2001-09-2639110REPS3145102001-09-26—————Mr SPEAKER (Mr Neil Andrew) took the chair at 9.30 a.m., and read prayers.Bills31451R139231451Bill presented by Mr Slipper, and read a first time.3145109:31:0031451Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.The Electoral and Referendum Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2001 contains amendments to the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 and the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984 arising from the government supported electoral reform recommendations of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters report entitled The 1998 federal election. The government response to the report was tabled on 1 March 2001. The Electoral and Referendum Amendment Act (No. 1) 2001, containing the technical amendments arising from the committee's report on the 1998 federal election, received royal assent on the 28 April 2001 and was proclaimed on 16 July 2001. The most notable amendments of this bill include those which will:· provide for the close of the rolls for an election or referendum for new enrolments at 6 p.m. on the day of the issue of the writ and, for existing electors wishing to update their enrolment, at 8 p.m. three working days after the issue of the writ;· remove the right to vote for all prisoners serving a sentence of full-time detention;· amend the multiple voting offence to provide an increased penalty where it can be demonstrated that the offence was committed deliberately;· increase a number of the financial disclosure thresholds to $3,000, effective from 1 July 2001;· amend the objection provisions to provide that electors may be removed from the roll by objection if they no longer reside at their enrolled address and have not lived there for at least the last month, rather than the requirement that the objection be based on non-residence in the subdivision for the last month; · provide that an elector's provisional vote will not be admitted to scrutiny if an election—excluding the election to which the scrutiny relates—has been held since the removal of the elector from the roll or if there has been a redistribution of the state or territory that includes the division since the last election;· provide that there will be no automatic reinstatement to the roll for electors whose provisional votes have been admitted to the count. Instead, electors will be required to complete an enrolment form to be placed back on the roll; and· prohibit scrutineers from actively participating in assisted votes.The government believes these reforms are important. They improve the integrity of the electoral process and I would urge that the bill be given timely passage. I commend the bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum.Debate (on motion by Mr Horne) adjourned.Committees31451314513145109:35:0031451Somlyay, Alex, MPMr SOMLYAYZT4FairfaxLP10—I present the report of the Committee of Privileges concerning the alleged threat or intimidation of a potential witness in connection with an inquiry by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Community Affairs.Ordered that the report be printed.ZT4Somlyay, Alex, MPMr SOMLYAY—by leave—This matter, referred by the House in October 2000, relates to allegations of threat and intimidation of a potential witness, Mr Peter Osborne, to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Community Affairs during its inquiry into health information management and telemedicine in 1997. The allegation is, in essence, that an officer of the Victorian Department of Human Services, Mr Osborne's supervisor at the time, threatened that Mr Osborne's employment might be terminated if he gave evidence as a private citizen at a public hearing conducted by the family and community affairs committee in April 1997. Mr Osborne alleged that the supervisor was instructed to make the threats by another senior officer of that department. The committee received written submissions and held an in camera hearing to seek to clarify the circumstances surrounding the allegation. The committee was faced with a volume of complex and contradictory evidence. In addition, the committee's task was made more difficult by the delay between the time the threats were alleged to have been made and the time Mr Osborne raised the matter with the family and community affairs committee. Some witnesses before the committee were understandably unable to recollect all relevant matters with great clarity or in great detail.It appears from the evidence that the communication between Mr Osborne and his supervisor was at cross-purposes. While Mr Osborne is adamant that he proposed to give evidence in a personal capacity, or as a director of his company, but not on behalf of the department, his supervisor is equally adamant that Mr Osborne proposed to her that he give evidence as a representative of the Department of Human Services. Mr Osborne's supervisor saw the issue as a matter of protocol, as did the other senior officer in the department who is alleged to have given the instruction for the threats to be made. By contrast, Mr Osborne saw it as a matter of being denied his right to accept an invitation to appear before a parliamentary committee as a private citizen.The picture was complicated by Mr Osborne's different and sometimes simultaneous roles as a contractual employee of the Department of Human Services, a managing director of his own company and his part in a contractual relationship with a major accounting firm. In addition, the committee notes that departments have protocols as to the levels of officers who may give evidence to parliamentary committees and that this is a reasonable and proper means to ensure that committees receive evidence from those with the adequate capacity and authority to provide it.The committee concludes that, in her discussions with Mr Osborne regarding his proposed appearance before the family and community affairs committee, Mr Osborne's supervisor's conduct amounted to an interference with the free exercise of the family and community affairs committee's authority and functions in that a potential witness was deterred from giving evidence. The committee concludes that the conduct of the other senior officer in the department also amounted to an interference with the free exercise of the family and community affairs committee's authority and functions in that he contributed to a potential witness being deterred from giving evidence.However, the committee does not find that the conduct of either officer amounted to an improper interference with the family and community affairs committee's authority and functions, as section 4 of the Parliamentary Privileges Act requires before a finding of contempt could be contemplated. The committee is not satisfied that either officer was conscious that Mr Osborne wished to appear in a capacity other than a departmental representative or that either of them intended to deter Mr Osborne from giving evidence in any capacity other than as a representative of the Department of Human Services.The committee wishes to record its concern that a witness before a parliamentary committee has been subject to threats—albeit as the apparent result of confusion—and confirms its earlier statements regarding the importance of witnesses being able to give evidence freely to parliamentary committees. Interference with witnesses or potential witnesses has a grave potential to diminish the quality and range of evidence that is provided to parliamentary committees. The committee will deal seriously with any matters that are referred to it following allegations of interference with witnesses or prospective witnesses before committees.The committee recommends that all governments ensure that managers and staff of their departments and agencies are advised of the rights and responsibilities of witnesses before parliamentary committees. In particular, departments and authorities should ensure that the advice, and procedures to implement that advice, take careful note of the distinction between staff appearing as representatives of the department or authority and appearing in a private capacity. Bills31453R141131453Debate resumed from 20 September, on motion by Mr Slipper:That the bill be now read a second time.09:41:0031453Ferguson, Martin, MPMr MARTIN FERGUSONLS4BatmanALP00—I rise this morning to address the House on the Fuel Legislation Amendment (Grant and Rebate Schemes) Bill 2001. The bill will extend the sunset provisions of the Diesel and Alternative Fuels Grants Scheme and the Diesel Fuel Rebate Scheme for 12 months to 30 June 2003. The Diesel Fuel Rebate Scheme provides a rebate for the excise or customs duty which has been paid on locally produced or imported diesel and on fuels for certain eligible business activities such as mining, primary production, marine and rail transport, hospitals and nursing homes. The Diesel and Alternative Fuels Grants Scheme provides a rebate for the on-road use of diesel and alternative fuels in vehicles over 20 tonnes and in vehicles of between 4.5 and 20 tonnes in non-metropolitan areas. There are amendments to the scheme which allow for a grant to be payable on all fuel used in an emergency vehicle weighing 4.5 tonnes or more. I indicate at the outset that the opposition supports the bill, in some ways reluctantly. We support the bill reluctantly not because of its intent but because, if we had a competent, honest and efficient government, there would be no need for the House to consider it.With the extension of these schemes, the government are acknowledging that they have not done what they promised over the last two years. I remind the House that the government did the deal with the Democrats to sunset these provisions on 30 June 2002 on the promise that the new energy credit scheme would be ready to replace it. Unfortunately the energy credit scheme is not ready because the work has not been done— despite the fact that the opposition over an extended period has been calling on the government to get the work done. Also, representatives of the trucking industry at a peak council level have been pushing for outstanding answers to questions going to the development of the alternative energy credit scheme.We are here this morning because that work has not been done and, unfortunately, it is highly unlikely now that the work could be done by June of next year. It has been opposition policy to extend the sunset date if the government cannot give the Australian community and, importantly, the trucking industry an assurance that the new energy credit scheme would be ready in time for the sunset provision. That is exceptionally important because it goes to the capacity of the industry to plan for its future in the context of a certain environment and the promise that it would be in place for the purposes of the operation of that industry.The bill before us today is the answer to our question. Unfortunately, the answer is that, no, the work has not and could not be done in accordance with the originally intended sunset provision date of 1 June 2002. I say to the Australian community that the answer is, `We, the Howard-Costello-Anderson government, with all the resources available to us, have not done the work we promised to do two years ago.' When the government introduced this scheme two years ago they effectively said in a very bald statement to the Australian community, `Over the ensuing period, with a sunset provision of 1 June 2002, we promise to do the work and actually have a new energy credit scheme in place.' So, with this admission of a broken promise and incompetence, the Howard-Costello government have conceded that they will not have the energy credit scheme ready to operate as promised in the negotiation of that grubby little GST package. Therefore, it is fair to say to the House that what is actually being implemented today is the opposition's policy with respect to how to get the Australian community out of this mess. This is not the first example of the Howard government having to adopt opposition proposals to clean up a mess they have created in recent times. More importantly, it is the second example in just one week where the opposition has been ahead of the government on transport policy. I refer in passing to the decision of the government this week to postpone the sale of Kingsford Smith airport. Again, this was an example where the Howard-Costello government, due to the lacklustre performance of the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, did not have their ears to the ground and were therefore forced to put off the sale of Kingsford Smith airport rather than proceed with a fire sale, due to the international experience in the aviation industry and the collapse of Ansett, with a view to guaranteeing Australian taxpayers the best possible return on the sale of that wonderful asset. I suppose it proves to the Australian community that not only is the Howard government tricky and mean, it is also out of touch with economic reality and the needs and expectations of the Australian community for accountability and responsibility in government.10000Ferguson, Martin, MPMr SPEAKER—The member for Batman is aware that he has been granted some tolerance on this, and it would be good if he came back to the bill.LS4Ferguson, Martin, MPMr MARTIN FERGUSON—As I have indicated, it is a wide-ranging bill. And I might indicate that fuel is used in the operation of the aviation industry at Sydney airport.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Batman nonetheless understands it was a long bow. It would be helpful if he came back to the bill.LS4Ferguson, Martin, MPMr MARTIN FERGUSON—I thought it was not a bad bow myself, Mr Speaker.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—It is not the chair's job to judge the validity of the argument, but simply that it be focused on the bill.LS4Ferguson, Martin, MPMr MARTIN FERGUSON—I think it is understood that we are debating very serious issues today, and I am going to accountability and performance in government. What is at the heart of the legislation is not only the extension of the scheme but the reason we have to debate this proposal today. That is because the government has been content to stand by and gloss over mistakes for as long as it can until it is forced to admit them, and then unashamedly shoot the bill to the taxpayer and the Australian community. We cannot avoid parliamentary accountability. We cannot avoid a requirement that the government of the day be attentive, responsible and competent with respect to its handling of a major industry such as the transport industry, which has huge ramifications not only nationally but also in rural, remote and regional Australia. For that reason, I say very clearly that the government today is implementing the opposition's policy.The government also need to answer very serious questions today about why they dragged their feet for so long. They must say why they broke their promise and why they have not issued one discussion paper, options paper or notice about the form of the energy credit scheme, which they promised would be ready by June 2002. I remind the House it was not the opposition's promise. It was the Howard government's promise, when they entered into an arrangement with the Democrats as part of a deal to introduce the GST, that they would implement and develop a new energy credit scheme in time for the sunset provision of 1 June 2002. That is at the heart of the bill before the House today.It is exceptionally important that the Australian community is reminded that when you accept ministerial responsibilities you undertake to the community to actually do your job. You do not sit idly by, draw a ministerial salary and fail to live up to your responsibilities to do your work and meet the legislative requirements that you undertook to this House to meet when you put in place legislation for the operation of the fuel and energy credit schemes. That is what it is all about. If you make a promise to the Australian community, with more than adequate time to deliver, then the Australian community actually expects that you deliver. That is how you operate in private business, that is how you operate in the community sector in Australia and that is how you should operate in government, especially at the highest level of government in Australia. It is about accountability, integrity and honesty in government. That is why I also suggest that not only are the government on the spot today, but so are the Democrats, the party that entered into the arrangements with the government with respect to the development of the energy credit scheme. Questions therefore need to be answered by the Democrats in the debate on this bill in the other house as to why they have sat idly by and refused to pressure the government about the emerging sunset provision of 1 June 2002 and why they did not think it was their responsibility, having entered into the agreement, to hold the government accountable to do the work to enable the energy credit scheme to be put in place. I argue that the shoddy performance of both the Howard government and the Democrats is the reason we have to debate this issue today. The failure of both political parties to do their work effectively means that the time of this House today is wasted. If the work had been done there would be no requirement for us to spend time debating this bill.In essence, we are debating not a change in assistance to industry but a 12-month extension of time to enable the government to do its work, having already had two years to do the work that was expected by the transport industry and the Australian community. The Democrats must therefore explain, as must the Howard government, why they have not honoured the agreement they reached with the government. The Democrats got the promise from the Howard-Costello government about the introduction of the scheme, but the truth of the matter is that, in the same way in which the Howard government has failed to do its work, the Democrats have done nothing to make the Howard government do its work under the agreement that it entered into. In essence, it is another example of the Democrats doing a quick deal on the run for a quick headline, not following it through and leaving the industry worried and uncertain about its future. I suppose that we should not expect anything other than that from the Democrats from time to time. They are always about a cheap headline and a smart alec amendment rather than hard work and dedicated follow-through to make sure that agreements that are entered into are fully delivered in accordance with the legislative intention of the House with respect to this bill.The new energy credits scheme that is supposed to replace the current diesel grants scheme can still be finalised by June 2002. That is a very good thing, because that is what the House was told would occur when the scheme was first introduced for debate. But I firmly believe that the bill represents a very clear statement—a concession—by the Howard government that it is unlikely that the hard work expected can be completed. The opposition was virtually convinced of that when the government said that the fuel tax inquiry would not report until March and that the inquiry would look at the energy credits scheme. That was another excuse and another cover-up for not doing its work— rolling the development of the energy credits scheme into the fuel tax inquiry as a cover for not doing its work.In effect, therefore, the government has ratted on the GST deal with the Australian community with respect to the diesel grants scheme. The commitment therefore that it gave under the A New Tax System—Measures for a Better Environment deal that supposedly was entered into with the Democrats, on the basis of which the GST was introduced, has been torn up and thrown away. In essence, the Democrats have been sold a pup yet again for a cheap headline because they were also unwilling to hold the government to account with respect to the deal on the development of environmentally friendly operations, which the trucking industry and I regard as important.I compliment those who operate in the trucking industry, because they are not opposed to the development of an energy credits scheme. On a regular basis they say, `All we need is for the government to do its work. We are prepared to front up to our responsibilities as an industry, because we are a community minded industry. In the same way in which we pursue safety on the road, we want to pursue environmentally friendly work practices. But in order to achieve that, we expect the government, which is largely responsible for the development of those environmentally friendly practices, to do its work so that we know that we have an environment in which we are expected to operate for the purposes of delivering not only an efficient and affordable industry but also an environmentally friendly industry to the Australian community, in accord with our domestic responsibilities to improve our performance in the environment and with our responsibilities with respect to the greenhouse debate.' The problem is that the Howard government wanted only one thing of the Democrats, and that was their vote on the GST— the tax and the policy that have seriously eroded the living standards of Australian workers in recent times and that yesterday accounted for the loss of 1,000 jobs in Coles Myer and 1,000 jobs in Daimaru. More important, that tax and that policy, with the Ansett debacle and the international aviation crisis that we are experiencing, are now contributing to the potential loss of thousands of jobs in the tourism industry around Australia. In essence, the Howard government got its tax because it got the Democrats' vote, but the truth of the matter is that, when it comes to the energy credits scheme and an alternative to the diesel grants and rebates scheme, the Australian community did not get its side of the deal. When it came to the implementation of that arrangement, the Australian public was played for a break yet again. Why should we expect anything other than that? If you are not played for a break, you are given an undertaking that it will never, ever be done. On both counts we know that the Howard government's word is not worth a pinch of salt, because it will break its word according to the political circumstances that suit its own needs at a given time.This debate is not only about the A New Tax System—Measures for a Better Environment deal, which has fallen apart. It is also about restrictions on the importation of second-hand diesel engines, which is another example of the Howard government's not doing its job with respect to the need to improve our environment. Labor, I remind the House, did not oppose the diesel grants scheme when it was introduced, because it constituted a way to help the transport and primary production industries to mitigate the impact of the GST, and we will not oppose this bill for that very reason. As well as explaining its inaction, the reason for the extension required in this bill, the government must also start to give some idea of where it wants to go in the energy credits debate. The time extension will rightly take pressure off finalisation of the scheme and give certainty to the industry. The government's fuel tax inquiry may give some clues to what might be in the energy credits scheme, but we have not had from the government the slightest clue to what might be in the energy credits scheme. I say that against the backdrop in which the government has had two years. Surely two years down the track it can tell the House, the transport industry and the Australian community what clue it has about a possible energy credits scheme. With all the resources of ministerial officers and all the departmental backup it gets, surely two years down the track we can be given some clue in this debate today about the government's thinking with respect to an energy credits scheme and the replacement of the fuel grants and rebate scheme.I think I can shed some light today on why there has been inaction and why there have been no proposals on an energy credit scheme. I recently came across a document that sheds some light on this issue. That document is a departmental briefing from Environment Australia prepared for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, Dr Sharman Stone, for her attendance and presentation at the Australian Trucking Association Diesel Emissions Seminar, which I addressed earlier this year. I want to refer the House to that briefing document because the department apprised the parliamentary secretary, as she was to speak at the seminar, of the views of the Australian Trucking Association on a range of matters. Of most note is the update on the energy credit scheme. I will quote from the document because it might help the public and the trucking industry to understand why the Fuel Legislation Amendment (Grant and Rebate Schemes) Bill 2001 is before us today and why there has been no action from the government yet again. The document, minute 1/90, is entitled `Presentation to ATA meeting of 8 March'. Page 2 of that document says this in respect of an energy credit scheme:The Department of Transport and Regional Services, in consultation with Environment Australia and the Greenhouse Office, is preparing a Cabinet memorandum on this proposal.From that quotation from the government's own brief we can now confirm that it is the Deputy Prime Minister, who is also Minister for Transport and Regional Services, who has primary responsibility for developing the energy credit scheme. From the experience of the Ansett debacle, we know that the Minister for Transport and Regional Services has a lot of trouble making even the simplest decisions. However, the decision to extend the energy credit scheme is extremely important to people who rely on certainty and who have already been whacked and smacked by the government's GST policy.In talking about this industry, I remind the House that I am not talking about an insignificant number of jobs. The industry is a huge and growing employer. It moves people and goods and services, and it earns export dollars for Australia which help to create economic prosperity and opportunity in Australia. But these issues are of not much importance to the Deputy Prime Minister because, every time I look around when it comes to a tough decision, I find that he is hiding on the farm or doing an exclusive interview in the Land about how tough it is and, if he is lucky enough to be a minister after the next election, he might have to give up some of his portfolio because it is all tough. Are you surprised that the part of the portfolio he wants to give up because it requires a few decisions from time to time is the very part of the portfolio about which we are talking today which relates to the minister's inaction—the transport portfolio? I can tell you what: it is tough, but if you do your work it is not tough, it is very rewarding. You are actually working with an industry that makes a huge contribution to the benefit of Australia, and for that very reason it is about time that the minister took his responsibilities seriously.Returning to the briefing document, not only do we find that the Minister for Transport and Regional Services has the primary responsibility, when we see that the energy credit scheme is under his watch, but our concerns can only increase given his record and his lack of interest in matters in the transport portfolio. The minister lost track of interest in his transport responsibilities long ago, as evidenced in the recent interview in the Land. That is obviously a worrying sign for the industry. That takes me to another part of the confidential briefing paper which was given to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage. The briefing paper stated:The Cabinet memorandum aims to develop the Government's position on the scope of reform under the Energy Grants Credit Scheme and the process to be followed in developing the scheme. The Cabinet memorandum is at an early stage of development—this is in March 2001, about 18 months down the track from the date the original agreement was entered into with the Democrats—and it is not possible to provide any details of departmental thinking to the public or the ATA, particularly as there is no agreement between the Ministers at this stage.That document proves yet again that the energy credit scheme has not been developed because the government cannot do its work and it cannot stop internal division about the nature of a potential energy credit scheme. The document states that `there is no agreement between the Ministers at this stage'. It is there in black and white in the memorandum of 7 March of this year. I would also argue that there is still no agreement between the ministers because, frankly, it is not a high order issue in their minds as it is only about jobs, job security and the future of the transport industry and its capacity to contribute to the betterment of Australia.So be it, but it continues a trend in terms of the performance of the Howard government. We have a Prime Minister who did a deal for an energy credit scheme to get the votes of the Democrats on the GST. We then find that, despite having done the deal—and I thought that this would have been sorted out before the deal was done with the Democrats—we now have evidence in this confidential memorandum that the Prime Minister cannot even get agreement across his various ministerial responsibilities. That is because there was never any commitment to the development of an energy credit scheme. It was about a cheap and tricky deal to get a vote. It was another cynical exercise to try and get the GST in place, with all the potential impacts on the Australia community. A further point I note from that briefing is that the government knew back in March that the industry was anxious to ensure its continued entitlements—but, frankly, the government was not very interested in the anxiety of the industry. I suppose this is another example of the minister and the government being out of touch. I seek leave to table the confidential departmental briefing to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, Dr Stone, of 7 March this year.10000Jenkins, Harry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Is leave granted?GT4Truss, Warren, MPMr Truss—No, Mr Deputy Speaker. He has not gone through the normal process of courtesy and shown it to us.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Leave is not granted.LS4Ferguson, Martin, MPMr MARTIN FERGUSON—I am not surprised that leave is not granted, Mr Deputy Speaker. When it comes to accountability, the government do not want the facts on the table. That is the very answer I expected. But then, it is not our problem; it was not our deal and we were not in on the loop. We will expose the non-performance of this government on a continuous basis.This bill in no way absolves the government of their responsibility to actually do the work. They should start the work, because they have failed to do the work to date. When the Labor Party promised to introduce legislative changes to extend this scheme for an extra 12 months, we promised not to sit on our tails as the Howard government have done. We said we would need to finalise it by 30 June 2003 so as to ensure that an energy credit scheme for the truck industry, with associated arrangements that maintain benefits equivalent to DAFGS, was in place. That is all the industry want. They want to know the parameters within which they are expected to operate. Importantly, as part of the development of those parameters, they expect to be consulted and taken seriously. Labor supports this bill for that very reason. It is about giving the government extra time to do work that should have been done already. But, frankly, given the track record of the Howard government on this issue, I am wondering whether they could do it even with a three-year extension, let alone with this 12-month extension—should they be lucky enough to win the election.In essence, today is about certainty. The trucking, agricultural, mining and related industries—and not only the operators but also the manufacturers and suppliers—need lead time to make capital decisions and to properly plan. It is now a matter of fact that the fuel tax inquiry will examine the whole issue of fuel taxes, including the Energy Grants (Credits) Scheme. The report is due in March 2002. With the extension of the diesel grant scheme, the government now has more time to devise, consider, consult, debate, negotiate, resolve and legislate, if need be, an energy credit scheme to meet the sunset date. Hopefully, even the Howard government could meet this further extension of 12 months. But this extension does not remove the imperative to get cracking to finalise the scheme now. Transport operators and other business people in the agricultural and mining industries need to plan and they need to know what the regulatory framework is going to be at least 12 months in advance.Irrespective of who sits on the government side of the House after the next election, we should not wait until 2003 to do this work. As soon as the fuel inquiry report is brought down in March next year, we should get well under way a process of consultation and hard work to work out what is appropriate so that the industry knows well in advance the parameters within which it is expected to operate. This is important, and it requires that the government get moving to put options on the table and to take these issues seriously. I conclude by confirming that the opposition also supports the changes with respect to emergency vehicles. It was a nonsense that organisations like rural fire brigades had to distinguish between fuel used on road and fuel used when they went off road to fight bushfires. We are pleased to see that matter resolved, because it is about the safety of the Australian community. Labor welcomes the government's roll-back of the provisions through the minor changes to assist the administration of the scheme. These are consistent with our policy of making the GST and its related schemes fairer and easier to administer. We are pleased the government is also adopting Labor Party policy with respect to the sunset provision. I only hope that the Howard government learns from this experience. If you had done your work, we would not be wasting the time of the House today. This bill would not have been required to come before the House if the government had done its work. (Time expired)10:11:0031459Hawker, David, MPMr HAWKER8H4WannonLP10— Mr Deputy Speaker, I must admit some amusement in listening to the honourable member for Batman, particularly when he finally got to use the `r' word. We now have an opposition frontbencher who has rediscovered the word `roll-back'. I wonder whether the Leader of the Opposition is going to now take the hint and explain to us what roll-back really means. But at least the opposition spokesman on transport and regional services has discovered it. We will wait with bated breath to see how that is going to develop.I must admit that, listening to the honourable member, I was amazed. It sounded to me as though he had got out of the wrong side of the bed this morning. He is obviously a bit bitter about life. There were a lot of sour grapes about what the government is doing, and it also seemed that he feels that he has to lecture the minister on what he should or should not be doing. When I was listening to him, I thought, `This is yet another example of Labor trying to rewrite history. All the reforms and all the good things that the government has done to try to reduce the cost of transport in this country—so many of which were opposed by Labor—now seem to be conveniently ignored by Labor spokesmen, such as the member for Batman.' Clearly, when we sought to make all of those reforms and to make changes which were very much for the benefit not only of the transport industry but also of regional Australia, Labor opposed so many of them. This is something that I am sure we are going to need to remind them of in the lead-up to this election, because through that opposition they clearly showed that they are not exactly in favour of supporting regional Australia.It is worth going through some of Labor's record when it comes to using fuel for taxation purposes. This demonstrates very clearly that when Labor had the opportunity while they were in government—during 13 years of the Hawke and Keating governments— they quite deliberately used fuel as a source of revenue, they quite deliberately socked it to the country and at times they were quite happy to deceive the voters. For example, in the lead-up to the 1993 election, the Labor Party made it very clear to the voters that they would not increase taxes. But as soon as they won the 1993 election, what was the first thing they did? They put the fuel excise up again.When we listen to all the bleats about compensation for low income earners—for those on pensions, and so on—we should remember what Labor did in that situation. Nothing. Contrast that with the Howard government. We went out of our way to make sure that, when we made the changes to the tax system, which included changes to the fuel taxation system, we fully compensated people.I will quickly reiterate some of the details of Labor's policy when they are in government, which always seems to be a bit of a contrast with when they are not in government. In 1983-84, when Labor came to office, fuel excise was just over 6c a litre. When they left office, it was over 34c a litre. So in 13 years it went from 6c to 34 cents, an increase of over 450 per cent. On an annual rate, it works out around 35 per cent per annum. That is Labor's record when in government. The coalition not only has made changes to the effect of excise on diesel but has removed indexation from fuel excise. It is important to note that, when the government brought in the new tax system, Labor opposed it all the way. They opposed the GST on fuel, which includes diesel. The government's intention was to make fuel cheaper for transport and for people in the country. Now—surprise, surprise—apparently they have done a roll backwards and said that the GST is now part of Labor policy.I would like to talk a little about some of the details of the Diesel Fuel Rebate Scheme. The government introduced the scheme, which came into being on 1 July last year. Diesel is now cheaper for a number of off-road users in the mining, farming, fishing and forestry industries. It is also cheaper for remote residential premises that use it for generating electricity and providing normal domestic services. It also benefits hospitals, nursing and aged care homes and those providing this type of care. It has had a major role in reducing the cost of rail and shipping transport. Labor could not do this; the coalition did.This government is about getting costs down and making sure that there are no tax inputs, which means that exporters can be more competitive and that the cost of fuel will be cheaper. Australia is a very large country and we have to do everything we can to contain our transport costs, which is a major factor in many industries.This bill extends the Diesel Fuel Rebate Scheme until 30 June 2003. The trucking industry, the trucking operators and all those who benefit will be able to plan with confidence. The bill also extends the Diesel and Alternative Fuels Grants Scheme to 30 June 2003 and, as the member for Batman has pointed out, there are amendments which allow for a grant to be payable on all fuel used in an emergency vehicle of 4½ tonnes or more and fuel used for associated auxiliary equipment. This would be of benefit to organisations such as the Country Fire Authority. It is important that the governments gets recognition for what it has done.A number of changes have been made to simplify administration, which again shows that the government are listening and responding. Having introduced the changes, we are now modifying and improving them. These changes simplify the method of calculating the eligible fuel, give third parties the opportunity to submit the claims on behalf of businesses and extend the time for reconciling and repaying advances from 21 days to 28 days so that the on-road scheme and other payment schemes administered by the ATO are in line with this. Those who do not claim them in advance can nominate a monthly, quarterly or annual period for their grants.There is no doubt that this is a very significant reform. From 1 August this year, fuel excise is 38c a litre—and I remind honourable members that the government has removed indexation—and diesel used in trucks is rebated at just over 18½c a litre, which is a very significant saving. The government has reduced the cost of transport and is helping to keep costs down for exporters, thereby making our exports, and indeed many of our domestic products, a lot cheaper for customers here and overseas. This means that we can be more competitive. The simplification of and reduction in paperwork will obviously be welcomed. There will be the opportunity for further discussion about the Energy Grants (Credits) Scheme—something I am sure the government will take up when it gets the opportunity in the year to come.I think it is important to mention that on 1 March the government announced an inquiry into the whole structure of fuel taxation in Australia and the question of rebates, subsidies and grants. That is very significant. It shows that something that is long overdue is now being tackled. There is already an issues paper that was put out in August. I think it is an extremely good paper and I certainly commend ACIL, who have been involved in this. This inquiry is long overdue. It will mean that major fuel users, and particularly people in the country who rely so much on fuel, will have the opportunity to have this whole question of fuel taxation reviewed. I have no doubt that, from the recommendations, we will be able to get a fairer system.The other point I would like to touch on is that the response to this amendment to the Diesel Fuel Rebate Scheme has been very positive from the community. I will mention two groups that are going to be directly affected. The Australian Trucking Association is a very big organisation. It has 160,000 trucks registered with it. They have made it clear that they certainly support the amendment; in fact, they have gone further than that and said: This legislation is welcomed. We support the retention of the on-road grant. We support this extension because the diesel grant is a vital instrument that delivers the cost-effective trucking service, which at the end of the day sees Australia's industries more competitive both domestically against exports and more in an export-orientated country we need to ensure our exports are competitive.They go on to say:The ATA (Australian Trucking Association) is recognised as operating by world best practise and that is because not only do we have the most innovative but also cost effective Trucking Association. So obviously the ATA supports anything that reduces the tax burden on trucking and therefore will grow the freight task and Australia's economy.I think that shows very strong support from the Australian Trucking Association. The National Farmers Federation, which is a very highly regarded organisation nationally, also commented on the legislation. Su McCluskey, Director of Taxation for the National Farmers Federation, said:We support this absolutely. This legislation gives members certainty for on and off-road usage.This amendment to the grant and rebate schemes is welcomed. It seems unfortunate that the opposition can only begrudgingly support it. It is a pity that they cannot recognise the importance of keeping down the costs of fuel for transport and off-road users. It is important that we not allow the Australian population to forget that it was this government that brought in these reforms in respect of the reduction in fuel taxes, despite being opposed all the way by the Australian Labor Party. I have great pleasure in supporting this bill and look forward to its speedy passage through this chamber and the other one.10:26:0031461Horne, Bob, MPMr HORNEUU5PatersonALP00—Mr Deputy Speaker, I like the member for Wannon. He is a really decent bloke, but he really should study transport if he wants to come into this House and debate transport. What we heard today was someone filling in 15 or 20 minutes with little regard for the facts. It was interesting to listen to the member for Wannon talk about how the government has implemented policies to cut transport costs. If the member for Wannon thinks that transport costs have come down, he ought to get out into rural and regional Australia, as I do where I live. He will find out that transport is actually dearer today than it was before this legislation came into being. The margins for transport operators are less. They are probably lower than at any time in history, and current rates for transport are unsustainable. The member for Wannon mentioned rail transport. What did this government do with regard to rail transport? They sold National Rail. What did they do with shipping transport? They sold Australian National Line. There are virtually no Australian ships in the shipping industry today. And the member for Wannon talks about making costs cheaper! Of course, if the government want to make costs cheaper for international shipping owners, so be it. That is the sort of thing that we have come to expect from this government.Today we are debating the Fuel Legislation Amendment (Grant and Rebate Schemes) Bill 2001 because the government simply have not done their job. The Diesel and Alternative Fuels Grants Scheme and the Diesel Fuel Rebate Scheme were due to be replaced on 1 July with the Energy Grants (Credits) Scheme. In other words, since the implementation of the Diesel and Alternative Fuels Grants Scheme, the government should have been working to write a policy and develop a strategy about an energy grants credits scheme, and they simply have not done it. Of course, this is the last week of the life of this parliament, so something has to be put in place to give the trucking industry some degree of certainty. This piece of amendment legislation has been described as `reform'. I have never heard an amendment to continue the existence of a piece of legislation regarded as `reform', but I suppose a conservative government in power would consider the maintenance of the status quo as reform. So that is what we are doing. We are simply maintaining the status quo until 1 July next year so that the trucking industry knows that the price of diesel fuel is not going to go up. We are also debating this legislation today because it was an ill-conceived stopgap measure when it was introduced because of the advent of the GST, because of the new tax system, because of the deal done with the Democrats. The extension of the Diesel and Alternative Fuels Grants Scheme is necessary to bring some certainty to the transport industry in particular. The electorate of Paterson, which I represent, which straddles, as it does, the junction of the Pacific Highway and the New England Highway, is a natural hub for the transport industry to locate. It is an important industry to the residents of the electorate I represent. There are many owner-driver operators. These are medium and small sized operators. They provide interstate services and bulk haulage services for products from our farms, our smelters, our mines, our ports and our sawmillers. You name it, and the Hunter produces it. Of course, we have to get it to market, and so the transport industry is significantly represented in the area that I represent in this parliament.I certainly remember the chaos in the transport industry, with the sudden increase in diesel fuel prices about two years ago. I remember the bankruptcies of owner-drivers. They could not even recover costs, let alone make a profit, after the advent of the GST. This government has been seen as a non-caring government. It has been described by one of their own as mean and tricky. It is a government that does not care about jobs. We saw that in the way the Prime Minister and others answered questions in this House yesterday. This is a government that thinks that the only thing that workers are interested in when they lose their jobs is worker entitlements. That is not right. What those people really want is a job. They do not want their entitlements. No-one wants to saddle up and say, `I've got my entitlements.' If you have a mortgage, if you have a family, if you have commitments and if you want a future, you really need a job—not something that is going to allow you to exist for the next six weeks or the next six months. You want to know that you can continue paying off your home, that you can continue educating and clothing your children and that, at some time in the future, you will retire in the normal way. This government does not recognise that. This government likes to talk in terms of statutory entitlement—the national standard of eight weeks entitlement. That is what happens when you get a government that is overconcerned about economic rationalism and really does not care about people, and that is what has happened with the transport industry too. That is why the member for Wannon today stood up and said, `This is a piece of reform.' Make no mistake: this is not about reform at all. That is something that has to come.The trucking industry, essentially, is small business. There are big players there, too: the Tolls and the Finemores and so on. But they also use subcontractors who are owner-driver operators, the small business with a big investment and, of course, it is an industry with enormous uncertainty. They are working on margins that are unsustainable. The GST has been a disaster to the transport industry, with the government taking 10 per cent of everything—spare parts, tyres and insurance. Of course, since the HIH debacle we have seen that insurance costs have risen and, therefore, the 10 per cent GST, and the government has its hand in the pocket even deeper. All services of the trucking industry, for the first time, are taxed at 10 per cent. This government has the gall to stand up here, and the Deputy Prime Minister in particular, who represents regional and rural Australia—he is the leader of the National Party, which supposedly represents regional and rural Australia—and repeatedly tell us how much cheaper transport has become. It has not.The government take from transport is now greater than at any time in history. I know trucking families that are virtually divorced. The only way they can save their home is to keep the truck on the road seven days a week. The husband drives it and the wife does the bookwork, the phoning and trying to get orders. That is their life, and they are going backwards. What do they get in return? Do they get a commitment from the government? Do they get assurance? Do they get certainty? Do they get the security of their job? The answer to those questions is no. What they get is an amendment that extends the status quo to 1 July next year. As I speak, I see that the member for New England will follow me in this debate. I know that he will certainly be at a rally for `Save the grant'. There is one in my electorate on Friday night. I hope that parliament is up in time so that I can get there to assure these people that they do have the support of the Labor Party, as they have always had, to make sure that the trucking industry, a vital industry to our nation, is sustainable. The shadow minister, Martin Ferguson, gave the assurance on 31 August this year, when he addressed a conference, that the Labor Party will maintain the Diesel and Alternative Fuels Grants Scheme and also the Diesel Fuel Rebate Scheme. Once again, as I said, we are making an amendment to correct a hurried decision that was made to rush through that ill-prepared GST—the piece of legislation that now has over 2,000 amendments, and here are a few more. The engineers who designed the legislation did not think it out, so it is amendment, after amendment, after amendment. And it goes on.What we should be debating today, or should have been debating prior to this, is the Energy Grants (Credits) Scheme. That is something that the Democrats demanded, and the government, with their usual honour, are not presenting it in this parliament, and probably never will. That was about the environment. That is why the Democrats demanded it. They said, `We will support the GST, but we want the government to put in place an energy grants credits scheme in an effort to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. As we have come to learn from this government, they are always reluctant to introduce innovation.The shame of it is that if this government had been positive, if they had been constructive, they could have made enormous inroads with an energy grants credits scheme. I have repeatedly talked in this place about the potential for ethanol as an alternative fuel in Australia. The amazing thing is that we have a world expert on ethanol, Dr Russell Reeves, residing in Australia. His technology is used in Brazil, Sweden, Germany, Spain, England and the United States. He is an Australian; he resides in the electorate of Paterson. He is a good friend of mine. Where is his technology not used? It is not used in Australia. To me, that epitomises the way the Howard-Costello government treat Australians. We have inventors and scientists who devise products and machinery, and we do not use it. It gets used elsewhere. In a nation that is the greatest per capita producer of greenhouse gases in the world, we have, right on our doorstep, the means for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. You see, ethanol is an oxygenator. That is why the United States introduced legislation that demanded that ethanol be used in certain areas of the United States: to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and photochemical smog. The addition of ethanol to either petrol or diesel produces a cleaner burning fuel. These are the sorts of things that this government could have written into legislation, and they would have got full support and encouragement from the Australian Labor Party. But here we are, in the last couple of days before this parliament breaks up before an election, and this government have squandered an opportunity, despite the fact that they gave an assurance to the Democrats that they would introduce this legislation. That is why we are debating this amendment today: this government, firstly, do not honour their obligations, and, secondly, are completely bankrupt as far as scientific innovation is concerned.Let us go further. As the world faces the uncertainty that it faces today, I hate to think what is going to happen if there is international conflict. What is going to happen to our fuel supply? What is going to happen to our liquid petroleum supply? Australia is certainly not self-sufficient in it. We are importing increasing amounts of both crude oil and distilled product. If we had in place a procedure whereby we were replacing 10 to 15 per cent of diesel with ethanol and 10 to 15 per cent of petrol with ethanol, that could be a home-grown industry creating jobs.HX4Katter, Bob, MPMr Katter—Hear, hear! UU5Horne, Bob, MPMr HORNE—I am very pleased that the member for Kennedy is here, because he and I have had long discussions about the use of ethanol. It is a fuel for the future, but it does require a government with a bit of spirit, a bit of foresight and a bit of determination to create jobs. All we have is a government that is prepared to say to workers, `You will get your entitlements,' and all they wanted was a job.ET4Bevis, Arch, MPMr Bevis—They do not even get all their entitlements.UU5Horne, Bob, MPMr HORNE—As my colleague the shadow minister said, `They do not even get all their entitlements.' All they get is the statutory standard: eight weeks. It does not matter if they have been working for Ansett for 30 or 40 years; they will get their eight weeks redundancy payment.The opposition does support this, because it will give some degree of certainty that is needed in the trucking industry. But the trucking industry needs far more support than this government is prepared to give. This is a stopgap measure that should have been replaced by something far more forward thinking that took us into the 21st century with some certainty that Australia could be a world leader in the trucking industry. But I am very sad to say that this amendment, which we will support today, is keeping us back in the 20th century. That is a hallmark of the Howard-Costello government. This is not a government that should take us into a new century and a new millennium. 10:43:0031464St Clair, Stuart, MPMr St CLAIR84BNew EnglandNP10—I rise to support the Fuel Legislation Amendment (Grant and Rebate Schemes) Bill 2001. It is always a pleasure to follow the member for Paterson. We seem to have been doing this for a number of years. This bill will extend the duration of the Diesel and Alternative Fuels Grants Scheme—and what a wonderful scheme it has been. I hope the member for Paterson is not leaving, because I would love to address some of the issues he raised. He is staying; wonderful. When this scheme was introduced, the member for Paterson actually voted against a reduction in the excise of 18c a litre. The trucking industry must never forget that, and I know that the good people of the seat of Paterson will never forget that the member for Paterson voted against a reduction in excise for diesel for the transport industry. It is very important for people to remember that. He also was one of those on the other side who voted against anyone who had a truck of less than 20 tonnes GVM in the city receiving that grant. He also, together with his colleagues on the other side, voted against all those vehicles with a GVM of under 4½ tonnes—particularly in regional Australia—that also cannot access that great benefit. This bill will also extend the duration of the Diesel Fuel Rebate Scheme. It is appropriate that we do extend the scheme. I have found, in dealing with the transport industry around Australia and in dealing with many individuals within the trucking industry as such, including owner drivers, that there needed to be a confidence that the program would continue. The main reason for that confidence being extended is the fact that there is an inquiry. We agreed to hold an inquiry into the total structure of fuel taxation in Australia and related rebates, subsidies and grants, and I think that is good. I think the other thing that concerned the transport industry was the fact that the Australian Labor Party did not commit to an extension of the scheme. They were dragged into this place screaming and kicking. It was not until about 31 August that the opposition spokesman actually made a statement to suggest that they will support the extension. The transport industry was very concerned that the Australian Labor Party would not support the extension of this particular scheme.The bill extends the eligibility of emergency vehicles under the Diesel and Alternative Fuels Grants Scheme. Again, this is a progressive amendment, contrary to what the member for Paterson or the opposition spokesman on transport had to say. There was a difficulty with emergency vehicles, when they are not in operation. This legislation will extend support to those vehicles to come under the Diesel and Alternative Fuels Grants Scheme. The bill makes a number of administrative amendments to the Diesel and Alternative Fuels Grants Scheme. It provides grants, as we are aware, for on-road use of diesel fuel for 20 tonnes gross vehicle mass. The Australian Labor Party could have assisted with that so that everybody—including all those truckies who are in Sydney, Brisbane and other metropolitan areas—could access a reduction in the rate of fuel for their vehicles of 20 tonnes gross vehicle mass or less and for vehicles between 4½ and 20 tonnes GVM that are used to transport passengers by road in the non-metropolitan areas. Again, we have seen that the Labor Party does not always come through and support the initiatives for reform in the taxation area. The Diesel Fuel Rebate Scheme—the off-road scheme—provides a rebate of the excise for customs duty paid on diesel and light fuels used in certain eligible off-road activities as specified in mining, agriculture, fishing, forestry, rail, marine transport, electricity generation for remote residents and in the operations of hospitals, nursing homes, aged care and other medical institutions. I will raise again a very progressive business in my electorate of New England: G&C Foundry. Geoff Swilkes and his wife own a business about 22 kilometres outside the small town of Uralla, where they have no access to power. These people have two very major diesel engines to generate electricity for their foundry business. They employ 21 people and are looking to expand in an expanding market for the particular products that they produce. They are not able to claim the 18½c a litre off the excise, and there is only one reason: those on the other side, including the member for Paterson and the shadow spokesman for transport, voted against G&C Foundry accessing the Diesel Fuel Rebate Scheme. So we have the situation, created by the Australian Labor Party, where the fuel company that delivers the fuel to G&C Foundry regularly—they use about 1,000 litres of diesel a day for their equipment—can claim the Diesel and Alternative Fuels Grants Scheme rebate, and they are very thankful for that; it certainly reduces the impediments to their doing business. But the recipient, G&C Foundry, which is using this diesel cannot claim it. G&C Foundry cannot claim it because the Labor Party opposed the legislation, and therefore changes had to be made. I think that is a pity and a shame. The people at G&C Foundry know, and the people around Australia know, that there are many instances of usage that were blocked when that original legislation came in.The on-road and off-road schemes were due to be replaced, as we have heard, on 1 July 2002 by the proposed energy grants credit scheme, and I am pleased that a lot more time will be put into the development of this scheme. When the results of the inquiry into the structure of fuel taxation generally in Australia comes out—the report is due, I understand, in around March next year—I think that is a good time to look at the provisions as a whole. That is why there has been an extension. As I said, it was not until 31 August, I believe, that the shadow spokesman for transport said that the opposition will end uncertainty and extend the Diesel and Alternative Fuels Grants Scheme. It took an awfully long time. The Australian Trucking Association, the Australian Livestock Transporters Association and many other groups, including owner drivers—and I am joined by the member for Parkes, who understand the importance of the Diesel and Alternative Fuels Grants Scheme for the transporters in his vast area of western New South Wales—lobbied a great deal and for a long time to get the other side of this House to agree to extend it.We have come to understand—I have over the last three years of this term—that often the things that are said by those on the other side, particularly by shadow spokesmen, do not necessarily end up coming through when they get into government. We noticed that in 1992—and I just draw the attention of the House and of the rest of Australia to this, because I never like to waste an opportunity to remind the people of Australia of some of the comments made in the lead-up to the 1993 election when we actually had the Labor Party on this side of the House, in government—that the then Labor Prime Minister said:... what I am promising is not to put up tax.He said that on 19 November 1992. What happened after that 1993 election? Petrol excise—which includes diesel, of course— increased. It increased three times during that period. As you would be aware, it was the Australian Labor Party that introduced automatic indexation on fuel. Every time the CPI went up we found that excise on diesel went up. Not only did they vote against a reduction of 18½c in diesel excise when they were in opposition but they also put it up when they were in government. Then they said, `What we really want to do is to automatically put it up.' It was a good system! But this Howard-Anderson government scrapped that automatic indexation and said, `No, we understand that that is a bad way to continue to automatically raise taxes.' The CPI increases that this government has been able to achieve over the last six years are substantially in front of any of those that were produced during the time that the Labor Party were in government. It is interesting when you start to look at those comparisons. But I was talking about tax and the fact that the Diesel and Alternative Fuels Grants Scheme is part of tax reform. When the Labor Party was in—after the 1993 election— they actually increased the fringe benefits tax three times, increased the Medicare levy and increased company tax. With regard to all those little transport operators who had companies that the member for Paterson was talking about, he assisted in raising the tax rate for companies from 33 cents to 36 cents in the dollar. He had no regard for the fact that small business was again going to be hit. There was an increase. What did this Howard-Anderson government do to assist it? I remind Australians in small business, particularly those in companies, that we reduced the company tax rate from 36c to 30c—a substantial reduction—and that assisted all businesses in Australia. When the Labor Party was on this side, they increased sales tax on passenger cars—there is a wonderful increasing taxation regime on the other side! Bang—they increased it from 16 per cent to 21 per cent. `Just put the price up,' they said. `It doesn't really matter; just put the price up. It doesn't really matter because you can actually borrow more money if you do not have enough.'834Lawler, Tony, MPMr Lawler—They still couldn't balance the books.84BSt Clair, Stuart, MPMr St CLAIR—As the member for Parkes says, they still could not balance the books. But they thought that really did not matter either because they could just continue to put it on the credit card. When you listen to those on the other side talking about the Diesel and Alternative Fuels Grants Scheme—it has developed and delivered real benefits to regional Australia, real benefits in removing many of the costs that were imposed by the Labor Party—you start to understand why they have no credibility.When I came into this House, the member for Paterson was talking about the GST. During all the time he has been in here talking about issues to do with the GST and small business and transport operators, he just does not seem to understand. He keeps talking about the fact that all those transport operators are paying an extra 10 per cent. He just does not understand. And why aren't I surprised at that? I am not surprised, because he does not understand business. He does not understand what it is like to run a business. He does not understand, like the member for Brisbane who is sitting at the table, what it is like to actually employ people, what it is like to face a bank manager on an overdraft, what it is like to get out there and make a sale or what it is like to actually run your truck and to find those things.ET4Bevis, Arch, MPMr Bevis—He does, actually. He runs a business; he has a farm. You have the wrong one.84BSt Clair, Stuart, MPMr St CLAIR—Through you, Mr Deputy Speaker Jenkins, I ask the member at the table why he voted against a reduction in excise on diesel?I raise again this question of the input tax credit on the GST. The myth continues to be put out there in the public arena by the Labor Party that this is some additional tax that has been added. This is not a tax like the increases in the excise and company tax rates when they were in government; we are talking about the GST. The GST as it is applied to business is treated as an input tax credit. Therefore, if you are in business and you incur GST, you are able to claim it as an input tax credit so that you do not actually have a tax applying to the business.The trucking industry and in particular the owner drivers, with whom I have been working very closely over the last 2½ years while in this place, giving them access to our ministers to allow them to put their view directly—and members of that group have said to me that they have had far better access to this government's ministers than they ever had previously; I think that is very important—understand the fact that they are paying less tax now than was paid in all those dark years under the Labor Party. The concern that we and the industry have—should, for some reason, Mr Beazley and Mr Crean form a government after the next election; heaven forbid!—is what will happen to taxes. That is easy. They will go up. Excise will go up; there is no question or doubt in my mind that that is their intention. Company tax rates are now at 30 cents in the dollar, giving Labor another excuse to raise them. And personal income tax rates, from which this country has at last been able to receive a significant reduction—$12 billion has come off income tax rates—will go up. We now have significantly lower company taxes, as I mentioned, and exports are saving around $3½ billion, because this government took taxes off them. The states now receive the total revenue of the GST, and in the case of New South Wales that runs to around $8½ billion. Let us hope that they start to accept the responsibilities that they have to increase education spending in their state school education system. Wouldn't it be nice if they spent some of that money on their state responsibility roads and on putting policemen back on the beat in country New South Wales rather than taking them out of country New South Wales? Wouldn't it be great if they reduced payroll tax—that iniquitous tax whereby the more people you employ the more tax you pay? (Time expired)11:03:0031467Snowdon, Warren, MPMr SNOWDONIJ4Northern TerritoryALP00—The Fuel Legislation Amendment (Grant and Rebate Schemes) Bill 2001 amends the Customs Act 1901, the Diesel and Alternative Fuels Grants Scheme Act 1999 and the Excise Act 1901 to extend the expiry dates of the Diesel and Alternative Fuels Grants Scheme and the Diesel Fuel Rebate Scheme from 30 June 2002 to 30 June 2003. It will extend the scope of the Diesel and Alternative Fuels Grants Scheme insofar as it relates to fuel used by emergency vehicles and it makes a number of administrative amendments to the scheme.The schemes were due to be replaced on 1 July 2002 by an Energy Grants (Credits) Scheme. The amendments will mean that the introduction of the Energy Grants (Credits) Scheme will be postponed until 1 July 2003 or earlier. Both the customs and excise acts provide the legislative basis for the operations of these schemes and we have legislative provision for the operation of that scheme.The extension of time in the bill results from the fact that on 8 July 2001 the government announced an inquiry into the taxation of fuels. You will recall, Mr Deputy Speaker, that the Labor Party has had an extensive inquiry into GST, fuel and taxation issues which has traversed the country. This was well in front of the government's own inquiry, an inquiry which came very belatedly after initiatives from the Labor Party. The government's inquiry has as part of its function an examination of the proposed Energy Grants (Credits) Scheme and is not due to report until March 2002. The Labor Party has argued, primarily through its spokesperson on these issues, the member for Batman, that this would have left insufficient time to resolve the examination of the scheme before the end of June 2002 and was a matter that was therefore causing uncertainty and concern, particularly within the road transport industry. It is clear that, had the government not brought this legislation forward, there would have been only three months between the fuel taxation inquiry's reporting deadline and the implementation of the Energy Grants (Credits) Scheme.While these are complicated issues, there is no agreement within the government on them. This morning the member for Batman referred to a confidential minute from Environment Australia which referred to this fact. It indicated that there was no agreement between ministers at the time of the writing of this minute. That is important for a number of reasons. As the member for Batman outlined, this arrangement came about as a result of a deal done with the Australian Democrats over the introduction of the new tax system, and what a dodgy deal it was. As a result of significant concessions sought by the Democrats, and on the word of the government, the Democrats proceeded to allow the passage of the new tax scheme and, as a result, the GST. This means that the Democrats were a party with the government to the introduction of the iniquitous GST. This is a regressive tax, a tax which the Labor Party is opposed to, a tax which the Labor Party opposed when it was introduced and a tax which the community was clearly concerned about. The Democrats, being aware that they could get some agreement with the government over issues which they perceived to be of importance to them—in this case the Energy Grants (Credits) Scheme—did a deal with the government for the passage of that legislation. Here we are now passing legislation to extend these concessional arrangements because the government has yet to finalise its position. I think that sends a number of messages. The first message it should send is to the Democrats. Why did you deal with the devil? It is very clear that the devil is dishonest. In this case, the government has exposed its dishonesty by not coming through with the deal. Mr Deputy Speaker, I am sure you hope that we get some honesty and integrity back into the leadership of the government. Instead of misleading the Australian community, as the government has done, and in this case, as partners to the arrangement, the Democrats as well, we just hope the government does something honestly for a change. Remember that the GST was a tax which would never, ever be introduced. The Prime Minister said it—another example of dishonesty.As a result of the poor behaviour of the government, the Labor Party called some months ago for an extension to these arrangements, because we saw that there was no way in the world that there would be sufficient time between the expiry of the government's own inquiry and June 2002, when there was a need to replace the scheme with the new energy credits scheme. We knew that it would just not take place. That was a matter of major concern to various industry sectors, particularly the road transport industry, which is extremely significant to my own electorate.The Northern Territory has a land mass of 1.3 million square kilometres. It is about one-sixth of the Australian continent, but it holds only 1.5 per cent of the Australian population. So it is a very widely dispersed population, with around half residing in Darwin and Palmerston and the remainder spread liberally around the Northern Territory. The transport industry in the Northern Territory employs around 7,000 people, including drivers and administrators. For those people who have not been to the Northern Territory and to remote Australia, we have all seen photographs of large road trains with three or four dogs. They make an enormous contribution to Northern Australia, and in the case of the Northern Territory they make a very significant contribution to the Northern Territory economy. Approximately 90 per cent of all freight movements into the Northern Territory come by road train. That is a significant amount. In 1999-2000 the industry contributed around 5.5 per cent of the Territory's gross state product. So it is a significant contributor and a very important industry to the Northern Territory.The extension of this scheme is important to the road transport industry, and it is important to the Northern Territory community. I have spoken in this place on a number of occasions previously about how important the road transport industry is and how important this scheme has been to keeping costs down within the industry. There is a range of issues which confront the road transport industry in the Northern Territory, one of which is the price of diesel. Clearly, a reduction in the price, which is a result of this rebate system, brings significant benefits to the road transport industry and thereby Territory consumers. If we accept that 90 per cent of freight that comes into the Northern Territory comes by road transport, you do not have to be Einstein to work out how important a contribution it makes to the Territory economy and to the Territory lifestyle.There is a range of other matters which impact upon the ability of the road transport industry to efficiently and appropriately provide services to the Northern Territory community. An issue of great importance to the road transport industry in the Territory is the state of the roads. We know that the Commonwealth has primary responsibility for the national highway system. The Commonwealth has spent significant dollars in the past for the establishment and then the maintenance of the Stuart Highway, the Barkly Highway and Victoria River Highway. These are the major access points into the Territory for the road transport industry. But the industry does not only rely only on those roads, and we know that roads are falling into disrepair and require a significant amount of investment to put them into a position where they efficiently provide for the needs of the road transport industry and, indeed, of vehicle transport generally. We also know that a large amount of the work done by the road transport industry in the Northern Territory is to remote communities. I have mentioned in this place on a number of occasions the importance of access to remote communities for the road transport industry and what that means for the Territory community and Territory business. An example I have used is the gold province in the Tanami region of the Northern Territory, and the need to ensure that the road which attends to those goldmines, the Tanami Road, is of a standard which will meet the needs of industry. We have had the Roads to Recovery money, which I have spoken about here on any number of occasions. I have made the point, again on a number of occasions, that, whilst the member for Gwydir, the Deputy Prime Minister, is able to secure in excess of $40 million for his electorate in that program, the Northern Territory received around half that amount, when the Territory is one-sixth of the Australian land mass, with 110,000 voters, almost 200,000 people.I have exposed in this place on a number of occasions the inequity in the distribution of those funds. That is important because the Tanami Road has been effectively closed on a number of occasions in the last 12 months because of flooding and it requires a significant investment of money to upgrade it. The Commonwealth has not seen it appropriate thus far to provide any resources for the upgrading of that road. That road is important not only because of commuter traffic—it is the access road from the Stuart Highway across to Western Australia via Halls Creek—but because of significant industry needs. The needs of the goldmines in the Tanami region are met by road transport. The costs involved in maintaining a road train to travel up and down the Tanami Road are roughly double the costs of maintaining a road train up and down the Stuart Highway. So there are significant added costs for consumers, whether they are mining companies or Aboriginal communities, for products off the Tanami Road, as a result of the poor state of repair of that road and the failure of the previous CLP government in the Northern Territory and the federal government to recognise the importance of strategic roads like this and ensure they have been upgraded to a standard which means they are not closed during important times of the year because of bad weather.That is a significant cost to those communities and the road transport industry. You do not have to be Einstein to work it out, as I have said previously. If you do not maintain these roads to a sufficient standard, you add significant costs to consumers and to the road transport industry generally. Whilst there is a range of other matters which engage the road transport industry, what we do know is that this government has failed to respond adequately to their needs. We know that, even though the Northern Territory relies on the road transport industry for 90 per cent of its freight tasks, the industry has not been given sufficient priority, in terms of the needs of the community, by this government.It is important for us to understand that, if we want to provide for an efficient road transport industry, we need to do more than we have done. We need to understand it is a highly competitive industry where margins are very tight. We need to understand that it does not take a lot to move people out of business as a result of those tight margins and additional costs being imposed upon them. The Labor Party has recognised that need. When in August this year the shadow minister committed a Labor government to providing the transport industry with certainty in extending the Diesel and Alternative Fuels Grants Scheme for 12 months, it was greeted warmly by the road transport industry. We can say here today that the government has understood the importance of that Labor initiative and has responded by introducing the amendments in this bill into the parliament. I am conscious that a range of other issues affects the road transport industry. It is worth pointing out that over the coming years it will confront in the Northern Territory dramatically increased competition from the rail industry. I have some concern about that. Once the Darwin to Alice railway is completed, there will be additional competition in the movement of freight up and down the Northern Territory. The issue will be whether it attracts new freight and whether the freight task grows as a result of that railway. If it does not and if we see just a displacement of road freight onto rail, we will see a large number of Territory businesses and a large number of people out of work. I recall that 7,000 Territorians work in the road transport industry. It is an important industry to the Northern Territory. It is an important industry for families in my electorate, particularly around Alice Springs, which I believe will be the most disadvantaged community as a result of the potential impact of the Darwin-Alice Springs railway on the road transport industry. I hope that there will be sufficient growth in the freight task so that there will be work for the road transport industry and the rail industry. (Time expired)10000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)— Before I call the next speaker, I advise the member for the Northern Territory that, as a matter of courtesy, I deliberately did not interrupt his speech, but he should not ascribe his views to the chair or any occupant of the chair. It is out of order for any member of this place to suggest that any occupant of the chair shares the views of the individual member.11:24:0031470Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration10—in reply—I can understand that you personally, Mr Deputy Speaker, would not share many of the views of the honourable member for the Northern Territory—10000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)— Order! I apply the same rule to the parliament secretary. The chair does not need your advice on that matter.0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER—I thank the participants in today's debate on the Fuel Legislation Amendment (Grant and Rebate Schemes) Bill 2001. The government has always remained firmly committed to carrying forward the benefits of the existing on-road grant and off-road rebate schemes into an Energy Grants (Credits) Scheme, or EGS. That commitment has been reiterated in the terms of reference for the fuel tax inquiry as follows:The inquiry will not impact upon the Government's commitment that the EGS will maintain benefits equivalent to those available under the Diesel and Alternative Fuels Grants Scheme and the Diesel Fuel Rebate Scheme.Nevertheless, with an election looming, the trucking industry has viewed the sunset clause with concern. Participants may recall that the Australian Labor Party opposed the government's tax reform package, despite our mandate from the Australian people. That package contained a diesel credit scheme that was more generous than the one in operation today. In this regard I acknowledge the media release by the honourable member for Batman dated 31 August, which provides Labor's support for the extension of the sunset clause. The additional certainty that the extension of the sunset clause provides will be widely welcomed by the transport industry, emergency services, the mining industry, agriculture and other beneficiaries of the on-road grant and off-road rebate schemes. It will also ensure that there is sufficient time to incorporate the findings of the fuel tax inquiry into the development of the EGS. The simplification of the administration arrangements for the on-road grant will also be welcomed, and the extension of the grant to off-road fuel used by emergency vehicles is sensible and well deserved, given the vital service that those volunteer based organisations provide to the community. The government recognises the very important role of the transport industry in the Australian economy, given the vast distances in this country. The government has done more to assist the transport industry than any other government, and I take this opportunity briefly to outline some of the government's initiatives. They include: the introduction of the on-road Diesel and Alternative Fuels Grants Scheme, paying a grant of 18.51c per litre for diesel; the extension of the off-road Diesel Fuel Rebate Scheme to rail and marine transport, providing a cost reduction of about 38c per litre; a cut in fuel excise of 6.7c per litre on 1 July 2000, a further cut of 1.5c per litre in March 2001 and full input tax credits for the GST on business use of fuel; and the abolition of the half-yearly indexation of fuel excise to CPI. The government's initiatives also include the removal of the 22 per cent wholesale sales tax on the purchase of trucks. That has saved truckies tens of thousands of dollars on new truck purchases. In the budget, the start date for full input tax credits for motor vehicles was brought forward from 1 July 2002 to 23 May 2001, further reducing the cost of trucks and other motor vehicles to businesses. In summary, the bill makes it absolutely clear that the government will maintain the benefits of the on-road grant scheme and the off-road rebate scheme in a new EGS. The extension of the sunset by one year will also result in a better EGS by ensuring that there is sufficient time to incorporate the findings of the fuel tax inquiry.The member for Wannon pointed out that the Hawke and Keating governments used fuel excise as a revenue raising measure and increased excise from 6c a litre to about 34c a litre. As I have mentioned, the Howard government have significantly slashed fuel excise, and we are particularly proud that we have listened to the Australian community and have made this very important reform. The member for Paterson patters on, as he often does in this place. He claimed that the GST has been a disaster for the trucking industry. As I have indicated, the GST replaced a range of wholesale sales taxes. I mentioned that business can get an input credit on the GST paid on vehicles and on tyres, fuel, spare parts, et cetera. The Diesel and Alternative Fuels Grants Scheme provides 18.5c a litre. The net effect has been to reduce fuel taxation from about 44c a litre to about 20c a litre for heavy transport, and that will be a substantial benefit to rural areas.The member for Batman made the most amazing statement, claiming that the government have not done what they promised in relation to the introduction of an energy grants credit scheme. I just want to assure the honourable member for Batman that, once again in this matter—as in so many others— he is completely and absolutely wrong. The Prime Minister announced a wide-ranging inquiry into fuel taxation in March 2001. The inquiry encompasses the proposed energy grants credit scheme along with a comprehensive examination of fuel taxation. It is the government's view that it would be inappropriate for the government to advance proposals about the energy grants credit scheme separately from broader taxation issues. The inquiry is due to report in March of next year and this would leave only three months to implement change.The bill contains some measures to simplify and improve the operation of the on-road scheme and it allows emergency vehicles to claim the on-road grant on all their fuel, not just on the on-road component. It is with a very great deal of pleasure that I commend the bill to the House.Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time.Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.31471Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.Bill (on motion by Mr Slipper) read a third time.Miscellaneous3147111:32:0031471Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration10—I table the final budget outcome 2000-01 being circulated by the Hon. Peter Costello, Treasurer of the Commonwealth of Australia, and the Hon. John Fahey, the Minister for Finance and Administration, for the information of honourable members. Bills31472R140131472Debate resumed from 30 August, on motion by Mr Slipper:That the bill be now read a second time.11:32:0031472McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLANDJK6BartonALP00—The opposition will not be opposing the second reading of the Jurisdiction of the Federal Magistrates Service Legislation Amendment Bill 2001, but I will move a second reading amendment, which I understand will now be circulated, towards the conclusion of my remarks in this debate.Essentially, this bill amends several acts with the purpose of giving that jurisdiction which is currently exercised by the Federal Court of Australia to the Federal Magistrates Service. The opposition agrees that that is appropriate. It is in the specific area of migration law. We agree with the government that the Federal Magistrates Service has the capability to deal with these sorts of matters. Indeed, in many ways it is probably a more appropriate forum than the Federal Court of Australia. From my experience and from communication with practitioners and members of the judiciary, quite frequently in this area of migration law there will be self-represented litigants. The greater formalities that exist in the Federal Court make such self-representation more difficult and cumbersome, whereas the more informal procedure which has been adopted by the Federal Magistrates Service probably lends itself more to the nature of this litigation involving migration cases. As will be reflected in my second reading amendment, the Australian Labor Party submitted to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs last week propositions which, rather than giving the Federal Magistrates Service concurrent jurisdiction, would have transferred the jurisdiction currently exercised by the Federal Court to the Federal Magistrates Service. Indeed, our proposals would have gone further by facilitating the High Court of Australia remitting down to the Federal Magistrates Service those matters which inevitably come before it, and which we believe will still come before it, despite several pieces of legislation which the government will be proceeding with, including later today the Migration Legislation Amendment (Judicial Review) Bill 1998 [2001].The legislation currently before the House as proposed by the government is in a bit of a hiatus because it does not have regard to the prospect of the Migration Legislation Amendment (Judicial Review) Bill being passed. We see reflected in the Federal Magistrates Service legislation which we are debating now an acknowledgment that the Federal Magistrates Service will be exercising jurisdiction which includes the ability to make interim orders in migration decisions and the ability to suspend or revoke migration decisions, which are areas currently exercised by the Federal Court under part 8 of the Migration Act. As a result of the judicial review bill which will be going through the House today, and probably tomorrow, the government is seeking to significantly curtail the right of review of migration decisions. What I have just said is a long-winded way of saying that I understand that the government will be further amending this legislation at a later stage to have regard to the judicial review bill amendments and, in particular, the fact that they are attempting in that legislation to restrict further the right of review in respect of migration matters.There are some points that need to be put on the record with respect to giving concurrent jurisdiction to the Federal Magistrates Service. In terms of the financial impact, the following statement appears on the first page of the explanatory memorandum:The Federal Magistrates Service has some spare capacity to undertake the additional jurisdiction and any additional resources required would be moved from the Federal Court to the Federal Magistrates Service to reflect the fact that workload will move from the Court to the Service.The assertion that there is spare capacity in the Federal Magistrates Service is the subject of question. I received a copy of a letter dated 27 August 2001 from the President of the Law Society of New South Wales, who expressed concern that the Federal Magistrates Service, because of the extensive workload it is receiving in the cities, is just not able to facilitate country circuit work. Certainly, my observation is that the Federal Magistrates Service is not able to get out on circuit on anything other than a tokenistic level. There is no doubt that rural and regional Australia are suffering as a result, particularly in circumstances where the resources of the Family Court were wound back to facilitate, or provide at least part of the funding for, the Federal Magistrates Service. We have effectively seen the Family Court wound back from rural and regional Australia, but that void has not been filled to anything near an acceptable level by the Federal Magistrates Service, because of resourcing issues. With respect to those who prepare the explanatory memorandum, the bland assertion that the Federal Magistrates Service has spare capacity is an overstatement. It is certainly not a reflection of the views of the Law Society of New South Wales, who wrote this letter to the Attorney-General, and copied it to me, in good faith. The letter talked about persons living in rural and regional Australia having access to justice. I note that the Attorney-General, in his second reading speech—I may be wrong, but certainly in one of the documents he provided—acknowledged that the migration work undertaken by the Federal Magistrates Service will primarily be undertaken in Sydney and Melbourne. So, again, any additional resources that may come through the pipeline from the Federal Court of Australia to the Federal Magistrates Service will be, I think the government will concede, focused on the cities as opposed to the regions. I underline the point that we are talking about giving additional jurisdiction—albeit concurrent jurisdiction—to the Federal Magistrates Service, but that in itself will, in all probability, impede its ability to do what is expected of it, which is to get a more accessible line of justice to people living in rural and regional Australia. It comes to a question of what resources the government is prepared to put into giving people who live in rural and regional Australia access to justice. In terms of addressing the issues in this bill, we acknowledge the appropriateness of the concurrent jurisdiction, but my comments are designed to put before the government and the House the view that the answers they have proposed in this legislation and in the judicial review bill, to which I earlier referred, do not hold anywhere near all the answers to what is a very complex question.We all agree—and fair-minded Australians acknowledge—that there are just too many migration appeals, and too many taking too long. Particularly for asylum seekers, that delay causes considerable hardship if they are detained; it causes considerable expense for the public purse; and it can often and in many ways be cruel to persons who are seeking asylum status. Very few of these cases are ultimately successful—I think something like one per cent of challenges to migration decisions are successful—and the mere facts of delay and of people remaining in Australia often contribute to the development of false expectations that they will be able to stay here. When those expectations have not been met, there have, regrettably, been some instances which have manifested in violence or at least in significant protest. This is because of the build-up of their frustration and their feeling that they have been let down after such a long period of time.We acknowledge that that is a problem and we acknowledge that something needs to be done about it. Indeed, it is fair to say that we put our pen where our mouth is by putting to the government the propositions we believe will more satisfactorily and sustainably address these problems. For instance, the bill before us, in combination with the judicial review bill, will not address the problem of the backlog of cases. It is my understanding that there are currently about 1,600 applications before the Federal Court of Australia with respect to migration matters and I understand that there are currently about 150 cases before the High Court—not all cases in either court are with respect to asylum seekers or to people necessarily detained, but a fair percentage of them are. My figures may be out a bit—and the government obviously is possessed with that information—but that is my understanding. So there are already significant judicial resources of a sophisticated kind, namely Federal Court judge time and High Court judge time, being taken up with what are, effectively, first instance matters. That backlog will not be addressed by this legislation to any great extent, given the figures I have put to you. The Federal Magistrates Service simply does not have that excess capacity—or anything like a sufficient excess capacity—to start churning through these matters, which is of concern. In other words, the delay that is already in the system will continue, in our opinion, virtually unchanged. That is of concern because of the hardship that is caused by that delay. Neither this bill nor the Migration Legislation Amendment (Judicial Review) Bill 1998 [2001] will enable the High Court of Australia to remit down to the lower level Federal Court those 150-odd matters that are currently before it. The fact that the High Court of Australia is deciding these migration matters instead of functioning as the highest court in the land, dealing with matters of significant constitutional significance and the like, has been the subject of judicial comment—indeed, very severe comment—that it is quite inappropriate for the High Court of Australia to deal with these matters. Anyone who is looking at the logical use of resources would have to agree with those concerns about the High Court of Australia. These two bills will not do anything to relieve the High Court from its existing burden.I believe that a number of these cases are before the courts because of inappropriate advice by the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs. Certainly, from correspondence from constituents that I have seen in my electorate office, the department has advised people, after a decision has been made, that they have a right of appeal to the Federal Court of Australia. Unless the department's pro-forma correspondence has been changed, the correspondence that I have seen did not indicate that people's rights of review are limited to some very narrow points, as set out in part 8 of the Migration Act. Indeed, part 8 of the Migration Act was legislation of the former government. We have seen people commence appeals or challenge administrative decisions on the false expectation that, after the Refugee Review Tribunal stage or the Migration Review Tribunal stage, the rights of appeal are at large, that is, considering merits and legal issues, which is not the case. There are very limited grounds of appeal, which are successful in about one per cent of cases. If more effort were made to communicate the narrowness of those rights to people who are the subject of these decisions, I believe there would be fewer appeals going forward. I make that comment for relevant public servants to take on board.It must be acknowledged that the government have said that the Migration Legislation Amendment (Judicial Review) Bill 1998 [2001] will address the number of these cases coming forward by cutting off a right of appeal in all but defined reviewable decisions. It seeks to do that by introducing a privative clause, which effectively asserts that a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal or the Migration Review Tribunal cannot be challenged; it is valid for all purposes. Elevating that decision, through legislation, to be unchallengeable raises significant questions as to how such a statement or such legislation by the parliament sits in conformity with our Constitution. Section 75 of the Constitution gives the High Court of Australia the right to review administrative decisions taken by officers of the Commonwealth; that is, the High Court has the power to give customary and ancient relief of mandamus injunction and certiorari to set aside decisions or compel decision makers to make their decisions according to law.The minister for immigration has referred to several cases where the High Court has upheld these privative clauses as negating a right of review against administrative decisions. With respect to the minister, he has overstated the effect of those decisions. Indeed, the primary cases I have studied in this area—the cases of Hickman, Coldham, Darling Harbour Casino, and a taxation matter between the Deputy Commissioner of Taxation and Richard Walter—refer to earlier precedents. But, with respect, the minister has overstated their significance in terms of the privative clause that the government is proposing. In particular, the privative clause in the judicial review bill says that the decisions made by the Refugee Review Tribunal and the Migration Review Tribunal are final and conclusive and cannot be challenged. That is significantly more severe than the privative clauses concerned in those cases to which I have referred. Moreover, those cases have not concerned fundamental freedoms. The minister, by implication, has acknowledged these arguments. I recall that he said in question time, `If you assert that there are prospects that these will be set aside by the High Court, don't let that stop you from passing the legislation; let the court decide if it is invalid.' With respect, that is not an appropriate way for the minister to fulfil his role, because the mere fact that there will inevitably be High Court challenges to decisions in this area will cause delay and, in all probability, a backlog while those cases are being determined. For instance, it cannot be asserted that the Hickman principle, which the minister has referred to in his response to questions, obliterates any and every right of review. For example, in the Deputy Commissioner of Taxation case that I referred to, the High Court, when referring to the Hickman principle—that is, that you can elevate the status of an administrative decision to make it withstand challenge—said two things. It said that it is a rule of construction as to how you look at that clause and, second, that the decision—that is, the original decision— must be a bona fide attempt to exercise its power, that it relates to the subject matter of the legislation and that it is reasonably capable of reference to the power given to that body. So there are three issues that stand available to challenge, notwithstanding the government's application of this Hickman principle—that is, that privative clauses can oust review. What I am saying is that, by restricting the right of review even further than currently exists in part 8, the government should be frank and acknowledge that what will inevitably be the case is that there will be applications made to the High Court under, at the very least, these three grounds acknowledged in Hickman as being reviewable by the courts. I suppose the government will argue that they have gone even further than Hickman by saying that the decisions of the Migration Review Tribunal and the Refugee Review Tribunal are absolute and conclusive; therefore, they have obliterated these three remaining potential avenues of review that the High Court has acknowledged will remain even after application of the Hickman principle. That is not sustainable logic. But if their logic is correct, then they jump into another area of challenge, and that is that the parliament has breached the separation of powers doctrine—that is, it has purported to immunise itself from scrutiny of chapter 3 courts under our Constitution.This was an issue which former Chief Justice Brennan raised in the High Court case, the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs ex parte Ervin, in 1997. In response to the argument that the migration review avenue could be quashed or nullified by a privative clause, His Honour said in response to the advocate in that case:... if you wish to maintain that view, no doubt it can be submitted to a Full Bench to consider it. For my part, it is a proposition which I regard as completely inconsistent with the notion of judicial review for it would isolate the Executive from judicial control in respect of acts done which are unlawful, and that cannot be, surely, the intention that one would either attribute to the Constitution or to the Parliament.The government has not been frank in acknowledging that there is substantial doubt that its privative clause will be upheld, firstly, because it is dealing with an issue of individual rights. I think it is fair to say that most Australian people do not particularly want people seeking asylum in Australia to claim rights. But the reality is that even the government concedes that they do have a right to have their asylum seeking application considered. That being the case, they do enliven the question as to what powers the Commonwealth has to immunise administrative decisions from all forms of judicial review—that is, review of the decisions made by the Commonwealth officer to ensure that they have been made in compliance with the law. In not being frank about those doubts, in not tabling advice regarding those doubts, the government is creating the false impression for the Australian people that the government is cutting out rights to people seeking asylum status. Where the government has been deceitful in that respect is that, on all the authorities, it cannot completely obliterate those rights. It should acknowledge that. For that reason, what we proposed to the government was to effectively create one tier of review in the Federal Magistrates Service—that is, the jurisdiction of the Federal Court being shifted to the Magistrates Service and the High Court having the ability to remit down to the Magistrates Service applications that were made directly to the High Court of Australia, effectively creating, if you like, a one-stop judicial shop for review. We thought that would be far more likely to withstand constitutional challenge, because it gave at least one tier of judicial review. It would have been done cheaply and efficiently and would have avoided what we anticipate will be even more cases going to the High Court, with the avenue of appeals to the Federal Court and Federal Magistrates Service being cut off by the judicial review legislation. It is inevitable that there will be an increase in the flow of matters going to the High Court of Australia.I think the government should acknowledge that. I think they should acknowledge that the legislation they have before the House has not addressed that issue, and that our High Court inevitably, because of the approach taken by the government, will be increasingly burdened by the number of cases before it. Again, this is a misallocation of resources. It will delay how long it will take for these cases to be processed and, again, there will be a backlog in cases while these issues are determined in the High Court of Australia.The other area where the government has failed to address a significant problem—and it is not the whole problem, we acknowledge—is the practice on the part of some migration agents and some lawyers to use applications for review of migration decisions for the purpose of delaying the application of decisions. Nothing the government has proposed will act as a disincentive to that practice, albeit that a limited number of unscrupulous practitioners engage in that practice. Again we call the government's attention to what we have proposed in that respect. In concluding, I now move an opposition second reading amendment to this bill:That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:“whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading, the House:(1) expresses its concern that recent amendments to the system of judicial review under the Migration Act 1958 that have attempted to exclude the original jurisdiction of the High Court may be found to be unconstitutional or ineffectual;(2) observes that the Government is yet to table its legal advice which confirms the constitutionality or efficacy of these measures;(3) expresses its concern that the amendments may actually increase the number of migration decisions challenged in the High Court which will further delay the processing of migration cases and result in a further drain on our legal system;(4) expresses its concern that the Government has not addressed the issue of vexatious or unwarranted proceedings being commenced as a tactical delay to the implementation of migration decisions;(5) notes that the Opposition provided to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs an alternative proposal to provide a fair but speedy form of judicial review in the form of a `one stop shop' at the Federal Magistrates level; and(6) expresses its disappointment that the Government has not provided a more constructive response to that proposal”.10000Hollis, Collin (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hollis)— Is the amendment seconded?8K6Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr Fitzgibbon—I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.JK6McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLAND—This amendment, which will be included in the Hansard, summarises why we think the government have been short-sighted; it summarises, indeed, why we think they are trying to make a political statement that they are tough on migrants. In actual fact they have left themselves exposed to even more cases going to the High Court of Australia and even more delay. (Time expired)12:02:0031477Pyne, Chris, MPMr PYNE9V5SturtLP10—Streamlining the legal system, and in particular the court process, has been a key goal for the coalition government. When the coalition government were elected a little over five years ago, we were concerned by the pressures placed on the legal system, particularly in the area of family law. Unacceptable delays, costly litigation and unnecessary formalities were placing a great strain on the parties to the proceedings as well as on the Family Court. The coalition government recognised that there was a need to reform the legal system.We responded by introducing the Federal Magistrates Service to share jurisdiction with the Federal Court in family law, administrative law, administrative appeals, bankruptcy, human rights and consumer protection matters. The service began hearing cases on 3 July 2000 and it has been an unqualified success, with many thousands of Australians benefiting from its cheaper, simpler and faster court services. The bulk of the work of the Federal Magistrates Service has been in the area of family law. The central tenet of the coalition government's approach to family law issues is to treat the interests of children of the relationship as paramount. In many situations, that approach is best served by reducing the stress and pressure that their parents may be experiencing as a result of the separation process.The coalition has made family orientated policies a cornerstone of its government. They are policies that are not only supportive of families; they are polices that help reduce some of the financial pressures that individuals in a relationship may experience. In some cases it may be the difference between a relationship surviving or ending. In those unfortunate situations where a relationship does break down, government is obligated to assist those individuals and their children through policies that minimise the emotional and financial costs that often go hand in hand with separation.It would be foolhardy to suggest that these problems can be completely eliminated. One of the most irresponsible things a member of parliament can do is to build expectations in the community about what can be achieved with policies, particularly with regard to family law. Divorce or separation often come at a high emotional and financial cost. Compounding this is the fact that this usually occurs at a time when separating individuals are least emotionally and financially equipped to deal with the situation, particularly if there are children involved. That is why the Federal Magistrates Service has been such a tremendous success. It provides individuals in the community with greater access to affordable and expeditious justice in circumstances where it is practical to use this new service. This streamlined approach to delivering greater access to justice will also remove some of the adversarial element that currently exists in the family law system. It has taken the edge off the adversarial system.The coalition government now proposes to extend the jurisdiction of the Federal Magistrates Service to reflect the changing workload of the Federal Court. One particular area of the justice system that requires streamlining is migration law. Many matters relating to migration law are of a routine nature and are suitable to be heard by the Federal Magistrates Service. This bill presently before the House amends the Migration Act 1958 to give the Federal Magistrates Service concurrent jurisdiction with the Federal Court in migration matters. The bill also amends the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 and the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 to remove legislative restrictions on the Federal Magistrates Service hearing migration matters.The provisions of this bill will allow proceedings involving migration matters to be transferred between the Federal Magistrates Service and the Federal Court. The advantage of this arrangement is that it will allow legal matters to be heard in the most appropriate forum, depending on the complexity of the issue. These arrangements will not affect the number of levels of appeal and review in the migration system as it currently operates. At present, appeals from the Federal Magistrates Service in non-family law matters are heard by the full Federal Court. In appropriate circumstances, the chief justice can determine that a single judge can hear the appeal, but that judge is exercising the appellate jurisdiction of the Federal Court. Due to an increase in the number of illegal immigrants hoping to seek asylum in Australia, the Federal Court has experienced an increase in its migrant law case load. The increased case load has been brought about, to some extent, by the former Labor government's interpretation of the term `persecution' in defining a refugee from the definition of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and the convention on refugees. Labor defined `persecution' differently, and Labor created the circumstances that allowed the courts to define it in a much broader, more uncertain and open-ended manner. That created Australia as a soft target for people smugglers. Although the Howard government have changed Labor's flawed policy so that `persecution' will be defined as an appropriate test of serious harm, delays are still expected to the hearing process which will be streamlined by these amendments.The Federal Magistrates Service will be able to resolve cases in six months or less, which will dramatically expedite the migration law process for many applicants. This will add some confidence to the process that currently leaves many applicants uncertain of their future for lengthy periods of time. Allowing the Federal Magistrates Service to extend its jurisdiction to hear migration matters will lend itself to greater efficiency and disposition of these cases. The Federal Magistrates Service has been one of the government's best initiatives in the administration of the legal system. It is delivering real outcomes for Australians who want access to justice. I know that this initiative is helping people in my home state of South Australia, including many of my constituents, who have appreciated the more efficient delivery of justice and legal outcomes.To date, much of the work of the Federal Magistrates Service has been in family law, but the widening jurisdiction of the Federal Court in recent years has led to an increase in the number of matters coming before that court. The impact of this situation has resulted in the diversion of judicial resources of the Federal Court from the more complex areas of the law upon which it was intended to focus. Having the Federal Magistrates Service dealing with less complex cases has meant a more efficient utilisation of judicial resources and, just as importantly, less cost for litigants.I expect the Federal Magistrates Service in South Australia will benefit enormously from the federal government's decision to allocate $76 million for the construction of a new Commonwealth law courts complex for South Australia. Construction on the Commonwealth court complex is scheduled to begin in January next year, with a completion date of December 2003. The new Commonwealth court complex is a long overdue project. For 15 years or more, the Adelaide legal fraternity lobbied the federal government for such a project, and I am delighted to be able to congratulate the Treasurer, the Minister for Finance and Administration and the Attorney-General on finally coming through with the required funds to make sure that Adelaide has the same sorts of facilities as every other capital city on the mainland in the area of the Federal Court, the Family Court and, of course, the High Court.The new Commonwealth courts building will be built on the Angas Street site of the police headquarters—a traditional eyesore on the Adelaide skyline—which will be demolished. I look forward to the opening of that building so that the current arrangements— the cramped, unsafe conditions and the unhappy situation that the Family Court judges as well as the legal fraternity and the clients of the law firms find themselves in—for the Family Court and the Federal Court can finally end.I would encourage members of this House to consider extending the scope of the Federal Magistrates Service once the arrangements provided for in this bill are operational. Indeed, I recall the Attorney-General recently informing this House that the Chief Justice of the High Court, the Hon. Murray Gleeson, has acknowledged that the Federal Magistrates Service will play an increasingly important role in the Commonwealth legal system. The Federal Magistrates Service is one of the great achievements of the coalition government and one of the important reforms introduced by the Attorney-General. I congratulate him on its introduction and its continual extension of jurisdiction. I commend the bill to the House and urge the House to reject the amendment moved by the shadow Attorney-General, the member for Barton. 12:12:0031479McFarlane, Jann, MPMs JANN McFARLANE83CStirlingALP00—I rise today to speak in support of the Jurisdiction of the Federal Magistrates Service Legislation Amendment Bill 2001, which amends the Migration Act 1958 to give jurisdiction to the Federal Magistrates Service in matters under part 8 of the act. The bill will affect a range of case matters. I will talk today on a particular aspect, and that is the removal of restrictions on the Federal Magistrates Service hearing migration matters under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act and hearing appeals in relation to migration matters under the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act.This is a piece of legislation which the community want. This is because they see reducing the appeal period as a solution to the unauthorised arrivals in Australia of people by boat. However, it does not address the large numbers of unauthorised arrivals of people by plane with valid tourist visas. This bill will confer jurisdiction in migration matters on the Federal Magistrates Service, allowing Australia to streamline the appeals process for migration and refugee cases before the Australian judicial system. This is necessary because the current system is failing and is prey to unscrupulous lawyers who seek to profit from the complexity of the current system and the misery of their clients.The current system is failing because of the lengthy delays that occur in determining migration and refugee matters. Generally, unsuccessful applicants for asylum pursue every avenue of appeal. This means that those people who have not made out genuine claims of asylum can spend very long periods—sometimes years—in detention awaiting appeals, prior to being deported back to their country of origin. The cost of the current appeals process by applicants in migration and refugee matters has now reached $15 million per year. This is in addition to the cost of $104 per person per day to house asylum seekers in detention while their appeals are being processed. This is a huge financial burden for the taxpayers of Australia to bear. This cost makes it a matter of national interest that migration and refugee appeals should be dealt with as quickly and fairly as possible. This legislation will give the Federal Magistrates Service concurrent jurisdiction to hear migration appeals with the Federal Court. That is, both the Federal Magistrates Court and the Federal Court have the authority to accept and deal with appeals from the Migration Review Tribunal and the Refugee Review Tribunal.Applicants who have had their appeal rejected by the tribunal would be entitled to choose whether to appeal to the Federal Court, as per the current rules, or to the Federal Magistrates Service. However, applicants who choose the Federal Magistrates Service to hear their case will then be automatically entitled to a further appeal to the Federal Court. The shadow Attorney-General has already indicated to the House that Labor seeks to amend this bill to improve it significantly. Despite the government's stated claim that it is seeking to simplify appeal mechanisms, this may paradoxically create more opportunities for unsuccessful applicants to delay the resolution of their cases by introducing yet another layer of appeal. Labor's amendments will introduce new rules designed to discourage lawyers and migration agents from encouraging applicants to make appeals that have no reasonable prospect of success. These rules would allow a court to impose a personal costs order of up to $5,000 on a lawyer who encourages a person to make an appeal that has no reasonable prospect of success. This measure would discourage lawyers from exploiting applicants and would help stop vexatious appeals driven by lawyers seeking to line their own pockets at the expense of Australian taxpayers and the continued misery of their clients.Labor's amendments will retain judicial review but will allow applicants only a single opportunity for judicial review in the Federal Magistrates Service. There would be no right of appeal from a decision of a federal magistrate. Some applicants may elect to seek a review of the decision of the Migration Review Tribunal or the Refugee Review Tribunal in the original jurisdiction of the High Court, as is presently the case. However, Labor's amendments will allow the High Court to send those cases directly to the Federal Magistrates Service for a decision. These amendments will improve the government's stated aim of reducing avenues for appeal, but it remains to be seen whether the government will support Labor's attempts to improve this bill. The government's attempts to exclude the jurisdiction of the High Court in migration matters might be unconstitutional. This is because there is a guarantee in the Constitution that the High Court has authority to hear applications for judicial review. It is unlikely that the High Court would accept that its original jurisdiction to hear migration matters might be excluded by way of legislation. Nevertheless, Labor has agreed to pass this legislation should the government not agree to Labor's amendments, so that it can be tested in the High Court. Talk of solving the problems relating to migration and refugee issues cannot be limited to just the judicial process. Labor has a plan to help reduce the number of migration and refugee cases reaching the stage of appeal, and, in the context of discussing ways to reduce the burden of migration and refugee case load, it makes sense to examine other ways that this might be done. Labor's plan is threefold: first, you have to close the gate; second, you have to have a cop on the beat; and, third, you have to have a process to deal with the people who get through the gate and past the cop. We in the Labor Party are 100 per cent opposed to illegal immigration, but the Howard government has an atrocious record on illegal immigrants. The Howard government let 136 boats though to Australian waters and decided, just a few weeks before an election, to turn around the 137th boat, the Tampa, before the government even had a plan in place to do so. There is no limit to the cynicism of this government.As I mentioned earlier, first we have to close the gate, and Australia will not fix the border problem without fixing the relationship with Indonesia. A Labor government will pursue the issue of people-smuggling at the highest levels of the Indonesian government and at the ASEAN regional security forum, and Labor will appoint a special Australian representative to promote with our neighbours regional action on people-smuggling and organised crime. Second, we need a cop on the beat. Labor will create an Australian Coast Guard to fill this role and it has a bill before the House to do this now. Effective coastal surveillance and protection needs to be for 52 weeks a year and not just, as the Howard government believes, in the run-up to an election.On 6 March 2001, I gave an appropriation bill speech in this place, calling on the government to respond to the concerns of the people of Stirling about Australia's coastal security by introducing an Australian Coast Guard. In my speech, I made several points, which I will repeat for the benefit of members who did not hear it or may have forgotten. I explained that currently there is no overriding jurisdiction covering enforcement of law in maritime areas under Australian control. I explained that the vision of the people of Stirling, which is also the vision of the Australian Labor Party, is the development of a cohesive, modern, integrated coastal security system that draws together programs and activities that are currently undertaken by a range of different organisations. I also explained that the Labor Party had committed, as long as two years ago, to establish an Australian Coast Guard that will have overall responsibility for our coastal surveillance and protection, but the government has ignored my calls on behalf of the people of Stirling. Fortunately, the Leader of the Opposition has listened to the people of Stirling's concerns and on 24 September 2001 introduced a bill to establish an Australian Coast Guard. It remains to be seen whether the Howard government will support this worthy plan but, by their words, I am not hopeful that they will.The government has ridiculed Labor about the Coast Guard and has told us that we cannot afford it. That is rich coming from a government that has spent around $110 million to send the refugees of a single boat, the Tampa, to Nauru. I say `around $110 million' because, as was reported by Megan Saunders in the Australian on 18 September 2001, the Minister for Defence has refused to reveal the full costs of the exercise. Processions of Liberal members have stood up in this House to ridicule Labor's Coast Guard plan. The member for Murray said that such an option is not considered appropriate or necessary in Australia. The Minister for Defence called Labor's plans for a Coast Guard a hallucination and said that the best people to do that job are the people of the Australian Navy. The member for Herbert said that Labor's Coast Guard was probably the most ridiculous suggestion that he had seen. The Minister for Defence, at it again, characterised Labor's plan for a Coast Guard as an attack on the Australian Defence Force and called it a furphy that ought to be rejected. It is important for the people of Australia to know where the Howard government stands on this issue, because the Labor Party disagrees with it. When we have a Coast Guard, our Defence Force can stop playing policeman and get on with the job it is supposed to do: defend Australia from attack and prepare for war. In these difficult times, it is ludicrous that our Navy should be patrolling our coast for leaky fishing boats when there are uncertain and potentially dangerous challenges ahead. Third, you have to have a process for dealing with those who still manage to get through the gate and past the cop. This bill goes a long way towards creating that process, which is why Labor supports it, but it would be improved immeasurably if the government agreed to Labor's amendments. I commend this bill, with the Labor amendments, to the House. In doing so, I recommend that the government support Mr Beazley's private member's bill for an Australian Coast Guard—a bill which will also help reduce the number of migration and refugee appeals before the Australian courts.12:22:0031481Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—I thank the members for Barton, Sturt and Stirling for their contributions to the debate on the Jurisdiction of the Federal Magistrates Service Legislation Amendment Bill 2001. I indicate that, not surprisingly, the government will be opposing the second reading amendment moved by the member for Barton. This bill will amend the Migration Act 1958 to give jurisdiction to the Federal Magistrates Service in matters under part 8 of the Migration Act. This jurisdiction will be concurrent with the Federal Court.Many migration matters are of a routine nature and would be suitable for the service. The Federal Magistrates Service is able to resolve matters within six months and often in less time. This quick processing of cases will help ensure that less complex migration cases are dealt with quickly. Contrary to the suggestions made by the member for Barton, the Federal Magistrates Service is dealing with the matters before it quickly and efficiently. Matters before the service are disposed of within six months—a significant and important improvement in service delivery for people with federal legal problems— and that includes those in regional and rural areas. Contrary to the assertions of the member for Barton, but consistent with the submissions of the member for Sturt, the Federal Magistrates Service not only has magistrates permanently located in regional areas which did not previously have a permanent federal judicial presence but also is circuiting extensively to rural areas. Unfortunately, the opposition has not really done its homework as to where migration cases are likely to be filed and heard. The reality is that the vast majority of those cases are filed in the Sydney and Melbourne registries of the Federal Court. So it makes sense to locate additional resources to deal with those cases in the Federal Magistrates Service in those registries.The bill has been drafted to amend the Migration Act 1958 in its current form. However, as the opposition has now indicated that it will support the passage of the Migration Legislation Amendment (Judicial Review) Bill 1998 [2001], the Migration Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2001 and the Migration Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 6) 2001 in the Senate, amendments will be moved in the Senate to take account of those bills. This will ensure that the amendments in those bills will also apply to the jurisdiction of the Federal Magistrates Service under part 8 of the Migration Act. The Migration Legislation Amendment (Judicial Review) Bill 1998 [2001], when it comes into force, will change part 8 of the Migration Act 1958. It is necessary, therefore, to introduce consequential amendments to the Jurisdiction of the Federal Magistrates Service Legislation Amendment Bill to take into account the changes in the wording of part 8 of the Migration Act. This is necessary to ensure that the objective of the legislation is achieved, despite the change in the wording of the primary act. The effect of the amendments will be to ensure that, in the event that the Migration Legislation Amendment (Judicial Review) Bill 1998 [2001] comes into force, the jurisdictions of the Federal Court and the Federal Magistrates Service with respect to migration matters will remain parallel.The Migration Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2001 also amends part 8 of the Migration Act. The amendments to part 8 prohibit class actions in migration litigation and limit those persons who may commence and continue proceedings in the courts. The Migration Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 6) 2001 amends the Migration Act to provide that the identity of applicants for protection visas should not be published by the High Court or the Federal Court. The proposed amendments ensure that the relevant provisions of these bills will also apply to the Federal Magistrates Service. Conferring jurisdiction in migration cases on the Federal Magistrates Service is part of the government's broader reform of the migration system in Australia. The coalition is committed to ensuring that our migration system is fair and efficient. This bill will assist in achieving that goal.The member for Stirling made an assertion that giving jurisdiction to the Federal Magistrates Service will create another layer in the process. This is in fact not at all correct. Giving jurisdiction to the Federal Magistrates Service in migration matters will not add another layer to the process. Appeals from decisions of the service go directly to the full Federal Court. There is no provision for an appeal to a single judge before the appeals go to the full court. The Chief Justice of the Federal Court does have a discretion to allocate an appeal for hearing by a single judge, but that judge is exercising the appellate jurisdiction of the full court. This ensures that there is no additional layer of appeal, but at the same time ensures that the Federal Court is able to allocate appropriate resources to the matter. Any further appeal from the full Federal Court is to the High Court, with special leave. So the situation with regard to the involvement of the Federal Magistrates Service in migration matters is effectively in terms of layers of process identical with the current situation with respect to the Federal Court.As I indicated, the government opposes the second reading amendment moved by the member for Barton. The government welcomes opposition support for the bill and for its broader migration reform package of bills currently in the other place. However, the member for Barton's amendment is a worrying attempt by the opposition to have its cake and eat it too. The opposition wants to be seen to support migration reform, but at the same time to oppose it. The Australian people deserve better than that. They deserve to know where the opposition really stands. The member for Barton suggested that the opposition is concerned that recent amendments to the Migration Act might be found to be unconstitutional. I note that the purported concern about constitutionality was the basis on which the opposition opposed the original Border Protection Bill 2001, so its concerns about constitutionality in this case clearly are not serious enough; otherwise it would not be supporting this bill.The member for Barton has called for the tabling of legal advice about that bill and yet the opposition has previously rejected the government's assurances about the constitutionality of the original Border Protection Bill. The member for Barton wants to express concern about the effect of legislation Labor is supporting. That—to use language frequently used about the opposition—is both flipping and flopping. In this case, it is grandstanding. Either the opposition supports the legislation or it does not. It is a simple choice, but one that the opposition seems unable to make with any confidence. The Australian people will have difficulty in having confidence in the Labor Party if they stand by their current support but oppose the bill in substance. In the second reading amendment moved by the member for Barton, it is proposed that the House:(4) expresses its concern that the Government has not addressed the issue of vexatious or unwarranted proceedings being commenced as a tactical delay to the implementation of migration decisions;The opposition, it might be pointed out, failed precisely to support the government in its attempt to do that by its failure to support the government on the original Border Protection Bill. I commend the bill to the House.Amendment negatived.Original question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time. 31483Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.Bill (on motion by Mr Williams) read a third time.Bills31483R139831483Debate resumed from 29 August, on motion by Mr Tuckey:That the bill be now read a second time.12:32:0031483Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr LAURIE FERGUSON8T4ReidALP00—Today we are debating the Regional Forest Agreements Bill 2001 which gives legislative backing to the 10 signed regional forest agreements around the country, particularly in New South Wales, Tasmania, Victoria and Western Australia. The fact that there are 10 agreements now rather than the more limited number when we last explored this legislation reflects a clear change in the situation. In the interim, of course, the Western Australian agreement totally collapsed— in the end, with all of the political parties in that state abandoning it. Quite frankly, Labor's original position that there should be a disallowance resolution to review the Western Australian situation is clearly vindicated.84CThompson, Cameron, MP8T4Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr LAURIE FERGUSON—Members opposite can raise their eyebrows all they want, but the Premier of WA, Mr Court, the National Party, the Democrats and Labor abandoned that agreement. The only person who stood for it was Minister Tuckey, who was repudiated by the Western Australian Liberal government. Unfortunately, in the interim, he had given guarantees to Western Australian workers that all of their jobs would be protected when he knew they were going out the back door throughout the whole process.Labor supports the current bill with minor amendments. Last time we were here this bill was carried with 16 amendments. This week, Labor has a very reduced number of amendments and, quite frankly, large parts of industry as well as significant numbers of backbenchers opposite know that the nature of these amendments constitutes no significant detriment to the industry and the wood is on the government to accept this smaller number of minor amendments. The electorate and industry will be watching to see whether there is going to be a constructive approach by the government to get this legislation through the parliament.The RFA process along with Plantation 2020 Vision, of course, arises out of Labor's historic national forests policy statement of 1992. Labor remains totally committed to the national forests policy statement and to the RFA process. It is not only the federal opposition that wants this measure through the parliament and does not want it to be thwarted or stuffed around by the minister with convoluted arguments about minor technicalities and what is wrong with our amendments; the premiers around this country want this legislation through as well.We are extremely critical of the timing of the introduction of this bill by Minister Tuckey. We hope his destructive behaviour does not destroy an historic opportunity for bipartisan cooperation to secure the passage of the legislation through both houses before the current parliament is dissolved. If, at the end of the day, we do not manage to achieve that outcome, the minister, who professes to be only person in the whole country concerned with the welfare of the timber industry, will be clearly to blame. Let us recap the history of consideration of RFA legislation by the parliament. An RFA bill was first introduced into the House just before the 1998 federal election—very convenient timing. It passed the House with Labor's support but was not considered by the Senate when the coalition called an early election. When we look at the current situation and the timing, there has to be grave doubts about the minister's sincerity or whether he is just going through the motions and that the real power in this government resides with Senator Hill. I am fed up—and so is the industry—with the constant excuses by Minister Tuckey that he cannot control Hill, that Hill mucks him around in the Senate and that he has no control over what is happening. He is the bloke out there supposedly defending the industry.An identical bill was reintroduced in November 1998 and passed the House in early 1999—I stress that timing—with Labor's support. The Senate referred the bill to an inquiry which reported in early 1999. Ironically, the committee rushed its inquiry into the bill because the government purported to believe that the legislation required urgent consideration by the Senate. So the Senate committee rushed through its normal processes to cooperate with the government because it thought the legislation might get through the Senate. For reasons best known to Minister Tuckey—which we will hear from speakers opposite later—the government did a complete backflip and failed to bring on the bill for its scheduled debate in June 1999. This is the bill that the minister told the Australian electorate, the industry and the workers—who went out the back door because of his incompetence in WA— was urgent. He says it is urgent and then withdraws the bill in June 1999! This delay meant that the Democrats, who everyone in the world knows oppose the RFA process, held the balance of power in the Senate when the bill was finally brought on for debate. So the bill was taken out and, it would seem, introduced just so the Democrats would be able to thwart it.The bill was subject to protracted consideration by the Senate in September 1999. It was eventually passed on the combined vote of the coalition and Labor with 16 amendments. The key amendments were: the insertion of an object clause—84CThompson, Cameron, MP8T4Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr LAURIE FERGUSON—The member opposite says `useless'.10000Hollis, Collin (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hollis)— Order! The member for Blair will be participating in this debate. I suggest that he contain his remarks until he makes his contribution and that the honourable member for Reid should ignore any interjections.8T4Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr LAURIE FERGUSON—Some would say, in trying to defend the minister and the government, that these amendments are useless. Quite frankly, wouldn't most people in the electorate think that you have an objects clause in a bill to explain just what it is supposed to accomplish. Is there anything wrong with the Australian parliament, elected by the people, having some right of parliamentary review, given that not all the RFAs were finalised at the time and given that, in Western Australia in particular, it went down the gurgler, dropped by all political parties, including that of some members opposite?There was a call for a clarification of compensation provisions. The Labor Party thought that, if we were going to compensate people in this industry, there should be good reasons why they are compensated. The Australian people should know why we are giving money to timber yards, to a variety of sawmillers and to this or that bloke around the country. The Australian taxpayer just does not want to give them a blank cheque, and that is what the government wanted. It is clear from the actions undertaken by the federal government that they did not want any clarification of what the compensation was for. It was not as a result of them having a lack of planning approval or something.Another amendment is in relation to the need for structural adjustment funding for timber firms and workers to accompany each RFA. Labor says that we should not have a narrow, short analysis of what FISAP money can be utilised for. I was at the TCA conference earlier this year and, after the minister spoke, a clear point was made by the industry that they do not share his very narrow, limited, restricted analysis of what FISAP money should be utilised for. They say that people are going out the back door, and the minister can get up on his soapbox for the next 20 years, for all they care, but people do go out of the industry and they need assistance. The establishment of a forest database was the end of the world as well, as far as the government was concerned. There is an amendment in relation to the continuing Commonwealth oversight of listed world heritage areas and Ramsar wetlands, as provided for in other government legislation. Perhaps the minister could not stop Senator Hill with regard to that other government legislation, but the fact of life is that it is on the public record. It is effective; it is part of the law of this country. Finally, there is an amendment in relation to the establishment of a wood and paper industry council to drive further investment in industry development.The government rejected each and every amendment, even ones that the minister himself admitted were innocuous. One has to ask oneself why, if they are ineffective, a waste of time or whatever. Let us just accept for the sake of argument that the minister has some case: you really have to ask yourself why the government would try to undermine the possibility of bipartisan support for legislation by being just a complete blocker and an obstructionist to agreement. Of course, the government made another amendment of its own: to establish an advisory council. The Senate then insisted on its original amendments and substituted Labor's proposed wood and paper industry council for the minister's advisory council. The minister, ever conciliatory, then moved that the bill be set aside. He essentially halted any further debate. That was the end of the process.Despite changed circumstances in the interim, the minister made no attempt to reintroduce the bill until late August, in the dying days of the current parliament. I admit his attendance at the TCA conference was rather truncated; it was rather short. He was not there for that much of the conference, but the industry well and truly knows, and he has known since March this year, that Labor has made a firm indication that, in the context of the collapse of the Western Australian agreement, there was no need for our disallowance resolution and that Labor essentially supported an RFA bill. We ask ourselves: are we convinced that he could not get it up the list in the Senate? Can we really be assured that it was a lack of power on his part that he could not get it past Senator Hill? Can we really believe that, on legislation that is so important to this industry, he could not get a bill here six or seven months after he well and truly knew there is support for it?He could have tested us in that period. He could have found out whether we really were genuinely supportive. He could have actually exposed us if there were any doubt. But he has chosen to bring this bill into parliament in the dying days of the parliament to try to create a situation where it cannot be considered, so he can try to manipulate a scene showing that Labor is not supportive. He took no notice of my public indication six months ago that the completion of the RFA process and the outcome in WA had significantly improved the chances for approval.The current bill is essentially the same as the earlier legislation that has twice been before the parliament. It does incorporate some modest but welcome changes to the earlier bill by inserting an objects clause— the end of the world when it was considered in previous legislation. The collapse of Western civilisation was going to occur if there was an objects clause, but I notice that there is one in this government bill. The bill also details the requirements for RFA amendments to RFAs and that RFA annual reports and five-yearly review reports to be tabled in the parliament within set time limits and details the establishment of a forest and wood products council.While we may have chosen slightly different terminology, the opposition welcomes those changes. We are happy to accept them unamended and to not get in the way, not cause delays and not undermine the possibility of getting the legislation through with bipartisan support. To facilitate the business of parliament, we will not be moving any amendments in the consideration in detail stage of debate in this House—no amendment whatsoever will be moved in this House. We will be discussing with the government a small number of amendments that we think would improve the bill and that we propose to move in the Senate. I want to say, in the context of who is responsible for the situation we have now reached, that the valuable time of this parliament is being taken up with consideration of an electoral bill about the internal problems of the Liberal Party. We are spending valuable time this week in the dying days of this parliament on whether the federal Liberal Party can get finance from the state branches of the Liberal Party. They cannot sort out their own internal problems— SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr Tuckey—I rise on a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. This is a bill about trees, not about other bills that are in dispute in the Senate.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—I am sure that the member for Reid will come back to the debate.8T4Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr LAURIE FERGUSON—With regard to the point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker, there is going to be debate in this country about who is responsible if this bill does not get through parliament. I am saying quite clearly that one of the reasons that this bill might not get through this parliament is that we are wasting our time on the internal problems of the Liberal Party. The situation is that there is very limited time. This bill is now before us in the House of Representatives, one day before the Senate is probably going to finish up.I acknowledge that, to try to cover himself, the minister last night brought the bill forward a day, so you can argue he has introduced it a day before the Senate is to consider it. That is a bit better than the morning of the same day. But I think we all know that, whether or not you agree with the minor parties, they have a say in this process in this country. People do vote for them; they have got a number of senators. In the normal processes, they have got some right to have their say on legislation, and the minister well and truly knew when he started this process that they would endeavour to make a contribution on this legislation. Where matters are contentious and controversial, he will not be able to cite many instances where debate is guillotined and smashed over by the government and the opposition in the Senate, because he knows the way the Senate works. So one has to question why we have this important piece of legislation coming to this parliament so late in the day.I turn now to the opposition's second reading amendment, which has been distributed. It essentially refers to the coalition's mishandling of structural adjustment funding under the FISAP program. In December 1995—I think everyone realises how long ago that is—the former Labor government set aside $107 million in funding to help the industry adjust to reduced harvesting under the national RFA progress. One of the first actions of the new, supposedly pro-industry coalition government was to cut $6 million out of that funding in the budget of July 1996. They get on the soap box or on a stump out in the forest and talk about how they are pro the industry, et cetera, but they could not wait to reduce that $107 million of FISAP money by $6 million. But five years later, after all the speeches and the meetings in country towns, all the rhetoric at furniture and hardwoods conferences around the country, it is appalling that nearly three-quarters—that is, $75 million—of the remaining funding for New South Wales, Victoria and Western Australia remains unspent in Commonwealth coffers.Several factors have contributed to this situation. There was the minister's suspension of all funding to New South Wales in November 1998, which he did not restore until April this year—quite an undermining of the industry's interests, I would have thought. There were delays with the finalisation of the RFA process, such as the minister's tactics in New South Wales. I have to say that in New South Wales, as in Western Australia, there was some commonsense in the coalition. He gave them his riding instructions; he told the New South Wales coalition what they should do on this and what he thought of forestry. And when it came to a test in the New South Wales parliament, he was left on the beach; he was ditched. They voted with the Labor government on the outcomes in that state. Then there was his refusal to hand over $15 million owing to Western Australia as part of his war with successive Western Australian state governments. Whether it is Court or Gallop, it does not make any difference—they are all wrong. There is only one person in the whole country who understands the interests of the industry. The whole WA cabinet is wrong, everyone is out of kilter, and there is only one person who understands it. If the industry suffers collateral damage, if people cannot be assisted when they need it, bad luck—they are the innocent bystander victims; and he will have a hard line and be very narrow and restricted in how he assists industry when people are going out the door.We are repeatedly told that FISAP funds will flow `in the near future'. And, with monotonous regularity, the coalition fails to deliver. The minister has repeatedly expressed opposition to business exit assistance and workers' assistance elements of FISAP. That is a view he is entitled to, but I can assure him that it is not a very popular view with a lot of people who traditionally support this government and who know the realities out there. They say, `Let's not get too technical, let's not get too legalistic, let's not just try to hold the line for the sake of being difficult and obstinate; let's see what the industry needs.' They know that we need a more liberal interpretation of what the industry requires and we need to assist people whose future livelihood is in great danger.Labor is also concerned about the minister's unwillingness to help the industry in Victoria work through the adjustment process required because of the new sustainable yield system that has been developed in the state. This follows a variety of blues with the previous Liberal state government ministers. They did not know anything about forestry as well; they were all dunderheads, apparently. Anyway, we have had a change of government there and they are trying to work their way through sustainable yield. Despite the attempts of the government to say that they have got nothing to do with it, that they are irrelevant and it is all the problem of the new government in Victoria, that new system is clearly required by the Commonwealth as part of the signed RFAs. It is clearly a requisite; it is part of what is needed. The minister pretends it is nothing to do with him. Victoria was shortchanged in the first place and needs help to work through its current difficulties. It is time coalition federal MPs from Victoria stood up to the minister and demanded that he helped the industry.In conclusion, the opposition seeks to ensure that this bill goes through parliament. I think people watching this process will judge us to have been extremely reasonable in reducing amendments from 16 to four. We no longer wish to pursue a disallowance resolution with regard to a number of RFAs around this country. What we said when it was last debated, what is on the public record and in the press releases we have issued, has been borne out. Our opposition essentially related to the process in Western Australia where there was a view that CALM had been, let us say, too overwhelming in the process, too strong in driving their outcomes and decisions and what they thought should happen, and essentially walked over other interests in the process. We have been vindicated: the Western Australia agreement went down the spout big time—there was no-one left defending it. So we are vindicated in saying that this parliament, elected by the people of the country, should have some oversight of what happens in the RFA process. We could not give the minister opposite a blank cheque and just let him get what he wanted regardless of other players and interests in the industry. I reiterate that we seem to have had a few people who agreed with us at the end of the day. We seem to have had the agreement of virtually the whole of the parliament in Western Australia, regardless of what party they were in. We seem to have had divisions in the Liberal Party and breakaway parties that left them over the matter. We seem to have had an overwhelming majority of the Western Australian people saying that process was wrong.Today, many months afterwards, we are not quibbling over the wording of the few crumbs that the government has given us in regard to our previous amendments. We are not seeking to delay debates in this House with as many speakers as possible who are interested in this matter. We have constrained them; we have reduced the number of speakers. We are not moving amendments in this House, except for the second reading position in regard to FISAP. The people will judge whether it is reasonable and fair that, at two minutes to midnight, the government expect a very controversial piece of legislation to be rammed through the parliament at the same time as they seek to take up our valuable time sorting out their problems with Senator Brandis and Senator Mason. We have had the ridiculous situation where two Queensland Liberal senators basically have told the Prime Minister of this country to go jump. Those two Liberal senators have said, `We don't care what the federal Liberal Party says about electoral funding, we are going to send this off to a Senate committee to make sure that we try to be as difficult as possible in getting through our own government's legislation.' We are spending the last week of parliament on whether Lynton Crosby can get some money off the federal taxpayer to finance the Liberal Party or whether the state branches are right in saying, `We are bankrupt, we need the money; give it to us, please.' 84CThompson, Cameron, MPMr Cameron Thompson—I raise a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. It was pointed out to the member for Reid earlier that the bill is about trees, not about what Senator Mason or Senator Brandis might or might not have said. The issue is about trees, and we expect him to stay close to the subject, even though about 10 minutes ago he said that he was concluding.10000Kelly, De-Anne (Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER)Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mrs De-Anne Kelly)—Perhaps the member for Reid could refer generally to the bill.8T4Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr LAURIE FERGUSON—I will conclude. I was just making the point that when blame is apportioned, when people look at why we are in this current situation the day before parliament is probably going to finish, on legislation that was introduced—I have forgotten when he first introduced it.JT4Bailey, Fran, MPFran Bailey—You've got a lot to answer for!8T4Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr LAURIE FERGUSON—If you had been in here earlier, you would have been trying to defend the minister. He first introduced these measures before the 1998 election. Talk about flip-flops! He did a major flip-flop and failed to bring in the bill for its scheduled debate in June 1999. I did not say June 2000 or June 2001; he failed to bring it back in 1999. One has to ask why. The member opposite was told by an industry employer in her electorate to look for a new job. It might be good advice. It is worth while thinking about, given how confused the government is. I will conclude on this matter: there is grave doubt about what the government really thinks on forestry. A few weeks ago, we had it voting with Senator Brown basically to get out of old growth. The Liberals rushed across to support Senator Brown. You have to give it to Senator Abetz: he knew what was going on. He tried to run out of the Senate rather than vote for it. We had Senator Calvert, from recollection, trying to get a pair. They knew what the legislation was about.SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr Tuckey—`Legislation'!8T4Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr LAURIE FERGUSON—They knew what the resolution was about. You are very quick, Wilson. As I have said, very recently one senator knew that he should duck out of the Senate and the other knew that he should try to get a pair, because they realised what the resolution was about. Afterwards some ministers thought that it was a bit serious for their image; they thought that it did matter. People have been telling the member for McEwen that it did matter, and they have been telling northern Tasmanian Liberals that it did matter. It is all right for the minister. Senator Brown knew what he was moving. He knew what the wording that he put to the Senate meant. Minister Tuckey can run around the place, saying, `We voted for it, but we really didn't mean it; we didn't quite understand it; we were a bit confused; it didn't really mean what it said.' Frankly, that is typical of the uncertainty about where the government stands on forestry. It is very unclear. Most of the industry will no longer cop the argument that we constantly get; that is, that Minister Tuckey has been run over the top of; it's all Hill's fault; he cannot control Hill; and Hill manipulates the Senate. Frankly, that vote the other week was a clear indication of the uncertainty as to where things are going. I move as an amendment to the motion for the second reading: That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:“whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House condemns the Government for:(1) reducing the original Budget allocation for the Forest Industry Structural Adjustment Program (FISAP);(2) failing to work constructively with the States to ensure that needed FISAP funding is delivered to the timber industry and workers in a planned, cooperative, timely and transparent manner; and(3) continuing to pretend that there is not a strong need for Business Exit Assistance and Worker Assistance elements of FISAP”.10000Kelly, De-Anne (Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER)Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mrs De-Anne Kelly)—Is the amendment seconded?84HZahra, Christian, MPMr Zahra—I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.12:57:0031489Thompson, Cameron, MPMr CAMERON THOMPSON84CBlairLP10—We had more farewells in that speech from the member for Reid than from Dame Joan. It went on and on. There was a series of lame excuses from the member for Reid about why his organisation, the Australian Labor Party, is twisting on a hook not to support the Regional Forest Agreements Bill 2001 while trying to maintain a facade of support for it. He mentioned that people have observed the process. We should look at Bills Digest, because someone has been observing this process and reporting on it. In the Bills Digest the writer has pointed out how many sticking points there were between the Labor Party, other interests in the Senate and the government in its endeavours to get through the former Regional Forest Agreements Bill. In the concluding comments on this amended bill, the Bills Digest states:The bill has been modified since its introduction in 1998; however, none of the amendments make any significant concessions toward the Senate's previous position over the sticking points outlined earlier in the Bills Digest. The only immediate practical implication of a failure to pass the bill is the doubt which would remain over the compensation provisions of the various RFAs about whether they are legally enforceable. On the other hand, passing the bill would illegally reinforce the RFA compensation provisions and modify the operation of the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act and the Australian Heritage Commission Act.That writer says that there is virtually no difference, yet there has been an effort by the member opposite to make out that there are significant differences.We have had an effort by the member opposite to try to make out that there are significant differences. He has also endeavoured to say, as did Tasmanian senator Kerry O'Brien, that Labor in fact passed this legislation. They have tried to maintain this fiction that they passed it. They did not pass it; they put strictures on it that gave it no value as far as the industry is concerned. We had Senator Kerry O'Brien writing to the North Eastern Advertiser saying that the Senate passed the government's RFA legislation last year. That is a nonsense. They did not. They provided a lead weight around its neck. They endeavoured to make sure it was going to cause the industry as much pain and difficulty as possible and they endeavoured to say that that was in fact supporting the legislation. If they were truly supporting the legislation, they would have supported it unamended or without including the nonsense about requiring the parliament to overview it and also without objects clauses and other difficulties like that which merely provide legal openings for such agreements to be challenged. The purpose of providing these agreements is to provide surety. These regional forest agreements have three different elements. They provide surety for economic, environmental and social reasons. In the NAFI News, the industry publication, Mr Ferguson, the member for Reid, who just a minute ago was saying that the government could have had any opportunity to have this passed and that the Labor Party is supportive of this, it is reported that:Mr Ferguson provided further clarification of the ALP's position during parliamentary debate dealing with the increase in the government's contribution to the Forest and Wood Products Research and Development Corporation. That is in relation to this bill. It continues:In the aftermath of the Western Australian election, Labor's fundamental need to block this legislation has disappeared. He is admitting that they were trying to block the legislation and now, of course, after the Western Australian election he is saying that their fundamental need to block this legislation has disappeared. The article goes on: It is very clear, he said, that our reasons for opposing this legislation have disappeared. They speak with forked tongue on this issue every time. The last five minutes of the speech from the member opposite was really a series of justifications as to why he is going to turn Bob Brown and other people loose in the Senate tonight, or whenever this bill is discussed, and allow them to filibuster and carry on so that this bill can die a death and he can maintain the fiction of his support while he ensures that this bill goes down the gurgler.NAFI has been encouraged by his attitude, and I hope that he will come round; that he will ensure that this bill goes through. It is certainly within the province of the Labor Party to ensure that. They do not have to let Bob Brown off the leash with all of his communist blatherings. We can have a reasonable debate because, according to the members opposite, there is a degree of agreement on this. Despite their flip-flopping, the flop has become a flip and we are in a position where we are supposedly in agreement. I would like to see if that is the position; if the Labor Party expedites the process of this bill and we see it pass into law. I would like, just for the sake of the debate, to put into larger detail what was said within the NAFI News. It said:Recent statements by the opposition spokesman on forestry and conservation, Laurie Ferguson, have rekindled the forest industry's hopes of maintaining a bipartisan approach to forest policy at the national level. Speaking at the recent Timber Communities Australia Conference and subsequently in the parliament, Mr Ferguson confirmed that the opposition will support the passage of the Regional Forest Agreement Bill. The bill has been laid aside by the government following repeated attempts by the ALP to make amendments to the bill which were unacceptable to the government—As we have said, NAFI was also unhappy with the proposed amendments because they would have made every RFA subject to review by the parliament. NAFI is not opposed to public involvement in and scrutiny of the RFA process, but the purpose of the process was to provide for rational science based decision making rather than the simplistic emotive basis which we see when complex issues become political footballs.Speaking of political footballs, members opposite have been kicking this bill all over the place. They have done it now since 1998. They have been basically unfaithful to their electorates in failing to support this bill. We did see the vote on the amendments. When the vote on the amendments came through, the member who is going to speak next, the member for McMillan, was not present. He was missing in action on that occasion. Perhaps in this debate we can hear from him as to why that was. If he were legitimately representing the needs of his electorate, he would have been voting on this side where there were 69 ayes, where people were supporting the passage of the bill, instead of being on the side of the noes, where people were stopping the bill and stopping the legitimate aspirations of these very important timber communities. The people who were on the side of the noes included many members opposite, but mysteriously the member for McMillan was not present on that occasion.Of course, what we are supporting here is science based legislation. The member for Reid went on about the Western Australian situation. I think that is illustrative of the whole timber issue becoming a political one and not a science based one. That is when it becomes a problem. The whole purpose of an RFA is to take the politics out of it, to establish what is scientifically sustainable and then to proceed with it. Where have we seen that not in evidence? It is not in evidence in the subsequent actions in Western Australia, and it is not in evidence in Queensland, where there is no agreement. There is no agreement in Queensland because of a slimy, political deal done between vested interests on the Queensland Timber Board, the state Labor government and representatives of organisations referring to themselves as conservationists. There are plenty of conservationists in the timber industry, and they do not support the South-East Queensland forest agreement, which was the creation of the Beattie government. It is an absolute abomination. It has no basis in science. At present, operations in Queensland are relying on transport subsidies, which are provided for a limited period of only three years, to make their operations viable so that they can seek from a vastly reduced number of native forests the timber that they need to continue to operate over a period of 25 years—supposedly while we build a resource of new hardwood plantations. There is no person who has anything to do with the timber industry in Queensland who realistically believes that there is going to be a single millable log available from those plantations. How many years has it been now? It has probably been two years since the signing of the South-East Queensland forest agreement. The very few plantations that are around supposedly providing native hardwood for this ridiculous process have still got seedlings that would not come up to my knee. No trial in Queensland at any time in the past has produced a millable log, and everyone in the Queensland industry knows it.What we have is an agreement with the Queensland government, which is going to sponsor the export of Queensland jobs to places like Malaysia and Indonesia, where, in the name of conservation, we are going to strip down trees with no regime of management to bring timber into Australia to prop up the Queensland timber industry when we have perfectly good timber resources in our state that are going begging, that are not being used appropriately and that all have a sustainable level of use. This is happening in the name of an agreement between the Australian Labor Party and the Greens. They are after Greens preferences, and that is what the process is about.As far as Peter Beattie and the member for Reid are concerned, the timber industry in Queensland can go down the chute. They can kiss their jobs goodbye. Towns like Linville, where there is a perfectly reliable timber mill ready to operate—and it is operating at present but on borrowed time—are heading into history, and everyone in that community who is reliant on that mill for their job knows it. They can thank Peter Beattie, the Premier of Queensland, for the uncertainty about their jobs. If a proper regional forest agreement had been reached in that state and if there had been a commitment by the Australian Labor Party to the regional forest agreement process, we would have sustainable jobs. We would have sustainable forest industries. We would have sustainable social access to these regions for recreational use and those kinds of things, but none of those opportunities have been provided because of the intransigence of the Beattie government and its total focus—its obsession—with keeping the green movement under its thumb and within its scope.What is absurd is that the real conservationists, who know we have to come to a sustainable level of use based on science, are crying tears of blood over this nonsense. We are putting this into an absolute limbo land. What will happen in the meantime while we keep forest areas like the Conondale Ranges locked up? What is going to happen to them? There is nobody providing firebreaks anymore. There is nobody ready to provide an adequate fire response if something does happen. That is appalling when we face one of the greatest fire threats ever. That is thanks to Peter Beattie and the Queensland government, the nonsense of the South-East Queensland Forest Agreement and the nonsense of the feigned support from members opposite of this Regional Forest Agreements Bill 2001. Under its fallacious South-East Queensland Forest Agreement Bill, the Queensland government promised that it would provide 100 extra forest management workers. That did not happen. It did not provide 100 extra workers. Rather, it took 100 workers away in its last budget. It is just a pathetic abomination. Whichever way you look at it—as a resource for timber production purposes or as a resource from an environmental standpoint—that resource is placed at risk because it may be burnt out as a result. While the Premier of Queensland was taking away 100 of the very jobs where he had promised an extra 100, I have to compliment the Minister for Forestry and Conservation in this place because he went ahead with FISAP grants to Queensland, despite the failure of that state to come up with a regional forest agreement. Near my electorate is the Australian Hardboards Ltd plant at Bundamba. Some $666,000 of that money went into that plant to provide an I-beam production facility. That will provide jobs in my electorate and in the neighbouring electorate of Oxley for some time to come. This minister is supporting the industry. It is absolutely disgusting that members opposite have done so much to try to stall this legislation and to try to make it unworkable because of the nonsense of this objects clause, providing worm holes for lawyers to take this agreement apart.The people of Australia expect political parties to be genuine in expressing their viewpoint. The Labor Party has not been genuine. It has only been genuine in serving its own needs. These regional forest agreements support communities that need to look to the future, that need some surety and a sense of direction from government. They are not getting it from the Australian Labor Party. They are being sold down the river, and I condemn those opposite for it.13:13:0031492Zahra, Christian, MPMr ZAHRA84HMcMillanALP00—I have been looking forward to making my contribution to the Regional Forest Agreements Bill 2001. We have heard all sorts of comments from those opposite today as to how regional forestry agreements are about people and communities, but these are the things which those opposite are not concerned about. Their view of forestry is all about making profits for companies and has nothing to do with those small country towns that depend on the timber industry for their livelihoods. Whenever there is any sort of discussion about forestry, those opposite give no recognition at all to how important the timber industry is to those communities which depend on it, those regional communities covered by the regional forestry agreements we are talking about today. Despite all of the rhetoric, all of the words and all of the shrill talk from the Minister for Forestry and Conservation, his period as minister for forestry will be remembered as a period of lost opportunity, a time when there was plenty of rhetoric around, plenty of words said and plenty of promises made, but nothing committed to, or done, to improve the lot of timber workers and their families.There has been discussion already in relation to who was present for the debate on the regional forestry agreements legislation. I am very happy to say where I was. Let me be very plain about this: I was not in the House. I was at a place called Swifts Creek in the Tambo Valley in far East Gippsland, working with timber workers and their communities to try to help them to recover from the closure of the timber mill in that town. I say to those opposite who shriek, yell, carry on and act like a pack of clowns that there was someone with me at that meeting in Swifts Creek. It was David Treasure.Honourable members interjecting—10000Kelly, De-Anne (Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER)Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mrs De-Anne Kelly)—Order! The chair has allowed interjection from both sides and does not need advice from those in the chamber. If members wish to raise a point of order, they should do so.YU5Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr Tanner—I do raise a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The interjections that have been coming from your right have far outweighed anything that occurred while the previous speaker was making his speech. I suggest that you call them to order. 10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MadamMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER—There have been a lot of interjections from both sides. I take the point, though, that the member for McMillan should be allowed to speak without too unreasonable a level of interjection.84HZahra, Christian, MPMr ZAHRA—I remind those opposite that when I went to that public meeting in Swifts Creek in the Tambo Valley to discuss the closure of the timber mill there was someone at that meeting who was also in politics: the then state member for Gippsland East, David Treasure—`hidden Treasure', as we used to refer to him. He was not standing with those people in Swifts Creek in relation to the closure of their timber mill. He was doing what Liberal-National party members opposite always do in these circumstances— being an apologist for the company. He said, `It is a restructure. These are just commercial prerogatives.' Too bad for the people of Swifts Creek! Too bad that they have lost the only employer in their town! This is the typical Liberal-National Party approach when it comes to the timber industry: `Let the companies do whatever they want. Let them carry out whatever restructures, commercial arrangements or dodgy deals they will come up with in relation to the way they structure their enterprises, and we will just be apologists for them.' That is the Liberal-National Party way. Let me give the member for Eden-Monaro and the member for McEwen, who thinks this is all so hysterical, a tip. David Treasure was not re-elected. Everyone thought there was no chance in a million years that the National Party would lose the seat of Gippsland East, but it did. The voters elected an Independent to that seat. Swifts Creek was pretty important in terms of kicking out David Treasure and changing voting patterns. People want representatives who will stand with them and their communities, deliver for their communities and understand the importance of the jobs associated with the timber industry in places such as Swifts Creek, parts of my electorate, parts of East Gippsland and other places in rural and regional Australia which depend on this industry.We have always had a different view. We have always understood the importance of regional forestry agreements to people and to communities—to contractors and people in small business who depend on the industry for their livelihood. It is a very different approach from that taken by our opponents, who are long on rhetoric, short on action and very keen to take the company's side when it comes down to whose interests will be looked after—those of the company, the workers, the communities or the small business people who depend on this industry for their livelihood. We understand very starkly that, when push comes to shove, we on this side of the House will be standing with those people, while those on the other side of the House will be standing with the timber companies, who seek to make a lot of money— and that is fair enough; Their objective is to make a lot of money. Our interest is with those workers, communities, small business people and contractors, because they are the people we seek to represent in this place.It should be noted that regional forestry agreements were first put in place by the Keating Labor government. They were a tremendous initiative and a way of breaking the deadlock which existed between competing interests in the industry and in the environment movement. They were a breakthrough. They were important to Australia's national development and incredibly important for the industry. We have seen a lot of progress and development take place since the Keating government introduced regional forestry agreements.We have had some discussion about Labor's position in relation to the regional forestry agreements legislation. Let me make it plain that we have always sought to have a bipartisan view in relation to regional forestry agreements legislation. We have understood the importance of having a bipartisan position in relation to this industry. It has been our political opponents, the Liberal and National parties, who have sought to exploit this issue and gain political advantage from it. Those people should be condemned for their pettiness in relation to this. They are long on rhetoric but short on bipartisanship. People in rural communities, especially those dependent on the timber industry for their livelihoods, do not want to hear the shrill rantings that we always get from the Minister for Forestry and Conservation. They do not want to see partisanship and attempts to score points off someone. They want to see us working together to try to get some benefits for their industry and to try to get value adding and growth—some of those high-skilled, high-wage jobs—into the timber industry.People want to be able to stay in rural and regional communities. They want to be able to stay in those places where the timber industry is strong and is an employer. And the only way we can make that happen is by making sure that we link resource security to job security and that we link all those things together into value adding, so we end up not only with the lowest possible price for our resource but also with a value adding chain which creates opportunity in those rural and regional communities. We on this side of the House have always offered a bipartisan position in relation to this legislation. All that members on the other side of the House have offered is a sneaky approach to try to get some sort of political advantage out of their approach to the forest and forest products sector. Plainly, people are fed up to the back teeth with the hysterical rantings and carry-on from people like the Minister for Forestry and Conservation, the member for McEwen and the member for Eden-Monaro—all those people who carry on about the forest industry but do not actually deliver on any of the things they talk a lot about. People want to see bipartisanship and cooperation. What we are offering the government, by supporting this legislation in the House today, is an opportunity to pass this legislation, which is very important to the people who rely on the timber industry for their livelihoods. We have made that offer to the government very deliberately. The shadow minister for forestry, Laurie Ferguson, made that very plain public commitment in March this year, I think. And here we are, ages since that happened. Months and months have passed since Laurie Ferguson, the member for Reid and shadow minister for forestry and conservation, made that public offer to help get this legislation through and to provide that resource security—that legislative underpinning—for this industry. The Minister for Forestry and Conservation has sat on his hands. Perhaps he has been distracted. Perhaps he has been busy with a few other things and acting on behalf of a few other interests. Maybe he has been too busy to focus on the main game. I suppose that is a question which other people are going to have to ask him.The thing that we are most concerned about is getting this legislation through. The member for Reid, the shadow minister for conservation and forestry, said that we are moving some very minor amendments in relation to this legislation which we think will improve it. It is really in the government's hands as to whether or not we see the passage of this legislation. There has been some discussion already about what the government's real priorities are in terms of its legislative program. Let me state plainly for the member for McEwen and the member for Eden-Monaro that, if this legislation is not passed, they will have to go back to their electorates and explain to them why the Liberal Party thought it was more important to pass a piece of legislation which guaranteed $15 million to the Liberal Party secretariat to help sort out its internal problems as opposed to dealing with this legislation which deals with the regional forestry agreements, which is what we are supposed to be discussing today. They will have to go back to their electorates and explain why that slimy piece of legislation was more important than the regional forestry agreements, which support so much employment in their electoral districts. They are the ones who will have to explain why their political party—the political party which promises so much and delivers so little—has prioritised this Liberal Party bill ahead of the regional forestry agreements legislation. They are the ones who will have to wear it in their electoral districts.Let me be very straightforward about this: people know that this government has had months and months to deal with this legislation. People know that the shadow minister for forestry and conservation has put on the public record Labor's commitment to passing this legislation. And people know the Minister for Forestry and Conservation too well. They understand that, if this bill is not passed in the Senate, it will be all about the Liberal and National parties seeking to be partisan in their approach and not doing the right thing by timber workers and their communities. The Liberal and National parties will have to go back and explain that to the timber mill owners; they will have to go back and explain it to the timber workers; they will have to go back and explain it to the forest contractors; they will have to go back and explain it to the transport operators in their electorates; and to those small business people who depend on this sector for their livelihoods. The Liberal and National parties should be put on notice in relation to this legislation. They do a lot of talking. They say, `Look, we are really with you; we're on your side,' but, in truth, we all know that they are not. Increasingly, people know that, although the Liberal and National parties always talk about their commitment, when it comes to delivering, when it comes to standing with people instead of the interests of companies, it is never those people who stand with timber workers; it is always those people on this side of the House who are prepared to stand up and be advocates for those people and not leave them in the lurch, which is exactly the approach that people want to see. People do not want to see more of the shrill rantings of the Liberal and National parties in relation to this matter. They want to see people deliver, and deliver in a bipartisan way. So members opposite have their opportunity. They have been talking about this bill. The Minister for Forestry and Conservation and I have exchanged some correspondence in relation to the regional forest agreements legislation. Whilst the Minister for Forestry and Conservation regularly stands up in this place and says, `I've never received anything from the member for McMillan in relation to forestry,' and whilst we all get a chuckle out of how ridiculous that makes him sound, the truth is that this is an old issue. I wrote to the minister in relation to the regional forestry agreements in Gippsland and the minister wrote back to me on 30 September 1999. He said:Dear Mr Zahra—I am surprised that he did not cross it out and write, `Dear Christian'—Thank you for your letter of 21 September and your support for the regional forestry agreement process in Gippsland.The minister ends the letter with this statement, which I think shows that the Liberal and National parties say one thing and they do something else:I agree with your view that this is an issue above the pettiness of partisan politics. What a joke! What a farce from a man who has epitomised the lowliness of this debate— a man who has done more during his term as Minister for Forestry and Conservation to end bipartisanship in relation to this issue than anyone else. This is from a man who has gone out of his way to pick fights with people, to condemn the industry, to condemn companies, to condemn timber workers and to go out of his way to insist to people that it is either his way or people get nothing; they get no support. No-one in those regional and rural communities which depend on the timber industry wants to see that. They want to see bipartisanship, they want to see cooperation and they want to see someone actually understand the importance of providing support to this sector, to all of those people who are employed in it or who draw their livelihood from it. They do not want to see a situation where someone who just happens to be the minister says, `You either do it my way or you get no money,' and too bad for the timber communities who suffer, too bad for those people who have to go without, too bad just because the Minister for Forestry and Conservation wants to get 100 per cent of his way, just like he wanted to get 100 per cent of his way in Western Australia and just like he wanted to get 100 per cent of his way in Queensland. Whilst the minister might enjoy that, it is not something that people want to see. People want to see some sense, some cooperation and some reasonableness in the way in which we deal with these issues. We on this side are very concerned about the administration of the FISAP program. Despite the fact that this money was allocated in 1995, some 75 per cent of it remained unallocated at the beginning of this year. The Forest Industry Structural Adjustment Program is an incredibly important program to those rural and regional communities that depend on the timber industry.We want to see that money made available to provide support to people who are affected by any changes in the timber industry and we also want to see some of that FISAP money used strategically to provide for investments in value adding, to see more of an effort in the timber industry in relation to value adding and the creation of high-value, high-skill jobs in the timber industry. We do not want to see a timber industry which survives from year to year; we want to see a timber industry which grows and prospers and which increases the amount of value adding it does. Whilst it might be funny and make for interesting commentary from time to time for the Minister for Forestry and Conservation to be in so much conflict so much of the time with state premiers and state ministers for forestry and conservation, it does not help those people and those communities on the ground. It does not help the timber industry one iota. It does not help them at all. It provides no relief at all for those families that depend on this industry for their livelihoods. Today I say to the minister: be true to what you said in that letter to me. Agree, like you said in that letter to me, that you think that this is an issue above the pettiness of partisan politics. If you believe that, you would expedite this process and see this as a great opportunity to pass the regional forestry agreements legislation and you would do everything you could to pass this through the Senate. Instead of prioritising a dirty, slimy, grubby Liberal Party funding piece of legislation which will deliver $15 million to Lynton Crosby at the national secretariat of the Liberal Party—SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr Tuckey—Madam Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. Already on two occasions the previous speaker from the opposition and this speaker have had it pointed out to them that this is a bill about trees, regional forest agreements and matters of that nature. If there is another bill in the Senate, there is some argument, I think, in the standing orders that you do not refer to those bills other than when that debate is going on. All that the spokesman is trying to do is give enough excuses why his party intends not to support this legislation. But I request that he be required to come back to the legislation to which he is speaking. 10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MadamMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER—The point of order is valid.84HZahra, Christian, MPMr ZAHRA—Perhaps I could talk about some timber companies—APT Projects Pty Ltd, Western Australian Plant Farms or Rimble Pty Ltd; these are companies which have an interest in the timber industry—but I will come back to my point, because it might be a little less uncomfortable for the Minister for Forestry and Conservation. What people want to see is an end to the rhetoric and they want to see some cooperation and some outcomes. This is a government which has done a great job in being partisan. It has done a great job in being divisive. It has done a great job in seeking to erode support from the timber industry. But it has not done a good job when it comes to supporting timberworkers. It has not done a good job when it comes to providing for any sort of security or plan for value adding for those people in the timber industry and forest products industry who depend on this industry for their livelihood. Whilst it might be funny sometimes for the Minister for Forestry and Conservation to get into fights with people and for the conflict to be in the newspapers—and he probably feels like a big man—it delivers nothing at all to those people in the timber industry who depend on this industry for their livelihood. (Time expired)13:33:0031496Nairn, Gary, MPMr NAIRNOK6Eden-MonaroLP10— We have just had 20 minutes of absolute rhetoric. Absolutely nothing was said about the Regional Forest Agreements Bill except for one single thing. The member for McMillan said only one thing about regional forest agreements and forestry in that 20 minutes of diatribe. He said that there should be more happening in the value adding area as opposed to the business exit area. His shadow minister, who spoke before him, castigated the minister for forestry by saying that we should not have moved funds from business exit to value adding. They cannot get even that part right. I will come back to the actions of the ALP, which are so hypocritical and so flip-flop it is not funny when it comes to this particular bill. The member for McMillan also declined to comment on the fact that on two occasions the ALP has rejected this legislation. He stands here saying, `Come on, get this legislation passed,' but he forgets to tell his electorate and he forgets to tell the people of Australia that twice over the last few years the ALP has rejected this legislation. When we do get around to voting, he scurries away and does not organise a pair so that he will be listed as voting against it; he does not even have the honour to do that. His poor old friend the member for Braddon and also the member for Lyons were left in here to vote against it; otherwise they would have been thrown out of the party. They were left holding the bag. The member for Braddon and the member for Lyons are constantly left holding the bag. They did not even know about amendments that their own party was going to move on this legislation yesterday. The shadow minister was behind the scenes quietly putting forward amendments for the Senate to deal with. He did not bring the amendments in here. He said, `These amendments are nothing, really.' If they are nothing, why doesn't he bring them into the House? Why aren't they part of this debate here? `Oh, no,' he says, `we will put that in the Senate.' There is another agenda in that. We have the member for McMillan saying, `We have to get this passed,' but in the Senate we will see the ALP doing some sort of deal with Bob Brown—who would never want to see a single tree knocked down anywhere in the country by legitimate means— to possibly postpone this bill and then find some way to say, `It's the government's fault.' The member for McMillan said nothing. In 20 minutes he said nothing other than that aspect I just mentioned with regard to value adding and business exits. The member for McMillan also said that RFAs were first approved under the Keating government. Not a single RFA was signed under the Keating government. He talked about all the development that took place under the Keating government. That is absolute rubbish. Under the Keating government, and the Hawke government before it, hundreds of timber workers were thrown out of their jobs and communities were virtually closed down. That is what occurred under them.JT4Bailey, Fran, MPFran Bailey—They were here protesting.OK6Nairn, Gary, MPMr NAIRN—As the member for McEwen reminds me, all the trucks were lined up around Parliament House, protesting. That was under a Labor government, when all the workers were getting thrown out. I am not sure which school the member for McMillan was in at the time, but he obviously did not get around to reading the newspapers to work out that what was happening under a Labor government at that time was closing the industry down. It has only been under the coalition government that we have finally got some RFAs signed. We have seen some sensible ones in some cases, but not the best results that I would have liked to have seen in other ones. Let me just elaborate on that in relation to my electorate of Eden-Monaro.This legislation is all about guaranteeing the RFAs that subsequently have been signed. The first RFA that was signed—I have spoken on this many times in this House because this legislation keeps coming back and the ALP keeps refusing it—was the Eden RFA. That was a prime example of how the ALP played political science with the RFA rather than practical science. This is what the RFA process is all about: it is not a political process; it is a scientific process. We went right through a scientific process. We had all the various science related people lined up doing all their work. We were going through that in a very strategic way, bit by bit. We got about 75 to 80 per cent of the way through the scientific process and what happened? Bob Carr walked into the parliament in New South Wales and put through legislation locking up all the forest areas into national parks. It was a fait accompli; the RFA became totally useless. What was there to sign? There was nothing to sign any more because the New South Wales government basically walked away from the RFA process and put through legislation locking everything up. He was virtually saying, `That's it. Bad luck!' If the minister of the day, Minister Tuckey, had sat back and accepted that, we would have lost a lot more jobs than had already been lost out of the Eden area. But we said, `No. You have defied the RFA process. You have passed legislation locking forests all up into national parks and as a consequence there are going to be even bigger job losses than we have already seen there.' We haggled with them and haggled with them. Finally they made some amendments and we were able to save a few jobs. One would think that Bob Carr would have learnt his lesson. It was exposed how he had gone outside the RFA process by putting that legislation through and totally ignoring the practical science. Along came the southern RFA, which covers the other part of my electorate. We went right through the scientific process of that as well. This time we actually got to the end of it; we did not get to only 75 to 80 per cent of the way through before Carr raced off and put through legislation.With respect to the southern RFA, we actually got right through the scientific process and down to final negotiations between the federal government and the state government. The federal government and the state government were getting pretty close to the mark. We believed that there needed to be a bit more timber available than the state government did, but there were not huge differences. In fact, the state government officials finally decided on what they were going to put to the government as their position. It was not quite what the Commonwealth wanted, but it was reasonably close. They put it forward with all the scientific evidence as to why it was a good result. And what occurred? Bob Carr just pulled out a big black pen and said, `No, knock quite a few thousand cubic metres off that.' There was a scientific reason behind that: a political scientific reason. He got out the black pen and put it through what was going to be available.SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr Tuckey—About 10,000 cubic metres.OK6Nairn, Gary, MPMr NAIRN—That is right. As the minister reminds me, it was close to 10,000 cubic metres less than his officials and all the science said it was possible for a sustainable industry in the southern RFA to produce. At the stroke of a pen, Carr knocked off 10,000 cubic metres, which involves a lot of jobs. Earlier in the debate, we heard the sanctimonious comments of the member for McMillan about the loss of jobs. What would he know? I am sure he was not racing up from Victoria to say to Bob Carr, `I stand for looking after our rural communities. I stand for not allowing any jobs to be lost. I stand behind the timber workers,' as he said earlier. What a load of garbage! Instead, those opposite watched the timber workers go straight into the Centrelink office and onto the dole. That is what the Labor Party's policy on timber was. That is exactly what was about to happen in my electorate with the southern RFA.Fortunately, once again the minister for forestry stood his ground and said, `There's no way in the world we will sign an RFA when all the science says one thing but Bob Carr at the stroke of a pen knocks off 10,000 cubic metres and along with it a couple of hundred jobs.' Wilson Tuckey would not agree to that. We held back the FISAP money. Why wouldn't we hold back the FISAP money under those circumstances and say that we would provide money for business assistance when the New South Wales government came clean and did something in accordance with the RFA process, not in accordance with some political process? We held back, negotiated and said, `No way.' We managed to get back about 5,000 cubic metres—SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr Tuckey—Six thousand.OK6Nairn, Gary, MPMr NAIRN—We managed to get back close to 6,000 cubic metres of the 10,000 cubic metres lost. We wanted the full 10,000 cubic metres. In fact, we wanted a little bit more than the 10,000 in the first place. We were prepared to accept 10,000, but we dragged back 6,000. Everybody would agree that every thousand cubic metres means 17 jobs. By digging our heels in and saying, `No way, Bob Carr,' we were working not with political science but with practical science and real science, because we wanted that extra wood. We finally got the 6,000 cubic metres back and basically saved 100 jobs in my electorate. If we had sat back and let the ALP do what it wanted, which is what the member for McMillan seems to think we should have done, another 100 jobs would have been lost in my electorate. That is 100 jobs too many to lose, because the area cannot afford to lose those jobs.We would have had a good balance, but this whole issue has been totally taken over by politics for far too long. For over a decade, it has been politics all the way. Agreements are reached and then governments back off and do something else. The only people who are hurt are those people in the timber industry and the towns that only survive because those industries are there. We have ended up with RFAs that we are accepting. It is now crucial that this legislation is passed, because this legislation guarantees those RFAs. The history of the ALP in relation to this legislation is absolutely pathetic. Twice they have knocked it back. They have constantly played politics with it and flip-flopped from one position to another. They say they will support it and then they say they will not. Their members run around the forests saying to the workers, `We are with you,' and then they come back here and knock off the legislation. This has been going on forever in that sense. In the 1996 federal election campaign the previous member for Eden-Monaro was a prime suspect for doing that sort of thing. He used to race around to the timber workers and say, `I am a great mate of the timber workers.' Then he would whiz up the coast somewhere and talk to the extreme green movement and say, `I am with you.' In the 1996 campaign he actually got caught out, because he wrote a letter to the timber workers saying one thing and another letter to the extreme Greens saying the complete opposite on the same subject. We happened to get hold of those two letters. It was a bit embarrassing for him that he was saying one thing to one group and something totally different to the other. That is exactly what the current shadow minister for forestry is doing. After rejecting this legislation twice, as we get closer to a federal election he is running around saying, `We actually really support this. We want to help the minister out and we want to get this legislation through.' He goes along to Timber Communities Australia and says, `We have to have bipartisan support for this legislation, and we agree.' But the ALP have stalled it all the way. Not only have they stalled it; they have knocked it off on two occasions. This is about the fourth time I have had to speak on this particular legislation, either on the legislation specifically or on the amendments. I do not want to have to speak on it again. We need this legislation to pass through the parliament. The legislation, as put forward by the government, ensures that the regional forestry agreements can be in place.The process in relation to the FISAP money, which is going out to help investment, is correct. The applications have come in and are being assessed. There is sufficient money there to cover the applications that have been put forward—and they are good applications relating to business development and value adding in the region. If we are to have companies investing many millions of dollars in further value adding in the hardwood timber industry, we have to have security of resource. The only way we can have security of resource is to have security of the regional forestry agreements that have been signed. We cannot have them overturned, as occurred under previous agreements. I give the example of Harris Daishowa in my electorate. On their wall are lovely copies of agreements, signed by Bob Hawke, and by Nick Greiner of the New South Wales state government, setting out what is guaranteed. Those agreements were not worth the paper they were printed on. Can members imagine what overseas investors would have thought? They would have thought, `I have a piece of paper signed by the Prime Minister and by the Premier.' They would have thought they were pretty right to access a certain resource for a certain period of time. They would have thought they were pretty right with that sort of commitment. They would have gone in and made many millions of dollars of investment as a result of that. The agreement was not worth the paper it was printed on. It was undermined immediately—undermined by pressure on the ALP of the day from the extreme Greens.This legislation is so important because the existing agreements could be torn up tomorrow by another government. We know the way in which the ALP have flip-flopped on this issue. If they ever managed to get into government, no doubt they would be backing off at a million miles an hour on some of those agreements. The actions of some of the state Labor governments are enough to show that that is what would occur. This legislation must be passed. We must get it through the parliament this week to ensure that it becomes law, so that security is there and the investment that many companies are willing to make in my area is made soon. 13:49:0031500Sidebottom, Sid, MPMr SIDEBOTTOM849BraddonALP00—The municipality of Latrobe was recently amalgamated into the electorate of Braddon. As the minister and those who have visited my region in north-west Tasmania may be aware, at Latrobe there is an excellent project called the Axemen's Hall of Fame and timberworks. It truly reflects the traditional and ongoing importance of the wood, paper and forestry industry in my neck of the woods in Tasmania. Tasmania signed an RFA in 1997. From the initial meanderings into this area commenced under the Labor government, in 1997 Tasmania signed under the Liberal government of Premier Tony Rundle. I noticed recently that, as he announced his retirement, he said that he regarded that as one of his crowning achievements.The RFA in Tasmania is very important in securing certainty with respect to resource and investment and the maintenance of an ecologically and environmentally sustainable industry. I wholeheartedly support the RFA process and I support the Regional Forest Agreements Bill 2001. I ask the Minister for Forestry and Conservation and members opposite to reconsider, in the spirit in which they are meant, the amendments that were put to them which related to those areas of the bill that were regarded as insufficient.What perturbs me about this issue is that some members opposite spoke with me over two years ago about the RFA bills and their processes. We all support our forest, paper and wood industries; we all support our timber communities. We are very concerned that those communities have a sustainable future, that our environment is protected and that we can look forward to a future that involves downstream processing and value adding. We share those aspirations, just as we always have.What tends to divide us is the term used by the previous speaker, the member for Eden-Monaro—that people are playing politics with this issue. We on this side are accused of playing politics with it; we accuse the other side of playing politics with it. Either we are all right or we are all wrong. That is what concerns me about this matter. I can make out a case quite clearly to show that members opposite have been playing politics with this matter, for whatever reasons they deem are important to them. I can take members through the process that I saw and was part of, with all its problems, warts and all, in trying to come to an agreement by which we can all live so that our industries and our communities will be sustained into the future.An RFA bill was introduced in June 1998 with little consultation with stakeholders. It was passed in the House of Representatives with Labor's support but was suspended because of the 1998 elections. And how quickly those three years have gone. It was reintroduced in March 1999, and I took part in that debate, as did members opposite. It was passed with Labor's support, but it was not until August 1999 that it was introduced into the Senate.In September 1999 the Senate passed the bill with amendments. That is the right of a democratic process. We do not get it all right all the time. We have a right, as democratically elected members of this parliament, to peruse legislation, to seek amendments and to try to work through the legislation with its proponents to come to some form of consensus or agreement. That is how we do things, instead of pointing the finger every time and saying, `Because you don't agree with us, you're no good,' or `You're black instead of white.' It is ridiculous, but that was the process.In October 1999 it was returned to the House of Representatives with amendments, as I said, but was rejected by the government. On 9 December the minister moved to lay aside the bill. Then another year went by. So where was the bill between December 1999 and September 2001? Why is it that, during the last minutes of this parliament, we have the bill before us? Why has it taken this long?VH4McArthur, Stewart, MPMr McArthur—Are you going to support it? 849Sidebottom, Sid, MPMr SIDEBOTTOM—A bill I was debating with other members in this House in 1999 has not been seen again until today, two years later. I heard someone on the other side of the House scurrying about busily and asking, `Are you going to support it?' Yes, I am going to support it. That is why I am here. But why has the government waited until the last minute to try to again ram this legislation through, and expect it to go to the other house and have it rammed through there, when they know that Australians want to debate this bill, they have a right to have this bill debated, and that should be done? So what is going on here? It is either incompetence on the part of the minister, who is at the table, or it is testimony to his inability to deliver for the industry and the timber communities within his own coalition parties. Reference has been made to Labor machinations. The members opposite point the finger at the ALP. I can equally point the finger at the Liberal-National coalition. Talk about playing politics and hypocrisy! What about the resolution that was passed recently in the Senate? The minister's members supported Senator Brown and his resolution on old-growth forests. The minister can laugh. I did not hear much from him a couple of days later—SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr Tuckey—Yes, you did.849Sidebottom, Sid, MPMr SIDEBOTTOM—You do not have control over what is going on in your own party, so do not point the finger at us.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Order! The honourable member for Braddon will direct his remarks through the chair. 849Sidebottom, Sid, MPMr SIDEBOTTOM—Indeed. Mr Speaker, that was no reflection on you. I say to the minister that pointing the finger at the ALP will not mitigate the blame for the incompetence that he has shown in the process of delivering this RFA bill. The fact that two years later we are standing here with two days notice to deal with this important legislation is a reflection on the minister and his incompetence on this issue.I said before that the RFA is very important to my community on the north-west coast of Tasmania and, indeed, to Tasmania as a whole. Instead of the minister coming to Tasmania and picking fights with people at public meetings, as he did on his last rant and rave through my state, he ought to deal with the issues that he is meant to be dealing with as a minister of the Crown. In Tasmania, we have a world-class forest reserve system: 40 per cent of Tasmania is reserved for conservation; 39 per cent of Tasmania's forests are reserved; through our RFA on old-growth forests, 86 per cent of our public land is reserved; 95 per cent of Tasmania's wilderness is reserved. The forest industry in Tasmania employs more than 8,200 people. As the minister knows, the industry contributes sales of over $1.1 billion to the state's economy. The industry has reinvested over $190 million a year for the past four years. But let us not kid ourselves. The RFA is about offering certitude to an industry and offering a sustainable environment and protection for important environmental areas of our state and Australia. We should be talking about jobs, and the jobs that I am talking about do not have to rely on a minister trying to ram through RFA legislation which he has had in his bag for three years and which he has waited until the last minute to deal with. We want value adding, and that is why these RFAs will exist.We also put this on notice: the RFAs are important, but they should be about leading to downstream value adding and jobs. The minister should not play with the jobs of Tasmanians. He should not play with the forest jobs of people throughout Australia by hanging on to this bag of legislation and trying to ram it through this place, because he knows that people will not accept it. If the minister wants to pick a fight, he should at least have the gumption to come out and not scurry around at the end of the sittings of parliament.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 2 p.m., the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 101A.Ministerial Arrangements3150114:00:0031501Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I inform the House that the Minister for Foreign Affairs will be absent from question time for the remainder of this week. He is travelling to Washington for consultations with the US administration. He will also visit New York to see the Secretary-General, visit the site of the World Trade Centre and have discussions with the Mayor of New York, Rudolph Giuliani. The Minister for Trade will answer questions on his behalf. Questions Without Notice315023150214:00:0031502Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to his claim yesterday that the GST had nothing to do with the loss of 2,000 jobs in retailers Coles Myer and Daimaru. Prime Minister, have you seen the following comment from Gerry Harvey today:The GST was a much bigger problem for retail sales than the terrorist attacks, Ansett, HIH, OneTel and 10 other disasters you could name.Have you also seen the analysis by the ABC's Peter Martin showing that the major retail growth area has been in food, but that department stores are down 12 per cent, clothing is down 14 per cent and household goods are down eight per cent? Have you seen this comment from him:Where the GST does hit, spending has been way down for more than a year now.Prime Minister, why won't you admit that the GST has been a big factor in causing Australia's jobs crisis, a crisis you are doing nothing about?31502Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I am aware that Mr Harvey has made some comments. I have not read them, but I will. I took the opportunity overnight of having a little research and work done in relation to the claim being run by the Leader of the Opposition and others that in some way the GST has done great damage to the retail industry, and particularly the claims made in relation to Daimaru and Coles Myer. I have a number of responses to those claims. I do not accept them. They are wrong, and I believe that the responses that I will put on the table today will go to that very issue.I will quote first Mr Tim Piper, speaking on behalf of the Retail Traders Association on the John Fane ABC program this morning. He said that there was an impact 14 months ago when it was introduced, but he then went on to say:I think it is a long bow now to stretch to say that we are still involved in that sort of dilemma. I think it is more the economic climate and people changing the way in which they are spending. People are spending more money now in lifestyle spending, hospitality as you mentioned earlier, communication. The amount of money that we spend on the Internet and mobile communications all affects the ability to spend in the traditional retail area.The strongest possible argument in refutation of what the Leader of the Opposition is putting forward is that, if the GST were responsible for weaker household spending, by fundamental definition it ought to show up in weaker consumption of services, because services were not previously subject to a GST. However, the national accounts show that, in the year since the GST was introduced, growth in consumer spending on services has been stronger than it was in the year before the GST was introduced. I do not hear that from the Leader of the Opposition or from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. The other things you do not hear from the Leader of the Opposition when there is selective analysis of retail spending are that, since January 2001, total retail spending in value terms has grown by five per cent; food retailing has gone up by 4.2 per cent; department stores by 2.8 per cent; clothing and soft good retailing has gone down by 0.2 per cent, but it did go up by 21 per cent in July 2000; household good retailing is up by 9.2 per cent; recreational good retailing is up by 0.6 per cent; other retailing is up by 7.8 per cent; and hospitality and services are up by 6.6 per cent. These figures capture the whole spectrum of retail spending in the Australian community.I know that the Leader of the Opposition is desperately trying to grab hold of some news to try and present himself in some kind of positive light. He would be better employed spending his time proposing some positive solutions instead of trying to grab hold of every tiny morsel of negative news and trying to exploit it to the disadvantage of the Australian community. That is not the kind of tactic he ought to follow. I have just been handed a copy of what Mr Gerry Harvey really said. While the next question is being asked, I will take the opportunity to read it and, if I can give the House any more information, I will. 3150314:07:0031503Bailey, Fran, MPFRAN BAILEYJT4McEwenLP10—My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Treasurer, would you advise the House of the final budget outcome for 2000-01 released this morning by the government?31503Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I thank the honourable member for McEwen for her question. I can advise the House that the final budget outcome for the year ended 30 June 2001 showed an underlying cash surplus of $5.6 billion. This is the fourth cash surplus outcome under this government's first five years of government. The cash outcome of $5.6 billion surplus came out as stronger than was put down at budget time and stronger than was expected in May of this year. Principally, it was led by higher revenue from company tax, reflecting higher than expected company profitability and also fewer companies taking up the option to defer company tax payments. It was also helped by a reduction in expenses, principally a reduction in the numbers expected in May of this year of people claiming or receiving unemployment benefits.The final budget outcome tables the five budget outcomes under this government. In the five years prior to the election of this government the outcomes were as follows: deficit $10 billion, deficit $13 billion, deficit $17 billion, deficit $17 billion and deficit $11 billion. For the last two of those, with cumulative deficits of $23 billion, the finance minister responsible was none other than the now Leader of the Opposition. The government took that budget deficit of $10 billion, halved it in its first year to a deficit of $5 billion and has now produced four consecutive underlying surpluses. They are as follows: $1.1 billion surplus, $4.1 billion surplus, $12.6 billion surplus and $5.6 billion surplus. In the last five Labor budgets, Commonwealth debt was run up by $80 billion. Over the last five outcomes under this government, $57 billion of that has now been repaid. We have now repaid about six-eighths—three-quarters—of the damage of the Labor Party in its last five budgets. The Commonwealth debt position has now been reduced to 5.8 per cent of GDP—which is one of the strongest positions in the world— and has strengthened Australia's financial position going into uncertain world events. That is much better, of course, than carrying the 20 per cent of debt to GDP ratio that was the position when the government was elected.Mr Speaker, you might think upon this outcome that you would hear from the opposition that they supported the strengthening of the Australian budget situation, particularly in the light of international events. But we had no statement of support for the effort that the government has put in place, just the usual opportunistic deceit as the Labor Party sought to extract whatever cheap political advantage they could from this situation, led on this occasion by the Leader of the Opposition, who was even more irresponsible—I know it is hard to believe—than the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. It is a big call. After the fourth consecutive underlying surplus budget outcome and after five deficits in a row cumulating $80 billion worth of debt, the Leader of the Opposition chose himself to go out and say:What Costello and Howard have been up to all this year is weakening the Australian budgetary position.This from a man who produced two outcomes cumulating $23 billion worth of deficits when, in the last two budgets, this government has cumulated $18 billion worth of surpluses. After beginning his comments by complaining that the government was weakening the budgetary position, he finished up by calling for additional spending in relation to the tourism industry. In the curious half world of self-delusion in which he now lives, he starts his press conference calling for a stronger budget and ends by calling for more spending. Today it was more spending in the tourism industry; earlier in the week it was $200 million for Ansett; earlier in the week again it was $100 million for the Commonwealth dental health program; earlier in the week before it was underwriting the debts of Ansett, and then it was rolled backwards. He has a policy of increased expenditure, less revenue, bigger surplus, and he is against weakening the budget position! ZD4Howard, John, MPMr Howard—Why didn't you think of that?CT4Mr COSTELLO—Why didn't we think of that? We have sat around here for five years, when all you have got to do is spend more, tax less, you will have a bigger budget surplus and you cannot be accused of weakening the budget position! We have heard it all in this self-delusional world where he moves in and out of consciousness of his omissions of the past. Because he has not faced them in the past, he cannot face them in the future—no ideas, no plans, irresponsibility, cheap political opportunism.3150414:14:0031504Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question is to the Treasurer, and I refer to his self-congratulation over the final budget outcome for last year. Treasurer, isn't that the same year that saw an explosion in the number of business bankruptcies, more than 30 per cent up on the same time as the year before? Isn't it true that, according to John Petty, the vice-president of Australia's peak accounting body, another wave of collapses is `inevitable because of the size of the organisations that are struggling and the impact of this cumulatively on where they are coming out of the GST issue'. Treasurer, instead of smirking about last year's budget, why don't you admit that there is a job crisis in Australia, a crisis that you are doing absolutely nothing about?31504Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—If the member for Hotham had listened to what I had said or had read the final budget outcome, one of the reasons why the final budget outcome was much greater than we expected was that corporate profitability was higher than expected.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—Higher taxes.CT4Mr COSTELLO—He interjects, `Higher taxes.' Let us just go through it. When this government was elected, the company tax rate was 36 per cent. It had been 33 per cent but, after the 1993 election when Labor took away the tax cuts, it went up to 36 per cent. We had greater than expected company tax revenue on a lower company tax rate—not on a 36 per cent company tax rate, because that was cut last year to 34 per cent and on 1 July it was cut further to 30 per cent. There were increased company tax collections on a lower company tax rate. That was the whole point that was made in relation to corporate profitability. I said that in the curious half-world that you inhabit—84SO'Byrne, Michelle, MPMs O'Byrne—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Under standing order 145, relevance, I wish the Treasurer would actually answer the question about bankruptcies.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Treasurer was asked a question about bankruptcy. He was talking about company tax. It seemed to me to be entirely relevant.CT4Mr COSTELLO—The point I am making is that corporate profitability was much greater than expected. Taking all of the companies of Australia into account, it was much greater than expected. Not only was it up, it was much greater than expected—and on a lower company tax rate. If you have a lower rate but more revenue, what does it tell you? It tells you that corporate profitability across the whole corporate sector was very strong, as in fact it was. We were asked about employment.DT4Crean, Simon, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has asked his question. The Treasurer is responding.CT4Mr COSTELLO—We were asked the question about the effect on employment.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The point of order goes to relevance. It was not about corporate taxation and it was not about employment; it was about bankruptcies. Now get him to answer it!10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—It is entirely relevant for the Treasurer to refer to corporate profitability when answering a question about bankruptcies.CT4Mr COSTELLO—I was talking about what the government is doing about employment. I think that is the case. The pack that has been written will show that I was asked about employment.DT4Crean, Simon, MPCT4Mr COSTELLO—Yes, it was. I was asked about employment. This government does take seriously the question of employment. I think unemployment stands at about 6.8 per cent, which is too high but is much better than the 8.5 per cent when the government was elected. In its last five years, the lowest the Labor Party had been able to get the unemployment rate to was 8.5 per cent. DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—That is not right.CT4Mr COSTELLO—I hate to tell them, but we can remind them how high they got it. They got it as high as 11.3 per cent.DT4Crean, Simon, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Order! For three years I have extended a great deal of grace, appropriately, to senior officers in this parliament. Currently it is being abused. On every occasion when I warn the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, he abides by the standing orders! I do not expect to have to take that action, but I will if he continues to defy the chair.CT4Mr COSTELLO—The government takes employment seriously. When it came to office, unemployment was at 8.5 per cent and is now at 6.8 per cent. Over the last five years, a net total of 880,000 jobs have been created. If it could have been higher than 880,000 jobs, nobody would have been more pleased about it than us—and probably nobody would have been less pleased than the Labor Party. We think it is important to continue to create jobs in Australia, and 880,000 have been created in the last five years. Labor's unemployment rate of 8.5 per cent has been brought down to 6.8 per cent. What do we have to do to create further employment in Australia? Let me name them. Economic growth is important. What is important for economic growth? Low interest rates—low housing mortgage interest rates and low business overdraft rates. What is also good for economic growth? Low taxation. One of the best things you can do to promote companies that create jobs is to lower the company tax rate, which this government is doing.What else is important to create jobs? Taking taxes off our exports is one of the best things that we could have possibly done. I say to the farmers of Australia and the rural areas of Australia that, in a world downturn, they have performed magnificently. For the first time in their lives, they have had taxes taken off their exports under the new taxation system. What else can we do to promote jobs in Australia? Getting rid of Labor's unfair dismissal laws would be a big step forward. People are reluctant to put on employees if they are going to be sued by trade unions or held up in the courts under unfair dismissal laws.What else would be good for creating jobs in this country? The reduction of union power would be very helpful. The end of unionists running through companies conducting smash and grab raids, as they did in Victoria through Skilled Engineering, and an end to trade union officials who prop up, fund and puppeteer the Labor Party would be good for the creation of jobs in Australia. After 880,000 jobs, we believe there is further work to go. We are dedicated to doing it. We have in place the policies which will do it. The best thing that could happen would be a return of a coalition government. DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order on relevance. Where is the bankruptcy response coming from?10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I noted the question. The question asked about bankruptcies and also referred to a job crisis. It was in that context that the Treasurer's answer was entirely relevant. 3150514:23:0031505Kelly, De-Anne, MPMrs DE-ANNE KELLYFK6DawsonNP10—My question is addressed to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Transport and Regional Services. Would the minister inform the House of progress in the government's policy to improve Australia's waterfront productivity—a big issue for exporting electorates like Dawson? Is the minister aware of any alternative policies in this area?31505Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPMinister for Transport and Regional Services10—I thank the honourable member for her question. The Treasurer was talking about measures that could help create further jobs. There is no doubt that, in an export economy like ours, efficient transport and efficient waterfront performance help create Australian jobs. I am delighted to be able to tell the House that the improvement in the national average crane rate in this country continues unabated. The latest Waterline records that for the third quarter in a row the average national crane rate has improved—to 26.8 containers per hour for the June quarter. This is a record of unbroken improvements over a very considerable time. I note that the Minister for Defence has a certain interest in this and smiles approvingly. Indeed, we join you in rejoicing over a better performance, which undoubtedly helps our export sector, helps create further jobs, channels further prosperity back into rural and regional areas and helps the broader economy. That improving performance has to be contrasted with what the ALP left behind: an average crane rate across the nation of 18.5 per hour; and an international reputation as being unreliable and inefficient, something that reflected very poorly upon the nation. In terms of alternative policy approaches, the ALP have never moved on this issue from their basic premise, which was that which fell in line with the union movement, when they said, I think very patronisingly, in relation to Australian workers that it was unrealistic and unworkable to expect the Australian waterfront workers to be able to deliver anything like the objective of 25 container movements an hour set by the then minister. `Un-Australian,' they said, `It can't be done in Australia.' The waterfront workers of this country have shown that it can be done, and their performance continues to improve. What an appalling reflection it is upon the ALP that, in their narrow commitment to the interests as set out by the union movement—preserving inefficient workers' arrangements on the waterfront—they were prepared to blight the future of so many export industries that needed an efficient waterfront.3150614:26:0031506Irwin, Julia, MPMrs IRWIN83ZFowlerALP00—My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, I refer to your claim yesterday that your GST had nothing to do with the loss of 2,000 jobs in retailing. Have you seen comments by Greengate Supermarket owner Glen Jones that the GST is pushing smaller traditional corner shops to the wall and that it was `an absolute nightmare' balancing the books? Have you seen a recent BIS Shrapnel study that shows that one in eight corner stores have closed?10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Fowler will come to her question.9V5Pyne, Chris, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Sturt is warned!83ZMrs IRWIN—I think he likes the colour of my jacket.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Fowler will come to her question or I will deal with her.83ZMrs IRWIN—Prime Minister, have you seen a recent BIS Shrapnel study that shows that one in eight corner stores have closed?10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Fowler will come to her question.83ZMrs IRWIN—That is 1,000 corner stores across Australia.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Fowler will come to her question.83ZMrs IRWIN—Prime Minister, why won't you admit that the GST has been a big factor in causing Australia's job crisis—a crisis you are doing nothing about?31506Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I thank the member for Fowler for her question—I really do—because it enables me to try to put this very important issue of unemployment into context. Unemployment in Australia is too high. In the 5½ years that I have been Prime Minister, you will not have found me say other than that I would have always liked the unemployment rate to have been lower. We would all like it to be lower, irrespective of whether we sit on this side of the House or the other. Against the background of policies which have generated almost 900,000 new jobs over the last 5½ years, our unemployment rate is now 6.8 per cent compared with 8.5 per cent. If you say that 6.8 per cent is a crisis, the 13 years that you were in government represented economic Armageddon compared with that.I did something today that I do not always do: I read in full the editorial in the Melbourne Age. That editorial exhorted both sides of politics to have a vigorous, robust, good, open and honest debate about the future of our country over the weeks ahead. I am very happy to engage the Labor Party, whatever may occur in the weeks ahead, in a good, open and robust debate about the state of the economy. We could both start with having a sense of proportion about the challenges that face our country. Yes, we can agree that unemployment is too high. No, we should not assert that, if you have reduced the unemployment rate from 8.5 per cent to 6.8 per cent and you have generated almost 900,000 new jobs, that does not represent the making of some progress. To make that suggestion is, of course, to immediately depart from any sense of proportion and to fail the first test imposed by that editorial. Over the last couple of days the Labor Party has raised a whole lot of questions about jobs. The thrust of that has been that in some way over the last year, particularly since the introduction of the GST, there has been an oncoming job crisis in Australia.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—It has.ZD4Mr HOWARD—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition says that it has. What I did overnight, among other things, was consult the latest ABS figures on labour markets, not only in aggregate but also around Australia, because we are hearing a line coming from the opposition about regional unemployment. I am concerned about levels of regional unemployment, and they do vary. You will find that quite a number of the government's policies are directed towards dealing with the problems of regional unemployment. The latest ABS figures on regional labour markets reveal that, over the year to August 2001, metropolitan employment grew by one per cent while non-metropolitan employment rose by 0.5 per cent. Within these figures, it is apparent that some regions are in fact doing better than their metropolitan counterparts. For example, over the year to August 2001, non-metropolitan employment growth was fastest in Victoria, rising by two per cent, compared with employment growth of 1.5 per cent in Melbourne. Non-metropolitan employment increased by 1.9 per cent in Western Australia, compared with employment growth of 0.6 per cent in Perth. Non-metropolitan employment rose by 1.3 per cent in Queensland, compared with employment growth of 0.8 per cent in Brisbane.The same pattern is apparent when you look at the movement in the unemployment rates, which is, of course, the other side of the coin. The relevance of those figures is that, so far from the last year—having been the year of the introduction of the GST— bringing about the economic doom and disaster and the mayhem that has been alleged by the Labor Party in their desperate clutch for some kind of political issue to gain some traction, the reality has been absolutely different. As I said to the member for Fowler, we do have an unemployment rate that is still too high. It is lower than what it was when we came to office. It would be even lower if we could get rid of the stupid unfair dismissal laws that we have at the present time, and it would be even lower if there were not the abuses of union power, to which my colleagues the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business and the Treasurer have referred. In conclusion, I did undertake to the House to investigate the remarks of Mr Gerry Harvey. Can I give a progress report, Mr Speaker? 10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Prime Minister is able to add to an answer.ZD4Mr HOWARD—It is only a progress report, because I have not been shown all of his transcripts. One of the things he said in an interview this morning was:We've got a relatively low unemployment rate.very interesting—We've got a very weak dollar, which helps us. Our exports are fantastic. The country part of Australia has never been as good as it is at the moment. I breed cattle; I breed sheep.No wonder he said that. He continues:We've never had prices as good as this. I breed horses. Our horse sale prices are at record levels, so there's a lot of room for optimism out there.I undertake to the House that, if I get further informative transcripts, I will give another progress report; meanwhile, I am part heard.3150714:34:0031507Barresi, Phillip, MPMr BARRESIZJ6DeakinLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. Would the minister inform the House what the government has done to boost employment? Is the minister aware of any alternative policies and how those policies could destroy jobs, specifically for young people? 31508Abbott, Tony, MPMr ABBOTTEZ5WarringahLPMinister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business10—I thank the member for Deakin for his question and also for the outstanding job he does as chairman of the coalition employment committee. This government has delivered more jobs, higher pay and lower taxes to Australian workers. That is a trifecta of benefits that have been delivered to Australian workers, thanks to the Howard government. The government cannot stop companies making mistakes, but what we can do is try to remove the structural impediments to more jobs in our economy.Over the last couple of days we have seen the economic vultures opposite rejoicing in a bit of bad news from the retail sector. For the record, let me say that there are 62,000 more jobs in retail today than there were 12 months ago when the GST was brought in. Let me also point out that Labor's policies would produce an unemployment cataclysm in the retail sector by abolishing youth wages. They abolished youth wages in 1993, and the policy they adopted last year to introduce comprehensive age discrimination legislation would do it again. There are 405,000 young Australians employed in retail, and the Australian Retail Association says that there would be 220,000 jobs lost in retail if a Beazley government introduced comprehensive age discrimination legislation. On top of that, Labor wants a new tax on jobs, a new payroll tax, to fund workers' entitlements. We had in March the member for Barton, the shadow Attorney-General—Opposition members interjecting—EZ5Mr ABBOTT—Yes. In March, we had the shadow Attorney-General calling for a 0.6 per cent payroll tax to fund entitlements. That was in a statement to the Illawarra Mercury on 19 March. Then we had the Leader of the Opposition calling for a 0.1 per cent payroll tax. Now we have Premier Bracks letting the cat out of the bag and calling yesterday for a 0.5 per cent payroll tax to fund entitlements. This is what Premier Bracks said yesterday: `The better scheme is for a simple surcharge of about 0.5 per cent of salary, which would go to a national insurance scheme.' So we had flip from Barton, flop from Beazley, and now flip again from Bracks. The result of this flip, flop, flip is a 0.5 per cent tax on payroll that would produce 30,000 job losses right around Australia. When it comes to employee entitlements policy, members opposite have had more contortions than a yoga class. What can you expect from a leader who is all jawbone and no backbone?PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr Beazley—Four schemes so far and not one of them working! 10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Leader of the Opposition!PE4Beazley, Kim, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Leader of the Opposition!GT4Truss, Warren, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry!PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr Beazley—Really! Four schemes and not one working! My word!10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Leader of the Opposition! On three occasions, I have had to chasten the Leader of the Opposition for calling across the chamber, and I have had to chasten members on the front bench for responding. 3150814:37:0031508Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister. I refer to his consistent refusal to make any contribution to getting Ansett flying again and to his view that Ansett is simply a carcass. JT4Bailey, Fran, MPFran Bailey—Which plan have you got today?10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for McEwen!PE4Mr BEAZLEY—Doesn't the proposal being put to you by the Ansett administrator involve a short-term solution to underwrite tickets and a long-term solution involving a government contribution with a potential impact on the Commonwealth budget? What is the maximum extent of that impact, and what is your response? Isn't it time you stopped running the Qantas agenda, admitted that Ansett is not finished—is not a carcass—and got behind a plan that will get Ansett and its employees flying again? 31509Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPMinister for Transport and Regional Services10—I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question. The first point I would make is that we moved very rapidly to ensure that the regional centres right across Australia that did not have services as a result of the collapse of Ansett— because there are no alternatives—had services. Indeed, I think it is fair to say that we have achieved, so far, very sound results. We make no apology for that. We have consistently made it plain that we are not going to buy an airline or participate in an equity injection into something that is commercially not going to stand up. Having said that, all I can add is that, plainly, we have been very keen to support seeing Ansett planes back in the skies. But it has to be on the basis that it is a commercial reality, and that is for the administrator to determine. They have indicated to our officials—and I and other senior ministers will be talking to them later today—a couple of proposals that they have got which do not in any sense depend upon us rebuilding or subsidising a commercial outcome. I think it is very important to make that point. The next point that I want to make is this: the Leader of the Opposition would have the Australian people believe that he has a plan and that his plan would produce Ansett revitalised out of the ashes, presumably much as it was. That plan would see the federal government providing either $150 million or $200 million—either a loan or equity—to an unidentified commercial party who may or may not have a proposal to take over part or all of Ansett.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order and it goes to relevance. The question asked of him was whether any of the propositions being put to him by the administrator involved a direct—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The Deputy Prime Minister was asked about short-term and long-term solutions that were being offered. There is no way his answer could be deemed other than relevant. 4K4Mr ANDERSON—The Leader of the Opposition made it plain, in an interview with journalists, that this should happen whether or not the operation proposed was commercially viable. That is not a plan; yet we are told that, somehow or other, two astonishing things would happen: firstly, this would see the instant restoration of Ansett as it was; secondly, it could all be presumed to be quite possible, provided only that Ansett was freed of its debts. That is the extraordinary part of it. The $2 billion of debt was going to just disappear. He said—it is very interesting—that this question of debt was one that the administrator would have to resolve with Air New Zealand and the other parties. He said, `All those other issues of debt and the rest of it would have to be worked through in their discussions and consultation.' That $2 billion is not just some other issue. It is not just something for someone else to resolve. If Ansett was not saddled with that debt, it would still be flying. It cannot be simply passed away.The one aspect of this is that it gives us something of an idea about how the Leader of the Opposition thinks. He can put these staggering amounts of debt to one side and say, `They are somebody else's worry,' which is precisely what he did in 1996. The deficit, their borrowings—they were all to be for somebody else to worry about and for somebody else to fix up. Who were they? The Liberal-National Party in government.3150914:44:0031509Wakelin, Barry, MPMr WAKELINHV5GreyLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Trade. Would the minister advise the House of the importance of sound economic management to our exporters, particularly in times of global instability? Is the minister aware of any alternative policies that would affect our exporters?31509Vaile, Mark, MPMr VAILESU5LyneNPMinister for Trade10—I thank the member for Grey for his question. His electorate of Grey, in South Australia, relies very heavily on the support of Australia's export industries. It is of paramount importance that any Australian government provides a sound economic environment from which its businesses and exporters can compete in the world marketplace. The coalition government, over the last five years, has done that. Last year's statistics on our exports prove the point that sound economic management has delivered a significant reduction in the impact of taxation on individuals and on Australia's corporations, and it has delivered a stable economic environment that is conducive to a low level of interest rates. Most importantly, and on a day when we hear an announcement about the improved efficiency of the waterfront, it has delivered workplace relations reform by creating a much better and more competitive environment for Australia's exporters. They are all vitally important as far as the Australian economy is concerned. Australia's exporters are underpinning the strength of the Australian economy in the face of the uncertain times that we are confronted with as a nation. Last year, Australia's exports rose by 23 per cent. Last year, we exported $153 billion worth of goods and services out of this country. So Mr Gerry Harvey was not telling fibs; he was telling the truth.Opposition members interjecting—SU5Mr VAILE—Some of those exports out of rural Australia were horses, for those on the Labor side of the House that do not understand what our export effort is made up of. Our agricultural producers, of whom the honourable member is one, earned $28.5 billion for this country; that is $28.5 billion worth of agricultural exports for Australia. But it is not just agriculture—this government has encouraged and diversified the base of exports from this country so that it is not just commodity based, and that is an argument that we continue to run. Our automotive exports last year earned $4.2 billion—a hell of a lot more than what it was under the last Labor government. In Australia's wine industry—which is very relevant to South Australia, where the questioner comes from—there were $1.4 billion worth of exports last year. One of the standout sectors as far as our exports are concerned is the education sector. There were $3.7 billion worth of education services exported out of Australia. Those exports sustained almost two million jobs. That is a 23 per cent increase in exports and an increase in jobs that are reliant on export industries in Australia. In answer to the question, it is absolutely essential that governments maintain a policy of sound economic management to maintain the right economic environment for our exporters to be competitive in the international marketplace, a marketplace that is becoming increasingly tougher and uncertain in the days that we live in at the moment.I was asked about alternative policies, but it is hard to find any. We have seen the Labor spokesman on trade have about three or four different positions in terms of our trade relationships with some of our major partners. When the Bush administration was elected in the US, he said on 15 November:Australia needs to seize the opportunity provided by a new US administration to explore the options of a free trade relationship with the United States.That is exactly what our government is trying to do with our second largest trading partner. We are doing a lot more in progressing this issue than the Labor Party ever did. We are making great inroads in that regard. Once the government started making progress, their spokesman flipped back the other way and started to undermine it. The commentary of the Labor Party's spokesman at the US-Australia leadership dialogue this year was a disgrace to the national interest. Led by the member for Hotham and Senator Cook, he undermined the position of the Australian government and the Australian people in our relationship with the US.83TRudd, Kevin, MPMr Rudd—You are a fool.SU5Mr VAILE—The member for Griffith was there.83TRudd, Kevin, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I warn the member for Griffith!SU5Mr VAILE—They were having a debate amongst themselves in front of our visitors from America about what should and should not be done, and he is saying, `You fool.' They are talking about the relationship with East Asia and what should and should not be done. Our government has embarked upon a process of improving the relationship with Japan, with Korea and with China—the ASEAN countries—something the Labor Party in government never did. They never got near striking a framework agreement with the ASEAN countries, which we have recently done. Far from having a coherently structured set of trade policies, far from supporting an economic framework in Australia that is conducive to our exports, the Labor Party have opposed at every turn the things that we have done as a government to improve the opportunities for our exporters. The Labor Party have opposed making our ports more efficient by waterfront reform, they have opposed taking $3.5 billion worth of taxes off our exporters, they have opposed sensible workplace relations reforms for small business and they have opposed the broad trade agenda that our government has embarked upon. My advice to Australia's exporters is to stay in touch with customers, to keep doing the hard work that they have been doing, and last, but not least—most importantly—to not vote Labor. 3151114:51:0031511Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Minister for Sport and Tourism. Will she confirm that the first meeting of her tourism industry working group considered a proposal to address the jobs and business crisis in the tourism industry? I will quote from the working group agenda papers:Relief deferral of GST payments would assist in alleviating cash flow problems in the current environment.Minister, are you considering this proposal or did you rule it out? Did you rule out any of the other proposals raised, especially business loans to tourism businesses and additional funding for the ATC—proposals I have committed to today?31511Kelly, Jackie, MPMiss JACKIE KELLYGK6LindsayLPMinister for Sport and Tourism10—This gives me an opportunity to reiterate, for those who have not been listening, what the government is doing. In this current situation, brought about by the Ansett collapse and subsequently the fallout from that for our domestic aviation sector, which saw 40 per cent of the aviation market go down, we have seen our Minister for Transport and Regional Services underwrite about $10 million in loans for Kendell, Hazelton and Skywest to get a lot of services back. I understand that some 90 per cent of Ansett's capacity—Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Observers of question time will not be surprised at the Speaker's astonishment that he cannot recognise the Leader of the Opposition because of comments behind the Leader of the Opposition.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I have a point of order which goes to relevance. The question referred to the section on GST deferral and then on business loans—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. As I wrote the question down, it asked the minister about a number of proposals that were considered at a meeting she had attended. She was asked about other proposals that were not specific, and there were two other proposals that were specific.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr Beazley—It was GST relief.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I do not require assistance from the Leader of the Opposition unless he seeks the call.LS4Ferguson, Martin, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Observers of question time will be interested to know that I now find myself unable to recognise the Manager of Opposition Business because of the member for Batman.5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMullan—Further to the Leader of the Opposition's point of order: the question specifically related to specific proposals raised at the meeting, not to other matters relating to tourism. Nothing which has been said has related to the meeting or to any proposals considered at it and cannot be relevant.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I have already deemed the minister's answer to be relevant. She was asked about a range of proposals and in fact the term used was `other proposals' within the question. The Leader of the Opposition is invited to check the Hansard.GK6Miss JACKIE KELLY—As I mentioned, by this Thursday industry assessment is that 90 per cent of Ansett's capacity will be restored. In that environment one of the key things that that working group came up with was to do an assessment of the impact on individual businesses in terms of revenue, employment and forward bookings. I would like to quote the CEO of our ATC, who stressed that the first thing they need is to have a current and accurate insight into what is happening in our markets and the second is to use this analysis to identify opportunities for Australia. As was mentioned at the first meeting last Friday, this survey process was undertaken and it is currently under way in terms of seeing what is the exact fallout and the exact impact on it. In the meantime, this government has underwritten $400 million of workers' entitlements. That is something that did not occur when Budget went under, when Compass 1, Compass 2 and Qintex and all the related tourism jobs— PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I have a point of order on relevance. The GST proposal, loans to tourism businesses, the ATC—the agenda at the meeting—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The minister's answer was entirely relevant—Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—If the chair may be permitted to conclude a statement, the minister's answer was entirely relevant until she moved on to the area of workers' entitlements, which I did not necessarily find relevant to the meeting. I invite her to bring her comments back to the meeting.GK6Miss JACKIE KELLY—The relevance of what the government is doing is in that we had done extensive remediation work in the previous two weeks. Certainly we are getting assessment of where we are at the moment, and that industry working group is basically getting itself to a stage where it can identify possible industry or government solutions based on feedback from surveys and market intelligence.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—A survey might tell you there're no planes in the air.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I warn the Deputy Leader of the Opposition!LS4Ferguson, Martin, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I warn the member for Batman!ET4Bevis, Arch, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I warn the member for Brisbane!3151214:59:0031512Bartlett, Kerry, MPMr BARTLETT0K6MacquarieLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation. Would the minister inform the House what the Australian government is doing to assist Australians wanting to make a contribution to help the families of victims of the terrorist attacks in the United States.31512Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLPMinister for Financial Services and Regulation10—I thank the member for Macquarie for his interest and obvious concern about the events of 11 September. Despite it being more than two weeks since the tragic events on 11 September, many Australians continue to feel great sadness and sympathy for the more than 6,000 innocent people who lost their lives to terrorism in New York, Washington and Pittsburgh. Of course, our thoughts pass to the families of those killed, who are suffering from the loss of a loved one.More than any other sector, the financial services community was hit hard by the tragic September events. The World Trade Centre was the workplace of thousands of financial service personnel and, as many people would be aware, of the feared 23 Australians who lost their lives, a number of these victims worked in the financial services industry, both in New York and, previously, in Australia.I am pleased to advise the House that Australia's major financial associations, including the Stock Exchange and the Futures Exchange, banks, insurance companies and insurance brokers, and funds managers, analysts and traders have come together with the Australian Red Cross to provide a support fund for the victims of 11 September. Fifty per cent of the funds donated will support the efforts of the United States Red Cross and 50 per cent will go to the Australian Red Cross for the support of Australian victims' families. In response to a request from the financial services industry and the Australian Red Cross, the Prime Minister has agreed that all donations to the fund will be tax deductible.There are 330,000 people who work in the financial services industry in Australia, including a number of people in the electorate of Macquarie—in fact, the member for Macquarie used to work in the financial services industry himself—and all of the people in the industry have a special affinity with so many of the victims in the United States. Many of these victims were part of the global financial community and, as colleagues, business counterparts and friends in Australia, we wish to provide our support. When the tragedy struck, the Red Cross in the United States stepped in to provide food, water and shelter for the thousands of survivors. The Red Cross provided counselling for families and, where necessary, blood products to the injured. Moreover, the Red Cross, both here in Australia and in the United States, is continuing to support the families of victims with whatever is necessary to help them through the ordeal. Any ongoing support to the Red Cross will be gratefully received. Donations by any Australian can be made by telephone 24 hours a day on 1800 811700 or over the Internet on ourcommunity.com.au. All donations made since 11 September—technically, 10 September—and going forward are now fully tax deductible.3151315:08:0031513Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—My question is to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs and it concerns his new SES funding formula for non-government schools. Can the minister confirm that a confidential report which he commissioned and received six months ago found that:The SES index ... is not suitable for the purpose of guiding large-scale resource allocation decisions for Australia's non-government schools.and that: ... the SES index contains major technical errors ...and that the method used had resulted in:... a complete corruption of the intended standardisation process.Minister, didn't this leaked report also find that your formula discriminates against areas of high unemployment and isolated rural areas? Minister, haven't you suppressed this report because it shows that the formula you created to distribute billions of dollars to private schools is seriously flawed?31513Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPMinister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—The paper to which the member for Dobell refers is a paper requested not by me but by my department—Opposition members interjecting—BT4Dr KEMP—The department requested this paper following an approach from the author and it asked him to put the comments that he had made in writing so they could be fully analysed. The author of that paper makes a number of technical comments about the SES index. The assumption that he makes in that paper which is quoted by the member for Dobell is that, if the index had been based on the technical features that he advocates, there could be significant departures from the outcomes of the Farish model on which the SES is based and that his model might produce significantly different results. I have had this model fully analysed and I have to report that there are discrepancies in the results of the model that he advocates compared to the Farish model—but the discrepancies are tiny. The outcomes of the two models correlate at a .999 level. In other words, the outcomes of the two models are essentially identical. I am very happy to make our analysis of this model available. I shall have it sent into the House, and I will table it at the end of question time.The member for Dobell asks about funding models. The real comparison is between the fair, just and transparent model which we now have and the model that the Labor Party had when they were in office. That was a funding model that was so totally discredited that it was abandoned by the entire non-government sector. It was a funding model that said that a community based school on the Darling Downs was one of the richest schools in Australia. It was a funding model that said that Loretto Kirribilli was a much poorer school than this community school on the Darling Downs. It was a funding model that allocated schools with the same need scores to half a dozen different funding categories. It was a funding model that was so politically corrupted that new schools were simply not funded at their identified needs level.This is a question from a political party which has totally lost sight of what is important in school funding and which seeks to distract attention from the fact that it is at this very moment in the Senate denying funding to an Aboriginal community school in Australia which is one of the poorest schools in the country. This is a totally opportunistic party that thinks it has its hands on something that proves one point but in fact proves nothing at all. 3151415:09:0031514Vale, Danna, MPMrs VALEVK6HughesLP10—My question is directed to the Minister for Defence. Would the minister outline how the government is managing the international crisis in the wake of the United States terrorist attacks? Is the minister aware of any threats to Australia's defence capability?31514Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPMinister for Defence10—I thank the member for Hughes for her question and also take the opportunity to remark upon her great support for defence and particularly to people in her electorate. I have read the report. She did a great job when she went to the Northern Territory with a construction team. It is an important question. In respect of HMAS Anzac,I have advised the House previously that we extended her deployment in the Persian Gulf. We have done that a couple of times. US Central Command has come back to us again for a further extension, which the government has agreed to, and that is an extension of the deployment until the end of October 2001. Importantly, we have also been requested to provide a replacement for HMAS Anzac,and the government has agreed to that. The CDF is putting the necessary plans in place so that we can have a follow-on to the work of HMAS Anzac in the Persian Gulf. I want to pay tribute to the crew and the work they are doing in the sanctions business which they have been employed in. I also want to say to the families that we appreciate that the crews are going to be away for another month, but they are doing a fantastic job. We do greatly appreciate the work they are doing.I also advise the House that the Chief of the Defence Force, Admiral Barrie, will arrive in Washington later this week, on 30 September. He is going to Washington via Jakarta, where he will be holding discussions with counterparts and officials, and obviously the visit to Washington will provide him with an opportunity not just to attend the farewell of the outgoing Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Shelton, but obviously to have discussions with his counterparts in Washington.I am also asked an important question about capability. I draw the attention of the House to my concerns which we have seen foreshadowed this week by the Leader of the Opposition in respect of patrol boats. The government has recently issued a tender for the replacement of the 15 patrol boats that are an important part of the work of the Royal Australian Navy. That tender is out with industry. Not only is it important to the Royal Australian Navy; it is also important to industry, as we expect those patrol boat replacements to be constructed and built in Australia. I am very concerned about the Leader of the Opposition's statements, because he has made it quite clear that he does not agree with the specifications within that tender documentation and that the Labor Party, if elected, would look to change the tender arrangements for the replacements. The Leader of the Opposition is proposing that, rather than the Royal Australian Navy have its replacement patrol boats, some different form of vessel be constructed and assigned not to the Royal Australian Navy but to an organisation which the Labor Party wants to set up with a large bureaucracy to manage it.In the defence of Australia's northern approaches, the work that is done in respect of people-smuggling and the work that is done in respect of fisheries, narcotics and other matters, the Royal Australian Navy's patrol boats perform an absolutely vital function. I think it is a gross act of irresponsibility on the part of the Leader of the Opposition to throw into doubt a critical part of the capability of the Royal Australian Navy. When the question of the coastguard was being contemplated back in 1984, when looking at the options for a coastguard the now Leader of the Opposition said, `I am less convinced that they would lead to a system that would better counter the traffic in narcotics and sustain the kind of littoral surveillance evidently necessary for other purposes as well.' He was opposed to a coastguard in 1984. Then, on 19 August this year, he went from the flip to the flop. He said:When are they going to get real and put in a coastguard? There are a lot of people entering this country illegally who do not get caught. What we now need is a much better border protection effort.A week or so later he voted against a border protection bill. And 11 days later, when pressed on the question of a coastguard, which he had said we needed to deal with the people entering the country illegally, he said these words:A coastguard is not a resolution to this problem.So, in other words, one minute he is flip—he is advocating a coastguard; 11 days later, he is saying it is not a resolution of the problem he himself has identified.The patrol boats do a fantastic job for this country. They do a professional job for this country. Apart from the capability that they bring, they give our young people coming up through the Navy the opportunity to command. They give real benefits of instruction and exercise on operations for our navigators and for our crews. They are a vital part of the Royal Australian Navy. I think it is an act of gross irresponsibility to gut the Royal Australian Navy of a key part of its operations.5I4McMullan, Bob, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Manager of Opposition Business is about to deny the member for Dobell the call. In the absence of anyone else, the member for Dobell.3151515:16:0031515Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Transport and Regional Services. Is the minister aware of the Prime Minister's recent comments that enough federal money was being spent on public schools and that:... the funding of government schools comes from State governments ... They are not our responsibility except for top up purposes.Is the Deputy Prime Minister also aware that, in the electorate of Hinkler, 79 per cent of secondary students attend government schools; that in the electorate of Wide Bay, 93 per cent of secondary students attend government schools; and that in his own electorate of Gwydir, 85 per cent of secondary students attend government schools? Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree with the Prime Minister that government schools are not his responsibility and that, having delivered million-dollar increases to schools like King's, the Howard-Anderson government has done enough for public schools in electorates like Gwydir?DG4Fischer, Tim, MPMr Tim Fischer—I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think that question is out of order on two counts, not the least of which is asking for an opinion in its last section.5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMullan—On the point of order, Mr Speaker, I hesitate to do this, as it is the member for Farrer's last point of order, but I think the standing orders say you are not allowed to ask for a legal opinion. I do not think this asked him for a legal opinion.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I was about to rule on the point of order. Do I need further assistance from the member for Dobell?MG4Mr LEE—You do not have the exact text in front of you, Mr Speaker. I asked—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for the Dobell is aware that I jot down questions as they are asked.MG4Mr LEE—I asked the minister if he agreed with the Prime Minister. That can hardly be out of order.9V5Pyne, Chris, MPMr Pyne—Mr Speaker, on the point of order, the Manager of Opposition Business, in response to the member for Farrer's point of order, very patronisingly said—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Sturt will come to his point of order.9V5Pyne, Chris, MPMr Pyne—that the standing orders requested a legal opinion not to be asked. But, in fact, the standing orders only indicate that an expression of opinion is out of order, not requiring a legal opinion. So the Manager for Opposition Business should learn the standing orders himself.3K6Cameron, Ross, MPMr Ross Cameron—I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. In addition to the defects of the question outlined by the members for Farrer and Sturt, there was excessive argument in the question, under standing order 144. But, more particularly, standing order 142 holds the minister responsible for issues within his portfolio responsibility. 10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Parramatta will resume his seat. It seems unusual for this question to be addressed to the Deputy Prime Minister when it belongs with the minister for education. What happens to the question is in the hands of the Deputy Prime Minister. I believe that the question did in one portion seek an opinion. It is otherwise in order.31516Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPMinister for Transport and Regional Services10—I thank the honourable member for his question. I am a great believer in public education. I have three children in the Mullaley Public School. I am in fact very proud to be married to a schoolteacher. But let me make these general comments acknowledging the importance of education. I have to say that I think we ought to recognise, and I do think that some of those who seem to have political barrows to push might be little more honest in recognising, that the way we have divided things up in this country is to leave the responsibility of funding the state system to the states. Indeed, in that regard, one of the comments I would make—since you raise the issue and you have given me a pretty wide remit, I have to say, by definition of the question—is that there is one area in New South Wales where I would very much like to see the state government spend more. That is capital expenditure on state schools, where I think we have been making a very big contribution to the state system and where I notice that, in its usual city-centric way, Labor in New South Wales is very reluctant to spend money on the capital infrastructure of schools west of the divide in New South Wales.The public school that I attended in Gunnedah, quite a big public school, to this day does not have a decent assembly hall. Despite the efforts of local representatives and the local Independent member, nothing is being done about it. I am aware that the activities of the ALP are resulting in the blocking of funding for a small independent school in Gladstone, in the seat of the member for Hinkler. They are looking for about $15,000 of funding. It is not a wealthy school—it really needs that money—and the member for Hinkler and his constituents would concur with that, yet the question has to be asked: why are those opposite not prepared to support it? In general, I believe that the Prime Minister's remarks were absolutely accurate. I am a very strong believer in both streams— the independent and non-independent streams—of education in this country. I strongly believe that there is a lack of integrity on the part of some of those who try to imply that we do not do enough for the state school system, when they consistently refuse to point to the simple reality that the state system is funded by state governments. They are on a better funding stream than ever before. They get all the GST revenues. They ought to be prepared to deploy those as generously as we have in ensuring that Australian parents have genuine choice.3151615:24:0031516Lindsay, Peter, MPMr LINDSAYHK6HerbertLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs and Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence. Will the minister inform the House of the government's initiatives in attracting Australians to the Australian Defence Force?31516Scott, Bruce, MPMr BRUCE SCOTTYT4MaranoaNPMinister for Veterans' Affairs and Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence10—I thank the member for Herbert for his question. He has a very strong interest in defence matters, particularly the welfare of Defence personnel. I made a very good visit to the electorate of Herbert a couple of weeks ago, when we visited Lavarack Barracks and opened some important new facilities that will benefit not only the families but also the soldiers of the 3rd Brigade. The government take very seriously our responsibility in recruiting, training and, importantly, retaining members of the Australian Defence Force. We made that very clear in the Defence white paper that we released at the end of last year. The government are committed to a strong Australian Defence Force that can protect Australia and Australia's interests in these very uncertain times and at the same time make sure that the Australian Defence Force is an attractive employment choice for young Australians. Therefore, I am pleased to advise the House that recruiting initiatives are currently producing outstanding results in what has been a very challenging recruiting environment. We have a strong economy, declining numbers of young people in Australia and low unemployment, so it is a very challenging time. The results of the last financial year are outstanding: 7,695 young Australians joined the Australian Defence Force. That represents a 33 per cent increase in recruiting in the last financial year. These results are continuing in this financial year. In the first 10 weeks of this financial year, more than 1,700 young Australians joined the Australian Defence Force. That is another outstanding result. Those numbers are a 30 per cent increase over those for last year. They demonstrates that initiatives are working. The other great challenge at the moment is that the Australian Defence Force general entry initial training facilities are full to capacity, which is very rare at this time of year, and they are expected to remain so until December, which is normally the peak recruiting time. Part of the reason for that is the recruiting campaign that has based its advertising on real-life testimonies from people who are currently serving in the Australian Defence Force. Another important element is the new Defence call centre in Cooma, in the electorate of the member for Eden-Monaro. It is playing a very important role in significantly improving inquiry processing time. That is also contributing to the outstanding result that we have seen in the last 12 months. Another policy initiative is a pilot program to evaluate the use of a commercial provider for elements of the recruiting process. That pilot program will continue for another 12 months. The Australian Defence Force is continuing to streamline and, more importantly, enhance its recruiting processes. We believe that those excellent results will continue well into December and into the new year.This government's commitment to the Australian Defence Force and its success in attracting young Australians to join the Australian Defence Force are in stark contrast with the Australian Labor Party's ad hoc approach to defence. The opposition leader's and the Labor Party's proposition to establish a coastguard is another example of Labor's failure to recognise the professionalism and the capability of the Australian Defence Force. That is what you are doing: failing to recognise the professionalism and the capability of serving members of the Australian Defence Force.83REdwards, Graham, MPMr Edwards—Why don't you recognise it?10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Order! The member for Cowan.83REdwards, Graham, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Order! The member for Cowan.83REdwards, Graham, MPMr Edwards—The minister's a goose!10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Order! The member for Cowan is defying the chair, and I warn him.YT4Mr BRUCE SCOTT—It stands in very stark contrast with this government's support for the Australian Defence Force. The government recognises and commends members of the Australian Defence Force who engage in border protection duties for their commitment and professionalism. The government holds them out to all young Australians as great examples and hopes that they will see an opportunity and a career path in the Australian Defence Force.3151715:30:0031517Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Minister for Sport and Tourism. Minister, will you confirm your statement earlier that, `By this Thursday, industry sources, industry assessment, is that 90 per cent of Ansett's capacity will be restored'? How is this capacity going to be restored by tomorrow and what do you know that the Deputy Prime Minister doesn't?31517Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPMinister for Transport and Regional Services10—I can confirm that, as the Minister for Sport and Tourism indicated, there were some industry sources suggesting that we may be able to achieve that figure by tomorrow. I have to say that our latest advice—Opposition members—Who?4K4Mr ANDERSON—It was a Qantas source; I needn't say any more than that. It was—Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Order! The Deputy Prime Minister has the call.4K4Mr ANDERSON—In my view, it is the case that we are moving towards that sort of capacity—Opposition members interjecting—4K4Mr ANDERSON—I would have thought that with all their professed concern, particularly for the tourism industry, they might have been interested in and concerned about every effort we can make to get people back into the skies. But the reality is that from go to whoa, like their mates in the trade union movement, their only interest is in trying to score political points out of this entire exercise. Their political cynicism stands paralleled only by their lack of any concrete and constructive approaches and planning in all of this in terms of taking the issue forward. It is really just appalling, as everyone who has listened to them flipping and flopping all over the place on this in recent days—and more flopping than flipping—will be aware. We are doing everything we can to rebuild capacity—Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Order! I remind a number of members of their status in the House. Has the Deputy Prime Minister concluded his answer?4K4Mr ANDERSON—A large number of measures, including using larger planes on existing routes—Honourable members interjecting—5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMullan—On a point of order, Mr Speaker, I was trying to draw your attention to the fact that the Chief Opposition Whip has been seeking the call on a point of order for some time.Honourable members interjecting—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Order! I remind members on both sides of the House that the capacity to hear anyone seeking a point of order is frequently masked by the nonsense going on around me.4I4McLeay, Leo, MPMr Leo McLeay—Will you take my point of order now then, Mr Speaker?3K6Cameron, Ross, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Order! The member for Parramatta! The Chief Opposition Whip.4I4McLeay, Leo, MPMr Leo McLeay—Thank you very much. It is nice to be recognised.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Chief Opposition Whip will resume his seat.4I4McLeay, Leo, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Order! I warn the Chief Opposition Whip.4K4Mr ANDERSON—Larger planes, and more planes, are being brought on stream all the time.4I4McLeay, Leo, MPMr Leo McLeay—On a point of order on relevance: can he tell us whether it is Friday or not?10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Order! The Chief Opposition Whip will resume his seat.4K4Mr ANDERSON—As I have quite clearly indicated, there have been indications—83ZIrwin, Julia, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Fowler!4K4Mr ANDERSON—from industry that they believe that that was achievable. It is our view that that is slightly optimistic over the next few days—83ZIrwin, Julia, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I warn the member for Fowler!4K4Mr ANDERSON—but we are rapidly building towards it. There are a large number of potential new planes including, we hope, if the administrator can bring it together, Ansett planes to go back into the sky. Virgin is looking to increase its capacity. Qantas has brought extra planes on and they are substituting and rearranging their mixes so that they can put larger planes on many legs. I would have thought that all of the efforts, adding to what we have been able to do on the regionals to ensure that people can move around, to increase capacity, in the interests of the travelling public and particularly of the tourism industry, about which they profess such concerns, would have been welcomed by everyone in the House.ZD4Howard, John, MPMr Howard—Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. Questions Without Notice315193151915:35:0031519Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—Mr Speaker, may I further augment an answer that I gave earlier? 10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Prime Minister may add to his answer.ZD4Howard, John, MPMr HOWARD—Thank you. I have done a little more research about Mr Gerry Harvey. I am still searching, but I can inform the House that this morning on Radio 2GB, he was asked this question, `So all up, is Gerry Harvey confident about Australia, its commitment to spending and our economy?'84HZahra, Christian, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I warn the member for McMillan!ZD4Howard, John, MPMr HOWARD—Harvey replied:Yeah, sure. Unless something very unforseen happens, we will have a pretty good October, November, December. We'll have a good Christmas. Things start to pick up a little bit and probably January to June next year will be pretty good.3151915:36:0031519Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPMinister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—I said in response to the member for Dobell that I would table the analysis that the department has had done of the draft paper that he was waving around. I table that analysis and the validation report on the SES system.Personal Explanations3151915:37:0031519McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLANDJK6BartonALP00—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?JK6McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLAND—Yes.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Please proceed.JK6McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLAND—Earlier, the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business asserted that I made a statement regarding Labor's employee entitlements scheme to the Illawarra Mercury in March this year. It is not my recollection that I have ever been interviewed by the Illawarra Mercury with respect to that matter.Questions to the Speaker315193151915:37:0031519Danby, Michael, MPMr DANBYWF6Melbourne PortsALP00—Mr Speaker, under standing order 150, would you write to the Minister representing the Special Minister of State regarding question No. 2704 of 19 June, and would you also write to the Minister for Health and Aged Care regarding question No. 2753 of 26 June?31519SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I will follow up as the standing orders provide.3151915:38:0031519Sidebottom, Sid, MPMr SIDEBOTTOM849BraddonALP00—Mr Speaker, under standing order 150, would you mind communicating with the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts with regard to question No. 2388 of 1 March 2001?31519SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I will follow up as the standing orders provide.3151915:38:0031519McLeay, Leo, MPMr LEO McLEAY4I4WatsonALP00—Mr Speaker, I refer you to page 199 of House of Representatives Practice in relation to the role of the Second Deputy Speaker:In the absence of both the Speaker and the Deputy Speaker the Second Deputy Speaker may perform the duties of Speaker ...Mr Speaker, as you are aware, the Deputy Speaker, Mr Nehl, is retiring and will cease to be a member of this House on its dissolution. The Second Deputy Speaker, Mr Jenkins, is a recontesting member. As both Mr Nehl and Mr Jenkins are deputy presiding officers within the terms of section 7 of the Presiding Officers Act, is it your intention to appoint Mr Jenkins as Acting Speaker if you are absent from the Commonwealth over the election period?31519SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I indicate to the Chief Opposition Whip that I do not intend to be absent from the Commonwealth over the election period. 3152015:39:0031520Gallus, Christine, MPMrs GALLUSCU4HindmarshLP10—Mr Speaker, I have three questions of you to do with security, following the events in the United States. Firstly, in the 12 years I have been in this House I have not taken part in an evacuation exercise and neither have my staff. Are you intending to have any evacuation drills for the staff in this building? Secondly, my staff are not aware of any exits in this building other than the four main ones, and if those exits were blocked they would not be sure where to go in the case of an emergency. Will you issue to members of this House directions on what other exits are available? Thirdly, would you consider giving members and other officers keys to their windows in case they want to exit those windows during an emergency?31520SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I respond to the member for Hindmarsh by indicating that evacuation programs of this House are regularly conducted—and one was conducted within the last two weeks—and that, out of deference to members, their staff and their programs, the evacuation procedures are normally put in place, by request, when members are not here. If members would like an evacuation program put in place in the new year, I am happy to consider a request from a majority of members, but the program has been well in place for staff that are permanently in the building. Secondly, I would have thought there were few, if any, buildings in Australia in which the exits were as clearly indicated or as readily available, and for that reason I see no reason to offer keys to windows that are already secure in offices.3152015:41:0031520McLeay, Leo, MPMr LEO McLEAY4I4WatsonALP00—Mr Speaker, my question follows on from my previous question. If you are absent from the Commonwealth at any time between the dissolution of this House and the election of a future Speaker, will it be your intention to appoint Mr Jenkins as Acting Speaker?31520SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I have indicated to the Chief Opposition Whip that I have no intention of being absent from the Commonwealth. If I were indisposed, I would, as he would expect, consult the clerk and act as the standing orders and practice provide.3152015:42:0031520Gallus, Christine, MPMrs GALLUSCU4HindmarshLP10—Mr Speaker, I follow up my last question. I point out that when I asked my staff where they would go, they had no idea which way they would turn or which way they would go, and this applied to other staff as well. The majority of people in this building, and certainly in this section of the building, are not here when parliament is not sitting and therefore have not taken part in an evacuation.31520SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I refer the member for Hindmarsh to my answer to her first question.3152015:42:0031520Emerson, Craig, MPMr EMERSON83VRankinALP00—Mr Speaker, under standing order 150, would you write to the Treasurer on a seventh occasion asking him to provide an answer to question No. 1290 of April 2000?31520SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I will follow up the matter raised by the member for Rankin as the standing orders provide.Documents3152031520Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPLeader of the House10—Papers are tabled as listed in the schedule circulated to honourable members. Details of the papers will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.I present a paper on the following subject, being a petition which is not in accordance with the standing and sessional orders of the House:Recent terrorist acts in the United States of America and opposition to Australia's involvement in military retaliation—from the member for Fraser—325 petitioners.Business3152015:43:0031520Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPMinister for Defence10—by leave—I do not have much to report on the likely sitting pattern over and above what I said yesterday. Obviously, we are still awaiting progress reports from the Senate with regard to dealing with legislation. Also, we have made inquiries of the Royal Australian Air Force about its capability. There is some capability to move some people, if necessary—but, obviously, we will have to await further developments. Matters of Public Importance315213152110000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I have received a letter from the honourable member for Hunter proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:The failure of the government to support the Australian tourism industry in this time of crisis.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—15:45:0031521Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr FITZGIBBON8K6HunterALP00— Very tragically, the tourism sector in this country is facing the biggest crisis in its relatively short history. Sadly, the Howard government refuses to even acknowledge the extent of the problem, let alone do something about it. This crisis is the equivalent of the pilots dispute and the Gulf War put together. The big difference is that we had every reason to be confident that the pilots dispute would be resolved in a reasonably short time; similarly we had every reason to believe that the Gulf War crisis would not be a long and protracted affair. In contrast, this is a present-day crisis that will reverberate through the industry for years to come. Some in the sector are talking about job losses of up to 80,000.This is no `little blip', as the Minister for Sport and Tourism described it; this is a crisis affecting real people, like Peppi Iovanelli, who runs one of Australia's largest dive operations. Peppi has been forced to lay off 10 fully qualified staff. He operates in the Cairns region and now has one of his boats for sale. Unlike the government, Labor have developed a rescue plan for the industry. Coupled with our plan to help get Ansett back in the air—and the minister for tourism has clearly demonstrated she does not understand the issues surrounding capacity—the rescue plan is about providing cash-flow strapped small businesses with concessional loans. It is about providing additional funding to the Australian Tourist Commission, the body charged with marketing Australia overseas; and it is about doubling the amount of money available to fund tourism infrastructure projects in the region.During question time today, the Treasurer made a fist of his attempt to portray Labor's plan as economically irresponsible and unfunded. When I did first-year macro-economics, I learned that, when economic activity rises, so does government revenue. At the same time, government outlays fall. Similarly, getting Ansett back in the air will add significantly to the value of Sydney airport when it is eventually sold.There is no question about our ability to fund Labor's package; the big question today is this: what is the government's plan for the tourism sector in this hour of need? Unfortunately, as all members know, the government's first response was to impose a new tax on the sector. It is not the first tax it has imposed on the sector in recent times. There was the GST on services in this service based tourism sector. There was an increase in the passenger movement charge, which is reaping far more than the government requires to undertake those customs and quarantine procedures that it purports to raise the money for.This is a rewrite of the petrol and GST issue, Mr Deputy Speaker Nehl. You will recall that when petrol rose the GST windfall came in; similarly now, when the price of air tickets rises—in some cases some 500 per cent—the GST component rises and the government receives a windfall. Rather than turn to that windfall, the government turns to the very industry in trouble and imposes a new tax to fund workers' entitlements—something that would not be an issue if, five years ago, the government had started to work towards a proper process to protect those entitlements, as the Labor Party has done.I am pleased to say that there is more in the government plan. The second string to the government's bow is to form a committee. When all else fails, you form a committee. I will say this: it is a committee of highly regarded people in the industry—Chris Brown of the Tourism Task Force; Andrew Burns of the Australian Tourism Export Council; Ken Boundy of the Australian Tourist Commission; Jenny Lambert of the Meetings Industries Association; and Richard Mulcahy of the Australian Hotels Association. In total, there are 17 highly qualified people to lend the government advice in this hour of need—with one exception: the minister herself. I do note, though, that the government was sensible enough to make Andrew Burns the minister's co-chairperson to keep things under control. I make the point about the quality of the membership of the committee for a very good reason. The members of the committee have put forward some very sensible initiatives to address the current crisis in the tourism industry. The Leader of the Opposition referred to some of them during question time today. The initiatives include increased ATC funding, concessional loans for tourism related small businesses and—here is the real killer—GST relief to alleviate cash-flow problems in tourism related small businesses. This is the new tax that was going to increase cash flow for the small business sector. The minister's own working party has suggested that GST relief should be granted to those in the tourism sector to alleviate the cash-flow problems brought on by the crisis. Unfortunately, the government is yet to embrace the ideas of its own working group. What it has decided to do instead is to undertake a survey, which will cost the Australian taxpayer some $50,000. I did not hear the Treasurer talking about how the government was going to fund its survey, in itself not an insignificant amount of money. I have the survey with me. I want to make the point that the survey, which I assume will go to all tourism operators in the country, gives those people the opportunity to indicate whether the current crisis has been good for their business or bad!LS4Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin Ferguson—Tick the box: yes or no.10000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—I remind the member for Batman that he has already been warned.8K6Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr FITZGIBBON—There is a third choice: `or will have no effect'. Why are we surprised, given the minister's earlier description of the crisis before us as `a little blip on the industry'? The Minister for Sport and Tourism has lost the confidence of her industry. I say to the Prime Minister that leaving the member for Lindsay in charge of tourism is a bit like replacing Mayor Giuliani with Dan Quayle in New York's time of crisis. What the industry needs now, more than at any time in its history, is strong leadership. It needs a champion, someone who can take the fight up to the government. Sadly, this minister has not been capable of fulfilling that role. I do not begrudge other industries assistance—not by any measure—but it never ceases to amaze me that when the dairy industry is in trouble there is a $1.7 billion package, when car jobs are at risk in South Australia the Prime Minister is on a plane to Japan to talk to industry leaders and that country's Prime Minister, when a smelter in North Queensland needs money $200 million from the government is immediately in the bank, and when we have a drought we have exceptional circumstances measures to address the adjustment issues in those industries affected by drought. But when tourism, Australia's large export earner—if you disaggregate the resource sector, 4.5 per cent of this country's GDP and around a million jobs—goes to the government for help in this time of crisis, what does it get? It gets a new tax.LS4Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin Ferguson—And a survey.8K6Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr FITZGIBBON—And it gets another survey. It gets a new tax and a survey—a tax, the burden of which will fall disproportionately on rural and regional Australia; a tax which will disadvantage the regions which will be affected most by this crisis. Ansett carried around 64 per cent, if not more, of the region's air services. Tourism was struggling even before this crisis. The big problem with tourism and one of the reasons it seems to often be turned away when it is in trouble or when it goes to the government for assistance is that it is always growing. But the big question is: is it growing to its full potential? That is the important question to ask. Unfortunately, last month the Tourism Forecasting Council downgraded its predictions for tourism over the next 10 years. Basically it halved what it believes will be the growth in our inbound tourism over the next 10 years. This comes on the back of a crisis in Australian Tourist Commission funding because of the devaluation of the Australian dollar. One of the ATC's main outlays is the purchase of television advertising overseas. You can imagine what the low dollar has done to its purchasing power. Let us get rid of this myth that the lower dollar helps inbound tourism. For a start, most, or all, airline tickets are written in American dollars and, let us be frank, that is the largest component of the cost to an international traveller. In addition, people do not sit in their lounge rooms in Tokyo or Boston checking the value of the Australian dollar from day to day. Indeed, they usually plan their international visits well in advance, probably more than 12 months in advance. The ATC came to the government pre-budget, in trouble, asking for additional funding to get it through what was then, in hindsight, a very minor crisis. It requested $10 million over four years. It was not an additional $10 million—$10 million would have only maintained the ATC's current funding level in real terms.LS4Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin Ferguson—Not even a month's political advertising.8K6Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr FITZGIBBON—As the member for Batman indicates, $10 million over four years is not even one month's political advertising at taxpayers' expense, as has been the habit of this government. What was the government's response to the ATC request? The government response was `No, sorry, tourism, we can't help.' Today the Labor Party has made a commitment to the Australian Tourist Commission. We will give it its $10 million immediately. We will await the results of its internal review and we will discuss with the ATC the appropriate level of funding in the out years. Unlike this government, the opposition are prepared to act. We will get planes back in the air, we will double funding for tourism infrastructure and we will instil confidence back in the tourism industry.I said that this is a crisis affecting real people on the ground, and I gave the example of a dive operation in Cairns. Let us talk about Matthew Brennan, who runs Branxholm Tearooms in Tasmania, a small business which relies on the tourism sector. Located on the Tasman Highway, a major tourist drive, it is the only coffee shop between Branxholm and the east coast. He, of course, relies on passing tourism traffic for his business. Mr Brennan's business has collapsed by 50 per cent since this crisis hit the tourism sector. We find these sorts of stories in every tourism region around the country, and the aggregate effect on the Australian economy is appalling.Let me contrast what the Minister for Sport and Tourism had to say about the crisis in the industry with what industry leaders are saying. 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 income that will not be realised for the next 12 months.' Mr Ken Boundy, 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. Mr Paul Fleming, Harvey World Travel and Thomas Cook managing director, said that the Ansett collapse was `the most catastrophic thing that's happened to the industry', saying that it outranked the Asian economic crisis, the Gulf War and the 1989 pilots strike.Today I call upon the minister for tourism to finally acknowledge the crisis in the industry and the impact it is having on jobs in this country, particularly jobs in regional Australia, and to embrace Labor's tourism rescue plan. (Time expired)16:00:0031523Kelly, Jackie, MPMiss JACKIE KELLYGK6LindsayLPMinister for Sport and Tourism10—It is great to see that, after three years of my tenure as the Minister for Sport and Tourism, the opposition is finally seeing tourism as a matter of public importance. In those three years, the federal government has allocated a record level of $360.9 million over four years to the Australian Tourist Commission. That is a record level of funding, and nearly $92 million of that funding will be provided in the current financial year alone. I will compare that to the state expenditure and get back to what Labor says and what it actually does when it gets into office.During my tenure as minister, $8 million has gone towards the very successful See Australia domestic tourism initiative. That was the first time that the federal government had managed to gather the states together into a cooperative marketing effort to grow the pie. We also saw the export market development grants expanded and extended. That scheme will be providing over $150 million. On average, tourism receives just under 20 per cent of all grant money, which exceeds its total share of exports. We also saw the launch of the $5 million New Century, New World. Australia 2001 campaign, which was designed to encourage business travellers from overseas to visit Australia for meetings, events, conferences and exhibitions, as part of an incentive rewards program. There is also the doubling of the regional tourism program, to $16 million over four years, which will help to spread the benefits of tourism to regional and rural Australia. The government have allocated $5 million in grants to hotels in rural and regional Australia to meet up to 50 per cent of the costs incurred in preserving their historic features and attributes. We also provided $6.6 million over three years for the Cultural Heritage Projects Program, to foster partnerships with local government and community based organisations and individuals to conserve and restore significant Australian heritage sites. We have allocated $6.4 million over four years for the refurbishment and ongoing operation of the Townsville Aquarium to, among other things, enhance visitor facilities. We have also provided $4 billion to enhance the transport infrastructure of regional Australia, including $850 million in this financial year for roads; around 80 per cent of domestic travel is by road.We allocated $20 million towards a scoping study to examine the feasibility of a very high speed train network link between Melbourne, Canberra, Sydney, Brisbane and major regional and coastal centres. We outlaid $1 million for the development of a tourism satellite account, which was the first time that tourism had been officially measured for its contribution to GDP. No matter what the opposition says about tourism, this government has actually done an active assessment of what the measure of tourism is to the Australian economy; it is 4.5 per cent of GDP.We also provided a million dollars as part of the government's assistance to the Newcastle region, to assist in the planning and development of the Hunter region's tourism potential. I will get back to the Hunter region, because it is apparent that the member for Hunter does not know about a few things that are happening in his own area. We launched a national Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander tourism strategy that has provided a national framework for the development of indigenous tourism, which is something that had not been done before. The government have also facilitated the development of an ecologically sustainable tourism industry through the involvement of initiatives such as the National Ecotourism Accreditation Program. We have committed $14.7 million in funding over seven years for the establishment of a cooperative research centre for sustainable tourism. We have negotiated approved destination status with China, which is now one of our explosive markets and one that is set to provide an enormous boost to inbound tourism from that source that we have never had before. We have provided $2.5 million to assist the tourism industry with the implementation of the new tax system. We have committed $200,000 to find a solution to the barriers to growth in Tasmania's tourism industry that have been imposed by the Bass Strait. And we have developed an online tourism strategy.In all that time, in all the days that I have been here in parliament, I did not get one question or one MPI on all of the great things that this government have done for tourism, which has seen a surge in tourism and record levels of international tourists visiting this country. Now the opposition have the sniff of a political opportunity and wish to bring an MPI into this House—it is such a matter of public importance that they did not secure many of their members to support the member for Hunter.XT4Ronaldson, Michael, MPMr Ronaldson—How many?GK6Kelly, Jackie, MPMiss JACKIE KELLY—There are 27 out of 67 who turned up. XT4Ronaldson, Michael, MPMr Ronaldson—Twenty-seven out of 67 were here for the MPI.10000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)— Order! The Chief Government Whip!GK6Kelly, Jackie, MPMiss JACKIE KELLY—Let us have a look at what Labor does when in office. Last year the New South Wales Labor government allocated $44.5 million to tourism and this year it is $41.6 million—a cut; Queensland allocated $42.9 million and that is now $42.4 million—a cut; Western Australia, $37.04 million and that is now $34.2 million—a cut. South Australia actually increased their contribution to tourism. In Tasmania there was another cut; the ACT increased their contribution; and the Northern Territory had a slight cut. Overall, the Labor states have managed to slash the tourism marketing campaign while this government has kept the ATC funding at record levels.In addition to everything we have been doing for tourism to this point, the minute that Ansett collapsed we were in there with solutions. When it became apparent that the workers' entitlements were not secured, we moved to assure the workers that their statutory entitlements and a community standard of eight weeks redundancy pay would be paid. We did not pledge a 100 per cent redundancy pay-out from taxpayers' funds. I am sure that taxpayers on $20,000 would not be that happy about pay-out figures of $175,000 in redundancy pay being taxpayer funded. But it was a significant effort. It is certainly more than was done for all of those tourism workers who lost their jobs through the collapse of Qintex, Budget and Compass 1 and 2, when no entitlements were secured. We have also moved to secure those entitlements with legislation and, again, that has not been supported by the Labor states.We also ensured that stranded passengers got $120 per night for three nights, and we guaranteed reasonable costs to help people get home. We worked with Qantas and, over a week or two, we have ensured that stranded Ansett passengers got home. We have underwritten loans to other airlines—Hazelton, Kendell, Skywest et cetera—so that they could be excised from Ansett to start operating. We have worked with Qantas and Virgin Blue to increase their capacity on air links. As I said before, industry's assessment is that capacity is up around 90 per cent. The Minister for Transport and Regional Services thinks that is somewhat optimistic, but, with the addition of rail and road travel, demand is being met. I will give you a few examples about how diverse the impact is—and the member for Hunter had a few things to say about the survey. An article in today's Sydney Morning Herald stated:At Cypress Lakes Resort at Pokolbin in the Hunter Valley—I presume that is in the member for Hunter's electorate—8K6Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr Fitzgibbon—It is.GK6Kelly, Jackie, MPMiss JACKIE KELLY—There you go; it is in the member's electorate. The article continued:Occupancy rates are healthy, in stark contrast to Sydney's CBD hotels. Sydneysiders are booking three- or four-day holidays at Cypress Lakes, about a 90-minute drive from Sydney.An article in today's Financial Review reported:Queensland's Gold Coast is recording strong accommodation bookings for the next two weeks and the school holiday drive market is expected to fill beds left vacant by the Ansett collapse. “It appears that, against all odds, we've got pretty good occupancy rates with last-minute pick-up from a strong drive market ...An article in the Australian today, under the headline `Tourism bosses adjust itinerary', said:The managing director of the Mirror Image Touring Company, Chris Carpenter, backed Mr Boundy's comments, saying there had been a 20 per cent decline in US business but a 30 per cent rise from Britain.So obviously the impacts are varied. Yet the Leader of the Opposition, in classic Labor style, would race out there and announce a package, with taxpayers' money and with no grounds for doing it. He has no survey—he would just go into the British market or the US market and start advertising. We have actually pulled out of the United States market. 8K6Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr Fitzgibbon—They can't afford it!GK6Kelly, Jackie, MPMiss JACKIE KELLY—The ATC has stopped advertising in the United States because it is not appropriate and it is not the right time. It is important to assess that market to see when the time is right to go back in with an advertising campaign. We are seeing movement out of Asia, where we are seen as a safe destination that is close. We are seeing some bookings there. As I said, China is another market that we can move into. Out of Europe there are varied aspects. So the survey and the feedback are critical in determining a way forward and in finding solutions to the very substantial problems facing the tourism industry. 8K6Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr Fitzgibbon—There are no grounds for our package?GK6Kelly, Jackie, MPMiss JACKIE KELLY—Not surveyed or not looked into. You are simply coming out and promising $2 billion to underwrite Ansett. Then you say, `Oh well, we won't do that; that seems a bit excessive. We will give $200 million to get it flying, so long as we can ignore the debt.' Then you say, `We will give $100 million from the Commonwealth debt program, and we will give $68 million in tourism initiatives.' That is all in one week. I can only think: if this is their crisis management on an ad hoc basis as they run along—blow money, blow money—where would we be? We would be at record Commonwealth debt, as we were in 1996, which leads to excessive interest rates. And I will tell you right now: the tourism industry does not need high interest rates from an irresponsible Labor government. That is why you really have to analyse what Labor says in opposition and what it does in government. The state Labor governments have continually carved away from tourism. They have said a lot about it but have not done anything about it. Our record in terms of action and delivering has been quite a proud record. Now we see a situation where the current opposition is trying to make political gains out of it. I have a quote from an email—obviously one of their sources—which says: `Our intention is to encourage a local media campaign about the tourism crisis and its potential to disrupt the economies of key marginal electorates.' Whether that is effective or not, they are out there to talk it down. At a time when we need Australians travelling within Australia and signing up for their holidays, the opposition's only policy is to talk it down and take all sorts of action to increase interest rates and to make sure that holidays are completely unaffordable. In addition to that, they want to have a GST roll-back. The litany of responses, their argument all this week, has been in terms of increasing the government's liability and, consequently, a rise in interest rates. It does not serve the tourism industry very well. The Leader of the Opposition has come out this morning with a typical Labor package: basically spending taxpayers' money without consultation, with no grounds, without any regard for consequences. When we are in government we create very stable economic conditions; and, believe me, at this stage, with what is happening in the world, the ratepayers and taxpayers of Australia would prefer to see people with a sound economic record in government than someone who has just an attitude of `pay it out now; chuck it around quite freely; whoever wants it, have some money and we will worry about interest rates later'. Labor have not learned from their past mistakes. They are committed to spending additional money on education, on health, on Knowledge Nation, and $200 million on Ansett. At the same time, they want to roll back GST. The figures just do not add up. The only thing they add up to is high budget deficits, high interest rates and high inflation. And the key loser in that scenario is the tourism industry. That tourism industry is made up of small to medium-size businesses—the very people that Labor says they are trying to help. Labor in government would undo the great work that this coalition government has done. We have a sound record as economic managers. We are certainly the guiding force and the captains of the ship that you want in charge to steer us through this crisis, and the tourism industry recognises that.83LGillard, Julia, MP10000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)— Member for Lalor, are you attempting to be the next speaker? If so, stand up.16:15:0031527Cox, David, MPMr COX83UKingstonALP00—Let the record show that the three government members whom the Chief Government Whip managed to round up to support the Minister for Sport and Tourism are now leaving the chamber.83LGillard, Julia, MPMs Gillard—They were just eyeing her back.83UCox, David, MPMr COX—They were certainly eyeing her back—that is exactly right; the member for Lalor is completely accurate. In fact, last Wednesday, when she was about to get up to answer the first of that abysmal set of responses that she gave, the member for Menzies got up and took a point of order. He tried to spare her. I sent him a note, and the note said:Kevin, your attempt to save the minister from herself was a very Christian act.After the next election I think there will be a repeat of what happened after the last election. The Prime Minister rang the member for Lindsay and he said to her, `Are you sitting down? I've got a very pleasant surprise for you: you're going to be the minister for tourism.' I suggest, in the remote possibility that the Prime Minister were in a position to make a similar offer after the next election, that he might say, `Are you sitting down? I've got a very pleasant surprise for you: you're not going to be the minister for tourism.' She will go down in history as `little blip'. She described this vast disaster as a `little blip' and said that the tourism industry was running around like Henny Penny, complaining that the sky was falling in; that the problems were only coming from the commentators; and that they were just anecdotal. They were only anecdotal because they had not been enumerated. They had not been enumerated because they had only just happened. They are nonetheless real. The minister had a tourism summit listening to her abysmal performance in the House last Wednesday. They were utterly astonished.For the minister's benefit, I will go through the obvious implications of the Ansett failure: first, the loss of a very substantial part of the capacity on Australia's major trunk routes; second, the loss of a majority of Australia's regional carriers' capacity and the only capacity to some regional areas. The implications of that for the tourist industry are quite simple. If there are no airline services or fewer than half the airline services to a region, there are fewer customers, no tourists and no tourist businesses. Hotels and resorts start laying off staff and some will close. For the minister, these are just anecdotes coming from commentators. For the tourist operators, the people who work for them, and their families, it is their business, their job and their economic security. Those are just the first-round effects. The implication of a loss of airline capacity is a loss of competition. I will quote from Alan Kohler, writing in yesterday's Financial Review:Perth, Adelaide, Hobart and Darwin can probably kiss goodbye to discount fares for a long time, which, as citizens of those towns are already discovering, is a painful experience. A corporate monopoly could result in steady increases in business travel costs and leave the air travel market permanently unbalanced.Most in the industry reckon that a new Ansett, with a new shareholder, will be lucky to start with 20 per cent market share overall, almost entirely concentrated at the lower end of the market.We are already seeing those fares rise. That means that there will be fewer package deals and they will be more expensive. Fewer people will be flying to regional areas and those who do will have less money to spend when they get there.Then there is contagion, a concept that we generally think of only in terms of financial markets, but it applies to this situation. Contagion: where the failure of one or more companies or financial institutions causes the failure of other companies that are linked to them. Most obviously, there are Ansett suppliers: fuel companies, catering companies, cleaning companies, travel agents, taxis, hire cars, hotels that look after not only Ansett's customers but their air crew, conference businesses, printers who print their tickets and magazines, and the airport terminal operators. That is just a very small list of them. I have done a little ring-around this morning and I have some examples of how the contagion is spreading. From Australian Major Events: the WA Piper Band could not get to Adelaide to participate in the International Police Tattoo and some culinary teams cannot get flights to Adelaide for Tasting Australia. At the moment, there are no events in jeopardy. Ansett sponsors Australian Major Events; therefore, Australian Major Events will lose lots of free flights. From the Adelaide Convention Centre: no conference or event has yet been cancelled, but there is a decline in the number of delegates of about 10 per cent to 15 per cent, with a significant fall in delegates from the USA, though I will concede that that might be for other reasons. From the Australian Hotels Association in South Australia: Ansett owes Adelaide hotels $1 million in outstanding bills. South Australian hotels have recorded losses of $600,000 in cancelled bookings and 3,500 room nights in the first week since the airline collapsed. Adelaide hotels expect to lose $8 million in revenue and 50,000 room nights. From Phil Hoffman Travel: small and/or isolated cities such as Adelaide, Darwin, Perth, Alice Springs, Cairns and Hobart are adversely affected because there was already limited capacity relative to the heavy traffic of the east coast trunk routes. Those cities are heavily reliant on air transport, unlike Melbourne and Sydney where good ground transport is more feasible. Anecdotes include a Perth family, booked on Ansett and stranded since the collapse—they cannot get a flight home until 10 October—and business passengers who are flying from Perth to Adelaide and the east coast via Singapore. When you have a disaster on that sort of scale, it is going to affect the overall performance of the Australian economy. Certainly, the government has not done enough to mitigate those effects. The Labor Party, on the other hand, has published a tourism industry rescue plan.But we should not forget the government's part in contributing to the Ansett failure. On Tuesday of last week, the Prime Minister tabled a document to explain what the government knew, and when, about the Ansett failure. What he was trying to point out was that he believed Ansett was in stronger shape than it actually was and that it was therefore all a bit of a surprise to him. The document that he tabled was this document which I have in my hand, and I will come to its provenance later. The Deputy Prime Minister described it as one of those things that they flip over. In actuality, I think it is called a chart pack—it is for one of those presentations that merchant bankers give you that leads inexorably to the simple conclusion that they want you to draw from what they are telling you. They flip them over. But it seems it was all a bit much for the Deputy Prime Minister to give it any critical analysis. He tried to play down its significance and he said:I did not regard it as a set of financial figures. It was an overview.He nevertheless followed it absolutely diligently. Later the same day, the Prime Minister told the House that on 27 June the CEO of Ansett, Mr Toomey, told him that the Air New Zealand group had $1 billion in financial reserves. He did not say whether it was New Zealand or Australian dollars.83VEmerson, Craig, MPMr Emerson—Either way, they are not worth a lot.83UCox, David, MPMr COX—The member for Rankin is totally right. The Prime Minister said:... the advice I had was that it was likely to be exhausted within a year. I was informed during that meeting that they needed a capital injection. The capital injection talked about was obviously a capital injection that was to come from the Singapore Airlines application to the New Zealand government being accepted and, in turn, Air New Zealand injecting more money into Ansett. We discussed that. I indicated that the objectives of the government were to ensure competition in the domestic market and to ensure that, on the assumption that two major airlines continued, at least one major airline was Australian owned. That is why the government did unashamedly have a preference for what was called the Qantas option for quite some time ...We already have an airline that is Australian owned; it is called Qantas. It is our national carrier.The Prime Minister was given a document—and the document that he tabled in the House was this document which has a Qantas logo on the bottom. The Prime Minister, and the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Transport and Regional Services took the competitor's advice about the state of Ansett. And what did Qantas tell them? They told them what was in their own commercial interest. They told them that Ansett would not fail. And what did they ask them to do? This is what it says on another page of that document: Qantas seeks Australian government support in diverting SIA from its current path.What was the SIA proposal? That SIA was to increase its shareholding in Air New Zealand from the current 25 per cent to as much as 49 per cent if the New Zealand government would allow it. (Time expired).16:25:0031529Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLEKV5HinklerNP10—We have heard a lot about Henny Penny. I would like to talk about the chooks that cluck around the fowl yard pecking at the odd piece of wheat, pecking at the odd grub, pecking at the odd worm—in fact, trying to peck at any little thing that might be negative, that might give the opposition a bit of credibility, that might help them to flip and flop and fluff around like a lot of old chooks in the fowl yard. Isn't it interesting that today, which will arguably be the second-last sitting day, the opposition finally put forward an MPI against the Minister for Sport and Tourism? All this time Australian tourism has been booming—there has been year after year of improvement, the Olympics, year after year of increased spending from the government, the restoration of the EMDG grants, the whole scenario—yet there has hardly been a question from the shadow minister. I ask the shadow minister: how many questions have been asked? Was it one or two during the term? What a marvellous performance! He then came into the House today with confected outrage about the standard of the Australian tourism industry. Hypocrisy knows no bounds! Henny Penny is a compliment to you. A couple of old chooks pecking around the fowl yard for a sliver here and a sliver there of something negative—that is as much as you would know about tourism.Before I entered this place, I was general manager of a regional tourism development board in Bundaberg. At the weekend I was given honorary life membership of that body, of which I was the co-founder 30 years ago. It is one of the few that has survived the test of time. These boards start up with a lot of hubris and no-one wants to put any money into them—least of all Labor governments, I might add—and then they fall over. But not this one. It was interesting because we coalesced 400 businesses around the district— 11 shires and a number of government departments—to form a very effective board.I come here with some knowledge of the tourist industry—what it is capable of doing and, particularly in circumstances such as this, what we can do with tourism as a substitute to air travel. Tourism and regional development are my great passions. For that reason, I sought to come to this place, because I thought I could add something different. Today I listened to the confected outrage from the other side about the state of the Australia tourism industry. But when I looked through the various states I found that every Labor state government has reduced its funding this financial year—every one of them. Only two states increased their funding: the ACT and South Australia, both in coalition circumstances. That says it all, doesn't it?Tourism comes fairly easily in my electorate, although we can always do with more help. We have the Great Barrier Reef, beaches, two beautiful cities—Bundaberg and Gladstone—and a marvellous hinterland. We have the classic tourism model. But tourism is never a magic pill or an overnight success. Any tourism market's success comes with long-term strategic positioning and marketing—and that is what the minister is saying in this crisis.You do not go rushing out, as the press reports say today, suddenly wanting to put $70 million into tourism, $50 million into business concessional loans and $10 million into the Tourism Commission when you do not even know where the problem is. It might be the state tourism bodies that need the money to boost local tourism. Wouldn't you think in a circumstance like this that the ALP or their regional development or tourism committee, if they have one, might have said, in their collective wisdom, `Hey, listen. Isn't this a great opportunity for Australians to holiday at home?' Did that ever occur to you? Do you know that 80 per cent of Australians undertake their holidays by car? That would have been a marvellous opportunity. The minister wants to have this consultation and place the government money strategically— we cannot have the luxury of saying, `We'll just put the $2 billion to one side and suddenly, somehow, magically we'll save Ansett with a loan or a gift of $150 million or $200 million.' Quite frankly, if you could put the debt to one side or get rid of the debt, Ansett would not need the $150 million or $200 million—they would be able to raise it themselves. You go on with such nonsense arguments in this place. 8K6Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr Fitzgibbon—There is no-one interested in Ansett.KV5Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLE—No, we are very interested in Ansett. It stands to reason that, when tourism encounters a crisis like the pilots strike, the Compass collapse, Ansett's grounding or the US terrorist attacks—which you have said very little about, and I suspect that has put more people out of aircraft in recent times than even the Ansett thing, especially when holidays are concerned—people have a natural reluctance to travel. As a result of the grounding of Ansett, there has been an increase in the price of airline tickets that will affect tourism, and you have been keen to make mention of that. But I will take you back a little way to when you were in office and Compass got into difficulty—and remember that in those days Compass was providing the budget fares and stimulating the tourism market—84BSt Clair, Stuart, MPMr St Clair—What did they do?KV5Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLE—What did they do? Nothing. In fact, I think this quote of Brian Grey's is marvellous: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 would be no cooperation from the Commonwealth government. He said, `Under no circumstances will we help you by any means.'Marvellous! And that was the organisation that was delivering the low cost fares at the time. Later, in the current circumstance, when the Leader of the Opposition wanted to justify himself, he said, `There were only 1,000 employees affected,' as if they did not matter. They all matter—whether it is 13,000, 14,000 or 1,000. They matter because of the service they were delivering. So does it mean, if segments of Ansett start to fly again—and in the unlikely event of the ALP attaining government this year—that if one or other of those small airlines falls over, we will just say, `There were only 1,000 employees affected,' or `All the employees of Virgin Blue are non-unionists. If Virgin Blue falls over, it will not matter'? That is the sort of cynicism that you have come into this House with today. That is the sort of cynicism we have had to put up with.What is more, you have gone on this week with confected outrage about the entitlements of employees. We are the only government in Australia's history—apart from one brief foray by the Carr government— that has ever done anything serious about employees' entitlements, right down to eight weeks redundancy. It is well within the capacity of those states that we have just talked about, even in the savings that they are making on tourism this year, to fund the additional entitlements of the Ansett employees. If you are really so keen about it, start working on your state colleagues. The Leader of the Opposition comes into this place flipping and flopping all the time.CK6Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr Hardgrave—More flop than flip.KV5Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLE—Yes. He did nothing about the Compass collapse; he did not even safeguard workers' entitlements. Hansard records that on 19 September he claimed to be misrepresented after comments that the government should underwrite Ansett were attributed to him. He said, `I have never suggested that at any stage.' Now he wants a bailout. How many times has he changed his position on this? How many times have you changed your position on this? How many times have you helped the tourism industry? We have given record funding, we have given export market development grants; you have done nothing. (Time expired)Parliamentary Zone315313153110000Jenkins, Harry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—The Speaker has received a message from the Senate transmitting the following resolution agreed to by the Senate:That, in accordance with section 5 of the Parliament Act 1974, the Senate approves the proposal by the National Capital Authority for capital works within the Parliamentary Zone, being the design and content of slivers for Reconciliation Place.Bills31531R136031531Bill returned from Main Committee without amendment; certified copy of the bill presented.Ordered that the bill be taken into consideration forthwith.Bill agreed to.31531Bill (on motion by Mr Tuckey)—by leave—read a third time.Bills31531R139931531Bill returned from Main Committee without amendment; certified copy of the bill presented.Ordered that the bill be taken into consideration forthwith.Bill agreed to.31531Bill (on motion by Mr Tuckey)—by leave—read a third time.Bills31531R139331531Bill returned from Main Committee without amendment; certified copy of the bill presented.Ordered that the bill be taken into consideration forthwith.Bill agreed to.31531Bill (on motion by Mr Tuckey)—by leave—read a third time.Bills31531R134631531Bill returned from Main Committee without amendment; certified copy of the bill presented.Ordered that the bill be taken into consideration forthwith.Bill agreed to.31531Bill (on motion by Mr Tuckey)—by leave—read a third time.Bills31531R141031531Bill returned from Main Committee without amendment; certified copy of the bill presented.Ordered that the bill be taken into consideration forthwith.Bill agreed to.31531Bill (on motion by Mr Tuckey)—by leave—read a third time.Bills31531R138631531Bill returned from Main Committee without amendment; certified copy of the bill presented.Ordered that the bill be taken into consideration forthwith.Bill agreed to.31531Bill (on motion by Mr Tuckey)—by leave—read a third time.Bills31531R139831531Debate resumed.16:42:0031531Bailey, Fran, MPFRAN BAILEYJT4McEwenLP10— We are back in the chamber today debating the Regional Forest Agreements Bill 2001 yet again. We are back here debating this piece of legislation because the government is trying to get this legislation passed through the parliament in order to provide security for all of those people who work in the timber and forest products industry. Anyone watching or tuning into this debate would wonder why on earth this is taking so long. This legislation was first introduced into this parliament three years ago. People have heard of very long debates taking place in this parliament, and especially in the Senate, but I do not think any debate has taken as long as this one. The reason that this debate has taken so long and the government has been unable to provide the security and the certainty for people in our regional areas of Australia in particular, including many in the towns of my electorate, is that the opposition has prevented it. I have listened to some of the previous speakers today in this debate and have heard some absolutely hypocritical and unbelievable excuses as to why this legislation has not been passed, especially from the member for McMillan, who seems to have forgotten that it was his party that voted down this legislation. So I thought that for the purpose of this debate today I would go back and detail some of the reasons why we are still standing here today trying desperately to provide that security and certainty for the timber industry. On 9 December 1998, the bill was referred to the Senate's Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee. The committee reported on 25 February 1999. In the chairman's report, there was a recommendation that the bill be passed unamended. Previous speakers here today have talked about bipartisanship on this important issue. Did those opposite provide that bipartisanship to ensure the safe passage of this legislation? The answer is that they did not. They started engaging in stalling tactics which, I am very sorry to say, are still continuing today. Firstly, the opposition issued some amendments which were no more than spurious amendments. They were just opening up the gateway to create a lawyers picnic. In fact, when the ALP raised their amendments, the Minister for Forestry and Conservation said:We have grave concerns about an objects clause—which is what the opposition proposed—because that just opens up the opportunity for people who seem to have heaps and heaps of money to take someone to court after the event when they have committed their billion bucks in a paper making plant and say, “You cannot do this because RFA No. 5 in Victoria does not meet the objects of the act.” That is a great opportunity for a couple of lawyers to make a lot of money. The fact of life is that investors do not want that problem; they want uncontestable arrangements. That is what you achieve with an objects clause: you start to create opportunities for litigation. That is why I think it was totally unnecessary. But we were prepared to have some limited objects that we felt would not open the legislation to that sort of litigation, and we said so.But that was unacceptable. Spurious amendments like that provide not one iota of hope, not one iota of certainty or security, for those people in an electorate like mine in towns like Alexandra, Seymour, Yarra Junction and Powelltown where people have invested millions of dollars. They need the security of the resource, and the RFA legislation is designed to underpin that security. If we were to agree to such spurious amendments as those I have just described, we would be doing those people and all who work in the mills, in the forests, in the trucks and in the service industries the greatest disservice, because we would just simply pull from under them any rug of security or certainty.Further to that spurious amendment, the opposition put forward disallowance provisions, which the government opposed. The first, as I said, related to this open-ended delay, and the government would not have a bar of that. The second one raised a constitutional question, and we certainly were not going to have a bar of that either. Once again, that was not providing what the RFA legislation was in fact designed to achieve. Further amendments related to compensation, and let me give the reason why the government rejected that particular amendment. We rejected it because it proposed to alter the compensation clause in the bill and would have been confusing, as the liability to pay compensation continued to rise out of the terms of the RFA itself. It was unclear as to what the term `losses arising from the loss of legally excisable rights' in the proposed amendment actually meant. Once again, this was simply going to be opening the doors so that the lawyers could have a picnic. That is just not on, and I wanted to get that very clearly on the record today. As I said, I have been listening to speakers saying, `We need bipartisanship in this.' We certainly do, but there is no way that any responsible government could have possibly agreed to those amendments, not when they were going to have those sorts of effects. I would ask those opposite to just consider for a minute the industry on which they are putting up every obstacle to further advancement. We are talking about an industry that employs over 82,000 people nationally, that has an $11½ billion annual turnover and that represents 1.9 per cent of GDP. This is an industry that in recent years has invested millions in high value adding equipment— the very end of the market that we are most anxious to improve and that is leading to increased growth in exports. Take a firm like Goulds in Alexandra in my electorate: they are now exporting to Japan and China because of the millions of dollars they have invested in their particular business. They, and thousands like them, are listening. They are waiting on the outcome of this debate, as they have been waiting for years. They are getting fed up with the tactics of the opposition, who are simply using no more than stalling tactics. Every one of those spurious amendments was a stalling tactic.I think it is also about time that we got on the record the backflips, the flip-flops— whatever description you want to give to them—of the shadow minister for agriculture, fisheries and forestry. In March this year, he was at the timber community's conference at Lilydale in Melbourne. I was also at that conference. In his address to that conference he said:Providing all key players approach the matter in a positive and constructive fashion, the prospect for securing bipartisan passage of Commonwealth RFA legislation is extremely good. For my part, I can assure you that I will make every effort to secure such an outcome.When he said, in front of a group of timber industry representatives, that he was going to make every effort to achieve an outcome in regard to this legislation, people were so much wanting that to be true that they believed it. But, once again, they have been let down, and they have been let down very badly. This Regional Forest Agreements Bill 2001 has been on the Notice Paper for a couple of weeks, but at five minutes to midnight the shadow minister decides to move yet more amendments, none of which he is prepared to have debated in this chamber; they are only to be debated in the other place. Once again, he is simply putting up obstacles. He says one thing when he is out there talking to industry representatives, but he does something quite different in here. If we had been monitoring the shadow minister's statements, we and industry would have realised that the words he spoke in Lilydale in March this year were, sadly, just empty rhetoric. In August of this year, speaking in Tasmania, the member for Reid expressed `concerns that the new regional forest agreements may be delayed because of the pending federal election'. He was already flagging his concerns. If anything, it was probably a Freudian slip, because he was firmly intending the Regional Forest Agreements Bill 2001 to be held up once again. At around the same time, on 18 July this year, Senator Kerry O'Brien wrote a letter to the editor of a Tasmanian publication telling Tasmanian readers that the Senate had passed the government's RFA legislation. The mind simply boggles at all this. We have a Tasmanian senator telling Tasmanians that the RFA legislation had been passed; we have the shadow minister attending a timber conference in Melbourne saying he was going to do everything in his power to ensure that it would be passed; and then a little later in the year, one month after Senator O'Brien made his statement to the Tasmanian press, we have the shadow minister starting to flag the possibility that this might be a bit iffy and that there might be problems. This really is an absolute disgrace.In a way, though, you can almost understand why the shadow minister is all over the place. He is only following in the steps of his leader, who is also all over the place. The Leader of the Opposition is all over the place on issues like airlines, immigration, border protection and tax. He changes almost from one day to another and, on the airline issue, he changed his position twice in the same day. He is running around the country and changing his policy positions as he goes. He launched his Telstra appeal in Healesville, in my electorate of McEwen, and he made a pledge that he was not going to sell Telstra. One of my constituents stepped forward and asked whether this was the same sort of pledge that he had given regarding the sale of Qantas and the sale of the Commonwealth Bank. That question left him absolutely floundering. The Leader of the Opposition is not just all over the place on these other issues but also on the important issue we are discussing today. On 26 July, he was in my colleague's seat of Eden-Monaro. In relation to this matter, he said:These are matters which have exercised us over the years and we thought that the Regional Forest Agreement process, that the balance was being sustained, be it between preserving higher value native forests and allowing also jobs to be kept in the timber industry in this country.The journalist asked what that meant, and the Leader of the Opposition replied: Who knows? We thought that the balance had been got right with the RFAs and those agreements were signed up and at the time it seemed to suit people. Things have changed not just here but elsewhere and concerns and complaints have arisen from that.The only thing that has changed is that people have less certainty. They have less certainty than ever before about what role the opposition is going to play, because this opposition has demonstrated that, unfortunately, it really does not stand up for the timber industry nor for those 82,000-plus workers in the timber industry. It is not prepared, as the opposition's shadow minister claims it is when he is outside of this place, to come in here and take a bipartisan view. It has not done that.It is really crunch time for the opposition. It is time for the opposition to stop vacillating. They have to put up or shut up in regard to this whole question of the Regional Forest Agreements Bill. They have to demonstrate that they are either for the timber industry or against it, that they are either for the thousands of people who work in the timber industry or they are against them and that they are either for all those businesses that have invested millions of dollars in this industry or they are against them. There can be no other outcome to this legislation. If the opposition stall this legislation again, they will have proved to the Australian public, and in particular to all those who work in the timber industry, that they do not care about them and they do not stand for them.On behalf of all people in my electorate, especially those people in the timber towns and the timber industry that supports those towns not just in an economic sense but in a social sense, I want to reiterate that, if the opposition again put up obstacles and walk away from this regional forest agreement legislation, they are walking away from all of those small regional communities like the ones I have in my electorate. Those people who work in the timber industry are those rural communities: they are the people who volunteer in the local SES and CFA and in hospital and school fetes and every other event that happens; they are the backbone of those communities. And be assured: I will let all those communities know exactly what was said in this debate today and what obstacles the opposition have again put in the way of this legislation, and I will make sure that every single one of those workers knows what the opposition are really about.17:00:0031534Adams, Dick, MPMr ADAMSBV5LyonsALP00—All I can say to the previous speaker is: bring the bill on in the Senate tomorrow. That will be the test for you. The Regional Forest Agreements Bill 2001 gives legislative effect to certain provisions of the Commonwealth-state regional forest agreements, particularly provisions on compensation and the exclusion of specified Commonwealth laws, and provides legislative recognition for the existence and work of the Forest and Wood Products Council. This bill is enabling legislation which takes on board the state RFAs which collectively provide the blueprint for the future management of Australian forests and the basis for an internationally competitive and ecologically sustainable forest products industry. This is the most important environmental bill that could pass this House. There should be no argument about which government or party put it up or did not put it up: it has been a collective effort stretching back to the early 1990s. Both the major parties believe that this bill should be enacted, but both have used delaying tactics. This has effectively made this an issue of confrontation which both parties like to have around election time. Once again, this time is no exception.This bill is too important for that. The industry needs certainty, the value of the forests themselves needs a proper and sustainable management system to survive, and those that are in the industry and who, because of the strict guidelines that were developed in the national forest policy statement, need to scale down or leave their land need to have proper compensation. This is what this bill provides. It does nothing different from what has been discussed for years and really does not need significant amendment. However, in the interest of trying to get a more inclusive opinion, some amendments have been suggested. I have been continuing to push for my party to stand by its decision to support the legislation as it has been reintroduced into the parliament in the last session. It is quite possible to support the legislation and that support should now be bipartisan, as the discussions within the two major parties have not changed the direction of the legislation. Now is the time to finally put this matter to bed and continue to get on with developing the industry along the lines of world best practice. I will stand by my commitment to the industry, the workers and their families in that industry and the communities that are based on them. I can only hope that the government is prepared to put aside any one-upmanship or political games and get on with the process before we have to fight another election on forestry issues. But it is up to the minister: he has to ensure the bill's passage. It is on his head if, once again, it fails.We are debating this legislation two days before the end of the 39th Parliament. Two days! It was put on the Notice Paper two weeks ago. The legislation has been ready and it could have been brought into the parliament earlier. In saying that, I would like to spell out my position and philosophy on the forest industry as we move towards an election. As you know, I have always felt that it is important that we maintain a balance between the valuable contribution that forestry makes to the Tasmanian economy and our need to keep our unique environment in a healthy state for the future. Forestry in Tasmania has been the subject of long-term debate and, although questions still remain, the major part of the concerns has been addressed. We have a world-class forestry system and our forest practices are second to none. But that does not mean that we are perfect; there is always room for improvement and I am conscious that I must take note of all those that write to me or ring me on forestry issues, because sometimes people do make mistakes and we can always learn new and better ways of doing things. The RFA guidelines, along with the national forest policy, were a long time in development. They went through an exhaustive consultation process which came out with a solution that should provide an excellent base for the careful development of the industry. The RFA allows best practice to be put into place and will allow for careful and healthy development of the forest industry and encourage further processing and value adding in the state. Although Tasmania is not quite perfect yet, we are seen as a world leader in forestry practices. We are recognised by those who lead in Scandinavia and Canada. Forty per cent of the landmass, containing some of the best timber, is locked up in national parks and reserves, and that which is left can be better cared for by allowing harvesting from time to time. Plantations are becoming the dominant forest type, used for such uses as pulp and chips which are then used for paper making, both in Australia and overseas. Tasmanian forest strategy was born out of work done by professional foresters and bush workers. They have worked in the area for over 150 years—probably longer—and it is due to them that we have so much old-growth forest still standing and in good shape. But, like people, trees die and need to be replaced to allow the life cycle to continue. The role of the RFA is to maximise the timber return while minimising the impact on the forest biodiversity. This means better work practices, as well as setting aside stands of forest that are not represented elsewhere. These have been carefully screened and documented for their special values and are spelt out in Tasmania's RFA. If man's activities have impinged on the area at all, which in most of the private forest areas they have, weed species enter, the ground is disturbed and the undergrowth becomes prone to fires and can be a danger to the rest of the area. So they need to be cleaned up now and again to allow the strong, healthy trees to reseed the area. Just saying that we will promise to stop old-growth logging will leave us with a resource that is not useful anymore and therefore will not be looked after as it has no economic value.As it is, the cost of looking after national parks is very expensive, involving the maintenance of building access, the provision of centres for people to visit, the provision of interpretation and the enabling of further research to be carried out. The same number of people work on this as they do in some other forest practices, but the return is different. The resource in the reserved areas does not have an economic value, but it does have a value in its role of retaining the biodiversity of this particular climatic period, so it still remains a long-term asset, with ability to store our biodiversity and help rejuvenate the area. Therefore, the overall cost of maintaining national parks is more than it returns in the short term, but it can be seen as an investment for our future.We do not have the population in Tasmania, as some people would argue, to replace forestry harvesting with tourism. There just is not the population to achieve that, so there has to be a happy medium where we keep the really good rainforest and mixed forest in conservation areas and allow economic activities to go on around the edges to ensure both areas are managed for posterity. Sensible management, along with an understanding of how the ecosystem works, is the key to the sustainability and therefore the certainty of the industry. Once the federal legislation is in place, I am keen to start working with the industry to see how we can further improve industry's position—to look at timber certification and to look at further downstream processing.During all this time of negotiation, I have met with forest workers and their families. I have been involved in many consultations with the state government and industry bodies and also with the Timber Communities Association. It has been a rewarding and enlightening time. All these people show the human side of the industry and what happens when there is conflict. I have witnessed the awful grief and family hardship that occurs as the timber community tries to keep the employment that they and their families have been undertaking for many generations.Regional jobs are hard to come by. Little by little they get whittled away by those who live in cities who see great new visions for the world but who do not seem to include people in their visions. Our foresters and timber workers are now the true conservationists. They are the ones out there looking after the working forests, keeping the species diverse, keeping the forests healthy and renewable. While this struggle has been occurring, I have been able to meet thousands of people from all over Australia, and I have welcomed their friendship and have been hearing their concerns. Whether or not they like my politics or what I have to say, they have always given me a fair hearing and a friendly debate.To ensure the future of these people, I would like to see this bill passed. It should not be put off anymore. The time for talking is over. We need to get on with our lives and start developing an industry careful for the future, so that our working forests are ready for our grandchildren to harvest so they can build their houses from the best timber in the world. I have a diagram here which shows the regrowth forest reserve growth in Tasmania over the last two decades. I will ask the minister later if I can table it. It shows the increase in the amount of reserves, national parks and world heritage areas that we now have in Tasmania. The previous speaker said that this bill has been hanging around for two years; it is a lot longer than that. The minister has been fiddling around with it, not putting it forward. In 1998, when we went to an election, it was in the Senate. It was brought back in after the election and it hung around in 1999. It was then withdrawn in 2000 and set aside. It has not been brought back until now—two days before the end of the 39th Parliament. The bill sits poised to go to the Senate to be debated, but we know that the government has already taken it off its list of priority bills in the Senate and, unless it puts it back on that list, this bill will not be debated in the Senate. It is up to the minister to get this bill into the Senate to be debated. It is already off the list there; it has to be put back on the list.I would also like to remind the House that I have never voted against an RFA bill and the Labor Party has never voted against an RFA bill. The only major party that has voted against an RFA bill is the Liberal-National parties, and that was in 1992, when the original bill was brought in by the Labor Party. It is time to stop mucking around. This is the time to get on with the job of passing this bill. As I said, it is now up to the minister, and I challenge him to get the bill into the Senate. That is his task; that is his job. Put it back on the list to be debated so that it can be passed. Let people have the certainty that they need in the forest industry so that it can grow and expand, and let our working forests continue to live. I support the bill. Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to table the document I referred to earlier.Leave granted.17:16:0031537Horne, Bob, MPMr HORNEUU5PatersonALP00— When we look at the history of the Regional Forest Agreements Bill 2001, we can see it is a classic example of a government playing wedge politics. Every Australian wants our unique forest system to be saved, and every Australian wants habitat for our unique fauna and for those animals to be saved for future generations to maintain our biodiversity. The problem with the implementation of the RFA legislation is the will of the minister at the time—and that has been highly questionable.When we look at the history of this legislation and its passage through this parliament we see that the bill was introduced in June 1998 after virtually no consultation with relevant stakeholders. It was passed in the House of Representatives with Labor support, but was still before the Senate when the 1998 election was called. An identical bill was reintroduced immediately after the 1998 election and was before the parliament for all of 1999. It passed this House—again with our support—in March 1999, but was not brought on for debate in the Senate until August that year. By then, the Democrats had assumed the balance of power in the Senate—in July that year—and on 2 September 1999 the Senate passed the bill with the inclusion of 15 amendments. That was carried by 50 votes to 8. The key amendments imposed a limited process of public and parliamentary review of draft RFAs and amendments to RFAs, clarified the circumstances in which compensation was payable by the Commonwealth and explicitly linked the bill to the requirements of Labor's groundbreaking national forest policy statement of 1992.But when the bill was returned to the House in October 1999 the government rejected all of the Senate amendments and added a new clause proposing the establishment of a Forest Products Advisory Council. The Senate then insisted on its original amendments and adopted a further amendment, substituting Labor's proposed Wood and Paper Industry Council for the coalition's Forest Products Advisory Council. And on 9 December, Minister Tuckey—the minister at the table today—moved that the bill be laid aside on the basis that the government was unwilling to accept the Senate's amendments.There is going to be an election between now and the end of the year, and what do we find? In the last days of this parliament, here is the RFA legislation back on the agenda. That is the thing: this is a highly controversial bill. We heard the member for McEwen saying that it has been the opposition that has procrastinated on this legislation. That history I have just read out of the passage of this legislation through this House is an honest and true statement of it which can be verified; and on every occasion it has had the support of the Labor Party. Everyone knows it is not the opposition that is in charge of determining when legislation comes to this House; that is the job of the minister. I understand there was quite a farcical situation in the Senate earlier today when the debate on this legislation was thrown out by some unwitting government senators who did not realise the importance of it to the minister's role. BV5Adams, Dick, MPMr Adams—I think they did!UU5Horne, Bob, MPMr HORNE—They probably did; they probably knew the controversy about it and thought, `Maybe this is something that it's better we don't debate.' Perhaps that is it—I do not know. But we can see the slant that the government is taking on this issue every time.Forestry is an important industry in the electorate of Paterson. As a matter of fact, it is so important that we had the minister himself there a month or so ago. I was delighted that he was there. I am only sorry he did not advise me he was coming or I could have taken him to meet every forestry worker and every sawmiller, because I am very proud of my association with them. I have encouraged those sawmills that are still in the Paterson electorate to invest in value adding, whereby they employ more people, use less resource and receive greater returns for their products. I was highly delighted—and the minister would know this—that earlier this year S.A. Relf and Son became the first accredited producer of kiln-dried hardwood flooring in New South Wales. That happened to be the very mill that the minister visited in Bulahdelah only a month ago. Back in the early nineties, when this RFA legislation had been brought forward by the then Keating government, we knew there was going to be a change in access to resource; but that was happening naturally anyway, because 100-plus years of logging automatically has that effect on resource availability. The Dorney family, which owns S.A. Relf and Son, have invested millions in plant and equipment. They have put lots of money into training and acquiring staff who are aware of what is needed, what the market needs and the quality assessment they must carry out on their product. Naturally, they have accessed FISAP money, and I have encouraged, guided and helped them to do that. There is no doubt that what they have today is a quality outfit, producing probably the best quality product of its sort in Australia. Royce Dorney, the patriarch of the family, and I have some serious discussions from time to time, but he knows that the forest industry has changed and that it must be sustainable.These changes have been taking place because of investment and because of the market. I heard my colleague from Tasmania say that he sincerely hopes that young people will be able to build a home out of hardwood—out of the best timber available. Even in hardwood towns like Bulahdelah, Stroud and Gloucester, and towns in my electorate where hardwood has always played a very big role, when you see a new house going up you do not see hardwood scantling being used. You might see radiata pine which was grown in a plantation, and you see a great deal of steel-framed places going up, because technology changes. I must admit that I am pleased to see those pine frames going up, because that again tells me that it is about sustainable forestry. That is what both sides of the House are trying to do, but there is always a certain amount of jostling and confrontation, and that is the shame of it, because it should be done with the support of both sides. The Labor Party certainly discovered that back in the early nineties, when the annual affair of woodchip licences came up. That was something that had to be avoided, and I suppose it precipitated the RFA legislation in the first place. Let us make this a sustainable industry. Let us guarantee that biodiversity is ensured for future generations. Let us make sure that samples of all sorts of forestry are set aside and will continue. Let us see what we can do for the forestry industry to make it sustainable. That has happened in the electorate of Paterson. I understand that, nationally, reserves have increased by 28 per cent since the legislation was introduced, and that is a very good thing.Those are the points that we should be making together, because if we are not together the division will be very unpalatable and it has the potential to be very damaging to the timber industry. The minister certainly knows that and I certainly know it, because I have received a significant number of emails and letters opposing the legislation. I do not believe that the opposition to the issue is either informed or reasonable. I believe that it is highly emotive and that it does not look at the true facts, the true statement or the true science of the RFA legislation. I walk around forests with foresters on a fairly regular basis. I am aware that, within the forestry compartments that have been set aside for harvesting, positive policies of environmental control and biodiversity maintenance are being practised between filter strips around drainage areas and between old growth forest and candidate old growth forest being set aside not to be harvested. I am aware of that. I certainly do not see the process of clear-felling occurring anywhere in the forestry compartments in the electorate of Paterson. I know that it may not be the same for other areas, but I can only go on what I see. When I walk through the forests of Bulahdelah and Gloucester Tops and the Dungog state forest areas, I am amazed that I am looking at forests that have been continuously harvested for well over 100 years. I am confident that the biodiversity that is still there represents much of the biodiversity that was there initially when the first timber-getters first walked into the area. That is the balanced argument, and it is the job of the minister and the opposition to make sure that the argument goes forward. We can play politics over it—the minister plays politics with it from time to time; I certainly do—because we are in the game of politics, and that is what it is all about. When the minister comments that he believes that there should be logging in national parks, it certainly drops his guard and leaves him open. That is exploited not so much by me— as a matter of fact, I have not put out a single comment on it—but certainly by the environmental movement, which has taken him to task over it. Those are the things that should be removed from this argument. It is not one or the other; we are talking about a total situation. We are talking about trying to get the policy right.The Labor Party, when it first produced the RFA legislation, moved that it should be reviewed from time to time. We know that the RFA debate has moved on and that it is now focused on the implementation, reporting and review stage. Five-yearly reviews of the first two RFAs are due to be completed next year. The challenge will be to carry out those reviews and see whether we have the science right and whether we have to change our tack. We are not setting it in concrete. We have to be open to moderate our views, to modify our procedures and to ensure that the objectives of the regional forest agreements are being met. That is what this is all about. I am pleased to be here today, because I believe that this is certainly the best policy that has evolved in the whole of the forestry industry. It removes confrontation, brings in logic, brings in science and allows the development of a model that will retain representation of all our native forest types, maintain our biodiversity and maintain an industry that is vital for many parts of regional and rural Australia, an industry that has traditionally been there since the first settlers strode into many parts of Australia. As we walk around those areas, we see that the biodiversity is still largely intact in many areas. That is how this argument can and must be won. The emotion must be taken out of it and commonsense and science must prevail. That is why I am pleased to be here today to have the opportunity to say a few words and to support the legislation.17:30:0031539Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEYSJ4O'ConnorLPMinister for Forestry and Conservation and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister10—In summing up on these issues in respect of the Regional Forest Agreements Bill 2001, people here are getting prepared to make speeches which I am sure they are very anxious to distribute within their electorates. It is encouraging, of course, to hear people say things which unfortunately have been in conflict with their votes. Notwithstanding the comments just made by the member for Paterson, I find him listed under the noes on 13 October 1999 on page 965 of Hansard in respect of the Regional Forest Agreements Bill 1998. I also find the member for Lyons there. It is useless coming into this place and trying to rewrite history. We have something called Hansard which records these things quite clearly. I want to address a couple of fundamental issues, the first of which is that this bill has come to the House in a form that is totally supported by the dominant trade union, the CFMEU, in terms of its content. On previous occasions, I read to the House some of the very straightforward comments they chose to make when it was suggested that it would be amended, because they saw that as dangerous for the bill. In that regard, as someone said here today, the danger was that it might open the bill up to litigation. It could allow those people who seem to always have large sums of money—otherwise frequently known as green activists—to attack the principles of the bill where they thought it could be undermined. It is their policy to undermine the bill, or legislation of this nature, simply because they have a standard process of being opposed to any form of forest products industry.We did not want any complications. We have constantly opposed amendments that were either not relevant to the fundamentals of the bill or which we thought could put the bill at risk at some time in the future. In that regard, our position is unchanged. We have put forward a bill which contains some alterations from the past, principally to meet what we thought were quite sensible requirements, particularly from the CFMEU, in terms of a Forest Products Advisory Council. That is functioning and I attended a meeting last week in that regard. One of the principal contributors to that is Mr Trevor Smith of the CFMEU, whom I find most helpful, and who gives leadership on some issues. We are progressing that matter. I give him credit for raising this point in our preliminary discussions. Most of those attending are high-ranking executives of the businesses and not just association CEOs. That again adds very substantially to it, and the legislation we are debating today formalises those arrangements. It leaves in a sunset clause because there may possibly be a point in time when it has done its job and we do not want something hanging around our neck which is costly when those funds could be better used in the interests of the industry.People like the Tasmanian Labor government say that they want this bill without amendment. We had representatives at the executive level of the Tasmanian industry in the parliament today saying that their entire investment program is locked up awaiting the security from sovereign risk that this bill will provide. In itself, that is the reason why the bill should go ahead unamended and with alacrity. It is all right for people to say when it might have been brought in and when it was not brought in. The fact is that we have time by tomorrow, when I come to a particular point, to pass this bill into legislation. There should be no mucking about. We do not need other amendments. If there is a genuine feeling amongst the Labor Party that they would like to add amendments to this bill, win the election and do it. That is your right. You can win an election, become the government, and you can do it. While we are the government, we believe that it should pass unamended. Every time amendments were attempted, we rejected them and, as I have said, there were a number of reasons for that. While people may say that objectives cannot be misused by the law, the member for Lyons might realise that, in the fishing industry in Tasmania recently, because the AFMA act had been grabbed by the lawyers, something was done with respect to blue-eyed trevalla which our people and the Tasmanians did not want. Something that the two governments had agreed should not happen was taken out of their hands. In that case, it did not get to the court because a senior AFMA official simply said, `If you knock them back, they'll beat you in two days in the court. You can't win because of precedent that has been established.' In other words, everything about the AFMA act now is decided on the objectives—written, I might add, with our support, as I recollect, by the then Labor government. That is a prime example of where objectives are abused by the legal system. I understand why they should be there, but we now know that you cannot do that and, as I said, the reason why a trawlerman now has blue-eyed trevalla quota in Tasmania is because he was prepared to use his lawyers and legal interpretations of the objectives of the AFMA act. Any suggestion that that was a good idea is disproved in Tasmania by a set of circumstances here and now. This bill is about guaranteeing that people who make investments, because of their trust in the Regional Forest Agreement Act, are protected and compensated should a future government shift the goalposts. In the case of Tasmania—and this applies only to Tasmania—the state government has already passed regional forest agreement legislation. Were the Labor Party to assist us in delivering this bill tomorrow, Tasmania would be the leader in Australia in attracting high levels of investment. It is clear, from the visit of the Tasmanian industry leaders today, that they are breaking their necks to do just that.Why won't it happen? Two speakers have told us that there has been some sort of administrative problem in the Senate. Let me tell you what has happened—it is what I told you would happen in my second reading speech—the Democrats and the Greens have said, `You bring this bill on and we will talk out the entire day,' and, presumably, the next day and the day after that. I warned the House of this in my second reading speech. The government has a huge number of other pieces of legislation, one of which I understand represents something like $400 million in revenue. If it were to bring this on and confront the Democrats and the Greens, none of that other legislation would be dealt with—and the Labor Party has agreed to give it precedence and to debate it with alacrity.There is a simple solution to this. We would be delighted to join with the Labor Party in this House and send a message to our colleagues—to yours in the Labor Party and to mine in the Liberal Party—that we want them to combine and gag the Democrats and the Greens. There has been speech after speech made here today by people, as I have said, who are getting ready to send the message out—`I am with you, boys, trust me. Forget l-a-w.' The fact is that it is not worth a zack if you are not prepared to apply a simple process: gag the Greens and the Democrats in the Senate. It is a very simple option. We just have to stand shoulder to shoulder and the bill will pass. We all know there are time considerations, but we have seen it all before. We could have sent this up to the Senate a month ago—8T4Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr Laurie Ferguson—You could have brought the bill here two weeks ago for debate!SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEY—Senator Bob Brown spoke for eight to 10 hours in the Senate last time. In no way could that time be provided to him again. Is it reasonable to have that lengthy debate? Let us consult history, as we have been reminded to do today. This bill has been in the House twice, it has come back twice and it has been debated on every one of those occasions. The Senate has had two inquiries on the bill, designed for one reason only: to try to extend the time by which the bill could be delayed. All of that has happened. But what happened the other night? The Democrats moved a motion for the hearing—it was necessary for them to be further informed on a bill which is two or three pages long!8T4Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr Laurie Ferguson—How long did they get to report it?SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEY—With the assistance of the Labor Party, we restricted that to a practical amount of time. Who turned up to listen to the evidence? Not one Democrat. The people who created the committee did not turn up to listen. Why? Because they do not want to listen.This issue is simple—I will come back here in the morning, if you like; you can let me know the answer to my question—if I moved a motion in this House calling on the senators of our two parties to pass this bill, with one speaker a side—that is, one for the Greens, one for the Democrats and one for One Nation, as far as I am concerned—and then called for a vote, would you support me? That is the challenge. That is fair enough. We know what will happen. You cannot ask a government, in what is admitted to be probably the last debating week, to put at risk all the other legislation so that Senator Bob Brown and his mates can talk for eight or 10 hours. If you believe in that, come back in the morning and stand up in this place and tell me so. 8T4Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr Laurie Ferguson—You know that this is all about your Liberal funding bill and no other bill!SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEY—The shadow minister for forestry and conservation makes a point that is in total contradiction with what some of his colleagues, including the member for Lyons, have said. They have said, `Let's get together on this, let's get something on the record and let's not muck around with side issues.' If you want a special committee, get them to move a motion in the Senate and get them to move a motion down here—but it is not appropriate to be tied to a bill which is all about giving financial guarantees to people who want to invest in forestry. We all know the process.The member for McMillan said we only do these things so that big business can make a quid. That just shows how juvenile he is, and he is all of that. The reality is that, when big business takes the risk, a lot of other people get jobs. We have had people standing up here every day over the last couple of days crying crocodile tears about some people who have lost their jobs. They were crocodile tears because when an opportunity is available to this House and to this parliament to lay the groundwork for substantial forestry investment, we are not going to take it because we are too frightened—or someone is—to stand up to the Greens and the Democrats.I saw Senator Brown this morning daring the Labor Party to gag him. I said in my second reading speech that what we are doing here is a waste of time unless the Labor Party is prepared to stand with us and gag Brown. If any member of parliament from Tasmania can go back to his electorate and say, `Boys, I was with you but we didn't have the guts to gag Bob Brown,' they should try it.8T4Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr Laurie Ferguson—This should have been debated two weeks ago.SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEY—If we had had the debate two weeks ago, Bob Brown would have spoken for another two weeks and you would not have gagged him.8T4Ferguson, Laurie, MPSJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEY—You did not write to me at any stage. We have had plenty of time. We could rush that thing in there tomorrow morning and, as long as the two major parties were prepared to limit the debate, it would go through.8T4Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr Laurie Ferguson—Why didn't you bring it in last time? Come on!SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEY—From the beginning of the debate today, the shadow minister was setting the scene for the fact that it was not going to happen. Labor knew it was not going to happen because they knew in their own hearts that they did not have the guts to stand up and tell Senator Brown to shut up. That is why. He lined them up this morning, and they knuckled their foreheads. It is the old story: in the end, a forest worker's job to the Labor Party comes down to 30 Green preferences.8T4Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr Laurie Ferguson—They won't believe you this time.SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEY—They will believe me because the solution is so simple. I will give you the opportunity: tell me that tomorrow morning you will support me in a resolution of this House calling on the Senate to pass that bill. Would you vote with me?8T4Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr Laurie Ferguson—We all know that this is about your Liberal funding bill.10000Hollis, Collin (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hollis)— Order! We are not going to have the debate over the table. The minister has the call; no interjections.SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEY—I do not need any smokescreens or spin doctoring. All we are talking about is one bill. There are a lot of other aspects of that particular bill that we know the Labor Party and the trade union movement do not like. You can do what you like about that. I think you have done a pretty good job by saying that it is only a one-clause bill. It is not. The fact of life is that, if this bill is to progress from this parliament at any time in the future whilst we are the government, it has to go in a simple and direct form that everybody outside this place wants, bar a few people whose determination is to have the bill so complex that they can get their lawyers or that, when somebody is seeking the assistance they need—or worse, when the industry reads it—they will say, `I won't invest in that.' The government has just received a report from one of the world's leading forestry consultants, Jaakko Poyry, which is a name that is well known in the industry. They delivered the preliminary findings to the government on 8 August 2001. On page 8, there is a list of greenfield processing opportunities. Let me say that some of these are softwood; in other words, plantation. But look at the future: firstly, a softwood sawmill in Bombala can be done now from a resource position; a reconstituted softwood panel mill in Bombala now; thirdly, a proposal for Central Victoria now; and then we get to the big one: a bleached hardwood craft pulp mill in Tasmania now. The resources are there and the opportunity is there, according to one of the world's leading consultancies in this area. That is their advice to the government.Wesley Vale is indelibly burnt in the memory of every major investor in the world. I know; they come to see me. They see the opportunities of an exchange rate, they see a resource waiting to go and they say, `Minister, when is your payment going to guarantee us a simple ride through to it and a guarantee of complete protection from sovereign risk?' That is the issue. People say it will be an issue in the election if we do not resolve it. I can promise you it will be. On that simple case, you will not be able to go to the workers in these areas and say, `They messed it up,' when you were warned in my second reading speech that if you were not prepared to block off Green's Senator Bob Brown, you could never get it past the Senate.Bob Brown would have talked for a week, and there is no need for it. You have power in your caucus. Go and see your leader and say, `This is dumb. We shouldn't have Bob Brown telling us how to run our affairs.' It is no good saying that he would have been different if this thing had been debated a month ago. He would have talked it out. You have watched him—eight or 10 hours of debate on an eight-clause bill, as it then was. If you think you can sell that logic to working people who know who the true enemy is and who is in bed with him, you cannot do it and you will not do it. But it is up to you. Ring me up tonight, Member for Lyons, and say, `We will support you tomorrow morning in a motion calling on the Senate to give this priority and a limited debate.' Then we will know you are fair dinkum. (Time expired)Question put:That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr Laurie Ferguson's amendment) stand part of the question.17:55:00The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker—Mr C. Hollis) 72Abbott, A.J.Anderson, J.D.Andrews, K.J.Anthony, L.J.Bailey, F.E.Baird, B.G.Barresi, P.A.Billson, B.F.Bishop, B.K.Bishop, J.I.Brough, M.T.Cadman, A.G.Cameron, R.A.Causley, I.R.Costello, P.H.Draper, P.Elson, K.S.Entsch, W.G.Fahey, J.J.Fischer, T.A.Forrest, J.A. *Gallus, C.A.Gambaro, T.Gash, J.Georgiou, P.Haase, B.W.Hardgrave, G.D.Hawker, D.P.M.Hockey, J.B.Hull, K.E.Jull, D.F.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.60Adams, D.G.H.Albanese, A.N.Bevis, A.R.Brereton, L.J.Burke, A.E.Byrne, A.M.Corcoran, A.K.Cox, D.A.Crean, S.F.Crosio, J.A.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.Hatton, M.J.Hoare, K.J.Horne, R.Irwin, J.Jenkins, H.A.Kernot, C.Kerr, D.J.C.Latham, M.W.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. *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.Charles, R.E.Hall, J.G.Downer, A.J.G.Lawrence, C.M.Howard, J.W.Beazley, K.C.Lieberman, L.S.Sciacca, C.A.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative.Original question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.31544Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.Bill (on motion by Mr Tuckey) read a third time.Business3154418:00:0031544Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPLeader of the House10—Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek your indulgence.10000Hollis, Collin (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hollis)— Indulgence granted. May we have a little silence. There is too much conversation; the minister is making an important announcement.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—Thank you very much in anticipation, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am pleased to advise the House that the developments in the Senate suggest that the Senate will be able to complete the package of legislative matters currently before it. There are some exceptions, but this development gives us every prospect that we will be able to rise at the appointed time tomorrow, which means that people will be able to catch their flights.7T4Crosio, Janice, MPMrs Crosio—At what time?WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—At the normal time tomorrow. So that is the state of play at the moment and it is, of course, subject to any adverse developments in the Senate. The Senate is hoping to deal with matters that would normally need to come back to us in the morning so that there is time for the paperwork between the two Houses to be delivered in a timely fashion. I will advise if there are any adverse developments in the meantime. Thank you for that indulgence, Mr Deputy Speaker.Parliamentary Zone315443154418:02:0031544Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLPMinister for Financial Services and Regulation10—On behalf of the Minister representing the Minister for Regional Services, Territories and Local Government, I 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.18:03:0031544Albanese, Anthony, MPMr ALBANESER36GrayndlerALP00—I am somewhat surprised that the minister has moved this motion, given that there was agreement that this would be put off until tomorrow. Perhaps while I am discussing the problems that the opposition has with this proposition he could actually check and get some riding orders from the minister responsible for this, Minister Ruddock. But it is not surprising, perhaps, that the government is seeking to rush this through at a time when it is not even supposed to be debated. The whole concept of Reconciliation Place is something that, of course, the Australian Labor Party supports—DK6Hockey, Joe, MPMr Hockey—This is not it; it's the wrong one.R36Albanese, Anthony, MPMr ALBANESE—Oh, it's not? One of the concerns that we have is that, and I look forward to putting those concerns on the record tomorrow.18:04:0031545Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLPMinister for Financial Services and Regulation10—Seeking to exploit the opportunity of focusing on the total embarrassment of the member for Grayndler, can I just point out that Commonwealth Place is currently under construction in the parliamentary zone, at the junction of Walter Burley Griffin's Land Axis and Lake Burley Griffin. The design and construction of Commonwealth Place was approved by both houses of parliament in November 2000, including the location and siting of the Speaker's Square. At that time it was agreed that separate parliamentary approval for the materials and finishes would be sought later in 2001, once the design had been finalised. So I am not sure what the member for Grayndler was focusing on, but I understand that this has already been approved in concept by the joint standing committee.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills31545R138831545Debate resumed from 23 August, on motion by Mr Slipper:That the bill be now read a second time.18:06:0031545Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSONUK6WillsALP00—I move an opposition amendment to the motion for the second reading of this bill:That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:“whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House condemns the Government for:(1) imposing a complex and cumbersome new tax system on Australian businesses rather than delivering the simpler system it promised;(2) increasing the compliance and cash-flow burden for Australian businesses thereby reducing their competitiveness and increasing the rate of business failures; and(3) applying one set of tax rules for the Liberal Party and another for small businesses”.The Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 5) 2001 does a number of things. The first is that it clarifies the treatment of religious practitioners under the new tax system. It also amends the income tax law and the superannuation surcharge legislation to facilitate a change in the status of constitutionally protected superannuation funds that elect to become taxed superannuation funds, and it makes a couple of minor amendments.The first changes relate to religious practitioners. Schedule 1 to this bill amends taxation legislation from 1953 and 1997. It also amends the fringe benefits tax legislation, the GST act and the ABN act to clarify the treatment of religious practitioners under the new tax system. The amendments will broadly ensure that religious practitioners who are not employees are treated in the same way as employees and office holders. The amendments do not affect the legal status of religious practitioners. Those who are not employees continue not to be employees. Under the new rules, an entity will be required to withhold, under the PAYG withholding system, from payments to a religious practitioner for activities done in the pursuit of a vocation as a religious practitioner and as a member of a religious institution. In addition, there will be amendments so that, firstly, religious practitioners will not be eligible for, nor will they need, an Australian Business Number for activities done in pursuit of a vocation as a religious practitioner and as a member of a religious institution; secondly, payments to a religious practitioner for activities done in pursuit of a vocation as a religious practitioner and as a member of a religious institution will not be subject to the `no ABN' withholding arrangements; thirdly, benefits provided by a religious institution to a religious practitioner for pastoral or related duties will continue to be exempt from tax under the FBT law; and, fourthly, activities done in pursuit of a vocation as a religious practitioner and as a member of a religious institution will not be subject to GST. The need for this comes, in a sense, out of some debate about the question of whether religious practitioners have been employees or not. It has been said—and, indeed, it has been held in some court judgments—that religious practitioners were not employees but that they are in fact on a mission from God himself and therefore should not be considered to be employees in terms of their legal status. That potentially has some implications in relation to the way in which GST and Australian business numbers work, and this legislation is designed to clarify that issue. Recently I saw trailers for a film about a man who sues God, arising out of the fact that he makes a claim on his insurance company and it is held to be an act of God. Frustrated with that decision, he decides to sue God. I do not know whether this issue calls up the idea of seeking GST, fringe benefits tax and other payments from God. I assume not.The amendments include a number of minor consequential amendments about the tax treatment of religious practitioners. In terms of date of effect, the withholding obligations apply to payments made on or after 1 July 2002. Amendments to the GST, Australian Business Number and fringe benefits tax law will apply from 1 July last year. The proposal was announced in the Assistant Treasurer's press release of 28 June 2000, and the amendments are expected to have no effect on estimated revenue.The second area of the legislation I want to refer to is the change in status of constitutionally protected superannuation funds. Schedule 2 to the bill amends the income tax law and the superannuation surcharge legislation to facilitate the change in status of constitutionally protected superannuation funds that elect to become taxed superannuation funds. The amendments will ensure that members of constitutionally protected superannuation funds which have changed status are treated similarly, for income tax and superannuation surcharge purposes, to members who roll over benefits from an untaxed source to a taxed source. This change has effect going back to 1 July last year. It was announced on 16 June last year. Its revenue impact involves revenue of $25 million being brought forward in the 2001-02 year. Consequently, there will be a loss to revenue of $1 million per annum from 2002-03 onwards. The next area I want to talk about involves capital gains tax and, in particular, capital payment for trust interest. Schedule 3 to this bill amends the income tax legislation of 1997 to ensure that capital gains tax event E4 does not apply to payments of capital gains tax discount amounts made by trustees to beneficiaries, that it does not apply to payments of capital gains tax discount amounts made by trustees to beneficiaries that are trustees of trusts in chains of trusts, and that it applies to payments associated with building allowances made by trustees to beneficiaries. There are a number of minor amendments to facilitate the intended effect. There is a transitional measure which corrects the chain of trusts deficiencies. That applies to payments made by trustees on or after 11.45 a.m., legal time in the Australian Capital Territory, on 21 September 1999 and anything before 1 July 2001. The remaining amendments apply to payments made by trustees on or after 1 July 2001. The part of the proposal relating to payments of capital gains tax discount amounts and payments associated with building allowances was announced by the Treasurer on 22 March this year. The part relating to chains of trusts was announced by the Assistant Treasurer on 31 July. I do not think the technical amendments have previously been announced. The financial impact of this measure as it relates to capital gains tax discount amounts was included in the estimates when we saw the New Business Tax System (Integrity and Other Measures) Bill 1999. This measure, as it relates to payments associated with building allowances, is estimated to raise revenue of $5 million next financial year, rising to $40 million per annum after 10 years. There is also a set of amendments in the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 5) 2001 concerning gifts or contributions. That is to say, schedule 4 to the bill allows income tax deductions for certain gifts of $2 or more made to a series of organisations: Southcare Helicopter Fund, Breast Cancer Network Australia, Dymocks Literacy Foundation Ltd, Sir Earle Page Memorial Trust, Research Australia Ltd, Reconciliation Australia Ltd, RSL Foundation, Australian Chinese Ex-Services National Reunion War Memorial Fund, Royal Australian Air Force Memorial Trust Fund, Voluntary Services to Indigenous Communities Foundation, Australia for UNHCR, Bradman Memorial Fund, Foundation for Young Australians and Visy Cares Charitable Trust. There are various dates for that tax deductible status to come into effect. The Prime Minister announced, back on 7 December, that income tax deductibility would be provided to Reconciliation Australia Ltd. The other things have been announced by press release by the Assistant Treasurer. It is expected that there will be an insubstantial cost to the revenue as a result of those organisations receiving tax deductible status. The final schedule to the bill that I want to talk about concerns the information and communications technology area. Schedule 5 exempts from income tax the income of a nonprofit society or association established for the purpose of promoting the development of Australian information and communications technology resources. The bill also amends the fringe benefits tax legislation to provide a rebate of fringe benefits tax to an employer that is a nonprofit society or an association established for the purpose of promoting the development of information and communications technology, aquaculture and fishing resources of Australia. The exemption applies from 1 July 2000. The fringe benefits tax rebate applies from 1 April 2000. The amendments concerning aquaculture and fishing resources apply back to 1 April 1999. They have been previously announced. Once again, there is an unquantifiable, but expected to be insubstantial, cost to the revenue. The opposition is not opposing the bill and regards these amendments as appropriate.In speaking to the second reading amendment which I have moved, I wish to point out to the House, first, that we are receiving news with each passing day about the adverse effect that the GST is having on our economy. We have seen evidence of this in the shape of the largest corporate collapses that this country has seen. We remember the collapse of HIH and the fact that it had complained bitterly previously about the impact of GST on insurance, the payouts that it was making and the prospective impact on premiums. We have also seen evidence of the impact of GST concerning the tourism industry in relation to Ansett and, most recently, in the retail area. If we go back to last week and the employment figures that were released last Wednesday, we can see that in the last five months 76,400 full-time jobs have been lost, which is the equivalent of nearly five Ansetts, and 87,700 full-time jobs, which is the equivalent of 5½ Ansetts, have been lost since the GST was introduced. So, since the GST was introduced, 87,700 full-time jobs have been lost and the growth rate in job creation has more than halved. The growth rate of employment has more than halved since the GST was introduced. The GST is clobbering full-time jobs—a matter of considerable and, I believe, growing concern around the community.I also make reference to the fact that the GST has been having an adverse impact on the cost of living. It has made it harder to make ends meet. Price rises have been pushing up the cost of living and ordinary Australian families are hurting as a result. John Howard broke his promise that no-one would be worse off under the GST. In fact, millions of Australians are now living under greater financial pressure because the GST has increased the cost of living. We have also seen the GST hurting small business, costing jobs and putting millions of Australian families under financial pressure. The much vaunted tax cuts are effectively gone before you get them. I think Australians can be conscious of the fact that any tax cuts that this Prime Minister promises will be taken away by the GST and increased costs of living, just as the last ones were. If you get a tax cut, it will be taken away through higher GST and higher prices.Labor believes that we ought to be taking the GST off some essential items to make it fairer and simpler; that that is the real solution to the mess created by the Prime Minister and the Liberal Party's GST. Our priorities are straightforward: we want to improve our schools, improve our hospitals and remove the GST from essential items. The fact is that income tax cuts always get eaten up over time. If you take the GST off an item, that is a tax cut for everyone, for ever. Families, and older Australians in particular, will benefit most from the removal of the GST from essential items. We also propose to compensate charities for the impact of GST on them. Why should charities pay the GST when they are about helping the community and helping the poor? They are not about helping themselves and they deserve some additional support. I mentioned in my second reading amendment that this House ought to condemn the government for applying one set of tax rules to the Liberal Party and another for small businesses. Leaked documents concerning the Queensland branch of the Liberal Party revealed a scam to defraud the tax office of GST payments, following a fundraising dinner attended by Treasurer Costello and the Minister for Small Business. Back on 23 November last year, the Groom Federal Electorate Council held a fundraising dinner in Toowoomba, with Treasurer Costello as its guest speaker. Tickets for this gala night of political insight and fine dining were $80. The leaked minutes of the Groom Federal Electorate Council executive have in fact revealed an elaborate scheme to defraud the tax office of GST revenue.At the time of the dinner, the Groom FEC was not registered for GST—meaning it could not collect GST, but nor could it claim GST input tax credits; that is, it could not seek a credit or refund from the tax office for GST it paid on any goods or services it purchased. Evidence contained in the minutes and other information leaked from within the Queensland branch of the Liberal Party show that an arrangement was entered into so that the catering bill for the function would be paid by the Queensland Liberal Party headquarters—a registered GST entity which subsequently claimed a GST input credit to the value of $826.41. The catering bill was originally paid, appropriately, by the Groom FEC, but that payment was later retrieved from the caterer to allow the Liberal headquarters to pay the amount, thereby swindling the tax office. The Minister for Small Business was present at meetings at which this contrived mechanism was discussed and imposed on the FEC treasurer against her will. Her objections were recorded in the leaked minutes. The treasurer of the FEC, Ms Margaret Watts, later resigned over the issue.The minutes also show that the FEC sought advice on the issue from a firm of accountants. That advice concluded that the arrangements should not be used, and it said:... we further express the view that the Commissioner of Taxation could attack these transactions ...The documents also reveal that the matter was brought to the attention of the federal Treasurer, Peter Costello, and that he `carpeted' the small business minister over the issue. There is, however, no evidence that the Treasurer himself took any action to refer the GST avoidance to the tax office—83VEmerson, Craig, MPMr Emerson—That is extraordinary.UK6Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSON—It is extraordinary—or to arrange for the evaded GST revenue to be paid to the tax office. There is evidence that this scam was used in relation to at least two other Queensland Liberal federal electorate councils. The then Queensland Liberal State Director, Graham Jaeschke, has asserted that this GST scam was put in place on the advice of the federal Liberal secretariat. The actions of the Groom FEC treasurer, Margaret Watts, led in February this year to the federal director of the party, Lynton Crosby, advising that the mechanism was `not feasible' and should be shut down.That was an appalling set of developments. In order to give other speakers some opportunity to speak, I do not intend to canvass it in further detail. But, essentially, we have a situation which the Treasurer and the Minister for Small Business were aware of— the Groom Liberal Party FEC executive entering into a scam arrangement with the Queensland Liberal Party to obtain GST input tax credits for the catering of a fundraiser involving those two ministers, without paying the GST, and failing to refer this GST scam by the Groom Liberal FEC executive and other Queensland Liberal Party branches for investigation by the tax office and the Federal Police. That is what they have done. They were complicit in the Liberal Party not paying its fair share of GST, while claiming the GST was going to end the black economy. These are serious breaches of even the Prime Minister's discredited ministerial code of conduct with respect to the obligations of ministers. We have a situation where a tax audit has been proposed to the Queensland Liberal Party. It, however, will not be able to examine whether ministers misled the parliament, whether the Treasurer failed in his duty to alert the tax office to this scam, whether the small business minister failed in his duty to do the same thing or to take any action to shut down the scam. It cannot investigate whether any Liberal Party officers, federal or state, have acted improperly, or possibly unlawfully, in advising on and arranging the scam, and whether this arrangement has spread beyond Queensland to other Liberal state divisions. It is also the case that the outcome of this audit is only a public matter if the Queensland Liberal Party allows it. It is a most unsatisfactory state of affairs. On that basis, I would urge the House to support my amendment concerning the fact that this government has imposed a cumbersome and complex new tax system on Australian businesses rather than a simpler system and that it has increased the compliance and cash flow burden for Australian businesses—and we have seen evidence that even the government itself understands that cash flow issues can be relevant. We have been talking about the Ansett collapse recently, but this is a government which, through the GST, has increased cash flow problems for small businesses, thereby reducing their competitiveness and increasing the rate of business failures. Finally, it has been applying one set of tax rules for the Liberal Party and another for small businesses. On that basis, I urge the House to support the amendment.10000Kelly, De-Anne (Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER)Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mrs De-Anne Kelly)—Is the amendment seconded?83VEmerson, Craig, MPMr Emerson—I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.18:28:0031549Cadman, Alan, MPMr CADMANSD4MitchellLP10— There is no way that the House should support the amendment moved by the member for Wills, the spokesman for the opposition, to Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 5) 2001. It is beyond all thought that such a stupid thing should be done by responsible people. What the member is proposing is another addition to the process of what I call roll-back—changes to the goods and services tax, which will make the system more complicated and more difficult to manage.I have looked up the remarks of some of the people who have commented on roll-back, and some of them made some interesting comments about the Labor Party's proposed policy. For instance, Mark Paterson from the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, an organisation representing a lot of businesses, said:Further roll-back would only increase complexity.Rob Bastian, head of the Council of Small Business Organisations of Australian, said on Sky News on 23 May 2001:Of course, we're frightened about that rollback statement. The Opposition has been trying very hard to convince us that we're talking about rolling back complexity, but, of course, if we're rolling back coverage of the GST, then that will increase the complexity and that will cause a lot of pain.He was also quoted in the Age of 13 July 2000 as follows:Roll-back would “increase complexity, increase supervision and that means increased fear.”“The uncertainty about roll-back has to be addressed because we need clarity.“Mr Beazley's taking the usual political stand to keep his powder dry but that position is not going to help and it is becoming an albatross around his neck.”On the same day he was quoted in the Sydney Morning Herald as saying:“It is fundamentally unacceptable to small business to suggest that we should have more exemptions.”That is the situation out there in small business. People do not want roll-back. It is extra complexity, it is extra cost and it is extra difficulty. The definitional problems alone are just unimaginable. Even the Chief Executive of the Institute of Chartered Accountants Australia, Stephen Harrison, said on Sky News on 6 March 2000: If a future government were to introduce even further exemptions, we'll be taking ourselves backwards into the complex environment that we currently face for the wholesale sales tax;—There you are—comparing it with the ancient, collapsed wholesale sales tax. He continued:we'll be turning back the clock and destroying many of the benefits that can be accrued from a simplified system through the GST.He went on to say:If you introduce exemptions, then by doing that you really do take us back into the complex environment of the wholesale sales tax, because people will be constantly looking up which good it is and how it's to be treated, whereas the concept of the wholesale sales tax, or the removal of a wholesale sales tax, was to remove those complexities and have a very simple system.Gordon Cooper, President of the Taxation Institute of Australia, was quoted as saying on ABC Radio National's Australia Talks Back program on 22 February 2000:If more products are GST-free, then it just adds to the complexity and the poor shopkeeper who's selling a mix of GST-free and GST taxed goods is going to find it really difficult.It is very interesting to look at the comments made by Alan McKenzie and Sam Richardson, the national spokesman and Tasmanian spokesman, respectively, of the National Association of Retail Grocers. This is what they said at a press conference in Canberra on 4 April 2001:Journalist: Would a roll back of the GST ease the burden?Sam Richardson: No.Alan McKenzie: No.Sam Richardson: We're not talking roll back. We're talking simplification and compensation ...Alan McKenzie: So roll back worries us.... And one of those concerns would be if we start seeing a roll back program, for example taking the GST off certain items, all that's going to do to us is add complexity.And I refer to Helen Clark, the Prime Minister of New Zealand—somebody who ought to have some experience and authority. Helen Clark, commenting on the concept of roll-back on the Channel 9 Sunday program of 27 February 2000, said: ... it is a very well accepted tax at the moment and no one seriously thinks it would ever be changed ... The interviewer asked:And does it apply to things like tampons, for example, and if so, have you ever thought of lifting the tax off items like that?Helen Clark responded:No. ... And I think it is true to say that once you start differentiating between classes of goods, you get into anomalies that can be a bit hard to explain ...That is Helen Clark, the Labor Prime Minister of New Zealand, saying that concepts of exemptions and roll-backs are crazy—that they create further problems, complications and difficulties in the explanation of it. She is a person that was elected for her political savvy and yet we have the Australian Labor Party saying: `Well, the New Zealanders have had a lot of experience. We've got a Labor Prime Minister there that says, “Don't grant exemptions, don't make changes,” but we're going to ignore that.' There is a lot more wisdom, they claim, on their side of politics—without experience, without knowledge—than with the Prime Minister of New Zealand.Then there is the proposal, for instance, to make books GST free. I am indebted to my colleague the member for La Trobe who, in an article in the Age on 29 June 2001, pointed out that the National Association of Retail Grocers did a survey of over 1,000 businesses and they complained about the complexity in exempting food. He then pointed out the problems with definitions for books and asked:Would magazines and newspapers be exempt?Good question. He continued:What about academic journals, Mills & Boon, periodicals, Readers' Digest, yearbooks, Women's Weekly cookbooks, diaries, atlases and road maps, stationery, pornographic books, booklets, books on tape, books on CD? Where are you going to start drawing the lines? The Australian Labor Party have not got a clue on the exemption of books or any of the other things that they are planning to exempt. It just will not work. Why should a National Geographic, for instance, be considered a book and an educational publication like the Age be considered not to be a book? Tell me where you are going to draw some of the lines. You guys in the Australian Labor Party, with this roll-back program that you have got, have got no idea. You have no idea on the whole of the tax system.I refer to comments by Simon Crean on the vexed problem of excise on petrol when he was interviewed on 31 March 2000. He was asked:What about fuel excise, Mr Crean? That causes a lot of problems too. What—what sort of commitment can Labor make regarding fuel excise?Mr Crean said:Well, what we've—basically our position has been that there needs to be this mix between indirect taxes and direct taxes. We always had fuel excise in that mix. We were not proposing to make any changes to the fuel excise regime.That was when indexation was on. Are they going back to indexation? Are they going to keep it non-indexed, as it is now? What further changes are they going to make to the tax system? They are reducing revenue. Where are they going to raise the extra revenue from? Mr Crean concluded his comments in relation to changes to the fuel excise regime by saying:That wasn't the issue.In conclusion, I just want to draw to the attention of the House some of the changes that have been made by this government by wiping out a number of taxes and putting in a broad based consumer tax. There have been changes to and simplification of the capital gains tax for business operators and individuals. There have been reductions in income tax rates for companies, including small companies. There is the simplified tax system. Businesses with an annual turnover of less than $1 million can elect to join the simplified tax system from 1 July, which delivers a number of benefits.Just to give a small example, in 1993 a taxpayer on an income of $38,001 went on to the marginal rate of 43 per cent. If that threshold had been indexed to the CPI, that would have been $43,598 on 1 July 2000. However, the coalition cut taxation and that threshold has been raised to $50,000. Those with an income of between $20,000 and $50,000 now face a top marginal rate of only 30 per cent. Had tax reform not occurred and the then threshold of $38,001 been merely indexed, they would have had a 43 per cent marginal tax rate.The proposals and the tax management of the Australian Labor Party were crippling the average person. It is all very well for the Australian Labor Party to say, `Those tax cuts soon vanish.' They may be soon forgotten, but they are still there. Because of a regime of low inflation and low interest rates, the benefits continue year after year. They go on for a long time. Young people buying their homes in my electorate realise the benefits of very substantial tax cuts, which allow them to take advantage and to purchase homes. Our district is booming. People are buying into the hills district of New South Wales in huge numbers because they are getting great value for the homes that are being built. They know they can cover their costs. The stability of low inflation and low interest rates are greatly to their advantage, and of course the tax cuts, which are possible because of the simplified tax system, have improved their opportunities as well.18:40:0031551Emerson, Craig, MPMr EMERSON83VRankinALP00— The Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 5) 2001 proposes a series of amendments to the so-called streamlined new tax system for a new century, just as yesterday the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 6) 2001 sought to amend the streamlined new tax system for a new century. It is for these reasons that the Labor opposition has decided to put forward a second reading amendment which in fact accepts the various proposals in the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 5) 2001 but goes on to say:“whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House condemns the Government for:(1) imposing a complex and cumbersome new tax system on Australian businesses rather than delivering the simpler system it promised; (2) increasing the compliance and cash-flow burden for Australian businesses hereby reducing their competitiveness and increasing the rate of business failures; and(3) applying one set of tax rules for the Liberal Party and another for small businesses.”It is to that second reading amendment that I wish to speak tonight. The most systematic way I can do that is to go through a range of promises that the government made in the lead-up to the last election and subsequently in relation to implementing its so-called streamlined new tax system for a new century.The first promise that the government made that sticks in my mind is a promise to reduce small business red tape. The now defence minister and Leader of the House said on 8 September 1998:We have also taken the opportunity in our new tax plan to significantly reduce red tape for small business.When the government came to power, the Income Tax Act was in the vicinity of 3,000 pages. It has now grown to 8,500 pages as a result of the simplification and the slashing of red tape that the government promised. I have here not the full Income Tax Act but simply the additions to the Income Tax Act. And it is not just this pile; it is this one as well. This is the net result of the streamlined new tax system for a new century in respect of the Income Tax Act.We as Australians all know that there was another process in train as a result of commitments made by the government before the last election, and that was to introduce the goods and services tax. So, if I add on the legislation and the explanatory memoranda for the goods and services tax, this is the net result of the government's commitment to cutting red tape and simplifying the tax system. I remind you that this is not the entire Income Tax Act but only the additions to it since the government came to power. In the context of the government saying that they would slash red tape for small business by 50 per cent, you can tell with this red tape holding these piles together they have not done that at all; they have massively increased red tape for small business and have massively increased the complexity of the Income Tax Act. And just to make things that much more painful, they have introduced a goods and services tax.Let us have a look at the goods and services tax. This legislation and explanatory material in fact weighs 7.1 kilograms and, as of yesterday, the legislation itself had already been amended 1,861 times. So much for the commitment by the Treasurer who, when he came back to work after the Christmas holidays this year and was asked on radio whether the GST legislation would be amended again, said:No. There is in no need for further amendments; we have got it right.Well, he was out by 1,861 amendments as of yesterday, and there are further amendments in the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 6) 2001 to the GST act. It is nothing like a streamlined new tax system for a new century; it is a very complex tax system indeed.We may well ask, if this was supposed to be such a streamlined new tax system for a new century, why would it need so much explanation? Why would the GST itself need so much explanation? I can reveal that in calendar year 2000 alone there were more than 89,000 private binding rulings issued by the Australian Taxation Office. Let us be clear what a private binding ruling is: it is a clarification of the tax. If it is supposed to be so simple, why did the tax office feel obliged to issue 89,000 clarifications to the tax system? Of those, 3,500 were clarifications to the Income Tax Act, and the balance—more than 84,000—were clarifications to the GST. We do not even know how many of these private binding rulings have been issued since the end of calendar year 2000. But at that rate, if I were to pile up the total number of private binding rulings, they would not quite get to the roof of the chamber but they might be touching the bottom of the Australian flag.The impact of all this complexity has been to place a very heavy burden on business, in particular the small business sector. I draw the attention of the House to a comment that was made by the Treasurer on 18 May last year when he was asked about the impact of the GST on small business. He told Perth radio: I don't think anybody will go to the wall as a consequence of the GST. I don't think that there will be businesses that will founder because of the GST.The fact of the matter is that there has been a huge increase in small business bankruptcies under the GST. In fact, in the June quarter of this year, compared with the same period of the previous year, there was a 78 per cent increase in small business bankruptcies. The government is in a state of denial about this, saying that that has got nothing to do with the GST, that it must be related to the greenhouse effect. One apologist for the government said, `The reason for that would be a reduction in sales, not the GST.' We ask the rhetorical question: what caused the reduction in sales? There are two plausible explanations: the greenhouse effect, or climate change, or the GST. My money is on the GST, but I think the government is still batting on that the greenhouse effect has had such a profound effect on small businesses that that explains a 78 per cent increase in bankruptcies.In addition, Labor warned that corner stores would be hard hit by the GST. Again, very sadly, those chickens have come home to roost. A recent study has revealed that already almost 1,000 corner stores have closed. That has been directly attributed by the authors of that study to the GST. Let there be no misunderstanding: the GST has had a very heavy impact on the viability of small business in this country. But it is quite clear that the GST has also had quite a severe impact on big business. I do not purport to say that every corporate collapse that has occurred in this country, and an increasing number of them at that, is solely due to the GST. But if you look at some of the difficulties that are being experienced you will see that there is a GST influence—for example, Harris Scarfe.XH4McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGauran—Harris Scarfe!83VEmerson, Craig, MPMr EMERSON—Of course, there may be other explanations, but the GST imposed a 10 per cent tax on clothing, and there was no wholesale sales tax on clothing. The minister opposite is astounded that there could be any relationship between the GST and the difficulties that Harris Scarfe got into. I am sure he, like other ministers, will be in a state of denial that the GST could have anything to do with the current difficulties been experienced by Coles Myer. What do Coles Myer do? They sell clothes in particular. Again, clothes are an item. Target, a division of Coles Myer, is in very significant difficulty. Again, there is a 10 per cent tax on clothing. The Prime Minister said in the parliament, `Oh yes, but Woolworths is doing very well.' Of course, Woolworths sells a lot of fresh food, one of the few items to which a GST does not apply.In relation to the operation of the GST, this tax is supposed to be a streamlined tax and an efficient way of collecting revenue. I have done some research on that and it transpires that, for every dollar of net GST collected, another $5.60 is collected and then refunded in the form of input tax credits. So $6.60 is collected, of which the government keeps $1 and refunds $5.60 in the form of input tax credits. It has got to be one of the most inefficient taxes you could possibly imagine, when you are collecting $6.60 to keep $1.Labor have talked about simplifying the GST and we have developed a set of proposals on that which was floated by the shadow Treasurer and Deputy Leader of the Opposition in a Press Club speech. The Minister for Small Business immediately condemned it, saying it was impossible to simplify the GST. Well, I reckon it is pretty easy to simplify the GST when you look at this pile here!XH4McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGauran—How?83VEmerson, Craig, MPMr EMERSON—The minister opposite asks how. The small business minister's department responded to the minister's request to do a hatchet job on the proposals put forward by the shadow Treasurer in relation to what the department calls a `ratio by turnover' method. I will read from the departmental brief, which he circulated. He must not have read it properly to have circulated such a frank assessment from the department, because it says:A ratio by turnover method is a reasonable option for calculating GST as long as the ratio continues to be an accurate reflection of the net GST position of the business. We have developed proposals to ensure that that is a viable way of going. The minister warned when this was released that the small business community would hate it. In fact, in a statement made not so long ago, on 8 August, Rob Bastian, the Chief Executive of the Council of Small Business Organisations of Australia, said he had seen a presentation of Labor's ratio model for GST payments and walked away happy. I made that presentation, and I will quote him:I can say with absolute clarity that the members of the association who were in the room were very impressed with the idea because it was simple.There is Labor putting forward a simple proposal and the government saying, `You cannot make this dog's breakfast of a tax any simpler.' Of course you can make it simpler. The media release of 8 August 2001 goes on to state:Mr Bastian rejected suggestions by Small Business Minister Ian Macfarlane that small business was happy with existing arrangements and did not want Labor's rollback.Mr Bastian is quoted as saying:I do not believe that. The main concern as reported to me is paperwork itself.There you have the peak body of the small business sector in Australia saying that Labor's proposal to simplify the GST is very worth while, and the small business minister, who should be an advocate for small business and who should be sticking up for small business, saying, `No, we've got the GST right.' It is about as complex a tax as you can possibly imagine and it has imposed a big burden on small business. I refer to another promise of the government, and that is that the GST would create more jobs. The Treasurer, at page 155 of the document entitled A New Tax System of 23 August 1998, says:The combination of higher growth and improved work incentives will deliver more jobs and lower unemployment.We know that, since the GST came in, the rate of job growth has halved and the unemployment rate has gone up. I do not quite get it. How would a $24 billion tax create more jobs? It is a simple question that Labor asked at the time. We were told that it was because it was going to replace 10 taxes. We have one very complex tax—a $24 billion tax— replacing 10 taxes. What happened? It did not replace 10 taxes at all, it replaced four taxes, and one of those taxes was a bed tax that applied in some hotels in Sydney and in the Northern Territory. I do not understand how the people of Victoria, South Australia or Queensland would benefit from the abolition of the bed tax, but that was one of the major taxes that the government said would go under the GST, and it is one of the few taxes that did go. But six of those taxes— stamp duties, mainly—did not go.That goes to another promise by the government, and that is that the GST would not be a tax on a tax. There is a litany of examples where the GST is a tax on a tax, including the most infamous case of petrol excise, which takes us to a promise by the Prime Minister, in his address to the nation before the last election, that the price of petrol would not rise for the ordinary motorist under the GST. That is yet another broken promise, because the government increased the net tax payable on petrol on 1 July by reducing fuel excise by only 6.7c a litre but imposing an 8.2c a litre GST. The rest, as they say, is history. Finally, the government, after going ahead with a fuel excise increase on 1 February this year, which we said it should not do and which we said it could afford to abandon, said that it would not abandon it; it could not afford to abandon it. We have seen budget surplus figures today that clearly show what we were saying all along: it could be afforded. The government finally back-flipped three weeks later, only because it had lost the state elections in Western Australia and in Queensland and was about to lose the by-election in the federal seat of Ryan. Those are just a few examples of the complexity and the economic impacts of this tax. The commitment of Labor is to simplify the GST—we have practical proposals to do that—and to make the GST fairer.The government says that this tax system—I again refer to all the documents—has a certain integrity about it, that it is streamlined, and that to take the GST off anything would destroy the integrity of this dog's breakfast of a tax. Again, I have done some rough calculations and it appears that the GST applies to about 70 per cent of consumption. What is the magic in that figure of 70 per cent? There is no magic in that figure of 70 per cent. If the GST were taken off some items, it might fall back to 68, 65, 63 per cent or whatever, depending on what items you took it off. I do not understand the government's thinking that 70 per cent is a magical number, but that 68, 67, 65 or another figure somehow lacks all integrity, whereas this dog's breakfast of a tax, according to the government, is full of integrity. There is a very clear choice for people at the upcoming election: do they want a simpler, fairer GST? If they do, they will vote Labor. 18:58:0031555Snowdon, Warren, MPMr SNOWDONIJ4Northern TerritoryALP00—I am pleased to participate in this debate and in particular to support the Labor Party's amendment to the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 5) 2001, which, as the member for Rankin has pointed out, states:“whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House condemns the Government for:(1) imposing a complex and cumbersome new tax system on Australian businesses rather than delivering the simpler system it promised;(2) increasing the compliance and cash-flow burden for Australian businesses hereby reducing their competitiveness and increasing the rate of business failures; and(3) applying one set of tax rules for the Liberal Party and another for small businesses”.I have spoken in this place on a number of occasions about the impact of the GST upon small businesses in my electorate of the Northern Territory. As the member for Rankin pointed out, over a period we have had a 78 per cent increase in bankruptcies. That should be a sufficient indicator to the government of the enormous damage that this tax system has caused to small business across Australia. I live in a remote part of Australia where the cost of living in all circumstances is higher than it is in major capital cities. I am sure that communities in your electorate, Madam Deputy Speaker, share the impact of the GST upon small business and know what it means to those communities. It is worth while contemplating what the impact of the GST would be on small businesses in the Northern Territory, where the economy has taken a real hit over the last 18 months, in the first instance as a result of the GST and, secondly, as a result of the end of some expenditures by the federal government.A large number of businesses went to the wall. Currently, small business throughout the Northern Territory is feeling the repercussions of the demise of Ansett. We know that, with the increasing impact on those small businesses as a result of the demise of Ansett, for them to meet their obligations under the GST will be enormously difficult. It is already difficult, but if fewer people go through the doors of small businesses as a result of the demise of Ansett, in respect of which around 700 people will be out of work in the Northern Territory, small businesses will feel the direct impact of that exercise. In the face of that, they have to meet their GST compliance costs.I have visited a small business, a gunsmith, in my electorate over recent months. Like a lot of small businesses of that type, the gunsmith employs himself and, at the very most, only two or three other people. A substantial proportion of the small businesses throughout the Northern Territory are like that; they are literally small businesses. Any increasing impost as a result of GST compliance costs affects them badly. The gunsmith has a sign on his door which says, `Gunsmith and tax collector.' He absolutely resents, as do other businesses in my electorate, the responsibility of having to collect tax on behalf of the government and the costs that that tax collection adds to the running of his small business.We need to comprehend that even conservative commentators, and even conservative politicians, are understanding the impact of the GST on their communities—belatedly, I might add, but nevertheless they are recognising it. I want to refer to some commentaries that have been made by CLP politicians in the Northern Territory, one of whom is Shane Stone, who was then Northern Territory Chief Minister and who is now Liberal Party President. He stated: Territorians are better off with this package, including the GST, than anything the Labor Party has put on the table. I say to Territorians that you will have more money in your pocket.I am sure that those Territorians in small business and Territory families understand comprehensively that that is not the case. They resent the patronising way in which the then CLP Chief Minister advocated on behalf of the coalition the need for the acceptance of the GST.Senator Grant Tambling, the CLP senator for the Northern Territory, stated that 99 per cent of Territorians would not be affected by the GST. We all know that that is a fib, and I will refer shortly to a group of Territorians who are most adversely affected by it. I want also to refer to the comments of the then Northern Territory Treasurer, Mike Reed, who is, thankfully, no longer the Treasurer after his recent exercise. As they went into the election, the Northern Territory CLP said that they had a $12 million budget deficit. After the election, the new ALP government had a look at the books and they discovered not a $12 million deficit but a $107 million deficit, such was the honesty of the CLP and the then Treasurer, Mr Mike Reed. He said:The package has been designed to minimise costs faced by business and reduce the administrative and compliance burden of the current multi-tax system.He also said:With the expected boost to the economy from the package, construction activity is expected to be better off at least in the medium term.Both of those statements have been revealed to be false. The assertions have been demonstrably false in the case of the Northern Territory and small businesses have suffered. In the period after the introduction of the GST, the construction industry about which the then Northern Territory Treasurer spoke had very difficult times indeed.However, it does not take long for some people to be liberated. In the case of the Northern Territory, it took no time at all for the previous Northern Territory Chief Minister, Denis Burke, to become liberated, because a headline in the Australian Financial Review of 21 August of this year stated: `NT's Burke lashes out over GST.' You might ask, `Why would he lash out over the GST? After all, he was a conservative leader and an advocate of the GST.' The answer is pretty simple: he had just been done at an election. After he had been done at the election, he pondered why he might have lost that election. One of the reasons he properly surmised for his losing that election was the GST. The Prime Minister, the Treasurer and every other member of the cheer squad on the government benches are trying to convince Australians that they are somehow better off under the GST. There has been very recent electoral experience which now clearly demonstrates that people do not like the GST and that they know that they are not better off under it. According to the report in the Financial Review of 21 August:Mr Burke's comments on the GST are embarrassing to the federal Coalition, which is hoping to minimise voter backlash to the tax in the lead-up to the election.According to the article, Mr Burke:... conceded the tax had bred resentment among voters.... ... ...Mr Burke said voters felt resentment and hurt over the GST.As well they might. Let me ask the minister at the table, the Minister for the Arts and the Centenary of Federation, how should voters who live in north-east Arnhem Land—10000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)— Order! The member for the Northern Territory will address his remarks through the chair.IJ4Snowdon, Warren, MPMr SNOWDON—Through you, Mr Deputy Speaker, Minister, what might the good voters of the north-east Arnhem Land region of the Northern Territory or the Western Desert communities of the Northern Territory and Western Australia be thinking of the GST right at this moment? The reason I ask that question is that, in the case of the Western Desert communities, 44.3 per cent of families have annual incomes below $15,600. That is family income. I note the Minister for Reconciliation and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs, Mr Ruddock, is at the table. Perhaps he would like to contemplate what the people in the Miwatch area of Nhulunbuy, in the Aboriginal communities of north-east Arnhem Land, might be thinking about this. After all, they are, in a sense, subject to his edicts in his portfolio. I know that he is talking across the table, but he might just contemplate this. The incomes of 36.6 per cent of the families who live in north-east Arnhem Land are less than $15,600 a year. What do you think they might be thinking about the GST? Do you think they would see this as a boon? We know, as a result of work I have done at previous times in this parliament, that the average cost of a basket of goods in north-east Arnhem Land—in addition to the cost in terms of indices—was 206 per cent of the average cost of goods in capital cities across Australia.You have to ask yourself: why would people in these communities say it is really terrific to be paying 10 per cent more for goods and services when they have median incomes of around $15,500 per family and they know they pay costs, in terms of their services, well above what their counterparts in Sydney and Melbourne—or those in the Prime Minister's electorate of Bennelong— might be paying? They have to be thankful for the GST. What about the people in Darwin? Darwin is a major metropolitan centre. A survey using a straight average on a basket of goods with 55 selected retail items discovered that the cost in Darwin was six per cent higher than the average across Australia. We are the most expensive jurisdiction. The basket of goods in Darwin was $270.52, and the average across Australia was $256. The most expensive city after Darwin was Canberra.People are not fools and ultimately they will pass their judgment on this GST package, and ultimately people who run small businesses in the Northern Territory will pass their judgment, as they have the right to do and as they did in the recent Northern Territory election. The problem that the government have is that they believe, and they have tried to con the Australian community into believing, that somehow or other people would gain great benefits from this GST package. I know that the Prime Minister took some delight in trying to rubbish the words of Gerry Harvey this afternoon—XH4McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGauran—He didn't. He just quoted him.IJ4Snowdon, Warren, MPMr SNOWDON—It is worth reminding ourselves of what Gerry Harvey said, Minister McGauran:The GST was a much bigger problem than the terrorist attacks, Ansett, HIH, One.Tel and 10 other disasters you could name.What do you think of that, Minister? What do you think of that? Are you prepared to cop what Gerry Harvey says? Do you accept what he, executive chairman of a major retailer, says? He understands the impact of the GST, and small businesses in my electorate know the impact of the GST. People who live in cities such as Darwin or Alice Springs understand the GST and what its implications have been. Small businesses in those communities know what the implications have been for them. They know what it has added to the costs of running their businesses. We also know that those people who live in the most remote communities in Australia—the poorest of all Australians and the most disadvantaged of all Australians—are hit hardest by this regressive tax. Yet we see no apology from the government, and they try to rubbish the Labor Party when we say that we propose to remove the GST from essential items and from charities. It is worth noting that we are not alone. I conclude by noting an article in the Sydney Morning Herald of Monday, 10 September 2001. It refers to the survey in the report, `Route trade in Australia 2001-2003', as:... the first study of the $4 billion corner shop industry. Nearly half of the shops surveyed said the GST was cutting profits and shrinking incomes.We know that, as a result, as this article says:Corner shops, classified as independently owned, fell in number from about 8,000 nationwide three years ago to just over 7,000 last year, with an annual 2 per cent decline forecast.The report's author, Mr Sandro Mangosi, said: The last straw for these small shops has been the GST.I do not think I need to say much more. The judges are the consumers. The judges are those small businesses around Australia. They know. They are not going to be fooled or conned by the untruths coming from the government, whatever the Prime Minister or the Treasurer might like to think.19:13:0031558Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK0J4BerowraLPMinister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and Minister for Reconciliation and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—In the spirit of facilitation, I thank the honourable members who have contributed positively and constructively to this debate and I leave my comments at that.Amendment negatived.Original question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.31558Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.Bill (on motion by Mr Ruddock) read a third time.Bills31558The following bills were returned from the Senate without amendment or request:Migration Amendment (Excision from Migration Zone) Bill 2001Migration Amendment (Excision from Migration Zone) (Consequential Provisions) Bill 2001Border Protection (Validation and Enforcement Powers) Bill 2001Migration Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 6) 2001Migration Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 5) 2001Bills31558R102631558Bill returned from the Senate with amendments.Ordered that the amendments be taken into consideration forthwith.Senate's amendments—(1) Schedule 1, item 4, page 4 (lines 8 and 9), omit “within 35 days of the notification of the decision”, substitute “within 35 days of the actual (as opposed to deemed) notification of the decision”.(2) Schedule 1, item 6, page 5 (line 6) to page 6 (line 9), omit section 486B, substitute:486B Multiple parties in migration litigationApplication of section (1) This section applies to all proceedings (migration proceedings) in the High Court or the Federal Court that raise an issue in connection with visas (including if a visa is not granted or has been cancelled), deportation, or removal of unlawful non-citizens.Consolidation of proceedings (2) Consolidation of any migration proceeding with any other migration proceeding is not permitted unless the court is satisfied that: (a) the consolidation would otherwise be permitted under other relevant laws (including Rules of Court); and (b) the consolidation is desirable for the efficient conduct of the proceedings. (3) No appeal lies from a decision by the court not to consolidate proceedings under subsection (2).Other joint proceedings etc. (4) The following are not permitted in or by a migration proceeding: (a) representative or class actions; (b) joinder of plaintiffs or applicants or addition of parties; (c) a person in any other way (but not including as a result of consolidation under subsection (2)) being a party to the proceeding jointly with, on behalf of, for the benefit of, or representing, one or more other persons, however this is described.Relationship with other laws (5) This section has effect despite any other law, including in particular: (a) Part IVA of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976; and (b) any Rules of Court. (6) However, this section does not apply to a provision of an Act if the provision: (a) commences after this section commences; and (b) specifically states that this section does not apply.Exceptions to general rules (7) This section does not prevent the following persons from being involved in a migration proceeding: (a) the applicants in the proceeding and any persons they represent, if: (i) the regulations set out a definition of family for the purposes of this paragraph; and (ii) all of those applicants and other persons are members of the same family as so defined; (b) a person who becomes a party to the proceeding in performing the person's statutory functions; (c) the Attorney-General of the Commonwealth or of a State or Territory; (d) any other person prescribed in the regulations.(3) Schedule 1, item 11, page 9 (line 28), omit “paragraph 486B(4)(a) or (d)”, substitute “paragraph 486B(7)(a) or (d)”.Motion (by Mr Ruddock) agreed to:That the amendments be agreed to.Bills31559S19331559Bill received from the Senate, and read a first time.3155919:17:0031559Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK0J4BerowraLPMinister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and Minister for Reconciliation and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.This bill implements one of the government's important policy initiatives within the immigration and multicultural affairs portfolio.The bill gives legislative effect to the government's longstanding commitment to introduce legislation that in migration matters will restrict access to judicial review in all but exceptional circumstances. This commitment was made in light of the extensive merits review rights in the migration legislation and concerns about the growing cost and incidence of migration litigation and the associated delays in removal of non-citizens with no right to remain in Australia.The bill introduces a new judicial review scheme for decisions made under the Migration Act relating to the entry to, and stay in Australia, of non-citizens of Australia. The key mechanism in the new scheme is the privative clause provision at new section 474.The privative clause, and the related provisions, will replace the existing judicial review scheme at part 8 of the Migration Act. Unlike the existing scheme, the new judicial review scheme will also apply to the High Court and not just the Federal Court.The privative clause does not mean that access to the courts is denied, nor that only the High Court can hear migration matters. Both the Federal Court and the High Court can hear migration matters, but the grounds of judicial review before either court have been limited.One need only look at the history of the existing judicial review scheme and how it is operating today to see what would happen in the future if it were left untouched. The current judicial review scheme for visa decisions was introduced by the last Labor government through the Migration Reform Act 1992 and commenced on 1 September 1994. It was part of a package of changes, building on an existing scheme where the attributes that a non-citizen needs to be granted a visa are set out in detail in the migration legislation. The changes included: · expanded access to merits review; · a requirement that any review rights must be exhausted prior to seeking judicial review; · statutory codes of procedure for visa decision making; and · some restriction of the grounds of judicial review in light of the access to merits review and statutory codes for visa decision making. The Labor government intended those changes to reduce Federal Court litigation and to provide greater certainty as to what was required from both decision-makers, visa applicants and visa holders.That scheme has not reduced the volume of cases before the courts: just the opposite. Recourse to the Federal Court and the High Court is trending upwards, with nearly 400 applications in 1994-95; nearly 600 in 1995-96; 740 in 1996-97; nearly 800 in 1997-98; around 1,130 in 1998-99; nearly 1,300 in 1999-2000; and around 1,640 in 2000-01.Based on current litigation trends it is anticipated that applications made to the courts will reach at least 2,000 in the current financial year. And the cost of litigation continues to soar. In 1997-98 the cost of all litigation for the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs was nearly $9.5 million, and that does not include the cost of running the courts. In 1998-99 it was $11.5 million; in 1999-2000 it was nearly $12.3 million; and in 2000-01 the cost to the department exceeded $15 million. This upward trend in court applications and costs is despite full and open access to heavily subsidised independent merits review by the Migration Review Tribunal and the Refugee Review Tribunal. The high level of litigation, particularly by twice refused refugee claimants, cannot remain unchecked. Increased litigation leads to increased costs and delays, and for those in detention, to a longer period of detention.From experience we know that a substantial proportion of these cases will be withdrawn by the applicants prior to hearing. The percentage of applicants who withdraw fluctuates between one-third to one-half of applicants. Of the cases that go on to substantive court hearings the merits based decision is currently upheld in around 90 per cent of cases.It is hard not to conclude that there is a substantial number who are using the legal process primarily in order to extend their stay in Australia, especially given that one-third to one-half of all applicants withdraw from legal proceedings before hearing. In the migration area, litigation can be an end in itself—it is an area where delaying the final determination is seen as beneficial by those pursuing the court action. Given the importance they attach to staying in Australia, there is a high incentive for refused applicants to delay removal from Australia for as long as possible. Faced with the problem I have outlined, I asked the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs in early 1996 to explore options for best achieving the government's policy objective of restricting access to judicial review. This was done in conjunction with the Attorney-General's Department, the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and eminent legal counsel.The advice received from legal counsel was that the only workable option was a privative clause.As members are probably aware, section 75 of the Commonwealth Constitution gives the High Court original jurisdiction to consider challenges to the actions and decisions of Commonwealth officers. As a result, access to the High Court cannot be legislatively restricted without a constitutional amendment.However, access to the Federal Court, and the scope of judicial review it can exercise, can be changed by legislation. To simply restrict access to the Federal Court in migration legislation matters, would in practice deflect many cases to the High Court under section 75 of the Constitution. This has the potential to erode the proper role and purpose of the High Court.Counsels' advice was that a privative clause would have the effect of narrowing the scope of judicial review by the High Court and of course the Federal Court. That advice was largely based on the High Court's own interpretation of such clauses in cases following the seminal High Court case of Hickman in 1945. The privative clause in the bill is based on a very similar clause in Hickman's case.The High Court has not since, despite opportunities to do so, repudiated the Hickman principle as formulated by Justice Dixon in Hickman's case. Indeed, that principle was described as `classical' in a later High Court case. Members may be aware that the effect of a privative clause such as that used in Hickman's case is to expand the legal validity of the acts done and the decisions made by decision makers. The result is to give decision makers wider lawful operation for their decisions, and this means that the grounds on which those decisions can be challenged in the Federal and High Courts are narrower than currently.In practice, the decision is lawful provided:· the decision maker is acting in good faith; · the decision is reasonably capable of reference to the power given to the decision maker—that is, the decision maker had been given the authority to make the decision concerned, for example, had the authority delegated to him or her by the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, or had been properly appointed as a tribunal member;· the decision relates to the subject matter of the legislation—it is highly unlikely that this ground would be transgressed when making decisions about visas since the major purpose of the Migration Act is dealing with visa decisions; and · constitutional limits are not exceeded— given the clear constitutional basis for visa decision making in the Migration Act, this is highly unlikely to arise.The options available to the government were very much shaped by the Constitution. While the government accepts that the precise limits of privative clauses may need examination by the High Court, there is no other practical option open to the government to achieve its policy objective.It has been suggested that the introduction of a leave requirement would achieve the government's policy objective of restricting judicial review to `exceptional circumstances'. In the government's view, that is not a viable option. While it is possible to impose a leave requirement on the Federal Court, it is not constitutionally possible to do so with the High Court in its original constitutional jurisdiction. That would leave that court exposed to applicants going straight to the High Court in order to avoid any leave requirement imposed on the Federal Court. In any event, the imposition of a leave requirement could increase the complexity of the litigation and cause consequential delay and cost, and may in practice even double the number of hearings before the Federal Court. That would exacerbate those problems which the government is aiming to rectify.Under the reforms in this bill, unlike today, there will be no advantage in sidestepping the Federal Court and going straight to the High Court in its original jurisdiction. This is because the same grounds of review will apply in either the Federal Court or the High Court. It will be open to the High Court to remit all matters to the Federal Court if it wishes. It cannot do so today under the current judicial review scheme because of the disparity between the High Court's original jurisdiction and that of the Federal Court.Although the measures in this bill will limit judicial review, many applicants who consider that they have received a decision from the department which is wrong will of course still have access to independent merits review by the Migration Review Tribunal and the Refugee Review Tribunal. It is the government's intention that all bona fide applicants meeting the criteria for the grant of a particular visa be granted that visa—and that is particularly so in the case of those seeking protection visas. The independent merits review tribunals act as a safeguard in that respect.As an additional safeguard, under the Migration Act the minister has special public interest powers enabling the minister to grant a visa even where the non-citizen does not meet the prescribed criteria for the grant of that visa set out in the migration regulations.The government has other legislative reforms of judicial review either in the parliament or about to be introduced to the parliament. Those reforms, such as the bar on class or other representative actions in visa related matters, and the codification of the natural justice or procedural fairness `hearing rule', are complementary to this bill. I commend the bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum.Debate (on motion by Mr Martin Ferguson) adjourned.Committees31562315623156219:26:0031562Moylan, Judi, MPMrs MOYLAN4V5PearceLP10—On behalf of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, I present the 14th report for 2001 of the committee relating to housing redevelopment at Enoggera, Brisbane.Ordered that the report be printed.4V5Moylan, Judi, MPMrs MOYLAN—by leave—The Defence Housing Authority currently manages a total of 1,124 properties in Brisbane. A defence housing forecast for Brisbane has forecast an increased need of 1,320 properties as at 1 July 2001 and future growth is expected. The proposed housing redevelopment at Enoggera helps to meet this increased need for defence accommodation in Brisbane.The Defence Housing Authority commissioned an independent examination of the site which revealed that naturally occurring arsenic concentrations which were detected were above Queensland Environmental Protection Agency environmental investigation levels. The consultant's report said that the levels of arsenic `appear to be naturally occurring' and they recommended that `it would be prudent for future landowners to be advised of the presence of elevated concentrations of arsenic in the natural soil'. The committee questioned the DHA quite extensively on this issue. As a result, the committee made three recommendations which, if implemented, will ensure that the project proceeds only if favourable environmental assessments are received.The committee concluded that there is a need for the proposed work and that it should proceed—as I said, subject to those environmental clearances—at a projected cost of $15.5 million, subject to a positive finding by the Queensland Environmental Protection Agency regarding soil contamination issues.Before I conclude, I would like to say a few words to highlight the great contribution to the work of the Public Works Committee by the honourable member for Throsby, Mr Colin Hollis. He is retiring at the next election. Colin has served on the Public Works Committee continuously since February 1985 and was chair from October 1987 to January 1996. He has made a very good contribution to this committee. He has never been afraid to subject witnesses to searching examination and always expected the witnesses to be well briefed and insisted that they be able to substantiate their evidence. He was able to bring to his questioning a dry sense of humour, which on many occasions lightened an otherwise tense situation. Amongst the members and staff of the PWC, Colin was famous for his punctuality. He has made a terrific contribution to the PWC, and we would like to acknowledge that on this occasion because we may not have another opportunity to do so. The Public Works Committee will miss Colin for his knowledge of the work of the committee and his ability to quickly get to the substance of the issues. I would also like to thank the secretariat for their tremendous work in getting the report done so quickly. I commend the report to the House.Adjournment3156210000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 7.30 p.m., I propose the question:That the House do now adjourn.3156219:30:0031562Snowdon, Warren, MPMr SNOWDONIJ4Northern TerritoryALP00—On 30 August, 2001, the East Timorese people elected the members of their first Constituent Assembly, which has the task of preparing a constitution for an independent and democratic East Timor. This election was the fundamental and defining act of transferring power to the people of East Timor. It marked the beginning of the final step in the transition to independence, and in implementing the decision of the people of East Timor in the popular consultation of 30 August 1999. For the first time, East Timor now has an elected representative body capable of making legitimate decisions in the name of the people in East Timor.The Constituent Assembly has a single chamber consisting of 88 elected representatives, one from each of the 13 districts who were elected in a direct district ballot and 75 national representatives who were elected proportionally on the basis of lists of party and independent candidates. On 15 September 2001, the Constituent Assembly was sworn in and, after the swearing in, the Constituent Assembly will have 90 days to draft and adopt a constitution for a democratic and independent East Timor. In order to be adopted the constitution must have the support of at least 60 of the 88 members. The people of East Timor have expressed their hopes and concerns to constitutional commissions which held hearings across the country. They are now counting on the 88 members of this assembly to translate those aspirations into a document which all East Timorese will recognise as their own. I was privileged to be at the swearing in of these members of the Constituent Assembly. I was present with the new Chief Minister for the Northern Territory, the Hon. Clare Martin, and the Northern Territory Minister for Industry, Business, Resource Development, Asian Relations and Trade, Territory Insurance, Australasian Railway and Racing and Gaming, the Hon. Paul Henderson. We were honoured guests on the floor of the chamber at that swearing in and we were also present at the opening of the refurbished Constituent Assembly building, which was refurbished by the Australian community through aid funds to the tune of some $3 million. The handover was undertaken by the head of the Australian mission in Dili, Mr James Batley.What astounded me about this process, apart from the privilege and honour that was accorded to us as VIP guests on the floor of this new assembly, was that there was no Australian government representative present. It seemed to me that this was such an important occasion. We had sent Australian troops across to East Timor in 1999, on behalf of the Australian community, to help bring about this popular consultation of 30 August 1999 and, after that, to secure peace. The whole objective of that exercise was this occasion: to have a democratically elected people's assembly, a constituent assembly elected by the people of East Timor. The Australian community, through its contribution in aid funds and through our defence forces, made an enormous contribution to that process. As an Australian and as someone who has been associated with the East Timorese, certainly since 1975, I am very proud of that.As I said in my first speech in this parliament, because of the role that the Australian government historically has had to assist the people of East Timor it was a particularly proud occasion for me; yet, there was no-one present from the Australian government. There was no-one to represent the Australian community, the Australian people, on that occasion. I think that speaks volumes as to how seriously the Australian government has taken its obligations.I might say that, last week, we saw the swearing in of the second transitional government of East Timor and I want to recognise in particular those people who have been put into ministries, particularly Dr Mari Bim Amude Alkatiri, from Fretilin, who is the first Chief Minister and Minister of Economy and Development for East Timor. It is an enormous accolade for these people. It is worth while pointing out that Fretilin, which of course formed a government in 1975, received almost 60 per cent of the popular vote. It seems to me that we have a very resilient group of people and Mari Alkatiri, as the Chief Minister, has an enormous responsibility on behalf of his own party and the people of East Timor. I know he will do the job well. But I say again that I was shocked and amazed that we did not have a representative from the Australian government present at that swearing in. (Time expired)3156319:35:0031563Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLEKV5HinklerNP10—I would like to recount to honourable members a very interesting incident that occurred in my electorate on 24 August. My Labor opponent, Cheryl Dorron, invited me to sign the Leader of the Opposition's phoney Telstra pledge in front of my office. Without committing myself to signing the objectionable thing, I readily agreed to meet her there at 1.30 p.m. on that day. She duly arrived with a cheer squad of 20 or 30 of the usual suspects—Labor supporters and local agitators. While she feigned sincerity and concern, the incident had `stunt' written all over it. I politely listened to her and then told her I would not be signing the pledge, because it was phoney and because its author, the Leader of the Opposition, was a serial pledge breaker. To illustrate the point, I had my own corflute signs in the laneway beside my office. On one of the signs I had a lovely logo of the Commonwealth Bank. I said, `How about signing this pledge that says, “I'm sorry for its sale”?' Then I brought out another one with `Qantas' on it and I said, `How about saying this is the Qantas that you weren't going to sell? How about signing, “I'm sorry”?' Because you guys really like— LS4Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin Ferguson—Do you have a GST one with `never, ever'?10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Member for Batman! The member for Hinkler has the call.KV5Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLE—Through you, Mr Speaker, when I said `you guys' I meant that the Labor Party are very good at asking people to say they are sorry, but they were not really quick to say they were sorry about that. Then, in the words of the TV ad, I said, `And there's more!' So out came the third corflute, and on that I had listed $5.2 billion worth of other things that the Labor Party had sold in office, including the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories. I pointed out that none of these asset sales went to reducing debt and none of them went to building new Australian infrastructure; they all went to the bottom line of dodgy budgets. At this point, her supporters became very agitated. In a way, I was sorry for them, because I sensed their genuine discomfort. Here were true blue Labor people seeing the pathetic results of the Keating years. They were silent, and then they started to become abusive. I pointed out to her that I had no need to sign the 49.9 per cent pledge, because I take some pride in being the one who convinced the government to hold it at 49.9 per cent. Those who were in the party room will remember the day when I brought that matter up. On top of that, I pledged myself to the 49.9 per cent long before the Leader of the Opposition picked it up as a populist cause.LS4Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin Ferguson—But you never voted for it!KV5Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLE—I take pride in the fact that I took a stance on this, with my National Party colleagues, to not only stop that—LS4Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin Ferguson—Sign the pledge, then.83VEmerson, Craig, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Batman and the member for Rankin! The member for Hinkler has the call. I have been very tolerant. He is entitled to be heard in silence. He is not being assisted by the member for Corangamite or by the member for Rankin. It would be quite out of character for me to have to take action during the adjournment debate.KV5Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLE—The Besley inquiry, we know, benchmarked a lot of things that are going to have to happen in the regional development of Telstra's performance. In addition, I take some pride in being the one who moved what is now known euphemistically in telecommunications circles as the `Bundaberg resolution'. It was moved in March 1998 in my electorate, at a National Party conference, and we said we wanted seven things. Those seven things benchmarked telecommunications, blackspot programs—in fact, $762 million worth, most of which have been delivered or are in the process of being delivered.If you run around the countryside with dodgy pledges on corflute signs, inviting people to sign them, you are devoid of policy and you are flip-flopping from one thing to another. And that is what happened outside my office on 24 August at 1.30 p.m.—ALP cheer squad and all. 3156419:40:0031564Hoare, Kelly, MPMs HOARE83YCharltonALP00—I rise this evening to speak to the report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs. It is titled We can do it! and it was the inquiry into the needs of urban-dwelling Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. The Deputy Chair of the committee, the member for Franklin, tabled the report on Monday on behalf of the Chair, the member for Indi, who is currently representing the government at the United Nations. 0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr Slipper—He is representing the parliament.83YHoare, Kelly, MPMs HOARE—He is representing the parliament; I am corrected. In speaking to the report, I would first like to thank the secretariat of the committee. They included Catherine Cornish, James Catchpole, Jenny Cochran and Fran Wilson. As all members of committees in this place understand, the secretariat performs a very important role. They do a lot of good work. This committee always remained in good humour, and it has been a great pleasure, over the past three years, to work with them. I would also like to thank the Chair, the member for Indi, who I understand is retiring at the coming election. As a first-term member of parliament, and this being my first House of Representatives standing committee, both the member for Indi and the member for Franklin provided good, strong leadership and guidance. This is the second report that the committee has produced in the life of this parliament, and both of those reports have been unanimous reports.83VEmerson, Craig, MPMr Emerson—In a spirit of bipartisanship.83YHoare, Kelly, MPMs HOARE—Yes. At the beginning of the inquiry, we agreed to a set of core principles which assisted us in assessing the evidence and formulating our recommendations. Those core principles included equal access to government services for all Australians, community focus, partnerships, rights and responsibilities, and a focus on mainstream services. The report is made up of nine chapters: (1) Introduction, (2) Setting the Context, (3) More Effective Service Delivery, (4) Local Decision Making, (5) The Needs of Youth— which we found needed to be addressed urgently, (6) Maintenance of Culture, (7) Economic Independence, (8) Housing, and (9) The Future. The committee made 40 recommendations to the government to address the needs of urban-dwelling Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders. There were eight recommendations on economic independence, eight recommendations on more effective service delivery and 12 recommendations on the needs of youth—a very important area, as I said, which needs to be addressed. We were aware that other parliamentary inquiries had been held, and we had been waiting for the Commonwealth Grants Commission report, which was released only on Friday. I hasten to say that we were actually considering deferring the tabling of our report to wait for it. It had been with the minister since March this year, and it was finally released on Friday. I must say that the findings of the Commonwealth Grants Commission do align with the recommendations that we have made in our report. Finally, I would like to take the opportunity to wish the Newcastle Knights all the best for Sunday evening's grand final. They have been ably coached by Michael Hagan, who in his first year as a first grade coach has led the side to the grand final. I wish Andrew Johns and all the boys well. (Time expired)3156519:45:0031565Baird, Bruce, MPMr BAIRDMP6CookLP10—I rise tonight to confirm my opposition to the recent announcement by the Rocla Corporation that they will be seeking the right to extend their mining rights to below street level. At present, Rocla hold permission to mine sand from the dunes on the Kurnell Peninsula in my electorate—the only proviso being that they must remain above street level. It is an understatement to say that I was dismayed last Friday when I heard that Rocla had announced that they were applying to the New South Wales Department of Urban Affairs and Planning to have their rights extended. It is not as if sandmining on Kurnell Peninsula has not gone too far already—clearly it has. One only has to drive out to where the huge dunes, made famous by the early Mad Max movies, used to be to see how this activity has decimated the peninsula. Other people comment to me that, when they fly over Kurnell, it looks like it is slowly being cut off from the rest of the mainland by mining. Many local residents, including me and past school students from around Sydney, have memories of school excursions to study the unique environment of the Kurnell sandhills. For the most part, this environment no longer exists. For too many years the Kurnell Peninsula has been pillaged for its resources, with scant regard for its wellbeing. It is time this stopped. I find it hard to believe that an area of such historical significance to Australia now finds itself under threat from two sources: Australand, which are trying to press ahead with their plan to build 500 dwellings under a major flight path, and now Rocla's move. There is a clear desire from our community and from wider afield to see this site being improved, not further damaged. We should be looking to promote the obvious tourist credentials of the area, not digging it up or developing on it. I believe that Captain Cook's landing site could have a monument or area of national significance where Australians can go to visit and learn more about Cook's landing and its significance to modern Australia.On Monday, Rocla issued a further statement that they would be commencing a community consultation program, including random telephone sampling and one on one consultations with adjoining property owners. While I welcome this move by the company, I feel it is a waste of time. I can inform Rocla that the sentiment of Kurnell, North Cronulla, Cronulla and Woolooware residents will be strongly against any extension of mining rights. The community has already expressed strong opposition to further developments on the peninsula, both through surveys sent out from my office and at a rally held several weeks ago near the last remaining sand dune. There is a clear desire to see the site ecologically restored and returned to public use.The state government and the Department of Urban Affairs and Planning must reject Rocla's application and send a clear message that they support keeping Kurnell as an area of recreation for all Australians. It is an outstanding area within Australia. It adjoins the Ramsar site at Kurnell, where there are migratory birds from both Siberia and Japan. It is alongside the site of the landing of Captain Cook and all the monuments that exist at that place. This area has long been decimated by sandminers and developers alike. It is a unique environment. It has many fine sand dunes, many of which have disappeared, and is home to some unique flora and fauna. We should be looking at the whole biodiversity of the area and what can be done to preserve it. It adjoins Bate Bay, with its wonderful beaches and unique seascape, and it is a great pity that sandmining has been allowed to go on for so long.There was a plan in the fifties to terminate sandmining in the area but, because of the neglect of the local council, it was allowed to continue. Now we have a situation where Australand are planning to put 500 housing sites in the area. The responsibility for that has been taken away from the council by the state government, and they have yet to make a decision on the matter. This proposal is a great threat to the ecological significance of the area. I, for one, totally oppose the proposal to expand and extend sandmining on the peninsula and join the residents of Woolooware, Cronulla, North Cronulla and Kurnell in saying, `Enough is enough. This should not be allowed to happen.' I certainly call on the state government to not provide the approvals that are necessary for this to go ahead.3156619:50:0031566Theophanous, Dr Andrew, MPDr THEOPHANOUSQJ4CalwellIND00—I rise tonight, one month before my 21st anniversary as a member of this parliament. Since 1980, I have represented the needs and interests of the people of the north-western suburbs of Melbourne. I have a very strong affection and affinity with the people of this fast developing and industrially important area. I grew up in this area, have lived there for most of my life and have achieved a great deal for the people of this region. I have announced to the people of my electorate that I shall be standing as an Independent in the upcoming election. My constituents are keenly aware of my work in this House, including the presentation of an Australian bill of rights and my position as the only member of parliament opposing draconian laws pushed through this House over the past few weeks with bipartisan support. They are also aware of the battles I have fought with the state Labor government in order to meet the infrastructure needs and employment opportunities of the people of this region. It is for these reasons that the people of Calwell have urged me to stand again as their representative. I promise to continue to fight fearlessly for better services, better resources and better opportunities for education, training and employment for all constituents and their families. In my earlier work as Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister Keating and to several cabinet ministers, I worked tirelessly to implement positive agendas for my constituents and the people of Australia. In my electorate of Calwell, I have worked hard to achieve a balance between the various ethnic communities and to ensure that they work together in the cause of multiculturalism. Unfortunately, all this good work is now under severe threat. This is because there is a small group in the Labor Party who, far from pursuing Labor ideals, are totally obsessed with thuggery and dirty tactics. The leader of this group is the fanatical Senator Kim Carr. He is well known for being at the centre of many of the low points within the party, including the stacking of branches and the manipulation of preselections. One such manipulative process resulted in the imposition of an entirely unsuitable person from outside my electorate as the ALP candidate for Calwell.This person, Maria Vamvakinou, is well known for her support of every single strategy and policy of Kim Carr. Over the last decade, she has acted in concert with Kim Carr to pursue agendas which have created great anxiety in some of the ethnic communities in Calwell. For example, in order to gain support for the stacking of branches from people of Kurdish background, Kim Carr adopted the cynical and outrageous agenda of actively supporting one of the world's worst terrorists—Kurdish rebel fanatic Abdullah Ocalan. Many in this place would know that Ocalan is responsible for the deaths of thousands of innocent people— a charge for which he has been arrested and sentenced. Kim Carr not only expressed this support in private but also presented petitions to the Senate and even pressured a number of members and senators to sign a letter in support of Ocalan. I refused to sign this outrageous petition. Carr's actions created enormous angst in the Turkish community in my electorate and heightened tensions between Turkish and other communities.This was not an isolated situation. During the time of the break-up of the former Yugoslavia, Kim Carr was one of the few prominent people to actively support then President Milosevic in his terror campaign against the Croatian and Bosnian people—whereas I actively worked for a just solution based on the recognition of the sovereign republics of the former Yugoslavia, a matter for which he attacked me. Carr's actions also created tensions in my electorate between Croatian, Bosnian and other communities of the former Yugoslavia. In this, he was again actively supported by Maria Vamvakinou.LS4Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin Ferguson—Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I would have thought that the standing orders would prevent a member of this House reflecting on a member of another house. Dr Theophanous is seeking to cast aspersions without foundation at this time.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I have been listening closely to the member for Calwell's speech, and he has not as yet said anything that I would have thought was outside the standing orders. If he does so, I will interrupt him.QJ4Theophanous, Dr Andrew, MPDr THEOPHANOUS—I have plenty of evidence for what I am saying here. In fact, it is on the Hansard record. During these times of international uncertainty, and with a majority of nations supporting an international attack on terrorism, it must be kept in mind that Senator Carr has persistently supported these two individuals: Milosevic and Ocalan. It has become clear from these and many other actions that Kim Carr has priorities which contradict those of the people of my electorate and of the multicultural needs of this nation. Maria Vamvakinou is the total puppet of Senator Carr.0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr Slipper—Did you sign her into the Labor Party?QJ4Theophanous, Dr Andrew, MPDr THEOPHANOUS—I did not. She is currently employed in his office, and in a recent dubiously funded letter to the people of Calwell, Senator Carr referred to her as `my personal representative'. We believe that she represents him in every way, including in the well-known dirty tactics that I spoke about on another occasion. The Labor Party of my electorate is highly resentful of the imposition of this person as their candidate. She is well known for her constant attacks on individuals inside the Labor Party who do not agree with Kim Carr's views. Recently, she launched into an outrageous personal attack on me on a Greek radio program. Kim Carr has also been obsessed with spreading lies about me for a number of years. He used the basest tactics in Calwell and throughout the state of Victoria against me and my supporters when I was in the Labor Party. (Time expired)Question resolved in the affirmative.19:56:0031568House adjourned at 7.56 p.m.Notices31568The following notices were given:0J4Ruddock, Philip, MPMr Ruddock to present a bill for an act to amend the Migration Act 1958, and for related purposes.7V5Williams, Daryl, MPMr Williams to present a bill for an act to amend the Crimes Act 1914 and the Criminal Code Act 1995, and for related purposes.7V5Williams, Daryl, MPMr Williams to present a bill for an act to amend the law relating to telecommunications interceptions, and for related purposes.7V5Williams, Daryl, MPMr Williams to present a bill for an act to amend the law relating to the jurisdiction of courts, and for other purposes.7V5Williams, Daryl, MPMr Williams to present a bill for an act to amend the Marriage Act 1961, and for related purposes.7V5Williams, Daryl, MPMr Williams to present a bill for an act to amend the Disability Discrimination Act 1992, and for related purposes.7V5Williams, Daryl, MPMr Williams to present a bill for an act to amend the Sex Discrimination Act 1984, and for related purposes.0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr Slipper to move:That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, and by reason of the urgent nature of the works, it is expedient that the following work be carried out without having been referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works: Sydney Airport—Enhanced quarantine intervention works.0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr Slipper to move:That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the Committee has duly reported: Defence Intelligence Training Centre at Canungra, Qld.0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr Slipper to move:That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the Committee has duly reported: Redevelopment of residential areas at Royal Military College, Duntroon, ACT.0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr Slipper to move:That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the Committee has duly reported: Proposed freight and passenger facilities at Rumah Baru, West Island, Cocos (Keeling) Islands.0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr Slipper to move:That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the Committee has duly reported: Redevelopment of residential areas at Enoggera, Brisbane.HX4Katter, Bob, MPMr Katter to present a bill for an act to amend the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.R36Albanese, Anthony, MPMr Albanese to move:That this House:(1) recognises that:(a) Australia has an international reputation as a successful multicultural society;(b) freedom and respect for diversity, particularly religious diversity, has underpinned that success;(c) Australia has had a peaceful transition from a time where one religious group dominated religious culture to the current situation where religious legitimacy is shared by all religious groups; and (d) such success has been based on religious settlement involving highly diverse religious groups;(2) further recognises that the framework provided by Australia's civic values of tolerance, equality, our “fair go” culture, and freedom of speech and religion, together with the structures of constitutional parliamentary democracy and the rule of law have worked together to enable this transition; (3) notes that:(a) Muslims are the largest non Christian religious group in Australia, with migrants from Turkey, Lebanon, and other Middle East and Asian cultures;(b) at least 35% of Australian Muslims were born in Australia; and(c) Muslim migrants have been part of Australian society for over a century, with the first mosques built in Adelaide, Coolgardie, Maree, Broken Hill and Perth by the end of the nineteenth century;(4) Appreciates that Islam is a peaceful religion and that in over 100 years of immigration, Australia has never experienced acts of terrorism arising from our migrant Muslim communities, but that Australia has benefited enormously from the successful immigration of such communities;(5) notes also the commitment expressed by Muslims and Australian Arabs in the weekend press, to condemning terrorism;(6) is concerned at the current unhealthy level of physical and verbal attacks on these communities, especially their mosques, schools, women and children; and (7) calls on the Australian community, at all levels, to give Australia's migrant Muslim community the respect we give to all other religious groups. 2001-09-26—————Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl) took the chair at 9.40 a.m.Statements by Members315703157009:40:0031570Zahra, Christian, MPMr ZAHRA84HMcMillanALP00—I want to raise an important matter to do with the granting of an MRI machine licence to a company purporting to be servicing the Gippsland region. The government made an announcement this week that an MRI machine licence would be granted to Dandenong to service, supposedly, all of the Gippsland region. We are incredibly disappointed by this decision because many of us had put our support behind a proposal which would have seen a licence for an MRI machine granted to a company that would place that machine at Latrobe Regional Hospital in Traralgon, in the centre of Gippsland.As it has turned out, the government has seen fit to make this announcement to provide for a third MRI machine to go into the Dandenong Hospital, supposedly to service the people of the Gippsland region. On behalf of the people of the Gippsland region, can I just state very plainly that we would like to see a service which is supposed to be servicing us actually in our region and not in a suburb of Melbourne. There is a lot of anger and disappointment in my area about this. All of the local members of parliament in our district, the local councils, local medical specialists and general practitioners had put their support behind the proposal which would have seen the MRI machine licence granted to this company and placed at Latrobe Regional Hospital. In a letter to me, Dr K.V. Stribley, a consultant radiologist, said:The principle reason given to us in our failure to be granted the license is lack of population density. It would therefore appear likely to us that if these criteria continue to be enforced most regional areas in Australia and particularly Gippsland will never obtain a licensed machine.He is dead right, Mr Deputy Speaker. He goes on:We believe this decision will have long term negative ramifications upon the delivery of health service to this region in that it will make it almost impossible to attract suitably qualified young radiologists to the region and make it increasingly difficult to attract and retain suitably qualified technical staff to the region all of whom expect exposure to a MR machine.We want to see these services in our district. We want to see these services made available to the people who live and reside in country towns. We do not want to see our people being made to travel all the way to Dandenong just to have access to the same technology and medical advances which people in large urban areas and in the capital cities have access to. I think this is a shameful decision by the federal government. I think they should act quickly to reverse the decision and, instead of granting a third MRI machine licence to the Dandenong district, they should grant that licence to Traralgon, which is in the middle of Gippsland and will provide an enormous boost in terms of medical advances and availability of medical technology to people living right across Gippsland.3157009:43:0031570Entsch, Warren, MPMr ENTSCH7K6LeichhardtLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources10—I would like to share with this place a remarkable contribution which has been made by a group of dedicated volunteers made up of people from the Far North Queensland veteran community. Last week I had the immense pleasure of opening the Far North Queensland Veterans and Ex-Service Support Centre on behalf of Minister Scott. The centre was established through the very hard work of a small group of volunteers who clearly had very strong community spirit and they received some very strong support from the Commonwealth government. The centre will play a very vital role in supporting veterans, war widows and widowers through claims applications and the appeals process. The whole concept was to create a centre that was actually run by veterans—a lot of these people are TPI pensioners—and to take it away from the bureaucracy so that veterans can deal with veterans, and so that those areas of need that fall through the cracks can be identified.The idea to set this centre up originally came from a small group of individuals. I would like to acknowledge Peter Weeden, Kevin Paterson, Mick Foster, John Moodie, John Chandler, John Vickery and Vi Young for their efforts. A number of those people came to my office and met with Minister Scott, and they put forward this concept of what they would like to achieve. We were able to arrange a $25,000 funding grant for them, which was initially to cover the cost of accommodation. Westcourt Plaza shopping centre in Cairns then came on board and offered them an absolutely phenomenal deal on office space located near a taxi rank. It was absolutely perfect; it was ideal. As a consequence, we found that quite a significant amount of that $25,000 was still available. So we sought a variation of that grant to be able to supply office equipment such as desks. Again, the minister was able to accommodate those needs.We now have this magnificent veterans and ex-service support centre operating out of Westcourt Plaza shopping centre, which is manned by a group of very enthusiastic and very committed veteran volunteers and their supporters. The success has been outstanding. You see a continual stream of people from the veteran community going into that centre, seeking that support. I congratulate each and every one of the people who have been involved in that. Peter Weeden, Mick Foster and John Moodie will be acknowledged further for their commitment this weekend, with special awards that will be given at the International Year of the Volunteer presentation. (Time expired)3157109:46:0031571Danby, Michael, MPMr DANBYWF6Melbourne PortsALP00—As Four Corners showed on Monday night, hundreds of thousands of mum and dad investors have been defrauded by the Brinton Group, which sells shares from boiler rooms based in Bangkok to thousands of Australian investors. Australian investors' money has been taken and no share certificates have been received. These companies, operating out of boiler rooms ostensibly based in Tokyo but in fact operating out of Bangkok, have been selling Australians shares in non-existent companies or selling shares in existing companies but giving the investors no share certificates. The Brinton Group (International) said that Gary Player Golf Inc. shares were listed on the Nasdaq. In fact, this was not the case. This company—known as Gary Player Direct.com or Gary Player Inc.—was in fact listed on the much lesser known OTC Bulletin Board or something even less well known called the Pink Sheets.The Brinton Group staffed its offices in Bangkok boiler rooms with unlicensed brokers, who were found by the Thai authorities to be involved in illegal brokerage and were there without work permits. A few weeks ago the Thai Securities Commission, the Australian Federal Police and the FBI helped to break up Brinton's operations principally organised to defraud Australian investors. Bangkok has other boiler rooms involved in similar activities. Four Corners noted ASIC have listed International Asset Management, the Dreyfus Group and the Kingston Group as things about which Australian investors should beware. CEO Scott Fisher of the Brinton Group, an Australian, controls numerous Hong Kong bank accounts where Australian investors' funds have been funnelled. Australian investors think they are buying shares directly in these US companies and are, in fact, buying into this fraudulent operation. There is a loophole in the US law that prevents stocks that have been bought being sold for 12 months. It appears that the Brinton Group are selling shares on the OTC Bulletin Board and Pink Sheets simply quoting from traders and selling the stock they do not hold. Traders have to reimburse people for only a couple of hundred stocks listed on these minor exchanges. If people have bought thousands of shares—as many in this country have in Gary Player Inc., a private company—which are not listed, they are not able to get their share certificates or, indeed, sell their shares and redeem their money.Gary Player Inc. claims to have sold hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of golf equipment directly. In fact, its first six months worth of sales, as Four Corners showed, amounted to only $100,000, with losses of $950,000. I am sure the US regulatory authorities will look into this. Australians have been defrauded by a deliberate plan that I think Gary Player, Ed Tracey and Scott Fisher have been involved in. I will be writing to the US commerce department on behalf of Australian investors and asking them to look into this disgraceful scam of Australians, America's close ally and friend.3157209:49:0031572Lindsay, Peter, MPMr LINDSAYHK6HerbertLP10—Representing Townsville and Thuringowa in the national parliament, I am privileged to also represent Australia's largest and most important defence base. I want to say that I remain continually impressed with the professionalism of the members of the ADF, our men and women who are there when Australia needs them. I can assure you, from six years of working with the members of the ADF in my electorate, both at Lavarack Barracks and at RAAF Townsville, that those people are certainly the most professional, the most well-prepared people that we have seen for quite some time.I remind the parliament that when we came to government in 1996 we saw funding for the defence forces as a priority. It had been run down and down and down. The government at that time took the decision to isolate defence from any spending cuts that were necessary to cover that terrible Bankcard deficit that the Labor Party had left us. We commenced a major program to re-equip the Defence Force to bring it back to the standard that is needed for Australia. We have certainly improved, for example, Defence's teeth-to-tail ratio. We found that it was something like 42 per cent. It has now come up to 62 per cent with the men and women in the ADF serving in the real positions that they should be serving in in the interests of our country. We have also completed a comprehensive review of defence through the white paper process.There have been some very significant changes in my city. In the last four years something like half a billion dollars has been spent improving the accommodation and working facilities for the men and women at RAAF Townsville and Lavarack Barracks. These improvements were long overdue. They will allow the members of our Defence Force to perform their duties in the most efficient manner possible. I want that to continue; there are further upgrades to be done. Probably another $100 million needs to be spent in the region before I am satisfied that the facilities provided at RAAF Townsville and Lavarack Barracks are up to speed. With Townsville being the jump-off point, or the mounting point, for virtually all of the major operations overseas in the last 10 years, it is vitally important that we have the best facilities that we can have. The government and I are determined to make sure that those facilities are provided for the men and women of the ADF in the Townsville and Thuringowa region.3157309:52:0031573Albanese, Anthony, MPMr ALBANESER36GrayndlerALP00—The day of 11 September 2001 will live in infamy. The terrorism in the United States, which we saw so graphically illustrated on our TV screens, has shocked the world and is something that will remain in our memory forever. Over 6,000 fatalities, including many Australians, have shown us that terrorism is something that is hard to fight against with conventional means. This was an attack on democratic values and an attack on humanity. I believe that the perpetrators of this cowardly act must be brought to justice. The international community must ensure that the international response discriminates and punishes those responsible, but we must also ensure that no more innocent lives are lost to add to the count of murders conducted by the terrorists.Terrorism is wrong whether it is conducted by individuals or by states. Like terrorism, in my view fundamentalism of any variety is also evil and wrong. Osama bin Laden and his fundamentalist supporters in the Taliban have also terrorised the people of Afghanistan. William Maley from the Australian Defence Force Academy, who is Australia's leading authority on Afghanistan, has reported that in 1998 some 2,000 Hazaras, a very conservative figure, were massacred over three days in northern Afghanistan. Further massacres have occurred over the last two years. William Maley, in speaking about the plight of refugees, has said that the characterisation of Afghans coming by boat as queue jumpers is comprehensively spurious. What the offshore program offers, he has argued, is not a place in a queue but a ticket in a lottery.If we are to defeat terrorism truly, we must support its antithesis—tolerance and humanity; humanity and compassion in our nation's domestic policy as well as in our attitude to international affairs. Australians of Arab descent have been unjustly targeted as a result of recent events. The attacks on a mosque in Brisbane—and I have received letters from individual constituents who have been spat on and vilified in the streets due to their religion—have no place whatsoever in Australian society and simply give victory to the aims of those people who seek to divide us, such as those terrorists and their actions on the international stage.09:55:0031573Cameron, Ross, MPMr ROSS CAMERON3K6ParramattaLP10—It is my view that the objective of those who acted in Washington and New York was to provoke a war between the West and Islam. The act itself was intended to foment Western hostility to Islam and, by the magnitude of the US response, to consolidate Islamic hostility to the West. This is Osama bin Laden's agenda. Whoever was responsible for the bombing of the mosque in Brisbane is acting as a pawn of bin Laden and his ilk. It is his objective to promote acts of hostility against Muslims in the communities in which they live around the world. We will not play his game. This is not a war between the West and Islam; this is a war between citizens of freedom and good faith—whatever their religion—and the evil of terrorism. I appeal to the Muslims of Brisbane not to attribute the actions of a few bigots to the vast mass of the Australian people. I appeal to the mass of the Australian people not to attribute the actions of a few terrorists to all Muslims. I want to read onto the record a statement funded and published in Australian newspapers by a group of Australian Muslims of Palestinian descent in the last week. It says:A Message from Australians of Arab Descent We condemn the horrific terrorist events that occurred in the United States of America last week, on 11 September 2001. There is no reason or justification for the murder of the innocent anywhere or at anytime. We, like the entire world, are greatly saddened and distressed at how families have been destroyed, lives have been shattered and fundamental values, such as freedom and tolerance for all, have been attacked. We stand prepared to take appropriate action to assist our country to eliminate all terrorism, to bring all terrorists to justice, and justice to the victims of terrorism. In particular, we wish to see justice implemented in all its forms, and that those people responsible for the September 11 actions in the USA are held fully accountable for their acts of cowardice. All Australians, regardless of race, colour or religion should defend any and all nations and peoples against any acts of violence. We Australians of Arab descent stand shoulder to shoulder with our fellow Australians to protect the innocent, to defend the helpless and to preserve liberty, democracy, tolerance and harmony within our great Nation of Australia.At this time we need to blow on the spark of good faith, of reconciliation and of tolerance wherever it may be found and at the same time to deny oxygen to the furnace of bigotry wherever it may be found. I want to acknowledge the outstanding contribution, in my electorate of Parramatta, of Muslim Australian citizens who are making an extraordinary contribution in the professions, in medical science, in research and in education. This is a test for our nation. Let us rise to the occasion.10000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—In accordance with standing order 275A, the time for members' statements has concluded. The committee will now consider government business but, before I call the Clerk, I would like to make an observation for the benefit of all members of the House and direct their attention to standing order 56. The lack of attention to standing order 56 is something that concerns all members of the Speaker's panel, but there is a general diffidence about mentioning it because it could be conceived as the individual member sitting in the chair wanting some sort of personal acknowledgment for himself or herself. That is far from the case. The institution of parliament, forged in the battles for Magna Carta and since, deserves the respect of all members. I remind members that standing order 56 requires them to acknowledge the chair when passing to or from their seats—that means when entering or leaving the chamber or passing from side to side. Because this is widely believed to be the last week we will be sitting, and I will not be standing and will not be here again, I thought I would be bold enough to make the comment for the benefit of all members because those others who might be back may prefer not to comment. To sum up, it is important that members treat both chambers with respect and with dignity and should not wander in and out like Brown's cows, as frequently happens.Bills31574R136031574Debate resumed from 27 June, on motion by Mr Williams:That the bill be now read a second time.10:00:0031574Kerr, Duncan, MPMr KERRRH4DenisonALP00—The Cybercrime Bill 2001 introduces a number of new computer based offences and extends powers relating to the search for and seizure of electronic evidence for law enforcement. The bill was referred to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee, and that committee tabled its report on Tuesday, 21 August. The report contained a dissenting comment from Labor senators, who criticised the government for its failure to consult widely with the community before introducing the bill and recommended further scrutiny before passing the bill through parliament. Since then, sensitivity to criminal activity and national security has substantially heightened. As this bill applies to the criminal misuse of computers—an activity which can cause considerable damage and which has plausibly been linked to possible terrorist activities—the imperative for supporting the bill has also increased substantially.In these circumstances, the opposition entered into a dialogue with the government to ensure that the bill, in a form acceptable to both government and opposition, could be passed as soon as possible. Although the bill will not be amended in the House today, agreement has been reached between the opposition and the government on a number of amendments, which will be moved by the government and adopted in the Senate. We believe that, with these government and opposition amendments, this bill will be passed by the parliament in an acceptable form. However, Labor's broader concerns about legislating in this area remain and we intend to vigilantly monitor the use of the new offences and powers. Might I say, just by way of a general comment, that I would urge upon future governments, whether they be of my persuasion or otherwise, that measures of this nature do require very substantial consultation with affected interest groups before they come before this House. Of course, the issue of cybercrime is one which has assumed real importance in recent times. That arises because of our increasing reliance on technology, but with that comes a challenge to protect the computer networks, the information they transmit and the rights and interests of the people who use them. As a result of Australia's increasing adoption of information technology, cybercrime—which can be roughly defined as any unauthorised activity which involves or uses computers, digital technology, the Internet, communications systems or networks—poses a threat to Australia's security, business and citizens.Before I talk about the specifics of this legislation, I want to talk briefly on the Howard government's underwhelming approach to protecting Australia's critical cyberinfrastructure. Almost all of Australia's critical cyberinfrastructure is reliant on information and communications technology and is therefore vulnerable to cyberattack. Water, electricity, gas and telephone systems all rely on computer networks; so do Australia's banks and financial institutions, emergency services, air traffic control, hospitals, police and defence forces. This critical infrastructure is poorly protected. The Howard government's program for protection of our national information infrastructure is flawed. It commenced only after a substantial period of prodding by the opposition and, notwithstanding the obvious significance of improving our capacity in this area, what was introduced was a paltry two-year program which would not be capable of achieving real outcomes. The funding is a one-off allocation spread across the Australian Federal Police, ASIO, the Defence Signals Directorate and the Attorney-General's Department. It is hardly enough to conduct a thorough review of the elements of national information infrastructure which are in public ownership, let alone to establish an ongoing public-private partnership. That is simply not good enough, given the circumstances that exist currently.There are a number of working groups and action committees across the public sector organisations, but to date we have seen little action. The Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee recently conducted two relevant inquiries, the first into the resources and capabilities of the Australian Federal Police and the National Crime Authority, and the second into the provisions of this bill. One of the things which was clear from the evidence which the committee received in both inquiries is that, although our law enforcement agencies are actively trying to remedy the situation, currently they have neither the resources nor the skills needed to combat criminal use of information technology. To some extent, I can see this must be inevitable. The information technology world changes so rapidly and is so resource intensive that it is difficult for any regulatory or policing organisation to keep up to date. Nevertheless, a significant commitment from government is needed to ensure that our law enforcement agencies have adequate personnel numbers, IT capability and access to ongoing IT training. That commitment is seriously lacking under the Howard government. For example, in May 1999 the Research Group into the Law Enforcement Implications of Electronic Commerce, now known as the Action Group into Law Enforcement Implications of Electronic Commerce, delivered a report which concluded:Many of the countermeasures to crime which exploit the characteristics of the Internet call for law enforcement and revenue agencies to use sophisticated tracing and other tools. They also call for these tools to be used by well trained specialists who retain their skills and maintain contact with industry. This would be a significant ongoing expense for government. To ensure such an investment is used effectively and as widely as is needed Australian governments should address the provision of a central computer and Internet forensic capability, available to all Commonwealth, State and Territory jurisdictions to support the investigation of computer and Internet-related crime. Well over two years later the Howard government has not responded to that recommendation. Despite this lack of interest from government, the law enforcement agencies themselves have kept the concept alive. The Australasian Centre for Policing Research and AUSTRAC have prepared an issues paper with options to be considered by the heads of Commonwealth law enforcement agencies. Additionally, the Police Commissioners Conference Electronic Crime Project is examining the issue of a national forensic computing capacity in conjunction with an assessment of options for a broader national centre for cybercrime. But, for the present, the Australian Federal Police has only 10 agents possessing what could be described as high level computer skills.The Australian Federal Police lost its Melbourne computer office twice within as many years to private companies which poached its staff by offering AFP agents considerably more money. Despite this, there has been no acknowledgment by government of the need to assist the AFP to retain and recruit computer specialists. The cuts in AFP core funding in the early years of the Howard government and the resulting impact on staff morale within the organisation are problems that are only now beginning to be overcome. I note that in an attempt to improve the agency's IT capabilities, the AFP has recently instituted training programs for its agents. I sincerely hope that this is a successful initiative, because it is becoming more and more apparent that we must get specialised capacity back into law enforcement. I make the obvious point to all members that 10 agents having high level computer skills to service the whole of Australia within the Australian Federal Police plainly represents an inadequate—and now lamentably inadequate—capability should the worst happen that we fear in relation to recent events.The National Crime Authority, Australia's only national law enforcement agency, is also seeking to address the cybercrime issue and, it must be said, attempting to address the issue without a great deal of government focus or support. The National Crime Authority agency has claimed that it needs another $6 million over three years to address its IT capability issues. Although it put this argument to the government in the last budget round, it did not receive any money for this purpose. As a result, the NCA has had to set aside $1.5 million from its existing budget to upgrade its IT systems in the financial year.In the absence of increased funding, the National Crime Authority has instituted programs focused on training investigators accessing the training packing being put together by the Australian Federal Police. Somewhat worryingly, the National Crime Authority has also started to talk about `importing cybercrime investigation experience into the authority and finding a source of higher level assistance.' Apparently the National Crime Authority is hopeful of finding another body with higher level expertise in this area to which it could subscribe for provision of assistance to the NCA. I have no idea what, or where, this agency might possibly be. As I mentioned, the AFP no longer has a specialised computer crime unit as such and currently has only 10 agents with high level computer skills. So the agency in question cannot be the AFP. Yet there is no other Commonwealth law enforcement agency to look to. Does this mean that the NCA is considering a private organisation? If so, a question that must be answered is to what extent the NCA is envisaging developing partnerships and to what extent it is envisaging contracting out or privatising part of its core law enforcement functions. I might also indicate that there seems now to be a wide recognition that the contracting out of significant elements of the responsibilities within the national security framework in overseas agencies has weakened its capacity in terms of effectiveness and internal security. These again must be concerns that are heightened in the present circumstances. I turn to the specific provisions of the bill and the law enforcement powers contained in it. Law enforcement agencies point to what they consider is a substantial obstacle to investigating computer crimes, their capacity under law to carry out those investigations. The Model Criminal Code committee report into computer crime offences stated:There appears to be a need for specialised enforcement provisions. The issues involved are both difficult on a technical level and controversial in relation to the protection of individual human rights and the rights of corporate entities.Following that report, the Cybercrime Bill 2001 contains new law enforcement powers relating to the search and seizure of electronically stored data. This is designed to enhance the ability of law enforcement agencies to detect and investigate crime involving the use of computers. The new powers provide that, firstly, an officer will be able to take a thing away from the search premises, where it is significantly more practicable than processing the thing at the search premises and where there are reasonable grounds to believe that the thing contains or constitutes evidential material. The `thing' we are talking about is a computer or a component of a computer. The `thing' is defined in this loose way because it may also include software or a whole range of objects, given the difficulty of forecasting exactly what the shape of technology in the rapidly changing environment will be. Secondly, the powers in the bill allow an officer to use a computer on search premises to access data held on computers situated elsewhere on the belief, on reasonable grounds, that data held on other computers may contain evidential material of a kind covered by the search warrant. An amendment will be moved following discussions between the government and opposition to remedy a defect in the legislation. In the legislation presently before the House, the searching officer would not be required to notify operators of computers not on search premises if data held on those computers was accessed under the warrant. In other words, it would require a warrant to be issued to search the computer of the person who was suspected of having access to unauthorised materials or being involved in a crime, but if that search then was extended to people who were not the subject of a warrant they would not need to be notified. The perverse outcome would be essentially that those most interested in knowing—the people against whom warrants were being sought, those involved in criminal activity—would be notified but many third parties whose equipment was networked would not otherwise become aware of the fact that their equipment was being accessed in this way.Thirdly, an officer will be able to copy data held on any electronic equipment or associated devices at search premises to a storage device if there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that the data contains evidential material. In other words, you can go in, search the network system and download the material to the law enforcement's storage capacity so that the material can be assessed later. Fourthly, an officer executing a search warrant will be able to apply to a magistrate for an `assistance order' to be directed towards any person. The person to whom the order is directed will be required to provide the officer with such information or assistance as is necessary to enable the officer to access the data on the computer system, copy it to a storage device or convert it to documentary form. In very simple language, the powers will essentially involve the capacity of officers to come onto premises to take things away. They will also enable a person to come onto premises to log onto a computer network and search other computers on the network. If that is difficult to do because of password or encryption devices, orders will be able to be sought to require those who have the supervision of that equipment to provide the information necessary to have access to the material. Material that is so accessed can then be downloaded onto storage devices to enable assessment of the material to take place off the premises. Law enforcement agencies argue persuasively that there is a pressing need for specialised enforcement provisions along these lines. The opposition agrees that there is a pressing need, given the technical and practical barriers which technology presents to law enforcement agencies and, of course, given the general lack of expertise within law enforcement, which we have mentioned before. It would not be possible to have an effective system in place if we did not have powers which enabled people to take things away for later assessment or to require those who have the supervision of computer equipment to lend assistance. It simply would have defeated the object of the law enforcement powers. Even so, here we are entering a new realm of law enforcement. In doing so, we must consider whether we are going to continue to attempt to operate under the traditional framework of what is considered to be acceptable in the pursuit of criminals or whether we are designing a new framework. If we are designing a new framework, it is imperative that the process involves public debate.These new law enforcement powers were not canvassed in the Model Criminal Code report, although the report did identify, in general terms, a need for extended law enforcement powers. None of these new measures was subject to scrutiny and discussion; other provisions of the bill were. The government has cited the Council of Europe's draft cybercrime convention as both the source of and justification for these increased law enforcement powers. Yet the cybercrime convention is only a draft which, although in its 25th version, has not been finalised or signed by the member countries of the Council of Europe. Further, Australia is not a member country of, and does not even have observer status with, the Council of Europe. Therefore Australia and Australians have not been involved in the development of the convention or the drafting of these increased powers, nor have we participated in debates about the appropriateness of the provisions in the draft. With this legislation, we are entering new territory for law enforcement and, I repeat, this is not a decision which ought to be taken lightly. We are moving to accommodate this, as I think we should, in the national interest. Had the circumstances not been as they currently are, we would have thought the better course would have been to allow more extended debate so that these issues could have been canvassed at great length. But indeed, it was our initiative to say to the government that, notwithstanding the concerns that have been expressed, we thought the wisest course in these circumstances was to facilitate rapid passage of this legislation through the parliament—lest any of us be thought responsible for hesitation in the face of circumstances which require a more rapid response.Deciding what are appropriate law enforcement powers in this area involves making what are sometimes described as controversial trade-offs, and at other times necessary balances, between often competing concerns: the individual's right to privacy, the state's responsibility to combat crime, the society's need for secure communication networks, and corporate interests. The opposition has, in discussions with the government, drafted amendments to the law enforcement powers which address one of the more serious concerns. Under the bill, if law enforcement officers obtain a search warrant for a particular computer, they will be able to access information on any other linked computer without notifying third parties not named in the search warrant that their system has been entered into or that their data has been seized or copied.The opposition's amendment, which the government has undertaken to support when it is moved in the Senate, provides that, where data is held on premises other than the warrant premises and that information is accessed and it is practicable to notify the occupier of the other premises that the data has been accessed under a warrant, the executing officer must give that notice as soon as practicable and inform that person if there will be continued access. The explanatory memorandum will be amended to make it clear that new section 3LB will be underpinned by the guidelines that are to be developed with the Privacy Commissioner. The guidelines will ensure that there is accountability in relation to decisions made under section 3LB in relation to these notifications. The offences under the bill replace the existing offences in the Crimes Act, which are already seriously outdated, notwithstanding they were passed only 10 years ago. There are substantial new penalties relating to accessing or modifying computer data without authorisation. If you intend to commit a serious offence punishable for five years or more then you get the penalty that would have been attracted by that more serious offence. There are then specific offences: of causing any unauthorised modification of data in a computer where the person is reckless as to whether that modification will impair data, which attracts a penalty of 10 years imprisonment; of causing unauthorised impairment of electronic communications to or from a computer, which again attracts a penalty of 10 years imprisonment; of causing unauthorised access to, or modification of, restricted data held in a Commonwealth computer—that is, data which is protected by a password or other security feature, as most members of parliaments are—which attracts a penalty of two years imprisonment; of causing unauthorised impairment of the reliability, security or operation of any data held on a Commonwealth computer disk, credit card or other device, which again attracts two years imprisonment; and the general offence of possessing or supplying data or programs which are intended for use in the commission of a computer offence, which attracts a penalty of three years imprisonment. Those offences were based on the Model Criminal Code committee report Damage and computer offences, which drew heavily on the UK Crimes Act, which itself is 10 years old.Particular concerns have been expressed by many in the industry regarding the offence of possessing or supplying data or programs intended for use in the commission of computer offences. They have argued that those charged with the responsibility of maintaining systems must have quite a deal of software in order to fireproof computer systems from unauthorised entry. The plain fact is that these offences do require the intent of holding those devices for use in the commission of a computer related offence. So for an innocent use—that is, a use directed towards properly servicing computer networks—you may need to hold such equipment and no criminal liability would attach. I think there has been some misunderstanding of the operation of the Criminal Code and the way in which criminal prosecutions proceed. That said, it is not unreasonable that those concerns have been voiced; in fact, it is important that they are and that this type of legislation is subjected to full scrutiny.One of the concerns expressed was with the terms and definitions used in the bill. They do introduce new concepts of law and they do also introduce what we believe, after great reflection, to be unavoidable ambiguity. It is always preferable, particularly in laws that establish serious criminal offences, to be as specific as possible. The citizen ought to be entitled to read a piece of legislation—particularly one which imposes a potential liability of 10 years imprisonment—and know clearly whether or not an act is criminalised. Some of the terms in this legislation are not defined. For example, the term `computer' is not defined and nor is the term `computer network'. In this instance, we believe that ambiguity is unavoidable. The absence was a conscious decision made to avoid the risk of over- or underinclusion of items in the definition of computer offence. Definitional issues were something with which the Model Criminal Code Officers Committee struggled. Although some of the outcomes in the bill are less than ideal, it is certainly not clear that any suggested alternatives would be any better.The minister's office has indicated the government will move a number of specific amendments in response to the majority recommendations in the Senate. The EM will be amended to make it clear that offences under the bill do not apply to persons using an internal computer network. It will make clear that the definition of `restricted data' in section 478.1 is to be amended by deleting the words `to which access' and substituting the words `where access to the data'. Amendments will provide for the destruction of all personal information collected by law enforcement agencies which is not relevant to an investigation after a period of three months but subject to this time frame being extended on the authorisation of a senior officer. Items 12 and 28 of schedule 2 are to be amended by inserting `relevant' before `knowledge' in paragraph 3LA(2)(c) of the Crimes Act and 201A(2)(c) of the Customs Act. The Senate majority committee shared the view of many in the community that, if you have the power to take material away from a site where access has been granted and then assess it, there has to be some power at some future date to destroy what is often going to be very substantially personal information or business information if it is no longer material to the investigation of an offence. What is clear is that there is significant disquiet in the IT industry as a result of the lack of prior consultation. We believe that there now needs to be further assessment in the future. I believe that our concerns expressed publicly prior to this legislation being passed—that there ought to be more public consultation—are now superseded. There needs to be further public consultation to make certain that the legislation that will now pass the parliament is adapted most appropriately to the needs it will serve and that those who are the subject of the new legislation can have a forum to bring their concerns forward. This is so that, if there are any deficiencies or defects in the working through of this legislation, they can be ironed out as quickly and as practically as possible.The government has acted wisely in obtaining a parliamentary slot for this legislation in what increasingly seems possibly to be the last week of sittings this year, notwithstanding the scheduled sittings later in the year. Given that valedictories are being timetabled for Thursday, it does seem highly likely that this may be the last week of the parliament. We have a government recklessly surging to the polls when the parliament can still sit, but there we are.We think the government was wise to seek a slot in the House and in the Senate—the processes of that place willing—so that we can have this legislation in place. The government has undertaken to accede to the amendments that have been proposed by the opposition and is itself putting forward a number of amendments. In that context, we certainly believe that this is responsible of both major parities. We hope it is also supported by the minor parties in the Senate so that there be no delay in relation to these matters. In conclusion, I go back to that fundamental point that we have a significantly underdone capacity when it comes to protection of our critical national infrastructure. We hope it costs the country nothing, but it risks doing so.10:30:0031580Washer, Dr Mal, MPDr WASHER84FMooreLP10—I rise today to support the Cybercrime Bill 2001. I would like to thank the Member for Denison for his extensive coverage of the bill and the amendments, and the opposition for their support of the bill and for the sense of urgency that is required to bring this bill before the House.I intend to cover more examples of the problems of cybercrime. It will come certainly as no surprise to the Australian people that we are well and truly in the information age. It is imperative that we give our law enforcement agencies the powers they need to combat the new form of criminal, the cybercriminal. I say `criminal' with the full meaning of the word. Just because technology is new or requires a high level of skill to operate, that does not excuse the perpetrators of these acts from the consequences of their actions.Many well-publicised cases of cybercrime may have involved minors, and this new legislation will help by laying down stiff penalties for these sorts of crimes. There have been many cases of cybercriminals targeting businesses on the Internet and causing disruption that has led directly to loss of income. This of course is akin to theft. Early last year, for example, there was a concerted attempt to perform service attacks on eBay and Buy.com, resulting in the sites becoming almost inaccessible. Another disturbing trend is the rising cases of cybervandalism. Cybervandalism is the deliberate exploiting of security holes in web servers to replace the usual pages found on a web site with ones that have the graphics defaced and altered or with other pages all together, sometimes expressing a political or social viewpoint. We do not tolerate people with spray cans daubing our shops and businesses with slogans; thus we should not tolerate cyber criminals performing the same action. Many businesses in my electorate have web sites and rely on these for contact with their customers as well as business promotion. Defacing a web site for kicks or for any other reason is a criminal act and should most certainly be treated as such.Australians are well known to be early adopters of new technologies. When it comes to e-commerce and e-banking this has again proved to be the case. Many Australians now prefer the convenience of Internet banking. It offers many advantages over traditional banking and even offers many advantages over telephone banking, not the least of which is the integration with personal financial programs which are widely used in many Australian homes and businesses. With the majority of e-banking services using secure, socket layer based encryption, the data is for all intents and purposes secure as it travels over the Internet. But with many users storing the data in all manner of formats on their home or office PC, the dangers of it being somehow compromised remain relatively high. E-business has become a huge revenue earner for many Australian companies, many of which allow the purchase of goods via credit card on line. There have been a number of well-publicised thefts in the US of credit card numbers from servers. This undermines the public confidence in new technologies, thus downgrading the investment that businesses have placed in e-commerce. This legislation will help to address these factors in Australia by stiffening the penalties for these sorts of crimes.Broadband services of all forms are becoming more prevalent in Australia, and pose a particularly tempting target for cybercriminals. Many home users and small businesses lack the technical skill to successfully install and configure fire walls to protect themselves from the wider Internet, and often neglect to install or update their antivirus software. Thus they are particularly vulnerable to attack. The recent spate of trojan horse attacks such as `Subseven' provide a cybercriminal with access to the data on a compromised computer with only an infected email attachment. Many of these new styles of trojan horse like `Phone Home' let the attacker know of the compromise, generally through anonymous email addresses or private interrelay chat channels. I have spoken to industry professionals who claim that there are hundreds of scans each week looking for `trojaned' machines to steal information from or to simply use as a basis for other attacks—in particular, distributed denial of service attacks. The recent outbreak of the Sircam virus puts an entirely new perspective into the computer security equation. Like the I Love You and Melissa viruses, Sircam relies on the user opening an infected attachment—which normally has a message body of, `I send you this file in order to have your advice,' or something along a similar vein—which many users will open. Also, like the above viruses, Sircam spreads by emailing itself to people in your address book as well as searching your hard drive for email addresses. However, what makes Sircam particularly insidious is that it emails out potentially confidential files from your system to the recipients. These attachments are infected with the Sircam virus but, if the recipient does not have sufficient virus protection, the virus will infect the machine silently and then open the attachment as normal, thus revealing potentially confidential data to an unintended recipient. The latest virus to hit the Internet is Nimda. As reported in the Financial Review on 20 September, Nimda created vulnerabilities of its own. Its name spells `admin' backwards, because the back door it creates on infected machines gives hackers `administrator' access to a network, according to the Australian computer emergency response team AusCERT. It seems that Nimda does have a payload. If you are infected, the network is vulnerable to a confidentiality attack at a later stage. Unlike Code Red, which only attacked web servers—but which still had an estimated clean-up bill of $5.2 billion—Nimda infected a variety of services and clients, multiplying the financial ramifications. Code Red largely attacked business systems. Consumers were also vulnerable to Nimda because of its ability to propagate through email. The virus which attacked thousands of overseas users last Tuesday evening, 18 September, has struck at a time when companies have been on alert for a wave of cyberterrorist attacks following the previous week's US bombings. Most larger companies and organisations have server-side email scanning which keeps many of the viruses and trojans at bay. However, virus scanning can only ever be reactionary, for the virus has to be `in the wild' for at least a few hours before the antivirus companies can respond.My last point is particularly relevant to schedule 1 of the bill, in relation to the amending of the Australian Security Intelligence Organization Act 1979. I want to touch on something I mentioned earlier about empowering our law enforcement agencies to tackle cybercrime. With this provision exempting ASIO from the criminal sanctions of the bill, we are empowering our law enforcement agencies to tackle not only those who attack and steal on the Internet but also those who attempt to use the Internet as a safe haven from the law. To those people I say: if you are about to perform a criminal act in this country using the Internet, think again, as the penalties are stiff and our law enforcement agencies have the means, the backing and the resources to track you down and prosecute you. I commend the bill to House. 10:39:0031582Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—in reply—I thank the members who participated in this debate on the Cybercrime Bill 2001. They have made contributions of quality, if not in great number. There are a couple of points raised in the debate that I would like to respond to, but before I do that let me offer some general comments. The Cybercrime Bill 2001 is a very timely and very necessary piece of legislation. Computer related attacks have multiplied dramatically in the last couple of years and are becoming increasingly sophisticated. Just last week the Nimda virus infected Australian government networks, including those used by members of this parliament. Its predecessors, the Melissa, Love Bug, Anna Kournikova and Code Red viruses, also caused widespread disruption and damage. Earlier this year, denial of service attacks launched against Internet companies Amazon.com, Yahoo, eBay and Buy.com shut down their web sites for hours. There is potential for terrorist groups to direct similar attacks at our national information infrastructure and cause serious interference to government, the financial sector and industry. This bill contains new offences targeted at these activities and enhanced law enforcement powers to enable police to operate effectively in the electronic environment.The new unauthorised impairment of electronic communications offence is a significant improvement on the existing offences. The offence targets tactics such as denial of service attacks where an email address or web site is overloaded with a large volume of unwanted messages, thus crashing the computer system. Government and business networks are all vulnerable to such attacks. The 10-year maximum penalty for the offence recognises the importance of computer facilitated communication and the considerable damage and financial loss that can result if that communication is impaired. Another important offence in the bill is directed at those who use computer technology in an unauthorised manner to facilitate serious criminal activities. Under this new offence a person who causes unauthorised access, modification or impairment of data with intent to commit a serious offence will be subject to the same maximum penalty as the serious offence he or she intends to commit. For example, if a person uses the Internet to hack into or impair computer data with the intention of committing sabotage he or she will face up to 15 years in prison. New investigation powers will provide law enforcement agencies with the necessary capability to search for evidential material in cyberspace. The increased use of encryption and passwords to prevent access to data can seriously hamper the progress of investigations. The bill will enable law enforcement officers to compel a person with knowledge of a computer system, including a suspect, to provide the key to encrypted data. Many computer networks now extend across different physical locations. A computer on search premises may be linked to other computers in a different building or even a different state. This bill gives law enforcement officers clear authority to search the entire computer network for evidential material. Information technology is a vital part of our social and economic infrastructure and this bill demonstrates the government's commitment to ensuring that that technology is not used for criminal or destructive ends.The member for Denison asserted that the government has failed to consult on the bill. That is not in fact true at all. The offences were the subject of wide consultation through the Model Criminal Code process involving the Commonwealth, states and territories. The Model Criminal Code discussion paper and final report on the computer offences were each distributed to over 1,000 individuals and organisations, including peak IT bodies, and were also made available on the Internet. Consultation commenced in February 2000. Submissions from interested parties were taken into account in preparing the final Model Criminal Code report. The offences were also discussed at a number of conferences by officers of the Attorney-General's Department. The offences have also been publicly debated prior to enactment by New South Wales. Earlier this year the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts and I announced the creation of two groups to coordinate Commonwealth efforts in this area. The e-security coordination group, chaired by the National Office for the Information Economy, ensures that these security issues are addressed strategically. The group is examining issues such as security standards, incident reporting, awareness raising and skills shortages, while the critical infrastructure protection group chaired by my department focuses on identifying and protecting those elements of the national information infrastructure critical to the national interest. It is through these groups that Australian agencies are working in cooperation with their overseas counterparts.The importance of the need to better coordinate the protection, detection and response to any attacks directed against the national information infrastructure was recognised by the government by additional funding to key agencies in the 2000-01 budget. These efforts will help ensure that Australia remains at the forefront of e-security issues internationally and are among a range of steps the government is taking to give Australians confidence in doing business in the electronic operating environment.The member for Denison also churlishly asserted that the government has poorly protected computer infrastructure. I have just explained what the e-security group has been doing and what the critical infrastructure protection group is doing. The bill itself shows that the government anticipated the need for an appropriate response. Law enforcement resources strategy focuses on an AFP-wide skilling process. The AFP is currently conducting an e-crime training program for all officers on gathering evidence in the electronic environment and it is not correct to say that the AFP—and this is what the member for Denison said—relies on 10 people alone. It is not wise to rely solely on specialist squads. The AFP is no longer organised in specialist squads. It is a very modern investigation agency that is organised on a task force basis, and task forces are formed and reformed as there is a need to investigate a particular set of allegations. As far as the resources available to the AFP are concerned, the government has a policy that the AFP will have the resources to be among the best investigation agencies in the world, and that is a policy that is being achieved. By contrast, in the last five years of the Labor government, the resources were so reduced that the AFP manpower was reduced by 400 officers. Since the Howard government came into office that figure was reduced by a further 100 as a result of necessary budget cuts to fill in the Beazley black hole. But since the 1996-97 budget, the AFP funding has been very extensively increased to provide the resources necessary to achieve the policy of it being among the best forces of its kind in the world. I commend the bill to the Main Committee.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.Ordered that the bill be reported to the House without amendment.Bills31584R139931584Debate resumed from 29 August, on motion by Mr Williams:That the bill be now read a second time.10:48:0031584Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TANNERYU5MelbourneALP00—The opposition supports the Abolition of Compulsory Age Retirement (Statutory Officeholders) Bill 2001. The bill amends acts which specify compulsory retirement limits for statutory office holders by repealing provisions that prevent the appointment of a person over a certain age for a term that would continue beyond a certain age. The opposition notes that the amendments will not affect the existing term of statutory office holders appointed before the bill commences; nor do the amendments affect federal judicial appointments or Australian Defence Force personnel. The opposition supported the Public Service Act 1999, which had the effect of removing compulsory age retirement in the Australian Public Service. We see the changes that are proposed by the government in this legislation as complementing the changes that were made in that legislation. It is, in fact, an overdue and welcome recognition that age is often an artificial barrier and that older people can make as valuable a contribution as anyone else in a variety of statutory positions. I commend the bill to the chamber.10:50:0031584Pyne, Chris, MPMr PYNE9V5SturtLP10—The Abolition of Compulsory Age Retirement (Statutory Officeholders) Bill 2001 amends various acts which specify the compulsory age retirement limits for statutory office holders. At the moment, the government is hamstrung in regard to who it can appoint to statutory office holder positions because of the age limit of 65 years under the provisions of the acts. This bill will allow the government flexibility to continue to appoint people past the age of 65, and there are a lot of good reasons for that. The amendments do not propose changes to federal judicial appointments because they are governed by the Australian Constitution and as such are untouchable except by a referendum. They do not propose changes to the provisions that cover Australian Defence Force personnel because there are operational reasons why there are limits imposed within the Australian Defence Force, and most members of the House would see the merit in those provisions. It also does not propose changes to tenured positions where a person is appointed until a specified age.The coalition has focused during the past 5½ years on recognising the contribution that older people can make and their value to the community and to the workplace and, in this case, to the statutory office holder positions to which they may have been appointed. We believe very strongly that older people should be able to make their own decisions about when they wish to retire and when they wish to stop working. This bill reflects our commitment to introduce choice into the workplace. This choice will now be extended to the government, who will be able to reappoint people after the age of 65 who are currently in positions that require them to retire at that age. In the future, new appointments of people over the age of 65 will be able to be made. It is very clear in our community and society that there are many people over the age of 65 who could continue to make a very useful contribution to boards and positions of responsibility but have been forced out of the work force because of archaic views and stereotyping which have no place in our society. The choice is also there now for people to choose the age at which they retire from statutory office holder positions, rather than being forced out at a time when they may be just starting to reach their peak. I support the bill and I am glad that the opposition is supporting it. I commend the bill to the Main Committee.10:52:0031585Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—in reply—I thank the member for Melbourne and the member for Sturt for their contributions to the debate on the Abolition of Compulsory Age Retirement (Statutory Officeholders) Bill 2001 and I thank the opposition for supporting it. As I outlined in my second reading speech to the House, the bill if passed will abolish provisions in various acts that specify compulsory age retirement limits for statutory office holders. At the moment, these provisions prevent the appointment of a person over a certain age, commonly 65 years, or for a term that would continue beyond a certain age. These are important amendments that will greatly enhance the ability of a wide variety of statutory appointees to serve the Australian community beyond the usual retirement age. They will also widen the pool of people that the government can consider for appointment to statutory positions.The bill will assist in combating negative stereotypes about the ability of older Australians to contribute to the work force and the community. It will also remove archaic and artificial boundaries between work and retirement. It will provide greater flexibility and choice not only to the government in selecting potential appointees to statutory positions but also to office holders themselves by allowing them to choose their own retirement age. The amendments complement the removal of compulsory age retirement in the Australian Public Service made by this government when it enacted the Public Service Act 1999.It will also remove differences between statutory office holders and provide greater consistency in the appointment process. As the bill makes clear, it will not affect the existing term of statutory office holders appointed before the bill commences. It will, however, remove any restrictions on their reappointment based on their age when their current term expires. Furthermore, the bill does not propose to amend arrangements relating to federal judicial appointments, Australian Defence Force personnel or tenured positions where a person is appointed until a specified age. The bill is an indication of the importance that the government places on the contribution that older Australians can offer beyond their usual retirement age. I commend the bill to the Main Committee.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time. Ordered that the bill be reported to the House without amendment.Bills31586R139331586Debate resumed from 19 September, on motion by Mr Anthony:That the bill be now read a second time.10:55:0031586Ferguson, Martin, MPMr MARTIN FERGUSONLS4BatmanALP00—The Transport and Regional Services Legislation Amendment (Application of Criminal Code) Bill 2001 amends certain offence provisions in transport legislation with a view to harmonising such legislation with the Criminal Code. As the Main Committee would appreciate, what is occurring with respect to this portfolio has occurred across a wide range of portfolios, the intention being to ensure that all Commonwealth criminal offences have standard formulation of the elements of intent, fault, burden of proof and penalty.The purpose of this bill is therefore to amend 33 portfolio statutes to ensure that they are in accord with chapter 2 of the Criminal Code Act 1995. The bill provides for amendments that specify whether an offence is one of strict liability. I clearly indicate, as we have in a range of other portfolios, that Labor support this bill. Having said that, the bill also presents me with an opportunity to speak about a range of issues that go to the Department of Transport and Regional Services. In doing so, I think it is timely to examine what has gone on or, perhaps more to the point, what has not gone on under the current Minister for Transport and Regional Services, Mr Anderson, especially after his recent comments in the Land that `something has got to give'. When he made those comments in the Land newspaper, the minister was referring to the fact that he could not cope with the demands of being National Party leader, Deputy Prime Minister, the member for Gwydir—although I understand he is rather relieved that Mr Tony Windsor is not running against him at the next federal election—and the Minister for Transport and Regional Services. It is exceptionally important that we consider that comment that was reported in the Land recently, having regard to the portfolio responsibilities, which I do not consider to be onerous if you are prepared to do your work and take a little bit of interest in your portfolio.That takes me to the record of the current Minister for Transport and Regional Services. As the shadow minister, I state clearly to the House today that I am not surprised that he wants to walk away from his responsibilities—responsibilities for which he has drawn a considerable salary over the last couple of years, paid for by Australian taxpayers. I was brought up in a world in which you were entitled to expect a fair day's pay for a fair day's work. I was not brought up in a world in which you were paid a salary under false pretences. If you accept a salary or wage, then you are expected to return a dividend to the person or organisation that is paying that salary or wage.That applies equally whether you are an attendant in this House, someone who looks after the gardens around Parliament House, the people who work in the cafeterias, the people who assist in preparing the Hansard or, perhaps importantly, those who are expected to show a bit of leadership—those who accept ministerial responsibility and swear an oath of office. When you swear an oath of office, you accept the responsibility to assist in the government of this country and a responsibility to lead; and the Minister for Transport and Regional Services is paid a very handsome salary for this responsibility.It is against that backdrop that I say the performance of the Minister for Transport and Regional Services has been nothing short of a disgrace. Let us state, therefore, the most recent disgrace: the government's handling of the Ansett debacle, the collapse of an Australian icon which later this year would have celebrated its 70th birthday. Commenced by Reg Ansett, then a small business person— HK5Andrews, Kevin, MPMr Andrews—Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Whilst a member may speak on this bill and its `related purposes', which gives some scope, as you understand, to what a speaker can say, my opinion is that the honourable member for Batman has now strayed completely away from anything related to the substance of this bill, and I submit that he should be brought back to it.10000Mossfield, Frank (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Mossfield)—Order! There is no point of order, but I will ask the member to stick to the bill before the Main Committee and confine his remarks to the bill and its related purposes.LS4Ferguson, Martin, MPMr MARTIN FERGUSON—Yes, Mr Deputy Speaker, the bill and related purposes—Ansett, a transport company, and the Department of Transport and Regional Services. I think it is related to the issue before the House. I can understand the sensitivity of my colleague, who actually lives close to me. In some ways he is a friend, but then again he has the job of protecting a non-performer on his side of the House. Let us take the collapse of Ansett. It is an issue that goes to the operation of the Transport portfolio. It is about employment. It is about the movement of Australian passengers and international tourists. It is also about the movement of goods and services—goods and services which as exports create jobs and prosperity for Australia. We have seen the collapse of a major employer, one offering direct employment and one indirectly creating tens of thousands of jobs in Australia.I suggest to the House today that the Minister for Transport and Regional Services displayed rank hypocrisy and callousness by abandoning Ansett workers and denying all responsibility for the demise of Ansett. Ansett staff, passengers and families were abandoned just over a week ago by Air New Zealand and the New Zealand government. I do not carry a candle for, nor will I seek to defend, Air New Zealand and the New Zealand government. They stand condemned in the same way in which the Australian government stands condemned. I actually believe that, in the same way in which the finger can be pointed at Air New Zealand and the New Zealand government, more importantly the finger can be pointed at the Howard-Costello government. Even more importantly, the finger can be pointed at the Minister for Transport and Regional Services. The minister has often boasted about Australia's competitive aviation industry but he cannot admit that the same competition has been unsustainable and has contributed to the debacle surrounding the collapse of Ansett. I will tell you why: it goes to the failure of the minister to develop a sustainable aviation policy that does not simply allow airlines to cherry pick the lucrative ex-Ansett routes and assets.It also goes to the failure of the minister to deliver what I would have thought was exceptionally important to the Leader of the National Party: regional aviation services. But, then again, I am not surprised. The National Party in the old days—better known as the Country Party—was actually a party that prided itself on looking after the interests of rural, remote and regional communities. The truth of the matter is that the National Party—as it is now the successor to the Country Party—no longer strives to represent its traditional base. It has merely become the tail on the coalition dog. Mr Anderson is more at home walking around the suburban playing fields of the King's School in Sydney than he is representing regional Australia. The only reason he goes to regional Australia on a regular basis is to hide on the farm, to hide from his responsibilities. He is more a part of a Sydney-centric government than some members of the Liberal Party who now represent regional seats around Australia. The regional community has seen the National Party for what it is. It has been found wanting time and time again when it comes to standing up for the best interests, job opportunities, health, education and all the associated bread-and-butter living standards issues of people in regional Australia and their needs, aspirations and opportunities. It also takes me to the failure of the minister to pursue all avenues to hold Air New Zealand, its company and executives, accountable for their mismanagement in the Ansett collapse. What worries me is that the minister knew how dire the situation was and he took no action to ensure that was avoided. He was in denial, as we have come to expect from the Minister for Transport and Regional Services. I say that because he prides himself as a farmer and a businessperson. I would have thought that when you saw a company losing substantial amounts of money an alarm bell would have rung, that you would start to get a little bit worried about, `Well, is this company going to go down the chute?'That is what the government thinks it represents: business people in Australia. It does not represent business people in Australia, because all it is succeeding at at the moment is turning big businesses into small businesses and destroying jobs and job security in Australia. I will dwell on this point because I want to remind the House that the minister received a document detailing the parlous state of Ansett's financial position when his office was given a copy of that document at a meeting with Ansett executives on 27 June this year. When asked what he knew about the document, the minister unfortunately informed the House that it did not exist. So much for the Prime Minister's code of conduct when it comes to being truthful with respect to answering questions without notice in the House!I suggested to the House that the minister misled the House and that he has consistently misled the Australian public by claiming that he knew nothing about the financial state of Ansett. As usual, as is the nature of the Howard government, he then sought to blame everyone but himself for the Ansett mess, and he has consistently since then tried to cover up all knowledge about Ansett's financial meltdown. I suppose on this occasion at least his staff can be thankful that none of them have got the bullet, as occurred with the debacle of the Land Transport Act when the minister was again caught for not doing his job. On that occasion, two of his ministerial staff copped the rap, while the minister walked away from his responsibilities yet again. At least on this occasion two workers, even if they work for the coalition, have not been sacked because of the nonperformance of the minister.The minister has also failed to protect Australian jobs in regional services because he has failed to live up to his ministerial responsibilities, but this reflects on the whole nature of the Howard government. The minister and his miserable, mean and desperate Howard-Costello government are to be rightly condemned for their role in the Ansett collapse. I will tell you why the Australian people, and more importantly a lot of the employers big and small, are condemning the Howard government for their nonperformance with respect to the collapse of Ansett. Firstly, what is the solution? Never ever accept responsibility yourself, but apportion blame and responsibility to sort out the mess to others, some who are struggling to make ends meet in the Australian community at the moment. So what is the solution? Another tax—that is the solution. The government creates a mess, and the travelling public is slugged with another tax to help clean up the mess. So last night in the House of Representatives we approved yet another new tax on the Australian community that will not only represent a serious cost impost on ordinary taxpayers but, in the end, also hurt jobs and job security in Australia because it will hurt the tourist industry—in which many businesses operate in regional communities—and therefore the economy and cost jobs.But they are only little people; do not worry about that. A few of them might lose their jobs, a few of them might have to sell their homes because they cannot meet their mortgage payments, but they are only little people. That is not of concern to the Howard government because it spends most of its time around Collins Street in Melbourne looking after the needs of the big end of town. `We do not argue and think about little business people operating in areas such as the seat of Gwydir, because they can come and go. As long as we continue to have those secret trusts and to be given the quiet and secret donations from the big end of town, we are all right.' That is the nature of the operation of the Howard government. I now go to the Howard government's incompetence and mismanagement of the Ansett ownership issue, arising from which we have an employee entitlement scheme that does not meet 100 per cent of workers' entitlements. We have the Prime Minister, in denying those workers 100 per cent of their entitlements, giving a lecture about what are statutory or community standards and what workers are entitled to receive when they get the bullet without receiving their full responsibilities. He says, `Yes, I will give you your accumulated annual leave, long service leave and outstanding payments but you will not get your severance pay. Eight weeks is acceptable but if it is nine or 10 weeks it is above community standards.' Imagine the Prime Minister lecturing ordinary Australian workers about community standards! He does not apply the same when it comes to his superannuation entitlements. There is no talk about community standards when he starts to plan his retirement. Workers can only have eight weeks severance pay, but I tell you what: by the time the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister leave this House they will need a front-end loader to remove their superannuation entitlements from the Commonwealth Parliamentary Superannuation Scheme way in advance of community standards, but that is different. Different standards for the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister when it comes to workers' entitlements. Different standards on severance payments when it affected John Howard's big brother, Stan Howard, and National Textiles—full application of severance pay and endeavours to protect the Prime Minister's brother from a proper investigation. Whose hand was in the pocket bailing Stan Howard out of trouble? John Howard looking after his big brother. Different standards on community standards on wages and conditions for John. Different standards when it comes to bailing out companies and helping to protect Australian jobs. The record speaks for itself.I now go to the suggestion that future unspecified levies be imposed in order to ensure that greater entitlements are paid than currently provided under the government's flawed entitlement scheme. We have the failure of the government to protect jobs and the interests of Australian workers. We have Australian regional communities left without aviation services, jeopardising not only jobs and security in life but, very importantly, access to health services. Regional communities in terms of health depend on reliable aviation services. There is no regard for the health and wellbeing of people struggling in rural, remote and regional Australia. We have had our aviation policy completely destroyed with respect to its integrity. We have also had the failure of the government to endeavour to broker a solution to the Ansett crisis—one that would save jobs, regional services and aviation policy. This is a prime example of why this bill is important and that we consider the performance of the minister, but there are other examples. Let's go to the issue of road funding. The government has already spent the entire additional $400 million for roads of national importance and national highways announced in November of last year. The government has now advised on the web site that national road funding for the next three years has also been fully spent. That means no more federal road money unless the government can find other revenue streams. In aviation, after ripping off families and businesses on aviation fuel excise, the minister finally conceded that he was also ripping off the aviation industry by overcollecting $7.6 million on fuel costs when he increased the aviation fuel excise duty by 0.51c per litre in May 1999. Further, a bipartisan parliamentary report released in May confirmed the minister had failed on rail reform—a major rebuff to the minister's management of the rail industry. The House of Representatives transport committee report Back on track called for better planning and coordination of the national track and a strategic national approach to investment in the nation's rail track system. It noted such an approach to rail was lacking under the current government. Another rail failure was the government's botched handling of the speed rail Sydney-Canberra very fast train proposal, a tender process that effectively was to start and finish at no net cost to government, which initially blew out to $300 million, then to $2 billion, before eventually leading to the collapse of the project at considerable cost to the private sector. An estimated $30 million was wasted by the private sector as a result of that debacle—the tender process on the very fast train.We also saw earlier this year the Liberal Party President Shane Stone's leaked memo, which was yet another slap in the face for the Minister for Transport and Regional Services and Leader of the National Party. That memo confirmed what people across Australia have been saying for some time—that is, that the Howard-Costello government, with its lap-dog the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, is out of touch with the needs of ordinary people, is mean and tricky and cannot be trusted. The memo confirmed that even government backbenchers realised the Howard-Costello government has been too tricky on issues such as GST on beer and fuel. It proved that the transport minister was more concerned with defending policies that have kicked workers in the guts, rather than standing up for regional Australia. It confirmed that the minister was not only missing in action but was also absent without leave while drawing a considerable salary.The minister has tried to dismiss the impact of the GST on public transport fares and fuel costs, but Australians know that the GST has not helped public transport, particularly the bus industry, and therefore has not helped improve our environmental performance. Equally, the application of the Diesel and Alternative Fuels Grants Scheme has not provided the incentives that could add to increased public transport patronage in urban areas. Again on road funding, the critical Australia National Audit Office report on management of a national highway has highlighted the total failure of the minister to do his job—yet again. The report raised serious concerns about the administration of road funding within the Department of Transport and Regional Services. Further, it questioned the minister's competence to handle this most important policy area—not a complicated area, merely a matter of detail and paying attention to the job that you are paid for. The report directly criticised the minister for failing to report to the parliament important financial details about road funding. The minister was then forced to admit that he had failed to fill his requirements under the Australian Land Transport Development Act. He said:Technically, like previous ministers, it would appear that I am in breach.What the minister did not say—and this is about the whole performance of this tricky, mean government—is that only coalition ministers had breached the requirements of this legislation. That was proven in the House. The other thing: the minister used two staff as scapegoats. Two ordinary Australians hit the wall. They lost their jobs to enable the minister to hide from his responsibility with respect to nonperformance of his duties under the Land Transport Act. He sacked two staff and blamed them for his incompetence with respect to the Land Transport Act. Yes, that is what he did. Time is up, Mr Minister. People in the transport industry have had a gutful of your nonperformance. I also remind the House that this was the second time the Audit Office had criticised the minister for failing to comply with his own legislation. At the end of 1999 the Audit Office slammed him for breaching aviation legislation when he failed to supply corporate plans for two years, which the office concluded was in breach of the legislation. It was not good enough to say that he did not know about the requirements of the legislation, because he is the minister. He is paid to know about the requirements of legislation. Another road issue goes to the ability to make a decision. I refer to the Hume Highway bypass at Albury. It is another typical botched decision. Revelations from the independent auditors that the minister did not have the final figures when he made the decision in February destroyed the integrity of this so-called decision. Labor went out of its way not to play politics on this decision. Prior to the decision, on a visit to Albury—in fact, Corowa—I made it clear that the opposition would support an internal or external road. All we wanted was a requirement on the government to make a decision. It did not matter whether it was internal or external; we would support the decision because we needed a clear-cut decision once and for all. But instead of the government being decisive, what did we get? Two bob each way yet again. In doing so, we later found that we are going to get a little bit of an internal road and a little bit of an external road, because it is about playing both sides of the road. They thought it was about time to please both groups in the Albury-Wodonga community. We then found that the minister did not even have the facts before him: he failed to consult the local councils and he failed to consult the New South Wales and Victorian governments. I think the time has come for this minister to accept his responsibilities, be they for road transport, the railway industry or aviation. I also remind the House that, when it comes to aviation, because the minister's mind was not on his job we saw Ansett grounded at Christmas and Easter this year. An investigation eventually clearly proved that part of the difficulty with respect to the grounding of Ansett in December and at Easter was because of the nonperformance of CASA, an agency that the minister has direct responsibility for. A Senate report on the CASA investigation into serious irregularities at an Albury based airline had previously slammed the minister's handling of their management. The Senate committee concluded, in consideration of these matters, that CASA had botched the investigation into the maintenance records of air facilities and that senior CASA staff then tried to cover up their handling of the investigation, confirming the minister's continuing mismanagement of aviation policy. I now want to deal briefly with the maritime and shipping issue. In essence, there is no policy. There is no maritime policy of the Howard government at the moment. I think that is a tragedy for an island nation such as Australia. It is also a tragedy on the eve of World Maritime Day. I want to remind the House today, not only on the eve of maritime day but also on the eve of potentially an international onslaught against terrorism, with a potential loss of lives, that the Australian merchant marine has historically played a critical role in defence operations for Australia. I refer to what Major-General Cosgrove said about the East Timor crisis. It is more pertinent than ever to remind the community of this today. He basically said that, without the contribution of our marine service to East Timor, the Australian armed forces and the United Nations could not have done their job. I hope that the minister thinks about this today, because it is international maritime day tomorrow. I think we as a community owe a debt of gratitude to our marine services, who not only have helped in East Timor but all around the world in the next couple of weeks and months they will potentially help the Australian and international community in the fight against terrorism. I want to clearly state on behalf of the opposition today that it is imperative that the Commonwealth government recognise World Maritime Day and, in doing so, support moves to protect the health and safety of seafarers and eliminate substandard shipping in honour of the contribution of the one in eight seafarers who made the ultimate sacrifice during the Second World War. Surely at least that could be acknowledged by the Howard government on the eve of significant international turmoil in which our marine services can be expected to lend a hand. We have long recognised the economic and strategic importance of maintaining vibrant, efficient and safe domestic services. I simply say on behalf of the opposition that if we are returned to the government benches after the next election then we will expect the minister's office and the department to perform with respect to our responsibilities as an island nation to have a decent shipping service in place in Australia. I simply say in conclusion that, yes, the Labor Party supports the legislation before the House today. It is of a very important technical nature. But I want the minister to finally accept that he has let the Australian community down when it comes to his nonperformance of his ministerial responsibilities. Significant examples have been laid on the table today for the consideration of the Australian public. They are entitled to better from a minister of the Crown. They are entitled to a fair day's work for a fair day's pay, and the salary of a minister is more than fair. It is about time the minister accepted that he should do his job and take transport seriously rather than say, as he did recently in an interview with the Land, `Something has to give; the job is too big for me.' (Time expired)11:25:0031592Wakelin, Barry, MPMr WAKELINHV5GreyLP10—The Transport and Regional Services Legislation Amendment (Application of Criminal Code) Bill 2001 is a fairly straightforward and non-controversial bill, but I could not let the opportunity go by without responding to some of the comments by the member for Batman.LS4Ferguson, Martin, MPHV5Wakelin, Barry, MPMr WAKELIN—The member for Batman has made a lot of allegations, as usual. I think he has tested—LS4Ferguson, Martin, MP10000Mossfield, Frank (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Mossfield)—Order! The member for Batman, you were listened to in silence.LS4Ferguson, Martin, MPHV5Wakelin, Barry, MPMr WAKELIN—You are out of order, Batman! I now turn to the issue of Ansett. The Leader of the Opposition himself made the point 10 years ago that there was always the possibility that one of the major carriers could fall over when the Labor Party deregulated the airline industry. If you do deregulate, which the Labor Party said was the appropriate policy, then these things may happen. It never fails to amaze me how brilliant the Labor Party are in opposition. They are the most brilliant opposition Australia has ever had, but in government it is always a totally different picture.LS4Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin Ferguson—Is the fall of Ansett an achievement? That is one of your high points of government, is it?10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—The member for Batman will cease interjecting.HV5Wakelin, Barry, MPMr WAKELIN—Why don't you just pull your head in, Batman? If you had an original idea, you would be dangerous.LS4Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin Ferguson—You have something to cover up about airlines. That's your problem.HV5Wakelin, Barry, MPMr WAKELIN—You are malicious and very foolish in the sorts of things you talk about—unacceptably foolish.LS4Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin Ferguson—You know what I'm talking about.HV5Wakelin, Barry, MPMr WAKELIN—I will not be provoked by the member for Batman, but he will use anything for any political advantage. He will use even people's grief for any purpose. He is a disgrace. LS4Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin Ferguson—You're a disgrace.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! I call the member for Batman to order again. He was listened to in silence; he should listen to other speakers in silence.HV5Wakelin, Barry, MPMr WAKELIN—As things about Ansett come out they snigger and smile. Why don't you get serious about the issues of Australia for a change? The issue for Ansett, as has been well described in recent weeks, regrettably and sadly, is that their costs were far higher than their competitors'. The mismanagement has been well discussed. The clearest comparison I can make to the running of Ansett by its board is the running of the Australian economy by the Labor Party when they were in government—and I can talk about 20 per cent interest rates.We hear a lot about unemployment and, yes, there are many jobs on the line. In this last week, we have seen Traveland put back into business; in many places, we have seen Kendell put back into the sky; and, over the last five years, we have seen something like 800,000 new jobs created. Coming from where we were a fortnight ago with the aviation industry, I think this minister has performed in an outstanding manner given the degree of difficulty that he had to confront. I am well used to the Labor Party, as they were previously in government in my own state. I well remember the State Bank collapse, when $3 billion to $4 billion went down the tube due to lack of supervision, and the penalty that the state paid. I well remember the `recession we had to have'. I remember the promises in 1992, leading up to the 1993 election, when Labor said that they were going to give tax cuts and then never did. Then, even worse than that, they actually jacked up the WST, the wholesale sales tax, with not one cent of compensation given to age pensioners.Let me come back to the bill. I think it is important that we do talk about the bill, and the fact is that it is being dealt with in the Main Committee because it is not contentious. I will just run through some of those issues which are germane to the bill. The Criminal Code provides for a standard manner of dealing with criminal offences in Commonwealth legislation. Essentially the bill operates by removing those parts of existing acts that establish criminal offences and penalties and replacing them with sections that are consistent with the code to aid the courts in interpreting criminal offence provisions in a consistent manner. For example, the bill deletes section 20A of the Civil Aviation Act 1988, which deals with the negligent operation of aircraft and replaces it with a new section dealing with the reckless operation of aircraft. This is to ensure that the act will be consistent with the concept of conduct, circumstance and result as defined by the code. These concepts are designed to establish a fault element—that is, to aid the courts in consistently determining the intent or state of mind of an offender when an offence is committed. The bill does not create any new offences of strict liability and does not amend provisions that deal with the process of appeals or rights during any appeal process. The bill will reduce penalties for a small number of existing offences so that they will be consistent with the Criminal Code, as there is no justification for maintaining the penalties at their current levels. It will also retain a small number of penalties, chiefly protecting the marine environment, at a level higher than those in the Criminal Code.There are a number of acts covered by the bill and they are well listed in the explanatory memorandum. Some of them include the Adelaide Airport Curfew Act 2000, the Civil Aviation Act 1988, the Explosives Act 1961, the Submarine Cables and Pipelines Protection Act 1963. The bill also deals with the amendments of territories and regional services legislation, including the Albury-Wodonga Development Act 1973. So it is more of a procedural bill as described in the general principles that I have placed before the Main Committee.In conclusion, I once again put on the record my appreciation of the Minister for Transport and Regional Services and this government in the management of this nation, in its stewardship over the last five years. I think it has been an outstanding record of achievement. The support for the local roads funding—that $1.6 billion package which was so well received at the end of last year—is really comment in itself of the way that this government is determined to look after and support and maintain the infrastructure of this country from the bottom up; that is, particularly at the local government level. I believe in this government and the people of the calibre of the Deputy Prime Minister. For the effort that he has put in, he is to be highly commended. I commend this bill to the Main Committee. 11:34:0031594Scott, Bruce, MPMr BRUCE SCOTTYT4MaranoaNPMinister for Veterans' Affairs and Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence10—I will be summing up the Transport and Regional Services Legislation Amendment (Application of Criminal Code) Bill 2001 on behalf of the Deputy Prime Minister. I am sure that members on the other side of the chamber—and we certainly on this side of the chamber—realise why he is so busy. It is a great pleasure for me to be able to sum up on his behalf. I certainly endorse the comments of the member for Grey, my colleague and neighbour out on our western Queensland borders at Birdsville. I think his comments in relation to the Deputy Prime Minister are very appropriate at this time.The amendments proposed by this bill will maintain the status quo with regard to the existing Transport and Regional Services portfolio criminal offence provisions. The amendments proposed by this bill must be made before 15 December 2001 to ensure that the offence provisions continue to operate in their current manner. The exemption of certain road transport reform legislation from the application of the Criminal Code is not permanent. The Commonwealth has referred the question of amending the acts to the National Road Transport Commission to be pursued through the workings of the Australian Transport Council. This application of part 2.5 of the Criminal Code to certain Transport and Regional Services portfolio acts is necessary to prevent competing corporate criminal liability regimes operating in relation to the same offences.The bill does not create any new offences of strict liability. Instances where existing penalties exceed Criminal Code policy for strict liability offences are limited, in the main, to provisions related to protection of the marine environment. The penalties for a small number of existing strict liability offences have been reduced to comply with Criminal Code policy for strict liability offences where there is no policy justification for maintaining the penalties at their current levels. The bill disapplies chapter 2 of the Criminal Code to the state and territory criminal offences that are applied to Commonwealth non-self-governing territories. In conclusion, I thank members of the Main Committee who have spoken on this bill. I also take the opportunity to thank the members of the department who have been responsible for the drafting of legislation. I think that often in this place we forget the hard work that goes on behind the scenes to bring forward such legislation. A lot of work by departmental people has gone into making sure that what comes forward does meet the requirements of government. This is a process that started long before we came into government. I do thank members of the department for their work in that area. I commend the bill to the Main Committee.Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time.Ordered that the bill be reported to the House without amendment.Bills31594R134631594Debate resumed from 2 September, on motion by Mr Hawker:That the bill be read a second time. 11:39:0031595Ferguson, Martin, MPMr MARTIN FERGUSONLS4BatmanALP00—I rise this afternoon to speak on the Motor Vehicle Standards Amendment Bill 2001. In doing so I would like to acknowledge that the member for Grey just scampered from the House rather than remain to speak on what I think is an exceptionally important bill. As a number of us know, this bill goes to vehicle manufacturing in Australia. Mr Wakelin, who contributed to the previous debate on the transport and regional services bill, represents a major seat in South Australia, the seat of Grey. One of Australia's principal vehicle manufacturing factories is Mitsubishi. It employs thousands of workers, directly and indirectly, in automotive manufacturing in South Australia.I would have thought it would be appropriate for the member for Grey, who prides himself on being an expert on transport policies, to have at least made a contribution to a debate that relates to jobs and job security in his home state of South Australia. But again we have the member for Grey missing in action when it comes to standing up for jobs and job security in his home state. I make these comments because the intent of the bill is to make significant changes to the regulatory regime for ensuring vehicle compliance with the Australian design rules. It is about a fair go for all—for companies who trade in the second-hand vehicle market and for companies who employ thousands of workers directly and indirectly in the manufacture of new vehicles in Australia. It is about a fair outcome for all in the industry. It is also about protecting the best interests of consumers.I regard the Motor Vehicle Standards Amendment Bill 2001 as important because it is also related to vehicle safety and to the protection of consumers in their purchases. It reforms a system that has been open to abuse and exploitation for a purpose not intended. Having sought to achieve something with legislation, if we find that the legislation does not meet the mark, it is the role of the parliament to make sure—on this occasion, with agreement on both sides of the House—that we achieve what was originally intended. On this occasion that is exceptionally important, because what has occurred with respect to the misuse of the Motor Vehicle Standards Act has had implications for Australian jobs and consequences for Australian taxpayers. While the opposition will support the bill, we call on the parliament to condemn the Howard government for their maladministration of the scheme. That very maladministration has led to a blow-out in the scheme and the number of vehicles receiving concessions offered by the low volume scheme. The maladministration of the scheme—under the supervision of the Minister for Transport and Regional Services and Deputy Prime Minister—and the slowness of the Howard-Costello government to redress obvious problems have impacted on Australian jobs, created uncertainty in job security in vehicle manufacture and, in turn, king-hit Australian taxpayers yet again, at a time when they have been fully exploited by the Howard government through the inequitable application of the GST.As I speak this morning, a second reading amendment is circulating for consideration. Before I turn to the specifics of the bill, I want to discuss the impact of the bill on many small businesses. In the main, those businesses are importers of second-hand vehicles under the low volume scheme. Whilst it has been difficult to get figures on exactly how many jobs are affected, it must be acknowledged that the number is significant—possibly in the order of 400 businesses. You and I, Madam Deputy Speaker Gash, know the importance of that, because one of the engine rooms of job growth in Australia is small business.The explanatory memorandum provides some clarification of the impact of the low volume scheme. In 2000, 943 individual businesses applied for plates under the scheme. As many do not rely solely on used import activities, and low volume scheme businesses have the capacity to switch to other vehicle types, industry representatives suggest that there are approximately 400 businesses that will be affected by the tightening of the eligibility criteria—in particular, four-wheel drive importers—in the immediate term. However, small businesses will, correctly, benefit from an increase in the annual cap from 25 to 100 used passenger vehicles per approval holder. This will help to improve the viability of firms currently constrained by the 25-car limit. No information is available on the number of people employed, the value of the turnover of low volume scheme businesses or the contribution to the economy. Last year, the then Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business asked the Office of Small Business to prepare a report on the impact of the new scheme. However, as the questioning by the shadow minister for small business, Joel Fitzgibbon, revealed, the government had decided that that report was confidential. So much for transparency, honesty and integrity in government. That was the answer given to the shadow minister's question in February this year. The then minister for small business said that the report on the impact of the scheme was confidential. This is another example, I believe, of mean and tricky decision making by the current government. Alternatively, on that occasion perhaps the minister was too busy dealing with the telecard affair, which also cost the Australian taxpayer, until he was forced to accept his responsibilities.Perhaps my colleagues in the other place can uncover that report and place on the record the true impact on small business. The impact on these businesses is a key reason why the bill was referred to a Senate committee for scrutiny, along with the regulations when they became available. This has enabled affected business operators, at the initiation of the opposition and their representatives, to be absolutely clear about what is envisaged in the bill.In referring this bill to the Senate committee, however, I would like to make it clear that the opposition supports the intent of the bill—that is, to return the low volume scheme to its original or a similar purpose. We also fully support the measure to introduce a registered automotive workshop scheme to improve the regulation of design rules and enhance consumer protection and information—an objective supported by those on both sides of the House. It is our view that this is necessary to restore the integrity of the scheme and to repair the damage from the government's maladministration of the scheme to date. We as an opposition have empathy with the affected small business people who have built their businesses on the basis of the opportunities provided by the scheme to date. But we cannot escape the point that this scheme was not intended to provide an almost open slather concessional scheme for imported second-hand vehicles. That arrangement has a major impact on employment in other sections of industry and has unfortunately created an uneven playing field.As stated earlier, the opposition has been critical of the government not only for their maladministration of the scheme but also for failing to properly assess the impact of the bill, and we have required the Senate committee to assist in this regard. The opposition has ensured, through an agreement with the minister for transport, that the government will not take the Motor Vehicle Standards Amendment Bill to a Senate committee until such time as there are draft regulations for the committee's consideration. Therefore, the Senate committee and the affected industries and representatives had an opportunity to comment on the detail, and that is important. It is about making sure that those who are affected are fully consulted and given an opportunity to see what the government intends with respect to this bill. We now await the report from the Senate committee, which I understand will be tabled in the other place today.On that basis I turn to the particulars of the bill. Firstly, I refer to the content of the bill. The low volume scheme was introduced in 1970 to facilitate the issue of certificates of compliance to manufacturers producing fewer than 50 vehicles each year of a particular model, such as Australian made Bolwells and imported right-hand drive Buicks and Cadillacs. The other schemes in operation are the full volume scheme and the personally imported vehicles scheme. The full volume scheme is used by major manufacturers for large volumes of standard vehicles, which are required to meet all currently applicable design rules based on type approvals. The arrangements for the full volume scheme do not discriminate between new and used vehicles, except that used passenger vehicles supplied under the scheme are subject to a $12,000 special duty. The personally imported vehicles scheme enables migrants and Australian residents returning from overseas to treat their vehicle as part of their personal effects. The concessions available on the low volume scheme are significant. The scheme allows alternative forms of evidence of compliance with many of the Australian design rules, such as not requiring destructive or other expensive testing. Secondly, vehicles are required to comply with Australian design rules that were in force at the date of original manufacture rather than the current applicable Australian design rule. Thirdly, there is an exemption from the $12,000 special duty on used passenger motor vehicles which applies if they were imported under the full volume scheme. These low volume scheme concessions were designed for specialist and enthusiast vehicles, as these may not otherwise be viable for manufacture with the high cost of volume certification spread over a small number of vehicles. The low volume scheme was progressively modified to increase the eligibility requirements from 50 to 100 vehicles and, from 1985, extended to used vehicles that were not covered by the full volume scheme. Today, the low volume scheme predominantly involves imported used vehicles and therefore most of the participants are now importers and converters, not manufacturers.An interdepartmental task force established in 1997 identified, correctly, significant problems and issues with the operation of the low volume scheme and compliance with Australian design rules. These problems were, in essence, summarised as follows. The number of imports have increased markedly from 1,000 in 1993 to 16,825 in the year 2000, with a significant jump in the period from 1995 when 1,705 were imported—the largest increase being in the passenger vehicle and four-wheel drive categories. Secondly, the measures for compliance with current Australian design rules are more lenient, therefore causing concern that the low volume scheme is increasing the risk and likelihood of high numbers of noncompliant vehicles on the market. Thirdly, while there is currently a limit of 25 vehicles per year per approval for passenger cars and either 25 or 100 for other categories, the number of approval holders is not controlled. Fourthly, there are consumer protection issues related to the lack of after-sales service, availability of replacement parts and the inability to perform vehicle recalls. Fifthly, four-wheel drives where the only difference from the full vehicle scheme model is the nature are being imported under the low volume provisions. For example, the Toyota Surf imported in large numbers is the same as the FV scheme Toyota 4-runner in every respect other than the diesel engine. Sixthly, the low volume scheme is being used to import from Japan, where the regulatory regime results in a higher vehicle turnover, large volumes of what are essentially standard vehicles.As well as the safety and consumer issues that I have listed, the escalating growth in used car imports is causing concern both in the mainstream industry and at a regulatory level. These issues were identified by the government. The explanatory memorandum notes that the Australian vehicle manufacturing industry directly employs 51,000 Australians and exports nearly $3.3 billion worth of automotive parts. Therefore its need for stability in regulatory policy is a must. Such stability is about maintaining and attracting future investment to the vehicle manufacturing industry in Australia and also enabling those companies to plan for the future. The essential problem voiced by the manufacturing industry is that many of the imports are in direct competition with vehicles supplied without concessions. The task force and government considered a range of options to address the issues with the operation of the low volume scheme and the impact on compliance with Australian design rules and industry. Various options for reform were considered in the areas of eligibility requirements, type approval versus an individual vehicle approval regime versus self-regulation, and options to smooth the transition to any new arrangements. In relation to eligibility requirements, the task force originally rejected the option to tighten up the operation of the scheme, preferring to just clarify the guidelines. The reason for concern was the impact on small business. The government ultimately opted to totally overhaul the low vehicle scheme to return the scheme to its original purpose: concessions only for specialist and enthusiast vehicles. The burgeoning number of used imports was the reason the scheme needed more than mere tinkering.Under the renamed low volume scheme, all imported vehicles will be assessed against new criteria set out in the administrator's circular 0-2-12 specialist and enthusiast vehicle scheme eligibility. Transparency will also be increased with recent eligibility rulings and eligible vehicles published on the Internet. The option to retain the current type approval system was rejected by the task force. A registered automotive workshop scheme will be implemented to introduce a certification scheme based on vehicle by vehicle approval by registered workshops for used vehicles. All registered automotive workshop scheme participants will be required to have ISO9001 certification. The registered automotive workshop scheme will increase the level of assurance that vehicles being supplied to the market comply with Australian design rules in place at the time that the vehicle was manufactured.Other measures under the registered automotive workshop scheme will ensure the consumer is aware the vehicle is a used imported vehicle. I think consumers are entitled to have that knowledge at hand. Various transition arrangements were considered with a two-year option adopted. That is about making sure that on the way through, and overcoming faults in the current legislation, we also have regard to the impact of the new bill on the industry. This will therefore allow, and correctly so, time for legislative change, finalisation of administrative arrangements and for business to adjust. This was clearly preferred to an option that allowed the current low vehicle scheme to continue for the life of models currently approved. The life of approvals for these models would continue for seven to nine years. Under the preferred two-year transition, low volume scheme imports will still approach 28,000 in 2002 on current trends. Should the transition period be extended to 2005, this figure is expected to rise to over 50,000 vehicles.The Motor Vehicle Standards Amendment Bill will, in essence, amend the Motor Vehicle Standards Act 1989 to include these and other related changes. In summary, what will the amendments do? Firstly, and importantly, these amendments allow for a register of specialist and enthusiast vehicles to be established which will be used to restrict the importation of used vehicles, except used motorcycles, to those assessed to be specialist and enthusiast and prevent the importation of what are effectively standard vehicles. Secondly, these amendments introduce a scheme to regulate registered automotive workshops. Thirdly, these amendments require imported used vehicles to be modified and inspected by registered automotive workshops on a vehicle by vehicle basis to ensure each vehicle's compliance with the appropriate national standards, which provide for vehicles to be modified and inspected and approved for plating on a vehicle by vehicle basis rather than on the basis of vehicle type. Fourthly, these amendments introduce a charging regime for registered automotive workshops that aims to cover the costs of administration of the scheme. Fifthly, these amendments limit the number of vehicles a registered automotive workshop may supply during a specified period. Sixthly, these amendments create various offence provisions. Seventhly, these amendments replace the existing approvals to modify imported used vehicles with transition approvals. Finally, these amendments provide for the transitional approvals to be enforced for a period to be set out in the regulations. The period of the transitional approvals will aim to achieve a smooth transition to the new arrangements. In conclusion, the opposition believes, as does the government, that the bill will definitely make significant reforms to vehicle importation and replace the current low volume scheme with a scheme that is more akin to the original purpose of the low volume scheme. The bill will also lay the groundwork for a regulatory scheme for imported used vehicles that will improve quality, safety and consumer confidence. It is an important requirement for us as legislators to guarantee that, with respect to improving used vehicles, we will contribute to improving quality, safety and consumer confidence in the application of this scheme.I suggest to the House that the government is to be condemned for the maladministration of the scheme. This maladministration and its consequences mean there will be pain for many small business operators. This would not have happened with a competent minister and with a competent government. In the other chamber, Labor awaits the tabling of the Senate committee report; a report that was initiated from a request by the opposition for an appropriate inquiry into this matter. We clearly wanted to ensure the best possible outcome: we wanted to have the bill on the table for consideration and we also sought to ensure that the industry had access to the regulations that will cover the operation of the bill.At a recent ministerial briefing on this bill with departmental officers in attendance, I was surprised that the government was still unable, after many months of consideration, to table the regulations that will cover the operation of the bill. It is another example of the government not doing its homework with respect to major changes that have an impact on small business operators not only in capital cities but also in many regional communities around Australia.It is clear from the comments I have made today that the government ought to be condemned for not doing its job. On that basis, the opposition will move a second reading amendment to the bill. As I have indicated, the opposition supports the intent of the Motor Vehicle Standards Amendment Bill 2001. Those on both sides of the House have given serious consideration to the implications of this bill on major manufacturing establishments, jobs and job security and the potential impact on small businesses around Australia, many of whom also employ a considerable number of people. Clearly, there is agreement on both sides of the House that the bill cleans up existing difficulties within the industry. When the regulations that will cover the operation of the bill are in place, they will guarantee that we have paid sufficient attention to the transitional arrangements that protect not only Australian consumers and the travelling public but also the best interests of small businesses who operate in this industry. I therefore commend the bill to the House. It is a bill that is very much supported by those on both sides of the House. In doing so I move the following second reading amendment that stands in my name: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 its poor administration of the Low Volume Scheme, thereby jeopardising Australian jobs and threatening the safety of Australian motorists”.10000Gash, Joanna (Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER)Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mrs Gash)—Is the amendment seconded?QK6Sercombe, Bob, MPMr Sercombe—I second the amendment.12:05:0031600Charles, Bob, MPMr CHARLESOT4La TrobeLP10—I rise to speak on the Motor Vehicle Standards Amendment Bill 2001. I have to say that the member for Batman was going all right until he got to his pious amendment and started condemning the minister and the government. Two of my constituents, Craig and Robyn Dean, own and operate a company called Crossover Car Conversion in Ferntree Gully in Victoria. They not only are lovely people but also have a fantastic business and they produce beautiful vehicles. They do conversion of American left-hand drive to Australian right-hand drive standards and you cannot tell that the cars have been converted. They keep spare parts for all the vehicles that they import. They came to me about the issue of the motor vehicle standards being amended something like five years ago because it was already the intent of the Department of Transport and Regional Services to make amendments to the low volume scheme that was, and still is, in operation. The reasons for that became apparent. Originally, as I understand it, the importers of used vehicles under the low volume scheme could bring in 100 vehicles. I think it was in 1992, ahead of the 1993 election—if my memory serves me right—that the then Keating ALP government brought in a $12,000 duty on imported used vehicles. We supported that measure. The reason for the measure was simply the fact that Japanese regulations for their motor vehicle regime posed a threat of flooding Australia with Japanese second-hand motor vehicles at very low prices and putting at risk our manufacturing industry.Why would the Japanese want to sell their second-hand vehicles to Australia? Because their regulations mean that the inspection that a car must go through once it is three years old is so expensive that they cannot afford to reregister the vehicles. The cost is literally non-affordable. So they buy a motor vehicle, drive it for three years, trade it—it is almost worthless—and the dealers want to export those vehicles because they cannot sell them in Japan and nobody can afford to buy them. That is exactly what happened in New Zealand. New Zealand had an assembly industry but it has since closed down because they opened the door to the used vehicles. I have to say that they have very low priced vehicles in New Zealand, but they lost their industry and they lost all the support structure that goes with the motor vehicle manufacturing industry. The Labor government—again, I think, it was in 1993—brought in the $12,000 duty, but then the low volume scheme was adjusted down to a limit of 25 vehicles per importer. You needed a piece of paper to get approval as a licence plate holder.Over time, the industry itself—and particularly backyarders—figured out a way to get around the regulation by having their uncle or cousin or aunty or whatever import the cars. They then did some work on them, had them inspected, passed and got approval plates in order to be able to get enough vehicles. The industry, having figured out how to get around the regulations, started cranking up and importing more and more vehicles, many of which are from Japan and are very similar to models manufactured here by the two Japanese manufacturers in Australia—Toyota and Mitsubishi. My constituents were concerned because backyarders were hurting their business and doing so by not really properly making their used vehicles meet Australian standards, putting at risk the safety of the motor vehicle travelling public and the general public overall. They were concerned about the safety issues; they were concerned that they were having unfair competition because these backyarders with no infrastructure, no spare parts, no backup service—nothing—were able to bring in these vehicles, do very little work on them whatsoever and have them approved for sale in the Australian market. They thought that was hurting their business and the legitimate industry and legitimate small businesses in Australia that have developed. I have been working on this issue for a very long time, and I am particularly pleased with two aspects of the specialist and enthusiast vehicle low volume scheme. One thing I am particularly pleased about is that the government and the minister agreed with my suggestion that we go back to 100 vehicles per workshop. The other recommendation that I made—and these recommendations, by the way, came from my constituents, Craig and Robyn Dean—was to bring into place a registered workshop system so that the workshops themselves approved each vehicle and they were responsible to the department for keeping up standards. We did not have to have a third party inspect every vehicle, but workshops would have to go through a testing program to convince the officials that what they were doing was up to the standards which we require of all motor vehicles in Australia. As part of the registered workshop requirements, the industry must now meet the ISO9001 year 2000 quality management system which has been developed for this new scheme. I am pleased that my constituents have now satisfied those standards: they have met the quality standards and they are ready for their registered workshop approval. They are looking forward to this legislation being passed so that they can get vehicles on the way. They want vehicles on the water in order to give employment to the employees in their workshop and sell really lovely motor vehicles to the Australian public.This is good legislation. I am disappointed that the member for Batman had to try and take a cheap shot at both the minister and department officials, because it is a difficult issue to work through. It has caused some pain for some small businesses and it has caused some controversy in the industry because there are some operators who are still very unhappy with the proposals. I can say that honestly and truly, because it is so. There are others who would rather some of the issues in the proposals were different than they are but who are prepared to live with the new set of regulations and make them work.One thing is for sure: we do not want, and I do not think any side of politics wants, to wind up with the New Zealand situation where we literally destroy our new-vehicle manufacturing industry by bringing in Japan's rejects which have been rejected through their regulations. That is not fair business; that is unfair business and unfair trading. We definitely do not want to replicate the New Zealand experience. We value our major motor car manufacturers. We also, though, value small business, and people like Craig and Robyn Dean who have an excellent business are the kind of people that I support. I literally insist we must keep them in business; we must not regulate them out of business. I am pleased that they have now spent the money in order to meet the new ISO standards and that they are ready to comply with the regulations associated with being a registered workshop. They want vehicles on the water. They want vehicles in Australia so that they can start converting them and selling them. We can keep another small business alive and well in the Australian economy.I congratulate the minister. I thank his departmental officials for all the hard yards that they put into the work on this particular measure over a long period of time and look forward to working with them as the regulations themselves are developed. I support the bill. I think it is a shame the member for Batman had to destroy his own arguments, if you will, for a pious amendment.12:15:0031601Lawrence, Dr Carmen, MPDr LAWRENCEXS4FremantleALP00—I want to speak to the Motor Vehicle Standards Amendment Bill 2001 today in order to indicate, amongst other things, the problems that its passage, together with regulations which we have not yet seen, will create for segments of the small business sector in Australia. Like many people, I have received very strong representations from my own constituents, Western Australians, and from Queenslanders particularly indicating their dissatisfaction with the proposed regulations, although we have not seen those. Some constituents, as the previous speaker indicated, are unhappy with the entire bill, but most of them have said to me that they are happy with various elements of it. They are very concerned, however, that the way it has been introduced and the regulations as they appear to be proposed may well have very significant detrimental effects on their business. At the outset I would like to quote from a couple of people who I understand are here with us today: Brian and Ingrid Lynch of Trucks Plus. I am sure they have made representations to everybody in the parliament. They have been very energetic in their lobbying, as have various industry organisations. But I think we need to give a human face to these problems. In writing to me on at least one occasion, Brian and Ingrid Lynch said:As you are aware, this bill in its present form will put us out of business.That is pretty blunt and direct, but I understand that to be the case, not just for Trucks Plus but for others as well. Brian and Ingrid express the view that they are:... very concerned that in the flurry leading up to the election we may see the bill rubber-stamped with other minor legislative change, thereby destroying our business and rendering our family savings valueless.I think that is something that has not been sufficiently taken into account. I appreciate what the previous speaker has said about some changes that have been made at his behest and at that of other backbenchers within the coalition parties, but they have still overlooked the needs of a significant proportion of the small business sector which is dealing with these motor vehicles. The coalition is apparently prepared to add to the growing list of unemployed that we have in our community. If I may just refer to that for a moment, this is in the context of very significant job losses in large and small businesses together—some of them due to corporate failures; others to businesses having to significantly wind back their employment. Frankly, we can ill afford a piece of legislation which, while its intent is to protect our local manufacturers—something that I strongly support—may well have the effect of driving some of these people out of business without compensation, especially if the regulations are as proposed.The government do not appear to have had a good look at that question and I am very concerned that they are not prepared to act, for instance, when we have seen so many jobs go. Yesterday we saw 1,000 go from Coles Myer. We saw the closure of Daimaru with the loss of a further 1,000 jobs. We saw that 1,400 are to go from One.Tel and 360 from Bradmill. Pasminco are in trouble. Harris Scarfe have dropped significant numbers of employees. There are also problems at Franklins, HIH Insurance, Diamond Press, Liberty One, Oakdale, Cobar, Braybrook, STP, Woodlawn, Merrywood, Exicom, National Textiles, Grafton and Scone meatworks, Parrish Meats and of course Ansett itself, with the follow-on effects that we are seeing around Australia at the moment.I had the Parliamentary Library look at a number of companies that have gone completely belly up. This does not include the small business sector; these are just the larger corporations. We have a very sad list indeed from 1997: Gilbertson meatworks with 245 retrenched; St Andrew's hospitals in Rockhampton and Yeppoon, 157; CSA copper mine in Cobar, 270; Woodlawn, 154; Austral Pacific, 780; Roadmark, 30; and Oakdale, 127. These jobs all add up to a very substantial loss of high paid full-time employment in Australia, and I think it is time that the government, in looking at legislation of this kind, actually looked at the impact. One of the things that the government has not been prepared to do in industry policy generally is look at the impact where adjustment is being made, either because of standards changes or a desire to protect another area of industry. It is not apparently prepared to look at the cases of a number of small businesses that have made very clear the problems that they confront; yet they have been largely ignored in the way that this has been undertaken.I am sure that most people, under circumstances where change is required, will accept compensation and will accept perhaps that things need to be done in a different way, but there needs to be fairness in all of this. The government simply announced the cancellation of import licences held by about, in this case, 100 small Queensland businesses, which entitled them to import 25 cars—or 4x4s—per year from Japan. These businesses, as Mr Lynch has pointed out to me, had invested their life savings to meet the federal government's licensing requirements and those of the transport department. The licences were issued for the life of the model, which in many cases was 2012, and investment costs, of course sensibly, were amortised over this period. The cancellation of those licences will mean financial ruin for many of these small family owned businesses, and I do not think that is stating it too highly. I understand, particularly because as the shadow minister I have responsibility for industry, that we do need to protect our local manufacturers and our local jobs from imports but, in the scheme of things, these low volume importers are not the problem. The major loss to our domestic producers has been brought about by the significant increase in imports of the full volume. We have been losing our own market share here to new imported vehicles. I think that is a whole separate set of questions, and this one should not be confused with it. In my view these people, properly managed, do not represent a threat to the motor vehicle industry.This bill makes significant changes to the regulatory regime for ensuring vehicle compliance with the Australian design rules and amends the operation of the low volume scheme, which is not in itself offensive. The scheme was introduced in 1970 to facilitate the issue of certificates of compliance to manufacturers who produced fewer than 50 vehicles each year of particular models of vehicles. The low volume scheme is one of a number of vehicle importation schemes. I mentioned one—the full volume scheme—and the personally imported vehicle scheme is another. The full volume scheme, of course, is used by major manufacturers for large volumes of standard vehicles, and the personal scheme enables migrants, Australian residents et cetera returning from overseas, to treat their vehicle as part of their personal effects. In essence, the low volume scheme allows alternative forms of evidence to determine compliance with the Australian design rules without requiring destructive or expensive testing, and that is the basis on which many people have made their investments.Under the scheme as it exists, vehicles are required to comply with the rules that were in force at the date of original manufacture, and that is partly where these ground rules have been changed, rather than the current applicable design rules, and are exempted from the $12,000 duty on used passenger vehicles imported under the full volume scheme. These low volume concessions were designed to apply to the importation of specialist and enthusiast vehicles as the high relative cost of full volume certification, if spread over a small number of vehicles, clearly would make such low volume importation prohibitively expensive, which is really what is happening now. We are having costs added on that will make the businesses simply unviable.On this basis, we can clearly see that the scheme was originally designed to ensure that low volume importers were not unfairly penalised in a financial sense when importing vehicles with a known or readily determined compliance. Again, that seems a very sensible thing to do. I know that the department and some others perhaps in the motor vehicle manufacturing sector were concerned about increases in the volume of vehicles coming in under this scheme. But in the scheme of things, that is really not the problem. It is under the full volume scheme that we have really sharp competition with local manufacturers.However, having said that, if they were concerned about increases in the volume—and I have put this to officers of the department, and indeed to others—why did they not simply require all vehicles that are imported to come through a licensed motor vehicle dealer? I have not had a straight answer to that question and, frankly, it would have meant that a lot of the single permits that have been given would disappear. Small businesses like Trucks Plus could handle their volume sensibly with the regulations that we have required and the dodgy operators—the ones who operate through advertisements in the local press and specialist second-hand motor vehicle dealers' organs—would simply disappear. I still have not had a sensible response from the department to that proposal. I know that the licensing in that case devolves to the states, but it surely is possible for a federal government with any integrity to work with the states to get together a comprehensive scheme rather than go through the very expensive and, in a sense, arms-length operations now required by this legislation and by the regulations that we have not seen. As the shadow minister for industry, I certainly think this is an unnecessarily complex set of procedures that has been gone through. There were, we know, operators in the field who were exploiting loopholes, but the department was the one issuing these single permit licences—I am not quite sure of the exact description; I am sorry—and then they would turn up in the local motor trader and then they would do it again and again. There is plenty of evidence that that has occurred—whereas if they were going through licensed motor vehicle dealers, who have to meet certain standards of safety and guarantee the quality of the work that is done there, the problem would have been solved. I still think that is one of the best ways of going about solving this problem. I am mightily puzzled that it has not been picked up by the government for reasons that I do not understand.I am aware there are agreements about how long we are supposed to be speaking this morning because there is a volume of legislation before us, but I did want to make those points as this goes to a Senate committee. It is important for everyone here to recognise that, while we are certainly not objecting to this bill at this point, the Senate committee will have a capacity to examine carefully the real impact of these changes on the various businesses who have made representations to us. It is not reasonable to dismiss them as either being in a minority or not playing the game properly or not having a case to make. It is very clear to me they do have a reasonable case, that there are other ways of thinking about this and that a government that was committed to ensuring employment growth would be worried about the loss of a single job. The small business sector, as we know, is the driver of our economy and we cannot allow small businesses to simply be tossed aside as if they were of no relevance. We do need to have our own motor vehicle manufacturing sector and it needs to be strong and vibrant, but the real competition is coming from imports not under the low vehicle scheme but under other schemes. We need to set aside any ideology on this and sit down and work out a scheme that is comprehensive and fair. If people, having been given certain assurances over time about the viability of licences and agreements entered into, are put in a position where their business is going to be destroyed, then the government should look at appropriate compensation. To do less is really very unjust indeed.12:27:0031604Cadman, Alan, MPMr CADMANSD4MitchellLP10—This Motor Vehicle Standards Amendment Bill 2001 is a matter which has been considered for a lengthy period by the government and one on which there has been extensive consultation with all sections of the industry. I was a little surprised to hear the spokesman for the opposition on industry matters not refer to the concerns that are being expressed by those great motor vehicle manufacturing industries which have been so concerned about the future for the Australian auto industry and the impact low volume imports are having on the vehicles manufactured here in Australia. That affects jobs and livelihoods of hundreds of families. It brings to mind the Button plan, where great concern was expressed by the Australian Labor Party about the future of employees in the Australian auto industry. It is obvious that the spokesman for the opposition has reacted to whatever comes across her desk rather than find out exactly what is going on in particular industries and delve deeply into the policy implications for the future of Australian industry, whether it be for low volume or for the manufacturing sector.For me, this is a matter that dates back to January 2000 when I received a letter from one of my constituents, John Penlington, who is the director of Unique Auto Sports. John operates a really good business in Castle Hill and has been there for a number of years. He wrote me a letter saying he was very worried about the future for his business and the prospect of being able to trade in unique autos. I quote part of the letter: I am a hard working honest Australian trying to have a go in small business. I have been involved in imported and selling imported cars for over four years in the Castle Hill area where I have lived since 1976.John is a well-known individual in the area and a well-known businessman. I went to see John and have a look at what he was doing. I was impressed by the conversions he was doing, the level of competence in his workshop and the style and finish of his product. I myself felt that this man seems to be providing something of a unique car, a car for enthusiasts, and something that would be in high demand.This type of vehicle commands a considerable premium in the marketplace and, to my way of thinking, is unobtainable by any method other than by going to specialised dealers who directly import new vehicles or to those who do conversions of second-hand vehicles. I then started to pursue that with the government. The next person to contact me was Nathan Sawczak, who is also involved in the conversion of high quality vehicles for use by Australian purchasers.In the meantime, I had the opportunity of visiting New Zealand and seeing what had happened to the car market there following the uninhibited import of second-hand cars. I saw pretty starkly the problems that would confront the Australian government as well. There is consumer demand for low cost second-hand vehicles unobtainable here in Australia—vehicles which they feel are a great deal and would make good first cars for young drivers or be second family cars, vehicles which have a few miles on the clock but still have a bit of life in them, and vehicles which they feel, with some work and conversion, could be very suitable for use on Australian roads. That is the problem on the one hand.On the other hand, there is the existing program that was put in place some years ago by the Australian government. That program seeks to allow enthusiasts and people who want cars that are unique or different to import those cars and to convert them, at their own expense, for use on Australian roads. So we have the upper end of the market with unique enthusiast vehicles and the lower end of the market with second-hand vehicles straight off Japanese streets.I saw the damage that was done in New Zealand. I knew that we would not want to go in that direction. I do not think anybody has advanced the argument that we should. But where should we draw the line? The government has consulted with the industry. There have been many meetings with representatives of the converters, particularly AAIMA and other people involved in the industry. Those meetings have gone on over many hours. The government sought to allay the concerns of the manufacturers, who are very significant in Australian employment, Australian export drive and Australian productivity, and the concerns of consumers and businesses involved in conversions.First of all, the government looked at the statistics. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard the chart from the explanatory memorandum that sets out the statistics for the import of vehicles other than motorcycles under the low volume scheme.Leave granted.The table read as follows—Used motor vehicles (except motorcycles) imported under the LVS by category. Year19931994199519961997199819992000Passenger Cars Number of Vehicles99212501556253531814551800010094 Index1.001.261.572.563.214.598.0610.17Four Wheel Drives Number of Vehicles3322881435236855005705 IndexLight commercials1.001.007.3329.33478.33789.331833.331901.66 Number of Vehicles355591203302727880981 IndexHeavy Commercials1.001.572.605.808.6320.7725.1428.03 Number of Vehicles71036471316212045 Index1.001.435.146.7118.718.8617.146.43TOTAL1037131817052873504977081450016825Index1.001.271.642.774.877.4313.9816.22SD4Cadman, Alan, MPMr CADMAN—I draw the attention of the chamber to the number of vehicles imported. In 1993 there were 992 vehicles and that rose to 10,094 in the year 2000. There was a low number of four-wheel drive vehicles in 1993—only three—and that rose to 5,705 in the year 2000. There were 35 light commercial vehicles in 1993 and that rose to 981 in the year 2000. The number of heavy commercial vehicles was low in each year, but fluctuated as people saw market opportunities. Total imports rose from 1,000 in 1993 to 16,800 in the year 2000. Having a huge increase in the number of vehicles entering Australia under the low volume scheme—from 1,000 to 16,800—would be a concern to any government and any manufacturer.The process of analysing what was coming in, what they were being used for and what value they were in the marketplace was undertaken by the government. It was found that there was a wide range of vehicles but that there was a growing tendency for vehicles at the lower end of the range to be imported. From the consumer's point of view, there were advantages in price, but there was also some downside. The purchase of vehicles for which there is no guarantee of replacement parts or repair processes is one thing that has been raised by consumers. Complaints have come to members about vehicles being purchased which were supposed to have off the shelf parts and did not have off the shelf parts. Some consumers have had to wait long periods for special imports from Japan, where most of these vehicles were sourced. The safety and quality of tyres had also been raised by a number of consumers. Tyre types and Australian design rules are very critical for vehicle safety in Australia. There was a need for compliance with ADRs, Australian design rules, and there was a need to solve this problem of a rapidly expanding level of imports as compared with consumer demand and the interests of enthusiasts.I believe the government has come forward with a scheme that is beneficial and workable. There were a number of options considered by the government: to keep the status quo—that is, to retain the current type approval system—to have a registered automotive workshop scheme or to go for self-regulation. It is interesting that the government has really limited the number of models by tightening the current eligibility criteria to ensure that the category is confined to specialist and enthusiast vehicles. I know this is going to cause pain in the industry. Where converters have gone into the Japanese market, they have certainly teed up sources of supply based on particular models that they have found in demand in Australia, and there will be some problems. But the government has sought to overcome those problems by allowing those who wish to establish a registered licensed workshop where the work can be undertaken to do so. They can go through a process of finding out what needs to be done to each model of vehicle as it comes in to equip it to conform with Australian design rules. I thought it was an extremely sensible and generous decision to have compliance with ADRs as of the date of manufacture rather than with current ADRs. It would have been impossible to make most of these vehicles comply with current ADRs, so the government set the target on the ADRs at the time the vehicles were manufactured. That is within this legislation.I think it is very valuable to have the changes made on licensed premises so that there can be a reckoning on the type of vehicle that is being changed to Australian conditions, on the quality of the work and on the fact that there can be a chain back to the person performing the work. In addition to these things, there has been an extensive transition period to allow the industry to adjust. I know when I read the popular press that, on the one hand, there was a lot of scaremongering from those who were doing this type work, saying it was all gloom and doom and saying, `Things are going to be terrible. Ain't things crook?' On the other hand, there were the claims made by the current manufacturers that it would mean the loss of jobs and that sort of thing. I think the government has chosen the right answer. It has not been done without consideration of and care for the needs of everybody involved. If you watched the progress of this low volume vehicle import system, it was obvious that it was expanding into areas that it should not have been expanding into. People were starting to import vehicles that were not of the type originally envisaged. The scheme had been extended by model type and quality to the point where it was starting to mirror what had occurred in New Zealand, and it was not the intention of this government to go in that direction.We value the Australian manufacturing industries. Whilst we value the small businesses that have taken advantage, over a comparatively short time of five or six years, to move into this market, I think that the longer lasting and permanent need for a manufacturing industry in Australia weighs very heavily on the Australian government. There are two factors here. The balance is right. There is a transition period; there is a proper process of licensing and registration. I believe that there is a process whereby smaller converters can still import, have somebody do the work for them and—despite their claims that it would be unprofitable—go on to supply their current markets. I have great pleasure in supporting this legislation. It has not been easy for the government but I think the decision is the right one.12:41:0031607Gillard, Julia, MPMs GILLARD83LLalorALP00—I rise to speak on the Motor Vehicle Standards Amendment Bill 2001 because of the importance of the motor vehicle industry to my electorate. As members may know, my electorate is home to Toyota. The plant at Altona in my electorate is where Toyota consolidated all of its Australian manufacturing operations in 1994 and 1995. The plant is worth some $420 million. It is world class in efficiency in manufacturing and in the use of technology and processes. Particularly pleasing for the local community is the fact that the plant is a leader in environmental technology, so the environmental issues generated for the local community that lives in and around the plant have been minimised as a result of the technical processes that Toyota has adopted.Toyota is a major employer across Australia generally and particularly in my electorate. The livelihood of over 4,000 Australians depends upon Toyota, and approximately 2,400 of those people work at the Altona plant. Clearly, many of them live locally in my electorate and throughout the western suburbs of Melbourne. It was, therefore, of concern to me and to my electorate that it appeared that the low volume scheme was no longer being used for its original purpose of facilitating the importation of low numbers of specialist and enthusiast vehicles.As I am sure members are probably aware, there are three schemes of arrangements applying to the importation of motor vehicles. The first is the full volume scheme used by major manufacturers for large volumes of standard vehicles. Such vehicles are required to meet all currently applicable Australian design rules based on type approvals. After extensive, expensive—and what can be destructive—testing, an approval is granted for a particular type of motor vehicle. The second is the personally imported vehicle scheme, which allows migrants and Australian residents returning from overseas to treat their vehicle as part of their personal effects. Obviously, by the very nature of that scheme, it deals with a very small number of vehicles. Thirdly, there is the low volume scheme which is the subject of this bill. The low volume scheme allows an alternative form of evidence of compliance with many of the Australian design rules so that the extensive, expensive and destructive testing, to which I referred, is not required. In addition, vehicles are required to comply only with the Australian design rules in force at the time of the vehicle's original manufacture rather than the rules currently applying.Finally, and probably most important of all, there is an exemption from the $12,000 special duty on used passenger motor vehicles which applies if they are imported under the full volume scheme. There is a $12,000 duty difference. Clearly this concession on duty would not have been a significant problem for the industry domestically if the low volume scheme had genuinely been confined to specialist vehicles and to those who wanted to import Cadillacs or Buicks or some sort of specialist or enthusiast vehicle. However, as the number of vehicles imported under these arrangements shows, increasingly the low volume scheme has been used as a mechanism for importing slightly used Japanese motor vehicles identical in type to full volume scheme imported models. However, such vehicles are at a significant competitive advantage because the $12,000 duty does not apply. This is also a problem for the domestic car industry, given such vehicles have the cost advantages of being free from that duty, slightly used, not needing to comply with Australian design rules and not needing to supply after-sales service and maintenance.The issue of the increasing numbers of low volume scheme imported vehicles was first raised with me by Toyota as a domestic manufacturer, but it was next raised with me by a local car dealership, Rick Wolany motors. The Rick Wolany company is a major car dealership in the city of Wyndham, which forms part of my electorate, and is a considerable contributor to community events and functions. I will read to the House the letter he sent to me in which he raised this issue. It dates way back to 6 September 1999, which perhaps indicates how long this has been a problem and how long the bill that is before us has been in generation. He writes:A recently completed report on the subject of used vehicle imports is due to be submitted to the Transport Minister, Mr John Anderson, for consideration. This will then be followed by discussion in Cabinet and the Party in general. Being a Multi-Franchise motor vehicle dealership, it is a great concern to me that the increasing importation of used motor vehicles continues to grow unchecked. As one of the largest private employers in this City, I feel I must protest at the potential disaster, imported vehicles will have on the future growth of my Company. If growth continues at this rate it runs the risk of undermining new vehicle sales in Australia which in turn will impact on Australian produced vehicles. Rick Wolany Toyota, Daewoo, Suzuki and Lexus of Wyndham has invested millions of dollars into the Wyndham Community and continues to offer the highest standard of after sales service and of course the appropriate parts and accessory support. Used vehicle importers usually cannot and will not supply this support. In most cases imported motor vehicles are only available due to very restrictive safety requirements for Japanese used motor vehicles. In turn they only have to supply reduced evidence of compliance with Australian Design Rules for this to conform. The above concerns are a sample of what may happen if imported vehicles continue to grow at this unprecedented rate. Julia, I would appreciate the opportunity to meet with you at your earliest convenience to discuss this important subject.Having received that correspondence, I did meet with Rick Wolany. To give a very clear example of the sort of problem that was starting to occur through the low volume scheme, Rick, who deals in Lexus motor vehicles—which, as we all know, are quite luxurious and expensive motor vehicles in terms of what is on the market—was able to point to the identical motor vehicle being imported as a used motor vehicle from Japan under the low volume scheme. So Rick Wolany, as a dealer, is trying to sell Lexus motor vehicles to a certain segment of the market that is interested in a car of that quality and of that luxury type, but is finding that the identical vehicle, slightly used, could be imported under the low volume scheme and not attract the $12,000 duty. That probably indicates the sorts of problems and pressure that motor vehicle dealerships were facing as a result of the expansion of what historically has been a scheme for the importation of specialist vehicles and those for enthusiasts. Mr Wolany's market experience in terms of the city of Wyndham is bolstered, I suppose, when you look at the overall statistics. He was able to recount his experiences anecdotally, but if we look at the figures, we do find a very big increase in the number of vehicles being imported under this scheme—from 1,000 in 1993 to 16,825 in the year 2000.The bill that is before us today represents the government's endeavour to deal with this problem and to try to get the scheme back to what it was originally designed for—that is, allowing the importation of very small classes and particular types of vehicles. The numbers were not supposed to expand to the point where we were dealing with issues like identical vehicles being imported from overseas as slightly used vehicles, thus not having the duty imposed.Clearly, the bill before us now has been a long time in generation. I think there are some issues, given that this is framework legislation, about where we will end up in terms of the regulations. To quote a phrase, `the devil is often in the detail,' and the regulations will be a very important component of how this scheme actually works and operates within the Australian market. I am therefore very supportive of this bill going to a Senate committee for further consideration and examination at the time that the regulations are available in draft, and of the whole scheme—both the framework legislation and the relevant regulations—being looked at to see whether or not it achieves the purposes which the government set out when drafting this bill. I think that process is a very important one. Clearly there is an issue of balance here: balance with the domestic motor vehicle industry, balance with our domestic dealerships like Rick Wolany and balance in terms of allowing importation of specialist and enthusiast motor vehicles. There is also an issue of fairness in terms of the industry that has grown up around that. I think those things are best addressed in a further look at this bill and its regulations in the Senate.12:51:0031609Moylan, Judi, MPMrs MOYLAN4V5PearceLP10—I wanted to say a few words on the Motor Vehicle Standards Amendment Bill 2001, because, although most industry groups agree that there need to be tighter controls on the low volume imports, I think some of the measures proposed by the Department of Transport and Regional Services were unduly harsh on those in the industry who have operated within the law and have long-term interests in converting low volume vehicles. In 1998, when the Motor Vehicle Standards Act review took place, this industry comprised between 500 and 600 compliance plate holders. It involved about 1,500 small businesses, employing somewhere in the order of 5,000 people and its value to the national economy was around $350 million a year. It was not a big industry and it was highly specialised, but it was meeting an important consumer demand within the marketplace. My concern about the bill was based on the fact that previous legislation had been passed. One of my Western Australian businesspeople was a low volume importer. He and his family had invested about $1 million in his business—and that was a forward investment that would normally be amortised over a five- to seven-year period. With the bringing down of this legislation, he is unable to retrieve that forward investment, and that is a major concern for that particular individual. It was on his behalf that I made representations to approach the changes in this sector in such a way as to allow long-term low volume operators to recoup the money they had invested on the basis of previous legislation and to allow an orderly transition from one system to another, recognising the reality that change had to take place. Nevertheless, I believe our small businesses should be given time to work through the new system. We were given a two-year transition period, and I will address that in a moment. The main drivers of the legislation have been the new-car manufacturers, who maintain that the floodgates were open and that thousands of cars were pouring into the Australian market and creating unfair competition for cars manufactured in Australia. I think sometimes we forget, when the new-car manufacturers make this claim, that they are still the beneficiaries of a tariff barrier, which is worth somewhere in the order of $3 billion a year to new-car manufacturing in this country. One of the claims being made was that the four-wheel drive industry was particularly at risk from imports. It is a curious thing, because there were no diesel four-wheel drive vehicles being manufactured in Australia. The fact is that farmers, miners and those working in rural and remote areas of Australia wanted diesel four-wheel drives because of the extra power that those vehicles could provide, and the low volume dealers were meeting a demand that the new-vehicle industry did not choose to meet. It is therefore difficult to justify the exclusion of diesel four-wheel drives from the low volume scheme.This scheme has already had quite an impact on that Western Australian businessman in my electorate, and he employs his brother, his son and his nephew in his business. At a time when he should be able to think about retiring because he is getting on in years, he has just seen a million dollar investment wiped out. I do not disagree with the proposition from the government that we need to look after our new-car manufacturers because it is an important industry, but if we are going to change the original intent of some legislation, then we must ensure a fair transitional arrangement.I agree with my colleague the member for La Trobe when he said that we must keep small businesses in business, not regulate them out of business. That is why I took up this issue: essentially I want a fair outcome for the new-car manufacturers and for small businesses. I note that the motor vehicle review report recommended option 2, which was to retain the current criteria with clearer working guidelines. We have moved to option 1. I think, even using option 1, we could still work within the scope of option 1 in a way that allowed an orderly transition. We still have that ability within the regulations to make sure that it is an orderly transition and that we do not create a problem for this group of business people.New-vehicle manufacture is an important industry to Australia. No-one denies that, and it is a great generator of jobs and opportunities for Australian workers. I value the new-car dealerships in my electorate; I have a good many of them. They are an important industry, and they are good community citizens. However, I believe that there is room for both industries. It is important to understand that, according to the Motor Vehicle Standards Act, the low volume industry supplied only a fraction of the car sales market in Australia. In fact, it was estimated by one group to be as little as 0.45 per cent of the total car sales in Australia.In fact, the review report noted the rapid increase in the numbers of imported used motor vehicles over the last three years, but considers that they are small compared with that of new vehicle sales. They were also unable to quantify in that review task force the impact of low volume used vehicles on either safety or the environment. It is not to say that there are not some bad practices, because there are, and that is acknowledged by all sides of the industry. However, I want to make the point that many of these imported cars come from countries that have much stricter emission laws and much stricter safety laws than we have in this country. So we have to be careful about broadly using that argument. There are exceptions to that, but I believe that could have been dealt with in the way in which the department monitored the import of these vehicles. The industry has been right to call for proper controls to protect Australian buyers, and that is supported by the low volume industry organisations. However, it is important to note that in the Motor Vehicle Standards Act review the observation was made by the task force that the industry policy is more sensitive to increasing numbers of imported used vehicles, rather than the safety and emission aims of the Motor Vehicle Standards Act. My contention is that these issues can be dealt with without making regulations so harsh that it puts decent people out of business. As I said, early in the review task force they formed the view that the intertwining of industry policy and uniform vehicle standards in the operation of the low volume scheme under the Motor Vehicle Standards Act was the major cause for the administrative problems engendered by the scheme. So I think there was an acknowledgment that there were problems there, but they can still be resolved in a way that looks after both industries.I support the move to the registered workshops and to the ISO accreditation standards and to generally improve the practice standards of the industry. But if the regulations are too harsh, it looks more like a way of protecting the new-car manufacturing industry instead of looking after the safety and protection of consumers. My involvement from the start of this process has been to work with the new-car manufacturers and their representatives, and the representatives of organisations looking after the low volume industry, in an endeavour to achieve a fair outcome for everyone, and I believe that is achievable.Last year I convened a meeting in Adelaide to bring together some of the new-vehicle manufacturers and the low volume industry. I thought we had a very constructive meeting. But then it goes back and it gets off the rails again. One of the main representative groups, VICAA, has worked constructively and tirelessly with the government and industry to achieve a fair outcome. This is a small organisation. It is bit of a David against Goliath, I have to say. It has worked very hard and I have been grateful for the assistance of Jack Vanstone and Joanna Easterbrook of that organisation. It is very important that we understand the impact of legislation on everyone in the industry, not just one side of the industry. This consultation process and this representation by a small industry organisation has been a very important part of achieving sound legislative outcomes in this place. We cannot do it unless we do look at these issues objectively.The matter is now before a Senate committee. I am confident that, after taking evidence from all parties, the Senate committee will make some sensible recommendations in relation to the regulations that will follow and the passing of this bill. That is imperative because, from the start, some of the regulations proposed in the draft were unnecessarily harsh on the longstanding businesses in the low volume industry. This industry was to be given a two-year transition period. More than half of that period has now expired and the industry still does not have the detail of what the new regulations will be. It is very hard to make that transition when you do not have those details. Just a week ago when I made inquiries, there was no application form available for the registered automotive workshop scheme, for example. The evidence package is still only in draft form with several contentious issues not clarified. The definition of `fit and proper person' was proposing to make people go back and do a TAFE course. This is unrealistic for those who have been doing conversions for many years, like the person in Western Australia who has been in this industry for 30 years, has a clean record, has been doing the right thing and does a good job. Why should he go back and do a TAFE course in mechanics when he has already proven his ability and competency? The business rules are still only in draft form with contentious issues still to be determined. There are still grave concerns about the costs to the industry that may be imposed on the low volume importers under the new legislation. I was very pleased when I saw this piece of legislation go before a Senate committee to be scrutinised. I appreciate that those senators have spent many hours taking evidence and deliberating on the detail of the regulations. I am supporting the passage of this legislation through this place today because I am confident that the recommendations made by the Senate committee will be taken into account in the regulations, and will bring about important changes to support small businesses that rely on low volume importing to keep their businesses operating. As I said, there is room for both industries in this country. If we proceed with sensible legislation, this industry will not have a detrimental effect on new-car manufacturing in Australia.10000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Before I call the next speaker I wish to remind the Main Committee that it is intended that we should adjourn at 1.30 p.m. There are still two other pieces of legislation which I hope will be dealt with. I seek the cooperation of all members.13:04:0031612Scott, Bruce, MPMr BRUCE SCOTTYT4MaranoaNPMinister for Veterans' Affairs and Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence10—I am summing up on behalf of the Minister for Transport and Regional Services and our Deputy Prime Minister. There are three main amendments to the Motor Vehicle Standards Act 1989 in the Motor Vehicle Standards Amendment Bill 2001. The first of the amendments to the act will allow for determinations to be made for the placement of used import plates on imported vehicles. The second is the set of amendments to the act that will allow the minister to keep a register of specialist and enthusiast vehicles. The third amendment provides for corporations to apply for approval as registered automotive workshops with set guidelines to determine the `fit and proper person' status of applicants.In addition, there are new offence provisions in relation to the manufacture, supply or placement of a used import plate or the breaching of a condition of an approval or the use of a false plate, that is, without approval. The bill also sets out the transitional arrangements for dealing with approvals granted under the current arrangements. The bill will enable implementation of the government's decision announced on 8 May 2000 in relation to new arrangements to administer the importation of used vehicles. In view of the time and your comments, I have kept my comments as brief as possible. I commend the bill to the House.10000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—I thank the minister. The original question was that the bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Batman has moved as an amendment that all words after `That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The immediate question is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.Question resolved in the affirmative.Original question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.Ordered that the bill be reported to the House without amendment.Bills31613R141031613Debate resumed from 20 September, on motion by Miss Jackie Kelly:That the bill be now read a second time.13:06:0031613Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr FITZGIBBON8K6HunterALP00—I listened very carefully to your appeal, Mr Deputy Speaker, to members to keep their contributions very short. I am happy to accommodate you on that. The opposition will be taking a bipartisan approach to this Olympic Insignia Protection Amendment Bill 2001 and therefore will be supporting it. We are satisfied that the bill contains provisions designed to balance the rights given to the AOC and the interest of third parties with a legitimate claim to use these expressions. No doubt the shadow minister for sport, Senator Kate Lundy, will give a more detailed response when the bill reaches the Senate. I reiterate that the opposition is happy to lend its support to the bill.13:07:0031613Lloyd, Jim, MPMr LLOYDIK6RobertsonLP10—I realise that we have a very heavy legislative program today so I will keep my comments brief as well. I rise to support the Olympic Insignia Protection Amendment Bill 2001. It was this time 12 months ago that we had the Sydney Olympics, and all of Australia was in a euphoric state watching a magnificent event. It was a huge industry and it still is, worldwide, and it is amazing the difference that a year has made to the feeling within the community. It was certainly a great tribute. It is important that this bill is passed because it amends the Olympic Insignia Protection Act 1987 to grant the Australian Olympic Committee ongoing protection for the expressions `Olympic', `Olympic Games' and `Olympiad' from unauthorised commercial use for promotion or advertising purposes. This will ensure an income stream for the Australian Olympic Committee and will further protect its rights on those insignia and on those words. Those few remarks conclude what I want to say about the bill.This might be my last chance in this parliament to speak in the Main Committee whilst you are in the chair, Deputy Speaker Nehl. I congratulate you for the work you have done in the Main Committee as the Deputy Speaker and I wish you a long and happy retirement at the conclusion of this parliament.Honourable members—Hear, hear!10000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—I thank the honourable member for Robertson.13:09:0031613Kelly, Jackie, MPMiss JACKIE KELLYGK6LindsayLPMinister for Sport and Tourism10—in reply—In summing up the second reading debate on the Olympic Insignia Protection Amendment Bill 2001, I note that it has the support of the opposition. I thank the member for Robertson for his kind words on this bill. Mr Deputy Speaker, I would also like to endorse his comments on your tenure as Deputy Speaker. I would like Hansard to record my regret at your retirement after the coming election.This bill is evidence of our further support for sport. The bill allows the Australian Olympic Committee to undertake its own fundraising efforts which will complement what the government is already doing in a substantial way and will ensure that Australia remains at the forefront of sport. It complements our sporting policies to date. In this International Year of the Volunteer—I always hate to see sport miss out—I note that volunteers are an important part of our sporting arenas. This bill represents a good balance which will enable better support for all of our Australian Olympic teams in the future.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.Ordered that the bill be reported to the House without amendment.Bills31614R138631614Debate resumed from 23 August, on motion by Mr Ruddock:That the bill be now read a second time.13:11:0031614Kerr, Duncan, MPMr KERRRH4DenisonALP00—The opposition has absolutely no objection to the Migration Agents Registration Application Charge Amendment Bill 2001. It is a triumph of bipartisanship. It reflects the fact that the migration agents scheme does require funding to operate effectively. If I might make one small criticism, we have been aware for some time that the enforcement powers of the migration agents board do not seem adequate to deal with some of the abuses that seemingly occur within that area. These are issues that I am sure have been conveyed to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs. When I was the shadow minister for immigration, they were the subject of discussions between us. In the absence of my colleague the shadow minister for immigration, the Hon. Con Sciacca, who is currently receiving urgent dental treatment, I am pleased to commend the bill on behalf of the opposition.I also want to thank you for your service to the House, Mr Deputy Speaker. This may be the last occasion when the Main Committee sits before the end of this parliamentary session. It has been your special responsibility, I understand, to chair this chamber. It has been a worthwhile innovation in the parliamentary process because it enables the passage of non-contentious legislation. I wish you the best for the future, as I do to all departing members of this House. I commend the legislation to the House.10000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—I thank the member for Denison.13:13:0031614May, Margaret, MPMrs MAY83BMcPhersonLP10—Mr Deputy Speaker, like my colleagues, I would also like to wish you the best for your retirement.10000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—There is still tomorrow.83BMay, Margaret, MPMrs MAY—There is still tomorrow. When you leave this House you will be sorely missed. I would also like to commend the government on the Migration Agents Registration Application Charge Amendment Bill 2001 and commend the member for Denison for the bipartisan support we have for the bill. The purpose of the amendment is to increase the migration agents registration application charge limit. The charge payable by migration agents for registration will now not exceed $1,800 for those agents seeking registration from 1 July 2001. A migration agent is an individual who uses their knowledge and experience of migration procedure to give what is defined in the Migration Act 1958 as immigration assistance.I know through my own electorate office the number of inquiries that members get on immigration. A migration agent plays a very important part in being able to give advice, if it is needed, on sometimes very complex application forms needed under our migration legislation to enter our country. I would like to say that I do agree with the bill. Migration agents must be registered and must have demonstrated that they do have the necessary skills and expertise to give migration advice. To apply for registration as a migration agent, a person must pay the relevant application charge as set out in the Migration Agents Registration Application Charge Regulations 1998. This amendment will enable future increases in registration application charges where appropriate. I commend the bill to the House.13:15:0031614Charles, Bob, MPMr CHARLESOT4La TrobeLP10—Mr Deputy Speaker Nehl, I rise very briefly to support the remarks of the member for Robertson and other opposition and House of Representatives members on your long and outstanding service to the Australian parliament, to the House of Representatives and to this Main Committee. May you have a long, prosperous and happy retirement. 10000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—I thank the honourable member for La Trobe.13:16:0031615Ruddock, 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 Denison, as shadow minister representing his colleague the member for Bowman, for his contribution to the debate on the Migration Agents Registration Application Charge Amendment Bill 2001. I thank him for the support for the bill. I thank the members for McPherson and La Trobe for their supportive remarks.This bill does increase the charge limit for registration of applications by migration agents for their continuing entitlement to practise in this area. Under the legislation, the charge imposed on an individual who applies to the Migration Registration Authority to be registered as an agent can be varied in regulations. This bill, therefore, does not increase the actual amount charged. It lifts the upper limit to which the charges can be increased. It provides flexibility to ensure that the authority has adequate resources to carry out its statutory responsibilities.I do have some concerns about the extent to which unmeritorious matters are pursued at times to achieve what members of the legal profession advise us are entitlements that are pressed for an opportunity to remain in Australia when there is no proper basis for such claims to be pressed and the only objective of pursuing the matter is to obtain extra time. Extra time is often sought to enable some people to continue to remain here and to work either lawfully or unlawfully in Australia. I think that is clearly an abuse of process.Some of my friends in the legal profession think that, if we leave gaps whereby people are entitled to get bridging visas, they are entitled to exploit them. Over a period of time I have said to migration agents that I think they have some overriding responsibilities to the nation in much the same way as members of the legal profession often assert that they have an overriding responsibility to the courts and fellow practitioners as well as their clients. We do need to be looking for ways in which we can develop a more ethical approach to dealing with these issues. It is highly questionable whether we are able to do it under the existing arrangements. As we have sought to protect people from administrative decisions, we have built in very significant checks and balances which are exploited again by migration agents, who are entitled to appeal decisions taken in relation to their entitlements to practise.RH4Kerr, Duncan, MPMr Kerr—The vast majority are reputable.0J4Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK—I do not dispute that. The point always is to find ways and means of being able to deal with the dishonourable and to do so effectively. I make this undertaking to the opposition that I will constructively look at any proposals that you are able to bring forward and I will continue to look at ways and means in which I can of my own initiative deal with these issues, because it remains a matter of continuing concern to me. I thank honourable members for their support for the bill. Mr Deputy Speaker Nehl, I have known you for a long time. I do not feel like it is goodbye. I am sure you will continue to play a very significant role in public life and in your community. We will no doubt see you from time to time at the many events and activities that bring former members to the parliament. I have enjoyed my friendship with you and I wish you well in your well-earned retirement. Thank you very much.RH4Kerr, Duncan, MPMr Kerr—We'll miss the kilt, not the legs.0J4Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK—You will miss his very assertive and effective leadership from the chair. I commend you, Mr Deputy Speaker, as I do this bill, to the chamber.10000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—I thank the minister and the committee. Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.Ordered that the bill be reported to the House without amendment.Main Committee adjourned at 1.22 p.m.Answers to Questions in Writing31617The following answers to questions were circulated:31617(Question No. 2215)221531617Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 5 December 2000:(1) With respect to the obligations placed upon the Certificate of Registration holder for aircraft, how many instances in 2000 has the Civil Aviation Safety Authority been aware of where an aircraft owner has failed to pass on maintenance information to an operator, lessor or maintenance organisation.(2) Of those cases, how many owners were (a) investigated and (b) prosecuted, and what was the outcome of those investigations and prosecutions. 31617Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPMinister for Transport and Regional Services10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:The Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) has advised the following:(1) and (2) CASA is unable to provide the number of instances in 2000 in which the Authority became aware that an aircraft owner has failed to pass on maintenance information to an operator, lessor or maintenance organisation. Failure by an aircraft owner to pass on safety information to an operator, lessor or maintenance organisation is not an offence under the current regulations. In many instances this information was passed to the Authority anecdotally and consequently CASA does not have records.31617(Question No. 2475)247531617Andren, Peter, MPMr AndrenKL6CalareIND00 asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 28 March 2001:(1) In response to a call regarding the Parliamentary Superannuation Scheme does he recall saying on Brisbane talk back radio on Tuesday, 20 March 2001, that aspects of it are under review; if not, why not.(2) If aspects of the Parliamentary Superannuation Scheme are under review, can he detail (a) which aspects are under review, (b) who is conducting the review, (c) when the review is expected to be completed and (d) whether the results of the review will be made public; if so, when they will be made public; if not, why not.31617Howard, John, MPMr HowardZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Yes. (2) The government reviewed the Parliamentary Superannuation Scheme. As a result of the review, the Minister for Finance and Administration introduced the Parliamentary Superannuation Scheme Amendment Bill 2001. The Bill received Royal Assent on 18 July 2001. The new provisions bring the Scheme into line with community standards and will ensure that members and senators who join the parliament after the next election will not be entitled to receive their parliamentary pension before the age of 55.31617(Question No. 2748)274831617Ripoll, Bernie, MPMr Ripoll83EOxleyALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Justice and Customs, upon notice, on 25 June 2001:(1) Did the Australian Federal Police (AFP) conduct re-profiling processes in approximately 1998 with a view to paying out those members considered unsuitable; if so, was Federal Agent (F/A) Francis Day nominated for re-profiling by any AFP member.(2) Was the re-profiling process conducted in an unbiased and non-discriminatory manner.(3) Did Mr Day nominate for re-profiling and was advised by the then General Manager of Northern, F/A Keelty, that he was disappointed with Mr Day's decision as Mr Day was regarded as an asset.(4) Was Mr Day advised approximately 1 and a half years after the re-profiling process by the new General Manager of Northern, F/A Overland, that his contract was not to be renewed due to concerns covering a period of 4 years. (5) Is the Minister taking action in relation to Mr Day being told he had a future in the AFP and not being advised to the contrary until the non-renewal of his contract; if so, what.(6) Will the Minister investigate and take action in relation to the failure of F/A Overland to nominate Mr Day for re-profiling, including the failure to provide Mr Day with counselling and remedial training, as required in the case of a staff member's work standard being found to be unacceptable; if so, what.(7) Did F/A Overland allow Mr Day's alleged poor performance to continue unabated for 4 years.(8) In the report prepared by F/A Overland recommending the non-renewal of the contract, are there references to F/A Overland having spoken to Mr Day during the preceding 4 years or providing counselling, remedial training or disciplinary action to Mr Day; if not, why not.(9) Did F/A Overland take any disciplinary action against Mr Day over this period.(10) Is there any official record of F/A Overland's concern on Mr Day's PMP; if not, will the Minister investigate why not.(11) Was Mr Day's PMP signed by his Team Leader and Director as meeting the standard; if so, will the Minister investigate why.(12) Was Mr Day made aware of F/A Overland's concerns and given an opportunity to address alleged shortcomings. (13) In light of the above, has the AFP failed in its duty to undertake the requisite action of providing remedial training, counselling, disciplinary action or dismissal; if so, what action is the Minister taking in relation to this.(14) Will the Minister investigate why F/A Overland failed to advise Mr Day's Team Leader and Directors of his concern.(15) Has any action been taken in relation to F/A Keelty or Mr Day's Team Leader or Directors, given the allegations about Mr Day.(16) Is Mr Day the only person to have been disciplined in regard to this contradiction and failure of management to carry out its duty in relation to Mr Day's performance.(17) Did the Review Panel for Mr Day's case have conditions which included that (a) Mr Day would not be allowed to speak except to answer questions, (b) Mr Day's accusers would not be attending the Review Panel and would not therefore have to answer questions from either Mr Day or the Review Panel and (c) Mr Day be denied legal representation; if so, are these conditions in line with government policy and natural justice afforded all employees.(18) Did F/A Overland declare on 17 November 1999 in an email regarding the non-renewal of contracts to all members of Northern Region that he had spoken to all the people in the workplace who he intended to speak to as part of the process, and that this was a one off action and would not be repeated.(19) Will the Minister investigate why Mr Day was not notified of his contract non-renewal status until 1400 hrs on 19 November 1999.(20) Is the Minister aware that Mr Day was misled by the statement made on 17 November 1999 and of the distress this has caused Mr Day's family and himself, and which has been further compounded by the failure of F/A Overland to reply to requests for a response since 19 January 2000.(21) Is the Minister aware that Mr Day has tried on many occasions in the past 2 years to obtain a response to this matter from the AFP.(22) Was Minister Vanstone, when Minister of Justice and Customs, advised by the AFP that information provided by Mr Day had been reviewed by the Review Panel.(23) Is the Minister aware of an interview that was instigated by F/A Overland prior to the Review Panel reviewing Mr Day's case in response to Mr Day's report.(24) Will the Minister investigate statements allegedly made by F/A Overland at this meeting, concerning F/A Overland's unwillingness to provide written responses.(25) Will the Minister investigate whether the AFP denied Mr Day the opportunity to properly defend himself against the allegations by denying him the right to speak at the Review Board hearing. (26) Does the Minister condone such procedures conducted by the AFP in this matter.(27) Will the Minister investigate how a review can be conducted when the relevant persons do not have to appear before the Review Panel.(28) Was the information supplied to the Minister not made available to the Review Panel as claimed by the AFP.(29) Will the Minister investigate why the Commissioner of the AFP has refused to grant Mr Day an appointment to discuss his report.(30) Have some of those members re-profiled as being unsuitable for continued employment with the AFP been employed by the Criminal Justice Commission in Queensland.(31) Will the Minister investigate why numerous members of the AFP were paid out under S26E before and after the non renewal of contract period commenced, when the more appropriate action would be to allow their contract to expire or simply stand them down in the interim period as with other members.(32) Was F/A Overland responsible for two members receiving S26E action for poor performance issues at the time Mr Day was advised of the non-renewal of his contract.(33) Was the AFP responsible for a least 10 other members receiving 26E or other pay outs for poor performance in the few months just after the non renewal of contract action; if so, what action is the Minister taking in relation to this matter.(34) Will the Minister investigate why F/A McKnight was allegedly observing Mr Day whose work station was located three floors above his own office and who was assigned to another department.(35) Will the Minister investigate why F/A McKnight during this supervision of Mr Day did not discipline Mr Day at the time of his observations, nor provide counselling or remedial training.(36) Will the Minister investigate the period of 5 weeks during which Mr Day was transferred to F/A McKnight's department and how F/A McKnight was able to make a reliable observation of Mr Day given the logistic impossibility to conduct such observations.(37) Will the Minister investigate how it was possible for Mr Day to pass his evaluation assessments during the 18 months F/A McKnight allegedly observed Mr Day in another department given his stated concerns.(38) Did the report submitted by F/A McKnight contain any indication that Mr Day was made aware of any performance problem prior to the report.(39) Was Mr Day's treatment during this process in accordance with departmental guidelines.(40) Was feedback not given to Mr Day prior to the Review Board which impeded his ability to defend his position.(41) Did the AFP advise that the Review Panel had investigated all matters raised by Mr Day; if so, will the Minister provide a detailed account of the investigations conducted by the Review Panel, such as the interviewing of relevant personal, reviewing of files, resources allocated and Mr Day's personnel record; if not, why not.31619Williams, Daryl, MPMr Williams7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—The Minister for Justice and Customs has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) In 1998 the Australian Federal Police (AFP) set in train a strategy to re-skill the organisation, particularly in the areas of computer and communications crime and forensic accounting. This program included the targeted early cessation of personnel who were assessed as being unable to adapt effectively in the present and emerging work environment, or unable to be retained for the new and emerging roles in the national teams work environment. The number of people included in the re-profiling program was governed by the $3.5 m set aside to fund it. Federal Agent Francis Day was not nominated for re-profiling by another member but he made an application on his own behalf.(2) to (41) The remaining questions address issues surrounding the internal employment regime of the AFP particularly in respect of the employment of Mr Day. At the relevant time, employment in the AFP was governed by the provisions of the Australian Federal Police Act 1979 (the Act) and regulations made under the Act. Employment decisions made under the Act may be reviewed under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977. The Minister for Justice and Customs has no role in the internal employment processes of the AFP. In particular, the Minister does not review employment decisions. The Minister will not investigate the matters raised in the question.31620(Question No. 2772)277231620Kerr, Duncan, MPMr KerrRH4DenisonALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Justice and Customs, upon notice, on 28 June 2001:(1) How many Australian Protective Service (APS) officers were deployed for Operation Mandalay to Port Hedland on 25 May 2001.(2) How long did the officers remain in Port Hedland.(3) How much notice were the officers given.(4) For how many officers did this deployment constitute a change of shift.(5) Under the Public Service Award 1998, are APS offices entitled to payment of penalties for a change of shift without the required 7 days notice.(6) How many officers have been paid this entitlement.(7) Who made the decision regarding the payment or non-payment of these entitlements.(8) On what grounds was such a decision made.(9) Was there any discussion with the officers regarding shift changes or entitlements for Operation Mandalay before the deployment.(10) Did any officers waive the 7 days' notice of shift change provision; if so, (a) how many officers did so and (b) were these recorded in writing.31620Williams, Daryl, MPMr Williams7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—The Minister for Justice and Customs has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:(1) Twenty Australian Protective Service (APS) Officers were deployed for Operation Mandalay to Port Hedland on 25 May 2001.(2) The APS officers departed Canberra at 0100hrs on Friday 25 May and returned to Canberra on the 3 June 2001. The OIC of the contingent returned to Canberra on 6 June 2001.(3) The APS officers were notified 29 hours prior to departure. (4) The deployment would have constituted a change of shift for 17 APS officers, if mutual consent to waive the change of shift allowance had not been achieved.(5) Under the Public Service Award 1998, APS officers may be entitled to payment of penalties for a change of shift without the required 7 days notice depending on the circumstance of each case. The payment may be waived by mutual consent.(6) No APS officers involved in Operation Mandalay have been paid this entitlement. It was waived by mutual consent.(7) The officers involved in Operation Mandalay made the decision to waive the payment by mutual consent with the delegate, Director APS.(8) The decision was made on the grounds that the APS received only 30 hours notice of the deployment. Volunteers were sought and were asked to waive the payment in lieu of shift change because of the short notice received by the APS. They each individually agreed to waive any payment that may or may not have been due under the APS Award 1998 (as varied from time to time).(9) Discussions occurred on the 24 May 2001 with the staff. It was on this day that they were advised they would not be paid an allowance for change of shift without 7 days notice.(10) All officers waived the 7 days' notice of shift change provision, none of these waivers were recorded in writing.31621(Question No. 2785)278531621Murphy, John, MPMr Murphy83DLoweALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 28 June 2001:(1) Has he seen a New Scientist report of 16 June 2001 titled Feeling Lucky dealing with a NASA-commissioned study claiming that military aircraft are now much safer than 20 years ago while the same affordable technology is yet to be made available to commercial airlines. (2) Is he aware of the results of the NASA-commissioned study into the crashworthiness of commercial aircraft, completed in February last year by crash consultancy Simula Technologies in Phoenix, Arizona. (3) Has his attention been drawn to the claim in the New Scientist report that four out of five airline crashes occur during take off and landing, at relatively low speed and could be largely survivable by passengers if certain practical modifications are made to the structure, floor, seats, fuel system and interior fittings of aircraft. (4) With the current large purchases of domestic aircraft now being made by the Australian aviation industry, what requirements is he imposing on airline companies to require them to order aircraft with modern safety design features and fittings. (5) Will these aircraft be required to have strengthened overhead lockers to prevent loose objects being flung about the cabin in the event of a crash. (6) Will these aircraft be fitted with strengthened shock absorbing seats that are able to protect passengers from the forces generated during a crash. (7) Will these aircraft be fitted with seats with three point harnesses that hold passengers firmly in their seats in the event of a crash. (8) Will these aircraft be fitted with strengthened floors that hold the seats in place during a crash. (9) Will these aircraft be fitted with foam filled cells in the underbody of the aircraft that protect passengers by absorbing the energy of a crash.(10) Will these aircraft be fitted with valves that automatically shut off fuel-flow if the wings break off during a crash. (11) Will the Government ensure the introduction of improved airline safety initiatives as outlined in parts (4) to (10) of this question; if not, why not. 31621Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPMinister for Transport and Regional Services10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) and (2) I am aware of the The New Scientist report and its contents.(3) With regard to the New Scientist report claim that four out of five airline accidents occur during take-off and landing, I have been advised that, according to a US National Transportation Safety Board Safety Report, 80% of all transport aircraft accidents which occurred between 1983 and 2000 were survivable. It is important to note that in Australia, accident statistics for this type of activity are extremely low. For example, from 1 January 1980 to 30 June 2001, only two fatal accidents have occurred during take off, while none have occurred during landing. Of the 105 transport aircraft accidents recorded on the Australian Transport Safety Bureau's (ATSB) safety database, which have occurred in Australia during that same period, 5.7% (or 6 in total) have been fatal (Source: ATSB). However, caution must be exercised in drawing any conclusions from these statistics due to the low numbers.(4) The Government does not impose any requirements on airlines when purchasing aircraft. It is a commercial matter for airlines. However, the design and manufacture of transport category aircraft, components and fittings must comply with internationally agreed safety benchmarks.Many improvements in standards to enhance occupant survivability in commercial aircraft have been introduced over the last 20 years. Such improvements are usually applied to aircraft designed after the change. However, in safety critical circumstances, these improvements can be applied retrospectively to existing aircraft in services, where an accident or incident has revealed a critical problem. Such retrospective action was taken to replace all passenger seat cushions to meet higher flammability standards. In 1986, the US Federal Aviation Authority (FAA) issued a requirement for all passenger seat cushions in Air Carrier aircraft to be replaced with cushions meeting a higher flammability standard. This was determined to provide improved survivability from post crash cabin fire. An equivalent requirement was subsequently imposed on Australian Aircraft in Airworthiness Directive (AD) AD/GENERAL/63. Similar retrospective action was also taken to increase access to over-wing exits. The UK Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) introduced increased access to over-wing exits in 1989 (UK Airworthiness Notice No 64). In 1992 the FAA issued both a design standard change (FAR Par 25.813 (c)) and retrospective action (FAR Part 121.310(f)(3)) for improved access to over-wing exits. This is more stringent than the UK CAA Notice (20 inches verses 13 inches) although provision was made for existing aircraft to have access less than 20 inches. The CASA requirement (AD/GENERAL/73 dated 1992) paralleled the FAR 121.310 rule. (5) Improved structural retention of overhead lockers and their contents is currently under investigation by the FAA. In 1993, a FAA AD was issued to reinforce each overhead locker in all Boeing aircraft types. Subsequently, a parallel AD was issued in Australia (AD/B737/73). Those deficiencies in overhead lockers which have been detected by overseas tests have since been rectified by the manufacturers. CASA is unaware of any overhead lockers which do not meet the current design standards.(6) Improved standards for testing aircraft seats and restraint systems have resulted in energy absorbing techniques being incorporated into new seat designs. These new designs are being progressively introduced into regular service as airlines purchase new aircraft or re-configure existing aircraft with new seats.(7) The installation of shoulder harnesses in passenger seats would significantly alter load paths and require a major redesign of both seats and aircraft floor attachment. This would involve revision of the international design standard: a matter which needs to be addressed at an international level. The Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) is unaware of any further action being taken in this area at the international level.(8) The new seat design standard requires the new seat designs to remain attached to the floor structure in existing aircraft while providing protection from a very severe but survivable accident. The new seat design standards for Transport category aircraft were implemented through Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) 25 amendment 64 on 17 May 1988. (9) Energy absorbing performance for under floor structures in large transport aircraft is currently under investigation by the FAA. It is important to note that the US Army developments, referred to in the article, relate to crash protection in small, fixed wing aircraft and helicopters. These factors are being addressed in the design standards for these categories of civil aircraft.(10) It is important to note that the US Army developments in relation to automatic shut-off fuel flow, referred to in the article, relate to crash protection in small fixed wing aircraft and helicopters only. These factors are being addressed in the design standards for these categories of civil aircraft. CASA is unaware of any action being taken in the international arena to address this issue for larger transport aircraft.(11) Aviation safety is an international issue and it is important that the CASA maintains an influence in improving aircraft occupant protection. The above mentioned issues, together with others relevant to occupant safety, specifically in transport category aircraft and their operation, will be considered at the International Fire and Cabin Safety Conference to be held in the USA in October 2001. The US FAA, European Joint Aviation Authority, Transport Canada, Japanese Civil Aviation Board and CASA are joint sponsors of the conference.31622(Question No. 2797)279731622Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, upon notice, on 6 August 2001:(1) Does departmental data show that in the period 2000-01 to the end of March there were eleven (457) Visa applications approved in building occupations.(2) What are the names of the employers that have been approved to sponsor under the (457) Visa.(3) On what dates were the eleven (457) Visa applications approved. 31623Ruddock, Philip, MPMr Ruddock0J4BerowraLPMinister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and Minister for Reconciliation and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Departmental data confirms that 11 long-stay business visas (subclass 457) were granted overseas in 2000-01 to the end of March under approved nominations for building trade positions. (2) Disclosure of the details of the sponsoring companies would be inconsistent with the undertakings made by the Department to safeguard information provided by applicants. Applicants would not expect their details to be made public. In the booklet “Sponsoring Temporary Overseas Employees to Australia” and the business sponsorship application (form 1067), sponsors are advised that the information they provide will be used in assessing the sponsorship application and for other purposes relating to the Migration Act, and may also be passed to other government agencies as specified in form 993i (“Safeguarding Your Personal Information”). The agencies specified in form 993i for temporary business entry sponsorships and nominations include the ATO, DETYA, DEWRSB, DISR, and certain State/Territory government departments such as those responsible for industrial relations and employment matters.(3) The 11 visas were granted on the following dates: PostGrant dateAuckland06/07/00Seoul17/08/00Seoul21/08/00London15//09/00Auckland21/09/00Ottawa02/10/00Seoul07/11/00Berlin08/11/00Berlin13/11/00Beirut08/03/01Beirut20/03/0131623(Question No. 2804)280431623Murphy, John, MPMr Murphy83DLoweALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 6 August 2001:(1) Further to the answer to part (1) of question No. 2521 (Hansard, 28 June 2001, page 27323), what are the reasons for the delay in not making the Master Plan available until 2002.(2) Further to the answer to part (2) of question No. 2521, (a) will he give the date upon which the material will cease to be commercial-in-confidence, (b) on what grounds is the material commercial-in-confidence and (c) how are public interest and other factors, including environmental impacts, economic impacts, the application of ecologically sustainable development, the precautionary principle and intergenerational equity in terms of aircraft noise now and in the future, to be accommodated in this current privative negotiations between Government and private entities.(3) How can the Government accommodate the public interest in its privative dealings with private entities.(4) Further to the answer to part (3) of question No. 2521, how will the Government accommodate its responsibilities as custodial trustee of public assets by acting in the public interest by fully accommodating the Long Term Operating Plan.(5) Do the Government's dealings with the private entities seeking to bid for Sydney Airport and other Sydney basin airports conflict with its obligations in the public interest. (6) Further to the answer to part (4) of question No. 2521, do none of the Acts and other Commonwealth provisions mentioned, in light of his various answers in the House to date, have any impact on the changes to aircraft movements, in particular management of aircraft in the air; if not, then can he describe how the existing legislation is invoked from changes in aircraft movements in the air and volume of aircraft movements.31623Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPMinister for Transport and Regional Services10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) The purpose of a Master Plan is to provide the airport operator with the opportunity to share its vision for the Airport's development with interested stakeholders and the community. Following the sale of Sydney Airport the new lessee will need an appropriate time frame to undertake the necessary planning and public consultation as required by the Airports Act. (2) (a) No.(b) Consistent with previous approaches to privatisation, it is not Government policy to disclose details of potential bidders. In this environment bidders can divulge information fundamental to their overarching business strategy free from the scrutiny of their competitors. This enables bidders to remain competitive in the market whilst providing the Commonwealth with the best possible bid within their capability. It is in their commercial interest as well as the public interest to conduct the sale process in this manner. (c) One of the Government's sale objectives is to ensure that the sale outcome is consistent with all the relevant legislative, regulatory and policy requirements, including environmental, foreign investment, competition, access and pricing policies. All bids will be carefully assessed against these criteria.(3) I refer the Honourable Member to my answer to part 2(c) of this question (2804). (4) I refer the Honourable Member to my answer to part (4) of question 2509.(5) No. I refer the Honourable Member to my answer to part 2(c) of this question (2804). (6) Adoption or implementation of a plan for aviation airspace management involving aircraft operations that have, will have, or are likely to have, a significant impact on the environment invokes Section 160 of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. The Transport portfolio must obtain and consider advice from the Minister for the Environment and Heritage.31624(Question No. 2831)283131624Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 7 August 2001:(1) What financial and organisational resources have been allocated by the Government to the Australian Inland Rail Expressway project.(2) What discussions has he, his office or his Department had with representatives of the Australian Inland Rail Expressway and/or representatives of Patrick Stevedores, including representatives of Lang Corporation, concerning the financing of the project from Melbourne to Gladstone with a link to Brisbane.(3) Given that the Australian Transport and Energy Corridor Ltd, including Patrick Stevedores, is essentially a private company in competition with other transport companies, what is the Governments position with respect to the potential allocation of additional taxpayers money to the Inland Railway Project; and if the Government intends allocating additional taxpayers money to this private sector project, what will be done to assist this companys competitors.31624Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPMinister for Transport and Regional Services10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) The Commonwealth financial contributions towards the Australian Inland Rail Expressway include:· $300,000 towards a pre-feasibility study of a standard gauge inland railway between Melbourne and Brisbane;· $30,000 towards a market study exploring an extension of the proposed Melbourne-Brisbane inland railway line, from Toowoomba to Emerald and Gladstone; and· a further $250,000 towards a pre-feasibility study of Toowoomba to Emerald and Gladstone section.The Department of Transport and Regional Services is responsible for administering the Commonwealth's involvement in the project. (2) There have been many discussions with the proponents of the Australian Inland Rail Expressway, generally concerning the overall feasibility of the project. There have been no discussions with representatives from Patrick Stevedores or Lang Corporation concerning the financing of the Australian Inland Rail Expressway proposal. (3) Any further financial support the Australian Inland Rail Expressway might receive from the Government will have to be justified by the benefits that will flow to the transport sector and economy from the project, and will not be determined by the specific benefit to any particular company involved. The Government will continue to appropriately pursue partnerships with the private sector in order to improve transport infrastructure in Australia. 31625(Question No. 2855)285531625Murphy, John, MPMr Murphy83DLoweALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 9 August 2001:(1) Further to the answer to part (1) of question No. 2599 (Hansard, 6 August 2001, page 29198) which stated that the Government had made no decision on the site for a second major airport for Sydney, in light of ongoing development in the immediate vicinity of Badgerys Creek, is Badgerys Creek still a viable site for the selection of Sydney West Airport; if not, does a fresh environmental assessment for the site of the Sydney West Airport need to be undertaken.(2) Does his answer mean that one of the Governments two preconditions for the sale of Sydney Airport, namely, the construction of a second Sydney Airport, is now fundamentally compromised. (3) Does the process for the sale of Sydney Airport need to be deferred until Sydney Airports noise problems have been solved by (a) the full implementation of the Long Term Operating Plan and (b) a decision on the site for a second major airport for Sydney.(4) Further to the answer to part (1)(c) of question No. 2599, does his answer in the negative mean that his answer is logically inconsistent and contradictory to the answer he gave to question No. 2305 (Hansard, 4 June 2001, page 26112); if not, why not.(5) Further to the answer to part (2) of question No. 2599, will he provide reasons for the decision to defer any consideration of constructing a second Sydney Airport until 2005, in particular, (a) upon what basis is the year 2005 significant for a decision to proceed with construction of Sydney West Airport, (b) why the Government has deemed it premature to build a second major airport for Sydney, (c) upon what evidence does he rely in considering construction of a second major airport premature, (d) will he furnish a copy of this reasoning to the House; if so, when, if not, why not, (e) in light of the facts as presented in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement by PPK Environment and Infrastructure of 1995 and subsequent ancillary documents that together constitute the proposal for a second major airport for Sydney, has Sydney Airport reached its environmental capacity and hence is there justification for the immediate commencement of a second major airport for Sydney and (f) is the decision to consider construction of a second major airport for Sydney as premature wrong in light of the facts; if not, why not.(6) Further to the answer to part (3) of question No. 2599, (a) upon what basis is the confidential advice considered confidential, (b) will he declare what type of confidentiality is invoked in the advice and (c) will he furnish copy of that advice; if not, why not.31625Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPMinister for Transport and Regional Services10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) The Government's decision to retain ownership of the Badgerys Creek site and to legislate to protect the site from incompatible development in surrounding areas is intended to preserve the Badgerys Creek site for the possible development of a second Sydney airport in the future.(2) and (3) The Government's preconditions for the commencement of the sale of Sydney Airport have been met.(4) No. See (1) above.(5) (a) The Government concluded that Sydney Airport will be able to handle air traffic demand to the end of the decade. Consistent with that time horizon, 2005 is an appropriate mid-point for the Government to further review Sydney's airport needs. This timing also recognises the lead-time required for possible airport construction.(b), (c) and (d) The Government is confident that commercial decisions by the airlines together with the policy measures taken by the Government will ensure that Sydney Airport will be able to cope with the increasing air traffic until the end of the decade. Accordingly, it would be premature to build a second major airport. It would be under-used for many years. (e) No.(f) No. See also (b), (c) & (d) above.(6) (a) and (b) The advice received by the Government, in relation to the provisions of the Airports Act 1996 as it applies to the sale of Sydney Airport, takes due account of commercial context and to that extent is commercial in confidence.(c) No. It would not be appropriate to publicly disclose specific commercial matters relating to the sale process for Sydney Airport at this time.