for the future of the coalition's rebate?31367Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4CaseyLPMinister for Health and Aged Care10—I thank the honourable member for Hinkler for his question. One year ago today, I was at Homebush Bay with my family, cheering Cathy Freeman. But Cathy Freeman was not the only one running fast that day. The Leader of the Opposition was sprinting as well. He scurried up to Ballarat—XW4Kernot, Cheryl, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I warn the member for Dickson!8E4Dr WOOLDRIDGE—and, under cover of the biggest sporting event in this country's history and of one of the biggest events in the world last year, he announced that the opposition was going to keep the government's 30 per cent rebate, thereby leaving the member for Jagajaga in the starting blocks. For two years, Labor had railed against the 30 per cent rebate. We had 32 media releases in 18 months, including such releases as `Thirty per cent rebate a dismal failure' in May 1999, `Health rebate attracts little new demand' in February 1999, `Costly rebate will hit most Australians' in December 1998, and `Health insurance bill $1.7 billion down the drain' in December 1998. Not only that, the member for Jagajaga described it in parliament as the worst example of public policy ever seen in this parliament; and the Leader of the Opposition, while not exactly enthusiastic, said—just three days before his backflip in Ballarat—`You know, I've never seen so many people sold a pup as have been sold this private health insurance scam.' So you can imagine how surprised I was 12 months ago when I saw the Leader of the Opposition do his doorstop and announce that he had changed his mind. I can also imagine the look on the face of the member for Jagajaga.Twelve months later, wherever the Leader of the Opposition goes, he talks about Labor's 80 policies. They are all up on the web for anybody to see.84HZahra, Christian, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I warn the member for McMillan!8E4Dr WOOLDRIDGE—I thought that, given this was the 12-month anniversary, I should look on the web and see if I could find anything about private health insurance among Labor's 80 policies. All I could find was a press release from November last year which said, `Wooldridge scaremongering on health insurance'. It is interesting that Labor should choose to quote me far more often than the opposition spokesperson on health in the only thing on their web site on private health insurance. The fact is that during the recent Aston by-election the Labor Party candidate in Aston refused to sign a pledge saying that he would work to not make any changes to the 30 per cent rebate. The Leader of the Opposition has consistently failed to rule out removing the rebate from ancillaries, grandfathering the rebate, leaving it without high front-end deductibles, making ineligible those products with exclusions, or paying the rebate only at base rate premiums. He has wriggled; he has used weasel words consistently over the last 12 months. He has refused to rule these out, and he will be condemned for it at the election. 3136815:25:0031368Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Minister, do you recall the Prime Minister yesterday rejecting your department's proposal for a new Commonwealth dental program, saying that it was the responsibility of the states? Do you now also reject your own department's conclusion that the funding for care of the elderly following hospitalisation is inadequate? Do you reject your department's proposals for more step-down care and rehabilitation, more community care packages, supporting palliative care in the community, and additional targeted capital in regional aged care homes? Minister, isn't your refusal to do anything about this issue just part of the government's strategy to pass the buck to the states and destroy Medicare?31368Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4CaseyLPMinister for Health and Aged Care10—I can see the Leader of the Opposition is getting excited. I understand why he is getting excited: for the first time in 5½ years, he has actually got a health policy in his hand. Unfortunately, it has come from the government, not from the opposition. PG6Macklin, Jenny, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Jagajaga!8E4Dr WOOLDRIDGE—In July 1999, the member for Jagajaga, addressing the Australian Nurses Federation, made commitments to have policies in these areas within nine months—that is, March 2000: `Develop a publicly funded coordinated care program to supplement Medicare for the elderly and chronically ill'. We have not seen that. `Overcome the major inequities in our health system with programs targeted at Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health'. We have not seen it. `Improve access to health in rural and remote Australia'. That has never been mentioned. `Tackle the special needs of mental health'. Nothing whatsoever. `Focus on health promotion and early intervention'. Vanished. `Control the rising cost of medicine by ensuring technology is used effectively and appropriately.' PG6Macklin, Jenny, MPMs Macklin—You know about that with MRI!10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I warn the member for Jagajaga!8E4Dr WOOLDRIDGE—The opposition had nothing to say on that whatsoever. She said, `These are all difficult issues'—they are very difficult for the opposition—`and they need to be addressed. Over the next nine months, we will be going through an intensive process to develop policies for the next election.' The only policies that we have seen are policies that have come out of a draft document, an internal working document from the Department of Health and Aged Care. I will give the Leader of the Opposition a bit of advice: you would not want to rely on the figures here. Because it is an internal working document it did not go to other departments. The figures are not correct. It was a think piece; it was a wish list. In essence, if you read it all, what you will see is a health care system that delivers the second longest healthy life expectancy of any country in the world after Japan. You will see a health care system that immunises its kids, rather having its kids die of measles, which was the legacy of Labor's public health policy. You will see a health care system that has delivered the lowest smoking rate in the Western world, having been stuck at 24 per cent after a decade of inactivity under Labor. You will see a vigorous and vibrant private health care system, a public hospital system with record increases in funding— UU5Horne, Bob, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Paterson is warned!8E4Dr WOOLDRIDGE—You will see doctors getting back into rural Australia after 30 years of decline. Basically, Mr Speaker, you will see a very successful health care system—the envy of other countries in the world. Honestly, if the best the opposition can do is get excited about a draft wish list from my department, pity help them.ZD4Howard, John, MPMr Howard—Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.Personal Explanations3136915:29:0031369Murphy, John, MPMr MURPHY83DLoweALP00—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Does the member for Lowe claim to have been misrepresented?83DMurphy, John, MPMr MURPHY—I certainly do.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Lowe may proceed.83DMurphy, John, MPMr MURPHY—Mr Speaker, you will doubtlessly recall that when you arrived in the chamber, right on cue and shortly before the adjournment debate last night, that the member for Cook was concluding his remarks on the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 6) 2001. I had been the previous speaker during the debate. At the end of that debate, I called a point of order.Honourable members interjecting—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I am listening to the member for Lowe and getting no assistance from the chamber.83DMurphy, John, MPMr MURPHY—You indicated to me that you would accommodate me today, and I seek your accommodation.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I have already granted accommodation to the member for Lowe and I ask him to come to the point on which he was misrepresented.83DMurphy, John, MPMr MURPHY—At the conclusion of his remarks on that bill, the member for Cook said:It is a great pity that the member for Lowe did not consider the concerns of the members of his electorate. My electorate is very concerned about tax avoidance in this country and I spoke about that.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Lowe has indicated where he was misrepresented and will resume his seat.15:30:0031369Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALPLeader of the Opposition00—I wish to make a personal explanation. I claim to have been misrepresented.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition claims to have been misrepresented, as he has indicated. He may proceed.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—I was misrepresented by the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs. He suggested that I had said at some point of time, to the great alarm of the Archbishop of Sydney, that Catholic schools were getting resources at the expense of government schools. I never said any such thing at any point of time. There are no Catholic category 1 schools—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition has indicated where he was misrepresented and will resume his seat.Documents3136915:31:0031369Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPLeader of the House10—Papers are tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable members earlier today. 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:Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission—Aboriginals Benefit Account—Annual Report 2000-2001—Section 64B of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976. (20 September 2001/20 September 2001)Commonwealth Grants Commission—Commonwealth Grants Commission-Report on Indigenous Funding 2001.Commonwealth Grants Commission—Commonwealth Grants Commission-Report on Indigenous Funding 2001—Supporting Material. Commonwealth Grants Commission—Commonwealth Grants Commission-Report on Indigenous Funding 2001—Consultants' Reports.Debate (on motion by Mr McMullan) adjourned.Business3137015:32:0031370Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPLeader of the House10—Mr Speaker, if I may have your indulgence for a moment to say something about the sitting arrangements.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Indulgence is granted.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—Thank you, Mr Speaker. I will be brief. I advise members, as I have advised the Manager of Opposition Business, that we are uncertain about—7T4Crosio, Janice, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Prospect is warned! The Leader of the House has the call. There are facilities available, as everyone is aware; they do not involve simply offering advice from a seated position.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—We are uncertain about the sitting arrangements in the latter part of the week. The reason we are uncertain is that we do not have any guarantees about the Senate dealing with the important legislation currently before it. Obviously, the government does not have the numbers in the Senate to put in place a guillotine motion, which is what would normally happen in the House of Representatives. I am conscious of the fact that, if we sit into Thursday night, it will be very difficult for people to get home on Friday, let alone for them to get home on Saturday. We will obviously look at what arrangements can be made through the Royal Australian Air Force. The government does have a legislative program and it is important that that program—RH4Kerr, Duncan, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I warn the member for Denison!WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—I will leave the interjections to one side. I am attempting to be helpful to the House. It is in the hands of the Senate to finish in a timely way. It is not in the hands of the government; it is in the hands of those who form a majority in the Senate. If they cannot organise themselves to have a guillotine to sensibly deal with legislation which we have dealt with in the lower house, that is a matter for them.Opposition members interjecting—WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—This just a statement of fact. People are entitled to know the situation. That is the situation. As events unfold, it will be my endeavour to keep people properly informed, whatever the interjections.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I think it would be helpful if I were to remind a number of members that it would be useful for them to consult the member for Kingston if they have any reason to question the resolve of the chair.15:35:0031370McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN5I4FraserALPManager of Opposition Business00—I seek your indulgence to comment briefly on the same matter.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Manager of Opposition Business may proceed.5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN—Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Leader of the House for his call to advise me of the matters of which he has essentially advised the House and of which I advised my colleagues during the caucus meeting this morning. It is true that it is very difficult to organise the business of the Senate compared with that of the House. I remember endeavouring to do so and never getting the cooperation of the Liberal Party on any occasion, so I understand the problem that they have. I also want to draw the attention of the House and the Leader of the House to the fact that if only the government would stop spending so much time trying to pass a bill to get money for its own political operations, it would be able to expedite the proceedings of the Senate.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I remind the Manager of Opposition Business that he is speaking on indulgence.83DMurphy, John, MPMr Murphy—Mr Speaker, through you, could I ask the manager of government business how many bills are currently before the Senate?10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Lowe will find other facilities by which to find the answer to that question.Matters of Public Importance313713137110000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I have received a letter from the Leader of the Opposition proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:The failure of the Government to adequately protect the jobs of Australian workers and to provide a secure future for all Australians.I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—15:37:0031371Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALPLeader of the Opposition00—The policy of the Labor Party at the next election will revolve around the concept of a secure future for all Australians. The essential underpinning of that concept is security abroad and security domestically. Yesterday, we introduced into this parliament a piece of legislation that dealt with both those issues in part. In terms of security abroad, it dealt with the creation of a coastguard. What we are seeing now across the northern coasts of Australia, the approaches to the Australian coastline, is an expenditure of naval resources that cannot be sustained, is not sensible and is placing strains on the defence forces at a time when they need to be considered for other activities. What is required is something which is affordable and capable of operating for 52 weeks a year. That is what ought to be put in place: a coastguard. We have argued for it for two years and we will implement it. That is part of security abroad. Of course, there is much more to it than that.There is also security at home, and what is clear now, probably to the surprise of many commentators, is that, central to security at home, is the issue of jobs—job security, workers' entitlements associated with jobs and job creation. I guess if you have been looking at the growth rates that this government inherited, you would have come to the view that this would not be a problem that any government coming into office in 1996 would confront. It would not be an issue for them. Yet we have found that, whilst the rest of the world has been growing at quite satisfactory rates until this point, and whilst we had been growing at a satisfactory rate until the point of time at which this government took office, the growth rates of this nation have fallen apart over the course of the last year. We are now approaching a period of great uncertainty internationally which ultimately must have an impact on Australia. There will be other issues related to security at home, as well as the issue of jobs. There will be pressure on families from the impact on their lives and lifestyles of a goods and services tax; pressure on the elderly from those same sources, as well as concern over their capacity to access decent aged care; pressure on families as concern develops amongst many Australians that the public education system is underfunded and needs better support; and pressure on families because of the cost of a university education and their capacity to access it, particularly in regional Australia. A range of issues has caused many Australians a sense of insecurity that it is the job of government to address. So, when we put forward the proposition of a secure future for all Australians, based on security at home and security abroad, that is the way we understand that.If you want a symbol of how this government regard the issues of employment—and I will go to this symbol before I go to the actual statistics—it is in the way they have handled this crisis at Ansett. The indifference that they have shown to the requirement to keep that airline operating has been extraordinary, as has their inability to roll up their sleeves and sit down and work their way through to a conclusion which produces that. When we were criticising the government's handling of the National Textiles issues about a year and a half to two years ago, the Prime Minister was in this chamber arguing that liquidation of that enterprise was the worst possible outcome for workers, creditors and everybody else. He argued it then because it was in his interest to argue it. Now it is irrelevant. Obviously, liquidation ultimately of Ansett is not in the interests of the workers, not in the interests of the tourism industry and not in the interests of the secured and, particularly, the unsecured creditors. And amongst the unsecured creditors you can number an Australian bank to a very considerable degree. It is in their interests that an operation emerges from Ansett—it may not necessary look exactly the same as the current Ansett—that is capable of sustaining something like the level of service that has been absent from Australian airways with its collapse in recent days. We heard from the member for Ryan about the consequences of the changes in the pricing of tickets for the tourism industry and for business. We hear every day of the agony of those Ansett workers who are gratuitously insulted by the Prime Minister. Today, in his desperate effort to duckshove blame for this to everybody but his hopeless minister and himself as leader of the government, he decided that at last he would point the finger at the workers and say, `You're unreasonable in the industrial conditions you established; because of what you did, your airline went broke.' That is the attitude of this government to all ordinary Australian workers. The government is never to blame; they are to blame for the circumstances in which they find themselves.So you now have 16,000 direct jobs lost at Ansett, and 60,000 jobs lost indirectly. You see that with Gate Gourmet, Ansett's catering contractor—800 staff gone. But they are just a snapshot, if you like, in the most immediate sense of the job losses which have built up before anything hits us from the international economy. We heard today about a thousand going at Coles Myer, and it was adequate for the Prime Minister to say that perhaps in a year we might get some of those back. We heard of a thousand jobs going from the closure of Daimaru, where Daimaru directly pointed the finger at the operation of the goods and services tax for that going. We have seen 1,400 jobs go from One.Tel and 360 from Bradmill, and there has been concern at Pasminco, Harris Scarfe, Franklins, HIH Insurance, Diamond Press, Liberty One, Oakdale, Cobar, Braybrook, STP, Woodlawn, Merrywood, Exicom, National Textiles, Grafton and Scone meatworks, Parrish Meats and on and on.You can take a look at some of the statistics—the annual rate of bankruptcies and the number of bankruptcies that have occurred since this goods and services tax was put in place. The government does not like us to dwell on the issue of the goods and services tax. They would like us to move on from that. But you cannot claim credibility as economic managers when the only substantial initiative that you have put in place in your five years in office lies at the very heart of the problems that we have here. We would not be confronting these statistics if we were not implementing in this country—and I may say from the point of view of the operations of the Treasurer, incompetently implementing in this country—a goods and services tax.I have here a set of charts which show the extraordinary increase in small business bankruptcies. The names that I just read out are names that draw the attention of the public because their dimensions are so great. But, when you look at statistics which show an increase of something like 40 to 50 per cent in the annual rate of bankruptcies since the implementation of the goods and services tax—an enormous and unprecedented jump, in circumstances in which growth has not completely disappeared—you see not so much the Ansetts, which are spectacular, but the mum-and-dad operations around this country that are no longer viable. The people running these operations are the people who have been seriously damaged. They are the people who are feeling massive insecurity because of the operations of this government and its policies.It was extraordinary to see the letter from Stan Wallis, Chairman of Coles Myer, to his shareholders one month ago. 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.What a surprise that Woolworths, with a very substantial food component in the profitability of its operations—the one element not subject to a goods and services tax—is doing so much better than Coles Myer. What a surprise! The reason for that is contained in a proper reading of Stan Wallis's letter to the shareholders of Coles Myer. Then we hear from Daimaru: The stores have failed to break even throughout their existence. We have come to the conclusion that it is unlikely that profitability can be achieved in the current environment. While we did reposition Daimaru in Australia, increasing competition and the introduction of the GST have not assisted with the company's effort to turn the stores around.There are currently 669,000 Australians without any job at all and there are 437,400 Australians who work part time but want more hours. In addition, there are 1,159,400 Australians who are counted as `not in the labour force' but who, according to the ABS, would like to have a job. That means that there are well over two million Australians— that is, over 10 per cent of the population— who are not getting the financial or social stability that comes with having enough work.It is not good enough for those opposite to simply stand and claim some form of economic credibility when you see statistics such as those. You can go again to the inwardness of these unemployment statistics and see even more. Without the growth in part-time work, the position of this government on employment would look absolutely appalling. The Prime Minister boasts 900,000 jobs since he came to office. The vast majority of those are part-time jobs. In the five years before he came into office there was a similar level of job growth, but more than half of the jobs were full time. That is the difference. That is the difference between these two positions. We have seen secure employment go out the window with this government in office, because they have not cared a damn about it. They have not cared a jot about it.The most dramatic set of figures with regard to full-time employment are those related to the implementation of the goods and services tax. There were four years of growth prior to the implementation of the goods and services tax. We have lost 80,000 full-time jobs—80,000 and counting—since the goods and services tax was put into place. There was no pressure from the Japanese on employment, no pressure from the US economy and no pressure from what was happening in Asia. There was none. None of those things were influential in producing these statistics. What has been influential is a government indifferent to business investment, indifferent to innovation and indifferent to the social and economic consequences of a job-destroying tax and a government unwilling to put in place measures to deal with the consequences of that—except for bandaid ones. The Prime Minister said, `Look with pride at the increase in jobs in the housing industry,' saying there was `an unprecedented rate of increase in employment in the housing industry'. But that followed the most unprecedented fall in housing construction in Australian political history in the immediate aftermath of the introduction of the goods and services tax!The government allege that the Labor Party is a party which determines policy on the basis of political expediency. Really! Take a look at what this government have done over the last year. They have backflipped on petrol, backflipped on beer, backflipped on housing, backflipped on pensioners and backflipped on family debt. There has been one backflip after another— $20 billion worth of backflips over a four-year period—by this allegedly courageous government. If you go through all of that, with the exception of the emergency measures on housing you will see that not one of those measures is related to the creation of work in this community. Not one of those measures is related to encouraging businesses to overcome the consequences of the collapse of their confidence in research and development. We have seen for the first time in 15 years, since before this government came into office, a plunge in business investment in research and development—from which we have not recovered. Compare capital expenditure by business when the Labor Party were in office with capital expenditure by business since this government have been in office. Strangely enough, the Financial Review pointed out how much better the performance on investment was under Labor Party industry policy. Jobs were being created and jobs were the priority; full-time jobs were the priority because they gave the best security. Also, we sought to ensure that part-time jobs had a bit of security by having decent conditions around them. On employment, the record of this government is failure. The record of this government is failure, and it is the emerging domestic security issue of this election campaign. (Time expired)15:52:0031374Abbott, Tony, MPMr ABBOTTEZ5WarringahLPMinister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business10—Of course unemployment is a terrible tragedy; it is a terrible tragedy for people who are suffering it and it is a terrible blight on Australian society. Of course it is—no-one has ever denied that—but what unemployed Australians need is a series of sensible policy measures to address these issues, not empty words without any backing of policy substance. The essential fraudulence of the presentation of the Leader of the Opposition is this: he says, repeatedly and at every opportunity, that everything that is wrong anywhere in the world, let alone the Australian economy, is ultimately the responsibility of the GST. And yet this shocking, evil, vicious and oppressive GST is something that the Leader of the Opposition and his cohorts opposite intend to keep! This proves that these are not serious policy thinkers or people who have the deep interests of the Australian people at heart; these are nothing but economic vultures picking over human misery in the hope that they might gain some political advantage from it.If there is a sense of insecurity in Australia at the moment over our economic prospects, it is a sense of insecurity that members opposite are doing their best to create and maintain. They are running down the Australian people and the Australian economy in a desperate, pathetic and fraudulent attempt to improve their own political prospects. We see today from the Leader of the Opposition the panic and desperation of someone who is contemplating losing the unlosable election and who knows that he deserves to lose.For quite some time some of us in this House have been saying that the Howard government is the best government since Bob Menzies, opposed by the worst opposition since Arthur Calwell. It seems that we have been unfair to Arthur Calwell, who was an indifferent politician but was at least a man of political decency and principle. It seems that the Leader of the Opposition is not the worst Labor leader since Arthur Calwell; he is, in fact, the worst Labor leader since Doc Evatt. Listen to Alan Ramsey— not exactly a friend of the coalition but a very insightful commentator on political events. He describes the Leader of the Opposition as:... one of the worst, most infuriating leaders Labor has had to tolerate since Doc Evatt in the '50s. Alan Ramsey's verdict on the Leader of the Opposition, a verdict increasingly shared by the Australian public, is:He truly does not have a leadership bone in his body ... What we have seen over the last 20 minutes or so from the Leader of the Opposition is another example of what Alan Ramsey describes in the Sydney Morning Herald on Saturday. He says:Being lectured by Beazley in the abstract on what he might or might not stand for is now all too late. That's what happens when a political party leaves everything to the end and gets overwhelmed by events.Alan Ramsey concludes:The reality is Kim Beazley is killing himself, and Labor with it.The essential fraudulence of the Leader of the Opposition's crocodile tears over the unemployment situation in Australia today is revealed by the fact that, when he was minister for employment back in the days of the Keating government, he wanted nothing but to leave that portfolio. I have an article here from the Sunday Age of 16 May 1993 written by no less an authority than Amanda Buckley, now working for the Leader of the Opposition, who says of the Leader of the Opposition:The greatest ambition harboured by the highly relieved Beazley was a change in portfolio from the thankless task of employment (in reality, unemployment).This is the Leader of the Opposition who presided over the worst unemployment problem since the Great Depression now crying crocodile tears over the sorts of problems that he was never able to solve or help when he actually had some responsibility for them. The truth is that employment has grown strongly under this government. Since March 1996, total employment has increased by almost 900,000; there are now 881,900 new jobs. Contrary to the constant untruths, misrepresentations and fibs told by the Leader of the Opposition in this House just a few moments ago, full-time employment has grown since March 1996 by 359,000. Let us get it straight: nearly 900,000 new jobs have been created under this government and close to half of those new jobs are full-time jobs. Let us look at the record of Labor. Again, let us put the truth on the table and let us contrast that with the fairytale that the Leader of the Opposition appears to believe. In the last 5½ years of Labor there were something like 400,000 new jobs, about half the rate of increase recorded under this government, but just 27,000 of those—less than one in 10—were full-time jobs. That is the record of the man who now says he should be made Prime Minister. He was the worst defence minister Australia ever had, responsible for such interesting innovations as the Jindalee over the horizon radar. He was the worst communications minister Australia ever had, responsible for the Optus-Telstra $4 billion cable duplication. He was the worst finance minister, responsible for $30 billion worth of deficit in just two years. He was the worst employment minister Australia ever had, responsible for driving unemployment to a post-Depression high. And now he has the cheek, the gall, the hide and the effrontery to come in here and want to be the Prime Minister of Australia.Under this government, the Australian people have enjoyed a beneficial trifecta of good economic circumstances. Employment is up. As I have said, there are nearly 900,000 new jobs, thanks to the policies of this government. Wages are up, and that is so important, particularly to the battlers of this country. Under this government, average weekly earnings have gone up 12 per cent in real terms in the last five years. They increased by just four per cent over the 13 years that the members opposite were in power. Most importantly of all, basic award earnings have gone up by nine per cent in real terms over the life of this government. To the everlasting shame of members opposite, basic award earnings actually fell by five per cent in real terms when those who pretend to be the workers' friends were in power. So, employment is up—there are more jobs; wages are up—people have more money in their pockets; and tax is down— people get to keep more of the income they earn.This government has put into place the biggest personal income tax cuts in Australian history. This has not happened by accident. All of these good, beneficial results for the Australian people have come about because this government has not shirked the task of putting policy into place. We have reformed the Australian workplace. We have ended the union movement's quasi-monopoly power over wage bargaining. We have introduced important measures of welfare reform; in particular, we have brought in the great signature program of Work for the Dole, which promises to end forever that something-for-nothing culture and to change beneficially in our country the whole culture of employment and unemployment.We did not run away from the task of tax reform. We knew that tax reform was not going to be easy, but we knew that it was necessary. We knew that it was in the long-term interests of the Australian people. We knew that it was important to broaden the tax base and to reduce the tax burden, and we did not run away from that for a second. What about the grotesque dishonesty of the Leader of the Opposition? He comes into this House repeatedly to attack the tax reform process, particularly the GST—but he will not change it! Does he think that the Australian people believe for a second that the day after the election, should he become Prime Minister, there will be no GST? Of course they do not. There will be a GST every day of the life of any Beazley government. The Leader of the Opposition should be revealed to all Australians as the fraud and the hypocrite that he is.10000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)— You will withdraw `hypocrite'. EZ5Abbott, Tony, MPMr ABBOTT—I will withdraw. This is a government which has done the hard yards. This is a government which has been prepared to govern in the national interest. We have not gone to sleep for 5½ years; we have not been on long service leave for 5½ years; we have not been out to a long lunch for 5½ years; we have not sat on our hands for 5½ years and hoped that the political difficulties of our opponents would deliver us government on a platter. Whatever faults this government has—and I do not pretend for a second that we have been perfect; we are human, like every other group of people; we are fallible, like every other organisation— the one thing we could never be accused of is lacking guts and lacking ticker. We do not lack guts; we do not lack ticker; we are not all talk and no ticker, unlike the Leader of the Opposition.What is the Leader of the Opposition's plan? He comes in here and blackguards the government, talks up hill and down dale, and cries crocodile tears over the plight of people in our country. What is his actual plan? What is he actually going to do to help? Let us listen again to Alan Ramsey's comments about the speeches that the Leader of the Opposition has been making around the country outlining his `plan'. Alan Ramsey describes these speeches as a clutch of `what must surely be some of the most childish and desperate political speeches by a party leader ever written'. He goes on to say, `What Beazley does not stand for as yet is telling voters how he will achieve what he says he stands for.' That is his fundamental failure. He comes into this House and talks about security. He might as well come into this House and talk about motherhood or peace or the Holy and Blessed Trinity, for all the explaining he has actually done, for the arguments he has actually mounted, for all the reasons he has given for anyone to think that he knows anything at all about any of those things.Over the past few days the Leader of the Opposition has presented the Australian people with a stark choice. We are entering uncertain and difficult times. Who do we want as our leader in those uncertain and difficult times? Do we want a leader with a proven record both at home and abroad, who has never shirked difficult decisions, who has proved through his actions at home and abroad that he has what it takes to lead this great country, or do we want a man whose jawbone so far is fundamentally disconnected from his backbone? What we are seeing in this House repeatedly is the sad decline of a decent man who cannot handle the pressure of leadership. What we are seeing is a Leader of the Opposition who has always lived in the shadow of stronger men: his father, Bob Hawke, Paul Keating. Well, there is no-one to protect him any more.849Sidebottom, Sid, MP10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—I warn the member for Braddon!EZ5Abbott, Tony, MPMr ABBOTT—He is expected to lead and he cannot. Malcolm Farr said in today's Daily Telegraph:We need honest and genuine people in our parliaments, but they must also have an idea what to do with the goodwill they bring.He was actually referring to Mal Meninga, but he might just as well have been referring to the Leader of the Opposition, who has not got a clue.16:07:0031376O'Byrne, Michelle, MPMs O'BYRNE84SBassALP00—I am really pleased to have the opportunity to speak today following the minister, whose greatest claim in his portfolio seems to be as the minister for personal abuse. Government plays many roles, it means many things to many people; but there are some very clear responsibilities placed upon it by the Australian community. The clearest is that it is government's role to contribute to and to build a society that not only allows us to survive but also encourages us to grow, a society in which we can access opportunities and explore our potential, a society that allows all of us to contribute to and enjoy the benefits of being in Australia. But we cannot do that without the underpinning of a basic level of security; we cannot do that unless we know that we have a home, that we can provide for our children and that we can access our basic needs. To provide this level of security we need to provide job security.It is essential for our families, our community and the Australian economy that Australians feel secure enough in their employment to allow them to plan for a secure future. That is something that many Australians cannot lay claim to. Many of them have lost their jobs, and we have a situation where more than one quarter of our work force are engaged in casual and contingent employment. They cannot get loans, they cannot get mortgages and they cannot make the choices they want to provide for their families. The sense of insecurity for Australian families is growing. The consequences of not providing this level of security are profound: depression, family breakdown, homelessness. These are not consequences to be dismissed out of hand; these are the real implications for people's lives. And that is where the government have failed again to protect us as a nation. They have failed to say to Australian workers, `Your jobs are important, and we will take the action necessary to protect them.' This government must not engage in actions which undermine employment and security; and, when faced with these risks, this government must take action to protect jobs and to protect entitlements for workers. The government have not adequately protected the jobs of Australian workers—that is manifest. In just the last 12 days we have seen Australians lose their jobs because of the failure of this government. It is impossible to say `just jobs', as the loss of employment has a direct impact on families, communities and our nation. And the government must take responsibility for their job destroying GST. This has impacted upon the small and the large alike, from the Launceston restaurant Satay House to Coles Myer. The closure of the Satay House restaurant, a family owned business, according to restaurateur Colin Lim, can be attributed to the economic slowdown that followed the introduction of the GST. This business operated for 17 years. In those 17 years it saw many good times and many bad times; it was both incredibly successful and, on occasion, marginal. But it is only since the introduction of the GST that the business became completely unviable. On 30 June this restaurant, with a history of 17 years, closed for good. Before the introduction of the GST, on 18 May 2000 the Treasurer, Peter Costello, claimed:I don't think anybody will go to the wall as a consequence of the GST ... I don't think there will be businesses that will flounder because of the GST.Well, we have had small business losses, and now we have large businesses admitting to this impact. Just today Coles Myer have announced the loss of around 1,000 jobs. That is the loss of income for 1,000 families. Stan Wallis, the Chairman of Coles Myer Ltd, in a letter to shareholders on 6 August 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 ...What did the Prime Minister expect would happen? The implication of the GST's effect on jobs was well known. He just chose to deny it. In September 1998 the Prime Minister was asked about the impact of the GST on jobs. What did he say? `I don't believe there will be any, no, I don't.' That leaves us with two scenarios: either he understood the impact of his taxation plan and did not care, or he simply did not bother to find out. I really wish I knew which one was worse for the Australian community—incompetence or stupidity. An incompetent Prime Minister who wilfully ignores the negative implications of his actions is as useless as one who fails to understand the negative implications. The Prime Minister would not admit to the failings of his tax system; neither will he help the 1,000 families affected by the Coles Myer reaction to his unfair tax, neither will he help the 87,700 full-time job losses or the 77,500 more unemployed people since the introduction of his unfair tax.The reason this government will not help is that they simply do not get it: they cannot draw the dots between job losses and social breakdown. They cannot because they do not care. All they have ever been interested in is the big end of town—their mates and, on occasion, their brothers. I will take a few moments to explore that reality. Workers in Australia are governed by relevant industrial legislation that spells out their wages, their conditions of work and, most importantly in the context of this point, their entitlements. These are not governed by some industry standard but by legislation; these are things that each worker is entitled to. Once again, the government just does not get it and, once again, the consequences are severe. We have seen large corporate collapses in this country that have made clear two things: the government do not know how to risk manage the economy and they do not know and do not care about protecting workers' entitlements. When you lose your job under the circumstances we have seen recently, you have the right to expect your entitlements, which will allow you to provide for your family during this time of crisis. How appalling that the only reason the government have taken any steps towards addressing this issue is because we have made them. Why should they have to be forced to take this action?We have a plan and we will be happy to see the government adopt it. They would have our full support to implement the Beazley plan, which would ensure that workers get their entitlements. A compulsory insurance fund for employers with more than 20 employees would offer protection for workers' entitlements. But will the government pick this up? No. Instead, we have seen a mess of policies from this government. Time after time they play around with piecemeal schemes. Time after time they fail workers—except once, when the Prime Minister was taking care of his brother with the `Stan alone' scheme. Only the workers of National Textiles have had their full compensation. If the Prime Minister fails to take action because he does not care about Australian workers not employed by his brother, then all I can say is: surely the Prime Minister has some other relatives. I spoke at a rally of Ansett workers in Launceston, yet not one of them would admit to being related to the Prime Minister. Perhaps if we commenced a births and deaths register search we might get them their full entitlements. You will note that I actually got to speak at an Ansett rally. Some government members are complaining they have not been offered the opportunity. What do they expect? The government have a history of blaming workers, of attaching guilt to others: from `jobs snobs' to `traitors'—that is what they are calling Australians.The inability of the current government to stand up for Australian jobs can be most starkly seen in the recent Ansett collapse. The government's actions, both before the loss of over 16,000 jobs and following the collapse of Ansett, have been nothing short of a debacle, from their disgraceful inaction to their offensive disregard for the skilled Ansett staff. In both instances the government had an obligation to act to ensure the employment of Australians and in both instances there have been no actions that have added to their security. The disregard for the jobs of Australians that the government have shown permeates our whole community: from the couple at the Launceston call centre who announced to their work colleagues just two Fridays ago, the day Ansett ceased to trade, that they are expecting a new baby; to Jodie Campbell from the Ansett call centre, who is an expectant mother—due in just six or seven weeks—and who saved up her holidays for her maternity period; to the grandmother whose granddaughter `celebrated' her 21st birthday on the Saturday following Ansett's collapse. These are the impacts that are felt when a government does not stand up for jobs. These are just three of the many hundreds of examples of people feeling the pain of government inaction in my local community in Launceston, where nearly 500 direct jobs are at risk.Standing up for jobs does not mean taking a hands-off approach to industry development. It does not mean that it is okay to let a company that employs over 16,000 Australians fail. Standing up for jobs means being willing to act, willing to mediate, willing to propose solutions and, in some cases, willing to intervene. That is what the Leader of the Opposition has been doing: standing up for jobs by proposing solutions and subsequently standing up for Australians. This is the difference: on the one hand the government, which has given up; and on the other hand someone who is prepared to look at all options and do what is necessary to secure jobs and services. The Leader of the Opposition and the ALP are out there committed to saving Ansett jobs and out there to provide security for families. They are doing exactly what this government is not bothering to do. It is distressing, but I have had the opportunity to speak with hundreds of Ansett staff recently—from the Ansett call centre, Kendell Airlines, and the ACM staff at the café, and I can tell the House what they are looking for. It is just two things. They want Ansett flying again, with them doing their jobs. If that is not the case, they want their entitlements delivered in full. Both of those needs come from one simple desire: the desire for security of employment, and if that cannot be the case, the security of entitlements. The entitlements that Ansett staff are looking for are their legal entitlements, not the short-changing that the government's so-called statutory entitlements will deliver, a strategy that will short-change the economic security of thousands of Australians. Ansett is simply the latest occasion when security has been denied to Australian workers who through no fault of their own become unemployed.This matter of public importance proposed by the Leader of the Opposition condemns this government because it has failed to adequately protect the jobs of Australian workers and failed to provide a secure future for all Australians. As I said when I commenced speaking, there are many jobs for a government to do. This government, by its inaction, has failed the Australian people. It has failed by introducing policies which destroy jobs, it has failed by not securing 100 per cent of workers' entitlements, it has failed in its responsibility to risk manage the economy and it has failed to provide a secure future for Australian families.16:16:0031379Hull, Kay, MPMrs HULL83ORiverinaNP10—This MPI today, being the failure of the government to adequately protect jobs of Australian workers and to provide a secure future for all Australians, is indeed ironic. It is a wide-reaching, ambitious statement. Obviously, it is a goal that the opposition wants the people of Australia to think that Labor can achieve. Let us reminisce. This year the Treasurer, the Hon. Peter Costello, announced the coalition government's fifth consecutive budget surplus—a cash surplus of $1.5 billion after the repayment of nearly $60 billion of Labor's $80 billion debt. Back in 1995 the Keating government spent the same amount on interest payments as it did on schools and hospitals. Due to the competition with home buyers and business to borrow money, Labor's debt caused interest rates to soar, which forced many small businesses to close and unemployment to hit a record high. Yes indeed, unemployment hit a record high. During the Hawke-Keating Labor rule, my small business paid interest rates of 25 per cent. The Hawke-Keating Labor government tore the heart out of regional Australia. This government is all about putting the heart back into regional Australia.Small business is the greatest employer of Australians, and this government's sound fiscal policy has delivered the lowest small business interest rates in 30 years. I have a major commitment to the survival of small business. As I have said many times before in this House, small businesses are very important to my electorate of Riverina. This government has allocated an additional $5 million to the Small Business Incubator Program, which assists small businesses to establish themselves by providing premises, advice, services and support in the crucial early stages of business development. This program has been successful in reducing the failure rate of new businesses, particularly in rural and regional Australia. In recognising small business's contribution to employment, this government has offered significant incentives to assist employers to take on new apprentices, with almost $2 billion being provided over the next four years for the highly successful New Apprenticeships initiative. A significant contribution has also been made to develop and enhance the business skills of many small business owners by funding projects that provide access to mentoring, information services and skills development through the Small Business Enterprise Culture Program. This program has proven extremely beneficial, as it caters for small business people who require access to skills development courses but do not have time to attend TAFE or university. That will ultimately benefit us by introducing new employment opportunities.What of the unfair dismissal legislation? Who introduced that tax on jobs? This government introduced legislation to amend the impact on employment that was imposed upon us by a former Labor government in regard to unfair dismissal. The amendment to the bill was introduced into the House on 12 November 1998 and passed by the House on 2 December 1998, and was rejected by the Democrats and Labor senators on 14 August 2000. That clearly demonstrated a lack of knowledge of how employment really works in this country. The amendment to the unfair dismissal legislation was the subject of an almost unprecedented degree of political obstructionism. In less than four years, the changes were voted down in one form or another on eight occasions by the Labor Party and on five occasions by the Australian Democrats. Labor does not even acknowledge the evidence linking the impact of unfair dismissal laws and the hiring intentions of employers. Labor does not recognise that there is the perception in the business community that unfair dismissal legislation impacts on the employment intentions of business. What did the Labor opposition do to encourage employment opportunities and stability? It did nothing—not one thing. In fact, it opposes every attempt to generate employment stability. The inference of the member for Bass on the Prime Minister's approach to assistance for distressed employees is absolutely obscene and it should be condemned. It is worth noting that the retail sector has been performing very strongly since the introduction of the GST, with retail turnover increasing. Employment in the retail sector has increased by over 60,000 in the 12 months to August 2001. What of the government's first home buyers grant of $7,000 and the subsequent $14,000 first home buyers grant for those who are building or buying a new home? What does the opposition think that the first home buyers grant does for employment? It has generated huge employment opportunities in the building industry, which is absolutely booming under this government's initiative. Where would we be in the current world crisis without this government's sound financial management, with the repayment of $60 billion of Labor's debt and the lifting of taxes off exports, which have created and sustained jobs across the nation?Waterfront reforms have established and sustained employment not only in my electorate but also in electorates right across this nation, including Labor electorates. Small business incentives have cemented employment. Long-term unemployment has fallen by 46,600 since this government came to office. This government has delivered to the Australian people sound economic management, solid long-term economic growth and a low inflation and wages growth environment. This government has delivered strong nation-building leadership. It has been willing to take the hard decisions to reform taxation, workplace relations and employment services so that more Australians can access employment now and into the future.We are currently confronted by a crisis for employees of Ansett and, more significant for the people in the electorate of Riverina, for the employees of Kendell Airlines. I cannot begin to thank the Deputy Prime Minister, the Hon. John Anderson, for his tireless work in his attempts to secure the employment of the people I represent and, more importantly, the people I feel part of and am part of. Around 200 employees in Wagga Wagga are depending on the Minister for Transport and Regional Services to show heartfelt empathy with their position and to continue to pursue the administrator of this private enterprise company to use all its powers to get our people back into their jobs.I do not appreciate the political muckraking and opportunism that the opposition has demonstrated by trying to capitalise on this issue and position Labor in the impending election at the expense of the great employees of Ansett Australia. Instead of standing up here and blaming the government, one should stand up here and be proud of this government's efforts to ensure that those people are back in the air and flying and back on the ground and working in maintenance terminals, baggage handling and reservations. Accolades should be flying for the amount of effort that this government has put into ensuring the continuing ongoing employment of great Australian people.Strong leadership will create and sustain employment in Australia, not flip-flopping all over the place as we have seen here today; not discussing what a plane ticket was worth before this tragic event and what it is worth after it—and, unbelievably, not recognising that that is why these things happen in industry. The lack of understanding of business on the opposition side of the House absolutely staggers me. The Leader of the Opposition flip-flops on these issues. It is strong leadership that is being provided. 0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr Slipper—He flip-flops on everything.83OHull, Kay, MPMrs HULL—He does, on everything. I have heard some of his comments of late. He said that the government could keep Ansett operational for $200 million, but—wait for it!—after Ansett's $2 billion debt is removed. Exactly who is going to remove the $2 billion debt? Does the Leader of the Opposition have the capacity to explain to us who is going to remove the $2 billion debt that currently surrounds Ansett so that we can go forward with a $200 million rescue package? Let us get on with it, Leader of the Opposition. I heard another comment: `We should pay the entitlements of staff out of the sale of Sydney airport.' But—wait for it—in the same interview he said we should not sell Sydney airport yet; we should postpone the sale because this event will bring less money into the sale. In this discussion of a matter of public importance, it must be recognised that this government is strong in leadership and in determination. This government provides a future for all Australians. This government has provided a future for the people in Labor electorates and it has provided a future for people in coalition electorates. Without fear or favour and without any ado, this government has provided for all people of Australia. We should be thankful for the sound economic management, the continuing perseverance of this government, and for somebody who has the leadership, the heart and the soul, and who can demonstrate to the people that they are leaders— (Time expired)10000Jenkins, Harry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Order! The discussion has concluded.Miscellaneous3138110000Jenkins, Harry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—I advise the House that the Deputy Speaker has fixed Wednesday, 26 September 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.Miscellaneous31381Motion (by Mr Ronaldson) agreed to:That:(1) the following bills be referred to the Main Committee for consideration:Cybercrime Bill 2001Abolition of Compulsory Age Retirement (Statutory Officeholders) Bill 2001Transport and Regional Services Legislation Amendment (Application of Criminal Code) Bill 2001Motor Vehicle Standards Amendment Bill 2001Olympic Insignia Protection Amendment Bill 2001Migration Agents Registration Application Charge Amendment Bill 2001Interactive Gambling Amendment Bill 2001Family and Community Services Legislation Amendment (Application of Criminal Code) Bill 2001Industry, Science and Resources Legislation Amendment (Application of Criminal Code) Bill 2001(2) the following orders of the day, committee and delegation reports, be referred to the Main Committee for debate:Communications, Transport and the Arts— Standing Committee—Local voices: Inquiry into regional radio—Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate, andCommunications, Transport and the Arts— Standing Committee—Covering Your Arts: Art Indemnity in Australia—Motion to take note of papers: Resumption of debate.Committees31381313813138116:30:0031381Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration10—I move:That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to Parliament: RAAF Base Townsville redevelopment Stage 2, Townsville. The Department of Defence proposes to undertake stage 2 of the redevelopment of the Royal Australian Air Force Base, Towns-ville, Queensland. RAAF Base Townsville is one of a chain of airfields maintained for defence and surveillance of the northern areas of Australia. RAAF Base Townsville, together with RAAF Base Scherger, provides operational and support facilities for the air defence of North Queensland and its approaches. Its primary role is to serve as a deployment base for combat aircraft during a contingency and as an airhead for 3rd Brigrade, the major land component of the Australian Ready Deployment Force.The main focus of the $70.1 million first stage of the base redevelopment, which is due for completion mid next year, is to provide new operational facilities and replace current operational support facilities. Those works include the provision of aircraft ordnance loading facilities, a vehicle maintenance facility and associated infrastructure.The stage 2 redevelopment facilities are necessary to enable RAAF Base Townsville, with its Air Force and Army operational and supporting units, to perform its role in an efficient and cost-effective manner. The proposed redevelopment will also address issues like age and deterioration of the current facilities, functional and occupational health and safety considerations that contribute to the unsuitability of many facilities.The proposed redevelopment would enhance the overall effectiveness of the RAAF Base Townsville base units by grouping related base functions, providing facilities that reflect the work practices and functional relationships of the organisation, improving morale by providing working accommodation to contemporary standards, providing efficient maintenance and storage areas complete with environmental controls and alleviating occupational health and safety problems stemming from occupation of cramped and temporary accommodation.The proposed stage 2 works will upgrade air movement facilities, provide working and transit accommodation, provide messing facilities and enhance the base infrastructure. The estimated out-turn cost of the proposed works is $72.5 million. In its report, the committee has recommended that this project proceed. The Department of Defence agrees with the recommendations of the committee and, subject to parliamentary approval, construction will start early next year and will be completed by late 2004. Our colleague the honourable member for Herbert has been a very strong advocate and supporter of this redevelopment. I commend him for his hard work on behalf of his constituents. In conclusion, on behalf of the government I thank the committee for its support. I commend the motion to the House.Question resolved in the affirmative.313823138216:34:0031382Moylan, Judi, MPMrs MOYLAN4V5PearceLP10—On behalf of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works I present the 11th, 12th and 13th reports for 2001 of the committee relating to the new freight and passenger facilities at Rumah Baru on West Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands; the redevelopment of residential areas at Royal Military College, Duntroon, ACT; and the Defence Intelligence Training Centre at Canungra, Queensland.Ordered that the reports be printed.4V5Moylan, Judi, MPMrs MOYLAN—by leave—On behalf of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works I would like to make some brief comments on the three reports I have just tabled. Freight and passenger facilities at Rumah BaruThe first report I have tabled relates to the construction of new freight and passenger facilities at Rumah Baru on West Island, Cocos (Keeling) Islands. Historically, freight handling and passenger transfer on the Cocos (Keeling) Islands have been characterised by many logistical and environmental problems. While West Island bound containers are more numerous than those for Home Island, the direct transfer of containers to West Island is not possible due to the lack of suitable freight facilities. In addition, containers need to be partially unloaded on Home Island to reduce container loads. This is because there is insufficient capacity on the barge to transport containers one at a time across the lagoon to West Island. The existing passenger jetty is located at the north-eastern end of West Island and is in a very exposed position. This results in unsafe passenger transfers during high wind and heavy swell conditions. The preferred solution proposed by the Department of Transport and Regional Services is to construct an offshore island at Rumah Baru on the eastern side of West Island, which would be connected to the shore by an access bridge. The island would be linked to deeper water in the lagoon by a dredged channel of approximately 400 metres in length. The works in this proposal will allow freight containers to be towed directly from a supply ship to the offshore island at West Island without the need for containers to be reduced in weight. The proposal will also improve the safety, efficiency and reliability of freight and passenger facilities. During its inspections, the committee was able to observe at first hand the hazardous nature of freight and passenger handling operations and procedures. The committee has formed the view that there is an urgent need for the provision of new freight and passenger facilities on the Cocos (Keeling) Islands. Accordingly, the committee has recommended that the works proceed as a single stage project at a cost of $16 million.Royal Military College, Duntroon, ACTThe second report I have tabled today relates to the development of residential areas at the Royal Military College, Duntroon. The Defence Housing Authority is proposing to construct 100 on-base residences at the Royal Military College for married accompanied defence staff. I note that the committee views DHA's proposals for on-base accommodation for defence personnel with some caution, even though dwellings are more cost effective because they are constructed on defence land. The committee's cautionary view comes from its experience with similar projects—for example, the dwellings built at RAAF Base Tindal near Katherine in the Northern Territory in the early 1980s. They became surplus to defence requirements because improved technology resulted in a decrease in staff numbers. Added to this, the committee continues to have doubts about the number of defence personnel and their families who wish to live on base. To this end, the committee has recommended that surveys of the views of personnel and their families be undertaken together with the future viability of the base in question. However, in the specific case of the Royal Military College, Duntroon, the committee took into account its long history and role as a recognised unique training centre for Australian Army officers as well as military officers from other countries.In keeping with government policy, the committee expects that Commonwealth departments and agencies should lead the way in effecting change in how energy is managed in the community. The committee has therefore recommended that Commonwealth departments and agencies provide detailed comparative cost analyses between the various forms of energy, including solar energy, with any works proposals presented to the Public Works Committee, and this certainly applies to this particular reference on the Royal Military College, Duntroon, housing. Related to this is the minimisation of greenhouse emissions. In this area, the committee is increasingly interested to assess Commonwealth departments and agencies in terms of their commitment to the aims of the Australian Greenhouse Office. The committee has therefore recommended that Commonwealth departments and agencies ensure that consultations take place with the Australian Greenhouse Office about the most appropriate and effective methods of minimising energy for proposed public works.A number of heritage buildings are located within the Royal Military College, Duntroon area and are entered on the Register of the National Estate. Any new buildings constructed in the heritage area should be sympathetic to their surrounds. The committee has recommended that close consultation be maintained with the Australian Heritage Commission, particularly in relation to final design drawings. The committee has also recommended the establishment of a monitoring process during trenching or excavation of all sub-surface works and that this be monitored by an archaeologist. Despite these various recommendations, the committee supports the proposed works and has recommended that the redevelopment proceed at the cost of $23 million.Defence Intelligence Centre, Canungra, QueenslandThe third report I have tabled today relates to the redevelopment of facilities for the Defence Intelligence Training Centre at Canungra, Queensland. Following a review of defence intelligence matters, the separate defence intelligence training organisations were amalgamated in 1994 to form the Defence Intelligence Training Wing. In 1997 this organisation was amalgamated with the School of Military Intelligence to form the Defence Intelligence Training Centre. In recommending that this work proceed at an estimated cost of $17.745 million, the committee has based its decision on three main factors: firstly, the recognition in the white paper on Defence 2000 that the implementation of Australia's strategic policy requires the development of an intelligence capability through the enhancement of analytical and assessment expertise in military and strategic intelligence; secondly, the inadequacies of the existing facilities of the Defence Intelligence Training Centre in terms of size, security, and occupational health and safety issues; and, thirdly, the strategic plan for the Defence Estate, confirming that Canungra should be retained as a significant defence training base.The committee has recommended that Defence consult with the Australian Heritage Commission to ensure the protection of sites of both cultural and ecological significance. The committee has also recommended that Defence consult with the Australian Greenhouse Office in relation to the application of the Commonwealth's energy policy to defence capital works projects. Finally, the committee has recommended that, as a matter of urgency, Defence establish an environmental advisory committee for the Canungra Close Training Area to provide a forum at which local environmental issues can be discussed. This is an important recommendation, and I hasten to add that the committee was impressed by evidence from community groups regarding the importance of the area to the local community.I commend to the House each of the reports that I have tabled and I thank the secretariat and members of the committee for the way in which they have expedited quite a heavy workload in this last short period.313843138416:42:0031384Nehl, 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, 22 October 2001.4I4McLeay, Leo, MPMr Leo McLeay—Will you be here for it?AE4Nehl, Garry, MPMr NEHL—Very doubtful.The report read as follows—Report relating to the consideration of private Members' business on Monday, 22 October 2001Pursuant to standing order 331, the Selection Committee has determined the order of precedence and times to be allotted for consideration of private Members' business on Monday, 22 October 2001. The order of precedence and the allotments of time determined by the Committee are as follows:PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESSOrder of precedenceNotices1 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—30 minutes.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.2 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—remaining private Members' business time prior to 1.45 p.m.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, 5 x 5 mins]The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.3 Mr Baird: To move—That this House:(1) recognises the unique heritage value of the Kurnell peninsula;(2) urges the NSW Government not to proceed with rezoning of land on the peninsula, which would allow houses to be constructed under flight paths from Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport;(3) calls for a commission of inquiry into land use on the peninsula;(4) asks the three levels of government to note the historical and environmental significance of the Kurnell peninsula to Australia; and(5) requests the Commonwealth Government to consider allocating funds from the sale of Sydney Airport to purchase land on the peninsula to ensure that:(a) flight paths are not restricted by the construction of new housing; and(b) the area can be developed as a National Park for the enjoyment of all Australians. (Notice given 5 April 2001.)Time allotted—30 minutes.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.4 Mr Hawker: To move—That this House:(1) acknowledges the arid nature of the Australian continent;(2) recognises the need for water to be conserved in order to maximise the potential for Australia to grow in its economy;(3) calls for greater efforts to move towards more efficient use of water to reduce the impact on the environment; and (4) calls for a commitment from State and Federal Governments to fund the completion of the piping of the Wimmera Mallee Stock and Domestic Water Supply Scheme. (Notice given 24 September 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.313853138516:43:0031385Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration10—On indulgence, I would like to thank the member for Cowper for his wonderful work as Deputy Speaker and, indeed, for the many outstanding contributions he has made in the parliament since he was elected in 1984. We are certainly going to miss him. We will miss his voice during question time and we will miss his friendship and guidance. He is an outstanding member, and the parliament will be poorer for his absence after the poll. I thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker Jenkins, for your indulgence. I move: That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to Parliament: Redevelopment of the Army Aviation Centre, Oakey, Queensland.The Department of Defence proposes to redevelop the Army Aviation Training Centre at Oakey in Queensland. The proposal will overcome facilities inadequacies, cater for new armed reconnaissance helicopters and accommodate the Army component of the Defence Helicopter Training School currently located in Canberra.The works will predominantly focus on three areas. The first is to upgrade training facilities to provide modern, functional facilities that meet current occupational health and safety standards and to facilitate the use of computer based learning. This includes classrooms, a simulator for the new armed reconnaissance helicopter, maintenance training facilities and associated administrative areas. The second area is to consolidate and upgrade the maintenance facilities on the base. These are to be consolidated into one precinct and upgraded to ensure they comply with occupational health and safety standards and provide suitable facilities for the maintenance of the new armed reconnaissance helicopters. The conduct of the maintenance on the base also provides significant on-the-job training for Army aviation tradesmen. The third major area of work is the construction of a new central messing complex and domestic accommodation and the upgrade of some of the existing domestic accommodation. This will provide appropriate facilities for the permanent staff and students on the base. It will also provide operating cost efficiencies. The provision of an appropriate standard of messing and domestic accommodation is seen as an important retention factor by Defence. The estimated out-turn cost of the proposed works is $76.2 million.In its report, the committee has recommended that this project proceed. The Department of Defence agrees with the recommendations of the committee. Subject to parliamentary approval, the works would commence late this year to allow for the relocation of the helicopter school, which is scheduled to occur in December of this year. Works associated with the arrival of the new armed reconnaissance helicopter are due for completion by July 2003, when the first of these helicopters are due to arrive in Oakey. The remainder of the works will be completed by mid-2004. On behalf of the government, I would like to thank the committee for its work, and I am particularly pleased to be able to commend this motion to the chamber. I would also like to place on record the thanks of the government to the Minister for Small Business, the member for Groom, who has been a very strong advocate for the expansion of the Oakey facilities. The Minister for Small Business will no doubt be pleased when the House carries this motion to carry out these particular works.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills31386R140531386Debate resumed from 24 September, on motion by Mr Slipper:That the bill be now read a second time.upon which Mr Kelvin Thomson moved by way of amendment:That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:“whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House notes that this bill proposes amendments to the A New Tax System Act 1999 and calls on the Government to take this opportunity to include further improvements in the legislation that would:(1) remove the GST from the price of women's sanitary products;(2) remove the GST from funeral expenses;(3) remove the GST from fees paid by long-term caravan park and boarding house residents;(4) compensate charities for the extra burden imposed by the GST; and(5) simplify the GST for small businesses”.16:47:0031387Emerson, Craig, MPMr EMERSON83VRankinALP00—I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 6) 2001 for two reasons. The first is that it deals with the petroleum resources rent tax, a tax that I had some involvement in developing in the 1980s under the then Labor government. As a PhD student I came from the Australian National University at the invitation of Senator Peter Walsh, who was then the Minister for Resources and Energy. I had finished my PhD on resources rent tax. He said, `Why don't you come over here? We've been in government for just a few months. Would you like to get involved in implementing your theoretical construct?' I thought that was a pretty good challenge from someone who had just finished a PhD. So, to cut a long story fairly short, over the succeeding months we did in fact develop the petroleum resources rent tax to the point of legislation. I was very interested to hear the Prime Minister the other day in the parliament saying that the coalition opposition supported all the major economic reforms put forward by the Hawke government. That is not in fact the case with the petroleum resources rent tax, which has been a very important source of revenue for governments of all political persuasions. The then coalition opposition opposed it root and branch, to use their phraseology. Nevertheless, with the ultimate agreement of the Democrats, that legislation finally was passed. I was pleased to see a few years later a report by Bankers Trust that described Australia's offshore fiscal regime as one of the best in the world in the sense that it gave to petroleum explorers and developers the opportunity of a fair return on investment before they had to pay the resources rent tax but that if any large profits were made the government, on behalf of the people of Australia, would be able to share in those profits to a fairly substantial level.The increases in world oil prices most recently have led to large windfall gains, and most of those windfall gains have accrued to government through the petroleum resources rent tax. Indeed, it developed for the government the wherewithal, ultimately, to abandon the increase in fuel excise they had gone ahead with on 1 February this year. The Labor opposition prepared a very strong case that it was affordable for the government not to proceed with that increase in fuel excise on 1 February. The government ignored all those claims. In fact, the member for Herbert, in one of the full-page documents that he puts in the local TownsvilleBulletin, said that we must hold out against opposition demands that this excise increase not go ahead because, if we did not increase the excise, it would force petrol prices up. So, if we put the excise on, petrol prices would not go up; but if we did not increase the excise, petrol prices would go up. That was a very special form of Lindsay economics, I think. The member for Herbert was humiliated when, three weeks after proceeding with the indexation increase on 1 February, the government finally back-flipped.Motion (by Mr Ronaldson) agreed to:That the question be now put.Question put:That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr Kelvin Thomson's amendment) stand part of the question.16:56:00The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker—Mr H.A. Jenkins) 74Abbott, 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.Costello, P.H.Downer, A.J.G.Draper, P.Elson, K.S.Entsch, W.G.Fahey, J.J.Fischer, T.A.Forrest, J.A. *Gallus, C.A.Gambaro, T.Gash, J.Georgiou, P.Haase, B.W.Hardgrave, G.D.Hawker, D.P.M.Hockey, J.B.Hull, K.E.Jull, D.F.Kelly, D.M.Kelly, J.M.Kemp, D.A.Lawler, A.J.Lindsay, P.J.Lloyd, J.E.Macfarlane, I.E.May, M.A.McArthur, S. *McGauran, P.J.Moylan, J. E.Nairn, G. R.Nehl, G. B.Nelson, B.J.Neville, P.C.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.62Adams, D.G.H.Albanese, A.N.Bevis, A.R.Brereton, L.J.Burke, A.E.Byrne, A.M.Corcoran, A.K.Cox, D.A.Crean, S.F.Crosio, J.A.Danby, M.Edwards, G.J.Ellis, A.L.Emerson, C.A.Evans, M.J.Ferguson, L.D.T.Ferguson, M.J.Fitzgibbon, J.A.Gerick, J.F.Gibbons, S.W.Gillard, J.E.Hall, J.G.Hatton, M.J.Hoare, K.J.Hollis, C.Horne, R.Irwin, J.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.Rudd, K.M.Sawford, R.W. *Sciacca, C.A.Sercombe, R.C.G. *Short, L.M.Sidebottom, P.S.Smith, S.F.Swan, W.M.Tanner, L.Thomson, K.J.Wilkie, K.Zahra, C.J.Howard, J.W.Beazley, K.C.Lieberman, L.S.Griffin, A.P.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative.Original question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation for the bill and proposed amendments announced.31388Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.17:01:0031388Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSONUK6WillsALP00—I move opposition amendment No. 1:(1) Schedule 5, page 23 (before line 4), before item 10, insert:9A After section 38-47Insert:38-48 Sanitary products A supply of sanitary products is GST-free.9B After Subdivision 38-FInsert:Subdivision 38-FA—Funeral services38-240 Funeral services (1) A supply of funeral services is GST-free. (2) In this section:funeral services means a range of products and services to facilitate the celebration of a deceased person's life, and for the disposition and memorialisation of the deceased in accordance with the family's cultural, religious and personal preferences.9C After subsection 40-35(1A)Insert: (1B) A supply of premises at a boarding house or a supply of a site at a long-term caravan park that is by way of lease, hire or licence (including a renewal or extension of a lease, hire or licence) is input taxed if: (a) the supply is of boarding house premises or of a site occupied by or to be occupied by a caravan used as a long-term residence; and (b) the supply is of commercial accommodation and Division 87 (which is about long-term accommodation in commercial premises) would apply to the supply but for a choice made by the supplier under section 87-25.A Beazley Labor government will abolish the GST on funerals. Services provided by funeral directors which go towards a funeral service will be made GST free. This includes, for example, the funeral notice, venue hiring, securing a grave or memorial plaque, the celebrant, coffin, wreaths and floral tributes. Labor will also refund the GST already paid on prepaid funerals, where the service has not been delivered by the time the GST is removed from funerals. This is another instalment of Labor's plan to take the GST off some essential goods and services to ease the pressure on Australian families. Imposing a GST on funeral services is an unfair burden on Australian families, especially the elderly. It is the equivalent of a death tax. It is a terrible time in any family's life when someone loses a life partner, and it is particularly tough on older Australians. The last thing they need is a tax bill. Under a Labor government, it is a burden they will not have to bear. Labor will get rid of John Howard's death tax. I urge government members, if they are at all serious about reducing the burden on ordinary Australians, to support our amendments which make clear some of our priorities in relation to GST: women's sanitary products, caravan parks and funerals. We have also indicated our intention to compensate charities for the burden of the GST on them.I had the opportunity to speak to the issue of GST on funerals during the second reading debate. I also mention the issue of GST on women's sanitary products. Tens of thousands of Australians signed petitions to the parliament to try and prevent the GST being imposed on women's sanitary products. These, in fact, are health products. The health minister has the power to determine these products GST-free under section 38-47 of the GST legislation, in the same way that he exempted condoms, sunscreens, folate pills and personal lubricants. It is something that he has been unwilling to do. We disagree absolutely with his position. We also think that it is extraordinary that the Democrats signed off on the tax deal last year knowing—Senator Meg Lees, their then leader, knew this at the time—that this deal would mean that tampons and sanitary napkins would be taxed for the first time. Nevertheless, the Democrats voted for this unholy deal and they ought to be condemned for it. I urge the support of the parliament for my amendment.17:06:0031389Emerson, Craig, MPMr EMERSON83VRankinALP00—I second the shadow minister's amendment. This is an opportunity for members on the other side of the parliament to put their true point of view on these issues to the electorate. All around the country long-term residents of caravan parks—and I understand, Mr Deputy Speaker Causley, that you are one of the people affected—have said to us that they want relief from the GST. They are being discriminated against as they are the only category of people in the country who are effectively paying GST on their rents. I call on the members for Richmond, Page, Longman, Herbert and Hinkler and all the coalition members of parliament who have long-term residents of caravan parks in their electorates to take this opportunity now to stick up for their constituents and to come into the parliament and join us.We are not here simply putting up a second reading amendment; we are putting up a detailed amendment in relation to caravan parks which says that, notwithstanding any other provision in this division, a supply of long-term accommodation at a caravan park or boarding house is GST free. That is nice and simple. The government have backflipped and turned on this time and time again, purporting that they are making changes that make the lives and livelihoods of residents of caravan parks easier. But it has been no easier. We conducted a GST inquiry in the seat of Richmond. The member for Lalor was there and Senator George Campbell was there. We had witness after witness saying, `It is not simple and it hasn't been solved. In fact, it's more complex than ever and we want something nice and simple, and that is for the GST to be taken off our site fees.' That is what our amendment would do.We also have a detailed amendment in relation to funeral services. This is the Prime Minister's death tax. At a time of bereavement, when families are grieving over the loss of a loved one, imagine their grief and then their anger at getting the bill for a funeral—which can be very expensive—of $2,000, $3,000 or $,4000, plus another bill for $200, $300 or $400 of GST. Here you have the government profiting from people's loss of loved ones. We also heard evidence in this inquiry process about the anger that people felt. People used words such as `disgusted' and `appalled' at what the government have done, in particular in relation to the prepayment of funerals. We were regularly told by witnesses that, after making prepayments on a funeral, they would then get a GST bill on top. They regard that as disgusting and appalling, as we on the Labor side of this parliament certainly do. So yet again here is an opportunity for all coalition members to do something decent, to do something simple: take the GST off funeral services. We are able to define very clearly what funeral services are, with the assistance of the relevant association, headed, I might say, by the No. 4—I think—ticket holder on the Senate for Tasmania, who came out in support of this. In relation to women's sanitary products, the member for Lowe made a definitive speech on the impact of the GST on those products. He has made this something of a personal crusade and has naturally enjoyed the support of all members on this side of the parliament, in particular the female members. But, sadly, yet again the female members—in fact all the members—on the other side of the parliament have seen no virtue whatsoever in making sanitary products GST free. In fact, when the health minister was asked about this, he said, `No, women's sanitary products are not a health item.' He said that as a bloke he would like shaving cream exempt. When told that shaving cream was not a health item, he said, `Nor are women's sanitary products.' Before the last election, full-page advertisements were run, saying that the government would ensure that all health and education services would be GST free, and here we have the government saying, `We do not regard women's sanitary products as a health item.' Of course, they are health items. The opportunity is here right now for all members of the parliament to get together in the closing days of this parliament to do something decent for the women of Australia. (Extension of time granted) Here is an opportunity for all women in this parliament to join together in a non-partisan way and make a simple amendment which would mean that women's sanitary products would be GST free. In this section, women's sanitary products means tampons, pads, liners, and similar items concerned with feminine hygiene. We want to see exactly what the coalition members of parliament say about our amendments because, as I have said, as in the case of petrol, they can be tigers in their electorates and kittens back here. For example, the member for Richmond has attended numerous rallies on caravan parks. He has tried to reassure the long-stay residents of caravan parks in his own electorate that the government are doing something. They get out the smoke and the mirrors; they make some complicated changes to the legislation, but provide no relief whatsoever in relation to this. Labor want to put forward three very simple amendments which will give effect to announced Labor Party policies. The first amendment is to remove the GST from women's sanitary products, the second amendment is to remove the GST from funeral services and the third amendment is to remove the GST on long-term accommodation at caravan parks and boarding houses.The government says that you cannot take the GST off items because that would destroy the integrity of the GST—as if the GST itself had any integrity! This is legislation that now weighs 7.1 kilograms and has already been amended 1,861 times—and this legislation involves further amendments. The government says that this is a simplified, streamlined new tax system for a new century. But it weighs 7.1 kilograms and has already been amended 1,861 times. We were able to ascertain in debate the other day and from inquiries with the tax office that the so-called simplified, streamlined new tax system for a new century has already been the subject of more than 84,000 private binding rulings. If the tax is so simple, if it is so good for small business, why would you have 84,000 private binding rulings in calendar year 2000 alone? We have not been able to get the figures for this particular calendar year.Small business is struggling under the burden of this GST, just as Ray Regan, the head of the National Tax and Accountants Association, said it would be—to the point where the Leader of the Opposition in the MPI earlier talked about the impact of GST on small business. In the June quarter there was a 78 per cent increase in small business bankruptcies, compared with the June quarter of the previous year, and the National Tax and Accountants Association pinpoint that directly to the GST. Another study released very recently shows that, of the 7,000 or so corner stores in this country, 1,000 have already closed. Today we had very bad news in relation to 1,000 redundancies at Coles Myer. The government seems to be saying, `Well, that has nothing to do with the GST; it has something to do with the American crisis or the greenhouse effect, but could not possibly have anything to do with the GST.' Yet Coles Myer representatives, in explaining why there were 1,000 job losses, came out quite clearly and said that it was the GST. If a big company likes Coles Myer can struggle under the burden of the GST, imagine the burden on all the small businesses in Australia. That is why we want to ease the burden on small business. That is why we believe that the GST can be simplified, and it is very easy to simplify it.The measure we put forward has been welcomed by COSBOA, the Council of Small Business Organisations. They said the presentation given to them was very eloquent and involved a great deal of simplification. They also criticised the Minister for Small Business. They certainly denied any criticism of the opposition measure because they thought it was a terrific scheme. In fact, the small business minister hoped his department would do a hatchet job on our plan, but the department said, `This looks like a good plan and a feasible plan.' So there you go. There are Labor policies to ease the GST burden on small business, to simplify the GST and to take the GST off women's sanitary products, long-stay residents of caravan parks and funerals. These are the sorts of amendments on which we want to see members opposite join with us in these last days of parliament. (Time expired)17:16:0031391Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration10—It certainly will not come as any surprise to my friend the honourable member for Wills that the government does not accept the amendments moved by the opposition to the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 6) 2001. The opposition's amendments have nothing to do with the measures in the bill and only seek to make the GST more complex. There are many organisations on the record saying that more exemptions mean more complexity. For example, the Australian Financial Review reported tax counsel Paul Drum of the Australian Society of Certified Practising Accountants as saying:Each product exempted from the tax implies additional compliance burden to ensure it is accounted for appropriately.Business knows that exemptions mean complications, and what they want is certainty and stability. Even John Della Bosca said that roll-back should be abandoned. He got sacked for saying that. The question to ask Labor members in relation to GST amendments is: where are the funds coming from to pay for roll-back? Labor do not have a clue as to how they are going to pay for roll-back and `noodle nation'. They are getting increasingly desperate for money to pay for their spending plans—which explains some of their recent `funny money' proposals for raising revenue. The member for Fremantle publicly advocated education bonds to pay for knowledge—or `noodle'—nation and Kim Beazley told the Financial Review that he is looking at `mezzanine finance'. They are all just fancy words for going into debt.Labor could also increase income taxes. We all remember Labor's record on income taxes; we remember it as though it were yesterday. The ALP spoke of its l-a-w law tax cuts before the 1993 election. What happened after the election? The l-a-w law tax cuts were abandoned, wholesale sales taxes were increased, fuel excise was increased by 5c a litre and company tax was increased to 36 per cent.Members opposite referred to their amendments in relation to sanitary products, funerals and caravan parks. With respect to sanitary products, I point out that complexity and compliance difficulties will be faced when determining what sanitary products are GST free under the opposition's proposed amendment. Every exemption adds to the complexity of the tax system and creates new anomalies. The benefit of tax reform comes from applying GST broadly to as many items as possible and cutting income tax—which puts money back into the hands of taxpayers so that they are better off even after price rises. Due to the nature of a broad based tax, only a specific range of health related goods are GST free. These include a wide range of medicines and goods specifically designed for people with an illness or a disability that are not ordinarily used by people without such an illness or disability. Feminine hygiene products do not meet these criteria and are subject to the GST. The government acknowledges that sanitary products are essential items, but the government's policy is not to tax or exempt items on the basis of whether they are essential. The amendments proposed by the opposition with respect to funerals are poorly defined and will create definitional problems, complexity, anomalies and uncertainty. For example, the proposed amendment seeks to remove GST from funeral services. Under the amendment, funeral celebrants would have GST-free services, whereas marriage celebrants' services would be taxable. Venues would be taxable if provided for weddings but GST free if used for funerals. Flowers would be taxable if provided for weddings but GST free if used for funerals. The proposed amendment would create anomalies and complexities and would, quite frankly, be a dog's breakfast.Since the start of the GST, caravan park owners have had the choice between charging a concessional 5.5 per cent GST on their long-term accommodation and claiming full input tax credits or not applying GST to rents, which means they cannot claim input tax credits. Input taxing is the treatment that applies to residential rents. The government has ensured that long-term residents of caravan parks and other forms of commercial accommodation are treated fairly when compared with residents who rent a house or flat. The opposition amendment would make caravan park and boarding house accommodation GST free. This is giving a concession to those residents that is not available to other people in rental accommodation. The opposition proposals are yet another dog's breakfast. I oppose the amendments and move:That the question be now put.Question put:That the amendment (Mr Kelvin Thomson's) be agreed to.17:26:00The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker—Hon. I.R. Causley) 68Adams, D.G.H.Albanese, A.N.Andren, P.J.Bevis, A.R.Brereton, L.J.Burke, A.E.Byrne, A.M.Corcoran, A.K.Cox, D.A.Crean, S.F.Crosio, J.A.Danby, M.Edwards, G.J.Ellis, A.L.Emerson, C.A.Evans, M.J.Ferguson, L.D.T.Ferguson, M.J.Fitzgibbon, J.A.Gerick, J.F.Gibbons, S.W.Gillard, J.E.Hall, J.G.Hatton, M.J.Hoare, K.J.Hollis, C.Horne, R.Irwin, J.Jenkins, H.A.Katter, R.C.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.O'Keefe, N.P.Plibersek, T.Price, L.R.S.Quick, H.V.Ripoll, B.F.Roxon, N.L.Rudd, K.M.Sawford, R.W. *Sciacca, C.A.Sercombe, R.C.G. *Short, L.M.Sidebottom, P.S.Smith, S.F.Snowdon, W.E.Swan, W.M.Tanner, L.Theophanous, A.C.Thomson, K.J.Wilkie, K.Zahra, C.J.74Abbott, 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.Charles, R.E.Costello, P.H.Downer, A.J.G.Draper, P.Elson, K.S.Entsch, W.G.Fahey, J.J.Fischer, T.A.Forrest, J.A. *Gallus, C.A.Gambaro, T.Gash, J.Georgiou, P.Haase, B.W.Hardgrave, G.D.Hawker, D.P.M.Hockey, J.B.Hull, K.E.Jull, D.F.Kelly, D.M.Kelly, J.M.Kemp, D.A.Lawler, A.J.Lindsay, P.J.Lloyd, J.E.Macfarlane, I.E.May, M.A.McArthur, S. *McGauran, P.J.Moylan, J. E.Nairn, G. R.Nehl, G. B.Nelson, B.J.Neville, P.C.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.Beazley, K.C.Howard, J.W.Griffin, A.P.Lieberman, L.S.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the negative.17:31:0031393Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration10—by leave—I present a supplementary explanatory memorandum and I move government amendments Nos 1 to 24: (1) Clause 2, page 2 (after line 7), after subclause (4), insert: (4A) Items 10 and 11 of Schedule 5 commence immediately after the commencement of item 9A of that Schedule. (4B) Items 4A and 4B of Schedule 6 commence immediately after the commencement of item 4 of that Schedule. (4C) Item 4C of Schedule 6 commences: (a) if Schedule 1 to the Taxation Laws Amendment Act (No 5) 2001 commences before the day on which this Act receives the Royal Assent— immediately after the commencement of item 4B of Schedule 6 to this Act; or (b) if paragraph (a) does not apply— immediately after the commencement of Schedule 1 to that Act.(2) Schedule 5, page 23 (after line 3), before item 10, insert:9A After section 78-115Insert:78-118 Portfolio transfers (1) If an insurer (the first insurer) enters into an arrangement, in the nature of a portfolio transfer, with another insurer for the other insurer: (a) to act as the insurer in relation to an *insurance policy; or (b) to meet the first insurer's liabilities arising under an insurance policy;this Division applies, from the time the arrangement takes effect, as if the other insurer were an insurer in relation to the policy. (2) Without limiting subsection (1): (a) anything done after that time by the other insurer that, if it had been done by the first insurer, would have been done under the policy is taken, for the purposes of this Division, to have been done by the other insurer under the policy; and (b) sections 78-10 and 78-30 apply as if the other insurer were the insurer that supplied the policy; and (c) section 78-18 applies as if the insurer that settles the claim referred to in paragraph 78-18(1)(b) or (3)(b) (as the case requires) has the *increasing adjustment under that section, regardless of which insurer was paid the excess to which the adjustment relates.(3) Schedule 5, item 14, page 25 (after line 10), at the end of the item, add:(2) However, the amendment made by item 9A applies, and is taken to have applied in relation to net amounts for tax periods starting, or that started, on or after 1 January 2001.(4) Schedule 6, item 4, page 30 (line 23), after “if”, insert “, in relation to at least 75% of the individual's *personal services income (not including income referred to in subsection (2)) during the income year”.(5) Schedule 6, item 4, page 30 (lines 24 to 26), omit the paragraph, substitute: (a) the income is for producing a result; and(6) Schedule 6, item 4, page 31 (line 2), after “if”, insert “, in relation to at least 75% of the *personal services income of one or more individuals that is included in the personal services entity's *ordinary income or *statutory income during the income year”.(7) Schedule 6, item 4, page 31 (lines 3 to 5), omit the paragraph, substitute: (a) the income is for producing a result; and(8) Schedule 6, page 31 (after line 22), after item 4, insert:4A Subsection 87-15(3)After “income” (first occurring), insert “(not including income referred to in subsection (4))”.4B At the end of section 87-15Add: (4) Subsection (3) does not apply to income: (a) that the individual receives as an employee; or (b) that the individual receives as an individual referred to in paragraph 12-45(1)(a), (b), (c), (d) or (e) (payments to office holders) in Schedule 1 to the Taxation Administration Act 1953.4C At the end of subsection 87-15(4)Add: ; or (c) to the extent that it is a payment referred to in section 12-47 (payments to *religious practitioners) in that Schedule.(9) Schedule 6, page 31, after item 5, insert:5A After subsection 87-25(2)Insert: (2A) If the *personal services entity is a partnership, work that a partner performs is taken, for the purposes of subsection (2), to be work that the personal services entity engages another entity to perform.(10) Schedule 6, page 34 (after line 2), before item 17, insert:Income Tax Assessment Act 193616A Section 202A (definition of payer)Repeal the definition, substitute:payer means: (a) a person who makes an eligible PAYG payment (other than an alienated personal services payment), or is likely to make such a payment; or (b) a person who receives an alienated personal services payment, or is likely to receive such a payment.16B Section 202A (definition of recipient)Repeal the definition, substitute:recipient means: (a) a person who receives an eligible PAYG payment (other than an alienated personal services payment), or is likely to receive such a payment; or (b) a person in relation to whose personal services income (within the meaning of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997) a payer receives an alienated personal services payment, or is likely to receive such a payment.(11) Schedule 6, page 34, after proposed item 16B, insert:16C After section 222AOBInsert:222AOBAA Directors to cause company to remit or to go into voluntary administration or liquidation—alienated personal services payments (1) The persons who are directors of the company on the payment day in relation to the payment or payments (referred to in paragraph 222AOA(1)(ba)) must cause the company to do at least one of the following before the end of the payment day: (a) comply with section 13-5 and Subdivision 16-B in Schedule 1 to the Taxation Administration Act 1953 in relation to each payment relating to the payment day; (b) make an agreement with the Commissioner under section 222ALA in relation to the company's liability under that Subdivision in respect of each such payment; (c) appoint an administrator of the company under section 436A of the Corporations Act 2001; (d) begin to be wound up within the meaning of that Act. (2) The payment day is the day on which the company must pay an amount under section 13-5 in Schedule 1 to the Taxation Administration Act 1953 to the Commissioner in relation to the payment or payments (referred to in paragraph 222AOA(1)(ba)). (3) This section is complied with when: (a) the company complies as mentioned in paragraph (1)(a); or (b) the company makes an agreement as mentioned in paragraph (1)(b); or (c) an administrator of the company is appointed under section 436A, 436B or 436C of the Corporations Act 2001; or (d) the company begins to be wound up within the meaning of that Act;whichever first happens, even if the directors did not cause the event to happen. (4) If this section is not complied with before the end of the payment day, the persons who are directors of the company on that day continue to be under the obligation imposed by subsection (1) until this section is complied with.(12) Schedule 6, page 34, after proposed item 16C, insert:16D After subsection 222AOC(1)Insert: (1A) If section 222AOBAA is not complied with before the end of the payment day, each person who is a director of the company on the payment day is liable to pay to the Commissioner, by way of penalty, an amount equal to the unpaid amount or amounts that the company is required to pay under section 13-5 in Schedule 1 to the Taxation Administration Act 1953 in respect of the payment or payments relating to the payment day.(13) Schedule 6, page 34, after proposed item 16D, insert:16E After subsection 222AOD(1)Insert: (1A) If: (a) after the payment day, a person becomes, or again becomes, a director of the company at a time when section 222AOBAA has not yet been complied with in relation to the payment or payments relating to the payment day; and (b) at the end of 14 days after the person becomes a director, that section has still not been complied with in relation to that payment or those payments;the person is liable to pay to the Commissioner, by way of penalty, an amount equal to the unpaid amount of the liability referred to in subsection 222AOC(1A).(14) Schedule 6, page 34, after proposed item 16E, insert:16F Paragraph 222AOE(a)Omit “subsection 222AOC(1) or (2)”, substitute “subsection 222AOC(1), (1A) or (2)”.(15) Schedule 6, page 34, after proposed item 16F, insert:16G Paragraph 222AOG(b)After “section 222AOB”, insert “, 222AOBAA”.Note: The heading to section 222AOG is altered by inserting “, 222AOBAA” after “222AOB”.(16) Schedule 6, page 34, after proposed item 16G, insert:16H Paragraph 222AOH(1)(b)Omit “subsection 222AOC(1) or (2)”, substitute “subsection 222AOC(1), (1A) or (2)”.(17) Schedule 6, page 34, after proposed item 16H, insert:16J Paragraph 222AOJ(2)(b)After “subsection 222AOB(1)”, insert “or 222AOBAA(1)”.16K Paragraph 222AOJ(3)(a)After “subsection 222AOB(1)”, insert “, 222AOBAA(1)”.(18) Schedule 6, page 34 (after line 3), after proposed item 16K, insert: 16L At the end of section 85-20Add: (3) An amount or payment that you cannot deduct because of this section is neither assessable income nor *exempt income of your *associate.(19) Schedule 6, page 34, after proposed item 16L, insert:16M Subsection 86-20(2) (step 1 of the method statement)After “maintenance deductions”, insert “or deductions for amounts of salary or wages paid to you”.(20) Schedule 6, page 34, after proposed item 16M, insert:16N At the end of subsection 86-35(2)Add “or entitled to receive it”.(21) Schedule 6, Part 4, page 36 (after line 7), at the end of the Part, add:18A Paragraph 45-120(3)(b) in Schedule 1Omit “*amounts”, substitute “amounts”.(22) Schedule 6, item 19, page 37 (line 4), omit “item 18”, substitute “items 4A, 4B, 16C to 16J, 16L, 18 and 18A”.(23) Schedule 6, item 19, page 37 (after line 12), after subitem (2), insert:(2A) The amendments made by items 4A, 4B, 4C and 16M apply to assessments for the 2002-2003 income year and later income years.(2B) The amendments made by items 16C to 16K apply on and after the day on which this Act receives the Royal Assent.(24) Schedule 6, item 19, page 37 (after line 14), at the end of the item, add:(4) Item 18A applies to an amount received, or a non-cash benefit provided, on or after 1 July 2002.Government amendments Nos 1 to 22 of schedule 6 to the bill will amend parts 2 to 42 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997, the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 and the Taxation Administration Act 1953. These amendments will clarify particular aspects of how the personal services income provisions of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 operate and are being made to clarify technical issues that have been raised since the original personal services income provisions commenced on 1 July 2000.The most significant amendment will clarify how the results test for conducting a personal services business—and therefore being outside the measure—operates where only some of a taxpayer's personal services income satisfies the necessary three conditions. The amendment will ensure that the test is satisfied if at least 75 per cent of the personal services income satisfies all three conditions. The other amendments are minor technical amendments which ensure that the provisions will operate as intended.Amendments Nos 1 to 3 amend the GST act to ensure that the correct GST result is achieved where an insurer has transferred its insurance portfolio to another insurer. In particular, the amendments ensure that the insurance provisions within the GST act apply as if the transferee insurer were the insurer in relation to the insurance policy. Without the amendments, it is arguable that many of the insurance provisions would not apply to transactions in relation to an insurance policy that were undertaken by the transferee insurer. In particular, certain provisions apply only to the insurer that issued the insurance policy. For example, the decreasing adjustment that is generally available to insurers upon settlement of a claim under a taxable insurance policy is currently available only to the insurer that issued the policy.The inability of transferee insurers to claim decreasing adjustments has been highlighted by the financial collapse of the HIH group of companies. As a result of various contractual arrangements with HIH companies, some insurers have undertaken to make payments under insurance policies issued by an HIH company. There are a variety of other situations where such a portfolio transfer can arise.The amendments will apply in relation to net amounts for tax periods starting, or that started, on or after 1 January this year. This will ensure that the insurance provisions apply to transactions undertaken by insurers who have been transferred HIH insurance policies. I commend the amendments to the House. 17:35:0031397Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSONUK6WillsALP00—Here we have another 24 or so amendments. My colleague the member for Rankin pointed out that the GST legislation has been the subject of some 1,800 amendments and that it now weighs 7.1 kilograms. It is something that we weigh rather than number. The taxation legislation in total is about 8,500 pages. Regrettably, it seems that even more taxation legislation and policy is being made on the run, as we get a further couple of dozen amendments to absorb.The principal areas covered by these amendments appear to be the alienation of personal services income and matters to do with the HIH collapse. In each case these are matters which this government has messed up and on which it has not covered itself in glory. The alienation of personal services income has proved to be a significant trial for those it impacts on, and the fact that we are getting amendments to amendments just leads you to wonder whether the government really has fixed up this area or whether it is going to be a matter of substantial ongoing dispute and concern.The HIH collapse was the largest financial collapse in Australian history. In the last week we have seen the collapse of Ansett, which appears to be largest industrial collapse in Australian history. These matters reflect greatly on this government's administrative competence. Insofar as these amendments themselves are concerned, they appear to be of a technical character and uncontroversial. On that basis, we will not be opposing them.Amendments agreed to.Bill, as amended, agreed to.31397Bill (on motion by Mr Slipper)—by leave—read a third time.Bills31397R136131397Debate resumed from 28 June, on motion by Mr Slipper:That the bill be now read a second time.17:38:0031397Kerr, Duncan, MPMr KERRRH4DenisonALP00— Somewhat unusually in this House, the principal and substantive proposal for amendment to the Customs Tariff Amend-ment Bill (No. 4) 2001 will be moved by my colleague from South Australia who has a direct and very real concern in relation to the automotive industry. But essentially the provisions in this bill are broadly supported by the opposition. Those compon-ents that go to amendments regard-ing the Automotive Competitiveness and Investment Scheme provide for and reflect the cessation of the administrative arrange-ments to the year 2000 for the industry and the commencement of ACIS.The scheme is the largest industry specific assistance to industry program provided by the Commonwealth, operating for five years from 1 January 2001. It provides assistance, in the form of import duty credits, to producers of motor vehicles, components and automotive services for both domestic and export markets. Assistance is capped at $2 billion over the five-year program. There have been significant concerns—some of which will be followed through by my colleague—regarding the way in which this program has been implemented. One particular concern I will note is the administrative complexity of the scheme. The government itself acknowledges that ACIS will involve higher administrative costs to government and higher compliance costs to industry than the existing motor vehicle assistance arrangements.The amendments in this bill are described by the government as minor amendments to enable the efficient delivery of the program and to reduce the administrative burdens on participants and the government. They involve a tighter definition of `approved plant and equipment' and `approved research and development' for use in identifying which procedures will be eligible for assistance benefit; a clarification of the methods for calculating investment, including the use of assistance loadings to cover incidental costs of investment which are difficult to quantify; and protection from `artificial' companies set up to take advantage of the scheme that are not going to contribute to the sustainable growth of the Australian automobile industry. Most of the amendments relate to the regulations that can be used under the legislation to define and quantify which expenditures will be eligible for inclusion in the calculation of benefits. The changes increase the powers of the regulator to control the distribution of benefits under the scheme. In particular, with respect to what is approved plant and equipment and what is approved research and development, the amendments expand the scope of the regulations to specify not only which items are allowable but also the maximum claimable value in respect of allowable plant and equipment or research and development. I will leave more substantial comment to my colleague. The other amendments in this bill are supported in their entirety by the opposition. One of the principal amendments is the schedule 3 amendment, which in a sense re-energises the SPARTECA arrangements. This follows the government's announcement in February this year that it would allow textiles, clothing and footwear to enter duty free from 1 March 2001 under the SPARTECA (TCF Provisions) Scheme. The background to this is that, in particular, Fiji suffered from a series of internal disruptions and the loss of its democratic government and that, as a consequence, the government suspended the operation of the scheme. On 12 December the Minister for Foreign Affairs indicated that, because Fiji's interim government had made a public commitment on 14 November to hold democratic elections, he was willing to proceed to introduce a successor scheme and that the scheme would provide additional benefits for TCF within the framework of the existing South Pacific Regional Trade and Economic Cooperation Agreement and would be entitled SPARTECA-TCF. He also made the point that:Continuing implementation of the scheme will be subject to Fiji's progress in implementing the timetable for a speedy return to democratic and constitutional rule. This must include a constitutional outcome which accords with democratic norms and the principles recently enunciated by Pacific Islands Forum Leaders in the Biketawa Declaration.Those in this House will have noted that since that time there has been an election in Fiji and there appears to have been virtually a full restoration of democratic norms. I am sure all members of this House will express the hope that those arrangements continue into the future and that the instability and suspension of democratic norms that have plagued Fiji on a number of occasions in the not so recent past can be avoided. In those circumstances, the opposition understands and accepts the legislation, welcomes the return of Fiji to democratic norms of government and expresses the hope that the institutional arrangements for the full restoration of democratic administration of Fiji under the principles enunciated by the Pacific Islands Forum leaders can be maintained. Certainly it is entirely appropriate to act in a way consistent with respecting the commitments made in Fiji and reinstate the scheme.Other provisions touch on a space agreement with Russia and provide for the duty-free entry of goods following the Australian-Russian Agreement on Space Cooperation. I have been in this House long enough to find an Australian-Russian agreement on space cooperation a very pleasing change from the attitude towards the then Soviet Union when I first entered the House. Times move on, some for the good and much, unfortunately, for the bad, as we have only too recently seen, but some of the things that have moved on for the good include our capacity now to have effective arrangements with the government of Russia. In order to facilitate implementation of the terms of arrangements under the agreement, the bill will allow the duty free entry of space related goods and equipment to be used in projects conducted in either country. As noted in the government's explanatory memorandum to the bill, while launch vehicles, satellites, scientific equipment, telemetry and guidance equipment can enter Australia duty free, equipment such as transporter erectors, launch vehicle lifting gear, fuel handling equipment and instrumentation attract the general rate of five per cent. There are also changes in the bill, largely of a technical nature, dealing with policy by-laws. The government's decision was to streamline policy by-laws into a single new item in schedule 4 of the Customs Tariff Act and to broaden sector eligibility. The new arrangements follow the Productivity Commissioner's report on the review of Australia's tariff arrangements and the government's response to that report on 19 December 2000. Again, those amendments substantially command our support. There are also technical amendments to a number of subheadings in schedule 7 that have no substantive importance. Broadly, the legislation is supported, but there are concerns, principally in South Australia but widely throughout the Labor Party, regarding the importance of a sound industry policy basis and the importance of manufacturing in Australia. We are now too acutely aware of job losses, particularly where there are significant components of full-time work, and that sensitivity has been reinforced by the events that were discussed in the House earlier today: the loss of employment in a large number of companies that have collapsed over the last couple of years, the decline in employment that has followed the collapse of Ansett, and the loss of further employment in a number of retailers. We believe that it is very important to sustain and to maintain a strong manufacturing capacity in this country. We know there are significant issues that need to be addressed. As the shadow spokesman for Customs, which currently holds operational responsibility for management of the dumping laws, I have been made acutely aware of some of the concerns of a technical nature and about the administration of the antidumping regime, which impacts on sectors of industry. The particular concerns that the opposition wishes to reflect in relation to the motor vehicle industry are, however, ones that I best leave to my colleague the member for Kingston, because he needs his place in the sun, and he deserves it because his initiative will prompt our moving of the amendments on behalf of the opposition.17:49:0031399Pyne, Chris, MPMr PYNE9V5SturtLP10—I agree with the member for Denison that the member for Kingston certainly needs his place in the sun. I do not think that he deserves a place in the sun, but he certainly needs one, given his profile in South Australia. The Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 4) 2001 contains amendments to the Customs Tariff Act 1995. I do not intend to keep the House long this afternoon in discussing this bill, given that the Labor Party broadly supports it. The bill is divided into a number of schedules that I will briefly comment on because they deal discretely with different policy aspects of the Customs portfolio. The first schedule deals with support for the automotive industry in the form of the Automotive Competitiveness and Investment Scheme, which began on 1 January 2001 and which replaced the administrative arrangements to the year 2000 for the automotive industry which had been put in place by the government as part of its general tariff reform policy of the past 5½ years. That change will be welcomed by the automotive industry, particularly in my great state of South Australia, where Mitsubishi and General Motors Holden have their headquarters and principal operations. They will welcome this continuing support for the automotive industry, which employs thousands of South Australians. The automotive industry produces four per cent of gross state product in South Australia, which is about the same percentage as for the wine and defence industries, so it is very significant to the South Australian economy. People in the automotive industry will welcome this continuing support for them by a coalition government in the lead-up to the tariff changes that we foreshadowed in the first parliament after 1996.Schedule 3 of the bill contains arrangements for the treatment of some South Pacific Forum countries that had previously experienced support from the government, which, as the member for Denison pointed out, was truncated because of the coup in Fiji that saw the democratically elected government of Mahendra Chaudhry overthrown by George Speight. At the time, the government took the very firm line that we needed to ensure that the people in the South Pacific understood that that sort of activity would not be tolerated. The SPARTECA scheme replaces a scheme which was in support of South Pacific Forum nations, in particular in respect of the importation of textiles, clothing and footwear, which will be imported duty free from particular markets in the South Pacific into Australia. That will help to strengthen and provide a base for those economies, because Australia has had a longstanding interest in the provision of support for the South Pacific. It is one of our regions of influence. Those islands look to Australia for support, and the best thing we can do for them is to provide economic support because it will ensure that they have growing economies and decent standards of living which will provide stability in the whole of the South Pacific area for Australia and for all those countries. Schedule 4 provides for concessional re-entry for imported goods that have been exported from Australia and returned in an unaltered condition. In other words, this is part of the program of support for the automotive industry where component parts which are produced in their entirety in a state like South Australia go overseas and re-enter the country as part of another product. It is important to ensure that, in re-entering Australia, those component parts are not dutied for customs, and schedule 4 will ensure that that is the case.Schedule 5, as the member for Denison pointed out, relates to the duty free entry of goods imported as part of Australia's space program. This is particularly important in Christmas Island, and in Woomera—again, in my state of South Australia—where we have nascent space programs which we would like to see grow. The member for Denison has been in this House a lot longer than me; I have been here only nine years, but I must say that the space program in Australia has been a longstanding hope for many members of this House. It seems to be something of a mirage at the moment, and we hope that the support that this schedule provides for the industry in its attempts to grow and import the necessary capital equipment for the program will continue to kick-start the space industry in Australia, which used to be a thriving industry at Woomera under the Menzies government. We hope that parts of this bill will continue to encourage the space program at Christmas Island and at Woomera.Schedule 6 deals with equipment that comes in parts to be treated as one item for customs purposes. It is an administrative but sensible change and I am pleased to see that the Labor Party supports it. Schedule 6 also contains the aspect of duty free imports for specific projects under the project by-law scheme. The policy objectives of the new scheme are to encourage and enhance investment in the establishment of world-class operations; to encourage the involvement of Australian industry in supplying goods and services; to lower input costs for industry where there are sound reasons for doing so; and to facilitate Australian industry participation in domestic and international supply chains. One of the requirements of the project by-law scheme is that the Australian industry participation must be present in a plan to be completed and presented to the government. On that basis, the scheme will apply to promote new industries in Australia. Schedule 6 also expands the project by-law scheme to include goods such as pipelines and conveyors, and components which are integral to a project. It also expands the range of industry sectors that have previously been able to access the by-law scheme to projects in the manufacturing and gas supply sectors as well as the current sectors of mining, resource processing, agriculture, food processing and food packaging. It involves concessions for goods that will be used to promote industry development in specific industry sectors and specific types of equipment and investment. For that reason, it will encourage growth, jobs and investment. It is a positive move introduced by the government in this bill.A fair time has been given to allow for the changeover from the current arrangements to the new system, with a closure date for the current arrangements of 31 December 2002. That will allow for the efficient termination of the present administrative arrangements. It also gives a reasonable period of time for industry to import the duty free capital equipment for which it has received approval under the current project by-law scheme before the new scheme is adopted.Item 56 of schedule 4 provides enhanced concessional treatment for capital items which the Minister for Justice and Customs believes have a substantial and demonstrable performance advantage to be imported duty free by industries in the mining, resource processing, agriculture, food processing, food packaging and some manufacturing sectors for use in approved projects where the total capital expenditure exceeds $10 million. RH4Kerr, Duncan, MPMr Kerr—You said you were going to be brief; I would hate to hear you wax lyrical.9V5Pyne, Chris, MPMr PYNE—The member for Denison points out that I have been speaking for longer than five minutes, but he told me in the break during the division that he intended to be very brief in order to give the member for Kingston fair time to speak and then he spoke for 12 minutes. I thought I should follow his example in this. The minister in our government who always says that he will speak briefly and then speaks for the full half an hour is the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs. The member for Denison will be well aware of that, having been on the other of the dispatch box on many occasions. With those few comments, I commend the bill to the House and thank the Labor Party for its support of this measure.17:59:0031401Cox, David, MPMr COX83UKingstonALP00—The Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 4) 2001 makes a number of changes that affect the Automotive Competitiveness and Investment Scheme. The amendments proposed by item 1 of schedule 1 of the bill allow for export credits earned in relation to eligible exports that occurred before 1 January 2001 to be used in assessing duty payable on eligible imports prior to 31 December 2001 and make original equipment automotive components eligible for concessional entry. Item 2 of schedule 1 provides a closure date for the use of the pre-ACIS concession of 31 December 2000. Item 4 of schedule 1 provides for the concession under ACIS of original equipment components. Item 4 of schedule 1 also provides the existing duty free rate of entry for prescribed goods used in testing, quality control, manufacturing evaluation or engineering development of motor vehicles manufactured under ACIS or original equipment components for inclusion in vehicles manufactured by ACIS registered companies. As the bill deals with the Automotive Competitiveness and Investment Scheme, which the Howard government has always referred to as a transitional arrangement, it also provides an opportunity to consider the sort of automotive assistance that should follow when ACIS expires at the end of 2004. I will therefore be moving a substantive amendment, requiring a full review of the car industry to commence next year. The amendment reads:Independent Public Inquiry(1) After 30 June 2002 and before 1 January 2003, the Minister must issue terms of reference and establish an independent public inquiry into the automotive industry.(2) The independent public inquiry must:(a) examine the need for assistance to promote competitiveness and encourage investment in the automotive industry after the arrangements set out in the ACIS Administration Act 1999 expire; and (b) consider the appropriate level of import tariffs for vehicles and components.(3) The independent public inquiry must call for submissions, hold public hearings and commission research to inform its deliberations.(4) The independent public inquiry may take evidence in private on matters that are commercially sensitive.(5) The independent public inquiry must deliver its report to the Minister before 31 March 2004.(6) The Minister must cause a copy of the report to be laid before each House of the Parliament as soon as practicable after receiving it.This is not the first time Labor have moved this amendment. We moved it at the end of last year, which was the last time there were technical amendments to the ACIS legislation. On that occasion the coalition voted against it, holding to their position that their current policy is locked in. There will be no review of assistance arrangements for the car industry before the scheduled cut in the car tariff and expiry of the ACIS assistance arrangements.That was the government's position in 1997, when it adopted the current arrangements. As foolish as a five per cent tariff cut and concurrent termination of car industry assistance arrangements seemed then, 2005 was a long way off. The removal of ACIS and a five per cent tariff cut would be a big adjustment in an industry which, to maintain its competitiveness, must achieve continuous improvement to reduce costs by several per cent every year. That is the reality for all car makers and component suppliers. When the government was taking this decision in 1997, it had absolutely no idea what the circumstances would be in 2005. It would have had absolutely no idea as to whether 2005 would be a particularly buoyant year for the motor industry or whether it would be a particularly poor year for the motor industry. If it is going to be a poor year, it will be much more difficult to accommodate a concurrent cut in tariffs of five per cent and an end to the ACIS assistance arrangements. One could imagine that there would be all sorts of things that the government might describe as unintended consequences as a result of that. RH4Kerr, Duncan, MPMr Kerr—Little blips!83UCox, David, MPMr COX—Little blips, as the member for Denison said. The Minister for Sport and Tourism seems to think that losing Ansett, 70,000 jobs and a competitive airline industry is a little blip; I wonder whether losing a car plant, a number of component manufacturers and the critical mass for a strong component industry would be described by this government as a little blip. It was always folly to determine tariff and assistance arrangements—or, more particularly, the absence of them—more than seven years in advance, when there was no possibility of forecasting the economic circumstances the industry would be facing. But there was time for the government to schedule a review, and I think everybody expected that it would. The government was simply dealing with a short-term economic crisis at that point, and it wanted a solution. It was not prepared to face up to what it seemingly wanted to do— to start cutting the car tariff immediately and, probably, to have fewer assistance arrangements than it ultimately agreed to under pressure—so it put most of the hard decisions off until 2005. Unfortunately, we are now looking at a situation where, in 2001, that is not a long way off.For the time frames on which major investments are made in the vehicle industry, knowing what the tariff and assistance arrangements will be after the end of 2004, are now on the critical path. The FCAI has been calling on the Howard government to bring forward a review of the car industry, a review that is urgently required in 2002. But, in the face of the whole automotive industry, the Howard government still believes it can have the tariff cut and allow ACIS to expire without an equivalent scheme to replace it, and then have a review. How silly is that? If the government does that, the review will not be a review of the future of the car industry; it will be a forensic examination to determine why large parts of the car industry died. If the review were left until then, I could predict what it would find: large parts of the car industry closed, moved offshore or failed to meet their potential because the Howard government refused to provide continuity and certainty in the car tariff and assistance arrangements when they were needed.The Howard government must face the reality that, if it expects car assemblers and component manufacturers to invest in the latest manufacturing technology and in the development of new models, it must be prepared to give them certainty on which to base their investment decisions, at least with respect to those parameters that are within the control of the government. To do less effectively means that the government does not want that investment or is not interested in doing anything to assist in obtaining that investment.Recently the Prime Minister went to Japan, ostensibly to put the case to Mitsubishi for continuing its car manufacturing operation in Australia. He received bipartisan support from the Labor Party. Two days before the meeting, the Leader of the Opposition told an Australia-Israel Chamber of Commerce lunch in Adelaide:Labor is firmly committed to a strong, vibrant future for the automotive and associated industries in Australia. This goal will be as important to our industry policy stance in the future as it has been in the past. I read in the press that the Prime Minister is seeing Mitsubishi in Tokyo on Friday. He can indicate that its Australian operation has strong bipartisan support. Mitsubishi's Adelaide operation has undergone a major restructuring and a dramatic turnaround from a $186 million loss last year to a profit in the first 6 months of this year. Production has steadily increased from 190 vehicles a day at the start of the year to 225 now and an expected 260 by October to fill export orders. If I might interpolate, the company sent its first shipment of cars to its new Middle Eastern market last month. Mr Beazley continued:It represents a remarkable effort by Tom Phillips and his team at Tonsley Park. Labor wants to see the Government go a step further in its commitment to the automotive industry. That is to announce a full public review of the car industry to be carried out well ahead of the scheduled tariff reduction in 2005 and the expiry of the current ASIS car industry assistance arrangements. The car industry wants that review to begin next year for completion in 2003 so it can base investment decisions on certainty about government policy after the present arrangements end. Labor's position is that we will conduct that review before the tariff cut, not simply assume the cuts follow automatically. We have moved amendments to car industry legislation on two occasions to require this, but it was rejected by the Coalition. In the meantime, our diplomatic efforts will be focused on trying to lower the high tariff levels of some of our trading partners in ASEAN. It is hard to ask our industry to continue to bear a heavy burden when their own levels of protection are already lower than many regional competitors. At a media conference after the speech, a journalist asked Mr Beazley:Just on the car workers. The Prime Minister goes to Japan tomorrow for talks with Mitsubishi. What should he be saying to reserve the jobs and indeed Mitsubishi's—I presume the journalist was going to say `future'. Mr Beazley replied:Can I say that I am sceptical of the reports that Mitsubishi is about to tell him that they are going to close. I mean, every time Olson went overseas you get a report like that and then he would come back and say halleluiah it's not going to happen. But nevertheless the problem is serious and what I said to the Japanese Ambassador yesterday about this and I say publicly now that Mitsubishi should know: if John Howard offers Mitsubishi a benefit to sustain their operations in this country, they needn't be shy of it, the Labor Party will support it, will support it. That is the first thing. The second thing is this: under the government's current proposals they anticipate that from 2005 there will be a rundown of the tariff arrangements for cars and other things until 2010—we say no. We say there should be a review in the next term of parliament. That review should look at the jobs issues, it should look at the activities of competitors, it should look at our trading partners all the things that they have done and we should also bear in mind the things that are seen to give comfort and safety to those who are investing in this country. So we will have an open mind about what should happen. So in addition to anything John Howard says, we say that as well and I would urge the managers, the directors of Mitsubishi to acknowledge the fact that it is a very good plant that is operating here and it's making them money and they don't need to worry about it except to keep it open.The journalist then asked:He is stopping short of there being a review or should there actually be a shift in policy on the rundown in tariffs?To which the Leader of the Opposition replied:We will see what the review says. Look, before there is any rundown in tariff, that is put on hold and you have the review—that is what we are talking about. We are not talking about doing the rundown—we are talking about doing a review. That review may reveal that it is justified to do a rundown or it may not.So you can see that there is a significant difference between the attitude of the Howard coalition government and the Labor Party on how to deal with the future of the car industry.The coalition's position is: there will be no review of the car industry, the tariff will be cut, and the ACIS assistance arrangements will be allowed to expire—no review, cut the tariff and no ACIS assistance arrangements. Labor's position is: a full public review of the car industry in 2003; that review to determine the appropriate rate for the car tariff; and support for necessary assistance—a full review, an appropriate rate for the car tariff and support for assistance arrangements. That is the difference between the Labor Party and the Liberal Party on the car industry. Labor supports the industry and car workers jobs; the Liberal Party refuses even to do a review to consider what is necessary for the long-term viability of the car industry.Mitsubishi has announced it is proceeding with an upgrade of the current Magna platform in 2003. That is recognition by the parent company of the efforts of the team at Tonsley Park and Lonsdale to restructure the Australian operation and produce a high quality, competitive product. The test of government policy is whether it creates an appropriate environment for a commitment to a successor model to be produced after 2004. I do not think that anything that the Prime Minister did in Japan had any bearing on the decision, which was then already imminent, to proceed with the model upgrade in 2003. In fact, in the same way as John Olsen has been prone to do it, I think the Prime Minister was being somewhat self-serving in his approach to that matter, because the only way that politicians manage to derive publicity out of these sorts of expeditions is to raise shock and horror about the prospects for the industry, which certainly does not help sales and it does not help confidence in the plant. There is no doubt that things have been going extremely well this year. The turnaround from a $186 million loss last year to running according to budget and in profit for the first six months of this year is absolutely dramatic. It involved the loss of the jobs of a lot of people in middle management as part of the restructuring, and it has involved a lot of changes in the operation of the plant. It is the people in that plant and the management of it who are to be totally commended for that effort.But the question of what happens in 2004 is now a current issue. I said earlier that knowing what the ACIS arrangements will be after 2004, or the successors to them, is now on the critical path. The successor model is currently under consideration by the Mitsubishi-Daimler/Chrysler alliance. It is under consideration in the context of determining what platforms Mitsubishi will produce worldwide and which particular factories will produce them. Those decisions will be made shortly because of the long lead times for major new investment and because the parent company is under great pressure from its shareholders and financial markets to restructure. It is a very competitive environment.Mitsubishi's Adelaide operation deserves, on its merits, a decision in its favour in that assessment but, to get it, it needs to be able to demonstrate a business case that includes certainty about the continuity of car industry assistance arrangements after 2004. The need for that certainty should be at the forefront of the government's mind, if it wishes to secure the future of the Adelaide operation; nor should it be lost on the Howard government that there are other car industry investment projects, including among the component suppliers, which will depend on that certainty about future government policy and about the future size of the market.Yet the government continues to show a great reluctance to address the question of future car industry assistance arrangements and tariffs. I can assure the House that it is now on the critical path for major investment decisions. This is the last opportunity for the House to influence the future of the car industry before the election. If government members vote against the Labor amendment, they will be voting against a strong and viable future for the Australian car industry. If government members from South Australia vote against the amendment they will be voting against the future of Mitsubishi's Adelaide operation, voting against long-term job security for its workers and voting against long-term economic security for their families.18:17:0031404Adams, Dick, MPMr ADAMSBV5LyonsALP00—I rise to speak on the Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 4) 2001. This bill is to provide for the duty-free importation of prescribed goods for use in a space project authorised by the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources. It also includes technical amendments consequential to the commencement of the Automotive Competitiveness and Investment Scheme. The bill also explains the SPARTECA (TCF Provisions) Scheme and the South Pacific Regional Trade and Economic Cooperation Agreement, which came into force in the early 1980s, and how it can be used to foster duty-free and restricted access to the markets of Australia and New Zealand over as wide a range of products as possible.The bill also allows me to talk generally about Customs practice as far as Australia is concerned. Even with those countries we are trying to assist to develop a regional economy there are some difficulties because of the interests of other countries in those island nations and because Customs here appears to have more discretion than in other nations. It seems to play an independent arbitrator's role sometimes, rather than going into bat for Australia. I find this very peculiar. Turning to dumping issues, we have certainly been targeted as a good place to dump; for example, Japan's second-hand cars. Fortunately, I believe we have probably been able to head that one off. But we have not been so lucky with such things as paper pulp and paper from Indonesia and the current concern of the possible dumping of cement from China. The inquiry into cement dumping has been dragging on for some time. There have been some huge concerns here. I think a proper analysis of the facts will reveal a significant dumping margin for the imports from China. The chairman of the cement industry told me this week that, currently, the export prices of cement are artificially high, while local prices in China are low as a result of the government's controls on the market. Therefore, injury to the Australian industry from cement dumping is very substantial—in excess of $200 million in lost sales revenue.It is not self-inflicted through import parity pricing, as Customs suggests. Everybody is waiting for Customs to respond with its last Access assessment of facts, which was supposed to appear in August but did not. There has been little transparency in the case, nor has there been any response to the two very significant legal issues. Both matters have a direct bearing on whether Customs adopts a stance that is supportive of Australian industry or whether it has provided a free kick to the importers.That is my point in straying a little from the main thrust of this bill and talking more generally on the approach of Customs to inquiries, such as the one being undertaken on cement. I remember only too well the problems the paper industry faced with the dumping inquiry in Indonesia. There was supposed to be a proper inspection of sites and a weighing up of the conditions under which paper was made in that country. But it was a sham job and, somehow, Australia's superior work practices, the best practice conditions, are ignored in the assessment. There must be a transparent process for the determination of a non-injurious price that has due regard to ensuring that a commercial return for the Australian industry is inherent in the determination.It appears that the same is happening in cement. So do Customs give Australian manufacturers a fair go? I believe that is a very fair and telling question. I do not think they do. Other countries seem to provide a much more level playing field for their local industries. We are constantly losing jobs to overseas because of this. I think there should be some changes made, and I will be seeking some reform in the area of anti-dumping. Labor in government would, I think, look for a review in this area. I would like to start with the cement industry's own critique, which was spelled out in a recent speech by the cement industry chairman. I believe that should form part of any rewriting of the Customs antidumping rules, and I thank him for his clear and concise suggestions. We need to divorce this part of Customs activity from its other regulatory roles. There should be an independent and publicly accountable agency, maybe like the US scheme, with a panel of commissioners. The objectives of that scheme are to provide an antidumping regime consistent with the WTO requirements and current practices in major OECD countries and other trade competitive countries. These objectives should focus on domestic industries and their economic imperatives and exclude the pursuit of longer-term trade policy goals. The analysis and decision making processes of the agency are transparent and open to all parties, subject to appropriate confidentiality, for commercial information and based on transparent case law. The conclusions of the agency would be subject to consideration by a panel of independent experts, including business and commercial people. The agency must be properly resourced to handle cases within the time frame of the current legislation, and resources should include appropriate commercial skilled investigative staff. Appropriate procedures should be flexible so that temporary antidumping measures can be implemented very quickly, in order to ensure that Australian industry is not crippled financially while a full investigation is undertaken. It would ensure that Australian industry is not disadvantaged by drawn-out administrative and regulatory reforms that have changed industry and that regulatory circumstances are considered in a more timely manner. This industry has been enormously forward-thinking with its proposals, and it has begun extensive discussions with other industries that are facing similar problems. Indeed, the motor industry could also be facing some of them, as my colleague from South Australia—the honourable member for Kingston, Mr Cox—pointed out. We have to give Australian industries a fair go and not keep rushing for the underdog's position against the financial heavyweights of the world—Japan, the US and Europe. There is no level playing field. The dice are loaded against a small-population country like Australia. We need our Customs, at least, playing on our side and not playing Solomon for who knows what reason. I believe that it is okay to be biased in favour of Australia, unless the other side categorically proves that there have been some unfair practices. We seem to cop the unfair practices all the time, and the WTO will not be sympathetic to any one party unless we can prove that we have been wronged. Even that is a long, drawn-out process which bears little resemblance to the notion of fair trading. It is important to have arrangements with countries to help trade develop, and, in the case of this bill, the entry of duty-free goods from the forum island countries can be seen as a way of helping our neighbours. We must ensure that we are not, at the same time, putting our own people out of work. In fact, in the discussion during the tabling of the report of the inquiry into the World Trade Organisation yesterday, I was speaking about the difficulties of the small countries. I had only about four minutes to speak on the report after a year's work. The report is Report 42, Who's afraid of the WTO?—Australia and the World Trade Organisation. It was pointed out in submissions to that inquiry that it is difficult for developing countries to understand the uniqueness of Australia's position. It has been proven that we do have something a bit different here, particularly recently after the mad cow and foot-and-mouth diseases rendered the European meat industry virtually morbid.Australia has been able, to some degree, to fill the gap—almost like an emergency supplier. The WTO needs to have suppliers of disease-free product to help countries where there are problems with the home-grown stock. We do have a different status from many other continents, and our boundaries are reasonably secure. The recommendation within that section was to apply the precautionary principle on a proper basis. There was recognition too that many developing countries have difficulties in meeting the guidelines and that there are many barriers to their participation in the WTO. We need to be more generous as a nation to try to help bring their quality and standards up— firstly, to prevent them from indulging in dumping and, secondly, so they can use their work force for both domestic and export markets in a similar manner, so that no subsidies are hidden by applying local standards. Once again there is a corollary with cement and paper pulp which is causing Australia quite considerable problems, because there is a judgment that competition is equal when it is not.Yesterday I was trying to say, during the tabling of the report, that trade is never debated in this House. We get to debate customs because of the customs bills, but we never get to debate trade. There are no trade bills. Occasionally, the trade minister tables a report on expectations for the following year, but we do not have long debates in this House, and I am sure the shadow minister for agriculture, fisheries and forestry, who is at the table, would agree that trade is a neglected subject around this chamber.WU5O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr O'Connor—Especially under this government.BV5Adams, Dick, MPMr ADAMS—This government have never risen to the occasion, other than to stand at the dispatch box at question time and try to argue about how well they have done. Sitting suspended from 6.30 p.m. to 8.00 p.m.BV5Adams, Dick, MPMr ADAMS—Prior to the dinner adjournment, I was speaking to the Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 4) 2001 in the second reading debate. I was speaking about the Customs department and some of the issues and problems of antidumping found in the industries of pulp and paper and cement in my electorate. I also touched on the lack of debate about trade in this chamber, which we need to remedy. There are rarely bills dealing with trade as such; there are sometimes debates on agriculture, but not on trade itself. We need to have more time to debate trade, the WTO and issues of that sort. I mention that in relation to Report 42—Who's afraid of the WTO? brought down yesterday by the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties. There is a fine line and I do not think that Customs are equipped to deliver those political decisions any more than AQIS are able to take on those decisions. I want to see change and I will be seeking this through the organs of my party, and we will certainly be pursuing this if we gain government.Although this bill is a minor one in the sense of being non-controversial and the opposition is not opposing the bill, my colleague from South Australia the member for Kingston, who takes a great interest in the car industry in his state, has an amendment to this bill. There are a number of issues that go much deeper and that need to be addressed. As I said, we need to bring trade into this chamber much more often, especially issues to do with the WTO so that there are many more public debates in that area. Other than that, I have pleasure in supporting the bill and will support the amendment moved by the Labor Party.20:03:0031407Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration10—At the outset, I would like to thank those honourable members who have participated in the debate on the Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 4) 2001. This particular bill is an omnibus bill that contains a number of amendments to the Customs Tariff Act 1995. Schedule 1 of the bill contains administrative amendments to reflect the cessation of the administrative arrangements to the year 2000 for the automotive industry on 31 December 2000 and the commencement of the Automotive Competitiveness and Investment Scheme on 1 January 2001. Schedule 3 of the bill creates a new item 68 in schedule 4 to the Customs Tariff Act, which will allow for certain textiles, clothing and footwear to be imported duty free from forum island countries covered by the South Pacific Regional Trade and Economic Cooperation Agreement.Schedule 5 of the bill creates a new item 69 in schedule 4 to the Customs Tariff Act to provide for the duty-free entry of goods imported into Australia for use in space projects. Item 69 will facilitate the transfer to Australia of sophisticated space -related technology and technical expertise. It is expected to be of significant benefit to companies proposing to establish and develop in Australia operations in the high technology, high value added space sector. The amendments relating to the policy by-law scheme contained in schedule 6 of this bill will simplify the operation of a number of concessional items in schedule 4 of the Customs Tariff Act. Project developers will benefit by the expansion of the scheme to cover new industry sectors and through access to technologically superior goods. The requirement for an Australian industry participation plan will give Australian industry full opportunity to supply goods for any project. The remaining amendments in the bill are minor administrative amendments and introduce no new initiatives.Before I conclude, I want to draw the attention of the House to a statement made by the honourable member for Lyons. He sought to criticise Customs' handling of dumping investigations. Quite frankly, this is not an issue for this bill. Customs has followed a process in the dumping investigations and the minister is considering the issues, so the government rejects the statements made by my friend the honourable member for Lyons. In conclusion, I thank those members who participated and I commend the bill to the chamber.Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time.31408Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.Amendment (by Mr Cox) proposed:(1) Schedule 1, before item 1, page 3 (after line 6), insert:1A After section 22Add:23 Independent Public Inquiry (1) After 30 June 2002 and before 1 January 2003, the Minister must issue terms of reference and establish an independent public inquiry concerning tariff levels and related matters in respect of the automotive industry. (2) The independent public inquiry must: (a) examine the need for assistance to promote competitiveness and encourage investment in the automotive industry after the arrangements set out in the ACIS Administration Act 1999 expire; and (b) consider the appropriate level of import tariffs for vehicles and components. (3) The independent public inquiry must call for submissions, hold public hearings and commission research to inform its deliberations. (4) The independent public inquiry may take evidence in private on matters that are commercially sensitive. (5) The independent public inquiry must deliver its report to the Minister before 31 March 2004. (6) The Minister must cause a copy of the report to be laid before each House of the Parliament as soon as practicable after receiving it.20:06:0031408Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration10—The government rejects the amendment moved by the honourable member for Kingston. The Industry (Productivity) Commission has already undertaken an independent review of tariff settings out to 2005. It was done in 1996-97 and preceded the announcement of the government's automotive industry policy in June 1997. I very strongly reject the imputation made by the member opposite. I certainly keep my word and, when I give an undertaking, I keep it. This review was comprehensive, held in public and involved extensive policy analysis.The government's automotive industry policy—five-year tariff freeze, ACIS worth $2 billion over five years, market access and development strategy of $20 million over four years, and environment improvement strategy—was acclaimed by the industry and received bipartisan support from the opposition at the time. It is complete hypocrisy on the part of the opposition to introduce these amendments. The government is providing $2 billion in adjustment support to the industry under ACIS to help it prepare for the tariff step-down at the end of the five-year freeze. This support was conditional on the implementation of the announced tariff settings. ACIS has been running for only nine months. It has over four years to run. It is ludicrous to believe that its effectiveness could be evaluated so soon.The government has also made a significant commitment to the auto industry through tax reform, significantly lowering the tax impost on purchases of motor vehicles. This has been opposed every inch of the way by the opposition—and, when you listen to the garrulous succession of inane interjections from the honourable members opposite, it is pretty clear that the opposition is out of touch with what the Australian community is saying. The opposition is generating uncertainty for the automotive industry with its hollow calls for reviews. Reviews are an easy substitute for policy. It is pretty obvious that the amendment which has been moved by the member for Kingston will be opposed by the House, and I certainly urge honourable members to support the government's position in this respect.20:09:0031408Cox, David, MPMr COX83UKingstonALP00—That was a totally incredible and most disappointing response by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration, who is at the table. The point of the issue is not that the existing ACIS arrangements need to be reviewed for their effectiveness but the government's continuing insistence that they be allowed to expire at the end of 2004 and not be replaced. The government, if it had any understanding of the motor vehicle industry at all, would recognise that the assistance arrangements after 2004 are now on the critical path for major investment decisions that are being made by the automotive manufacturers at the moment, of which Mitsubishi is not the least amongst them. It is a great disappointment that the government has decided that it is not going to support this amendment, that it is not going to have a review and that it is not going to offer certainty to Mitsubishi in relation to the assistance arrangements and to the tariff rate that will apply after 2004. LS4Ferguson, Martin, MP83UCox, David, MPMr COX—As the member for Batman has said, this government is extremely cavalier about the number of jobs that it throws away. This government took the advice of Qantas in relation to how it should deal with the need of its competitor—Ansett—for recapitalisation and in fact accepted Qantas's advice that Ansett would not fail and that the government should in fact deflect Singapore in its efforts—10000Causley, Ian (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. I.R. Causley)—The member for Kingston should speak more to the bill. He is ranging a little away from the debate.83UCox, David, MPMr COX—I am sorry, Mr Deputy Speaker, but the government is so cavalier with jobs. The Prime Minister was cavalier about the jobs of 1,000 Coles Myer workers this afternoon. Furthermore, the government have still not responded to the allegations about Qantas's advice in relation to deflecting Singapore's efforts to recapitalise Air New Zealand and Ansett and, by following that advice, have cut off the last avenue for supporting Ansett and keeping 70,000 jobs alive. I am enormously disappointed by the government's rejection of this amendment . I know that workers at Mitsubishi will be enormously disappointed when South Australian Liberal Party members troop in here and vote the party line to vote against security for their jobs after 2004.Question put:That the amendment (Mr Cox's) be agreed to.20:12:00The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker—Hon. I.R. Causley) 65Adams, D.G.H.Albanese, A.N.Bevis, A.R.Brereton, L.J.Burke, A.E.Byrne, A.M.Corcoran, A.K.Cox, D.A.Crean, S.F.Crosio, J.A.Danby, M.Edwards, G.J.Ellis, A.L.Emerson, C.A.Evans, M.J.Ferguson, L.D.T.Ferguson, M.J.Fitzgibbon, J.A.Gerick, J.F.Gibbons, S.W.Gillard, J.E.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.O'Keefe, N.P.Plibersek, T.Price, L.R.S.Quick, H.V.Ripoll, B.F.Roxon, N.L.Rudd, K.M.Sawford, R.W. *Sciacca, C.A.Sercombe, R.C.G. *Short, L.M.Sidebottom, P.S.Smith, S.F.Snowdon, W.E.Swan, W.M.Tanner, L.Thomson, K.J.Wilkie, K.Zahra, C.J.70Abbott, 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.Charles, R.E.Draper, P.Elson, K.S.Entsch, W.G.Fahey, J.J.Fischer, T.A.Forrest, J.A. *Gallus, C.A.Gambaro, T.Gash, J.Georgiou, P.Haase, B.W.Hardgrave, G.D.Hawker, D.P.M.Hockey, J.B.Hull, K.E.Jull, D.F.Kelly, D.M.Kelly, J.M.Lawler, A.J.Lindsay, P.J.Lloyd, J.E.Macfarlane, I.E.May, M.A.McArthur, S. *McGauran, P.J.Moylan, J. E.Nairn, G. R.Nehl, G. B.Nelson, B.J.Neville, P.C.Pearce, C.J.Prosser, G.D.Pyne, C.Reith, P.K.Ronaldson, M.J.C.Ruddock, P.M.Scott, B.C.Secker, P.D.Slipper, P.N.Somlyay, A.M.Southcott, A.J.St Clair, S.R.Stone, S.N.Sullivan, K.J.M.Thompson, C.P.Thomson, A.P.Truss, W.E.Tuckey, C.W.Vaile, M.A.J.Vale, D.S.Wakelin, B.H.Washer, M.J.Williams, D.R.Wooldridge, M.R.L.Worth, P.M.Beazley, K.C.Howard, J.W.Griffin, A.P.Lieberman, L.S.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the negative.20:22:0031410Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration10—by leave—I present a supplementary explanatory memorandum to the bill and move government amendments Nos 1 to 7:(1) Clause 2, page 2 (after line 5), insert: (5A) Schedule 4A is taken to have commenced on 30 June 2001.(2) Clause 2, page 2 (after line 7), insert: (6A) Schedule 5A commences on 1 January 2002.(3) Page 12, after Schedule 4, insert:Schedule 4A—Amendment of the Customs Tariff Act 1995 having effect from 30 June 2001Customs Tariff Act 19951 Item 44 of Part III of Schedule 4Repeal the item, substitute: Goods, being goods classified under a subheading or an item specified in column 1 of the Table below, for use in the manufacture of excisable goods in terms of section 24 of the Excise Act 1901The difference between the rate of duty set out in the third column of the subheading or item so specified and the rate of duty for the excise item specified in column 2 of the Table opposite to that subheading or item, set out in the third column of that excise item in the Schedule to the Excise Tariff Act 1921NZ/PNG/FI/DC/DCS:The difference between the rate of duty set out in the third column of the subheading or item so specified and the rate of duty for the excise item specified in column 2 of the Table opposite to that subheading or item, set out in the third column of that excise item in the Schedule to the Excise Tariff Act 1921Table of related Customs Subheadings and Items and Excise ItemsColumn 1Customs Subheadingor ItemColumn 2Excise Item2203.00.311(D)2203.00.392(H)2203.00.611(C)(1)(a)2203.00.621(C)(1)(b)2203.00.691(C)(1)(c)2203.00.711(C)(2)(a)2203.00.721(C)(2)(b)2203.00.791(C)(2)(c)2204.10.231(D)2204.10.292(H)2204.10.831(D)2204.10.892(H)2204.21.301(D)2204.21.902(H)2204.29.301(D)2204.29.902(H)2205.10.301(D)2205.10.902(H)2205.90.301(D)2205.90.902(H)2206.00.521(D)2206.00.592(H)2206.00.621(D)2206.00.692(H)2206.00.741(C)(1)(a)2206.00.751(C)(1)(b)2206.00.781(C)(1)(c)2206.00.821(C)(2)(a)2206.00.831(C)(2)(b)2206.00.891(C)(2)(c)2206.00.921(D)2206.00.992(H)2207.10.002(H)2208.20.102(A)2208.20.902(C)2208.30.002(D)2208.40.002(F)2208.50.002(H)2208.60.002(H)2208.70.00 2(G)2208.90.201(D)2208.90.902(H)2401.20.006(B)2401.30.006(B)2402.10.207(A)2402.10.807(B)2402.20.208(A)2402.20.808(B)2403.10.306(A)2403.10.706(B)2403.91.006(B)2403.99.2092403.99.806(B)2707.10.0011(H)(1)(c)2707.20.2911(H)(1)(c)2707.20.8911(H)(1)(c)2707.30.2911(H)(1)(c)2707.30.8911(H)(1)(c)2707.50.3911(H)(1)(c)2707.50.8911(H)(1)(c)2709.00.8111(E)(2)2709.00.8911(E)(1)2710.00.1411(G)(3)2710.00.1511(G)(2)2710.00.2011(C)(2)(a)2710.00.3311(B)(1)(b)2710.00.3411(B)(2)(b)2710.00.3911(B)(2)(a)2710.00.4011(A)2710.00.6011(D)2710.00.7111(H)(2)(a)2710.00.7211(H)(2)(b)2710.00.7911(H)(2)(c)2710.00.8311(I)(2)(b)2710.00.8411(I)(3)(b)2710.00.8911(I)(3)(a)2710.00.9115(A)2710.00.9215(C)2902.20.9011(I)(3)(a)2902.30.9011(I)(3)(a)2902.41.9011(I)(3)(a)2902.42.9011(I)(3)(a)2902.43.9011(I)(3)(a)2902.44.9011(I)(3)(a)3403.11.1015(C)3403.11.9015(A)3403.19.1015(C)3403.19.9015(A)3403.91.1015(C)3403.91.9015(A)3403.99.1015(C)3403.99.9015(A)3811.21.1015(C)3811.21.9015(A)3817.10.9011(I)(3)(a)3819.00.0015(A)50B15(A)(4) Page 13, after Schedule 5, insert:Schedule 5A—Amendment of the Customs Tariff Act 1995 having effect from 1 January 2002Customs Tariff Act 19951 Item 44 of Part III of Schedule 4 (table)Repeal the table, substitute: Table of related Customs Subheadings and Items and Excise ItemsColumn 1Customs Subheading or ItemColumn 2Excise Item2203.00.311(D)2203.00.392(H)2203.00.611(C)(1)(a)2203.00.621(C)(1)(b)2203.00.69 1(C)(1)(c)2203.00.711(C)(2)(a)2203.00.721(C)(2)(b)2203.00.79 1(C)(2)(c)2204.10.231(D)2204.10.292(H)2204.10.831(D)2204.10.892(H)2204.21.301(D)2204.21.902(H)2204.29.301(D)2204.29.902(H)2205.10.301(D)2205.10.902(H)2205.90.301(D)2205.90.902(H)2206.00.521(D)2206.00.592(H)2206.00.621(D)2206.00.692(H)2206.00.741(C)(1)(a)2206.00.751(C)(1)(b)2206.00.78 1(C)(1)(c)2206.00.821(C)(2)(a)2206.00.831(C)(2)(b)2206.00.89 1(C)(2)(c)2206.00.921(D)2206.00.992(H)2207.10.002(H)2208.20.102(A)2208.20.902(C)2208.30.002(D)2208.40.002(F)2208.50.002(H)2208.60.002(H)2208.70.00 2(G)2208.90.201(D)2208.90.902(H)2401.20.006(B)2401.30.006(B)2402.10.207(A)2402.10.807(B)2402.20.208(A)2402.20.808(B)2403.10.306(A)2403.10.706(B)2403.91.006(B)2403.99.2092403.99.806(B)2707.10.0011(H)(1)(c)2707.20.2911(H)(1)(c)2707.20.8911(H)(1)(c)2707.30.2911(H)(1)(c)2707.30.8911(H)(1)(c)2707.50.3911(H)(1)(c)2707.50.8911(H)(1)(c)2709.00.8111(E)(2)2709.00.8911(E)(1)2710.11.6111(H)(2)(a)2710.11.6211(H)(2)(b)2710.11.6911(H)(2)(c)2710.11.7311(I)(2)(b)2710.11.7411(I)(3)(b)2710.11.7911(I)(3)(a)2710.19.1311(G)(3)2710.19.1911(G)(2)2710.19.2011(C)(2)(a)2710.19.3311(B)(1)(b)2710.19.3411(B)(2)(b)2710.19.3911(B)(2)(a)2710.19.4011(A)2710.19.5011(D)2710.19.7911(I)(3)(a)2710.19.9115(A)2710.19.9215(C)2710.91.1311(G)(3)2710.91.1911(G)(2)2710.91.2011(C)(2)(a)2710.91.3311(B)(1)(b)2710.91.3411(B)(2)(b)2710.91.3911(B)(2)(a)2710.91.4011(A)2710.91.5011(D)2710.91.6111(H)(2)(a)2710.91.6211(H)(2)(b)2710.91.6911(H)(2)(c)2710.91.7311(I)(2)(b)2710.91.7411(I)(3)(b)2710.91.7911(I)(3)(a)2710.91.9115(A)2710.91.9215(C)2710.99.1311(G)(3)2710.99.1911(G)(1)2710.99.2011(C)(2)(a)2710.99.3311(B)(1)(b)2710.99.3411(B)(2)(b)2710.99.3911(B)(2)(a)2710.99.4011(A)2710.99.5011(D)2710.99.6111(H)(2)(a)2710.99.6211(H)(2)(b)2710.99.6911(H)(2)(c)2710.99.7311(I)(2)(b)2710.99.7411(I)(3)(b)2710.99.7911(I)(3)(a)2710.99.9115(A)2710.99.9215(C)2902.20.9011(I)(3)(a)2902.30.9011(I)(3)(a)2902.41.9011(I)(3)(a)2902.42.9011(I)(3)(a)2902.43.9011(I)(3)(a)2902.44.9011(I)(3)(a)3403.11.1015(C)3403.11.9015(A)3403.19.1015(C)3403.19.9015(A)3403.91.1015(C)3403.91.9015(A)3403.99.1015(C)3403.99.9015(A)3811.21.1015(C)3811.21.9015(A)3817.00.1911(I)(3)(a)3819.00.0015(A)50B15(A)(5) Schedule 7, page 17 (lines 3 and 4), omit “relating to Part IV of the Excise Act 1901”, substitute “having effect on the 14th day after this Act receives the Royal Assent”.(6) Schedule 7, page 17 (before line 7), insert:1A Division 1 of Part 2 of Schedule 1Repeal the following item: SenegalSENE(7) Schedule 7, page 17, after proposed item 1A, insert:1B Division 1 of Part 3 of Schedule 1Insert the following item in its appropriate alphabetical position, determined on a letter-by-letter basis: SenegalSENEThese amendments to the Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 4) 2001 contain three new measures. The first is a technical change to item 44 of schedule 4 of the Customs Tariff Act 1995—the customs tariff. This amendment creates a new table within the item to define its coverage without the need to refer to other unrelated sections of the customs tariff. This amendment will be taken to have commenced on 30 June 2001. The second further amends the table in item 44 to reflect tariff changes that will occur on 1 January 2002. The third incorporates Senegal in the list of least developed countries in the customs tariff. This amendment will provide imports from Senegal with a five per cent reduction in the general rate of duty where applicable. I commend the amendments to the chamber.Amendments agreed to.Bill, as amended, agreed to.31413Bill (on motion by Mr Slipper)—by leave—read a third time.Bills31413R1417BillsR141931413Debate resumed from 20 September, on motion by Mr Abbott:That the bill be now read a second time.20:25:0031413Ferguson, Martin, MPMr MARTIN FERGUSONLS4BatmanALP00—I rise this evening to speak about the Air Passenger Ticket Levy (Collection) Bill 2001 and the Air Passenger Ticket Levy (Imposition) Bill 2001, better known as the ticket tax bills. These bills were introduced late last week to mitigate the tragic consequences of the failure of the government to actually do something to try and keep Ansett in the air. Not only is that of major concern to metropolitan and regional Australia; it is also a huge kick in the guts to many thousands of workers—be it those formerly directly employed by Ansett or those indirectly employed as a result of the activities of Ansett—and, most importantly, their families and their local communities.As you are aware, Mr Deputy Speaker, the government has announced that Ansett employees' entitlements for wages, annual or long service leave and pay in lieu of notice are to be met in full except with respect to redundancy, which will only be funded up to eight weeks. That is of concern to a significant number of Ansett workers who have been employed for many years. We have examples of workers who have joined Ansett from school and have worked over extended periods for this company. In essence, their whole working life has been devoted to Ansett and associated companies. To now be denied those full redundancy entitlements represents a huge financial setback.As part of these arrangements with respect to the partial payment of such entitlements, the government this evening by way of these bills proposes to establish a special employees' entitlements scheme funded by a $10 ticket tax, or levy, on airline tickets. The bills impose that levy and make arrangements for collection on certain air passenger tickets; these are to be further clarified by a series of amendments to be moved this evening by the government. The government, to be fair—though not without a lot of notice—has foreshadowed those amendments to the opposition, indicating that they go to changes in the definitions and principles that were set out in the original bill. As a result of those discussions, I can clearly indicate that, subject to what has been said to us privately being placed on the public record this evening, the opposition will not have any difficulties with the amendments, as they further strengthen and seek to clarify the operation of the bill. The intent of the bill is that the levy will be payable on each ticket issued on or after 1 October 2001 for an Australian regular public transport flight that originates in Australia. The concept of a first flight has been removed and the onus is not on the passenger. Instead, as a result of these amendments, the onus has shifted to the purchaser of the ticket and the levy is payable when the ticket is purchased. The amendments also allow the minister to make special arrangements for airlines that sell tickets by sector, such as Virgin Blue. These special arrangements are intended to remove the problem with their ticketing systems, which are not able to recognise joint sectors or return journeys. The regulations also—and this will be of interest to you, Mr Deputy Speaker Causley, representing a regional seat—ensure that passengers are not charged twice if they fly, for example, with Virgin Blue from Melbourne to Sydney on one ticket and with Hazelton from Sydney to Dubbo on a different ticket. It would be wrong if people in regional communities, for example, were double taxed as a result of a failure of the government to actually get the application of this bill right from the outset. The regulations are, therefore, important, and the opposition will give close attention to those regulations in due course. The minister's office has assured us that this double taxing will not occur for people flying on a variety of sectors.The bill also provides that the levy is not payable on tickets issued without a fare being paid, for example on tickets for airline crew and personnel. The levy will apply to electronic and paper tickets and will be collected on behalf of the Commonwealth by flight operators. In this regard, we assume that that will include airlines, but it is expected that it will also include travel agents. The amendments also remove potential problems of the earlier bill, with the new concept of a ticketing airline being responsible for collecting the levy as opposed to the operating airline in the earlier bill. On the basis of that explanation given by representatives of the department and the minister's office to my office earlier this evening, and provided that is further clarified and set out on the public record, the opposition do not have difficulties with the amendments this evening.Going to the issue of the process for levy collection, it includes provision for lodging levy returns, penalty payments and the distribution of any surplus levy as enshrined in the bill. It also correctly provides for the appointment of inspectors to carry out functions relating to the levy collection.In the event that the levy generates a surplus before it is ended, the government will distribute that surplus in accordance with the scheme to be prescribed by regulation. It should be noted that those regulations will not include repaying the money to the airlines that collected the levy, and it will be interesting to hear the minister's explanation in respect of this matter. It should also be noted that the bill enables the minister for workplace relations to establish in writing the terms of the special employees' entitlement scheme for Ansett workers. I would hope that the minister tables this evening the full details of that proposal in writing for the edification of the House and the Australian community as to the nature of the scheme. The minister also has the power to determine the nature of the scheme to pay certain entitlements to former employees of companies in the Ansett group whose employment has been terminated as a result of the insolvency of those companies. The bill, as one understands, imposes a limit of $500 million for that purpose. The precise terms of the scheme are, unfortunately, not included.It should also be noted that there is no information in the bill or explanatory memorandum that provides any justification for the $500 million cap. It would appear to be broadly in the ballpark and the figure of $400 million has been quoted in the media as the amount of the entitlements owing minus superannuation. In the public interest and to retain the credibility of this parliament, it is beholden on the minister—either the Minister for Transport and Regional Services or the minister for workplace relations and small business—to give some particular information about the appropriation of half a billion dollars. I trust that this will also be addressed by the minister in his reply this evening. I say that I do not mind which minister answers that question because this is also a complication relating to the operation of the bill. We believe there is potential confusion in the bill as to the roles of the respective ministers covered by the full application of the bill. The Department of Transport and Regional Services will administer the collection of the levy, while the minister for workplace relations will be responsible for the scheme that the levy will pay for. The minister for workplace relations also retains the power to authorise payments for costs incurred by the Commonwealth in connection with the collection or administration of the levy, that is, those costs of the Department of Transport and Regional Services, I presume, and for the establishment or operation of the entitlement scheme.Having dealt with the complications arising from the amendments, and the questions relating to the operation of the bill that we pose for the minister to respond to this evening, I now want to deal with the intent of the bill and the background to why we are debating it this evening. As the Leader of the Opposition, Kim Beazley, has said, the opposition will support this bill, but only as a last resort. In addressing the House this evening, I want to clearly indicate that it grates on the opposition that the bill is even before the House. I say that for a number of reasons. Firstly, the bill represents a new tax on the Australian community and, more importantly, a tax on jobs. That is against a background of the Australian community seeing a couple of thousand jobs just go from one growth sector of employment today— namely, the loss of 2,000 jobs from Coles Myer and Daimaru. What we have before the House this evening is further difficulty with respect to jobs and opportunities for Australian workers. The `ticket tax' embodied in this bill represents a tax on the Australian community and a new tax on jobs. The Prime Minister, I suggest, has broken yet another promise by imposing another tax on the community—I suppose somewhat akin to his previous undertakings about never, ever introducing a GST. Secondly, the tax is being imposed to pay for the incompetence of the Howard government. Ansett hit the ground because of a lack of attention to detail and a failure by the Howard government to do something about keeping Ansett in the air. Thirdly, and importantly for regional communities, such as the communities represented by you, Mr Deputy Speaker Causley, this tax is a tax on tourism. The tourist industry has already been hard hit not only by the collapse of Ansett and the decline in international aviation because of the US crisis with respect to the terrorist activities but also by the implementation of the GST. Yet again, one of the engine rooms of job growth in Australia, the tourist industry, has been kicked in the guts by the Howard government this evening.Fourthly, the government is prepared to raise $500 million to pay entitlements in the event that the company becomes insolvent but, alternatively, has mocked Labor's calls to put up $200 million to help get the airline back in the air, and has steadfastly refused to back our call to put jobs first rather than the payment of workers' entitlements. So far as I am concerned, the first priority of the Ansett workers I have spoken to is keeping Ansett in the air and keeping their jobs so as to look after them, their families and their local communities, be they in metropolitan Australia or rural, remote and regional Australia. The payment of workers' entitlements was of secondary importance—it was jobs first and access to their entitlements if we could not maintain those jobs.Fifthly, we firmly believe that the government saw the Ansett crisis coming and, as is usual with the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, we saw another example of the National Party leader—your leader, Mr Deputy Speaker Causley—sitting idly and thereby failing to protect the jobs and interests of Australian workers. For that reason I understand why there is frequent criticism of what is better known as `cocky house' in the House of Representatives because of the failure of this minister to attend to his ministerial responsibilities. In some ways I commiserate with you and members of your National Party caucus for having such a lacklustre and non-performing minister as the leader of your party in this House. Having dealt with those issues, I indicate that Labor will support the bill because we do not want to cause any further grief or uncertainty for the workers employed by Ansett in the event that they lose their jobs. It was also for that reason that the Labor Party in the other house agreed this evening to the adjournment of a Senate committee which had been established to investigate the collapse of Ansett. In question time today the lacklustre Minister for Transport and Regional Services, without prior notification of the opposition, raised the question of that reference to the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee being adjourned for the purposes of making sure we do everything possible to get Ansett or a successor up in the air. I simply want to report to the House this evening that, despite our concerns about the performance of the government and especially of the minister with respect to the collapse of Ansett, we have agreed to the request of the administrator to make sure that the administrator gets all possible support to get jobs back in the operation of Ansett or a successor. Perhaps it is about time that the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, rather than playing politics, actually started to enter into constructive discussions to make sure that we guarantee the future of aviation services to metropolitan and regional communities.I also make it clear that we think this bill is not good policy for the problem that the government has created. The entitlements package proposed by the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business is clearly inadequate because it does not provide 100 per cent of the entitlements due to workers. I simply say that those workers are entitled to those entitlements; in many ways they represent their accumulated guarantee against hardship should they lose their job. I find it strange that the Prime Minister comes into this House and lectures those workers about statutory entitlements when that same Prime Minister goes out of his way to protect his own superannuation entitlements that are way above what the community would expect. My message to the Prime Minister is: if you believe it is appropriate for you to receive superannuation entitlements way above the community standard, then it is not right for you to lecture workers about what is reasonable when it comes to redundancy payments when they are facing long-term unemployment in some regional communities and difficulties in getting a job in an alternative industry. Again, we have the prime example of one rule for the Prime Minister when it comes to looking after his brother, Stan Howard, and National Textiles, and another rule when it comes to looking after other companies in Australia and ordinary Australian workers and their families. Labor stands by its view that all Australian workers when they lose their job are entitled to their full entitlements.That takes me to the unjustified attack by the Prime Minister today on the employees of Ansett—workers who have been described all around Australia as having done a good job for their employer and for the Australian travelling public over many years. The Prime Minister today sought to suggest to the Australian community that the Ansett workers were responsible for Ansett going to the wall. He then sought to suggest that Qantas had a better approach to industrial relations. I simply suggest that the government should investigate the history of enterprise bargaining with respect to Ansett, its employees and the unions which represent the Ansett workers. That investigation will show very clearly that, on a number of occasions over the last 10 to 15 years, Ansett workers have accepted lower wage and condition outcomes compared to Qantas employees for the purposes of trying to assist their employer, Ansett, to guarantee the future of their company. The record speaks for itself: it is Ansett workers who have copped lower wage and condition improvements to look after their company, compared to Qantas employers, for the purposes of keeping jobs in Australia. It was a cheap shot, a cheap attack on Australian workers and a cheap attack on their families. But I am not surprised, Mr Deputy Speaker. This is the same government that has a Treasurer who thinks workers in your seat in the Northern Rivers area of New South Wales should earn less than workers living in Brisbane. This is the same government that believes the Prime Minister should not move house to the Lodge in Canberra but should occupy the luxurious premises of Kirribilli House, whilst lecturing Australian workers in your seat that if they lose their job they should pull up stumps and move to a capital city. It is a Sydney-centric government with no regard for Australian workers.WN6Macfarlane, Ian, MPLS4Ferguson, Martin, MPMr MARTIN FERGUSON—As for the Minister for Small Business, I remind the House of an exchange I had with him earlier this evening in which he clearly said to me that the loss of a thousand jobs in the retail sector in Coles Myer today is of no major importance.WN6Macfarlane, Ian, MPMr Ian Macfarlane—I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I ask that the speaker speak to the bill and be relevant in his comments and not misquote me in the House.10000Causley, Ian (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. I.R. Causley)—I think the member for Batman is wandering from the bill and he could direct his remarks back to the bill.LS4Ferguson, Martin, MPMr MARTIN FERGUSON—Mr Deputy Speaker, this is a wide ranging debate. I will tell you why it is a wide ranging debate.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—The chair will decide whether it is a wide ranging debate.LS4Ferguson, Martin, MPMr MARTIN FERGUSON—This is about the Australian community being taxed by your government yet again. This is about a government that has no regard for workers. This is about a government that let a major employer and Australian icon fall to the ground because it is not prepared to get off its backside and fight to keep jobs in Australia. This is a government which basically said to the Australian community today, `A thousand workers in Coles Myer? So what! A thousand workers in Daimaru? So what!'It comes back to bread and butter, not wedge politics. It comes back to jobs, job security, health and education. The Howard government stands condemned for its inaction with respect to Ansett Australia, associated airlines and the lack of services now to regional, remote and rural communities. Let us be clear about it. The Prime Minister is about cheap shots because he has also given up on cheap air fares, as he clearly indicated to the House today. He basically said that Ansett brought its collapse on its own head because it introduced cheap air fares. That is what the Prime Minister said today in response to a question about our concerns about the lack of discount air fares for the Australian community today. When it comes to bread and butter issues, the Howard government fails yet again: be it on cheap air fares, it sees it as being of no importance; be it about jobs, of no importance; be it about access to aviation services to move our freight from regional communities, such as the regional community represented by the Minister for Small Business, of no importance. Are you surprised, Mr Deputy Speaker, that it has to resort to wedge politics to save its backside, if it can, at the forthcoming federal election? It is a cheap government with no heart and no concern for workers and their families in all areas of Australia.This is about inaction and the Australian government's failure to accept its responsibilities and, in doing so, again seek to apportion blame to everyone else in the community. To get itself out of this political mess, yet again it has slugged businesses and families with higher air fares, fewer services, a lack of access and, in the end, the collapse of an Australian icon in the 70th year of its operation, having commenced in Hamilton— Ansett Australia. Well, so what? It was only Reg Ansett! He started as a small businessman. The Minister for Small Business has got a smirk on his face. You are happy again. You have helped to destroy another major employer. You have helped to destroy another major Australian icon. Yes, that is what you are all about: turning big business into small business and destroying Australian jobs. You are not fit to be the Minister for Small Business. You are not fit to be the member for your seat because, frankly, you do not care about jobs. Maybe the National Party is right about you. Mr Deputy Speaker, I understand why you regard him the way you do, as a member of the National Party. He is about taking away jobs from Australian communities. 10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! I remind the member for Batman that when I sit in this chair I do not represent a seat.LS4Ferguson, Martin, MPMr MARTIN FERGUSON—I understand that, Mr Deputy Speaker, but it is what you say from cocky corner that counts, when you comment on the performance of the Howard minister. I think you are right: you could easily do a better job than most of them, especially those who sit on the front bench in front of you. I understand why from time to time you seriously think about a challenge, when I look at the Leader of the National Party, John Anderson, who is responsible for the debacle that is before the House this evening in respect of Ansett Australia. Frankly, Mr Deputy Speaker, if I had a vote, I would vote for you.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Thank goodness you don't!LS4Ferguson, Martin, MPMr MARTIN FERGUSON—As I have indicated, the collapse has spread inconvenience and it has hurt the Australian community. This government knew that Ansett was imploding but it failed to act. The Howard government's complicity in the destruction of that great Australian icon, and with it the potential loss of 16,000 direct jobs and tens of thousands of indirect jobs, will not be forgotten. The ramifications of this collapse will be felt by the Australian community for many years to come. That is the truth of the matter. But that does not mean much to the Howard government, because it is a small-hearted, mean-spirited government. When we talk about the impact on little people, it does not add much weight to the Howard government's thinking, because they are only little people doing it tough. `There are only a couple of votes here and there, and what's wrong with a few families and a few small businesses falling over?' That is the approach of the Howard government. I will remind the government about some of those little people who have been hurt by its inaction.Let us refer to the Manelys in Bathurst. Their little company, a wonderful employer in a regional community, employed three staff in the airport turnaround business for Hazelton Airlines that until last week had Ansett as its parent. The Manelys told their local newspaper that they considered themselves part of the Ansett family and were exceptionally proud to be part of that family. But when Grant Manely turned up at work last Friday, he found a fax from the administrators saying, `Your business has been suspended.' `Not even the decency of a phone call' is what he told his local newspaper. He had not been paid for the last eight weeks. The Prime Minister likes to lecture us about standards with respect to entitlements. As far as I am concerned, Mr Manely and his family are entitled to be paid. I now refer to George Dib from Sunbury, a baggage handler for seven years, who recently made his first mortgage payment and today is wondering where the next payment will come from. `That's all right, he is just a little person in the suburbs of Melbourne, one of the casualties of the Howard government. Don't worry about him, he's in a Labor seat. We wouldn't want to worry about him, would we? He might be a Labor voter. Don't worry about him having his home sold up because he cannot meet his mortgage payments; that's just a casualty of government. We don't have to worry about those little people.' It is about the 1,000 workers at Coles Myer and the 1,000 or so workers at Daimaru. That is part of the economic rationalism and competition policy that the Howard government likes to spruik about. Let us talk about Melissa, a flight attendant who called talkback radio last week. Not surprisingly, she was struggling to control her emotions. What did she say? Again, it is about John Anderson, the Deputy Prime Minister. She said:If I hear John Anderson say that he didn't know what was going on until last weekend ... if I hear that one more time I'm going to scream ...All I can say to Melissa is this: I have heard what you have said, and I think that you are entitled to scream. You are entitled to scream at the Howard government and at the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Transport and Regional Services because this government did nothing to help you and your employer. You have been kicked in the guts in the same way in which regional Australia has been kicked in the guts. Routes now do not have proper airline services. Let us talk about some of the communities that have suffered: Carnarvon, Derby, Laverton, Bathurst, Lismore, Olympic Dam, Mudgee, Nyngan, Orange and Parkes. I visit a lot of those communities on a regular basis because they are crying out for assistance from Canberra. They simply say to me—and Ansett proves it yet again—`We want a government in Canberra that is a little bit interested in us; a government in Canberra that is prepared to stand up and barrack for us; a government in Canberra that is prepared to fight for us. We are not about handouts.' All they say is, `We want a fair go. We don't believe that the Commonwealth government in our Centenary of Federation year ought simply to be city-centric. It should be a government for all Australians; a government concerned with the essentials of life and with the principles that go to putting into place decent opportunities and guaranteeing a fair go for a fair day's work; in essence, a government that is consumed with supporting regional communities and guaranteeing access to jobs and decent health and education standards.'Tourism is a prime example of that. It is one of the industries that has been helping regional communities over many years. It is a $60 billion a year business for Australia and it is estimated that one-third of that is generated in regional communities. I suppose those regional communities are right: it is all too hard in Canberra. If it takes a little bit of effort, you have got to run back to the farm and hide because it is a little bit tough to get your hands dirty, do a bit of work and try and struggle to represent Australian workers and their communities. I was therefore not surprised to read a report in a recent edition of the rural newspaper, the Land, a paper I read regularly but one I am sure the Minister for Small Business does not read that regularly because he would also be squealing—WN6Macfarlane, Ian, MPLS4Ferguson, Martin, MPMr MARTIN FERGUSON—The Deputy Prime Minister told the Land his own very telling story. It revealed that the Minister for Transport and Regional Services is struggling with his workload. That is not surprising because, if you do not put the effort in, you will struggle. This is what the Minister for Transport and Regional Services had to say: `I can't keep going like this.' Sounds like a King's boy in the sandpit, doesn't it?—one of the privileged few who used to kick around in the sandpit with Alan Jones looking over his best interests in North Rocks in Sydney. He said:I can't keep going like this—leading the (National) Party—I know that is difficult—Deputy Prime Minister—a very onerous job—the transport portfolio and servicing the needs of the massive Gwydir electorate. Something's got to give.I will tell you what gave: it was Ansett, because the minister could not manage his ministerial responsibilities.This is a very serious debate. In essence, the Australian community is paying yet again for the failure of the Howard government to do its job. The day Ansett hit the ground, 14 September, was a black day in Australian aviation history. For that reason, I will move a second reading amendment which goes to the crux of the debate before the House this evening. It clearly condemns the Howard government for its inaction; for the manner in which it has again hit the Australian workers with a new tax to pay for its mistakes; for the fact that, rather than trying to assist the airline, it has allowed it to go on without any assistance to get it back up in the air. 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:(1) imposing another new tax on the Australian community that will hurt the tourist industry and therefore the economy, and cost jobs; (2) its total incompetence and mismanagement of the Ansett ownership issue;(3) introducing an employee entitlement scheme that does not meet 100% of workers entitlements;(4) announcing that future unspecified levies may be imposed in order to ensure greater entitlements are paid than currently provided under the Government's flawed entitlements scheme;(5) failing to protect the jobs and interests of Australian workers;(6) leaving Australian communities without aviation services, jeopardising health and living standards;(7) totally destroying the integrity of Australia's aviation policy; and(8) not brokering a solution to the Ansett crisis that would save jobs, regional services and aviation competition”.10000Quick, Harry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Quick)— Is the amendment seconded?8K6Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr Fitzgibbon—I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.20:56:0031420Hull, Kay, MPMrs HULL83ORiverinaNP10—I support the Air Passenger Ticket Levy (Imposition) Bill 2001 and the Air Passenger Ticket Levy (Collection) Bill 2001 although, as a very active member of the tourism industry in the past, and as one of the friends of tourism in this House, I understand the difficulties that the industry is experiencing at this time. It was a difficult decision for me to support the levy and it may well have been an option to apply a departure levy and not penalise our domestic businesses. However, I am fully committed to the tourism industry and clearly remember going through this debate when the New South Wales Premier, through the New South Wales government, applied a bed tax.I understand the crisis the industry is facing and it will take strong, cohesive and positive leadership and ownership of this magnificent industry to assist this sector to overcome the hurdles that confront it. However, I must empathise with those people who have found themselves in a position not of their making. Many of them have trained for all their working careers to attain certain positions and they now find that they cannot utilise their skills and that they need to undertake a new approach to their working futures.My unrelenting support for Kendell Airlines employees in my electorate is well known in the House, in the city of Wagga Wagga and in the home of Kendell. Kendell Airlines employed 900 people. The wages and salaries were around $38 million. It serviced 19 ports of destination and had a fleet of seven CRJ 200s, 29 Saab 340 A/Bs and 19 Metroliners/Metro 23s. In Victoria, Kendell employed 322 people. Its wages were around $12 million and it serviced five destinations. In New South Wales, Kendell employed 328 people. The engineering and maintenance was carried out in Wagga Wagga, the home of Kendell. It serviced the Wagga Wagga, Albury, Ballina and Coffs Harbour areas, with around 200 of those employees being employed in the central city in the Riverina of Wagga Wagga. In Queensland, it serviced Rockhampton and Mackay. In South Australia, it employed 127 people and had wages of around $6 million. It serviced seven destinations: Mount Gambier, Kangaroo Island, Port Lincoln, Whyalla, Ceduna, Olympic Dam and Coober Pedy. It had about 120 through movements per week, encompassing about 90 per cent of the government travel. In Tasmania, it employed 37 people. Kendell serviced Launceston, Burnie, Devonport and King Island. In the ACT market, it serviced the route from Sydney to the ACT and it employed 42 people.All of this—the generation of income and the creation of jobs and services—resulted from one man and his wife. This airline, which has contributed so much to rural and regional Australian people, was founded by a most wonderful man, Don Kendell, and his wife Eilish. They commenced a charter and flying instructor's business in Wagga Wagga in 1967. Don and Eilish built their business and commenced the first airline service between Wagga Wagga and Melbourne in 1971. This commitment from this family established a quality of life for so many rural and regional Australians. This man has enabled us to have medical specialists visit our electorate. At times, the services that this man has provided have determined whether Riverina people live or die. Do not ever underestimate the service that Don Kendell and his wife have provided to rural, regional and remote Australia. We have managed to attract industries that have provided employment opportunities for our people, all on the back of this airline. We have remained competitive with the nation by offering a reliable service to and from the major capital cities and all over Australia. Our business houses have utilised these services to their capacity and have enabled them to offer employment and to generate expansion in the areas of rural and regional Australia.As one of the loyal Kendell staff members said, when speaking of the demise of Ansett Australia and the position that Kendell Airlines now finds itself in due to that demise, `This would never have happened in Don's day.' Under the chairmanship of Don Kendell and the general management of Geoff Bruest, the Kendell company was profitable. No dividend was paid to shareholders, and all profits went back into building the company. That is how small business goes on to become large business, like Don Kendell's. It is through blood, sweat and tears. You have to apply yourself and work long hours. You have to determine how to build your business, and you and your family have to make sacrifices to build your business. Don was always honest with his staff, and there were no fancy overheads. He ran a lean, efficient operation.Don has found difficult times with his health now. It must be very stressful to see all that he has worked for collapsing around him. The first words Don Kendell said to me after the horrific events in America were, `It shatters me to see that they used civilian aircraft to commit this atrocity.' Such is his commitment and such has been his commitment to the field of aviation. It is without doubt, Don, that I am very proud of what you have delivered. I thank you for your commitment to us. The least I can do is to support your dedicated staff in this mess, because it has been brought about by a company that does not understand the commitment and sacrifice it takes to ensure that an operation continues to run.It may seem odd that I have concentrated thus far on Kendell in this speech and not on the issues of air services to my electorate and across rural and regional Australia. However, this may very well be the last opportunity I have to speak about a man that I have looked up to and to have him read my sincere thoughts and gratitude to him for the wonderful asset he has given to the Riverina.Let me take this opportunity to offer my thanks and my sincere gratitude to John Anderson, the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, the Leader of the National Party and the Deputy Prime Minister of Australia. Through his diligence and his desire to see Kendell fly again, the airline is flying again in three states. This must be a source of enormous pride for Don Kendell.It is only today that the federal government—under the leadership of John Anderson, the Deputy Prime Minister and Leader of the National Party—announced that the administrator of Kendell will be given a $3.5 million loan to help the airline fly again. The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Transport and Regional Services, John Anderson, has enabled Kendell to resume services in South Australia and some flights between Melbourne and Tasmania. The airline will operate from Adelaide to Port Lincoln, Olympic Dam, Whyalla, Broken Hill, Coober Pedy, Mount Gambier, Ceduna and Kingscote. These services will start from Thursday, 27 September. Hopefully next week the airline will operate from Melbourne to Burnie and to Devonport and to King Island. These were great routes for Don Kendell. It is sensational to see this taking place.The loan to Kendell Airlines administrators will be from the rapid route recovery scheme, initiated by the Deputy Prime Minister and announced last week. That scheme will help airlines to restart services on the routes that were serviced by Ansett or by Kendell Airlines, one of Ansett's great subsidiaries. Today's announcement was fantastic news not only for South Australia and Tasmania but also for the people in Wagga Wagga, the home of Kendell. They are determined, committed and dedicated to Don Kendell for what he has achieved for them in all the years that he has provided services to the Riverina and to other areas across Australia. It is so pleasing to see that the Deputy Prime Minister is continuing the discussions with the administrators about restoring services on other routes that were previously serviced by Kendell. I look forward to any positive announcements from the Deputy Prime Minister. I cannot thank him enough for his untiring effort, dedication and commitment to rural and regional people in seeking to provide them with opportunities and to gain services back into their communities. It has not been easy for him—it has been most difficult for him, as it has been for all of us—but we have five Metros and three Saabs of Kendell Airlines that are going into the air, which is of enormous benefit to all of us.Hazelton Airlines also flies into my electorate. I am so pleased that the Deputy Prime Minister was also able to support Hazelton Airlines. Hazelton Airlines services the communities of Narrandera, Leeton and Griffith, and we have found it most difficult to operate in those communities since the demise of the Ansett enterprise. The service operated by Hazelton utilised Griffith, Narrandera and Leeton aerodromes and serviced a population of around 45,000 between these three centres. It should also be noted that other local government areas within the region, including Hay, Carrathool and the Murrumbidgee, also utilised the service. The Narrandera-Leeton airport caters for a direct population in excess of 20,000. It has been a viable service, with passenger numbers for the last financial year being approximately 12,000. My communities have enjoyed a service that is significant, due to people such as Max Hazelton and Don Kendell. In supporting this legislation this evening, I note that it is undoubtedly difficult for us to support something that may have some adverse impact on the tourism industry—but it has not been difficult for me to support two people I admire tremendously, Don and Eilish Kendell.21:09:0031422Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr FITZGIBBON8K6HunterALP00— The government has been forced to impose this new tax on tourism for two reasons. The first is that after 5½ years in office and following the collapse of a number of companies in this country, denying workers their hard worked for entitlements, the government has been unwilling, unprepared or unable to do something about that issue—notwithstanding the fact that the opposition has put forward in this House a number of proposals to address that very important issue in the Australian community. The second reason, of course, is the government's incompetent management—or mismanagement, I suppose I should say—of the Ansett collapse and its unwillingness to act to get this national icon back in the air. The Minister for Transport and Regional Services, the Deputy Prime Minister, is happy to describe the now defunct Ansett as a carcass, and has demonstrated an absolute unwillingness to attempt to get that airline back in the air. That is why I rise tonight to support the amendments moved by the member for Batman, which highlight the government's incompetence and the impact of this new tax on jobs, particularly tourism jobs. The week commencing 10 September was the worst week in the tourism industry's relatively short history. The combined effect of the events in the US and the collapse of Australia's second largest commercial airline will reverberate throughout the tourism sector for many years to come. International tourists are no longer travelling and domestic travellers simply cannot secure a flight to undertake those long-planned holidays. The crisis will cost the tourism industry in this country literally billions of dollars. The tourism sector was somewhat disappointed last week when the Minister for Sport and Tourism, Jackie Kelly, described the crisis as a `little blip'. Let me share with the House the comments of those in the industry. Revenue losses reported by some inbound tour operators and suppliers were as high as $2.1 million in the first week after the crisis, with cancellations estimated to be as high as 7,500 for the period up to December. The Australian Hotels Association found that the first week of this crisis has cost the hotel industry about $15 million, with the rate of forward bookings taking a huge downturn. The AHA estimates that, at the current rate, 1.2 million room nights in hotels across Australia will be lost due to the Ansett collapse and the US terrorist attacks. The Gold Coast Tourism Bureau says that Ansett brought 60,000 passengers a year to Coolangatta Airport, and twice that number travelled to the Gold Coast from Brisbane. The Ansett collapse represents a loss of 30 to 40 per cent of all business to that region. The manager of the bureau said that this was an `economic tragedy of massive proportions, which was particularly devastating for small business.' In the Kimberley-Broome region, the collapse of Ansett means that there has been an immediate 75 per cent drop in air capacity, with smaller hotels experiencing 100 per cent cancellation rates and larger hotels and resorts operating at 25 to 30 per cent capacity. Sixteen per cent of all jobs in that region are tourism related. Ansett carried about 65 per cent of the regional market. In Central Australia, air capacity to Ayers Rock Resort and Alice Springs is down from 5,500 to 3,625 a week, with two tourism companies already planning redundancies. Tourism represents about 50 per cent of the local economy in that region. In Tasmania, air capacity is down 40 per cent, with hotel chains reporting high cancellation rates. Tourism there represents about 10 per cent of the local economy, as you would know, Mr Deputy Speaker Quick.The flow-on effect of this downturn means that, for taxis, hire car companies, restaurants, bars, tourist attractions, tourism related retailers and manufacturing, hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue will also be forgone. The combination of the two crises will undoubtedly have an impact on jobs. Many hotels are already scaling back the number of shifts worked by casual staff or in some cases are laying them off altogether. I could go on about the effects on the Whitsundays, Cairns, Townsville, Shark Bay and the New South Wales west—FK6Kelly, De-Anne, MP8K6Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr FITZGIBBON—and Queensland's north-west, as the member for Dawson interjects, and South Australia—anywhere around this country where there is a significant tourism economy. Ken Boundy, the Managing Director of the Australian Tourist Commission, said that he had never seen the industry hit this hard in such a short space of time. I would suggest that this is like the pilots strike hitting within a matter of days. He said that it was unlikely that the tourism industry would achieve its revised target of 4.5 per cent growth for 2001. That is an important point that I will return to in a moment. Mr Peter Shelley, the CEO of the Australian Tourism Export Council said that the US terrorist attacks could mean up to $5 billion worth of export tourism that will not be realised, just in the next 12 months. That is a massive loss to the sector—something the Minister for Sport and Tourism described as a `little blip'.I want to go back pre crises—prior to the Ansett collapse and prior to those atrocious attacks in New York and Washington. Prior to those events, the tourism industry was already facing a number of challenges. As I indicated, coming off the words of Mr Ken Boundy, last month the Tourism Forecasting Council released its revised predictions for Australia's tourism sector for the next 10 years. In December last year the TFC was predicting that the number of visitors to Australia during 2001 would increase by 8.3 per cent. Its forecast for 2002 was 8.2 per cent. The revised predictions released last month are 4.5 per cent and 6.7 per cent respectively. I remind the House again that this is pre the crises that have received so much attention in the last week. The fact that the tourism industry is facing the consequences of those events means that the government should be seriously considering a rescue package for the industry.Unfortunately, it is not doing so. We are talking about one of Australia's largest export industries, earning about $16 billion in foreign exchange. It is an industry, in both inbound and domestic terms, worth between $60 billion and $70 billion to the Australian economy. The sector accounts for about 4.5 per cent of Australia's GDP and employs anywhere between, depending on whom you believe, 700,000 and a million people. Prior to the most recent crises, the ATC came to the government, warning it of its problems— as reflected in those figures of the Tourism Forecasting Council—and begging for a mere $10 million over four years to compensate it, largely for the fall in the Australian dollar which, of course, significantly impacts upon its purchasing power overseas. The Australian Tourist Commission, of course, is the government body charged with selling us to the rest of the world. The Sydney Olympics provided Australian tourism and Australia generally with the biggest free kick probably in our history. There was a great opportunity to capitalise on that but, instead, the Howard government thought it could sit back and ride an easy path. Unfortunately, that was never going to be the case pre the US crisis and the Ansett collapse, and it is certainly not the case now. I talked about the impact of the Australian dollar on the ATC's purchasing power. Some people who are quite ignorant in terms of the industry are out there saying, `Tourism will be okay because of the decline in the Australian dollar.' Let me put that furphy to rest here and now, because I hear it all too often. Firstly, the largest component of a tourist's costs is, of course, the air fare. They are all written in US dollars and do not fluctuate with the exchange rate. Secondly, the reality is that tourists make their travel plans well and truly in advance and, if it is an international holiday, it is more than likely at least 12 months in advance. In addition, they do not sit in their lounge rooms in Tokyo, or in Boston or in London, checking the value of the Australian dollar each day. They simply do not do that. Thirdly, many of Australia's key tourism competitors, including South Africa, Thailand, Turkey, Spain and Italy also currently have weak currencies against the US dollar. Fourthly, the negative impact of the lower Australian dollar on the purchasing power is a very significant effect and will outweigh any positive impacts of a lower Australian dollar. I do not know why the member for Dawson is shaking her head. She obviously does not understand the answer. I look forward to her contribution.FK6Kelly, De-Anne, MP8K6Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr FITZGIBBON—Is the member for Dawson saying that the Whitsundays are doing very well?10000Quick, Harry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Quick)— Order! The honourable member for Hunter should not respond to interjections.8K6Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr FITZGIBBON—I would suggest, Mr Deputy Speaker, that, if the member for Dawson believes that the Whitsundays are doing very well, her ignorance with respect to the industry must almost compete with that of the minister for tourism herself. These were not the only adjustment issues facing tourism. Newly emerging competition on the international market, particularly in Asia, the GST and airport infrastructure issues head the list of others. While a number of other industries facing structural adjustment appear to have little difficulty securing a response from the federal government, tourism not only failed to secure support but also had a new tax imposed upon it. As the tax commissioner himself said, `It's like pouring petrol on the fire.' I am not begrudging any of the support: the dairying industry got a $1.7 billion package; when car manufacturing in Adelaide was in trouble, the Prime Minister was on a plane to Japan, along with other ministers, to talk to the company and the Prime Minister of that country; when a smelter in Queensland wanted $200 million, John Howard was on the phone, sending the money up as quickly as possible. But when tourism is in trouble—and I am now talking pre the crises and post the crises—the response from the government is to impose a new tax on it.0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr Slipper—You're supporting it.8K6Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr FITZGIBBON—I will pick up the parliamentary secretary's remark on this occasion—through you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I chose to ignore him the first few times; I do not want to waste my time responding to him. He says the opposition is supporting it. What choice do we have? We have 16,000 employees potentially losing their employee entitlements because of the government's incompetence and mismanagement of the Ansett crisis, and the only solution they have put forward is to impose a tax. What do we do? Our choices are very limited. If the government would get off their backside and get Ansett back in the air, those 16,000 employees would be back at work and we would not be debating employee entitlements. It is no wonder the industry has lost confidence in its tourism minister—if it ever had any confidence in its tourism minister. What the industry needs now, more than anything, is a rescue package from the government. We are seeing it happening in other nations around the world; in particular in the US. What it needs is strong leadership and a minister who can take the fight up on its behalf to this government. Instead, we have a minister who thinks nothing more of the crisis than to describe it as a mere `blip'. My view is—and this can be a message to the Prime Minister—that leaving the member for Lindsay in place as tourism minister is like having Dan Quayle in charge of New York at the moment rather than Mayor Giuliani. That is what it is like. The Prime Minister should move her on and put someone in place who can be a decent advocate for the industry, who can take the fight up to cabinet, and who can make them understand that these are real issues affecting real people in real regional communities. I have heard her say absolutely nothing about this crisis so far, except, of course, that there is going to be a `working group' to discuss the issues. When all else fails, form a committee. That is what the response of the minister for tourism has been: form a committee. Having said that, there are some very capable people on that committee—I will be the first to acknowledge that—and I hope very sincerely that they can come up with some solutions; and then I hope that the government might finally look at embracing some of them. But what I want to say about that working group is this: not one person on the working group lives or works west of the Great Dividing Range. How representative is that? The biggest impact of this crisis will be felt in regional Australia, and this new tax, as a proportion of the ticket price, will disproportionately impact upon regional Australia—there is no doubt about that. And we get a working group—the minister's only solution—without any representation in rural and regional Australia. It is a disgrace.21:26:0031425Kelly, De-Anne, MPMrs DE-ANNE KELLYFK6DawsonNP10—I rise to speak on the Air Passenger Ticket Levy (Collection) Bill 2001 and the Air Passenger Ticket Levy (Imposition) Bill 2001, but I could not allow the opportunity to go by to respond to the shadow minister, who has mentioned the impact on the tourism industry of the recent failure of Ansett Australia. There is no doubt that the tourism industry has been exposed through this; that there are difficulties in many areas. Obviously the shadow minister has not spent a lot of time in my area—for which I am most grateful, I must say. He is obviously too busy in Sydney. Let me read from a newsletter from Tourism Whitsunday, dated 21 September 2001. The newsletter says:Airline demise may provide new opportunities for the region—You had better get up there, Shadow Minister, and find out what they have to say. This is their newsletter—not what I am saying, not what the government is saying, and certainly not what the shadow minister is saying. Tourism Whitsunday says further:After further contact with members regarding their current booking situation for the September School Holidays, John Dean, CEO TW, stated, `At this stage the Whitsundays is in reasonable shape.So come up and find out, Shadow Minister. It continues:We are very fortunate to have the ongoing support and commitment of Qantas, Whitsunday Transit and Hamilton Island Aviation, who have been working very hard to service the region. As stated last Friday, TW together with local industry partners and Tourism Queensland met and discussed several possible strategies to help alleviate the access problem. In conjunction with Whitsunday Transit, one of these strategies is to do a major radio campaign in Brisbane on B105, which will not only highlight Whitsunday Transit's temporary express coach services between Brisbane and Airlie Beach/Shute Harbour, but it will aggressively target the Brisbane market and let them know that the Whitsundays is open for business. ... ... ...John Dean also said `The demise of Ansett—this is from the newsletter, Shadow Minister, so maybe you ought to make some time to come to our area—has created a watershed for the region, providing us with opportunities to develop new relationships with other airlines and charter operators ...The shadow minister is leaving the chamber—he cannot handle it. It continues: We will keep you up-to-date with developments as they occur.0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr Slipper—He is running away from your speech.FK6Kelly, De-Anne, MPMrs DE-ANNE KELLY—He cannot handle it. He has not been to the Whitsundays and he does not understand what is going on. The newsletter continues:Qantas increases seats into Hamilton Island.The reality is that, yes, there has been a blow to the tourist industry; there is no doubt about that. IJ4Snowdon, Warren, MPMr Snowdon—Just a blip!FK6Kelly, De-Anne, MPMrs DE-ANNE KELLY—You are saying it is a blip? Notice that the member for the Northern Territory says it is a blip: a blip from the blop from the Northern Territory. I want to read what Tourism Whitsunday has to say. The newsletter continues:In support of the region, Qantas has added an additional daily service from Sydney to Hamilton Island, doubling seat capacity until 1 October ...The shadow minister is back—it is good to hear the good news. It continues:Flights depart Sydney at 10.10 pm arriving into Hamilton Island Airport at 00.40 am and departing Hamilton Island Airport at 3.00 a.m.For the benefit of somebody who wants to talk up the tourism industry, the newsletter quotes John Dean—a man with a lot of get-up-and-go, confidence and a positive attitude. Put this on your door, Shadow Minister. John Dean said: The door of opportunity has push written on it.So the next time you want to talk the tourism industry down, go for it, but you will not get any support from the tourism industry in our area.I want to speak now about the current bill. There is no doubt that in the last two weeks we have seen the demise of an Australia icon, and much of the responsibility for that lies with Air New Zealand.0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr Slipper—The incompetence of the board.FK6Kelly, De-Anne, MPMrs DE-ANNE KELLY—Indeed, the incompetence of the board. It seems that the only people flying high were the senior executives of Air New Zealand.0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr Slipper—What about their salaries?FK6Kelly, De-Anne, MPMrs DE-ANNE KELLY—Yes, with performance bonuses—some performance, I must say—while systematically stripping Ansett of its assets and cash, and stripping its employees of a future, in many cases. Aircraft were being sold and leased back, with the proceeds being sequestered by Air New Zealand, not being ploughed back into Ansett. Spare parts were being moved to the other side of the Tasman. If we can establish impropriety—0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr Slipper—They make Christopher Skase look honest.FK6Kelly, De-Anne, MPMrs DE-ANNE KELLY—Yes, quite so. There are three levels of concern in this issue: the employees, who are rightly entitled to everything that they have earned—it belongs to them; the tourism industry—the shadow minister is right to mention the tourism industry; and the travellers in rural and regional Australia. Allow me to deal with the employees first, because, to be honest, they have lost their jobs and their opportunities. Let us look at what is happening for them. This legislation is necessary to fund the government's commitment to provide Ansett employees with 100 per cent of their statutory entitlements. We will provide 100 per cent of unpaid wages and salaries, 100 per cent of accrued annual leave, 100 per cent of accrued long service leave and 100 per cent of accrued pay in lieu of notice. We will also provide, as the national Liberal government, up to eight weeks of redundancy entitlements, as per the community standard. For those entitlements which should have been paid by the employer, Air New Zealand, the government will seek to recover them from Air New Zealand. As Minister Abbott has said, we are standing shoulder to shoulder with the Ansett employees at this difficult time, as the government should. Of course, we have heard all the usual whining, carping and yapping from the other side. This is from an opposition which, in 13 long years in government, did absolutely nothing in respect of the entitlements of employees.0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr Slipper—Asleep at the wheel. FK6Kelly, De-Anne, MPMrs DE-ANNE KELLY—They were not asleep at the wheel but, I will tell you what, they were asleep in the departure lounge. They never did anything. But hypocrisy knows no bounds with the opposition. They have complained that the entitlements should go further. The way that they could ensure this full entitlement is to persuade the state governments to match the Commonwealth contribution dollar for dollar. In the case of National Textiles, the New South Wales government did that and the employees of that company received their entitlements in full. The question—and I am sure the minister sitting at the table will join me—is: where is the Bracks government in Victoria, given that Ansett is a Victorian domiciled company? And where is the Premier of Queensland? The Premier of Queensland is where he usually is: in front of a camera. His only contribution to the debate has been to call for air travellers to boycott Air New Zealand. He was up in the northern part of Queensland, wanting a media grab, and said that we should boycott Air New Zealand. A lot of good that will do. It made a good 30 seconds of media time. Once again, the state premiers have sidestepped their responsibilities. I exclude from that the Premier of New South Wales who, in the case of National Textiles, did do the right thing by employees. But the Bracks government and the Queensland government have sidestepped their responsibilities.I would like to return to travellers. We have mentioned the employees and it is appropriate that we do so. The government's move on this, with the $10 levy on a one-way trip, is, I believe, a sound measure. In fact, the opposition is supporting that, as it should, to ensure that employee entitlements are met. This compares with the opposition's proposal, Manusafe, which is an additional levy on the superannuation guarantee levy. When I spoke to tourist operators in my area—as I am sure every other member of parliament did—and canvassed their concerns and their response to this, I also spoke about the options open to the government in terms of employee entitlements. Let me say that nobody wants Manusafe. They all know what that means: that unscrupulous business operators will be able to pass on their employee entitlements to a fund, leaving those who are honest, decent directors and employers to pay. Nobody in my electorate supports that proposition. They do not want to see those who are unscrupulous—although they are a very small minority of employers and directors in Australia—able to just walk away from their employees. Not only is that a way of quickly passing the responsibility to honest employers, it is also a way of allowing the moral obligation to employees to be simply bypassed—as you would agree, Mr Deputy Speaker, I have no doubt. Nobody supports that.Moving to the travellers, who should rightly be our next concern, the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, John Anderson, has really done an exceptional job in this. 8K6Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr Fitzgibbon—What?FK6Kelly, De-Anne, MPMrs DE-ANNE KELLY—He has. It has been easy for the opposition to target this, because they have $2 billion in their back pocket, have they? Are they are going to just ignore the debt and get Ansett in the air again? There is no Australian who would not like that to happen—that is a worthy aim— but, like all worthy aims, you have to be able to fund it responsibly.0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr Slipper—They'd really have to hike up taxes again, wouldn't they?FK6Kelly, De-Anne, MPMrs DE-ANNE KELLY—Indeed they would, and let us not forget that that means a rise in interest rates. John Anderson, in his thorough, calm manner, has got planes back into the air—not hot air, as the opposition has. There are in fact only two communities which are still looking at a service. I commend the Deputy Prime Minister. This has been a very difficult situation, but he has done better than the opposition did when in government. In 1991 when Compass went to the government of the day—the Labor government—the government said no. The late Brian Gray, head of Compass said:I went to the government on Wednesday and I asked for some relief. Kerin, Beazley and Collins came in and sat down and before I even opened my mouth, Kerin simply said there could be no cooperation from the Commonwealth government. He said, `Under no circumstances will we help you by any means.' Oh, my, how the hypocrites on the other side change their tune when they do not have to pay for it.I fully support this bill. I fully support my tourism operators in the Whitsundays—as they say, the door of opportunity has `push' written on it—and I commend them for their proactive and strong approach to overcoming the present challenge.21:39:0031428Snowdon, Warren, MPMr SNOWDONIJ4Northern TerritoryALP00—I am sure the parade of speeches coming from the other side of the House when they seek to defend the indefensible will be well understood by the community. I want to speak tonight on the air passenger legislation on behalf of my constituency of the Northern Territory. For the information of the House, around 48 per cent of passenger movements into and out of the Northern Territory were undertaken by Ansett until its demise. It is a very important business for the Northern Territory community—not only for tourists but for Australians doing their everyday work. What we need to comprehend is that with Ansett— domestic and intrastate, inbound and outbound—there were 52 movements per day in and out of the Northern Territory. There are now nil movements—absolutely none.XS4Lawrence, Dr Carmen, MPDr Lawrence—Good for tourists!IJ4Snowdon, Warren, MPMr SNOWDON—Absolutely terrific for tourists. If I wanted to book an economy fare to Brisbane today I would have to wait until 1.30 p.m. on 1 October to get a seat.XS4Lawrence, Dr Carmen, MPDr Lawrence—A bit like Perth.IJ4Snowdon, Warren, MPMr SNOWDON—A bit like Perth. If I wanted to fly to Melbourne, I could actually get a seat via Adelaide on the 27th, provided I was prepared to spend two nights in Adelaide and arrive in Melbourne on the 29th. I live in the Northern Territory and the buffoons who represent the government in this place, who have no comprehension at all about what it is like to live in regional and remote Australia, have sat and idly watched the demise of this great airline. As a direct result, they have impacted not only directly on the employees of that mighty airline but on every Australian regional community. We know already, from conversations I have had with them, that the business of tourist operators in Alice Springs is already down 30 per cent—and this is the peak season. We know of businesses that are going to the wall, and I am informed that it will have a dramatic impact upon the owners of the airports in Alice Springs and Darwin. I have it that they may well be going to their bankers in the near future to seek assistance.We know that there are 143 or 144 direct employees of Ansett in the Northern Territory. If we use a common multiplier for this sort of situation, we are talking about 700 jobs just in the Northern Territory which will be directly affected as a result of the demise of Ansett. And we know that it is a labour market where there is great competition. Unemployment has been increasing. We know it has suffered a shock as a result of the GST, and now we are going to ask passengers, who are already hit by the fact that there are no cheap fares available, to pay $10 on top of each ticket. It would be incorporated in the price of each ticket. What we have not been told, but what I understand to be true, is that the GST will apply as well. Not only will you pay the $10 which will be incorporated in the price of the ticket; you will then pay the GST on top of that. So a proportion of the GST will be a GST on the levy—a tax on a tax.XS4Lawrence, Dr Carmen, MPDr Lawrence—`We would never do that,' they said.IJ4Snowdon, Warren, MPMr SNOWDON—They would never do that! They said, `We won't be introducing new taxes.' This levy is a tax on top of which is going to be another tax—the GST. In the case of the Northern Territory I just want to go through the situation that relates to workers. Last week I met with workers in Alice Springs and Darwin. My office has been in contact with these workers on a continuing basis, and we hear the government tell us that they are going to get 100 per cent of their entitlements—wages and salaries of these Ansett workers in the Northern Territory accounted for $10 million per year, a sizeable input into a small economy—and the bonus is eight weeks redundancy pay. Let me ask you how you would feel if you were David Thompson, who has worked as a ramp person for Ansett for 26 years. As a result, using the normal standards that apply in these situations, in terms of redundancy benefits—that is, for the first five years, two weeks pay per year; between five and 15 years, four weeks pay per year; and over 15 years, six weeks pay per year—his entitlement for 26 years is 119 weeks pay. As a result of this little exercise he will be out of pocket by $70,000. He has been employed by the company for 26 years. I do not know how old Dave Thompson is but I would suspect he is probably in his late forties to early fifties. I attended a rally last week, along with Mick Farrelly and other people from Ansett who have been made redundant. Mick Farrelly worked for 14 years and is going to be out of pocket 38 weeks pay; Tony Hutchins worked for 16 years and is going to be out of pocket 46 weeks pay; Grant Ronchetti was a customer service operator for 18 years and is going to be out of pocket 54 weeks pay; Tim Rose was a customer service person for 22 years and is going to be out of pocket 74 weeks pay; Robyn Winspear was a customer service operator for 16 years and will be out of pocket 42 weeks pay. Somehow or other, they are supposed to be thankful that the government is going to give them what they are entitled to. However, the government is not going to give them all of what they are entitled to; it is going to give them some of what they are entitled to—which is a very small portion in these instances. They are to be grateful, even though we have seen the government sit back and watch their jobs go out the door. Instead of acting to intervene and to ensure that Ansett kept flying, the government watched it collapse.What have they done subsequently? Instead of trying to assist in getting the planes back into the air, they have sat back again. They have sat on their hands. They have sat idly by and watched and they have ensured that we now have a total monopoly. There is no competition in the airline industry in Australia any more. There is a total monopoly. They could have strategically intervened in this process, provided sufficient capital to get Ansett flying, saved a net $300 million and guaranteed the jobs of these people. I have spoken to these workers and they have said, `So much for the entitlements; we want our jobs.' They have families.Given this dire circumstance, you would expect the government to front up and say, `Listen, Dave, sit down because I want to talk to you about your future. Let's see if you need financial counselling. Perhaps you need some employment counselling. Perhaps you need some retraining. Perhaps you need some assistance to write a resume.' Do you think those people have been offered one piece of assistance? They have not been offered any assistance. They have been left out in the cold—and so much so that I have offered to have my office used and to have my staff work with these people to write their resumes, because they have been given no counselling, no assistance and no promise of retraining. They have not been given a skerrick of assistance.I note, after reading Adele Horin's article in Saturday's Sydney Morning Herald, that cabinet contemplated this proposal and tossed it out. They thought that by spending $400 million they had spent enough. The government's approach has been to give them their entitlements—although not all of their entitlements—then show them the door and expect them to be grateful. Well, they are not grateful, because they want their jobs, as do the 70,000 people around Australia whose jobs are directly affected by the demise of Ansett. They have a right to job security. They have a right to expect the government to act in their best interests. This government has not operated in their best interests. This government has watched as their jobs have gone out the door, and we are supposed to be happy about that. We are supposed to be happy that the government has come in here with a piece of legislation, which imposes a new tax on tickets, to give people their partial entitlements.Let me go to the issue of this $10 impost. What do we say to small operators of RPT services that might have fewer than 10 passengers? These are relatively high cost but very marginal operations. Who are these people servicing in an electorate like the Northern Territory? The people they are servicing are the most remote and the poorest Australians. The government are saying to these people, `Despite the fact that you have no option, you will pay the $10 as well, because we—the government—have failed you. You will pay this tax on tickets and then the tax on the tax, despite the facts of who you are and where you live and despite the fact that you pay high prices for transport already.' Why don't the government, as an act of good faith, say to the people who live in really remote and regional Australia and use small RPT carriers of 10 or fewer seats, `We will exempt you from this'? Why don't the government provide some incentive for the people in regional Australia? Understand what it is like to live in regional Australia. Understand what it is like to go without services. It is clear that you do not. The workers have been affected and the tourism industry in the Northern Territory has been dramatically hit by this exercise. We know that workers in associated industries are being affected by this exercise, and this government has done nothing to secure the jobs of these Australians. We know that in the context of the Northern Territory many people have suffered and many more will suffer as a result of the failure of the government to come to terms with its responsibilities for all Australians, to ensure that Ansett could maintain its operations, to provide a capacity to guarantee for people in the Northern Territory proper and reasonable air services and to provide competition. There is no competition. We now have a monopoly.We need to do a great deal more. We need to do a great deal more for people in the airline industry and we need this government to get off its backside and, instead of thinking about wedge politics, start thinking about the real issues that affect every Australian. Forget race and start to think about the Australian economy and the right of every Australian to have a job. Start thinking about workers' entitlements being fully—not just partially—remunerated. This legislation is important in the sense that people will get something back. But let us not be fooled: they will not get their proper entitlements back as a result of this legislation and, most of all, they will not get a job.21:52:0031430Causley, Ian, MPMr CAUSLEY4K6PageNP10—The member for the Northern Territory reminds me of a willy-wagtail in the rear vision mirror of a car—attacking himself all the time, standing up and looking at his reflection— and he is about as sensible as one as well.XS4Lawrence, Dr Carmen, MP4K6Causley, Ian, MPMr CAUSLEY—The amnesiac at the desk—10000Quick, Harry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Quick)—Order! The honourable member for Page will address honourable members with their title, please.4K6Causley, Ian, MPMr CAUSLEY—Mr Deputy Speaker, the member for Fremantle, who is a well-known amnesiac, interjects.UU5Horne, Bob, MPMr Horne—Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I know that the member for Page does not try to be rude—it just comes across that way! I ask him to withdraw that.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—There is no point of order.4K6Causley, Ian, MPMr CAUSLEY—The Air Passenger Ticket Levy (Collection) Bill 2001 is an important bill and I am quite amazed that the Labor Party say that they are supporting it, because all I have heard is opposition from the speakers opposite. It would seem to me that there is desperation over there because of the situation that they are in at the present time, and they are trying to deflect attention away from their real problems and onto these issues. I have not yet heard one mention of why Ansett might have failed, which I would have thought would be fairly obvious if one looked at the history of Ansett.XS4Lawrence, Dr Carmen, MPDr Lawrence—The government did nothing.4K6Causley, Ian, MPMr CAUSLEY—I know that the Labor Party are very happy to throw money around with gay abandon, and when the member for Fremantle was in the Western Australian government—10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! The honourable member for Page will not respond to interjections, and I remind honourable members of standing order 55.4K6Causley, Ian, MPMr CAUSLEY—If you can control the member for Fremantle, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will certainly not respond to interjections. When you start to look at the history of this particular company, a few problems clearly come to mind. You can go back about 15 years to the late Sir Peter Abeles and you can go back to Rupert Murdoch and his involvement in this company and you can see that there just was not any involvement. XS4Lawrence, Dr Carmen, MP4K6Causley, Ian, MPMr CAUSLEY—The member for Fremantle continues to chatter on. But, as I mentioned earlier, when she was in the Western Australian government, the Western Australian government bailed out the Holmes a Courts with taxpayers' money. So it is very simple: the Labor Party are quite prepared, if they need to, to just throw taxpayers' money away. The Leader of the Opposition, of course, in his last year as finance minister, spent $13 billion of taxpayers' money on these sorts of irresponsible actions.This bill at least tries to do something about workers' entitlements. We hear a lot from the opposition about workers' entitlements. They were in government for 13 years and had their opportunity to do something about workers' entitlements. They are supposed to be the great defenders of the workers and yet they did absolutely nothing about it. But, when this government attempts to do something about workers' entitlements, they then criticise and say that it is not doing enough. It is an extremely difficult situation that we face. It would be interesting to consider the responsibility of directors in this particular situation. There is no doubt that this company was in trouble for quite some time, yet we have heard the Prime Minister and the Minister for Transport and Regional Services in this House say that on 27 June they were assured that Air New Zealand had a billion dollars of reserves and that, although Ansett was trading unprofitably, the company could carry on. That was obviously wrong. There are a few other issues as well. I heard the member for Batman earlier tonight speaking in this debate. The member for Batman is a former leader of the ACTU and I think it is relevant that we should talk about that. It is fairly clear from some of the debate that has taken place in the last few days that one of the problems with this particular airline was the fact that the unions had a vice-like grip on the working conditions of this airline. It is the old Labor Party story: we must support workers' entitlements—until the company goes broke and then we cry about the fact that it cannot pay the entitlements! The unions should start to think about what is causing these problems. The member for Batman, who is a former leader of the ACTU, is one in particular who should be looking very closely at this. How is it going to be after the next election? We are going to have the member for Batman and Deputy Leader of the Opposition, Mr Crean, Jennie George—and, probably the election after that, Sharan Burrow. We are going to have all the ACTU leaders, who absolutely control the Labor Party, in here. We can imagine the direction that will be taken if that happens.The Ansett situation is not good. Everyone, including the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, has said that. It is a situation that does cause considerable pain. There is no doubt that to regional Australia and to the tourist industry it is causing enormous problems. But it is not the responsibility of the government. I had at least six people come up to me last weekend in the electorate and say, `Why are the Labor Party blaming the government for the failure of a company?' It is a good question. Why? Because they are desperate and they want to try and get some political advantage out of this, because they think that some people will listen to them. Well, I can tell you that ordinary persons in the street are not listening. They are saying that this is a corporate failure. They are concerned about the situation, obviously, because it is affecting regional areas.The member for Batman tonight said that there were no services into Lismore—that is wrong. I represent Lismore. The only service that is missing on the north coast is Casino, which is 20 minutes away from Lismore, and they are concerned about the fact that they do not have a service at the present time. Ballina, which was serviced by Hazelton and Kendall, have got increased services from Qantas. While it is not perfect, at least we do have services out of those areas. If you look carefully at this, the minister for transport has been working as hard as he possibly can to ensure that these country services are returned. The big issue, of course, is the trunk line services, which are the real problem. The Leader of the Opposition gets up and simply says, `Oh, we'll give them $200 million.' We were told by the Treasurer that $200 million would not last two days, so I do not know how that is going to solve the problem. We were told by the minister for transport that the debts are over $2 billion. How do you pick up that $2 billion with an airline that is overstaffed, inefficient and cannot compete, and say to the Australian taxpayer, `You should carry the burden'? 0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr Slipper—Deficit budgeting.4K6Causley, Ian, MPMr CAUSLEY—That is the problem with the Labor Party; they do not look at these things they prepare. That is why we had $86 billion worth of deficit when the Labor Party lost office. That is why we had these problems. Yet we continue to go down that track. That is exactly why people are saying at the present time, in overwhelming numbers, `We are not heading back in that direction.' They have been listening very closely to the comments coming from the Labor Party, particularly those coming from the Leader of the Opposition. Last week I said he resembled a beach ball—it depended on which way the wind was blowing as to which end of the beach the ball was on. That is fairly clear. On this particular issue it is exactly the same: he cannot make up his mind just where he wants to go.This particular piece of legislation is designed to support workers. The coalition has introduced the legislation because the Labor Party, when they were in government, did not do it. They did not do anything to support workers. The coalition has introduced the legislation so that worker entitlements can be protected. There has to be a limit. People opposite have been talking about the fact that there are numbers of people who have been working for the company for 27, 30 years. I understand that. But if you are going to bail them out in this particular situation there must be a limit to what you can do. That is fairly obvious.We also hear from the member for the Northern Territory that we need to exempt people. That is a little like the GST, isn't it? They said, `We like the GST and we want the GST, but we want to exempt this and we want to exempt that and we want to exempt all these things.' You finish up with no legislation at all.NV5Forrest, John, MPMr Forrest—It's a dog's breakfast.4K6Causley, Ian, MPMr CAUSLEY—As the member for Mallee says, it is a dog's breakfast. It really is. I am still convinced that the original proposition by the government that the GST should have been across the board was the right decision. You can blame the Democrats for the change.0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr Slipper—And the Labor Party.4K6Causley, Ian, MPMr CAUSLEY—That is true. The parliamentary secretary reminds me that if the Labor Party had supported the government then there would have been no need for us to negotiate with the Democrats. That is exactly right. The Labor Party were responsible. This is at least an attempt to help workers. I would love to think that Ansett could fly again. But that cannot happen. It is an absolutely forlorn hope. It is unkind that they even suggest that that should happen. The parliament should support this legislation. It is good legislation and it is an attempt to protect workers' entitlements.22:04:0031432Horne, Bob, MPMr HORNEUU5PatersonALP00— The Air Passenger Ticket Levy (Collection) Bill 2001 and the Air Passenger Ticket Levy (Imposition) Bill 2001 are not about a $10 surcharge on an air ticket; they are about a government that is bankrupt of ideas on how to deal with situations that need leadership. In response to the member for Dawson who said earlier that in 13 years the Labor Party did nothing about workers' entitlements, let me just say that in 1983 when Bob Hawke became Prime Minister—XJ6Anthony, Larry, MPUU5Horne, Bob, MPMr HORNE—Are you going to shut up?10000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)— Order! The member for Paterson will direct his remarks through the chair, and he will observe parliamentary standards.UU5Horne, Bob, MPMr HORNE—I certainly did not refer to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, but in the five minutes I have to speak I certainly do not need reminding by a member opposite of how offensive he can be. 10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—The member for Paterson should ignore the minister at the table, and the minister at the table should be silent.UU5Horne, Bob, MPMr HORNE—I try my best to, as most Australians do. In 1983, when Bob Hawke became Prime Minister of Australia, the management of BHP visited Bob Hawke and said, `We are going to close the BHP plant at Newcastle.' Bob Hawke said, `No you're not.' He said, `What investment does that company need to keep those jobs in Newcastle, because that is the backbone of Newcastle?' So the Steel Cities Assistance Plan was developed and the steelworks stayed open for more than the life of the Labor Party in government.When John Howard became Prime Minister of Australia, the management of BHP visited the Prime Minister and some of his ministers and said, `We are going to close BHP in Newcastle.' That was it; they washed their hands. All those jobs in Newcastle disappeared. That is the history of the coalition government. The coalition government are not about jobs. The coalition government have been boasting that Ansett workers will get their entitlements. They do not understand that Ansett workers do not want their entitlements—they want a job. The minister at the table probably does not realise that either. They want a job, they want to go to work tomorrow, they want to provide services, they want to know that the mortgage they have can be paid off, they want to know that their family has a future, and they want to know that the career they have been engaged in for the past decade or so will continue. But under this government they certainly do not have that security, and that is where this government fails.I would like to raise another point. While essentially this bill is about a $10 surcharge on a ticket—LS4Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin Ferguson—It is a tax.UU5Horne, Bob, MPMr HORNE—It is a tax, but it is worse than a tax. As the member for Ryan pointed out in a question today, the fare from Brisbane to Adelaide in September was $121; today, it is $626. The government certainly does not recognise that on the $121 fare the GST on top of that is $12.10, and on the $626 fare today the GST is $62.60. So not only is this government being so generous in saying, `We are going to make sure that all the workers get their entitlements,' but they are also making a grab of an extra $50 in GST on that fare.This is also a statement about the lack of services for regional and rural Australia, a statement about this government that does not care about services. I will talk about the airport I fly into and out of—Newcastle. It does not have an Ansett service; it only has Qantas. But what have we found since this debacle a fortnight ago? We have found the jet service has been taken off, we have found that the Dash 8 has been replaced by a smaller aircraft and we have found that, because of the reduction in service, people are simply staying away. That story is being repeated all around Australia, because this is a government that is showing by its track record that it does not care about service, it does not care about jobs, it does not care about people and it does not care about the people who have supported it for so long—the people in rural and regional Australia.There are many ways this could have been resolved and there is no doubt, when we have a look at the price differential between a few weeks ago and today, that it was vitally important for all air travellers that Ansett be kept flying for as long as possible. This is a government that comes in here and says, `We are putting in $500 million.' It is just like the dairy deregulation legislation: they are not putting in a cent—the consumers will pay the lot. And when we add the GST, of course, then the consumers will make sure that the government works this out at a very handsome profit. But the government will say, `Ah, but the states get the GST.' The consumers still pay it.Motion (by Mr Ronaldson) agreed to:That the question be now put.Question put: That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr Martin Ferguson's amendment) stand part of the question.22:15:00The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker—Mr G.B. Nehl) 72Abbott, 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.Downer, A.J.G.Draper, P.Elson, K.S.Entsch, W.G.Fahey, J.J.Fischer, T.A.Forrest, J.A. *Gallus, C.A.Gambaro, T.Gash, J.Georgiou, P.Haase, B.W.Hardgrave, G.D.Hawker, D.P.M.Hockey, J.B.Hull, K.E.Jull, D.F.Kelly, D.M.Kelly, J.M.Kemp, D.A.Lawler, A.J.Lindsay, P.J.Lloyd, J.E.Macfarlane, I.E.May, M.A.McArthur, S. *McGauran, P.J.Moylan, J. E.Nairn, G. R.Nelson, B.J.Neville, P.C.Pearce, C.J.Prosser, G.D.Pyne, C.Reith, P.K.Ronaldson, M.J.C.Ruddock, P.M.Scott, B.C.Secker, P.D.Slipper, P.N.Somlyay, A.M.Southcott, A.J.St Clair, S.R.Stone, S.N.Sullivan, K.J.M.Thompson, C.P.Thomson, A.P.Truss, W.E.Tuckey, C.W.Vaile, M.A.J.Vale, D.S.Wakelin, B.H.Washer, M.J.Williams, D.R.Wooldridge, M.R.L.Worth, P.M.64Adams, D.G.H.Albanese, A.N.Bevis, A.R.Brereton, L.J.Burke, A.E.Byrne, A.M.Corcoran, A.K.Cox, D.A.Crean, S.F.Crosio, J.A.Danby, M.Edwards, G.J.Ellis, A.L.Emerson, C.A.Evans, M.J.Ferguson, L.D.T.Ferguson, M.J.Fitzgibbon, J.A.Gerick, J.F.Gibbons, S.W.Gillard, J.E.Griffin, A.P.Hall, J.G.Hatton, M.J.Hoare, K.J.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.Rudd, K.M.Sawford, R.W. *Sciacca, C.A.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.Howard, J.W.Beazley, K.C.Lieberman, L.S.Swan, W.M.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative.Original question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.31434Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.22:20:0031434Anthony, Larry, MPMr ANTHONYXJ6RichmondNPMinister for Community Services10—I present the supplementary explanatory memorandum and move government amendment No. 1:(1) Clause 6, page 2 (line 11), omit “used for a flight”.22:20:0031434Lawrence, Dr Carmen, MPDr LAWRENCEXS4FremantleALP00—This is a timely opportunity to reflect on the fact that the government has done almost nothing to support Ansett in its time of trial. Every year, the government spends approximately $9 billion in industry support, yet it is unable to find $200 million to keep Ansett flying. Every year, this government is prepared to put industry support into the motor vehicle industry, the textile, clothing and footwear industry and the dairy industry. Across the board there is very substantial support to retain Australian investment and Australian jobs, yet we see this government not being prepared to examine a proposition that would keep Ansett flying. 10000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)— Order! I am loath to interrupt the member for Fremantle, but we are considering the bill in detail. We are considering an amendment. The debate must be concerned with the amendment. The amendment says `omit “used for a flight”'. That is the subject of the debate. Please direct your remarks to the amendment.XS4Lawrence, Dr Carmen, MPDr LAWRENCE—It is very clear that a phrase like `omit “used for a flight”' means that you have to have an aeroplane in the sky, and we don't have an aeroplane in the sky. That is the problem, Mr Deputy Speaker. Ansett is not flying. Why is it not flying? It is because this government has not been prepared to sit down with industry players or with the whole aviation industry and put forward an aviation rescue plan. It has not been prepared to put a single cent into retaining the jobs of Australian workers. That is the reality. Seventy thousand jobs are going because it is not prepared to put funds into the retention of Ansett as a major player.We have heard speakers this evening point out the problems that now exist in rural and regional Australia. It is not possible to fly from the Northern Territory to anywhere in this country. It is not possible to get tickets from Western Australia unless you are already booked. It is not possible to fly from the mainland to Tasmania. That is what this government has done. In this community, we have been prepared over the years to support industries which were in trouble.3K6Cameron, Ross, MPMr Ross Cameron—On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker, which relates to an occupational health and safety matter. Has there been some dysfunctionality in the volume? We are feeling a bit—10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—The member for Parramatta will resume his seat. The member for Fremantle has the call.XS4Lawrence, Dr Carmen, MPDr LAWRENCE—Referring to what the member for Parramatta said, if you look at the amendments proposed by the government, they have clearly been made on the run—apart from anything else—because the government has not been prepared to act since June. It has been watching and waiting—hands off! This is the government with an industry policy that says, `The market will fix it.' It spends $9 billion a year, but the market will fix it in this case while Australians who are trying to go home, who are trying to take their children on holidays, who are trying to take part in conferences and while children who are trying to come home to their families are left stranded. This government is prepared to say, `We are not prepared to spend $200 million. We'll throw that away on advertising over a couple of months. But ask us to spend money on saving Australians' jobs, an investment in the airline industry, and we will not lift a finger.' This government has been entirely without action on this front. It has been found wanting. It has been prepared to put Australian security at risk. It has been prepared to stand by while the lives of many families have been disrupted. The amendment, and the bill itself, are the best that can be done under circumstances that have been created by the government and they are the least that Australians can expect. Australian job security is clearly not in the sight of this government. It doesn't give a damn.Amendment agreed to.Bill, as amended, agreed to.31435Bill (on motion by Mr Anthony)—by leave—read a third time.Bills31435R141931435Consideration resumed from 20 September, on motion by Mr Abbott:That the bill be now read a second time.Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation for the bill and proposed amendments announced.31436Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.22:27:0031436Anthony, Larry, MPMr ANTHONYXJ6RichmondNPMinister for Community Services10—by leave—I present an explanatory memorandum to the bill and move government amendments Nos (1) to (20):(1) Clause 5, page 2 (lines 22 to 24), omit the definition of due date, substitute:due date for accounting for an amount received on account of levy payable on the purchase of an air passenger ticket is the end of the month that follows the month in which the ticket is purchased.(2) Clause 5, page 3 (lines 12 and 13), omit the definition of relevant flight, substitute:relevant flight means an Australian flight that is operated as part of a regular public transport operation.(3) Clause 6, page 3 (after line 29), at the end of the clause, add: (3) The regulations may provide that, in the circumstances specified in the regulations, what would otherwise be one air passenger ticket is to be treated as 2 or more air passenger tickets for the purposes of this Act.Note: If regulations are made for the purposes of this subsection, a separate amount of levy will be payable in relation to the purchase of each of the 2 or more air passenger tickets.(4) Clause 9, page 5 (lines 5 to 11), omit subclause (1), substitute: (1) Levy is payable on an air passenger ticket that: (a) is purchased on or after 1 October 2001 and before the end of the final levy month; and (b) covers at least one relevant flight.(5) Clause 9, page 5 (line 16) to page 6 (line 13), omit subclauses (3), (4), (5) and (6).(6) Clause 10, page 6 (lines 14 to 16), omit the clause, substitute:10 Purchaser liable to pay levy The levy payable on an air passenger ticket is payable by the person who purchases the ticket.(7) Clause 11, page 6 (line 17) to page 7 (line 1), omit the clause, substitute:11 Ticketing airline responsible for collecting levy on air passenger tickets (1) A person who is the operator of flights (whether relevant flights or not) commits an offence if: (a) the person issues an air passenger ticket; and (b) levy is payable on the purchase of the ticket; and (c) the person does not: (i) collect; or (ii) make adequate arrangements for the collection of; an amount from the purchaser on account of, and sufficient to cover, the levy payable on the ticket.Penalty: 1 penalty unit. (2) If 2 or more operators of flights issue an air passenger ticket in conjunction with one another, subsection (1) applies only to the operator who is to provide the first relevant flight covered by the ticket. (3) A person who receives an amount on account of a purchaser's liability for the levy on an air passenger ticket must ensure that, before the due date for accounting for the amount, the amount is: (a) applied to discharge the purchaser's liability for the levy; or (b) if the purchaser is entitled to a refund of the levy: (i) refunded to the purchaser; or (ii) offset against the purchaser's liability for levy on the purchase of another air passenger ticket.Penalty: 1 penalty unit.(8) Page 7 (after line 5), at the end of Part 2, add:12A Special arrangements for payment of levy (1) The Minister may make an arrangement with a person who is the operator of relevant flights under which the operator agrees to pay to the Commonwealth, in the manner provided in the arrangement, an amount in respect of the levy payable on air passenger tickets issued by the operator. (2) In deciding whether to make an arrangement with an operator under subsection (1), the Minister must have regard to: (a) the desirability of mitigating, or limiting, any distortions that the operator's ticketing arrangements would otherwise cause in the incidence of the levy on air passenger tickets issued by the operator (compared with the levy on air passenger tickets issued by other operators of relevant flights); and (b) any other relevant matter. (3) A person who purchases an air passenger ticket to which the arrangement with the operator under subsection (1) applies is taken, for all the purposes of this Act, to have paid any levy payable on the ticket when the ticket is purchased. (4) An amount payable by the operator to the Commonwealth under the arrangement under subsection (1) may be recovered by the Commonwealth by action against the operator in a court of competent jurisdiction.(9) Clause 13, page 8 (lines 5 to 9), omit subclause 13(1), substitute: (1) A person who is the operator of flights, and issues air passenger tickets for relevant flights, must lodge a return in relation to air passenger tickets for relevant flights issued by the operator in a particular month.(10) Clause 13, page 8 (line 13), omit “the flights take off”, substitute “the tickets are purchased”.(11) Clause 14, page 8 (lines 16 to 19), omit the clause, substitute:14 When levy payable The levy on an air passenger ticket is due for payment when the ticket is purchased.(12) Clause 16, page 8 (lines 26 to 28), omit the clause, substitute:16 Refunds (1) An amount of the levy overpaid on an air passenger ticket must be refunded to the purchaser of the ticket. (2) The levy paid on an air passenger ticket must be refunded to the purchaser if the ticket is cancelled without being used for a relevant flight. (3) The levy paid on an air passenger ticket must be refunded to the purchaser if: (a) the ticket covers at least one relevant flight; and (b) the date for the last relevant flight covered by the ticket passes; and (c) the ticket has not been used for any of the relevant flights.(13) Clause 17, page 9 (line 9), omit “passengers'”, substitute “purchasers'”.(14) Clause 17, page 9 (line 12), omit “passengers'”, substitute “purchasers'”.(15) Clause 17, page 9 (after line 12), after subparagraph (ii), insert: (iia) the operation of an arrangement under section 12A; or(16) Clause 18, page 11 (line 2), omit “passengers'”, substitute “purchasers'”.(17) Clause 18, page 11 (after line 3), after paragraph (b) of the definition of levy-related documents, insert: (ba) the operation of an arrangement under section 12A; and(18) Clause 25, page 14 (after line 27), after paragraph (2)(b), insert: (ba) providing for civil penalties in relation to failures to comply with subsection 11(1) or (3) or 13(1); (bc) providing for the payment of refunds of levy on behalf of the Commonwealth by the issuers of air passenger tickets;(19) Clause 25, page 14 (line 29), omit “and the use of those tickets for Australian flights”.(20) Clause 25, page 15 (lines 2 and 3), omit “and the use of those tickets for Australian flights”.22:27:0031437Horne, Bob, MPMr HORNEUU5PatersonALP00— There is no doubt that clause 3 works against regional and rural Australia. These are people who will use air services to hub in the major cities. They will buy a single ticket from where they live to get to the capital city to catch an interstate flight. Invariably, it will not be the same company, and what do we find? They are slugged with two lots of $10. They will pay $10 for each ticket they purchase, and this government is allowing that to happen. The minister at the table, above all, will be there and claim that he represents rural and regional Australia. It is an absolute disgrace.Amendments agreed to. Bill, as amended, agreed to.31438Bill (on motion by Mr Anthony)—by leave—read a third time.Adjournment31438Motion (by Mr Anthony) proposed:That the House do now adjourn.3143822:30:0031438Gillard, Julia, MPMs GILLARD83LLalorALP00—Tonight I seek to raise with the House the issue of household debt and the increasing pressure that it is putting on Australian families. If we go briefly to the statistics, they show an enormous increase in household debt over the recent period. In the June quarter 1996, household debt stood at $295 billion. By the March quarter 2001, that had escalated to $450.1 billion. This is an almost 70 per cent increase, or an average of 12 per cent per annum.Looking at the total, which covers not just household but also bank credit card debt, we see an increase from $6.7 billion in March 1996 to $18.7 billion in July 2001. This is a 180 per cent increase, or an increase of more than 20 per cent per annum. I think we are all aware from our electorate experience—and, indeed, many of us from our personal experience—that households struggle with a level of family indebtedness, whether it be in the form of mortgage payment or in the form of credit card debt. Tonight I seek to focus on credit card debt.The pressure point that credit card debt serves on families is escalated in times of insecurity, particularly times of job insecurity. If there has been one continuing theme of the week in parliament, this week and last week, it has been the theme of job insecurity, with major job losses from Ansett and now from Daimaru and Coles Myer. To struggle with mortgage repayments and then a substantial burden of credit card debt when one finds oneself in a position of insecurity, perhaps caused by a job loss, puts people in a very difficult position. In those circumstances, we really need to look at what causes people to have credit cards and, once they have credit cards, what causes them to perhaps run up a level of debt that they would otherwise not have intended. I am sure we are all aware from personal experience that, once one has a credit card or perhaps a series of credit cards in one's purse or wallet, it is easy to escalate debt beyond a point that was originally intended. I was therefore concerned when it came to my attention that there are a number of mechanisms that are forcing people to have credit cards when in other circumstances they would not have chosen to have done so.The first example that came to my attention involved subscribing to the Telstra Big Pond email service. The person who raised this matter with me was subscribing through an automatic deduction from his credit card each month. In managing his personal finances, he chose to cancel that credit card. He no longer wished to have the credit card because he was of the view that it was enticing increased debt. Telstra Big Pond then indicated to him that they do not do automatic deductions to pay for the email service from debit cards—that is, from savings accounts or cheque accounts—they will only do those deductions from credit cards. So, if you seek to cut up your credit card as part of your strategy of managing your household debt, you will face a problem meeting those repayments. There were alternatives. One alternative was to buy a prepaid package from a Telstra shop, but that requires routine physical access to a Telstra shop, which may depend on how close one lives to a Telstra shop, whether or not it is on public transport routes and on circumstances of personal mobility.Another option was to have the debt added to his monthly phone account, but, if you chose to be an Optus subscriber, as he did, this was difficult as well. So the very billing mechanism was forcing him to maintain his household credit card. If that were an isolated example, we might say, `Well, that isn't much of a problem,' but it has also come to my attention that the booking agency Ticketek only takes telephone bookings if one has a credit card. So there we have two very big agencies—Ticketek and Telstra—saying that, in managing their billing, they require people to have credit cards. As we know from the level of household indebtedness, once people have credit cards there is a temptation to escalate personal and household debt. Also, it has come to my attention that, when cancelling credit cards, one must separately cancel the automatic deductions, which can also cause problems. (Time expired)3143922:35:0031439Nairn, Gary, MPMr NAIRNOK6Eden-MonaroLP10—Tonight I would like to talk about the collapse of Ansett and what is happening in my electorate of Eden-Monaro. Prior to the collapse of Ansett, Hazelton Airlines had approximately three flights per day to Moruya and Merimbula from Sydney on most days, and Kendell Airlines had a flight from Melbourne to Merimbula. With the cessation of those flights, there was no flight on Friday, 14 September, which was the day I spoke with the operators of Merimbula airport, Ian Baker and Ron Finneran. They have worked very hard and have put a huge investment into that airport over the last five years since they took over the lease from the local council. They have built up tourism, and a great number of the people coming into that region also do charter flights out to Gabo Island. Ian Baker and Ron Finneran are very entrepreneurial people.On Saturday, there was a Qantas flight in the middle of the day, as there was again on Sunday. On Monday I was in Merimbula to meet with the owners as they were putting together a bid to take over that particular service from Sydney to Moruya and to Merimbula, with connections to Melbourne. On Monday afternoon, when I came back here to the parliament, I forwarded a copy of their bid to the Minister for Transport and Regional Services. They were also negotiating with the administrator of the day. Unfortunately, with the pressure from the unions on the administrator to move out, all those negotiations stopped for several days and put everything back quite some time, which was quite outrageous. But the owners did not give up and immediately started negotiations with the new administrator.There was one Qantas flight a day, which was at a bad time of the day. Last weekend, the flight picked up Moruya, which had been without any flights at all until last Friday. Qantas did not continue that service after Sunday because of the small patronage. No wonder that was the case when they were putting on flights in the middle of the day, which is a bad time of the day. Often you did not know when they were going to fly. In fact, on the Monday that I was in Merimbula, the plane arrived 40 minutes early. No wonder there were no passengers. The flight must have left Sydney early and probably left passengers behind.Ian Baker and Ron Finneran have really put together a good bid. It is something that can work well. I am disappointed that the administrator has possibly been encouraged by various sources to try to get Hazelton back in the air in one fell swoop—to sell the lot. I do not believe that we will get the same sort of service that we had built up over a number of years if that is the case. I urge the administrator to look at this bid seriously, because I think it will be far better and will provide a proper service in our region if we can have small niche markets working regional airlines.Ian Baker and Ron Finneran, Airport Agencies, have today chartered an aircraft from Brindabella Airlines here in Canberra, which provide a great charter service out of Canberra. They have chartered a plane to commence flights themselves from Merimbula to Bankstown in Sydney via Moruya because they have been without any service at all for the last couple of days. Ian Baker told me that those flights are full on either Thursday or Friday this coming week and almost full on the other days. So when you provide flights at the right time of the day, there are significant passengers. Ian and Ron know the airline business very well. Ian Baker used to be a pilot with Hazelton and was a regional manager. He knows what can occur in that sort of region and knows how to build up the patronage on these routes into an area where tourism is crucial. Particularly with the summer months coming closer, we need to get that in place.I strongly urge the administrator of Hazelton not to be swept up with so-called large bids for global across-the-state or across-the-nation takeovers of what he is trying to sort out. I understand the difficult situation he is in. I know that the federal government has provided $3 million on loan to try to get planes back in the air, which is what we want, but he should look at this bid. I think it is an excellent bid. It is a way in which we can have the right sorts of services down there in the future, with small business running these services. They can do it much more efficiently than the larger corporations. We have seen what happens with larger corporations, and I urge the administrator to look at this bid. 3144022:40:0031440Plibersek, Tanya, MPMs PLIBERSEK83MSydneyALP00—I am pleased that the member for Eden Monaro has spoken about Ansett tonight, because I also rise to speak about the collapse of Ansett Australia. The member for Eden Monaro spoke about it in a very local sense, and I want to speak about it in a slightly more global sense.At any other time, the loss of jobs associated with the collapse of Ansett, One.Tel, HIH and other corporate collapses in recent months, would have been enough to put a government like the Howard government on the unemployment queue itself. This government has presided over the squandering of Labor's record of economic growth—economic growth is down from 4.1 per cent to 1.9 per cent—a loss of full-time jobs and a loss of security. The GST is killing retail. Anyone who was watching tonight's news would have seen the announcement of the loss of 1,000 jobs from Coles Myer and 1,000 jobs from Daimaru. Instead of working with companies to find solutions, this government has been asleep at the wheel.Take HIH, for example. We had a government and a Minister for Financial Services and Regulation who did not think HIH was an issue for six weeks after the collapse of HIH. It took the pressure of the New South Wales government to get the federal government to agree to a package and to a royal commission. Ansett is also an excellent example of how this government has been completely asleep at the wheel. The Minister for Transport and Regional Services, the Deputy Prime Minister, knew in June that Ansett was in trouble. They wrote to him and they also told him face to face, `We're in trouble.' And what was the minister's response? I think we can say that there was no response from the minister in June and there has been very little since then. When the minister did ask for advice, he asked Qantas for advice. He asked, `Does Ansett need help?' Qantas said no—there is a surprise! What are the results of this government's lack of action? There have been 17,000 jobs lost at Ansett and 60,000 to 70,000 associated jobs lost—for example, by catering companies, terminal staff, shopkeepers at airports, cab drivers, et cetera. The implications for the tourism industry are yet to be fully understood, and we have a tourism minister who calls this a `blip'. What has been the position of the government? They have been dragged kicking and screaming to do anything about this disaster. They have been mincing around offering `statutory entitlements'. What a joke! There is no such thing as `statutory entitlements' in the case of Ansett workers. They are owed those entitlements because they have been loyal employees for many years, in some cases many decades. Instead of talking about statutory entitlements, we should be talking about the entitlements that these workers are owed. Labor has a scheme that guarantees 100 per cent of worker entitlements. The scheme involves placing a very small levy of 0.1 per cent on the superannuation paid by larger businesses, with the extra cost for smaller businesses being borne by the government. Some business lobby groups say that it is not fair to penalise good employers for the crimes and misdemeanours of bad employers. Well, I do not think it is fair to penalise ordinary workers who, in some cases, work all their lives for the same company and are sacked with no warning when their company goes bust. A 0.1 per cent levy on super is a small price to pay for the security that a universal scheme would build. But business lobby groups dislike the government's scheme even more. The government's proposal to lift worker entitlements above all other claims, including secured creditors, introduces like never before a credit squeeze for businesses. Worker entitlements must be guaranteed, and Labor has a scheme that will do that with minimal administrative requirements for business and with no implications on the ability of businesses to get credit. The government's scheme works only if there is money left to distribute. We have seen corporate collapse after corporate collapse where creditors get nothing or two or three cents in the dollar of what they are owed. Why should workers be satisfied with a few cents in the dollar when they have worked hard and honestly for a company over any number of years? I call on the government to adopt Labor's scheme for guaranteed worker entitlements. Further, I beg the Minister for Family and Community Services to stop hiding the fact that Centrelink staff are being prevented from properly helping the victims of this disaster. The liquid assets test means that many people who have lost their jobs are not eligible for help because they have some small amount of life savings. Why should these people have to live with the stress of watching their life savings dwindle away before they can access Job Search assistance and benefits? (Time expired)3144122:45:0031441Bishop, Julie, MPMs JULIE BISHOP83PCurtinLP10—Tonight I raise in this House a matter of grave concern to my electorate and to the many constituents who have contacted me about this matter. Twelve days ago the Labor government in Western Australia handed down the first Labor budget inflicted on our state since 1992. The result was predictable: $100 million worth of new taxes on Western Australian businesses and employers, increases in payroll tax and increases in land tax. But what was not predictable was that Labor would declare war on sections of our community, including senior Western Australians, pensioners and self-funded retirees, not in order to fix a budgetary black hole— the Western Australian budget is in surplus by $25.5 million—but to seek to gain political mileage and as a warning to or punishment of those perceived to be opponents of the state government. The premium property tax is an insidious tax that applies to the unimproved value of Western Australian residential properties.83MPlibersek, Tanya, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Sydney was warned earlier today and will find herself out of the chamber if she does not watch her courtesy.83PBishop, Julie, MPMs JULIE BISHOP—It is a tax projected to raise, by the self-admission of the Gallop government, just 0.4 per cent of the total state taxes in 2001-02. Yet, within 20 years, this tax will affect land valued at just $300,000 today, and within one generation it will drag thousands of Western Australian families into a tax trap. It is far from the `millionaires tax' touted by the Premier. The tax threshold, presently set at $1 million, is to be linked to the CPI and not to property values. This is despite the average increase in value of land for the 224 suburbs of Perth being an annual 9.3 per cent, an increase calculated by the Valuer-General's office, compared with the inflation rate of three per cent.If we extrapolate out those figures, we come to the shocking conclusion that, within almost four years, land worth $800,000 today will be subject to the tax; within six years it will apply to land worth $700,000; and in 12 years, to land worth just $500,000 today. Perversely, the effect of the taxation mechanism introduced by the Gallop government, and the deferral mechanism touted as a stopgap measure, is such that within 40 years the state government will actually have assumed ownership of many residential properties across Perth. Equally perverse is the likely effect of this tax on Western Australia's revenue. The tax will drive Perth's property prices down, actually driving down the state revenue, as has happened in New South Wales. Investors both within and outside of Australia will understandably ask themselves why they should invest in a state where the government uses arbitrary taxation as a political weapon.My constituents in Curtin are being particularly targeted. It is no secret that the riverfront from Mosman Park to the city is some of the most prized residential land in Australia, and likewise the beachfront from Cottesloe to Scarborough. But there is a deeply cynical streak to this state government tax: had the tax been applied to the assessed value of properties, including the developed value of the land, it would have been a political headache for the Labor government. There would be many homes across the Perth metropolitan area upon which this tax would fall—homes in marginal ALP electorates like Joondalup and Riverton. In specifically applying the tax to the undeveloped value, Labor have sought to inflict this tax on what in their hackneyed opinion are `rusted-on Liberal voters' in seats like Cottesloe and Nedlands and, across the river, in Alfred Cove and South Perth. It is unbecoming for a government of the great state of Western Australia to specifically target for political purposes so many men and women who have devoted their lives to our state and its development. These are not the cartoon millionaires of state Treasurer Eric Ripper's fevered imagination. They are predominantly our city's senior citizens, pensioners and self-funded retirees, and this attack on them is a cowardly act. They are proud home owners. They have never asked for their middle-class suburbs to become affluent, which is how Labor sees it. They are people who decided not to build luxury homes but just to make a home by the Swan, often just after the Second World War. They are people who now find that they are not rich enough to live on certain streets in certain suburbs and that they will have to move off and sell to someone who can meet the bills of a profligate Labor government.What is the option offered to these Western Australians by a Premier who announced on state election night that he would `govern for all Western Australians'? Defer payment and go into hock to the state government; live and die in debt to the state, simply for the privilege of living under `New Labor'. This is a lesson for all Australians. Geoff Gallop went to the polls promising the people of Western Australia no new taxes. He promised that Labor had learned its lessons; that it was no longer the party of corruption and ruin. `New Labor' he called it; `Hard Labor' people in Western Australia now call it.But the story is familiar. Another `New Labor' politician from the West is strumming a familiar refrain around the country. The Leader of the Opposition has learned well from his former protege, the current Premier. The Leader of the Opposition promises that, first and foremost, Labor is about reducing, not increasing, the burden of tax on Australian families. Well, in Western Australia it is not; if it is not turfing workers onto the street it is slugging senior West Australians. (Time expired)3144222:50:0031442Latham, Mark, MPMr LATHAMK26WerriwaALP00— The member for Curtin is obviously very confused. In 1998 she wanted to run for federal politics, then earlier this year she wanted to be the leader of the opposition in the Western Australian parliament. Then she said she wanted to run for federal politics, but now she is back talking on state politics like a state politician. She is a one-woman COAG meeting; when the left-hand side of her brain talks to the right-hand side, it is an example of cooperative federalism. But none of it makes any great sense at all. She is in a total state of confusion.On another issue, I would like to talk about the string of company collapses in Australia, including HIH, One.Tel and Ansett. Attention, of course, has turned to the quality of our corporate governance. Ultimately, responsibility for this matter falls with the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation, Mr Hockey, and the head of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, David Knott. Day after day more evidence is emerging of the incompetence of this pair. The financial press were concerned about the position of HIH as far back as July 2000. Yet it was not until February this year that ASIC began investigating HIH Insurance. So, too, Ansett's financial problems have been an open secret for most of this year, yet the minister and ASIC refused to act.I wish to bring to the attention of the House another instance of incompetence. On 27 February this year leaked information appeared in the Australian Financial Review, publishing highly sensitive interim profit figures for NRMA Insurance. The leaking of this material is a criminal offence under section 1001A of the Corporations Act. Yet, amazingly, this incident has not been subject to a full and proper investigation by ASIC. Indeed, Mr Knott announced on 6 September that `no action is proposed in relation to this matter'. It is well known within the NRMA that the guilty party is Mr Eric Dodd, the former Managing Director of NRMA Insurance. In February, Mr Dodd instructed Stuart Nelson, the head of his communications unit, to leak the interim profit figures. He did this in front of another senior staff member. Subsequently, complaints were lodged with ASIC. These complaints have not, however, been properly investigated. Mr Dodd has not been brought to justice. Unfortunately, another white-collar criminal has avoided punishment by ASIC. This matter also involves a question of ministerial responsibility. Not only has Minister Hockey stood by and allowed this injustice to occur; remarkably, he has acted in Mr Dodd's defence. In fact, he has gone out of his way to protect Dodd's interests within the NRMA. The minister even went as far as personally intervening to prop up Mr Dodd's position as managing director. On the weekend of 7 and 8 April, there was media speculation that the board of NRMA Insurance was reviewing Mr Dodd's position. The following Monday, Rowan Ross, the acting Chairman of NRMA Insurance, received a call from Minister Hockey advising him not to sack Dodd. After Dodd was, in fact, dismissed on 10 April, Ross received a further call from Mr Hockey, in which he said, `Remember that I am in charge of ASIC.' Ross took this to be a threat and subsequently told many people of the minister's actions. It was subsequently reported in the media that the minister had given Ross `the rounds of the kitchen'. Minister Hockey has acted improperly, and perhaps even illegally, by intervening in this fashion. These arrangements are much too cosy and convenient. Just look at the sequence of events: the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation appoints David Knott as the head of ASIC; the minister goes in to bat for his mate Eric Dodd at the NRMA; Dodd leaks sensitive profit information to the media, yet ASIC decides not to take any action. Meanwhile, ASIC commences civil proceedings against Nick Whitlam on two relatively minor matters, one of which has already been dismissed by a QC who is now a Federal Court judge. The old boys club is alive and well in the regulation of corporate Australia: one set of rules for the son of a Labor icon, but a totally different set of rules for the minister's mate. These double standards reflect poorly on the competence and integrity of ASIC. They help to explain ASIC's failure to prevent the recent run of company collapses. The head of ASIC is willing to play favourites and to play politics instead of impartially enforcing the laws of this parliament.The minister is willing to intervene directly to threaten and intimidate companies in an attempt to protect his mate. Eric Dodd is guilty of a criminal offence, yet he has the personal protection of the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation. This disgraceful set of circumstances threatens Australia's reputation for corporate governance and economic performance. It must be investigated by a full and thorough inquiry of the parliament or by an appropriate judicial body. The minister must explain his extraordinary role in this shameful affair.3144322:55:0031443Wakelin, Barry, MPMr WAKELINHV5GreyLP10—As this parliament draws to a close and we face an election in the forthcoming weeks, it is timely for me to contemplate those people who have served on this side of the House and to take the opportunity to acknowledge one particular individual who has—certainly from my perspective—contributed in a very significant way. I want to acknowledge the work of Dr Michael Wooldridge, the Minister for Health and Aged Care, particularly for the service that he gave to my electorate and for the encouragement he gave to me when I was a candidate. Michael had the capacity, as an urban person, to reach across the divide to regional Australia. He had a commitment which was beyond that of narrow self-interest and a narrow urban view. Tonight I would like to share with the House some of Michael's contributions to the electorate of Grey and to my life as a member of parliament. I met Michael on a farm near Cleve, on the Eyre Peninsula, in 1992, along with a local state member and pilot. We flew in a Cessna 182 to Port Lincoln, to Ceduna and to a place called Pipalyatjara, which is up in the north-west corner of South Australia in my electorate, across the Maralinga lands. In this little aircraft, the Ceduna-Pipalyatjara leg would have taken at least three hours—it seemed like it took forever. We landed on a dirt strip at Pipalyatjara, on a December day with the temperature somewhere near the mid-40s. From there we went through the various communities of the land of the Pitjantjatjara, over to Oodnadatta and down to Port Augusta. That took us something like four to five days. At that time, Michael was defending a marginal seat in Melbourne—I think the seat of Chisholm. For him to do that for me and for the Liberal Party made him very special. That was when he was shadow minister for Aboriginal affairs.I could mention a number of things, from a regional perspective, where Michael will leave his mark on health issues of this nation, and I will run quickly through some of them. He had a particular passion for Aboriginal people, their issues and their problems. One in particular was his concern that people be very aware of the risks concerning HIV/AIDS, and I am sure that the practices he encouraged, and helped to implement, have greatly assisted to that end. The medical schools of regional Australia will be one of his finest testaments, coming out of the department of rural health. I will also mention the 30 per cent rebate for private health insurance, the female GPs, the framework agreements for Aboriginal health, and the Commonwealth-state agreements. We are able to develop far better health services for regional Australia because of his vision, determination and commitment—not through a narrow, ivory tower approach but through a practical, total vision for Australia for health. For that, I thank him. He will be greatly missed.DK6Hockey, Joe, MPMr Hockey—Mr Speaker, I require the debate to be extended.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The debate may continue until 11.10 p.m.3144423:00:0031444Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLPMinister for Financial Services and Regulation10—A little earlier tonight, the member for Werriwa made a serious allegation about events involving the NRMA. The member for Werriwa unfortunately chose to take the cowardly approach and made these statements in the House rather than outside the House. He made a number of quite defamatory statements about a number of individuals. I understand that the House can be used for that purpose, but, if the member for Werriwa has any basis in fact for the allegations that he is making, he should refer them to the appropriate authorities.There is currently a case before the courts involving the former chairman of NRMA, Nick Whitlam; therefore, it would obviously be inappropriate for me to comment on the circumstances surrounding that court case. Secondly, there is another court case involving the dismissal of Eric Dodd, the former chief executive of NRMA, and again it would be totally inappropriate for me to make any detailed statements about that. But I am, for the purposes of responding to the spurious allegations from the member for Werriwa, able to say the following. I have no great truck with Eric Dodd, nor do I have any great truck with Nick Whitlam, but I can tell the member for Werriwa that the collapse of HIH and my previous comments about corporate governance in Australia were at the forefront of my mind when the chairman of NRMA resigned on that weekend, at a time when there was enormous speculation about the reasons for the collapse of Australia's second biggest general insurer.As a minister, I took the view that Australia could ill afford to have the caucus-like bar room brawl in the boardroom of NRMA spread to the executive of NRMA at a time when the largest general insurer in Australia was under pressure with the collapse of the second largest general insurer in Australia. I rang the acting chairman of NRMA and asked him if the speculation was true: that he and the board had done a deal to dismiss the chief executive of NRMA at the request of Mr Whitlam, who had resigned. He would not respond to me. I reminded him that at that juncture the chief executive of NRMA was also the chairman of the Insurance Council of Australia and was working with the government on a rescue package for thousands of policyholders in HIH, who at that time had no protection whatsoever. In fact, the insurance industry at that moment was working with the government to come up with a solution to respond to the immediate problems of HIH. At that point of time, it was decided within the board of NRMA that they were going to take their bar room political brawls into the executive of NRMA and potentially destabilise Australia's largest general insurer. I do not apologise for one second for making it obvious to the NRMA, both publicly and privately, that the government, through its prudential regulator, APRA, and through its corporate regulator, ASIC, would carefully monitor developments at NRMA to ensure that good corporate governance was adhered to. I do not apologise for that. That is what any prudential and responsible minister would do to ensure that all appropriate laws were complied with by the board and by the executive of NRMA at a time whenthe insurance industry was under enormous pressure. The member for Werriwa can make whatever allegations he wants in the coward's castle of parliament, as he has chosen to do, but if he has any basis to his allegations, he should put up or shut up and do it now, rather than under the cover of parliamentary privilege.23:05:0031445House adjourned at 11.05 p.m.Notices31445The following notices were given:0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr Slipper to present a bill for an act to amend the law relating to elections and referendums, and for related purposes.4K4Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson to move:That, in accordance with section 5 of the Parliament Act 1974, the House approves the following proposal for work in the Parliamentary Zone which was presented to the House on 24 September 2001, namely: Design and content of slivers for Reconciliation Place.4K4Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson to move:That, in accordance with section 5 of the Parliament Act 1974, the House approves the following proposal for work in the Parliamentary Zone which was presented to the House on 25 September 2001, namely: Design of the artistic pavement of Speaker's Square in Commonwealth Place.Answers to Questions in Writing31446The following answers to questions were circulated:31446(Question No. 2611)261131446McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Minister for Community Services, upon notice, on 4 June 2001: (1) Is it a fact that (a) the appointments of all members of the Social Security Appeals Tribunal (SSAT), Australia wide expire on 30 June 2001 and (b) the SSAT has not yet a clear indication as to the basis upon which any appointments past that date will be made.(2) Is the Government aware that the continuing uncertainty about the SSAT's future, a pattern of short-term appointments and the current lack of information about expiring appointments, has significantly undermined the morale of members of that organisation.(3) Is it a fact that (a) an audit just released indicates that the number of errors made by Centrelink in respect of age pensions claims is in excess of 50% and (b) the number of appeals to the SSAT has fallen considerably over the last 12 months; if so, does this indicate that not all those aggrieved by Centrelink decisions are appropriately of their appeal rights.(4) Have applications for membership of the now on hold Administrative Review Tribunal (ART), been used as the basis for new appointments to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, without the opportunity being provided to others in the community who may have wished to apply for membership of the latter.(5) Has the position of head of the SSAT, the Executive Director, been vacant for over 12 months.(6) Is it proposed to choose the Executive from the applications to the Income Security Division of the ART, without advertising the position generally to the community.31446Anthony, Larry, MPMr AnthonyXJ6RichmondNPMinister for Community Services10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) (a) Yes.(b) No. Members were advised on 7 June 2001 of the basis upon which appointments after 30 June 2001 will be made.(2) The Government is fully aware of the circumstances in the SSAT.(3) (a) The audit was based on a small sample of only 354 new claims for Age Pension lodged over a six month period. It only looked at the initial stage of the claim process and focused mainly on complex or very complex claims using the documentation kept on file. The audit report concluded that 52.1% of these initial applications contained an error that would require follow-up action. However, the ANAO estimated that only 13.5% (+/- 4.02pp) of the new claim assessments contained a payment error. The audit warns that the figures should be treated with caution and cannot be applied across all Age Pensioners. (b) The estimated number of appeals to the SSAT for the year 2000-2001, based on applications received for the eleven months to the end of May 2001, is 9 190. This is only 41 fewer appeals than were received in 1999-2000. Such a minor variation does not lend itself to the inaccurate claims and conclusions made in the honourable member's question.(4) This issue is a matter for the Attorney-General.(5) No. The office of Executive Director of the SSAT has been occupied on an acting basis during the past twelve months.(6) Yes, subject to the approval of the Governor-General as is required in an appointment to the statutory office of Executive Director. It is incorrect to suggest that the position was not advertised generally to the community as the equivalent position in the Income Support Division was advertised in the national press and attracted a number of applications of substantial merit.31446(Question No. 2622)262231446Murphy, John, MPMr Murphy83DLoweALP00 asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 4 June 2001:(1) Further to his answer to question No. 2376 (Hansard, 22 May 2001, page 25779) did both the Professor of Medicine and the Professor of Surgery conclude that former Senator Colston's life expectancy was months; if not, which professor reached an alternative conclusion about Dr Colston's life expectancy and what was that conclusion about Dr Colston's life expectancy. (2) Is the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) able to confirm that at least one eminent medical specialist who examined Dr Colston on 14 or 19 May 1999 concluded that his life expectancy was months.(3) Did the DPP not have Dr Colston further medically examined until approximately 13 December 2000.(4) On what dates did the examinations of Dr Colston by the two independent eminent specialists take place which led to their respective reports of 13 December 2000 and 9 February 2001.(5) Were the medical examinations which led to the reports of 13 December 2000 and 9 February 2001 conducted by a Professor of Medicine and a Professor of Surgery who were the same independent medical specialists who examined Dr Colston in May 1999.(6) Do the Professors of Medicine and Surgery hold their chairs in Queensland.(7) Is he able to say whether, prior to their examination of Dr Colston on 14 and 19 May 1999, the Professors had prior personal contact with Dr Colston; if so, when.(8) What is the precise nature of the current medical condition of Dr Colston.(9) What is the exact prognosis contained in each of the reports identified in his answer to parts (7), (10) and (13) of question No. 2376.(10) What are the exact medical specialisations that are required to define the prognosis of Dr Colston's medical condition.(11) In light of the qualifications, chairs and fellowships of the independent medical specialists identified in part (6), is he confident they hold the exact medical specialisations necessary to express an accurate assessment on the state of health of Dr Colston and prognosis of Dr Colston's medical condition; if not, can he identify alternative competent, eminent, independent medical specialists who can express an accurate prognosis on the current medical condition of Dr Colston; if not, why not.(12) In light of his answer to part (19) of question No. 2376, will he now obtain the medical reports of Dr Colston from Wesley Private Hospital.(13) In light of his answer to part (11) of question No. 2376, has the estimation of Dr Colston's life expectancy as expressed in terms of months now been disproved; if not, why not.(14) Is he prepared to have Dr Colston re-examined by appropriately qualified medical experts, other than the independent eminent medical specialists who examined Dr Colston on 14 and 19 May 1999, to assess whether Dr Colston is now capable of standing trial on the twenty-eight charges of defrauding the Commonwealth through travel rorts; if not, why not.31447Williams, Daryl, MPMr Williams7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Yes.(2) Yes.(3) On 4 October 2000 the DPP requested updated medical evidence of Dr Colston's condition from his legal representatives. (4) The two independent specialists did not further physically examine Dr Colston. (5) Yes.(6) No. (7) The independent specialists had no prior personal contact with Dr Colston.(8) This is sensitive personal information. I refer to my answers to Questions on Notice No. 1154 and No. 1573.(9) See (8). (10) I refer to my answer to Questions on Notice No. 1154 and No. 1573.(11) Yes. (12) No.(13) Yes, however the prosecution of Dr Colston was discontinued because Dr Colston was not fit to stand trial and there was no prospect that he would be fit to stand trial in the future. (14) No. The DPP discontinued the prosecution of Dr Colston because in the light of the medical evidence there was no prospect of this matter proceeding to trial. The DPP review confirmed this remains the position. 31448(Question No. 2701)270131448Crosio, Janice, MPMrs Crosio7T4ProspectALP00 asked the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, upon notice, on 19 June 2001:(1) Did the unemployment rate for the small area labour market of Fairfield, NSW, increase in the March 2001 quarter; if so, why.(2) Was the unemployment rate for the small area labour market of Fairfield during the March 2001 quarter 12.5% and was this the highest rate since the June 1999 quarter.(3) Do departmental figures show that the unemployment rate for the small area labour market of Fairfield was (a) 8.7% for the June 2000 quarter, (b) 10.2% for the September 2000 quarter, (d) 11.1% for the December 2000 quarter and (d) 12.5% for the March 2001 quarter; if so, why has there been a steady rise in the unemployment rate since 1 of July 2000.31448Abbott, Tony, MPMr AbbottEZ5WarringahLPMinister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Each quarter the Department of Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business (DEWRSB) produces the Small Area Labour Markets (SALM) publication which contains estimates of the unemployment rate for approximately 1300 Statistical Local Areas (SLAs) across Australia.These estimates are compiled by apportioning the level of unemployment for a region, as published by the ABS, across each of the SLAs within that region in accordance with the distribution of Centrelink unemployment beneficiaries. As the data apply to very small areas they are subject to some variability, particularly in the quarter-to-quarter movements and should therefore be used with caution.That said, the unemployment rate estimate in Fairfield has risen from 11.3 per cent in the March quarter 2000 to 12.5 per cent in the March quarter 2001. DEWRSB is not in a position to explain why the estimate has risen in Fairfield. In any particular quarter, there will always be some regions which record rises in unemployment while others will record falls. What is important to note, however, is that overall, more than half of all SLAs recorded a fall in their unemployment rate estimate over the year to the March quarter 2001.(2) The unemployment rate estimate in Fairfield was 12.5 per cent in the March quarter 2001, which was the highest rate recorded in the region since the June quarter 1999. As noted above, however, it is inappropriate to compare unemployment estimates for the March quarter 2001 with the June quarter 1999.(3) While the data to which Mrs Crosio refers are correct, clear evidence is currently emerging of a rebound in economic activity at the national level. It could be expected, therefore, that labour market conditions will begin to improve in early 2002 with consequential improvements being recorded in many regional areas.31448(Question No. 2800)280031448McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMullan5I4FraserALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 6 August 2001:(1) What measures raised in public submissions incorporated into the Canberra Airport Master Plan were adopted to mitigate or minimise aircraft noise over north Canberra.(2) How many complaints about aircraft noise have been made in (a) 1998, (b) 1999, (c) 2000 and (d) 2001.(3) What suburbs in Canberra have been identified as the main areas emanating complaints about aircraft noise.(4) What ongoing processes have been set in place to ensure minimisation of aircraft noise on Canberra residents. 31449Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPMinister for Transport and Regional Services10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) The Canberra Airport Master Plan called for the Capital Airport Group (CAG) to “introduce a range of measures to mitigate the impacts of aircraft noise exposure, and to generate community understanding of the extent and impacts of noise exposure.” The measures subsequently adopted by CAG include: · Maintaining the Noise Reference Group, established by CAG as part of the public consultative process associated with the preparation of the Canberra Airport Master Plan, as a regular committee meeting three to four times annually and now called the Canberra Aircraft Noise Consultative Committee;· Holding ongoing meetings with both Airservices Australia and General Aviation (GA) operators to consider how existing GA operations can be improved upon to minimise the impact of aircraft noise over North Canberra; and · Developing and releasing for public comment in April 2001 a planning document titled `Minimising the Impact of Aircraft Noise: A Proposal by Canberra International Airport to Quarantine Excessive Aircraft Noise from Canberra and Queanbeyan Residential Areas'. As part of this process, I understand that CAG held six public meetings and received 70 submissions from interested parties. (2) The number of complaints about aircraft noise at Canberra Airport received by Airservices Australia in each of these years are as follows.(a) 100 complaints in 1998.(b) 148 complaints in 1999.(c) 129 complaints in 2000.(d) Up until the end of July 2001, 253 complaints have been received.(3) Airservices Australia and CAG have provided information that identified the suburbs from where complaints about aircraft noise have been received. The suburbs from where most aircraft noise complaints emanate are Hackett, Amaroo, Ngunnawal, Watson, Jerrabomberra and Pialligo.(4) I am advised that Canberra has noise abatement procedures in place which operate to keep aircraft noise at a minimum. These include: · Over populous areas, existing noise abatement zones prohibit jet aircraft from transiting below 5,000 feet altitude above ground level and propeller aircraft with maximum take off weights of 5,700 kg or more from transiting below 3,000 feet altitude above ground level. · Specific runway procedures are prescribed for arriving and departing aircraft to follow to further minimise aircraft noise.· Aircraft noise related issues are also discussed by a range of stakeholders within the Canberra Airport Aircraft Noise Consultative Committee (CAANCC). The committee includes Commonwealth agencies, state and territory government bodies, airlines, aircraft operators and community representatives.31449(Question No. 2821)282131449McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 6 August 2001:Further to the answer to question No. 2533, (Hansard, 6 August 2001, page 29226) how are aircraft movements between 7 p.m. and 7 a.m. weighted in the calculation of the Aircraft Noise Exposure Index.31449Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPMinister for Transport and Regional Services10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:Under the ANEF system aircraft movements between 7pm and 7am are weighted such that they are the equivalent of four aircraft movements at any other time of the day.31450(Question No. 2878)287831450Murphy, John, MPMr Murphy83DLoweALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 22 August 2001:(1) Did he, in a letter to the Speaker, dated 8 August 2001, in relation to the delay in answering my question No. 2521(Hansard 28 June 2001, page 29089), state (a) the Airports Division of his Department is responsible for the on-going regulation of leased Federal airports and since the Government announced its decision to sell Sydney Airport, the division has had a major, time-critical responsibility to answer, in detail, questions from prospective buyers in relation to aspects of the Airport's regulatory regime and (b) during the same period, I had asked a number of detailed questions relating to the sale of Sydney Airport and as a result of these cumulative pressures, there was a delay in answering question No. 2521.(2) Does his letter demonstrate he has placed the commercial interests in the hands of the Government ahead of, and given a higher priority to, the public interest matters raised in my question No. 2521.(3) Has his instruction to the Airports Division over-ridden both the Coalition's February 1996 policy on aviation and the then Transport Minister's second reading speech during the Airports Bill 1996 debate; if not, why not.(4) When did he give the Airports Division directions about his priorities concerning the time-critical responsibility to answer, in detail, questions from prospective buyers in relation to aspects of the Airport's regulatory regime.(5) At the time that he directed the Airports Division of the time-critical responsibility, did he contemplate the airports regulatory regime in the context of a fully implemented Long Term Operating Plan (LTOP) for Sydney Airport.(6) How did he express to the Airports Division the manner in which prospective buyers of the lease for Sydney Airport would be required to adhere to a fully implemented LTOP for Sydney Airport.(7) How are prospective buyers now expected to fully implement the LTOP for Sydney Airport.(8) When will prospective buyers be required to fully implement the LTOP for Sydney Airport.31450Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPMinister for Transport and Regional Services10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) (a) Yes.(b) Yes.(2) No.(3), (4), (5) and (6) The questions asked by the Honourable Member assume I gave the Airports Division specific instructions on this matter. I did not. The Airports Division is cognisant of, and responsive to, Government policy in relation to the provision of advice on, and the implementation of, the legal and regulatory regime imposed upon Federal leased airports. It is the responsibility of the Division to determine time-frames and allocate resources as appropriate.(7), (8) I refer the Honourable Member to my answer to part (4) of question 2509.