1999-03-233912SENATE298101999-03-23The PRESIDENT(Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid) took the chair at 2.00 p.m., and read prayers.Questions Without Notice298129812981Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW656NSWALP00—My question is directed to the Assistant Treasurer, Senator Kemp. I refer the minister to an answer given in question time in the House of Representatives yesterday by Minister Vaile where he stated in regard to fuel prices:In my electorate alone, I am aware that the retail price of petrol has fallen from some 79c to 72c. Apply the equation under our tax reform package to that, and it will fall even further.I ask the minister: in light of evidence from the Australian Automobile Association that the rural-city fuel price differential will actually increase as a result of the GST, can the minister advise as to what equation Minister Vaile was referring to when he made his statement yesterday. Further, in regard to Minister Vaile's claim that fuel will fall even further, what does the cut in excise per litre of fuel have to be to ensure that rural fuel prices in fact fall, as is claimed by Minister Vaile?2981Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—Thank you for that question. Senator, we, as you are aware, are cutting fuel excises. We are doing it so business can benefit very substantially. It is one of the very big pluses I would put to you, Senator, of the tax package that we have brought before this parliament. This is quite in contrast with the rise in fuel prices which occurred under the Labor Party in 1993. In 1993—and I am sure my Labor colleagues will correct me if I am wrong—fuel prices rose in the order of 5c to 7c per litre.3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—What did Murphy say?WW4Senator KEMP—Senator Conroy, that is what happened under your government. You lifted fuel prices. Senator, if you go back to 1983, I think you will find there was a huge rise in fuel excise prices under the Labor Party. 3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—Murphy said the gap is getting wider.WW4Senator KEMP—And let me say it was without any compensation being offered to rural Australia or anything else. Senator, what we have said—and I am reading from a press release that the Treasurer has put out—Senator Conroy interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Conroy! Senator Kemp, I suggest you ignore Senator Conroy.WW4Senator KEMP—Thank you, Madam President. Senator, you should be aware that for any business user entitled to a full credit on input tax the cost falls by some 10c, as business users are entitled to the full credit of the GST. In addition, Senator, heavy transport vehicles are entitled to an additional credit on fuel excise. Diesel excise for on-road use will fall to 18c per litre from the current level in the order of some 43c per litre. This will dramatically cut transport costs, particularly transport costs in rural and regional Australia.Senator Conroy interjecting—WW4Senator KEMP—I was asked about transport costs and petrol costs and I have supplied the answer to you, Senator. But I do make the point that we in this government have a package designed to help rural and regional Australia, and that is why we have given those special concessions on diesel fuel. The Labor Party, when it was in government, raised the price of fuel to regional and rural Australia and to cities. Yet a Labor Party senator has got up and complained to us. The other point I would make is that we are attempting to deliver to the Australian people $13 billion worth of tax cuts, arguably the largest tax cuts in Australian history.Senator Conroy interjecting—WW4Senator KEMP—That is what we are trying to deliver, and the Labor Party is attempting to prevent us from delivering those tax cuts.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Conroy, you persistently interjected during that answer.2981Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW656NSWALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Thank you, Minister, for that long-winded diatribe but you actually did ignore the two aspects of the question that I put to you—that is, Senator Vaile's statement as to the equation and, secondly, what the actual cut would be. Minister, I further ask you: will you guarantee that rural fuel prices will in fact fall as a result of the GST, as is claimed by Minister Vaile? Do you also agree with the Australian Automobile Association statement that a cut of 8.9c per litre is required just to ensure that country fuel prices will not rise? If you do not agree, what rate of excise cut do you believe is required to ensure that rural fuel prices will not rise—or, Minister, don't you really understand the question?2982Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—I am not aware that there is anyone called Senator Vaile in this chamber.656FORSHAWSenator Forshaw—I meant Minister Vaile.WW4Senator KEMP—Thank you, Senator, that is a different matter. I do not think you actually appreciate the nature of the question you are asking. You seem to have missed the key point. What I said was that heavy transport vehicles are entitled, as you should be aware, to an additional fuel credit on excise. Diesel excise for on-road use will fall, and fall substantially.656FORSHAWSenator Forshaw—We are talking about the motorist in the country. We are talking about the price of fuel to the country motorist.WW4Senator KEMP—I have explained this to you very carefully, Senator, and you keep on shouting out. You do not understand. In our tax package we are cutting diesel fuel excise. Don't you understand that, Senator? Don't you understand that very important part of our tax package? We believe that this package is extremely good for rural and regional Australia. It is extremely good and I suggest—(Time expired)29822982Tierney, Sen JohnSenator TIERNEYO15NSWLP10—My question is to the Minister for Justice and Customs, Senator Vanstone. Minister, are you aware of statistics released recently by the Australian Institute of Criminology and the Productivity Commission that confirm something that has been clear for some time: that is, that New South Wales has a crime problem which is far more serious than any other state, in particular Victoria? Is there any truth in the claims made by Bob Carr that the New South Wales crime wave is due to drugs?2982Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPJustice and Customs10—I thank Senator Tierney for his very appropriate question. The figures in New South Wales on crime are very clear. As the Director of the Australian Institute of Criminology, Dr Adam Graycar, so eloquently stated yesterday in a keynote speech to the Third National Outlook Symposium on Crime in Australia:There is no doubt that in virtually every area the statistics show that rates of crime in New South Wales are higher than in other states.Indeed, Dr Graycar asked this question during his keynote address to the conference:Why has assault increased by 44 per cent in New South Wales but by only 1.5 and 2.8 per cent in South Australia and Victoria?He went on:Why does the rate per 100,000 of armed robbery range from 9.5 in Tasmania to 79.3 in New South Wales? Or, why does New South Wales have a rate that is three times that of Victoria? Why, over the past five years, has the rate of armed robbery in New South Wales gone up by a 105 per cent, that in Victoria by 15 and stayed constant in Tasmania?Turning to unarmed robbery, Dr Graycar continued:The range goes from 22 per 100,000 in Tasmania to 121 in New South Wales, with the rate in New South Wales 4.3 times that of Victoria. Over the past five years Victoria's rate grew by 35 per cent while that in New South Wales grew by 97 per cent.Why indeed has the New South Wales crime rate soared in the past four years under Labor? Bob Carr's excuse is to blame drugs for his state's crime wave. And it is true that New South Wales has a serious and growing drug problem which is largely responsible for its crime problem. No one doubts that there is a link between drugs and crime, Madam President. The AIC conference heard from Dr Toni Makkai that the continued use of illicit drugs by petty criminals frequently leads them into more serious crime.The burning question is: what is the New South Wales government doing about it? Last week when the Australian Bureau of Criminal Intelligence report on illicit drugs was re leased, we could see at last what the real facts are. The New South Wales government is way behind the Victorian government in targeting drug dealers. In 1997-98 the Victorian police managed to arrest 1,901 heroin drug dealers—nearly 2,000 drug dealers in Victoria arrested in the relevant financial year—while in New South Wales only 685 dealers were arrested. Those figures speak for themselves. New South Wales has a higher population and when you take that into account Victoria is arresting three times as many—nearly a 3 to 1 difference. When you also remember that New South Wales accounts for 62 per cent of all customs seizures of heroin by weight, you can see why you would expect the arrest of dealers to be higher in New South Wales, not one-third of what it is in Victoria. New South Wales is clearly the state that heroin traffickers want to supply in. New South Wales is the state that has, unfortunately, the largest heroin demand.This is just one indication—and there are more—of where New South Wales is not doing what it should be doing to restore law and order to New South Wales. They are not doing the job. They can have all the TV ads they like but the figures speak for themselves. New South Wales has a population higher than Victoria but arrests only one-third the heroin dealers that Victoria does. That might be the answer to why they have the problem. If Bob Carr was serious about it—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator, you should refer to him as the Premier, Mr Carr.7E4Senator VANSTONE—Oh, sorry Madam President. I do apologise. If Premier Carr really believed drugs were the reason for the crime wave, he would in fact be targeting dealers—not doing only one-third of what Victoria does. (Time expired)2983Tierney, Sen JohnSenator TIERNEYO15NSWLP10—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Minister, could you outline to the Senate what measures you feel the New South Wales government should be taking to improve its appalling record on drug prevention and remediation, particularly in light of the experiences of states like Victoria?Opposition senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senators on my left will cease shouting. To the extent to which it is within your portfolio, Minister, you may respond.2983Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPJustice and Customs10—Thank you Madam President. What I was pointing out was that, if Premier Carr did believe that drugs were responsible for the crime wave, he would ensure that the policing effort was directed at pushers rather than users. The ABCI statistics make clear that the New South Wales users are targeted more than dealers by comparison with Victoria and that makes no sense. It means you give your priority to punishing the victims rather than the real criminals. A policy of being tough on drugs means targeting the pushers where you can rather than the addicts.I might add that New South Wales cannot even arrest and prosecute the perpetrators of a whole range of other crimes. We know that they proceed against offenders of armed robbery in only 16 per cent of cases—less than half the rate for Victoria. They proceed in unarmed robbery cases against only 10 per cent of offenders—again, less than half the rate for Victoria. The figures speak for themselves, Madam President. (Time expired)29832983Mackay, Sen SueSenator MACKAY9L6TASALP00—My question is directed to the Assistant Treasurer, Senator Kemp. Will the minister admit that, in response to a question in the Senate yesterday about local government, he selectively and misleadingly quoted from a radio interview with the CEO of the Australian Local Government Association, Mr Rod Nettle? Can the minister confirm that Mr Nettle—Opposition senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senators on my left should remain silent while one of their own senators is asking a question, so that it can be heard.9L6Senator MACKAY—Can the minister confirm that Mr Nettle, in the same interview, went on to say—and I quote:The Australian Local Government Association is going to some trouble to say "look this is actually how the GST works and this is what you need to have a think about before you put the legislation through", and the legislation at the moment, of course, is that dodgy it's quite amazing; they're going to have to fix it up quite substantially.Why did the minister mislead the Senate yesterday?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—I call Senator Kemp.BH4HILLSenator Hill—Madam President, the question was to Senator Macdonald.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! I am not surprised, there is so much noise in the chamber. The question was to the Assistant Treasurer, Senator Kemp.2984Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—Madam President, I am very happy to answer the question. I say to Senator Mackay: thank you for the question to me. It gives me a chance to read some more of the comments made by Mr Rod Nettle. I have a brief here; I thank my colleague the very effective and popular Senator Ian Macdonald for the brief. The first quote I read was—Opposition senators interjecting—WW4Senator KEMP—I was asked whether I selectively quoted. I am now quoting exactly what Mr Rod Nettle said. According to my brief, it says:Senate committees themselves, really are a bit of window-dressing for the government's policy. They are determined to get the GST through, and I think that's fair enough. They can claim a reasonable mandate for it.That is the first quote from Mr Rod Nettle. The second quote was:The committees are not doing anything in detail and I rather get the impression it's sort of split down the middle. The Labor and Democrats side is just opposed to it, or the Labor side at least is opposed to it and the Democrats aren't quite sure what they're doing with it at all.That was the second quote from Mr Rod Nettle. Thank you for the question, Senator, by the way. I think you have been very selective with your quotes. The next quote from Mr Rod Nettle was:They are pretty lightweight sort of affairs, these inquiries.The other quote was:At the moment, everything is taxed by the GST, or it will be, anyway. That shows, to my mind, Nettle's lack of comprehension about the policy. Senator, we have quoted Mr Nettle, and I have shown you some of the upsides of Mr Nettle's quotes.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Why did you mislead the Senate?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order, Senator Faulkner!WW4Senator KEMP—I did not mislead the Senate at all. In fact, Senator Mackay said that I had selectively quoted. Of course, seeing that you have about four minutes in which to answer a question, you will generally be a little selective in your quotes.9L6MACKAYSenator Mackay—A little bit selective?WW4Senator KEMP—But you have been selective in your quotes. When he referred to the committee hearings he referred to them as `pretty lightweight sorts of affairs, these inquiries'.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator, you should address your remarks to the chair.WW4Senator KEMP—That is what Mr Rod Nettle said about your inquiry, Senator Mackay. You did not quote that. I am quoting that back to you.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Kemp!WW4Senator KEMP—Thank you, Madam President. There may be a frank exchange of selective quotes here. If I have been selective in my quotes, Madam President, I can assure you so has Senator Mackay.2984Mackay, Sen SueSenator MACKAY9L6TASALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. I wish to remind the minister of Mr Nettle's quote:. . . the legislation at the moment, of course, is that dodgy it's quite amazing; they're going to have to fix it up quite substantially.At the beginning of that interview, there was also a quote from Councillor John Campbell. Is the minister aware of this quote:It was pretty clear that the Government members on that Committee essentially didn't know much about the GST and community services and how it was all going to pan out.Is the minister now aware that not one local government organisation or council publicly supported the tax package as it currently stands? 2985Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—Madam President—Senator Faulkner interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Faulkner, you do not have the call.WW4Senator KEMP—In response to Senator Mackay's question, I notice that she did not say that I had not quoted what Mr Nettle said in an accurate fashion. All that Senator Mackay was worried about was that I looked at particular quotes made by Mr Nettle to give a better perspective than that given by the sorts of quotes referred to by Senator Mackay. I will share one final quote by Mr Rod Nettle which I think goes to the heart of the debate that we are having. The quote was: `They'—the government—`can claim a reasonable mandate for it.' That is what Mr Rod Nettle said, and it is what you did not say when you gave your quotes. Senator Mackay, thank you very much for the question.29852985Brownhill, Sen DavidSenator BROWNHILLRD4NSWNP10—My question is to the Minister for Regional Services, Territories and Local Government, Senator Ian Macdonald. The Howard-Fischer government has an excellent record in improving services to regional and rural Australia, moving to restore many services that were allowed to deteriorate under the rabble on the other side when they were in government.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Brownhill, phrase your question without that language, please.RD4Senator BROWNHILL—Can the minister outline what the government is doing to put basic services back into small communities, particularly in light of the recent report into regional banking services.Opposition senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senators on my left are in breach of the standing orders and have been persistently during this question time.2985Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALDYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—I thank Senator Brownhill who, like me, comes from the country. Unfortunately none of the Labor senators do, so they do not understand what it is like providing services and they do not understand the impact that their government had on rural and regional Australia in the 13 years they were in office. That is the time when the banks left the bush. That is the time when the services left rural and regional Australia. I do appreciate Senator Brownhill raising this important matter.Opposition senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senators on my left will cease shouting.YW4Senator IAN MACDONALD—At least, Madam President, Senator Brownhill knows who to ask his questions of. Unfortunately, Senator Mackay directs local government questions not to the local government minister but to another minister. I can only suggest that she is no longer game to ask me a question because she has been wrong so often on local government—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Macdonald, I invite you to apply yourself to the question you have been asked.Honourable senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! There are far too many interjections on both sides of the chamber.YW4Senator IAN MACDONALD—Senator Brownhill does raise a very important and timely question in view of the release of the report by Mr David Hawker's Joint Standing Committee on Economics, Finance and Public Administration into regional banking services. That committee inquiry was set up about 17 months ago to look specifically into alternative means of providing banking and like services to rural and remote Australia—services that as I say, and emphasise, left the bush under the term of the Labor government, and they did absolutely nothing about it.As a result of this inquiry and the government focusing on this inquiry and of the work that we have done, a number of banks and banking institutions are already moving back into the bush. That is good news. Members and senators would have heard about the Pharmacy Guild-Bank West proposal announced just a couple of days ago. That is an initiative which we support, done entirely by private enterprises. I am also very pleased to know of the Bendigo Bank initiative, which is returning very good services to the bush.Some of the committee's recommendations are interesting. A recommendation was that the federal government should undertake to assist communities to utilise the Regional Telecommunications Infrastructure Fund to expand the number of Internet service points. It also recommended that we should ensure that the rural transaction centres build upon state government initiatives. It recommended as well that the federal government give high priority to determining the scope of rural transaction centres.9L6MACKAYSenator Mackay—We can read it ourselves.YW4Senator IAN MACDONALD—I hear Senator Mackay saying that she can read it herself. It is a pity she has not done so. Perhaps she could ask me a question about it. I know that her shadow minister, Ms Kernot, is not interested in the bush. We have used the Regional Telecommunications Infrastructure Fund. We funded over 140 projects, which involved the expansion of access to the Internet at local call rates. We are providing Internet access to indigenous communities and to rural youth. We are installing mobile phone systems in remote communities. We are funding telemedicine projects and assisting projects specifically designed to ease the life of rural women.As part of the social bonus from the sale of the next 16 per cent of Telstra, the federal government has committed $36 million to ensuring Internet access at local call rates for all Australians. And so it goes on. A week or so ago Mr Anderson and I were proud to launch the Howard government's Rural Transaction Centres Program. That program will provide $70 million over five years, to be funded from the sale of the next 16 per cent of Telstra, to establish some 500 rural transaction centres. (Time expired)2986Brownhill, Sen DavidSenator BROWNHILLRD4NSWNP10—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Can the minister give further details about the timetable for the rural transaction centres and the government's commitment to providing vital services to smaller communities?2986Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALDYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—I can give Senator Brownhill some information. The guidelines were launched on 11 March. I have written to all local government councils, post office agencies, senators and members, every state and territory regional development minister, progress associations and community associations—around 3,000 letters in all—telling them of the RTC program and giving them information. My department has set up a secretariat. Application forms are available. They will be either posted out or downloaded from the web site.The Senate might be interested to know that the RTC hotline that we have set up has received over 237 inquiries since the program was announced. I am very pleased about the interest in rural and regional Australia in this program. We are very keen to progress the program. Whilst there is no particular closing date, applications will be dealt with as they come in and the advisory panel will recommend—(Time expired)29862986Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRYZW4TASALP00—My question is addressed to the Assistant Treasurer, Senator Kemp. Does the Assistant Treasurer agree with the Senate GST inquiry submission from Arthur Andersen which states:A value added tax system is inherently complex and adds a substantial administrative and compliance burden to many businesses.It continues:Most GST taxpayers will be saddled with a substantial compliance burden but will contribute no net GST revenue.Why does the government continue to claim that the GST is simple, when the experts confirm that the system is complex and involves a significant compliance burden?2986Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—Why do we claim that? Because all the facts point to it.3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—Five times bigger than New Zealand.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Conroy!WW4Senator KEMP—Thank you, Madam President. He calls out all the time. It is most distracting. The Labor government left us with a dreadful tax system—a tax system which was in fact breaking down.ZW4SHERRYSenator Sherry—It is not broken.WW4Senator KEMP—Senator Sherry says that it is not broken. Senator Sherry is the great supporter of the wholesale sales tax. Senator Sherry was the man that wanted all those added taxes on fuel excise.Honourable senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! There are far too many interjections and far too much noise. I need to be able to hear what the senator with the call on either side is saying.WW4Senator KEMP—In Australia, the single rate of GST will make the system simpler and reduce costs of collections. The GST that this government is proposing is simpler than most taxes overseas where differing rates, beloved of Senator Sherry and his mates, and numerous exemptions exist to create great complexity. For example, in Canada the sale of six donuts is GST free, while the sale of five donuts is taxable and is considered snack food. There is a whole host of examples that one could array to show why we are creating a simpler tax system in Australia.UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—What about waffles, Rod?WW4Senator KEMP—What about waffles! The Labor Party have really lost it, I would have to say. They have really lost it. The government estimates that the GST recurrent net compliance costs are $130 per registrant. This is based on a study of New Zealand's GST. Their GST is the closest one to that proposed for Australia. This is an average figure, of course, and small business is likely to have even smaller compliance costs.We believe that there are many features of tax reform which will reduce compliance costs for business. These include the removal of the wholesale sales tax, the abolition of state taxes—never mentioned by Senator Sherry—cash flow benefits to remitters and the amount that can be recouped by business through tax deductions. Further, as business becomes more familiar with the GST system, the government expects a significant reduction in compliance costs. The GST is only one part of tax reform.ZW4SHERRYSenator Sherry—What happened to Arthur Andersen in all this?WW4Senator KEMP—We do not agree. I do not know whether that was the Arthur Andersen view. I think that was the view of a particular person from Arthur Andersen—one person. I think you should be careful when you claim that is the Arthur Andersen view because I think that you will find it was the view of one person from Arthur Andersen. We do not agree with that view.Can I make the point once again that this is a comprehensive tax reform package. Major features of the tax reform package are the massive tax cuts which are going to be provided—arguably the largest tax cuts in Australian history—and real rises in pensions and benefits. This is what the Labor Party is attempting to stop. This is what the Labor Party is attempting to defeat. Mr Beazley gets up one day and says that we should stop Senate obstruction, and up here his colleagues flout his particular views. The Labor Party are all over the place. (Time expired)2987Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRYZW4TASALP00—It is a direct quote from the official Arthur Andersen submission to the select committee. Minister, if a major international accounting firm such as Arthur Andersen does not believe this government's commitments on business costs of the GST, why should the people who really matter in this debate—the Australian people?2987Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—I will have to read the Hansard carefully, but I took it that you qualified that. Did you say `one official' from Arthur Andersen or `an official' from Arthur Andersen? There is, let me say, quite a distinction, Senator. We do not agree with the view that was put by that official from Arthur Andersen to the committee. We believe that we are bringing about a very efficient tax system; a tax system which has very big benefits for the Australian economy, very big benefits for business, very big benefits for employees and for taxpayers and very big benefits for pensioners and those receiving other benefits. We are very proud of this tax package. We were that proud of it that we went to the people on it. What we say to the Senate is: make us keep our promises. That is what we say to you. Make us keep the promises on which we were elected.29882988Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—My question is to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage. I ask the minister: have all the documents requested in the Senate's return to order on Jabiluka been included in the list the minister tabled in the Senate and in the list of documents in his letter to me?2988Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—I have tabled the documents that I have said I have tabled. I have to say that is what I thought the question was. I would like to congratulate Senator Allison for visiting Ranger last week, but I was particularly disappointed that she failed to take the opportunity to visit Jabiluka.1M6ALLISONSenator Allison—Madam President, I raise a point of order. I did not invite the minister to discuss my trip to Jabiluka or to Ranger. I did ask him a direct question, and that was whether all of the documents were included in the tabling statement and in his letter to me. It is a simple question, and I would be obliged if minister would answer it directly.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—The minister is only beginning his answer. I would remind him of the question.BH4Senator HILL—Alternatively, she did not visit Jabiluka because she could not find it. That would not surprise me because its impact is so small—only 22 hectares and outside the world heritage area.1M6ALLISONSenator Allison—Madam President, my point of order is again on relevance. It is clear the minister is going to pursue this line and not answer the question. I ask you to direct him to answer the question.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—I cannot direct the minister as to how he answers the question; I can merely draw his attention to the question. He uses his discretion as to how he answers it, but must be within the degree of relevance.BH4Senator HILL—It could have been that she missed Jabiluka because she was searching for it within the world heritage area. In actual fact, the mine site is outside of the area.Government senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senators on my right are behaving in a disorderly fashion.8U4LEESSenator Lees—Madam President, my point of order again is one of relevance. The fact that Senator Allison has been to Jabiluka twice is of no relevance to this question. I ask the minister to answer the question.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—I cannot tell at this stage whether what the minister is saying is relevant or not. I need to hear more of it. He knows he must be relevant to the question that has been asked and needs to develop it in a way that makes what he is saying relevant.BH4Senator HILL—She should have been able to find the mine site, because Senator Bolkus was with her. So they both visited Ranger, had a look around but did not bother to go out to see Jabiluka. All this criticism of Jabiluka and writing off to the World Heritage Committee in Kyoto—HX5WOODLEYSenator Woodley—Madam President, my point of order is not only on relevance but also the issue of debating the answer rather than giving an answer. It has already been pointed out that this is Senator Allison's third trip. She has been to Jabiluka twice previously. The minister is debating the issue and I would ask you to ask him to answer the question.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Hill, you should not be debating the answer, and I would draw your attention to the question.BH4Senator HILL—I am sorry, Madam President. I would have thought that she would have made an effort to visit the mine site, because she knows that it will generate $12 billion of revenue, 85 per cent of which will remain in Australia and will employ 380—UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—Madam President, I raise a point of order. Senator Hill was asked whether all documents relating to Jabiluka were included in a list tabled in this parliament and sent to Senator Allison.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senators on my right! I need to hear what is being said.UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—Certain freedom should be given to a minister to tee off on that—I have always conceded that—but Senator Hill has not addressed one aspect of the question.N26ABETZSenator Abetz—Three minutes to go.UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—It does not matter whether there are one, two, three or four minutes to go. He should at least address that before he starts teeing off on everyone around the chamber. That is the tradition of this place. You cannot direct him how to answer the question, but he must be at least somewhat relevant.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Ray, the minister referred to the question of documents.Honourable senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—The behaviour in the chamber is absolutely disgraceful for everybody who is watching and attempting to listen.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—You were right to sit Alston down.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Faulkner, when I am speaking I do not expect you to be shouting across the chamber.Government senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—And I do not expect comment like that on my right, either. Senator Hill referred to documents when he first got to his feet, he referred to the documents that had been tabled and then went on to other aspects relating to Jabiru and Jabiluka. I assume he will be coming back to documents, but he certainly started his answer by referring to the matter of tabling of documents.UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—Further to the point of order, Senator Hill referred to documents tabled in this chamber. He was not even asked about that. He was asked about the existence of all documents as related to two lists, not documents tabled in this chamber. So he has yet to be relevant one iota. In fact his very first reference to it was not in reference to the question asked of him.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Hill, I draw your attention to the question, if you have anything further to add.Senator Abetz interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Abetz!9L6MACKAYSenator Mackay—Be quiet, Eric, you're a fool.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—You are in no position to comment.BH4Senator HILL—As I said at the outset, I provided certain documents to the Senate. I provided a list of those documents and I provided a list of documents that I was unable to provide to the Senate, and I provided reasons for not so providing the documents. Beyond that, I am not sure to what the honourable senator is referring, but we do seem to have an exchange of correspondence in this matter. I am writing to her today in answer to her questions of yesterday. I will go back and reassess the lists that were provided and try to discover the point that she is seeking to make in question time today. If I can discover it and if I can help the honourable senator, I will do so.2989Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—I ask a supplementary question, Madam President. I remind the minister that the question related to all documents requested by the Senate, not certain documents, and I ask: is it not the case that none of the documents from the minister's interdepartmental committee on Kakadu were tabled by the minister? They are certainly not in the letter to me, and they are certainly not in the tabling statement as being withheld. Will the minister table in the Senate, before close of business today, all of the documents, including those for and by the Kakadu interdepartmental committee?2989Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—If she had asked that in the original question, I might have been able to discover what she was seeking. But my original answer to her said that there were only certain documents tabled. We did not seek to table all of the documents. I said that up front. I said it days and days ago, and I keep repeating it every question time. I also gave to the honourable senator details of the documents which were provided by my department to me but which I did not table. I will go back and look carefully at the question that has been asked today and see if there is any further information that I can provide. 29902990Quirke, Sen JohnSenator QUIRKEZS6SAALP00—My question is to the Assistant Treasurer, Senator Kemp. Does the Assistant Treasurer agree with Arthur Andersen's submission to the Senate GST inquiry which states:There is no question that it will take years for the effects of the abolition of the wholesale sales tax and other tax changes to fully impact costs and prices.Knowing this to be true, why are the government's tax package and the compensation package based on the clearly false assumption that cost reductions associated with indirect tax are immediate?2990Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—No, I do not agree with Arthur Andersen. We have looked very carefully at the whole issue of compensation, which was raised in the chamber twice yesterday.Senator George Campbell interjecting—WW4Senator KEMP—George, just control yourself.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Kemp, ignore it and address your remarks to the chair.WW4Senator KEMP—I have been incredibly provoked by George Campbell. I think it is better that Senator Campbell go back to writing articles for books which attack the former Labor government, which he did very well and which I fully endorse.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Kemp, I draw your attention to the question.WW4Senator KEMP—Thank you, Madam President; I was being provoked by Senator Campbell. As I said, I do not agree with the Arthur Andersen comment. We have provided a very generous compensation package. Unlike the Labor Party, we are promising real rises in pensions and benefits. We believe that the overall effect of the package on the CPI will be 1.9 per cent.UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—And you will resign if it isn't!WW4Senator KEMP—Senator Ray, you lost the election because you did not have any credible policies. You lost the election, Senator Ray. You have nothing to resign from. You are over there in opposition; you have nothing to resign from. We are extremely confident in the modelling of the package and the CPI effects on the compensation for the package. We want to give effect to this package, we want to keep the promises that we made to the Australian people and we want the Senate to recognise our mandate. This package will deliver huge benefits to the Australian economy—among other things, very substantial tax cuts to Australian families in the order of $40 to $50 a week per family and real rises in pensions and benefits. We would like Senator Quirke and his colleagues to stop this particular charade, to get down to some hard work and to make sure we pass this package, which is for the benefit of the Australian community.2990Quirke, Sen JohnSenator QUIRKEZS6SAALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. I ask whether the Assistant Treasurer agrees with Arthur Andersen's statement to the GST inquiry:. . . the wholesale sales tax is now being replaced, effectively, by three new taxes—the GST,—at 10 per cent—the luxury car tax—at 25 per cent—and a wine equalisation tax . . .Simplicity should dictate that a multi-rate GST would be preferred.2990Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—If that was an exact quote from Arthur Andersen—and I have to say that I am always very doubtful about accepting `exact' quotes from the Labor Party because I have seen how often those quotes are twisted and misrepresented, and we have had the instance of Senator Mackay today—it shows a very profound lack of understanding about the tax package.29902990Ferguson, Sen AlanSenator FERGUSONEP5SALP10—My question is to the Assistant Treasurer, Senator Kemp. I refer the minister to the government's superannuation surcharge initiative, which has improved the equity of the national superannuation system. Minister, can you advise the Senate of further steps taken to improve the operation of the surcharge?2991Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—Madam President, I thank Senator Ferguson, who always has a very constructive view on superannuation and, along with Senator John Watson, shows the expertise and commitment to superannuation that we have on our side. I thank the senator for his question, which is an important one about the superannuation system. In 1996 the government announced the introduction of the superannuation contribution surcharge to improve the equity of our superannuation system, which now, I understand, the Labor Party supports. Previously, high income earners were able to benefit to a much greater extent from the superannuation tax concessions than were low- and middle-income earners. The government believed that this was unfair and introduced a superannuation surcharge to address it.Opposition senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! There are senators shouting across the chamber and it is absolutely unacceptable, especially when there is a minister attempting to answer.WW4Senator KEMP—I emphasise that, notwithstanding the introduction of the surcharge, superannuation remains concessionally taxed. I am pleased to say that the superannuation surcharge has succeeded in meeting its equity objectives. As senators will know, as part of our tax reform package the government announced an initiative for group certificates to report the value of fringe benefits in excess of $1,000. This measure addresses salary packaging schemes which could be used to obtain benefits or to avoid surcharges, such as the superannuation surcharge, to which they would not otherwise be entitled.I am pleased today to announce further initiatives that will enhance the overall operation and efficiency of the surcharge by clarifying and simplifying aspects of the legislation. The government will remove the advance instalment requirement applying to the surcharge, effective immediately. I thank Senator John Watson, Senator Ferguson and others who made their views known on that. Consequently, no advance instalment will be payable in respect of assessments issued by the ATO from today. I emphasise that the removal of the advance will affect only the timing of surcharge collections and will not involve any ultimate cost to revenue. Removal of the advance is also consistent with measures taken in the government's tax reform package, including the abolition of provisional tax. To further reduce compliance costs for self-managed funds, the government will develop proposals to provide a self-assessment regime for these funds. These proposals could include arrangements to align surcharge reporting requirements with annual superannuation fund returns and income tax lodgment. This would reduce the administrative burden for the sector and the number of interactions with the ATO.The government is also aware of a number of technical issues that have been raised in relation to the surcharge legislation. In order to remove any doubt about the intention of the legislation, amendments will be introduced to clarify a number of matters. These amendments will be effective from 20 August 1999. (Time expired)29912991Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEYSF4VICALP00—My question is directed to Senator Kemp, the Assistant Treasurer. Will the GST be payable on pro bono legal work? I ask this question because the work a lawyer does on a pro bono basis will have a market value and, if it is taxed, he or she will have to pay the impost or ask the client for it. Pro bono services, as the minister knows, are provided in a public-spirited way as a service to society. For example, the Federal Court in Melbourne has established a system to have pro bono services provided in appropriate circumstances. Minister, if in fact the GST is payable on pro bono legal work, this does seem to be an ungracious way of rewarding lawyers for the good that they do.Honourable senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senators on both sides will observe the standing orders.2991Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—Thank you, Senator Cooney, for your question. I am not a lawyer.UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—There are 32 on your side.WW4Senator KEMP—Neither am I a trade union boss, which makes me very different from virtually every person on that side of the parliament. My understanding of pro bono work is that if it is provided absolutely free of charge, there can be no charge on it.2992Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEYSF4VICALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. If in fact there is to be a charge on pro bono work on the basis that a value is put on it, would the government increase the legal aid that is otherwise provided and, secondly, would the losing side, if an order of costs were to be made against him or her, then not have to pay any costs?Honourable senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Kemp is entitled to hear this supplementary question.2992Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—Thank you, Madam President. It is very hard to hear with all the noise. GST will apply to legal services but, of course, lawyers will be able to claim input tax credits for those services. Most legal aid is GST free. Legal aid is provided free, as we understand, Madam President, and legal aid provided where there is a charge will not always be subject to the GST. Payments awarded in legal cases, for example, costs or damages awarded, will not be subject to the GST. Because of all the noise, there may have been a bit of confusion with my first sentence, so I will go back: GST will apply, typically, to legal fees; however, companies that use those fees and where a GST is charged can claim an input tax credit.29922992Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—My question is to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage. I refer the minister again to his partial compliance with the Senate's return to order on documents relating to Jabiluka. Minister, in your tabling statement you said that you were not tabling emails not on file. Not a single email was provided in the documents tabled to the Senate. I also note that in your list of withheld documents there were no emails listed. Can you give a categorical answer to the Senate: is it the case that there were no emails placed on file which were covered by the scope of the return to order?2992Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—The response I gave was in the terms of the tabling statement in which I said:The attached documents constitute key documents held by or generated by Environment Australia between 1 October 1998 and 18 February 1999, including important correspondence and information documents dealing with the Jabiluka development, the UNESCO World Heritage Mission and Australia's response to the decisions of the Kyoto meeting of the World Heritage Committee.2992Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question which also draws the minister back to the original question. The return to order requested documents—not what the minister chooses to call `key documents' but all documents. Minister, is it not a fact that there were emails placed on file and that you have not included them in the list of documents you are withholding? What are the true facts of this issue, which goes to the heart of respecting the wishes of the Senate and whether or not this government is choosing to be contemptuous of the parliament by showing contempt for the Senate?2992Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—I think this is the sixth question we have had on this issue. The point is—9L6MACKAYSenator Mackay—We haven't had an answer.2992Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—I know that I will never give an answer that will satisfy the Australian Democrats because what they want, of course, is further ammunition to use against Australia's interests on the world stage. They do not believe in debating this issue within the domestic scene in Australia. What they want is material that they can hand over to a world heritage committee in the hope that they can defeat the application of this government's policy.DT6BARTLETTSenator Bartlett—I raise a point of order, Madam President. We would find it a bit easier to debate the issue if the minister would actually provide the documents he was requested to by the Senate. My question went directly to whether or not there were emails placed on file, and the minister has not addressed that either in his initial answer or in his response to my supplementary question.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—I did draw your attention to the question and the supplementary question, Minister.BH4Senator HILL—Madam President, what I said in my tabling statement was that we had already released a large number of documents relating to the environmental impact assessment process—and I gave some details of what they were. I had also sought from my department key documents, because there are other things that my department has to do in addition to searching for papers for the Australian Democrats. They delivered those documents to me. I provided lists of the documents. I tabled certain of those documents, and I indicated which ones I tabled and which ones I didn't. (Time expired)29932993Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY3L6VICALP00—My question is to Senator Kemp, the Assistant Treasurer. I refer the Assistant Treasurer to the impact the GST will have on contracts that span the GST operational date of 1 July 2000. Given that all long-term contracts will have to be reviewed on 1 July 2005, how will a supplier under a long-term contract be able to pass on the GST from 1 July 2005? Isn't it a fact that under long-term contracts one-eleventh of a supplier's contract proceeds from 1 July 2005 will now have to be paid to the ATO in GST, regardless of the fact that the supplier cannot collect the GST on the service they have performed? Can the Assistant Treasurer explain why the government is forcing thousands of Australian businesses to pay a GST they cannot collect?2993Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—The government has put in place very fair and equitable transitional rules. They are perfectly fair. They are in the bill. They are very clearly understood. I think that a close examination of those rules will see that the government has looked very closely at this issue, has consulted with industry and has come up with arrangements which are fair and practical.2993Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY3L6VICALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Has the government made any estimate of the value of contracts that will be affected by this oversight?2993Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—You give an answer to Senator Conroy. He does not listen to it. You sit down. He has no idea of what has been replied to, stands up and asks a written out question, and makes a complete goose of himself.BH4HILLSenator Hill—Madam President, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper .Miscellaneous2993299315:03:002993Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—I have some further information on a recent question from Senator Brown regarding Irian Jaya. I seek leave to have that incorporated.Leave granted.The answer read as follows—Senate QuestionIrian Jaya: call for independenceSenator Brown asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, on 11 March 19991. What response has Australia made to the meeting of 100 West Papuan leaders in Jakarta on 26 February which called for immediate freedom and independence for West Papua or, failing that, an international effort by the United Nations to have dialogue between the West Papuans and the Indonesian government? A copy of that statement from 100 leaders of the West Papuans has been sent to the Prime Minister and to the leaders of 22 other nations. What response have the Prime Minister and the government of Australia made to these West Papuan leaders?2. There is fear about this statement having been signed by the 100 leaders, and I ask the minister representing the minister if he would also find out and deliver to the chamber what reassurances he can from Mr Howard about the safety of the 100 leaders who signed that document.Senator Hill—The answer to the senators question of 11 March, which I took on notice, is as follows:1. The government has obtained a copy of the statement that Senator Brown referred to, although it did not come directly from the authors. The statement does not ask Australia for a formal response and the government does not intend to provide one. 2. Australia recognises Indonesian sovereignty over Irian Jaya, which was the result of the United Nations sponsored Act of Free Choice through which the people of Irian Jaya voted for integration with Indonesia. The government, however, has been concerned about reports of human rights abuses in Aeron Jays and has raised these concerns with its Indonesian counterparts on many occasions. As such the government welcomes the commencement of a national dialogue between the Indonesian government and the Irianese people to address issues of concern, including human rights abuses and resources issues.3. The statement referred to by Senator Brown was put forward in conjunction with the start of this national dialogue and represents the views of some, but not all, of the Irianese participants in that dialogue. The government will continue to monitor the dialogue and hopes that this process will assist in the diffusion of tensions and create a better human rights environment in the province.4. The government is aware that there have been reports of threats against some of the Irianese who participated in the national dialogue of 26 February. The source of the threats is unclear, and some of them are framed in such a way as to suggest that they have come from other Irianese who were aggrieved at their non-inclusion in the national dialogue process. The government is concerned about the possibility of violence carried out either by Indonesian security personnel or any other groups or organisations, especially given that a process of dialogue has now begun.5. The Australian Embassy in Jakarta conducted a visit to Aeron Jays from 1 to 7 February, as part of its regular monitoring of developments in the province. During the visit the government's message on the importance of respecting human rights was reiterated to provincial and local government authorities.299415:04:002994Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—The other answer I have is to a question from Senator Bourne relating to military discussions that were taking place in Jakarta between Australian and Indonesian officers. I seek to have that incorporated as well.Leave granted.The answer read as follows—Senate QuestionAustralia/Indonesia CDF—Pangab ForumSenator Bourne asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, on 11 March 1999 1. What is under discussion at the meeting in Jakarta of Australian and Indonesian military officers?2. More specifically, will human rights, peaceful crowd control methods and the importance of the military acting strictly within the rule of law be discussed?3. Finally, is Kopassus involved in these discussions?Senator Hill—The answer to the Senator's question of 11 March, which I took on notice, is as follows:1. The first question was answered by Senator Hill.2. One of the key objectives of our defence relationship with Indonesia is to promote greater professionalism in ABRI and respect for human rights. During the CDF-Pangab Forum, discussion on the roles of the military provided an opportunity to highlight the clear distinction in Australia between the role of the police in maintaining internal order and the role of a professional military in providing support to the civil authority in times of crisis. Australian delegates emphasised that the future roles and responsibilities of ABRI need to be determined and clearly defined, in consultation with key stakeholders in the current process of political reform. Once agreed, these changes should be legislated to provide a new legal framework within which ABRI can perform its role.The questions raised by Senator Bourne will be addressed in further work on topics of mutual concern to be undertaken by staff of both countries at the working and higher management levels. Teams managed jointly by Australia and Indonesia will shortly commence work in the areas of armed forces and the law; military education in policy management, accountability in command, new trends in civil—military relations; management of capability development; and communicating with the public. These areas of cooperation will be of direct benefit to ABRI in progressing its reform program and establishing new ways of doing business.3. There was no Kopassus involvement in the discussions.299415:05:002994Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW656NSWALP00—I move:That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Assistant Treasurer (Senator Kemp), to a question without notice asked by Senator Forshaw today, relating the proposed new tax system and the price of fuel.As is increasingly obvious each day when this minister— HX5WOODLEYSenator Woodley—You call that an answer?656Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW—I was going to say `attempts to answer questions'. It is quite obvious that he either does not listen or he just does not understand. I want to remind the Senate of the actual comments made yesterday by Minister Vaile in his answer in the House of Representatives when he was speaking about petrol prices. He said:In my electorate alone, I am aware that the retail price of petrol has fallen from 79c to 72c. Apply the equation under our tax reform package to that, and it will fall even further.Minister Vaile, as is very clear in his comments, was talking about the retail price of petrol, that is, the price of petrol to the ordinary motorist pulling up at a service station and filling up their tank with petrol. As we all know, in the country areas it is dearer, and in some cases substantially dearer, than in cities, where the prices are lower generally but also you may have a substantial level of discounting.Minister Kemp today was asked a question directly relating to Minister Vaile's comments yesterday on the retail price of petrol for motorists in the country. He was asked to explain what that equation was with regard to the differential between city and country retail prices and how much of the excise on petrol had to be reduced in order to ensure that the differential did not increase. It was a very straightforward question, and one would have thought that the minister, being aware of what was discussed yesterday in the House of Representatives, would have been able to come along here today and answer a straightforward question, giving us some facts and figures. But he could not. He waffled on and talked about diesel fuel rebate, something that is absolutely irrelevant to the issue he was asked about. He just does not understand.To enlighten the minister—it is a pity he has not stayed in the chamber—I referred in my question to the analysis that the Australian Automobile Association have prepared. They have demonstrated in their submission to the GST inquiry that the gap between petrol prices in the country and the city is likely to rise. There is a very simple explanation for that, and that is that the excise that is currently applied on petrol prices is a flat rate applied to the retail price. But, when you apply a GST to the retail price of petrol, the percentage increase may be the same at 10 per cent but the actual increase in cents per litre will be greater in the country than in the city because the retail price is higher.In the evidence that has been presented to the GST inquiry by the association, they have highlighted, for instance, that in many areas of New South Wales, in country areas and regional and rural areas, the price will actually be higher than it is now, and also that the gap between petrol prices in the city and petrol prices in the country will be greater after the GST is applied. They have based their calculations on a 7c a litre reduction in excise, which is a reasonable assumption to make on the basis of some comments made by the government, and then applying the GST. Whilst the price in Sydney would no doubt drop because the reduction in the excise will be greater than the level of the GST increase in Armidale, for instance, the price of petrol at the pump will increase by a cent a litre.Senator McGauran interjecting—656Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW—The government has said that the prices will fall. They are the words of the minister. They are the words that are in the government's new tax system documentation. But, in fact, the analysis done by the reputable Automobile Association is that right throughout New South Wales the price will actually increase for country people. (Time expired)15:10:002995Watson, Sen JohnSenator WATSONVJ4TASLP10—I also would like to comment on Senator Kemp's response, particularly in relation to the superannuation surcharge and the advance instalment.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator Watson, that is not the same subject. This is taking note of the answers given by Senator Kemp to the questions from the opposition relating to fuel prices.656FORSHAWSenator Forshaw—That is right.15:08:002995McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURANWH4VICNP10—In that case, I will take up Senator Watson's position. It is not unusual for Senator Watson to be a little confused about this, because for the second day in a row we have had this direct questioning, one after the other, of Senator Kemp.AW5CARRSenator Carr—We are still waiting for an answer.WH4McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURAN—No, you are trying to chip away at Senator Kemp and you have failed for two days in a row. What is your tactic going to be tomorrow? Today, as always, we are happy to discuss the tax reform package that the government has before us. It is certainly a far better subject to discuss than the one that Senator Carr ran last time we were in parliament about some obscure university called Greenwich on Norfolk Island. I notice that Senator Carr has been relegated to the adjournment debate now. He cut a very lonely figure last night on that issue. Now, at last, we are discussing something of substance.AW5CARRSenator Carr—I look forward to seeing how lonely you are going to be.WH4McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURAN—The government is always happy to discuss the tax debate with you. What was that, Senator Forshaw?656FORSHAWSenator Forshaw—What are you discussing? Do you know what you are talking about?WH4McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURAN—Yes, I do.Senator Forshaw interjecting—10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Forshaw, would you please desist.WH4McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURAN—We have heard all of your questions before. We have heard them in the four committees that have been running around this country for the last four months. We are going to hear them in the six weeks of debate that will be coming up before 30 June. You have never looked at the package as a whole. You have tried to single out issues such as funeral parlours, scouting groups and, caravan parks, and today you have raised the issue of local governments. You are always trying to chip single issues out, and pensioner issues. The one that I would like to focus on in the time that I am given here relates to the compensation package for pensioners.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator McGauran, the answer that the opposition moved a motion to take note of related to petrol prices.AW5CARRSenator Carr—He is not up to it.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator Carr, I do not need your assistance.WH4McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURAN—Senator Carr, your petty little issue from Norfolk Island has been relegated to the adjournment debate. That is where the Greenwich University is being debated. Don't you talk about me not being up to it. Someone with some sense on the tactics committee has finally got rid of your—10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! Senator McGauran, please resume your seat. I will have order in the chamber until I can get the message across that this debate should have some relevance to petrol pricing.WH4McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURAN—Madam Deputy President, I take your ruling. I am being over keen. I want to discuss all matters within the tax package, but the five minutes that I have been given does not allow me to do that so I will take up the single issue that Senator Forshaw has brought to the chamber in relation to fuel costs. I notice that he did not discuss the benefits that the whole regional and rural sector will get from this tax package. It is supported by the whole rural and regional sector, and none less than the National Farmers Federation. The abolition of the wholesale sales tax throughout the rural and regional sector, and the GST-free exporting—656FORSHAWSenator Forshaw—What about petrol pricing?WH4McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURAN—I am getting onto that. You see, you will not discuss the package as a whole.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! Senator McGauran, please refrain from answering interjections and address the chair. If you do that, you will find that you are less likely to interact with the opposition. I ask Senator Forshaw and Senator Carr, in particular, to refrain from interjecting.WH4McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURAN—Senator Carr has become an irrelevancy in this Senate, so I do not mind Senator Carr interjecting. No-one takes any notice of him. Senator Forshaw is a distraction, and I will not be further distracted by him.AW5CARRSenator Carr—Have you any idea what you are talking about?WH4McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURAN—I do. With the diesel fuel rebate, off-road users will pay neither excise nor GST on diesel fuel, reducing the tax on diesel by 43c per litre.BH4HILLSenator Hill—Hear, hear!WH4McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURAN—That is just one part of it.FX5MURPHYSenator Murphy—What about the petrol?WH4McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURAN—I am talking about petrol. No-one is concerned about your minuscule issue with petrol. They are concerned about the whole transport industry and the benefits it will bring. No-one has ever raised that minuscule issue other than you. Petrol pricing in the country has come down, it has dropped, and that is before our tax reform package even comes in. The prices within the country areas are starting to fall.Opposition senators interjecting—656FORSHAWSenator Forshaw—He is awake!10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! Senators on my left. Senator McGauran, will you please address the chair.WH4McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURAN—It is estimated that the government's tax reform packages, which will introduce cuts to fuel costs and transport costs—Opposition senators interjecting—10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Carr and Senator Bishop.BH4HILLSenator Hill—Madam Deputy President, on a point of order: this is totally unfair to Senator McGauran. He wants to debate a serious issue, to demonstrate the extent to which fuel prices will come down under the government's package. He should be allowed to do that in this chamber for the information of the Australian people. If unruly interjections ceased, he would be able to do so.656FORSHAWSenator Forshaw—Madam Deputy President, on the point of order: the question was about petrol prices for motorists in the country. It was not about the diesel fuel excise, or pensioners, or any of the hundred and one items that Senator McGauran has raised.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—What is your point of order, Senator Forshaw?656FORSHAWSenator Forshaw—The point of order is that Senator McGauran has not yet even attempted to deal with the issue raised in the question that we are taking note of. We have been trying to assist him to get around to that issue but he is obviously not even on the right road.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator Forshaw, there is no point of order. Your assistance is not required. We need some peace and quiet on both sides. Senator Lightfoot, are you raising another point of order?WP6LIGHTFOOTSenator Lightfoot—I am, Madam Deputy President.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—I have just ruled that there is no point of order, and I require some silence on both sides. What is your point of order?WP6LIGHTFOOTSenator Lightfoot—I am not adding to that point of order. It is a new point of order. The argument seems to be artificially channelled into the one question of the GST and how that affects the price: whether the price is cheaper or whether it increases or whether in fact it remains the same. I submit that the GST cost of petrol, as it is generically called, does affect diesel prices and, as a result, does affect the price of a wide range of goods in the country. If that is acceptable, then the argument that Senator McGauran was starting to develop, before he was denied the opportunity to continue, is quite right. Senator McGauran was talking about the broad concept of GST, and I submit that the cost of petrol could be encompassed: the cost of diesel does affect a wide range of goods, as proposed by the GST.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! There is no point of order. However, I would appreciate having some silence from those on my left so that I can actually hear what Senator McGauran is saying. The issue is widely canvassed and it does relate to petrol pricing, but petrol pricing does have a fairly generic and wide interpretation. Senator McGauran has the call.WH4McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURAN—Thank you, Madam Deputy President. I appreciate your protection of me. They on the other side have a nerve to talk about petrol prices. Wasn't it in 1993 that you jacked up and indexed six monthly the petrol prices excise duty? Was it you, Senator Forshaw, who did that? You went to the election in 1993 saying `No tax increases', and you have a nerve coming in here and talking about petrol prices when you quadrupled petrol prices in the three-year gap from 1993 to 1996.That is one of the reasons you got chucked out in the country—after 1996, you never even held a seat in rural and regional Australia, and so you have a nerve to come in here and talk about petrol prices and petrol taxes. We can assure people that, with our tax reform package and the reduction in diesel fuel rebate and in wholesale sales tax in the whole transport sector, and also the pulling off of some 7c per litre from petrol, it has been estimated that there will be a saving in that sector of some $3 billion. That is the Treasury estimate. That is what I put to you. I am telling you that petrol prices will come down as a consequence of our tax reform package. You have come in here wielding some minuscule argument, just as I have said, singling out the scouts. (Time expired)15:18:002998Murphy, Sen ShayneSenator MURPHYFX5TASALP00—The price of petrol under the GST is the price that the poor old pensioners and the mums and dads who live in the country, versus the city, will have to pay. That is what the question was about. It was about the claim that the government made that, under the GST, the price of petrol would not rise. Mark Vaile, the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, is quoted on many occasions, and I would like to read one or two of those quotes. He said on 8DDD about petrol prices:What we will guarantee is that the price will not rise with the GST.He says they `will not'. That is a fairly clear statement. Yesterday he said:In fact already this government's policies have seen the price of petrol in regional Australia fall.I would suggest that the price of petrol has fallen in some cases, but not as a result of any policy and certainly not as the result of the introduction of a GST, because the price of petrol will rise. It is all about the differential between country and city prices. As the Automobile Association pointed out to the committee conducting the inquiry, the differential between city and country prices, as they stand now, will mean that the price of petrol in country and regional areas will rise under the GST.The government's claim—not unlike many other claims that you have made about your tax package in an overall sense—is that there will be a reduction in costs. Not true. Your claims are being disproved at every single step of the way with regard to local government services—and, Madam Deputy President, there is a point that I would like to make with regard to another question that was raised as part of the overall package that the other senators seem to want to talk about so much, about local government services—5F4CALVERTSenator Calvert—Hey, get back to the question!FX5Murphy, Sen ShayneSenator MURPHY—Well, it does deal with petrol prices, because the mums and dads have to buy the petrol to take their kids to the preschools, et cetera, which are funded by local government to a large degree. They will be the subject of the GST as well.WH4McGAURANSenator McGauran—On a point of order, Madam Deputy President, Senator Murphy is flouting your rule with regard to keeping this as a narrow debate on petrol pricing. You can see that he is deliberately straying into other areas.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator McGauran, you had a fair bit of latitude. Senator Murphy, you will be relating this to petrol pricing, I am sure!FX5Murphy, Sen ShayneSenator MURPHY—Absolutely. As I said, the mums and dads have to buy the petrol to actually take their kids to use the basketball stadiums et cetera that are supplied by local government, which are now going to be subject to the GST as well. The whole point of this exercise is about government claims about its tax package, claims that relate to all manner of things and, in this particular case, to petrol. As I showed when reading quotes from the minister, they have said on any number of occasions that the price of petrol will not rise. Indeed, they made claims that the price of petrol will actually go down.I go back to a point that Senator McGauran was making about 1993. In 1993 when you came to the election with your Fightback package, what you proposed then was to remove the excise on petrol. Remember that, Senator McGauran? You were going to take it away—but not on this occasion. You are in effect taking away something in the order of 7c a litre. This goes to the very question of the differential. You take away 7c a litre and, in some cases in some major city areas, the price of petrol may—may—go down. But the differential between country and city areas is where the problem is with regard to your GST package. That is where your claim does not stack up.If you were about looking after the people in regional Australia, you would take that sort of problem into account. You would also take into account the port charges with respect to transport costs of fuel—that is, bulk fuel. So you have not fixed that problem either. The claims that the government makes time and again with regard to its tax package—it does not matter whether it is petrol prices or any manner of things—do not stand up. They are proven to be wrong every time the evidence is presented to the committees that are dealing with the issue of the introduction of the GST. The government is falling down every step of the way. Its claims are being found to be deficient and indeed to be misleading the public of Australia. That is why we are opposed to the GST. That is why it should be opposed, and that is why the Australian public have every right to be concerned with regard to charges on collection, charges on local government or indeed, in this case, why petrol prices will not go down. (Time expired)15:23:002999Lightfoot, Sen PhillipSenator LIGHTFOOTWP6WALP10—To develop an argument on as serious a subject as the GST around the narrow confines of petrol, as we know it, would be a waste of the Senate's time. For instance, Senator Murphy did not confine his argument just to petrol—nor should he. Senator McGauran did not confine his contribution in the chamber today just to petrol—nor should he have. What the argument is about is whether fuel per se should be cheaper and, of course, it is. But the whole structure of fuel prices today is so extraordinarily complex that one could not develop an argument just around that. Given the cost of fuel today and of light sweet crude, on which the price of oil is set at around $13 a barrel today, one could comfortably say that if the $US13 a barrel prevailed with the introduction of the GST then of course fuel prices are going to be cheaper. And you know that. You know very well that that is the fact.Let me develop that a little further. The government has said that diesel will be 25c a litre cheaper. The government has already said as well that 80 per cent of wage earners in Australia will not be paying any more than 30 cents in the dollar. You have to understand that the GST is coming about because the present system is absolutely and totally shattered. It is a discredited system. I am surprised that on the other side you do not look after your wage earners. You think they are your wage earners. You think those people vote for you. I can tell you that in the last two elections they did not. And they did not vote for you, because you have lost the plot. They did not vote for you, because you get your hands stuck in the till. They did not vote for you, because two of your last Prime Ministers have made themselves millionaires when they have been in public life—all of their working life. Let us all buy a piggery, because the cost of running a piggery with respect to diesel is going to be a lot cheaper with the GST. I do not know whether French clocks are going to be any cheaper, but certainly running a piggery is going to be a lot cheaper.What you senators opposite do not like is this: you know in your heart of hearts—those of you who have one—that under the GST a whole raft of things are going to be cheaper. Not only that, you are going to understand what it is all about. You obfuscated your price rises when you were in government by increasing wholesale sales taxes. Did you say that before the election? You did not. I can tell you what you are going to do if you bring in that tax credit system that your leader in the other place has suggested: you are still going to have a wholesale sales tax system and you are still going to prop up things and put in increases that you will not have told the public about. And it is done subversively.You know as well as I do that the system of setting fuel prices in Australia, which includes petrol, is totally out of date and totally discredited. You know as well as I do that in 1999 every extra dollar is going to be taxed at about 47 cents in the dollar. In the year 2000 it is going to be 49 cents in the dollar. And what are you going to do about that under your tax credit system? It does not work out at all. But what does work out is this: the government has promised there will be no more than 30 cents in the dollar paid by 80 per cent of wage earners in Australia. There will be cheaper diesel for these people. That means that goods that are transported to our wharves for export are going to be more competitive with the rest of the world. That means also that there will be more jobs here as a result of that. Why is it that a party that alleges that it looks after the working man has gone completely out of control when looking at the GST reform? If you put it to the working man that these are the benefits, of course they will accept and embrace the system we propose. They know that with bracket creep and the increase in taxation loading it would be like putting Dracula in charge of the blood bank with respect to the wholesale sales taxes. You would be putting them up. We say that 80-odd per cent of workers in Australia will pay no more than 30 cents in the dollar. And we are going to give them cheap fuel besides that.Question resolved in the affirmative.300015:29:003000Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—I move:That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for the Environment and Heritage (Senator Hill), to questions without notice asked by Senators Allison and Bartlett today, relating to the order agreed to on 18 February 1999 for the production of documents relating to the Jabiluka uranium mine.I think that today it became patently clear from the minister's statements in answering questions in the Senate that the minister has not met anywhere near the scope of the order for the production of documents by the parliament. He has not supplied any of the material going to or coming from the Kakadu interdepartmental committee. This committee must have work plans, time lines, minutes of meetings and the like. They are being run out of Environment Australia; yet from his statements to the Senate we are supposed to believe that there is not a single document.He is also trying to wriggle out of this order by using quite extraordinary sophistry, saying he has provided lists of documents given to him by the department. He is hoping that we will not realise that both he and his department have not complied with the return to order and hoping no doubt that we will run out of steam in pursuing this matter. He has made assertions to the Senate that he would not table emails that were not on file, and yet there were no emails tabled. It is impossible to believe that there were no emails on file and we can only assume that the minister has chosen not to table those communications with his department.The minister leads us to believe in his tabling statement that there were legal opinions that he was refusing to give to the Senate, yet there were no legal opinions on any of the lists of documents—those submitted and those withheld. Are we to believe that the minister sought but received none? The minister said he would not table draft documents. He just said he would not, yet they fall under the scope of this return to order and he has tabled previous drafts of documents in other returns to order.The minister said he would not table documents that may affect our international relations. We do not know if they will; this is just an assertion by him. We suggested reasonably that an eminent third party agreeable to him and to the Senate look at the documents to see if he was telling the truth, and he again refused to consider that.The minister has also said in this place that he only wants to present the World Heritage Committee with the truth and the facts. If the documents that he is withholding are only about the truth and the facts, why does he want to hide them? The minister will not table a letter he sent to the World Heritage Committee chair because, he says, he will not do that without the permission of the addressees. Yet he tables 11 others to the same committee, presumably without the permission of the addressees. The minister has made arbitrary decisions to withhold many documents that have been ordered by the Senate and he uses other techniques to hide documents covered by that order.This is a very serious matter as it is an attempt to subvert the meaningful scrutiny by the parliament of the executive. The return to order was for a very reasonable period of time—only 16 weeks—and was only on one issue. Surely there would not be too many files and it would not take too long to copy them for the Senate.Today I ask all senators in this place to take very careful note of the minister's inadequate response to the return to order and of the answers that he has given to the Democrats on this issue in this place. In our view, he is weaving a very complicated web, trying to get out of this, and he is hoping that we will just give up on the matter. I am here to say today that the Democrats simply will not be doing that.Question resolved in the affirmative.300115:32:003001Watson, Sen JohnSenator WATSONVJ4TASLP10—I move:That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Assistant Treasurer (Senator Kemp), to a question without notice asked by Senator Ferguson today, relating to the superannuation surcharge.I was absolutely delighted to hear from the Assistant Treasurer this afternoon of the proposed removal of the advance instalment requirement of the superannuation contributions surcharge. The proposed removal of the advance instalment requirement really simpli fies the administrative arrangements for collection. It will lead to very significant cost savings in the future—I would submit it could be hundreds of thousands of dollars—that will flow not only to those who are subject to the surcharge but also to the millions of superannuation fund members who have to bear part of the cost of the administrative surcharge in terms of the calculation of the advance payment. It has indeed been a contentious and a difficult issue. For example, the advance payment is not paid in respect of defined benefit funds.Honourable senators would be aware that contributions paid after 7.30 p.m. on 20 August 1996 are subject to the surcharge. The surcharge is payable on superannuation contributions where the member's adjusted taxable income for this financial year exceeds the surcharge threshold of $72,220 for 1997-98. The term `adjusted taxable income' is the ordinary taxable income of the taxpayer plus the amount of the surchargable superannuation contributions.By way of background, the tax office calculates the rate and the amount of surcharge and makes an assessment directed to the holder of the contributions, and this can be one of a number of different people. The maximum rate of surcharge is 15 per cent and the surcharge is generally payable within one month of the assessment. As to the liability, where the surcharge is payable for a member for a financial year—the advance instalment that has now been removed—50 per cent is generally payable on account of the surcharge by 15 June in the following year. That is where some of the complications came in and that is why I applaud the removal of this advance payment. Both this step and the associated administrative difficulties will now be eliminated and will reduce the administrative cost for all members of the funds.What are the advantages? The collection mechanism is of considerable administrative complexity and causes increased costs for all members of the fund. One of the most complicated elements of this—this add-on, this 50 per cent—will now be taken away, and I think this was a matter that was raised when it was first looked at by the superannuation committee. A number of members present in the Senate were members of that committee.The proposal will simplify the administrative collection of the surcharge and, as I said, will lead to significant cost savings in the future. Some of the key advantages that will accrue include the following. It is more efficient because it removes a number of steps from this quite complicated collection process, and that has got to be good. It will save employers and superannuation funds significant amounts of time and money. It will also simplify the Australian Taxation Office workload. It will also reduce the number of staff members there to administer the surcharge. It will also eliminate the need for superannuation funds to hold reserves to cover the advance instalment, which was always a complicated issue. This will increase the fund liquidity, and obviously that is good for all members, particularly around 15 June when the second group instalment assessment and the advance instalment are due at the same time. In practice, many funds have needed to borrow to pay the advance instalment. That will no longer be necessary. The interest costs of borrowing will probably have been borne by all members. The whole purpose of introducing the surcharge was on account of equity. The removal of this advance payment improves the equity substantially of the surcharge regime. National savings will be also enhanced. (Time expired)15:37:003002O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TASALP00—On this matter it is important to note, firstly, that this ministerial statement in effect arose from a dorothy dix question in question time. It should have been done by way of a ministerial statement. The situation with regard to the superannuation surcharge, or tax as we would prefer to call it, is that the opposition said that there were significant problems in its administration. The answer from the minister today now confirms that the opposition's position about the problems with the administration of that surcharge are proven correct. We need time to have a good look at these proposals.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! The time for the debate has expired.Question resolved in the affirmative.300210001CLERK ASSISTANTThe Clerk—A petition has been lodged for presentation as follows:30023972656Forshaw Sen MichaelTo the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled:The petition of certain residents of the Central Coast draws to the attention of the Senate and the House of Representatives the dire need for a third lane on the F3 Freeway between Sydney and the Central Coast.The sections of the Freeway with only two lanes are clearly inadequate, as has been demonstrated by the delays caused following recent accidents at Mt. White. Both lanes were blocked and traffic was unable to pass causing severe distress to many motorists.We call for the immediate upgrading of the F3 Freeway to three lanes between the Central Coast and Sydney—recognising its vital importance to our local community.Senator Forshaw656Senator Forshaw(from 3,972 citizens)Petition received.Notices30023002Senator Ian Campbell to move, on the next day of sitting:(1) That a select committee, to be known as the Select Committee on Information Technologies, be appointed to inquire into and report on such matters as may be referred to it by the Senate.(2) That the committee consist of 8 senators, 4 to be nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, 2 to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, 1 to be nominated by the Leader of the Australian Democrats, and 1 independent senator.(3) That the committee may proceed to the dispatch of business notwithstanding that not all members have been duly nominated and appointed and notwithstanding any vacancy.(4) That the chair be elected by and from the members of the committee.(5) That the deputy chair be elected by and from the members of the committee from the non-government members immediately after the election of the chair. (6) That the deputy chair act as chair when there is no chair or the chair is not present at a meeting.(7) That, in the event of the votes on any question before the committee being equally divided, the chair, or deputy chair when acting as chair, have a casting vote.(8) That the committee and any subcommittee have power to send for and examine persons and documents, to move from place to place, to sit in public or in private, notwithstanding any prorogation of the Parliament or dissolution of the House of Representatives, and have leave to report from time to time its proceedings and the evidence taken and such recommendations as it may deem fit.(9) That the committee have power to appoint subcommittees consisting of three or more of its members and to refer to any such subcommittee any of the matters which the committee is empowered to consider.(10) That the committee be provided with all necessary staff, facilities and resources and be empowered to appoint persons with specialist knowledge for the purposes of the committee with the approval of the President.(11) That the committee be empowered to print from day to day such documents and evidence as may be ordered by it, and a daily Hansard be published of such proceedings as take place in public.(12) The committee have power to consider and use for its purposes the minutes of evidence and records of the select committees on: Community Standards Relevant to the Supply of Services Utilising Telecommunications Technologies; Community Standards Relevant to the Supply of Services Utilising Electronic Technologies; andInformation Technologies.Senator O'Brien, at the request of Senator Jacinta Collins, to move, on the next day of sitting:That the Employment, Workplace Relations, Small Business and Education References Committee be authorised to hold a public meeting during the sitting of the Senate on 25 March 1999, from 4 pm, to take evidence for the committee's inquiry into the employment incentive and education impacts of the Government's taxation reform legislation proposals and the provisions of the bills implementing the proposed new tax system. Committees3003300330033003Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT5F4TASLP10—Pursuant to notice given at the last day of sitting, on behalf of Senator O'Chee and the Regulations and Ordinances Committee, I withdraw business of the Senate notices of motion Nos 1, 2 and 3 standing in his name for four sitting days after today and business of the Senate notice of motion No. 1 standing in his name for six sitting days after today.Notices30033003Senator Brown to move, on the next day of sitting:That the Senate—(a) welcomes the timely and informative publication of `Forest-Friendly Building Timbers', a guide to using plantation-grown or recycled timbers instead of native forest timbers in building, renovation and design;(b) congratulates Earth Garden Publications, BBC Hardware Stores and the Wilderness Society for their initiative; and(c) urges the community to help protect Australia's wild forests and jobs by choosing forest-friendly building products.Senator Reynolds to move, on the next day of sitting:That the Senate—(a) expresses its grave concern that the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination has found that amendments to the Native Title legislation appear `to wind back protections of indigenous title offered in the Mabo decision of the High Court of Australia';(b) supports the committee's call for Australia `to address these concerns as a matter of utmost urgency';(c) urges the Government to immediately `reopen discussions with the representatives of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples with a view to finding solutions acceptable to the indigenous peoples and which would comply with Australia's obligations under the Convention'; and(d) invites the committee to visit Australia and to have discussions with the Government, indigenous people and members of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Native Title and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land Fund.Senator Ian Campbell to move, on the next day of sitting:That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the Criminal Code Act 1995, and for related purposes. Criminal Code Amendment (Slavery and Sexual Servitude) Bill 1999.15:41:003004Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—I give notice that on the next day of sitting I shall move:That the Senate—(a) notes that: (i) the Minister for the Environment and Heritage (Senator Hill) only partially complied with an order for production of documents made by the Senate on 18 February 1999, in that he did not supply many documents within the scope of the order and he drew arbitrary lines around the documents he has chosen to withhold, (ii) the Minister's grounds of refusal to supply those documents to the Senate changed in 48 hours, and he has not taken the opportunity to correct the record, (iii) the Minister refused to respond to a reasonable request to have a third party check the documents and make an assessment about whether he had responded in good faith to the order of the Senate, and (iv) the Minister has given unsatisfactory answers about this matter to the Senate, and continually tried to qualify the terms of the order by talking about `key documents' or `documents the department sent me'; and(b) censures the Minister for not complying fully with the order for the production of documents.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—Madam Deputy President, I raise a point of order. This falls way outside the standing orders. It is a speech; it is not a notice of motion. I ask you to either rule on it or refer it to the President immediately.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—I will refer it under standing order 76 to the President, but I have yet to hear the remainder—if Senator Allison wishes to speedily complete it.1M6Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON—Madam Deputy President, I am happy to table the rest.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Thank you.Miscellaneous300415:43:003004Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—I seek leave to clarify a matter before the Senate. I am not sure whether this is the appropriate time to do that.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Can you give us some indication what the matter is?1M6Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON—It relates to question time today.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—If you can give us some indication as to what the matter is people will have some idea as to whether they are prepared to give leave.1M6Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON—It relates to the minister's answer to my question yesterday about the production of documents. I would like a clarification.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—We just spent five minutes on this. I am not going to grant leave.Leave not granted.Notices30043004Motion (by Senator O'Brien, at the request of Senator Mackay) agreed to:That business of the Senate notice of motion no. 2 (relating to the reference of a matter to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee) and general business notice of motion no. 107 (proposing an order for the production of a document by the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Services (Senator Ian Macdonald)) standing in the name of Senator Mackay for today, be postponed till 3 sitting days after today.Motion (by Senator Margetts) agreed to:That general business notices of motion no. 146 (relating to the Government's proposal to reduce the price of diesel), no. 148 (racial discrimination) and no. 151 (certain proposals of the proposed new tax system) standing in her name for today, be postponed till the next day of sitting.Motion (by Senator Woodley) agreed to:That general business notice of motion no. 152 standing in his name for today, relating to native title legislation, be postponed till 29 March 1999.Motion (by Senator Calvert) agreed to:That business of the Senate order of the day no. 1, relating to the presentation of the report of the Economics Legislation Committee, be postponed till a later hour.Motion (by Senator Bartlett) agreed to:That business of the Senate notice of motion no. 1 standing in his name for today, relating to the disallowance of the Migration Amendment Regulations 1998 (No. 8) contained in Statutory Rules 1998 No. 285, be postponed till 31 March 1999.Miscellaneous3005Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell) agreed to:That—(a) the provisions of the following bills be withdrawn from the committees to which the bills were referred on 2 December 1998: A New Tax System (Fringe Benefits Reporting) Bill 1998 A New Tax System (Medicare Levy Surcharge—Fringe Benefits) Bill 1998; and(b) further consideration of the bills be made an order of the day for a later hour.Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell) agreed to:That the provisions of paragraphs (5) to (7) of standing order 111 not apply to the following bills, allowing them to be considered during this period of sittings:Airports Amendment Bill 1999Assistance for Carers Legislation Amendment Bill 1999Bounty (Ships) Amendment Bill 1999Financial Management Legislation Amendment Bill 1999Referendum Legislation Amendment Bill 1999.Committees300530053005Motion (by Senator O'Brien, at the request of Senator Jacinta Collins) agreed to:That the time for the presentation of the report of the Employment, Workplace Relations, Small Business and Education References Committee on regional employment and unemployment be extended to 29 June 1999. 30053005Motion (by Senator O'Brien) agreed to:That the following matters be referred to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee for inquiry and report by 30 June 1999:(a) future domestic and international marketing conditions facing the Australian dairy industry and those factors which are influencing Australia's competitiveness in these markets;(b) the pressures on the current industry regulatory arrangements such as the introduction of new technologies and competitor supplier countries such as New Zealand;(c) the impacts associated with the removal of the Domestic Market Support scheme on: (i) the dairy industry and rural and regional communities, and (ii) state marketing arrangements; and(d) measures which may be taken by government to facilitate the transition to a less regulated environment.Miscellaneous3005Motion (by Senator Brown) put:That the Senate—(a) notes the proposal for an international airport on Kooragang Island, Newcastle, a project which would: (i) demolish the largest wetland rehabilitation project in the southern hemisphere, (ii) be directly adjacent to wetlands which come under the protection of three international treaties to which Australia is a signatory, including the Ramsar treaty aimed at protecting migratory birds, and (iii) be close to some of the most densely urbanised areas of Newcastle, exposing them to the kind of flight path noise pollution which has caused Sydney residents so much distress; and(b) condemns the proposal.15:53:00The Senate divided. (The President—Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid)6Allison, L. Bartlett, A. J. J.Bourne, V. *Brown, B.Margetts, D. Stott Despoja, N.49Abetz, E. Bishop, T. M.Brownhill, D. G. C. Calvert, P. H.Campbell, G. Campbell, I. G.Carr, K. Chapman, H. G. P.Collins, J. M. A. Coonan, H.Cooney, B. Crane, W.Crossin, P. M. Crowley, R. A.Denman, K. J. Ellison, C.Evans, C. V. Ferris, J.Forshaw, M. G. Gibbs, B.Heffernan, W. Herron, J.Hill, R. M. Hogg, J.Kemp, R. Knowles, S. C.Lightfoot, P. R. Lundy, K.MacGibbon, D. J. McGauran, J. J. J.McKiernan, J. P. Murphy, S. M.Newman, J. M. O'Brien, K. W. K. *Parer, W. R. Patterson, K. C. L.Payne, M. A.Quirke, J. A.Ray, R. F. Reid, M. E.Reynolds, M. Schacht, C. C.Synon, K. M. Tambling, G. E. J.Tierney, J. Troeth, J.Vanstone, A. E. Watson, J. O. W.West, S. M.Question so resolved in the negative.Ministerial Statements3006300615:57:003006Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I table a statement by the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation entitled Safety of fire doors: notice of investigation and warning to the public . I seek leave to incorporate the statement in Hansard .Leave granted.The statement read as follows—Concerns about the safety of consumers in a large number of high occupancy buildings have led me to issue a notice of investigation and warning to the public under section 65B of the Trade Practices Act 1974 .The Notice advises that a particular type of fire door, that is, fire doors using a Pyrokor core which were manufactured between 1993 and 3 September 1998, are under investigation to determine whether they will or may cause injury to any person. The notice was published in a special Commonwealth Government Gazette on Friday 19 March 1999.Allegations that these fire doors do not meet mandatory building safety standards were first brought to my attention on 22 February 1999. I then asked the Department of the Treasury to obtain urgent technical advice from State/Territory building regulators and the Australian Building Codes Board on this issue and advise me accordingly.Fire doors are required to satisfy the safety performance requirements of the Building Code of Australia 1996, which requires the doors to impede the passage of fire through a building. This means that fire doors must be manufactured and installed in accordance with Australian Standard 1905, Part 1.In accordance with the Australian Standard, fire doors must be subjected to a standard fire test and be fire rated. For example, a fire door with a fire rating of one hour must impede the passage of fire through the door for at least one hour and a 2 hour fire rated door for at least two.Fire doors therefore provide more time to enable the occupants of a building to evacuate in the event of a fire.I have been provided with copies of fire door certification schedules which claim the Pyrokor fire doors meet the Building Code requirements. However, I have concerns about the validity of the certifications for two reasons.Firstly, a number of the fire test reports being referenced actually show that the Pyrokor fire doors did not obtain the minimum fire rating of one hour.Secondly, test reports on fire doors constructed of different materials were being referenced and reliance on these test reports would be invalid.Thus the Pyrokor fire doors have been represented as complying with safety requirements, when they may not comply.The ACCC is currently investigating the certificates of compliance for breaches of sections 52, 53(a) and 55 of the Trade Practices Act which deal with misleading and deceptive conduct and false representations.This may have serious implications for those with responsibility for the inspection and approval of building works. While enforcement of the Building Code of Australia is a State/Territory responsibility, the relevant Departments responsible for building regulation do not enforce the Building Code of Australia. This is done by local Councils, which have the power to approve building construction and declare buildings fit for occupancy or unsafe as the case may be.If Councils were led to believe that the doors met required standards, they would naturally have approved the buildings. The Department has now written to State/Territory departments responsible for building regulation and asked that this matter be brought to the attention of local councils.Under the Trade Practices Act 1974 , I have a range of powers to protect the public from unsafe goods. I can publish a notice stating that specified goods are under investigation and warning of the possible risk involved in their use.I can also order the compulsory recall of goods if it appears to me that the goods "will or may cause injury" to any person and the supplier has not taken satisfactory action to prevent the goods causing injury to any person.Fire doors that do not meet the relevant mandatory safety requirements of the Building Code of Australia may not provide the level of safety and protection expected by the community and Government.I have also received expert technical advice from CSIRO that the installation of a Pyrokor door that does not meet the safety requirements represents a varying degree of life and property hazard. The hazard could be extreme in situations where the occupants are asleep or incapacitated, for example, hospitals and nursing homes.In other occupancies, which contain various combinations of smoke detection and fire control systems, the risk to life would be considerably reduced, particularly if the buildings were only occupied for work purposes.I have been advised that Pyrokor fire doors manufactured between 1993 and 3 September 1998 are installed in hospitals, nursing homes, schools, major shopping centres, stores and supermarkets, high rise home units, government buildings and private business premises.Before considering the need to order a compulsory recall under the Trade Practices Act, I need to establish conclusively that the fire doors in question fail the Building Code safety requirements and that those failures actually pose a threat to the safety of occupants of buildings.Minor technical breaches of the safety requirements may not provide sufficient evidence that the Pyrokor fire doors "will or may cause injury" and, as a consequence lead me to use my powers to order a compulsory recall under the Trade Practices Act.I have asked the Department of the Treasury, therefore, to commission urgent testing of the fire doors by the CSIRO, to establish conclusively whether or not the fire doors installed in buildings meet safety requirements and to assess the safety implications, if the fire doors do not meet Building Code fire test requirements. These tests may provide conclusive evidence on which to base a compulsory recall under the Trade Practices Act 1974 .Although there are varying degrees of risk, I am not prepared to take any chances when there is a potential risk to the lives of consumers and have therefore issued the notice of investigation and warning to the public under section 65B of the Trade Practices Act 1974 .On completion of the investigation and testing of the Pyrokor fire doors, I will publish a further notice advising what action I intend to take.Committees30073007300715:58:003007Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEYSF4VICALP00—I present report No. 19 of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties entitled The fifth protocol to the General Agreement on Trade in Services and five treaties tabled on 30 June 1998 , together with submissions, the Hansard record of proceedings and minutes, and move:That the Senate take note of the report.I seek leave to have my tabling statement incorporated in Hansard .Leave granted.The report read as follows—This report considers a number of bilateral and multilateral treaties which cover international investment, telecommunications, nuclear energy, extradition arrangements, whaling and access to medical treatment for visitors to Australia.In each case the Committee has concluded that it is in Australia's interest to ratify the proposed treaties.In the brief time available to me, I will summarise our comments on each the treaties considered in this report.Although a number of concerns were raised in submissions to the Committee about the Fifth Protocol to the General Agreement on Trade in Services, the Committee considers that the Protocol will be of benefit to Australian companies seeking to trade in services in international markets. The Committee does not believe that the Protocol will impose any obligations on Australia that are inconsistent with the financial sector reforms introduced following the Wallis Committee of Inquiry into the Australian Financial System.The radio frequency management changes resulting from the revision of the International Telecommunications Union's Radio Regulations will be of direct benefit to Australian users of the radio frequency spectrum. It will allow greater access to high-frequency broadcasting and mobile satellite services (of particular advantage to people in rural and remote areas), and will minimise interference in distress and emergency calls.Australia's nuclear safeguard arrangements will be usefully enhanced by the Plutonium Transfer Arrangement with the European Atomic Energy Community. The Transfer Arrangement will maintain the integrity of the safeguards, while at the same time simplifying the transfer of Australian derived plutonium to Japan, Australia's second biggest uranium export market.The final three treaties considered in the report were also considered to be in Australia's national interest:the Extradition Treaty with Poland extends Australia's network of modernised extradition arrangements;the Amendments to the Whaling Convention reflect Australia's continued commitment to the international moratorium on whaling; andthe amendments to the medical services agreement with New Zealand ensure that an appropriate balance is restored to the arrangements that provide reciprocal health care for Australian visitors in New Zealand and New Zealand visitors in Australia.In conclusion, and on behalf of the Committee Chairman Mr Thomson, can I thank all those who gave evidence to the Committee. By doing so they contributed to the important process of promote greater transparency in the treaty-making process.I commend the report to the Senate.SF4Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEY—This being a broadcast day, I should explain exactly what is happening here. Up until a short time ago, treaties simply were made between governments and that was the end of that. Since then, a committee has been set up which looks at all the treaties that come Australia's way. An all-party committee looks at them and sees what is in the national interest and what is not, and so gives an oversight of the material that is developed between various countries.Today, for example, the committee looked at matters dealing with international investment, telecommunications, nuclear energy, extradition arrangements with Poland, whaling and the medical treatment that people from New Zealand can get in Australia—whether they can get that without paying for it or otherwise. The committee deals with matters which, although developed on a worldwide scale, have direct relevance to people in Australia. It develops relationships in a proper way, hopefully, with the rest of the world. I take this opportunity to commend the secretariat, as set out in the report. The secretariat consists of the secretary, Grant Harrison; Ms Cheryl Scarlett; Mr Jon Bonnar, a researcher; and Ms Elizabeth Halliday. Not mentioned is Mr Patrick Regan, who also does great work.Question resolved in the affirmative.300830083008Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT5F4TASLP10—On behalf of the respective chairs, I present the following reports of legislation committees on annual reports:Employment, Workplace Relations, Small Business and EducationEnvironment, Communications, Information Technology and the ArtsFinance and Public AdministrationForeign Affairs, Defence and TradeLegal and ConstitutionalRural and Regional Affairs and Transport.Ordered that the reports be printed.Bills3008r6023008Consideration resumed from 22 March.16:02:003008O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TASALP00—With the adjournment of the Telstra debate—10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Knowles)—I am sorry, Senator, I thought you were going to draw attention to the state of the chamber. May I advise the committee exactly where we are at the moment. The committee is considering Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1998 . The question is that schedule 3, item 1, stand as printed.8O6O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN—As I was saying, this matter resumed last night on the adjournment of the debate on the Telstra (Transition to Full Private Ownership) Bill 1998 . I asked Senator Tambling, who moved the adjournment, when the Telstra debate would resume, and Senator Tambling told the Senate that the debate would resume today.Given that there has been some change in the program, I wonder if the minister could indicate to the chamber why this matter is proceeding now and why the Telstra debate is not on the red for today and is not proceeding?16:03:003009Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I am happy to deal with that, although it is entirely irrelevant to the tax debate; it is a matter of management. The Manager of Opposition Business was contacted by me early yesterday evening, many hours prior to the adjournment—Senator O'Brien interjecting—H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—Yes, indeed. The question was asked in that conversation. I do not reveal private conversations that I have with the Manager of Opposition Business, and he has the same practice. But it is a matter of public record that the debate was adjourned at the conclusion of the debate at the second reading stage. In fact—this is revealing another private discussion—your shadow minister for telecommunications, Mr Smith, approached me on an aeroplane on Sunday night asking when the committee stage would come on. It is actually an issue that both sides have discussed: will we deal with the committee stage this week or not?The government's position is that the Telstra debate will resume at a time that the government will propose, and it will be when discussions on outstanding issues—with senators who retain an open mind on the progress of the Telstra debate—are concluded. That is where it is at. It has been very open. It has been no secret. The Manager of Oppo sition Business was informed within minutes of the government making that decision. I asked if he would raise it. All other senators in this place were informed through either my secretary, the Manager of Government Business or the PLO.WW4KEMPSenator Kemp—All the fuss last night was pathetic.H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—I do not know whether Senator O'Brien is out of the loop or not, but Senator Carr certainly did not raise any objections or discussions with me. Maybe there is a problem with communications on the opposition side. I certainly communicated the decision of the government, within minutes of it being made, to Senator Carr, which is what I always seek to do.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—Thank you, Senator Campbell. The committee is considering Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1998 , and the question is that schedule 3, item 1, stand as printed. You need to be relevant to that, Senator O'Brien. All comments need to be relevant to the matter before the committee.16:05:003009O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TASALP00—In being relevant to the matter, let me say that I was responding to comments that Senator Tambling made last night, not private comments which were made outside the meeting. But I draw your attention to the state of the chamber. (Quorum formed)10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—I remind the committee that the committee is considering the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1998 . The question is that schedule 3, item 1, stand as printed.16:08:003009Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—My understanding is that we have reached the point in the debate when it is appropriate for the opposition to declare its position on the amendment moved by Senator Margetts. That being the case, let me say we do not support the amendment.16:09:003009Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I do realise that I started this speech on 18 February, and I do realise that, when I concluded my contribution on this particular amendment, it was last night and Senator Cook was not here. I just wonder if Senator Cook could enlighten us as to why the ALP has taken this position.16:09:003010Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—It is a direct question to me and it deserves an answer. I was not here last night when you completed your contribution, Senator Margetts, although I have had the details of your contribution reported to me—although not yet with the benefit of Hansard .WW4KEMPSenator Kemp—You have read the Hansard today.RF4Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOK—I have not read the Hansard today, to be honest. I know the Hansard is available but I have not had a chance to do that, given the pressure of other business. However, it is a fair question and let me answer it. The reason we do not support this amendment is that we believe that it imposes too heavy a compliance cost and enacts—if it were to be carried—provisions that put restrictive red tape on a number of persons and companies, and it is inappropriate to do so for efficiency reasons of tax.16:10:003010Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I want to add something in response to Senator Cook's answer to my question, and I thank Senator Cook for responding. I was talking in my contribution—and I am sure this has been reported to Senator Cook—about the position taken in relation to the government's compliance concerns for some elements of business and, as Senator Cook would be well aware, how little that concern seems to extend to community groups and charity groups in relation to the new ANTS tax package. I also compared it to some of the elements of compliance cost that have been shovelled onto social security recipients, otherwise known these days, or hidden, as clients.I have a list from 1994, but I guess that was a previous government. But, from 1996, the list reads like a nightmare. There were changes in July 1996, January 1997, March 1997, July 1997, September 1997, several changes in January 1998, several changes in July 1998 and March 1998. These changes have added to the complexity and onerous nature of compliance for people on all sorts of social security benefits. I wonder whether we are being asked to take concern for only one group of people—that is, certain groups within industry—and say, `Okay, even if what you are doing is basically tax avoidance, we will overlook that provided there is a compliance cost involved.'I can see that I am not going to win on this one, but I felt it was necessary to put on the record that we have two ways of dealing with people. If you are in business, we will be concerned about your time and compliance costs. If you are already struggling, and if you are already in difficulties in relation to being a recipient of some kind of social security payment, then that compliance cost is irrelevant or is just seen to be an issue of accountability. Here we have an issue of accountability which is passed over simply because it is a business cost and considered to be a compliance cost. I believe that really is double standards, to say the least. But I can count and I realise what the result will be.16:13:003010Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—I would just say to the minister that I think the point made is a good one for government to look at, and that is: if the principle of compliance and simplicity is to be established across all taxation legislation, we should be as alert to the impact on individuals and those who are least capable in our community as we are to the impact on businesses. I think that is a useful point to note.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Knowles)—The question is that schedule 3, item 1, stand as printed.Question resolved in the affirmative.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—The question is that the bill stand as printed.16:14:003010Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—The rest of my amendments are also not in the nature of amendments; they are asking that sections be opposed. I spoke to all six because they were related to the same issue, and I guess it is just a matter of asking that the rest of the questions be put in terms of the sections.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—Senator, do you wish to have them put? If the first one was agreed to, then the others are redundant because they are consequential.16:15:003011Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I cannot put 1 to 6 because they are not amendments. I am stuck here. I need some advice.10000Margetts, Sen DeeThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—You can deal with them separately if you wish, but they are redundant because they are consequential upon the decision of the first question that was put.16:15:003011Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—That being the case, the Senate has made its decision.Bill agreed to.Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.3011Bill (on motion by Senator Kemp) read a third time.Bills3011r6553011Debate resumed from 22 March, on motion by Senator Newman:That this bill be now read a second time.16:16:003011Denman, Sen KaySenator DENMANFY5TASALP00—I rise to speak on the Health Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1999 and to explain to my fellow Tasmanians why most of this policy is bad for Australia and even worse for Tasmania. I am often asked by my constituents why we are blocking the government's reform agenda in the Senate and whether it be political point scoring. The answer to those questions is that we have no choice if I am to do my job of protecting and agitating for the best outcomes for Australians but, more importantly, for Tasmanians.If we were dealing with well thought out policies that were going to allow equity and access to quality services regardless of income or geography, then the story might be different. But that is not the case. So I rise again to address the obvious deficiencies in this policy, as, without changes, it will damage the integrity of our health system and compromise the health of the Australian citizen. If the private health care industry had a track record of maintaining a balance between premium rises and a concern for the health of Australians, we may have supported this bill in its entirety, but that is not the case.Most of us will remember prior to Christmas the debate concerning the last wave of bills passed by the present government that, in effect, gave public taxes to subsidise private health care when, due to the savagery of the cuts in public health care expenditure, that system is haemorrhaging. This act of public health terrorism revealed that the true agenda of the government is to introduce an American-style health system into this country by transferring public revenue to private companies, largely based outside this country. Thus, the audacity of some parts of this bill is staggering when you realise that part of the intention is to allow greater freedom for the private health industry to set its own charges by moving the monitoring of premium increases away from the minister's office and into the hands of the industry.The cost to the public inherent in this bill has to be realised by the Australian public as it could be astronomical. The reason for this is that the Australian taxpayer is now subsidising 30 per cent of the cost of premiums. This is not a capped amount but a percentage. Thus, as premiums increase, so does the Australian taxpayers' liability; and if by some miracle the percentage of members increases, that also represents a tax liability.The public needs to be aware of just how much the liability will be. For every one per cent increase in the population taking up private health cover, it will cost $45 million per annum, based on the 30 per cent rebate. For every one per cent increase in premiums, it will cost the government an average of $13 million, based on the 30 per cent rebate. Remember that every dollar paid to the private health insurers represents money that will not be available for public health expenditure—money that will not be available to reduce the waiting lists and money that will not be available in Tasmania to fix the huge shortfall in the health budget that is a legacy of the Howard government. This has been compounded by the government's state colleagues, who paid the same bill twice and raided the trust funds of community groups in an attempt to cover up the callous indifference their federal colleagues showed by reducing health care to Tasmania in real terms.Again, this government's ideological drive will devastate regional and rural Australia. There is no reference to social costs in their economic models and no reference to economies of scale and higher infrastructure costs that are not due to inefficiencies of the public model but are inherent in smaller communities' economies and are further compounded in Tasmania by the inadequate compensation given by this government to address the island status of my home state.Not only does this bill seek to remove from public control premium increases; it also seeks to remove the obligations to cover palliative care, psychiatric care and rehabilitation. The reason the private health insurers have for jettisoning this aspect of the coverage is purely profit driven and vividly illustrates the inherent problems when too much reliance is placed on private industry for all our health care.This amendment will serve to shift the higher cost aspects of health care away from the private industry and onto the back of the public. The costs of rehabilitation and palliative and psychiatric care are often high due to the length of time involved in these services and, thus, would represent a substantial shift in bed time allocation away from the private and onto the public purse. This policy is essentially aimed at removing the care of the elderly and terminally ill away from the hands of the private insurers, in a callous disregard for the health needs of Australians, by not offering the choice that has been the main plank that industry and government have used to argue for their policy position.The inconsistencies of both the private health insurers and the government become apparent. The justification used by this government for maintaining a private industry has been the sacred chalice called `choice'. But when it comes to rehabilitation and palliative and psychiatric care, choice is no longer important. Thus, we see that the government's real obligation is not to look after the health care of Australians, particularly that of the elderly and terminally ill, but to look after their friends in the private health industry.The cost focus of the private health industry becomes further evident when it is realised that, although it no longer wants responsibility for palliative, psychiatric and rehabilitation care, it wants to cover office based surgery. The cost of providing day surgery is small in comparison with long-term treatments, and the occasions of service are numerous. Thus, the industry would make large profits with small initial outlays. However, some day surgery requires specialist equipment and expertise, and that is why the AMA stated in their submission that owing to the lack of `detail relating to the administrative requirements for ministerial approval for facilities or procedures', it is not in a position to endorse the arrangements.Interestingly, I saw an article in the press at the weekend about this very issue—day surgery and some of the people performing day surgery not having the expertise to back up the decisions they make in using anaesthetics to knock out their patients, or whatever they do. It is apparently causing quite a few problems, and it is an area that needs to be looked at. Thus, a common theme rears its head—lack of detail. In other words, ill-conceived and superficial policy aimed at appeasing the people in the private health industry, with some tokenistic policy thrown in to give the appearance that they are concerned with the health of ordinary Australians. Not only could this bill allow private health insurers eventually to set their own levels of premiums, without the ministerial discretion that now exists; it could result in undermining the control of specialists' fees that exists via Medicare. If the private insurers were allowed to set charges for specialists, as in the United States, the result would most likely be the same as the American result—a dramatic increase in the fees that specialists charge and the two-tier health system would be well on its way.It pleases me that there are some aspects of this bill we can support. We are a responsible opposition and have proven that, when policy is in the best interests of the Australian public, we do support it, regardless of where it originates. The loyalty bonus seeks to reward those individuals who have stuck with their private insurers. Given the recent track record of the private health insurance industry, they should receive a medal for loyalty, not just a bonus. But the intent of the policy is sound, so we support it, proving yet again that we are not obstructionist unless the wellbeing of Australian society is in danger of being compromised.We also support longer waiting list periods for some types of medical treatment in an attempt to address the hit-and-run phenomena that can disadvantage other consumers of private health, and we conditionally support a limited exemption of the pharmaceutical gap payment for in-hospital expenses, provided a strict definition applies. I wish the Howard government would think through their policy direction so that we can waste less time continually helping them get it right.16:28:003013Lees, Sen MegSenator LEES8U4SAAD00—In this debate on the Health Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1999 , let me say at the outset that the Democrats are more than just a little disappointed with this government's obsession with private health insurance. This year, certainly, every piece of legislation that we have so far dealt with, or are planning to deal with, relates in some way to private health insurance. Surely it is about time this government started focusing on many of the real issues in health, focusing on the key issues that actually affect all of our health system—public and private. Perhaps it is about time it took another look at the Industry Commission recommendation that a broad inquiry should be conducted into Australia's health system to make sure that it is sustainable, that it is one that is going to suit and serve us as we move to the year 2000 and beyond.We certainly support a full inquiry of some sort. Indeed, we have been working towards it in a small way on our own by trying to bring together interested individuals and groups that want to have some discussions about the future of our health service and its structure. But, as we see yet another piece of legislation here dealing yet again with private health insurance, we wonder if the government is not so focused on this issue that it has forgotten about virtually everything else.Surely it is about time we looked at some of the major structural problems in our health system, the clashes between state and federal and the overlaps there that allow so much buck-passing and cost shifting, and to look too at some of the many work force issues. I know that the minister has an interest in some of these, but we do not see anything coming from this government that really will start addressing in some concrete form, firstly, the issue of where doctors are and where they are not. That isn't just rural; it is also in outlying areas around our capital cities, areas between what is generally described as rural Australia and the cities. We also need to be looking at allied health professionals, at nurses, and at midwifery in particular. But we see very little evidence that the government is interested in these issues.We should be looking at better integration of the health system and how we can get various sectors of the health industry working far better together—not just protecting their patches but actually working to deliver more efficient and better quality care. There is the whole issue of dental health. The government has simply decided to defund the Commonwealth dental program, pass it back to the states and hope for the best. Well, the best has not happened. It has been an absolute disaster. When we hear so many people who are interested in this area telling us of the health consequences of people waiting 12 months, 14 months, two years and more in some parts of rural Australia to have basic fillings attended to, we see the need to integrate those issues and the whole question of dental health back into the Commonwealth's health program. We should be looking at developing better information management in health care so that we have the data available, shared between all players, to enable us to better plan and deliver services. Then, of course, there are all the other areas, including mental health and Aboriginal health. But we are here again dealing with private health insurance.I will go very quickly through the bill. Schedule 1 part 1 clarifies and formalises the current practices of offering premium discounts in specific circumstances. Generally, the Democrats are supportive of the basic thrust of these changes. We have argued in the past that private health insurance funds should be more innovative in developing products that meet consumers' needs. But we do have some concerns about the equity implications of this measure. The less well-off will be less likely to have the financial resources to be able to pay up-front, to pay in advance, and therefore higher income earners are going to be the ones more likely offered the discounts because they can pay up-front. They are far more likely than low income earners to be able to put the money in as part of salary packaging. However, we do appreciate that if the discounts are there they are based on improved administrative arrangements and so those less able to benefit from this measure will not actually be paying for the measure that is offered to others. As the minister determines by disallowable instrument the maximum discount able to be offered, we are satisfied that there is reasonable opportunity for this practice to be scrutinised, and therefore we will be supporting it.Schedule 1 part 2 introduces another mechanism to encourage loyalty to the private health insurance company and therefore to encourage people to continue their private health insurance. The bill states that bonuses must not undermine the principle of community rating, but we do have some concerns as to how this is actually going to be interpreted. For example, although the legislation currently requires adherence to community rating principles, we are aware that some policies already arguably undermine this basic principle with all the exclusions they have begun to build in. You can get policies leaving out joint replacements and policies leaving out bypass surgery. So I do question what is happening in this area. I have not heard anything from the minister about any government concerns, so presumably they are not worried about that being a problem. I understand that any bonuses would have to be offered to all policyholders who have that particular type of policy, but I still think there is some scope for undermining the principle of community rating by selecting the policies for which these bonuses are offered. I appreciate that the Senate would be able to scrutinise any guidelines for bonuses specified in regulations, and therefore we will be supporting this measure today.Schedule 1 part 3 proposes that waiting periods may be extended for certain conditions, ailments or illnesses, but as yet these have not been specified to us. The aim is to discourage the practice of people opportunistically taking out private health insurance, getting whatever the procedure is that they want, that they had planned for, and then opting out maybe for the next 10 or 15 years until they want another procedure. But it is not clear whether, or how much, this would discourage such practice. There is some potential for it to be used to discriminate against people with particular conditions or perhaps specific disabilities.Therefore, we are moving an amendment requiring the minister to take into account the impact of extending waiting periods on specific groups in the community and also the impact on the public health system. This amendment also requires the minister to consider evidence—I stress the word `evidence'—that the relevant illnesses and conditions are actually being subjected to this hit-and-run practice now. I presume that the health insurance funds did have that evidence before they pushed the minister to put this particular legislation through parliament. We must see that there is a genuine reason for the funds wanting to extend the waiting period for those illnesses.Schedule 1 part 4: the Democrats support the proposal to allow health funds to pay the co-payment for pharmaceutical benefits. This is a sensible option and one I congratulate the government for. It is about time that we dealt with the whole issue of out-of-pocket expenses for people who go into hospital believing that they have 100 per cent cover. I encourage the minister to work with industry to get rid of out-of-pocket expenses, which I think is one of the greatest impediments to people taking out private health insurance. This is for those who have 100 per cent cover and, as I said, it is a sensible move.Schedule 1 part 5: the Democrats do appreciate that, due to advances in medical technology, certain procedures may now be safely performed both outside of the normal hospital setting and also outside a day surgery hospital. We believe that, where appropriate, consumers undergoing minor procedures should have some choice and if they so choose they could have the more convenient location and what would often be a lower cost option. We are, however, concerned that this measure could disadvantage uninsured patients. Again, this government's fixation with private health insurance and those who have that is to the detriment of those who choose to stay with the public system. Under this proposal, the Medicare rebate is going to drop from 85 per cent of the schedule fee to 75 per cent. The idea is that the fund picks up the rest, but those people who are not privately insured will face a bigger out-of-pocket expense than they do now. I point out to those listening now that the number of patients who are attending private day surgery facilities who are not insured is increasing rapidly. Indeed, in some day surgery centres the majority of people attending are not privately insured.Therefore, more and more Australians are looking at private health insurance, even with the 30 per cent rebate, and saying, `No, thank you. I will insure myself. I will put money away month by month, and have a small nest egg there, should I ever require it.' Why should we disadvantage those people who are making a conscious decision to look after themselves and are not choosing an insurance product?I am aware that a number of groups have raised concerns about this with the minister and also that some of these groups have ranged out into the whole issue of quality control and have raised concerns about that. The Democrats believe it is vital that, in changing the venue for surgical procedures, the risk of cross-infection, or indeed any adverse event at all, is minimised. Therefore, we will be supporting the opposition's amendments to require approved facilities to meet the same accreditation and quality assurance procedures that apply to day surgeries under the relevant state or territory legislation.We will also be supporting the opposition's amendment which clarifies that procedures specified for the additional benefit are limited to those that are actually relocated from a hospital or day surgery or presumably, in some cases, to doctor's rooms. We also support the opposition's request to the House of Representatives to provide an increased rebate to uninsured patients—in other words, that they should not be dropped back to the 75 per cent.Schedule 2 is an area that the Democrats simply cannot support. We have faced this battle before where funds want to deliberately take out anything relating to psychiatric care, palliative care and rehabilitation. It is not fair and reasonable to do that. In fact, we do not know why they want to do it when few of the procedures would probably fall into this area, and when the measure is going to be determined by the minister anyway. I see it as another attempt by the funds to get rid of procedures that are often expensive and that are often long-term problems that do not have easy day surgery procedures to fix them. They often involve a lengthy hospital stay and to want to exclude them from this is not satisfactory. Indeed, there may well be times when it is highly appropriate.Looking at schedule 3—the last schedule—we strongly disagree with the transferring of responsibility for increases in premiums away from the minister. I think this is an example of how worried the minister is about the long-term benefits of the 30 per cent rebate—the fact that here we have in the next bill a measure that will mean the minister is no longer responsible for okaying premium increases. Basically, the government has put $1.6 billion a year, year after year, into an insurance product but they are still worried, obviously, about the increase in premiums. They want to move that responsibility away from the minister. We believe that the only consideration for an increase in premiums should be that of public interest and that, by far, the minister is the one to do that. We will therefore be supporting the opposition's amendment to remove reference to adversely affecting interests of the private health insurance industry from the list of grounds. We will actually be moving an amendment to make sure that the government and the minister maintain responsibility for setting premiums.16:40:003016Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—These amendments to the act incorporated in the Health Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1999 have the effect of allowing funds to offer discounts in some quite restricted circumstances. The restrictions on the circumstances seem specifically designed to counter each of the arguments against allowing discounting. For example, there are only four grounds on which a discount may be allowed: (1) it is paid at least six months in advance; (2) it is paid through a payroll deduction; (3) it is paid through a direct debit from an account at a bank or other financial institution; or (4) it is paid on behalf of the contributor concerned, because the contributor is to be treated, under the rules of the organisation, as belonging to a contribution group.In other words, the discount is allowed on the basis of administrative savings, which can accrue to the fund from providing coverage in a particular way or to a particular group, and not on the basis of a particular group being selected by virtue of their health status. That would very obviously undermine the principle of community rating. We are talking about a group, probably selected on the basis of their common employment, where an employer permits or perhaps arranges payroll deduction or maybe even where an employer offers health insurance through a particular fund as a fringe benefit or part of a salary package. In effect, we are encouraging the employer to choose the health package for their employees.Does that undermine the principle of community rating? Yes, it does. In the same way as indirect and structural discrimination can have adverse consequences for disadvantaged groups without specifically mentioning them, this change provides for an indirect assault on the principle underlying the community rating system. It is not a full frontal assault but it is an assault nevertheless. It is more of a `nibble away at the edges' kind of assault and an `undermine the fundamentals' kind of assault.It is probably instructive here to go back and have a look at what those fundamentals are. The basic principle is that all Australians should have equality of access to private health insurance, whatever their health, age or risk factors. If that principle were breached, there would be an explosion in costs for many of those who need health insurance the most. Funds would probably drop coverage of whole sections of the population altogether. Pursuit of profit would triumph over provision of service. To keep that menace at bay, we have legislated a system whereby all people going into a fund pay the same amount for the same service. It is a fair system. We do not have cheaper entry for the well-off, who tend to have better health. We do not have cheaper entry for younger people who tend to have better health or cheaper entry for employed people who, again, tend to have better health.So what does this amendment do? It gives a discount to people who are in employment. You do not get payroll deductions from your dole! It gives a discount to people who are in particular types of employment—employment where you are more likely to get paid fringe benefits and employment where you get offered salary packaging. I remind honourable senators that if you suddenly become unemployed and lose your income, you do not get a break from your health fund. In other words, they will not say, `We will pause your premiums while you are in the situation where you do not have an income.' Basically, if you are unemployed, you lose any long-term benefits which may accrue as a result of this legislation.Who do the benefits target? Not the low income battler. Not the older worker in manual labour nor trade workers. No. They target the younger, upwardly mobile professional in the higher income brackets—the very people the funds are after because they do not get sick as much. What is the problem with that? Well, a comparative advantage for those people is a comparative disadvantage for others. It is undermining the principle of community rating and it is doing it by the back door. It is trying to obscure the fact of what it is doing by putting up caveats about the discount being equivalent to the savings in administration to the funds, the discounts can be limited by the minister and so on.But, whichever way you look at it, the principle is being eroded and you only have to look at who stands to benefit from access to the discounts and who misses out to see that. You only have to see what it might lead to. If it is based on savings to the funds, what things would bring further savings to the funds? That includes making different kinds of coverage for different levels of health. If there are administrative savings to be made through payroll deductions, they should be shared by all fund members in the form of reduced premiums or improved services and coverage, not given directly to those who need them least.Before I leave the discount issue, I would like to draw the attention of honourable senators to the wording of the saving provision. I will not read it, you will be pleased to hear; but I commend a sentence to senators when they are looking for a piece of legislative gobbledegook to use an example of incomprehensible writing. In nine lines of conditional clauses and qualifying phrases, it manages to say what the Bills Digest quite adequately sums up in eight words: `Existing discount arrangements will be permitted to continue'. Where is the Scrutiny of Bills Committee when we need them!On the face of it, a scheme to reward those who have maintained their health cover over a long period seems like a good idea, particularly when there are safeguards built in to ensure that access to the loyalty bonus is available on an equitable basis. The safeguards in 5M(b)(i-v) appear to rule out any kind of no claim bonus, and that is welcome. However, this is another variation, another move away from the `one size fits all' principle which underlies community rating. It does not by itself introduce anything of great concern but it points in a rather worrying direction, in much the same way as the discount provisions discussed earlier do.What concerns me is that we do not have all the facts about how this might impact on different sectors of the community. Will it have a differential effect on poorer people who may not have been able to maintain continuity of coverage, as I mentioned earlier? Will it be more readily available to those in the population who coincidentally have statistically better health? In other words, will it achieve in a de facto—albeit marginal—way the same outcomes as an erosion of community rating? And will it be used in the future by this government—if they are still in government in the future—to say that because we have voted in a particular way on a particular principle once we would do so again, thus moving closer to community rating? Answers to these questions are best explored in the context of an overall inquiry into health funding. I will return to that theme in a moment.The provision of `greater product flexibility' in relation to waiting periods is intended to inhibit the practice of dipping into the health insurance system for short-term exploitation of it. I have no problem with the intent; my concern is with the mechanism employed. The bill will allow various waiting periods to apply for different ailments, illnesses or conditions, but the periods are not spelt out in the bill. They will be determined by regulation. How often have we seen that, for the absolute core of what we are being asked to decide on, we have to wait until we see regulations, and we generally do not see those regulations until after the bill has passed through.I am always concerned when previously entrenched safeguards slip back into `regulations'. The scrutiny falls away and with it goes the rights of individuals—in this case, the right to coverage for which they have paid. Without knowing which conditions will be subject to which waiting periods, I would find it very hard to support this part of the bill. Yes, of course these regulations may be disallowable, but what are the clients of health care left with if we disallow certain instruments?The pharmaceutical benefits costs amendments are another example of tinkering at the edges—in this case, probably to provide some benefit, particularly to contributors with 100 per cent cover. The approved facilities part of the bill allows for some doctors' surgeries to become `approved procedures facilities' and will mean that procedures conducted there will be covered as if they were being conducted in a hospital or day hospital. This recognises the changing nature of medical technology and medical practice, and is quite welcome in many respects.There is one area of potential concern with this part of the bill, however, and it would be interesting to hear the minister's thoughts on this. The issue is that of accreditation or approval of the premises. Will the same standards be applied to approval of these premises as would be applied to accreditation of facilities for the same procedures in a hospital or day hospital? Will the same safeguards be in place? I note that Senator Harradine has proposed an amendment on this issue and I shall be closely following the discussion on that. We have also heard that the Labor Party have some amendments in relation to accreditation. That is obviously important, because we do not want the cost of health care to be such that people are driven to a decision for day treatment when in fact the best option for them may be hospital coverage.There are, of course, consequential amendments after that, but let us return to the issue of the inquiry. As I said, these issues are best explored in total in the context of an overall inquiry into health funding. That is what I moved by way of amendment when we were debating the 30 per cent rebate bill—the $1.7 billion government gift to private health funds. The need for such a wide-ranging inquiry has been well established. The Productivity Commission, in its 1996 inquiry, recommended a broad public inquiry into Australia's health system. The commission's own assessment of its role could equally well be applied in the context of the current bill. It said:The Commission emphasises that its proposals are essentially incremental in nature and designed to alleviate the problems of the health insurance industry in the short term. A long-term solution will require more. Private health insurance is a cog in a machine. One can burnish the gears of that cog, but ultimately its performance and functioning depend on the rest of the machine. There are grounds therefore for looking at other aspects of the health system through a wider public review.They said that such an inquiry should encompass: health financing, including state-federal cost shifting incentives; integrated health systems and coordinated care; the role of co-payments; competitive neutrality between players in the system; market power exerted by players in the system, including supply constraints in the medical market; community rating; information management in health care; and progress of protocol development.Throughout the Senate committee inquiry into the 30 per cent rebate, the need for such an inquiry into the whole issue of health financing was a recurring theme. Many of the witnesses during the committee hearings believed that a thorough inquiry would be a worthwhile exercise to provide a blueprint for long-term sustainable health policy. The Australian Nursing Federation agreed with an inquiry as a way of making sure the finite amount of funding is applied in the best way possible. The Consumers Health Forum of Australia noted:We have certainly supported the notion of having a major inquiry into the funding structure of our health system.A variety of health economists also supported the call for a broader review. For instance, Mr Brent Walker of Macquarie University said in his submission:None of the current policy provisions of the Australian Government appear to realistically address the long term health cost trends identified and quantified in this research. The Productivity Commission in its recent report on private health insurance recommended a `broad public inquiry into Australia's health system'. The Australian Government did not accept this recommendation. It should reconsider its opinion.I agree. Yes it should. Similarly, Mr lan McAuley from the University of Canberra submitted: There is a need for broad public debate and research into health care financing. This was the strongest recommendation of the Industry Commission in its 1997 report into private health insurance—a recommendation the Government ignored.The Australian Healthcare Association called for `a strategic and collaborative review of long term options.' The Greens (WA) believe that health funding cannot be fixed by tinkering around the edges. Similar sentiments were raised by the Australian Healthcare Association, which said:The issue will not go away by minor adjustments on the margins, and yet hardly anyone is engaged in a search for the middle ground, much less for changes which will benefit the community as a whole.The current bill is another example of minor adjustments at the margins, of tinkering around the edges. It will not contribute significantly to resolving the crisis in health care in this country—a crisis which is, more than anything, a crisis of funding. In broad terms, the solution is more funds, better targeted. More specific answers can be found only by the kind of comprehensive inquiry we have been calling for and which has been called for by many other well versed people in the community. I therefore move the following second reading amendment:At the end of the motion, add "and that the following matter be referred to the Community Affairs References Committee for inquiry and report by the last sitting day in November, 1999:Australia's health system, with particular reference to the issues outlined in Recommendation 22 of the Industry Commission's report on its inquiry into the Private Health Insurance Industry (Report No. 57, February 1997)".The government representatives again and again have said, `Look, there has been an Industry Commission inquiry into health care.' The very recommendation of that inquiry has not been acted on. We are being asked to move further in the direction of benefiting the private health funds. We will no doubt see further changes being asked for. We know it is likely that those changes will move closer to community rating—we know that the Australian Medical Association are already talking about this as an issue. But we are doing this in the absence of a proper inquiry into appropriate and effective health care funding—not just about health insurance.I guess I am pretty concerned that the move towards such things as accrual accounting might mean that some of these issues get lost in the changes in budgets in the future. However, what I do ask of the Senate is that you consider this proposal, which we have brought up before—it is not new. I am hoping that you have had discussions within your party rooms about it. We know it is supported within the wider community. I would like to ask that there be support in the Senate chamber for such an inquiry so that we know, even if this bill gets through—and I hope it goes through with some amendments—that there is going to be an agreement that we will look at the issue of general health care funding in the future and that those issues will be properly debated in a proper context.16:57:003019Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—The Health Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1999 represents another measure in the government's ad hoc, confused and sometimes contradictory attempt to prop up the private health insurance industry. What we really need is a holistic and comprehensive approach to addressing the real problems that exist in the private health insurance industry and the real endemic factors that are preventing people from taking up health insurance. What we see again with this bill is that the government has not responded in that holistic and comprehensive way. As a result its approach to this matter really suffers and I do not think we are going to get the sort of public policy response that really is required in this area.That is not to say that Labor does not support some of the initiatives in the bill, because we do. Some of them are overdue attempts to tackle those underlying issues I referred to that are driving the long-term decline in the number of Australians who are taking out private health insurance. These changes in the bill that I mention are a step in the right direction and should have been made before the introduction of the 30 per cent rebate, because I think that would have been a much better process. Nevertheless, we have to deal with what we have to deal with.We very vigorously oppose some of the core changes in this bill, particularly those that move to deregulate the control of the price of premiums. We think it is staggering that, at the same time the government has basically purchased 30 per cent of the private health insurance industry in this country by deciding to provide that rebate, we are seeking to remove the minister's powers to regulate premium price increases. We have just bought 30 per cent of the industry. We have decided to prop it up to finance the provision of that industry in this country. At the same time as we put a massive $1.7 billion of public funds into that industry we have a measure proposed today where the government intends to remove its ability to control the premiums, to relinquish control of that part of the industry which we are subsidising. Quite frankly, I find that staggering.Usually governments seek to have accountability for, and control of, the funds that they invest. Here we have a massive investment in an industry, a measure which the Labor opposition opposed, being followed quite shortly afterwards by a political decision to move out of the effective monitoring of price increases in that industry. At its core it is a very poor decision by the government, and the Labor Party will be opposing and seeking to amend that approach.It is interesting that the title of the bill has changed, another reflection of the confusion and alterations that are occurring in this area. The bill also does not include the original schedule 6 that was in the bill as originally proposed. It seems that in consulting about the bill the government chose not to consult the Australian Medical Association. The explanatory memorandum for the current bill states under the heading `Consultation':. . . the key industry associations plus major funds and consumer representatives have been consulted. Those associations are the Australian Private Hospitals Association, Australian Health Insurance Association . . . The AMA still does not get a mention. I pointed out in Senate estimates that it was excluded in the original bill and the department assured me that there had been some, if only minor, consultation with the AMA. But it is interesting that the AMA is still not listed as being a party which has been consulted.Clearly, it has been able to have some influence over this bill because schedule 6 is no longer there. Again, this reflects the government's ad hoc and confused approach to this bill and to the problems of the private health insurance industry. That whole schedule was removed after a bit of pressure was put on the minister and cabinet reconsidered the decision and removed that section. That again reflects the fact that there is not a comprehensive, holistic public policy at work here. There is a series of ad hoc, sometimes unconnected, measures that do not really deal in a proper way with the problems that confront private health insurance and private health in this country.The context of this bill is very important because we have just seen the most massive investment of Commonwealth funds in private industry in the form of the 30 per cent rebate on private health insurance. It is a massive contribution of public money to prop up the private health insurance industry, and now the Senate has been asked to vote for further changes to that industry. So, despite all the claims made about how that particular measure was going to save the private health insurance industry, one suspects that the government now accepts that the rebate is not going to solve the problems of the industry and that much more is needed. In fact, as the early evidence suggests, the private health insurance rebate is not going to do the job that the government promised.It seems that the government has blind faith in the value of the rebate. But at the recent Senate estimates it was interesting that the department again admitted that no research had been done to determine the possible effectiveness of the 30 per cent rebate among the groups that it was targeted at. So there has been no proper research as to the likely effectiveness of the rebate.The private health insurance industry provided evidence that the rebate would increase private health insurance membership numbers from the current 30 per cent of the population to 45 per cent of the population. I think that the government, in moving this bill, is signalling that it does not believe that sort of claim. It is recognising that the problems of private health insurance are far more fundamental and that it is going to need a much broader approach to deal with these problems.It is not clear at this stage how effective the rebate has been in its initial three months of operation. The figures will not be available to us until mid-May. That is when we will get a real assessment of whether or not this massive injection of public funds has done anything to solve what has been a long-term decline in private health insurance membership in this country. The Labor Party has predicted that it will not, and we opposed the bill. I think the early evidence is that the government will not get the sort of response that it had hoped for and that even the government's more modest targets will not be met.The bill at its core seeks to add deregulation to the government's policy mix of answers for the problems of the private health insurance industry. The main thrust of this bill is to deregulate the private health insurance industry. I understand more bills have been foreshadowed which will further reduce regulation of the private health insurance sector and that we can expect those soon. Central to the regulation of the PHI sector is the maintenance of a community rating that ensures that the risks and costs are spread across groups to ensure that insurance remains affordable to everyone in the community. In this way the private health insurance sector complements the central form of health insurance in Australia; that is, the Medicare system.Labor supports a number of the measures contained in the bill on the basis that they are beneficial to the entire health system, not just the small part that is the private health insurance sector. While there are clearly problems in the private health insurance sector, for the vast majority of Australians the problems in the health system concern the waiting lists in the public hospitals. This bill will do nothing to reduce those waiting lists. This government is devoting large amounts of money and effort to attempting to reform the private health insurance industry when only 30 per cent of the population is covered by that industry. The amendments proposed by Labor will attempt to overcome the government's blind spot by extending the proposed funding arrangements for approved facilities to Medicare.Any attempt to reform the health sector, while ignoring the 70 per cent of people who rely on Medicare to provide their health care, will ultimately be inequitable and ineffective. Labor does not support any move to make private health insurance the only route to proper medical treatment. This would lead to a two-tiered system in which those that can afford private health insurance get appropriate health care and everyone else gets what is left over.In terms of the specific measures in the bill, schedule 3 provides for a process that will remove the government's involvement in the approval of premium increases. As an interim step, the approval of premium increases will be delegated to the Private Health Insurance Administration Council, PHIAC. The bill provides no criteria to guide PHIAC in approving increases nor any requirements to adopt guidelines or publicly explain its decisions. The bill provides no cap on the increases that PHIAC can approve.The government appears to be shy about the effect of schedule 3. In the second reading speech on the bill, delivered yesterday, the effect of schedule 3 is described in the following terms:. . . Schedule 3 takes care of [a] few administrative matters allowing for the transfer of the `rates of contribution' rule change provisions from the Minister to the Private Health Insurance Administration Council prior to the repeal of these provisions in the medium term.As a result of those `few administrative matters' the minister will no longer be responsible for approving private health insurance premium increases. The minister will no longer be responsible.It was only in 1997 that the Prime Minister took personal responsibility for monitoring and approving those increases in response to public concern about the large increases in private health insurance premiums in this country. At that stage the government was very gung-ho about taking political responsibility and ensuring that the increases were moderate and the funds accountable. Here we are, two years later, and the government wants to slide away from any responsibility. The minister does not want the power to monitor premium increases, he wants to hand it over to PHIAC. What happened to all the political courage about monitoring private health insurance premiums? It is clear that the government does not want to know any longer. They know the premiums will continue to increase. They do not want to wear any political heat, but the real irony is that this is the same government that has just put $1.7 billion into propping up the industry. So they want to prop up the industry but they do not want to wear any of the consequences of or ensure accountability for that public investment. It is an amazing stance to take in terms of effective public policy.It is important to note that, as a result of the Private Health Insurance Incentives Act 1998, the Commonwealth will fund 30 per cent of any increase approved by the PHIAC. The last stage in deregulating prices in the sector would abolish all control of premium rates and effectively leave prices up to the individual funds. There are no minimum time frames set on the deregulation of premiums. The move to either PHIAC approved increases or the complete deregulation of premiums could be very soon after the bill is enacted. As premiums rise, so will the cost of the rebate provided by the Commonwealth—by Australian taxpayers—drawing more and more resources out of the public health system into propping up the private health insurance system. It is extraordinary that we would make that sort of public policy decision, and the Labor Party will not be supporting it.Schedule 3 represents the minister's efforts to avoid his responsibility for approving the premiums. It is interesting to note that the minister recently approved a 22 per cent increase in the premiums for the Defence Health Benefits Fund that wiped out any benefits someone in that scheme would have gained under the 30 per cent rebate. The minister is obviously worried that under the current arrangements he will be forced to defend his approval of a number of further premium increases in other health funds later this year. These increases will start the process that Labor warned of: the erosion of the value of the 30 per cent rebate.In the face of the large increases in premiums over the last few years—the premiums for hospital cover increased 30 per cent between July 1996 and August 1998—this government's solution is to simply deregulate the sector and duck political responsibility on the issue. Labor will be proposing amendments to limit the deregulation of premiums and to specify a minimum period in which any changes are introduced.Another section of schedule 3 allows the minister to disallow rule changes amongst health funds on the basis that they are against the public interest or against the interests of the private health insurance industry. We have grave concerns about the second of these tests as it could be used to reduce competition or force funds to operate in a political way. Labor will be proposing amendments to delete the second test on which the minister can allow rule changes.Labor supports the objectives of the bill, which are to make the private health insurance industry more efficient and to encourage the funds to offer more attractive products. The principal measures being proposed to achieve this objective are to permit loyalty discounts for longstanding members and allow discounts for bulk buyers, for example employers. With the safeguards built into the bill, these measures are acceptable to us. Labor will be supporting schedule 1, parts 1 and 2 of the bill.Labor also agrees that it is unfair on other fund members if some people are allowed to hit-and-run by joining a health fund for a short time for the purposes of obtaining a treatment and then leaving the fund. Labor will be supporting schedule 1, part 3 of the bill.Labor agrees with the proposal to allow health funds to cover the patient co-payment of pharmaceutical products dispensed within private hospitals where this is done as part of a product that offers no gap coverage. Labor will be supporting schedule 1, part 4 of the bill. This measure is to ensure that patients are not provided with large quantities of drugs prior to being discharged. This would increase the costs borne by the health funds and therefore encourage increases in premiums and the cost of the rebate to the Commonwealth.The bill also proposes to allow health funds to cover a new facilities benefit for approved facilities that would be chargeable to cover the additional cost of equipment needed to undertake office based surgery in a safe environment. However, the amount covered by the existing Medicare benefits for the procedure will fall from 85 per cent to 75 per cent. The health fund will cover both the 25 per cent gap between Medicare and the schedule fee and the new facilities benefit.The introduction of the facilities benefit is a significant change, providing for two tiers. Doctors treating privately insured patients will receive the Medicare schedule fee and the facilities benefit. Doctors treating public patients will receive only 85 per cent of the Medicare schedule fee.If procedures to be carried out in approved facilities are cost effective then it would make sense to provide similar benefits to Medicare recipients to encourage their use of these facilities, that is, Medicare should provide for a rebate equivalent to the facilities benefit that private insured patients are eligible for. Labor will be requesting that the House insert a provision in the bill to this effect.The proposal for extending health fund coverage to approved facilities does not require them to meet the existing controls on day care facilities. There are no additional resources or powers for the Commonwealth to undertake a monitoring role. There is no provision for states to carry out the inspection and quality control role that they currently carry out in private hospitals and day surgeries. The government needs to spell out what funding and resources it will commit to ensuring that approved facilities will be providing an appropriate standard of care. Labor will be proposing amendments that will require approved facilities to meet the same standards as currently apply to day surgeries under state or territory law.The opposition is strongly opposed to the proposed deregulation of insurance premium increases and the poorly thought through proposals to create a new class of places for surgery and other procedures to be performed in. It is recognised from the debate in the House that the government intends to proceed with this legislation, so the opposition intends to move some specific measures to make these proposals more workable.In the committee stage, I will be moving a series of amendments to achieve a range of objectives in that regard. The opposition will also move a request to the House to insert a provision so that the level of benefit payable to a public patient at an approved facility is 85 per cent of the schedule fee plus the facilities fee set by the minister. This will ensure that public hospitals are encouraged to send public patients to these facilities without the patient receiving a gap payment. It will also allow the public sector to achieve the same advantages as this proposal offers the private sector.The bill, as I said at the outset, represents an admission by the government that a lot more needs to be done than merely throwing money at the problem as they did with the 30 per cent rebate proposal. We have to seriously tackle the issues that are influencing the long-term decline of private health insurance membership in this country. But the government has not done that in a holistic and comprehensive way. There are some measures in this bill which we will be supporting because they do go towards helping to solve some of those problems. But there are a range of other measures which we think represent a step backwards and which we will be opposing.17:16:003023Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TASIND00—The amendments contained in the Health Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1999 come on the back of a significant policy of this government, and eventually of this chamber and of the parliament, of support for private health insurance in the form of the 30 per cent rebate passed by the parliament late last year. That debate demonstrated that many ordinary Australians are relying on their health insurance to access essential services. It would be very interesting to hear from members of this chamber about the ordinary voters, the rank and file, who have been prepared to pay for their insurance, and who were very concerned that that legislation got through. Having got it through, the government has got a responsibility to ensure that the insurance industry delivers.I say quite clearly at the outset that my immediate concern with the legislation as it currently stands is for those individuals, particularly the elderly and chronically ill, who purchase health insurance as an assurance that their access to essential care and treatment will not be hampered. The legislation, however, does place barriers to this access by not clarifying the nature and scope of cover in the very important areas of palliative care, rehabilitation and psychiatric care. Few could argue that these treatments are well catered for in the public sector and, consequently, are not necessary in the private health insurance area. As a matter of fact, it is essential that health insurance guarantees access to these treatments due to the lack of adequate cover in the public sector. I will deal with that matter shortly. Certainly, I have addressed it in amendments that I have prepared.I also indicate that the bill attempts to extend private health insurance coverage beyond the hospital into general practice and community settings. In theory, this should make insurance conceptually more attractive. However, it is the price of insurance rather than its role which mainly determines its attractiveness. Consequently, these amendments in the bill have the potential to place increased financial burdens on health funds, since they will now be able to pay benefits for procedures undertaken outside hospitals.Although the costs of the settings in which these procedures will be performed may be less than the costs associated with a hosp ital—and typically probably would be less—any projected savings will at best only be realised if the procedures are no longer undertaken in hospital settings. Otherwise, health funds will be supplying benefits for procedures performed outside hospital in addition to paying benefits for the same procedures conducted within hospitals. This will only inflate the price of health insurance and become counterproductive in attracting members.It is important to say, however, that the coverage which these amendments will deliver will be popular. Put simply, it means that insured people can have minor surgical procedures undertaken in approved doctors' rooms and be covered completely or with a gap. It should be noted, though, that there is no obligation to remove the gap. Since the gap will undoubtedly stay, the only improvement for insured people is in the convenience of having the procedure performed in the approved doctors' rooms rather than in a hospital or day surgery.I am very concerned about this question of gaps. It is a matter that was discussed in December. Apparently, the medical profession is resisting some proposals in the legislation due to a concern that they will lead to increased controls being placed on doctors by health funds. This is due to the fact that the legislation facilitates contracts and medical purchaser-provider agreements to be drawn up between doctors and health funds.The agreements would specify the price of the service and other quality consent issues. If they are signed, health funds could cover the medical bill above the medical benefits schedule price. This remains a non-negotiable item by the medical profession. Consequently, if left unamended, there will be no gap coverage.Schedule 1 of the bill allows health funds to offer discounted premiums to contributors. Discounts are to be the result of `administrative savings'. Discounts cannot be the result of charging other members higher premiums. Already some employers are seeking contracts with health funds to provide discount premiums. I ask: what assurances are in place to ensure that the self-employed, the self-funded retirees and the unemployed are not disadvantaged or charged relatively higher premiums so that other members can receive discounted premiums?Part 3 of the bill allows funds to extend the waiting periods for certain conditions, ailments or illnesses. This is to be done by way of regulation and disallowance. If a strategy similar to the recent unfair dismissal regulations is adopted, waiting periods could be extended for some months without an opportunity for the parliament to disallow them. This provision lacks certainty over which particular conditions and illnesses may be in the firing line for increased waiting periods.The private health insurance industry has already flagged a willingness to restrict cover for psychiatric and palliative care and rehabilitation. It is stiff cheese if you have paid insurance all your life and you go a bit gaga in your latter years when the insurance industry applies this sort of restriction. This provision gives little comfort that the industry will not make a case to have extended waiting periods for psychiatric, palliative care and rehabilitation into the future. I have prepared an amendment that goes to that issue which we will be able to consider at the committee stage.Turning to part 5 of schedule 1, questions must be raised over what quality assurances will be given as to the standards of `approved facilities'. Has there been effective consultation with the state and territory authorities? What level of accountability will be imposed under doctors in these approved facilities? How will the Commonwealth department ensure that only the specified procedures receive insurance cover in the approved facilities?The provision contained in schedule 2, item 9, limits the requirement of health funds to include within certain contracts treatment for palliative care, psychiatric care and rehabilitation. In instances where the out-of-hospital procedures are those such as ophthalmic and dermatological work, palliative care, psychiatric care and rehabilitation cover can reasonably be unnecessary. That is something we should all be concerned about. In the future it may be clinically suitable to perform these treatments in out-of-hospital settings. Again I will address this by way of an amendment at the committee stage.Overall there are features in this bill that are attractive and should be supported into the committee stage. I do note that nothing in the legislation is designed, at this stage at least, to oppose and abolish community rating. But I think we should be ever-vigilant that that principle is upheld. I support the bill into committee and will be proposing amendments at that stage.17:29:003025Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4NTCLP10—The Health Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1999 comes about in response to recommendations of the Productivity Commission in its report No. 57 entitled Private health insurance which, I remind the Senate, was a report of February 1997—nearly 2½ years ago. Of course, a lot has happened in that interim 2½-year period, particularly with regard to the development of policy and the conduct of many inquiries already by various committees of the Senate—certainly before the estimates committees—associated with the detailed consideration of the legislation last December that went to the heart of private health insurance.We also on that occasion in December last year foreshadowed these particular amendments that are now before us. It is interesting to note that support has been attracted quite publicly from a number of organisations: the Australian Consumers Association, the Australian Health Care Association, the Consumer Health Forum, the National Seniors Association, the Australian Day Care Association, the Australian Private Hospitals Association and Medibank Private. Across the ambit, the various groups that are affected and represented have certainly all endorsed this particular legislation in very strong terms.I appreciate the comments that have been made here today by other senators. We will have regard to the various comments that have been made.This bill is a product reform bill designed to make the private health insurance product more attractive to consumers. It has been roundly endorsed by, as I said a few moments ago, a number of consumer and other health associated groups and organisations. The bill builds on the major hospital reform measures contained in the Health Legislation Bill (No. 2) 1997, and complements the federal government's 30 per cent rebate for private health insurance.This bill amends the National Health Act 1953, and concerns itself with reforms in six key areas. Parts 1 to 5 of schedule 1 deal with five of these reforms. Part 1 deals with the reforms to allow registered health funds to offer discounted premiums in specific circumstances. Part 2 deals with reforms to allow health funds to offer loyalty bonuses. Part 3 deals with reforms to pre-existing ailment conditions to allow for waiting periods to be extended in particular circumstances. Part 4 deals with reforms to allow health funds to cover the cost to fund members of pharmaceutical benefits prescribed while as patients in hospital. Part 5 deals with reforms to extend payments by health funds for procedures undertaken in approved procedures facilities to promote the most appropriate type of care in the most appropriate settings.Schedule 2 covers the consequential amendments to both the Health Insurance Act 1973 and the National Health Act 1953, which are required to implement appropriately the schemes outlined in the bill. Schedule 3 allows for the transfer of the rates of contribution rule change provisions from the minister to the Private Health Insurance Administration Council prior to the repeal of these provisions in the medium term. Schedule 3 also amends ministerial discretion with respect to fund rule changes, requiring that decisions in relation to a particular fund rule change include regard to the effects of proposed change on the industry as a whole as well as the effects on consumers and the individual fund.I have noted that Senator Harradine has raised issues relating to elderly, chronically ill people, particularly with palliative, rehabilitation and psychiatric care. Approved procedures facilities will provide a substitute for in-hospital care in an out-of-hospital setting. As such, approved procedures facilities are not covered under hospital tables where it remains compulsory for health funds to provide coverage for in-hospital palliative, psychiatric and rehabilitation care. The excluded services are treated like any other out-of-hospital service. The exclusion of compulsory coverage for these services from the provision of part 5 simply reflects the fact that, while such care is a substitute for in-hospital care, it is taking place as an out-of-hospital procedure.The government will certainly look carefully, in the time available to us, at the amendments that Senator Harradine has suggested. As Senator Harradine mentioned, it is not proposed at the moment to proceed to committee today, therefore giving us that opportunity.I would comment that the second reading amendment as circulated by Senator Margetts really is a rehash of a similar amendment that she proposed last year in a similar area. As I mentioned in my opening comments, this particular issue has been the subject of tremendous debate and discussion in the community, in this parliament and in this Senate since the Productivity Commission's report of February 1997. We certainly mentioned that in December last year in association with the 30 per cent private health insurance rebate bill. I remind the Senate that on 10 December last year the Senate opposed that motion by the Greens on the voices, and I would hope that it will do so again today.The government has a mandate to proceed with private health insurance reform, and that is clearly set out in our proposals associated with this legislation. We do not need another expensive inquiry just to please Senator Margetts or a few people who perhaps have not had the occasion to appear—as many have done—in so many of the inquiries in other areas. Senator Lees has been complaining about our alleged obsession with private health insurance. I thought that would speak for itself, particularly with regard to Senator Margetts's proposed amendment.Other detailed amendments have been distributed this afternoon by the ALP and by the Australian Democrats—although I should say I do not think we have yet seen the Democrats' amendments. Obviously the preparation of these amendments has been log jammed. I remind the Senate that both the Labor Party and the Democrats have had a full opportunity since this debate concluded in the House of Representatives on 10 March this year to have those amendments ready, rather than putting them on our tables here at nearly 4.30 this afternoon, therefore giving us one hour for consideration. It is indeed unfortunate that in order to give this matter proper consideration it will be necessary to commend consideration of the bill in committee to a later date.Amendment not agreed to.Original question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.Motion (by Senator Tambling) proposed:That consideration of this bill in committee of the whole be made an order of the day for a later hour.17:37:003027Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—This is an issue of pulling a second committee stage. I realise the reasons for that, but this is the second time this has happened on the program. I know there are some efforts at the moment to rearrange the program, but I am making a plea to the government. They are talking about whether we or other people have amendments ready. Can I suggest that the precipitant pulling of other committee stage bills has led to people being less prepared than they might be. Just a moment ago we were told that, after this, we were to go on to the RFA Bill, which was not even on the red today.I would also ask that all parties realise that just speaking to each other—communication just between the government and the opposition—is not talking with all parties. Certainly the Greens would appreciate a little more notice that there are likely to be bills which are not on today's program. I remind honourable senators that we in small parties are working at our limits on many occasions and, if you are changing from one day's program to another, it is good to be able to get advice. I do appreciate that the government is making some efforts to put on a bill for which people are more likely to be prepared—another tax bill which is on the program today, but please do not assume that all parties have been advised or are agreed if you have not spoken to the parties down at this end of the chamber.Question resolved in the affirmative.Committees30273027302717:39:003027Coonan, Sen HelenSenator COONAN2M6NSWLP10—On behalf of the chair of the Economics Legislation Committee, Senator Ferguson, I present the report of the Economics Legislation Committee on its examination of annual reports.Ordered that the report be printed.Bills3027r697Billsr6653027Debate resumed from 10 December 1998, on motion by Senator Ian Campbell:That these bills be now read a second time.17:40:003027Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—As just notified to the Senate, the bills before us are two in number: A New Tax System (Fringe Benefits Reporting) Bill 1998 and A New Tax System (Medicare Levy Surcharge—Fringe Benefits) Bill 1998 .The essence of these two bills is to ensure that those individuals who have been able to avail themselves of salary repackaging will no longer be able to avoid their obligations or receive government benefits on the basis that they were able to lower their taxable income by substituting reportable taxable income with fringe benefits.From 1 April this year, employers will have to—for the 1999-2000 income year—begin including on employee group certificates the grossed up value of fringe benefits where their total value exceeds $1,000. I have to say that the opposition is happy to support these changes. Under previous arrangements, through aggressive salary repackaging, high income earners were able to avoid such things as the Medicare levy surcharge, the 15 per cent superannuation tax and HECS debts, and in other cases qualify for such things as family assistance or the family tax initiative when they would not ordinarily have been eligible.We support the government on these two bills, but we also note that it is the opposition which over a number of years has been raising the issue of salary repackaging and how it was being used by in the main high income taxpayers to avoid their full obligations in a number of areas. I remember in 1997 my colleague Senator Sherry exposing the widespread use of salary repackaging amongst senior members of the Public Service, which was openly encouraged by the government in order that a select few public servants, such as Mr Max Moore-Wilton, could avoid paying their fair share of tax.As is usual on an issue that involves tax avoidance, this government has been slow to act, but at least they have finally taken action which we in the opposition fully support. It is only, though, when the ALP exposes tax rorts and shames this government into action that they awake from their slumber and actually do anything about tax avoidance. We know this government are often slow to act, given that they are a party containing tax avoiders. We can go back to when the then Treasurer, Mr Howard, was dragged kicking and screaming on the issue of the bottom of the harbour tax schemes and acted only when the public outcry became too loud to ignore.The government has indicated that in the committee stage of these bills there will be a number of amendments. There are 2½ pages of amendments that have been circulated in the chamber. The explanation provided to us is that their character is of technical changes and changes which do not alter the substance or the merit of the substantive changes that the bill seeks to make but that, being technical in nature, they make the act more easily usable and operative and cover any loopholes that may have emerged as unintended consequences. I have not had a chance to check these amendments, but I will have done so before the committee stage proceeds. On the explanation given by the government, and subject to checking, we would support those amendments.The titles of each of the two bills are prefixed by four words: a new tax system. This is the first sign of legislation that arises from the government's taxation legislation which contains the GST—legislation which comes from the ANTS package and which is referred to as `Not a new tax: a new tax system'. The government has adopted that title to introduce these bills, which do relate to elements in that package. I indicate for the record, as I said a moment ago, that the opposition will be supporting these bills so, to that extent at least, we are on the record of not voting down part of this package.The allegation that the Senate is obstructing the passage of the ANTS bills has placed a frightful amount of pressure on the Senate. Nothing could be further from the truth. In politics, large statements like that—often repeated; thumped into the public consciousness—sometimes by repetition achieve an element of being believable, but it needs to be said clearly that all the Senate is doing is exercising the obligation placed on it by its constitutional forbears, who gave the Senate, as a states house, the obligation of reviewing legislation emanating from the House of Representatives.Over the last few months, I have had the honour to chair the Senate's committee into the government's new tax package, and we have just on a month to go. We are due to table our report on 19 April, and at this stage I fully expect that we will table our report on time. It should be said that the process that we have undertaken is serving the Senate well, and the community of Australia even better, by enabling opportunities for all of those interest groups and individuals who have concerns about the government's tax legislation to voice those concerns, to set out their misgivings and to raise areas where there should be amendment. In other words, for the first time since the government announced its intention to embark on this new adventure of taxation change, the community have had a chance to speak. They have seized on that opportunity through the Senate system of public hearings and public submissions.For the record, it should also be noted that, while the whole of the Senate supported the resolution to set up that committee, the primary negotiation to form the committee took place between the government and the Australian Democrats and, I understand, with assistance from Senator Harradine. At no time were members of the Labor opposition invited to the inner councils haggling over the terms of reference of that legislation until a `done deal' had essentially emerged. When it had, we expressed our views and I think some of those were taken on board, but the motive force was a joint government-Democrats discussion that placed this on the agenda. So, if members of the government attack the Senate for being obstructive, it should be noted that they, together with the Australian Democrats, were party to forming this committee of inquiry.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—We were so enthusiastic about it.RF4Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOK—I am just stating the facts, which do not go to degrees of enthusiasm or reservation. But they are the facts and I thank you for your confirmation of them.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—Like Gareth's negotiations on native title at the end of 1992, I suspect.RF4Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOK—I am not sure how that is relevant, but I do notice there is some government sensitivity on this point. But no-one is disputing that they were part of it and that the sequence of events is as I have put it.If there were anyone on the government side in this debate ill advised enough to attack the Senate for being obstructive because of the inquiry, the record is that the government was a willing participant and voted in a unanimous vote of this chamber to set up the inquiry and to set down its report-by dates. So the nascent objections that come from many in the House of Representatives—often from the Treasurer and sometimes from the Prime Minister—about Senate obstruction in terms of the GST are ill advised, because the record is clear: there is no obstruction being entered into by the Senate.The other point is that the inquiry has so far provided a public service by enabling a platform for the community to speak to the parliament and express their views. It must be said that not always do the community speak with full knowledge of the implications of the legislation. Sometimes they accept the government at its word and repeat the platitudes that have supported the government's submission as if they were truths and naively and obligingly accept the government at its word without studying the fine print. On other occasions, members of the public and/or organisations take a dim view which is not founded either, and so there is, to some extent, a clear misunderstanding—even at this late stage—about the intent of the legislation. But, by and large, there is a very good understanding, and a truthful understanding, of what the legislation involves, and the overwhelming body of submissions deals with this legislation from that perspective and thus ought to be heeded by the Senate because it is informed, it is considered and it goes to the nature of the legislation.An interesting element of a lot of the debate that has emerged so far is that many organisations—often those that say, first and foremost, they support the government's legislation—also have a sheaf of amendments that they want to make to it. Some say they need even more time in order to finalise the detail of those amendments because they have not had a chance yet to fully study the 16 bills contained in the legislative package. Some of these organisations are impressive in their support of the government, but are unable, even at this late stage, to inform us of the detail of the changes they will seek, because they are still working their way through the technical nature of those bills.This comes back to the question of obstruction. This legislation was put to the House of Representatives and voted on before Christ mas in what I consider to be a very quick turnaround time indeed, and which many of my colleagues in the other place regard as being insufficient for proper public debate or for the effectual execution of democracy in the lower House.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—That is what I said about native title in 1992.RF4Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOK—I will take that interjection because it encodes a fallacy. Without accepting the premise from which it comes, it says, `You did something wrong in 1998, therefore it justifies us doing something wrong in 1999.' While not accepting the premise, there is no such logical procedure at all. It is a classical fallacy to say, `You've made a mistake, therefore we're justified in making a mistake.' The point I am making in terms of obstruction is that no government, and no-one in this government, has said that the public is not entitled to come to grips with the detail of the legislation and express a view upon it. What they have done is attack the Senate for enabling that process to occur.The amount of public scrutiny that we have now seen, and the dawning and widespread conclusions being arrived at across the wide area of consultation we have engaged in, suggests considerable difficulty with the legislation. That is the voice of the community. It is not the voice of the opposition, it is not the voice of the Democrats or of any Independent—it is the voice of the community and, after all, wherever we stand in this debate, the Senate should be about good legislation which does take on board the voice of the community. So when people talk about Senate obstruction in the context of this debate, they are saying, `We want to stifle that voice and not hear its opinion.' I think that does expose the fallacious and insipid nature of the complaints being made at this stage on Senate obstruction.Madam Acting Deputy President, you have been tolerant with me and I appreciate that because, while these bills are related to the package, I have strayed a little from addressing the intent of them but have taken on the matter in the broad terms of the package. We support this legislation and, subject to confirmation, we accept the government's explan ation on technical changes to the amendments they have proposed and would support those, too.17:55:003030Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY3L6VICALP00—As Senator Cook has indicated, we rise today to support this legislation, A New Tax System (Fringe Benefits Reporting) Bill 1998 and A New Tax System (Medicare Levy Surcharge—Fringe Benefits) Bill 1998 , and to welcome a number of the items in it. But when you look at what these bills are about, they are about making changes to fringe benefits and group certificates, among other things. That is an issue that has been very contentious in this chamber for some time. It is an issue which the government refused to deal with in another situation, arguing that it was too complicated, arguing that it was too hard and arguing about whether or not it was possible or putting too much compliance onto business.Of course, I am talking about the surtax—the surcharge tax—where, without any consultation whatsoever with the industry that would have to implement it, the government forced onto the superannuation industry a measure which was massively expensive. The argument it put up was that it was inefficient and that there was an alternative mechanism, which was to list the surcharge for the purposes of the group certificates; it could be done through the group certificate method.This government pigheadedly decided that that was not going to be the case. It argued up hill and down dale that you could not possibly put all those employers through it. What do we see today? We see the ultimate hypocrisy—the willingness to make all those employers list their fringe benefits on the group certificates. This may seem to be a small point to some but, given the level of debate and the level of angst that the surtax has created, you would have thought that the government would have at least let a little time go by before it introduced such a measure which clearly showed that it was never fair dinkum about wanting to be consultative with the industry when it came to the surcharge.The Labor Party supports this, as it would have supported an alternative collection mechanism. We have consistently argued that, and we have seen Senator Kemp day in and day out deny it was a tax. He claimed that it was just too much work for business, that what this government was about was reducing compliance costs and not wanting to put more red tape in the way of business—when all the time it was busily working away on this bill, which is doing exactly all of the things that the government said it did not want to do with the surcharge.What we have been seeing from this government as part of the tax package, as part of the GST package—and this, as Senator Cook has stressed, is a bill that is titled `A New Tax System'—is an argument about compliance costs. This government has not actually done any serious modelling about the compliance costs of its package, of which this bill is part. What it has told the Australian public and the business community, and small business in particular, is that there will be minimal compliance costs from the tax package. This, just like the first part of the tax package, demonstrates that if you listened to the government 12 or 18 months ago about how this was just an incredibly difficult and expensive process—having to record details on the group certificate, and that it could not possibly impose such a cost onto struggling small businesses and big businesses—the same argument applies.The reason it is relevant is that compliance costs have been a substantial debating point on the GST committee. What you have is the beginnings of this massive imposition. The government have done no modelling, as I said before. They have done an estimate; $2 billion is their estimate. They are not prepared to put up any reasons for that figure, they have just plucked out a figure.What we saw today in question time was a number of quotes from the Arthur Andersen submission, tax experts, about compliance and how this bill is five times the size of the New Zealand bill. It is massively more complex than the New Zealand bill, and the government has been trying to pretend for the last six months since the ANTS package was announced that there are less compliance costs. But the evidence that we received—it is a pity that Mr Gaetjens, who is in the gallery today, was not in Melbourne to hear this evidence—is the same as from any of the witnesses who have come before our committee, that there were going to be substantial compliance costs.In fact, one witness who represents accountants who deal at the coalface with hundreds and hundreds of clients, if not thousands of clients, on a monthly basis said that in actual fact there were going to be no cost savings to those companies that were already inside the wholesale sales tax system. What was going to happen would be the substituting of one computer system for another computer system. So it was very hard to argue that the running costs of one package as opposed to another and the information that is going to be required would actually lead to a substantial saving in compliance costs for the 70,000 to 75,000 companies that are inside the WST system. So no decrease in compliance costs was the argument from coalface accountants.But it was not just a coalface accountant, someone who actually does people's tax returns. What we had was an academic, Mr Walpole, who is from the Australian Taxation Studies Program, considered to be Australia's leading compliance experts. He strongly agreed that there are not any savings for companies within the wholesale sales tax system. If the people now inside the system are not going to be better off, you have to ask who is going to be better off. Surely the other million and a half companies that are being dragged into the new tax system as part of the GST, having input tax credits requirements and setting up the computer systems, cannot be getting a better deal on compliance because they have all got to be dragged into the system. So what you have actually got is massive amounts of new costs for all the people outside the WST system.Then you have got experts, accountants involved in the industry, saying that there are no compliance savings involved in the new system either. Part of the reason that there are no compliance savings is this bill. This is a good bill, but part of the reason that it is not possible to argue that people are better off under the new tax system on compliance issues is this very bill. Mr Ray Regan, who is someone who deals with people's tax returns, argued quite cogently that there are not only no compliance savings even for people inside the WST system but also that applies to everybody, particularly small business. His area of expertise is small business. Senator O'Chee was there and questioned Mr Regan at length on this issue. Senator O'Chee did not agree with Mr Regan. I think it is clear, if you read the transcript, that Senator O'Chee had a different opinion. But what was not possible for Senator O'Chee to disagree with was the expert evidence that Mr Regan gave. What he said was that it is a joke to suggest that all a company has to do now, if it does not have a computer system—H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—Calling him an expert accountant is like calling you an expert senator.3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—You would never be called an expert economist, Senator Campbell, so don't worry. What the senators from the coalition were not able to do was actually disprove what Mr Regan was saying. They were not able to say, `Look, it will only be an extra five hours a month or it will only be an extra 10 hours a month,' because they did not have a clue. What you had was somebody who does people's tax returns sit there and argue that there will be a substantial increase, around $7,000, for each small business in their compliance costs. This bill is part of that $7,000. It is not just the GST. This bill substantially increases the compliance costs. It is part of the extra accounting, it is part of the extra costs and administration that are imposed particularly on small business. Mr Walpole, who, as I said earlier, is one of the experts on compliance costs, makes this point in his submission to the committee. He says:The New Zealand style GST proposed for Australia is comparatively expensive in terms of compliance costs.This is Australia's leading compliance costs expert, a supporter of the GST, not someone who is walking around saying, `No, don't do it.' To make sure the record is straight, Mr Regan clearly says, `No, this is not in the interests, particularly of small business, but of everybody as a whole.'But Mr Walpole is a different kettle of fish. He says that after studying it, after conducting studies, and after looking at the different research from around the world, the net compliance cost, as once estimated by Pope, Fayle and Chen, for the wholesale sales tax was 2.1 per cent of revenue collected. A slightly different study conducted by Mr Walpole and some of his colleagues found that it was 4.7 per cent of revenue collected. The UK's figure for VAT was 2.3 per cent. However, the figure for New Zealand was 7.3 per cent of revenue collected. That is nearly twice the collection costs for the WST. Mr Walpole stresses that our system is far more complicated than the New Zealand system.Before we get into an argument about further exemptions, before we entertain Senator Lees's argument, or possibly Senator Harradine's, we need to know that compliance costs are close to twice the cost of the existing system for the WST, and close to four times the cost of the UK's VAT position, and our system is more complicated. The new tax package, in sheer pages, when you add them all up, is five times the size of the New Zealand package. You do not have to be Einstein to work out that it has to be more expensive. You would have to put more people hours into a study of Australia's new tax system. When accompanied by this bill and a range of other bills, it makes absolute commonsense that this bill will increase compliance costs. In his submission, Mr Walpole says:In small businesses, it is the owners/directors/partners who principally bear the paperwork burden. Their time is the most valuable and productive time. A high compliance burden can stifle entrepreneurial initiative and innovation.What was argued at length before the committee by the Business Coalition for Tax Reform, one of the architects of the debate at the moment—one of the key drivers and key supporters of this package—was the claims about benefits. We asked the Business Coalition in Melbourne a few weeks ago—Senator Sherry was with the committee that day—about the benefits to the business community. On their own admission, all of their members are passing on all of the savings from the WST and the famous nine taxes that are being abolished. They are not being kept by business as increased profits. Savings will have to be passed on because this government is to introduce tough legislation, as part of this package, that will say, `If we catch you profiteering from the GST, if we catch you not passing on these savings, we will come after you with fines of up to $10 million.'This government has said that they will not allow business to profit at the expense of ordinary consumers, after this package is introduced. We said to the Business Coalition, `So you are not making any savings from the abolition of these taxes and you are guaranteeing that you are passing through 100 per cent of the savings.' They said yes—they also believe in the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus—they were going to pass them through. We said, `Where are the savings coming from? How is business going to be better off? You will have increased compliance costs. There will be no net gain to profitability from abolishing all of the other taxes because those savings will have been passed through.' They said, `There are dynamic benefits.' I said, `Is it possible to model dynamic benefits? Can you give us an example of a dynamic benefit? Can we have a look at a dynamic benefit?' They, of course, said, `No, it is not possible to model dynamic benefits. You cannot take into account the entrepreneurial initiative and innovation that will come from this package.' They were quite firm that it was not possible to model the future.Others might suggest that this is something akin to economic voodooism, belief in the market to the extent where you can just say that it is going to have benefits and it must. It doesn't matter that you can't go to any other country in the world that has introduced a GST and say, `Look, what you saw was this expansion.' No, there was no pretence, not even an attempt, just, `You cannot model it.' Mr Walpole says that the compliance costs from this bill and the other bills will stifle entrepreneurial initiative and innovation.Mr Murphy, the Prime Minister's preferred modeller, produced a study for the Senate committee and did a bit of work for the Treasury before the package was released. He said that the net benefit, the economic welfare gain—to use his jargon—is $680 million. That is down from the $1 billion that he claimed during the election campaign—no coincidence, Senator Lees. During the election campaign he claimed that that benefit to the economy would be $1 billion. Three months after the election campaign he cut it back by 40 per cent.ZW4SHERRYSenator Sherry—Sixty-five cents a week.3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—Thank you, Senator Sherry. From Mr Murphy's modelling, everybody is to get 65c per week. That is if everybody gets the whole 65c, because there is the whole question of the distribution of the 65c. It could be that Senator Campbell could pick up three or four of the 65c and that somebody in the gallery might not get their 65c. I would be keeping an eye on Senator Campbell! What we have seen is an argument about compliance costs. The Treasury has said that there are $2 billion worth of compliance costs. In my maths, $2 billion in compliance costs is greater than $600 million in economic welfare gain. If you took a very simplistic approach—H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—Are you opposing this bill?3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—No, we are supporting this bill. We have said that this is a good bill.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—You are just complaining about the compliance costs. Do you want to chop down loopholes or don't you? You cannot have it both ways.3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—If the government was fair dinkum about chopping down loopholes, it would not have caved into the cash management trust industry. Senator Campbell talks about loopholes but the government has already given away $380 million worth of taxpayers money. (Time expired)18:15:003033Lees, Sen MegSenator LEES8U4SAAD00—The two bills before us, A New Tax System (Fringe Benefits Reporting) Bill 1998 and A New Tax System (Medicare Levy Surcharge—Fringe Benefits) Bill 1998 , are the first of the 17 bills in the tax package that make up the new tax system. Originally, they were to be debated with the rest of the bills, commencing on 19 April; and, indeed, that was the agreement we had with the government. The bills were part of the reference to the Senate Select Committee on a New Tax System.This morning, the motion was moved in this place to uncouple these two bills, to take them out of the inquiry process and let them proceed early. This, the government argued, was necessary because of their start-up dates—1 July of this year, not next year with the rest of the package—and we were happy to cooperate with the government and to support the uncoupling of the bills and deal with them as soon as possible, hence here we are now. We are also happy to deal with them because they are part of the bills dealing with closing loopholes, and the sooner we can do that the better—something the Democrats have long been arguing for.I have asked Senator Murray about the extent of evidence received on these two particular bills in the inquiry, and there were various submissions on this issue; but we have taken them into account in framing our position. The Democrats basically support these bills. They ensure that the device of fringe benefits and salary packaging is not able to be used to obtain tax and social security benefits. But I note with interest the package of amendments that landed on our desks today. These are largely technical amendments. In one case they correct an oversight relating to remote housing benefits. Some of them are simply amendments described in the explanatory memorandum as `technical corrections'. In some cases they relate to definitions.I note with interest that the Treasurer was pushing us with great fervour last year to simply tick off the package and get it through this place with no inquiry, no second look. Indeed, the bills were dealt with in the House of Representatives with minimal debate—17 bills in some 20 hours. We now see that that was after rushed post-election drafting and a very rushed report from the Tax Consultative Committee. So it is not surprising that we have anomalies and mistakes. If we had gone along with the government's request to simply push them through this place without inquiry we would probably have been back here already making technical amendments to the bills that had been passed.When the minister gets to look at the other 15 tax bills in detail, I believe that he will find further need for technical amendments. Indeed, looking through some of the submissions to the tax inquiry, I see that there are quite a number of what are fairly small problems but very important details that have to be corrected if we are going to get it right without needing to revisit these bills time and time again. By the time we get to the great bulk of the bills, we will probably see many more pages of government amendments—not to mention the Democrat amendments. That is again the reason that it is going to take some time to deal with the bills after 19 April. Also, it is again showing us how important the tax committee process has been in identifying many of these problems.The committees have been extremely busy; yet, to meet the government's tight timetable of 19 April, they have not been able to receive all of the evidence that they would like to have received. Quite a number of industry groups who had been particularly keen to address the select committee are going to have to be happy with just presenting written submissions because there simply is not enough time for that committee to deal with everyone who wants to appear before it.Certainly, with just this package of amendments which the government has moved, I think the government has defeated its own argument that the Senate has been obstructionist over the tax package. With just this batch of technical amendments alone, we see the benefit of time, of hindsight and of a closer look at the tax package. Of course the package will need to be changed in light of evidence that it is flawed. That is what the committee process is about. That we are asked today to address technical amendments shows us—particularly as I read through the explanatory memorandum—what a fresh set of eyes and a few months will do to look in detail through the bills before us.The fringe benefits legislation is very necessary to protect the integrity of the social safety net. Fringe benefits, despite all the complaints from business, remain a growing part of the tax system. In the last three years fringe benefits tax collections have risen by 16 per cent. Interestingly, around one-quarter of that, around $781 million, is for expense payments. That is basically cash which should be picked up and should be going through the PAYE system. Indeed, in the last year of tax statistics to June 1997 this item of fringe benefits rose by 11 per cent. That is a lot more than the 7.7 per cent rise in ordinary income tax—highlighting the growing popularity of salary packaging.Since the introduction of the superannuation surcharge in 1996 there has been a great deal of growth in salary packaging and conversion of salary to benefits to avoid the surcharge payment thresholds. This bill will put an end to those practices and, to that extent, we certainly welcome it. But, since we are dealing with part of the new tax system tax package, I should note for the record that this is simply not going far enough. This measure, worth around $270 million a year, is one of several measures in ANTS to deal with tax loopholes. In 2000-01 these measures will total around $2.6 billion, with a further $2 billion coming from the abolition of the savings rebate.That all sounds like a wonderful attack on closing loopholes. While we welcome these measures that have been announced, they are woefully inadequate. And the tax statistics that were released last week show us why. In 1996-97, 427,431 trusts lodged returns—up just 29 per cent in three years. At least that is dealt with within the package as it stands, but it is not necessarily in law yet. After the Farmers Federation and a few small business organisations have finished with government, I wonder exactly what we are going to end up with in law. In 1996-97, 559,520 companies lodged returns—up 31 per cent in four years. Sixty per cent of private companies pay no income tax whatsoever. They earn over $150 billion in income, nearly 40 per cent of all income earned by private companies.And what measures do we have in our package of bills, our new tax system, to deal with the huge blow-out in incorporation—a device obviously being used by professional service providers and by tradespeople to reduce their tax by exiting the PAYE system? What measures do we have to combat what is clearly a huge leakage in our tax system? There is absolutely nothing. Income of $150 billion is allowed to be washed right through the tax system without any of it sticking anywhere. In other words, the government is happy to sit back and watch a huge amount of money not in any way touched to get the taxes we need for essential services. It is not lifting a finger to do anything about it.A little further into the tax statistics we find the figures on rental deductions: $2.6 billion of rental losses driven by negative gearing. That amounts to a tax cost of around $700 million a year. And it is a growth occupation, with negatively geared losses rising by 48 per cent in three years—and that is despite a fall in interest rates.Then there are the dividend imputation tax benefits, worth $3.2 billion—double what it was five years ago—with 70 per cent of that benefit accruing to the top one-eighth of taxpayers. There are FBT tax concessions on company cars. This tax break was worth $740 million in 1996-97, an increase of 85 per cent in just three years.The tax break on employer superannuation contributions has risen from $2.3 billion to $3.9 billion between 1992 and 1996, a rise of 69 per cent. Then there is company tax, and the growing number of leaks from the Australian Tax Office from frustrated officials showing that corporate Australia is winning the tax battle against the tax man, with major companies like Newscorp paying barely nominal rates of tax.If Australia were to look to the United States and adopt the 20 per cent unavoidable alternative minimum company tax used in the United States, we could collect an additional $500 million approximately from companies which are currently telling the tax man and their shareholders two very different stories about their profitability. In fact, the Australian Council of Social Service—ACOSS—has produced a list of tax loopholes totalling over $8 billion a year that could be collected. And all the government has produced so far in the tax package is $2.6 billion of income tax base broadening. So they are certainly a very long way away from where they should be—very well short of the mark.So while we welcome this bill as a start on closing the loopholes in the income tax system, it is only a start. Reform of the income tax system is a fundamentally important part of tax reform. Indeed, I would say that the Democrats rank it well ahead of indirect tax reform and the GST. Australia needs and deserves a fair and effective income tax system that collects from all, based on real capacity to pay—one that is able to collect the tax and is not giving so many high income earners the opportunity to avoid paying anything at all out of what they are earning. Indeed, if we do not take a more serious look at what many people are managing to do, we simply will not have the level of revenue to pay for the community services that all Australians expect.We want to see a tax system that is more progressive, not less progressive. We want to see action to close more loopholes than this government is prepared to close at this stage. And we want to see the tax system rearranged to provide a greater benefit to low income earners and lesser benefits to high income earners. To that end, I will be moving two amendments to the bill in the committee stage.The first will require employer superannuation contributions also to be included on group certificates. This would have two advantages. The first would be that it would allow the high income earners surcharge to be collected from individuals rather than the super funds, and that would save over $100 million a year in compliance costs. But it would also ensure that salary packaging using superannuation is simply not put in to replace what we are doing with respect to fringe benefits tax. In other words, it would ensure that another mechanism would not be put in place as a means of getting around social security and tax means tests. That would ensure that the top end of taxpayers at least, who tend to have the larger superannuation packages, are picked up properly by these measures.At the same time, we would want to move to ensure that the lower end of the taxpaying scale are not caught up inadvertently by this legislation. At the lowest threshold at which this new rule on fringe benefits in assessable income cuts in is the HECS repayments. That is $20,700, which is an appallingly low threshold at which to move low income earners into a higher tax bracket by virtue of this graduate tax. It was one of the more unfair imposts on low income earners that has come so far from this government.We propose two amendments to the HECS repayment threshold to exclude low income earners. First, we propose that all taxpayers who are eligible for the low income earners tax rebate should be excluded from the graduate tax system. That covers around nine per cent of taxpayers. Second, we propose exempting low income graduates with families, that is, those in receipt of additional family assistance. If a graduate is regarded by the tax system as a low income earner, then that treatment should be consistent right across the board. To now include more people in the graduate tax system by adding in fringe benefits is to add to the unfairness of the low repayment thresholds.In conclusion, the Democrats want an income tax system that provides tax relief, not more taxes for low income earners, and one that ensures that higher income earners pay their fair share. We welcome this bill as a small step towards that but propose amendments to widen the net at the top end and reduce it at the bottom. This reflects the view we will take into the consideration of the rest of the new tax system package—that the result must be a broader direct and indirect tax base, a fairer and more progressive tax scale and a more robust revenue stream.18:30:003036Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRYZW4TASALP00—At the outset I should say that the Deputy Leader of the Australian Labor Party, Senator Cook, indicated to the Senate that we are supporting the A New Tax System (Fringe Benefits Reporting) Bill 1998 and A New Tax System (Medicare Levy Surcharge—Fringe Benefits) Bill 1998 . It is not my intention to repeat the very effective and incisive contributions of Senator Cook and my colleague Senator Conroy because, unlike government members who have contributed in debates on a wide range of issues—particularly the Telstra debate that we were urged to finish yesterday, at least the second reading aspects of it—Labor opposition members are not here to mindlessly repeat each other in debate. Rather, we are here to analyse the various aspects and particular problems of the legislation that is before us and particularly the different aspects and problems that the legislation will present.Senator Cook referred earlier to the allegation that the Senate is obstructive on a range of legislation that we have before us. I am glad to see that Senator Ian Campbell is in the chamber this evening for this debate because we had that allegation thrown at us yesterday in respect of the Telstra debate. When we got close to the end of that debate, what happened? The government called it off. So, on one hand, the government makes an allegation of obstruction and, on the other hand, when we are proceeding to the vote, the government all of a sudden decides that the vote should not proceed and that the legislation should be pulled for the time being.That has happened for two reasons. Firstly, there is the fundamentally inadequate management of this chamber by Senator Campbell. In some respects it is sad to see that Senator Heffernan is waiting in the wings to take over his job. I note the recent appointment of Senator Heffernan to the cabinet Senate legislative subcommittee so, Senator Campbell, I would be keeping an eye out if I were you. Secondly, there is the failure of the government to proceed with the Telstra legislation. So it is not our intention to mindlessly repeat the various concerns we have about a piece of legislation merely to waste time.The bills we are considering are the first wave of legislation that will flow as a consequence of the government's tax package. It is commonly known as the ANTS tax package. The purpose of the legislation is to implement the reportable fringe benefits system so that the fringe benefits of individual employees are reported by employers on group certificates. This approach is interesting and I will come back to the use of group certificates a little later.A number of areas are identified and the claim is made that this is an attempt to make the system fairer for all taxpayers. There are four elements—and I am looking at page 49 and page 50 of the ANTS document—and one is improving the income tests for surcharge and government benefits by requiring employers, from the 1999-2000 FBT year of income, to identify on group certificates the grossed up, taxable value of an employee's fringe benefits. The area of tax liability for such benefits will remain with the employer. With FBT the value will be included as income for `determining liability for a tax surcharge'—this is the issue that caught my eye—such as the Medicare levy surcharge and the superannuation contributions surcharge.That is technically incorrect. I do not know whether the minister or the parliamentary secretary is aware that it is actually a tax. The Senate passed an amendment to the superannuation contributions surcharge legislation that made it a tax.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—I think I remember you saying that once before.ZW4Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRY—I will come in a moment, Senator Campbell, to the monumental hypocrisy that is presented in this legislation in respect of the superannuation contributions so-called tax surcharge. It goes on to say that with income related obligations, such as child support, the non-grossed up amounts for a wider range of fringe benefits will also be included in assessing entitlements to certain income tested government benefits, such as the family allowance, and with parental income tests for youth allowance.It goes on to refer to stopping the overuse of the concessional FBT treatment of public benevolent institutions—and there is some further detail on that—and to extending FBT to benefits in excess of $1,000 a year and extending the FBT exemption for remote area housing provided by mining industry employers to their employees. I am simply paraphrasing, in the interests of time, what is outlined on pages 49 to 51 of the ANTS package. A constant theme that this government reiterates is about the current tax system being broke or broken. In the context of the current Senate inquiry, I went to the Shorter Oxford Dictionary to examine the meanings of the words `broke' and `broken'. On page 287 the dictionary defines `broke' as `without money, penniless, ruined or bankrupt'. In respect of `broken' it goes on to say `financially ruined or bankrupt'. These are interesting definitions. I think most people would accept—and I notice we are being broadcast this evening—that those definitions of `broken' and `broke' would be the commonly accepted community meaning of those two words—`without money, penniless, ruined or bankrupt; financially ruined or bankrupt'.In the context of the tax reform debate, the government makes the claim constantly—and Senator Kemp did it today in question time in response to an unruly interjection from me—that the system is broke. What evidence do we have that the tax system is broke? The minister for finance issued a press release in late February—I think it was on 22 February, but I stand to be corrected—about the revenue collection for the six months ended December last year. What did it show in respect of the wholesale sales tax system, about which we receive frequent allegations that it is broken? It showed that the tax revenue from the wholesale sales tax increased—and I stress `increased'—by 9.1 per cent in the six months to December last year in contrast to the six months ended December 1997.That is hardly evidence that the wholesale sales tax system is broke or broken; in fact, it is evidence to the contrary. The current wholesale sales tax system, which is to be replaced by a GST, is going gang busters. The claim that the wholesale sales tax system is broken, when you have a 9.1 per cent increase in revenue, is a monumental lie. I hesitate to use that word—I do not like using it—but it is simply grossly misleading to say that the WST system is broke or broken.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—So that is how you measure a tax—by how much money it raises?ZW4Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRY—It is certainly one of the ways, Senator Campbell, to measure the effectiveness of a tax. I accept that there are other measures and I will make a contribution on that at a later date.But I do want to come to one tax in this country that is definitely broke or broken, and that is the so-called superannuation surcharge—tax, as we call it. We should reflect that this government, on being elected in 1996, gave an ironclad guarantee that there would be no increase in existing taxes and no new taxes. It was a very firm commitment. But we had in the budget of May 1996 an additional tax—the so-called superannuation surcharge. That was projected to raise $480 million in the first year of its operation, 1997-98. How much did it raise? Rather than the $480 million that should have been raised, it collected only $350 million. It fell $133 million short of projected revenue estimates in its first year. Out of $480 million, $133 million failed to be collected. That is very compelling evidence that there is at least one tax that is broke or broken, and that is the superannuation surcharge tax.I come back to the kind interjection of Senator Campbell who referred to the other evidence of the sustainability of a tax, and that is the horrendous collection costs of the superannuation surcharge. It is estimated that this tax, which failed to collect—there was a shortfall of $133 million in the first year—cost $190 million to collect. These are not my figures; they are the figures of the respected financial organisations, the Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia, known as ASFA, and the Investment and Financial Services Association, known as IFSA. That is $190 million to collect $347 million in revenue, and this does not include the costs of the Australian Taxation Office. In the first year the cost of collecting the superannuation surcharge tax was more than 50 per cent of the revenue raised. This tax is a monumental flop with respect to the two critical criteria of revenue collected and the costs of collecting that revenue.What is the importance of this tax in the context of the legislation we are considering? I return to my charge of gross hypocrisy, because that is what this legislation represents in the context of the superannuation surcharge tax. Consider the legislation in respect of reportable fringe benefits of an employee for 1999-2000. The various deductions for superannuation contributions include rebate for personal superannuation contributions, rebate for contributions to spouse's superannuation, higher education contributions, superannuation surcharge and the Medicare levy thresholds.Let me return to that second-last item, superannuation surcharge. What we have here is a package of legislation to prevent, or to try to minimise at least, the avoidance of a range of tax provisions. What is one of the six that I have read out? It is the superannuation surcharge tax. We have a package of legislation that is trying to minimise avoidance of the superannuation surcharge—quite rightly, but I point out to the Senate that this superannuation surcharge tax, the most costly tax to collect in Australian history, is not a product of a Labor government or a previous Liberal Party-National Party government; it is a product of this government. This government introduced the superannuation surcharge tax. It introduced it in the budget of May 1996. And here we have the absurd and hypocritical situation that the government is having to crack down on salary repackaging because in significant part taxpayers are trying to avoid a tax it introduced. It is an absolutely absurd situation and represents monumental hypocrisy on the part of this government in respect to this measure.It is not as though this government was not warned about the problems of the superannuation surcharge tax. It was not just me who was a strong critic of the administrative methods of collecting this so-called surcharge. There has been an absolute litany of complaints, concerns and warnings issued, not just by ASFA and IFSA but by accounting organisations and legal firms. You are hard pressed to find one reputable financial or economic organisation that will say that the superannuation surcharge tax is an efficient tax. You are hard pressed to find one organisation because of the way in which the government chose to collect that new tax.As the Senate is probably aware, I can get fairly passionate about this issue. My passion was heightened by what we saw in Senate question time today. Senator Ferguson—who has joined us in the Senate—threw in a dorothy dixer to Senator Kemp. What was that dorothy dixer all about? I do not know whether Senator Ferguson knew the importance of the question he was putting to Senator Kemp. It was about yet more changes to the superannuation surcharge tax.EP5FERGUSONSenator Ferguson—Don't tempt me, Senator.ZW4Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRY—Don't interrupt, Senator Ferguson. Do not disrupt this debate. We are anxious that we should get to the vote. The more unruly interruptions from you, in an attempt to defend the indefensible on the superannuation surcharge tax and the more disruptions of the Senate's timetable by the government—that we are continuing to see—the later we will get to considering this legislation. Senator Ferguson posed a dorothy dixer to Senator Kemp today about the superannuation surcharge tax.ZS6QUIRKESenator Quirke—The question is, is he any the wiser?ZW4Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRY—He is not any the wiser. We have not yet seen the details of the legislation. But it did refer to two elements. It referred to the government deciding not to collect the advance part of the superannuation surcharge. There is one good reason for that: the industry cannot work it out. The administration of this superannuation surcharge tax is so complex that they cannot work out what their liabilities are. The government was warned, and not just by me. Over and over again they were warned by industry about the problems of collecting this new tax. There was one other interesting aspect of the announcement. Senator Kemp, as is his wont, referred to `minor technical amendments'. I will be having a look at those minor technical amendments and so will the many people that advise the opposition on this surcharge tax.EP5FERGUSONSenator Ferguson—You have certainly got a lot of advisers.ZW4Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRY—We have got a lot of advisers on this issue, Senator Ferguson.EP5FERGUSONSenator Ferguson—He has even got a few Liberal MPs.ZW4Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRY—Liberal MPs as well, Senator Ferguson. You have totally ignored the good advice that has been coming thick and fast on the superannuation surcharge tax. The other area is the minor technical amendments that are going to be backdated to 1996. Why are they going to be backdated?H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—Mr Acting Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. He has spent most of his speech talking about the super surcharge, which is clearly something he pretends to know a lot about. I do think it would be appropriate that he come back to the topic of this bill. He is clearly not even trying to make his remarks relevant to this particular bill.ZS6QUIRKESenator Quirke—On the point of order—H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—Here we go.ZS6QUIRKESenator Quirke—Yes, we are going to have a go. In fact he has spent two minutes of his speech on this particular matter and the rest of it was on the bill.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Chapman)—As I was hearing Senator Sherry, I would have to rule that his comments were relevant because this is a portion of the legislation. But again I remind Senator Sherry that he must always abide by that ruling to make his remarks relevant.9L6MACKAYSenator Mackay—A wise ruling.ZW4Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRY—Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President. It is a wise ruling because, as I said about two-thirds of the way through the contribution on this debate, if we look at the Bills Digest on this legislation that we are considering in the Senate today, one of the major reasons why we are having to crack down on salary repackaging is the superannuation surcharge. It is quite legitimate to comment on the difficulties of the surcharge, because it was this government that introduced it. It was a failure before it started. It is the only tax in the current tax system that we can legitimately criticise as not collecting revenue and costing an enormous amount of money to operate. It has been a flop. If anything is broke or broken in the tax system it is this government's new tax—the superannuation surcharge.I was just about to conclude my remarks about the minor technical amendments that Senator Kemp referred to today. These are being made retrospective to 1996. Why is that occurring? Because there are numerous court challenges to the superannuation surcharge tax. There are hundreds of them, apparently. I believe that these so-called technical amendments are in order to retrospectively fix up the tax, before it may be ruled unconstitutional or illegal by the courts and the government will lose a significant amount of revenue. That was another reason why I was prompted to get up on my feet and contribute to this debate.This is a rolling saga of difficulty with this super surcharge tax. Finally, the other element of hypocrisy in this legislation is that group certificates are to be used in respect of fringe benefits. That was one of the solutions we put forward to simplify the administration of the super surcharge tax in the first place. Here we have an example of this government picking up this idea. If they had done it in the first place, we would not have the sorts of problems that we have got with the so-called super surcharge. (Time expired)Debate (on motion by Senator Ian Campbell) adjourned.Documents3040304018:51:003040Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEYSF4VICALP00—I move:That the Senate take note of the document.This report is quite vital for Australian industry, particularly the digital broadcasting industry. It is important in the sense of not only an industry that makes money but also an industry that does much for the culture of Australia and the way Australians see themselves. This is a matter on which Senator Lundy has made many a good speech. The report is entitled Australian industry: thinking outside the box . The thrust of the report is that we, as Australians, should develop a digital broadcasting industry and should think in a way that enables that to happen. The report is to be welcomed insofar as it says that we should develop such an industry and it is to be welcomed insofar as it plots ways in which that can be done. However, it does raise certain questions. For example, under the heading `Executive summary' it states:Key challenges for Australian industry are to apply its expertise and creativity to the development of the new kinds of services that digital broadcasting can deliver, and to make those products and services available to the community in a convenient and understandable manner.Nobody could argue with that proposition. The Senate might well ask how creativity is being engendered by the present government. A later report by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission—in fact, I think it is the next one to be considered by the Senate—talks about economic competition, competition of the marketplace. What is often lost in debates about competition in this chamber is that competition exists not only at an economic level but also at an intellectual level, an imaginative level—indeed at several levels. Often we hear people say, `Don't look at that competition which is so important.' The report states:The potential demand for content development, enhanced programming and information services are more difficult to forecast but are likely to be substantial.They would be more substantial if we allowed competition to go beyond simply the competition of the marketplace, if we stressed the need for competition at an intellectual level, an artistic level—levels other than the economic ones. The trouble with the approach that this report seems to take is that it looks simply at the level of competition in the marketplace.Where are we going to get this outflow of creativity? Certainly not from just the marketplace. Education is another element. We do not teach enough history, language and poetry to allow the imagination to give the boost that is required to bring the digital broadcasting industry in Australia to the level that we all desire. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted; debate adjourned.304118:59:003041Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSONLI4VICLP10—I move:That the Senate take note of the document.As Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, I would like to make some comments on the tabling of the annual report of the Migration Agents Registration Authority. The report provides details of the activities of the Migration Agents Registration Authority during the period 21 March to 30 June. There has been some delay in this report, but it is the first report they have prepared. I hope next time it can be more timely.Like any newly established organisation, much of MARA's effort in the first three months of its operation was directed at establishing and refining the administrative procedures and operational processes necessary for it effectively to take on the role of a migration advice industry regulator. It did so by developing a complaints handling process and a mediation program. Publicity programs about MARA and its role were developed, presentations commenced and new administrative support staff were recruited and trained. I was a member when my then profession first faced registration some time back now, and I know the difficulties a new area faces with registration.On 30 June 1998 there were 2,554 registered agents. Some 256 agents were deregistered pursuant to section 302 of the Migration Act, principally for non-payment of renewal fees within the time specified in the Migration Act, and one person was refused registration as an agent. During the reporting period, MARA received 102 complaints, but that figure does not reflect the fact that there were 102 agents. There were complaints about a total of 62 agents or 2.5 per cent of registered agents. These complaints were about agents who failed to provide an acceptable level of service to their clients. Twenty-eight complaints were examined and finalised, and the registration of one agent was suspended for six months.MARA has made substantial progress towards meeting its goals during this three-month period. It has sent a clear message to all migration agents that it is serious about raising ethical standards in the industry and ensuring that disciplinary processes are effective. At the same time, users of migration agent services, some of whom are the most vulnerable in our community, can be assured that their interests are better protected than ever before and that they may at all times expect to receive competent advice from a registered agent. It is no longer acceptable for migration agents to lodge applications that they know have no chance of success and which are designed to buy time for their clients.Consumer protection has been further enhanced by the introduction of universal competency standards for initial registration and re-registration through the continuing professional development requirements. All continuing professional development activities are evaluated and rigorously assessed by MARA against established criteria to ensure that activities generally meet agents' training needs. MARA has implemented procedures to ensure the content of activities remains current and relevant to agents' needs.From 21 March 1999, all registered agents are required to provide evidence that they have satisfied the continuing professional development requirements to enable their continued practice in the industry. Any agent who fails to meet these training requirements will be excluded from practising as an agent for 12 months. These are welcome developments in an industry whose reputation in the past has been marred by the activities of a few unscrupulous agents who have sought to abuse Australia's migration processes. The vast majority of migration agents are honourable and committed men and women, and it is in protecting and promoting the interests of the client group through legitimate and highly professional business practices that the industry will be best served in the years ahead. The government looks forward to MARA's continuing work to develop standards and quality of service.19:03:003042Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEYSF4VICALP00—The annual report of the Migration Agents Registration Authority is an interesting report. It deals with the Migration Agents Registration Authority, whose purpose is to bring standards to those giving advice to people who have problems under the Migration Act. As the parliamentary secretary has said, it is fairly new to its proceedings.There are some problems, I think, with the structure of the authority. First of all, it grows out of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs directly. There is a concern to have a body such as this controlled by the department when matters to do with the department are very much the meat and drink of the authority's jurisdiction. What people would, I think, like more is something that is completely independent of the department, perhaps run out of the Attorney-General's Department. But, in any event, it will be interesting to see how the authority works. It replaces another one which was found not to be as satisfactory as was desired, and so this one has been put in its place. Let us hope it has a more successful history than the previous one.Madam Acting Deputy President Crowley, as you would know from the profession you were in—the medical profession—the best scrutiny that you can have is a thorough scrutiny by your peers, your peers having the integrity and skill that they ought to have. The trouble with the Migration Agents Registration Authority is that it ignores that peer pressure. It probably ignores the peer pressure because there has not been time for a peer group of sufficient strength to keep those within it operating according to the conduct that we would desire. This group of migration agents has grown up over the last few years. This group has developed from initiatives taken by the department and by the ministers concerned. So we have got a fairly loose group in the sense that it has not got a tradition of service, a tradition of peer pressure, that might be desired. Accordingly, we find ourselves in situations where we have to have something like the Migration Agents Registration Authority.Let us hope this body grows into a useful body, one which does bring the sorts of actions from migration agents that we want. Let us not race to any condemnation, but it will be interesting to see how it develops.19:07:003043Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—I would also like to speak on this inaugural annual report of the Migration Agents Registration Authority. It is a report that I am particularly interested in. I think it was the very first piece of legislation I had responsibility for, on behalf of the Australian Democrats, after I came into this chamber reasonably unexpectedly towards the end of 1997.It was a fairly problematic piece of legislation, and it placed the Democrats—and, indeed, the Senate—in a fairly difficult situation. We were left with an ultimatum, if you like, from the minister that either the Senate would pass legislation establishing this authority or the government would withdraw the legislation and enable the sunset clause to kick in, which would remove the existing regulatory scheme and leave us in a situation where there was no oversight of migration agents at all.That situation was far from ideal, and the particular area of concern from the Democrats' perspective was the fact that this new authority charged community sector migration agents—people giving migration advice—an annual registration fee. Whilst negotiations between the minister and me led to a reduction in what that fee was going to be, it nonetheless still required a fee. As detailed in this report, it is a $150 annual fee for non-fee charging agents—those who work in the voluntary or community sector for organisations including community legal centres, migrant resource centres, church and welfare agencies and other community based assistance agencies.Whilst the $150 fee is far less than the $1,000 fee for professional migration agents, each individual in those community agencies who gives migration advice has to register and pay that fee. As I am sure most senators would know, community legal centres, and the community sector in general, are very much strapped for resources and are very underfunded, and imposts such as this could potentially have a major impact on their operation.Not surprisingly, this report does not go into the potential impacts on those community sector organisations. Obviously, it is not the role of the Migration Agents Registration Authority to deal with that; nonetheless, I indicate to the Senate and to the government that I am very interested in—and I am still monitoring closely—what the potential impact is. Clearly it is an important area.I have now been in this chamber for 18 months and have had a greater degree of exposure to the range of difficult situations that people are put in when they are trying to obtain accurate advice about migration law and migration issues. It is an area of law that is very complex, very difficult to access and very frequently changing, and it is important that people can be confident in the advice they are getting.To that extent, it is pleasing to see a report from the Migration Agents Registration Authority which gives some indication of the type of work they do and of some of the work they have done in their first three months of operation. The Democrats hope that there is an ongoing improvement in the quality of advice from migration agents throughout the community, whether from the community sector or, more importantly, from professional migration agents.It is worth looking at some of the statistics in the report. In terms of the funding for the authority in the first part of its operation, the amount provided in revenue included $380,000 in government grants, but $614,000—about two-thirds of the authority's income—came from registration renewals. Looking at the figures of fee charging versus non-fee charging, it would appear that a significant proportion of that fee comes from the non-fee charging sector. So the community sector is providing a significant amount of the resources, and I certainly hope that it is not an unhelpful drain on what is a very underresourced sector.It is pleasing to see some initial output on the operations of this authority. I will certainly continue to monitor its operation as well as the impact of the fees that are required to be paid. The community legal sector plays a very important role in providing accurate advice to people who are often not able to afford much in the way of advice and are not in a position to be too choosy about whom they get it from. (Time expired)19:12:003044McKiernan, Sen JamesSenator McKIERNAN1I4WAALP00—Like the speakers before me on this subject, I welcome the tabling of this report. It is a bit late, and I suppose there are some justifiable excuses. It would have been useful if it had been available for the Senate estimates committee scrutiny process last month. Nonetheless, we did flag at that time that we could perhaps explore the annual report's contents at the supplementary Senate estimates committees in May.I welcome the report. I must admit that I was somewhat sceptical that the MARA might not be what is required in this very delicate area. Whilst I accept that a report on three months of the activity of the Migration Agents Registration Authority is not necessarily a very good yardstick on which to judge, through the content of this report—and through my scrutiny of the process and contact with individuals within the MARA and the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs—I am aware that there is some activity being generated and that, where complaints are being made, they are being investigated.That is not to say that we now have a completely clean industry—far from it. Evidence presented to a joint parliamentary committee that I serve on—and Senator Bartlett would probably agree with me—would indicate that there are still some very unscrupulous agents out in the field exploiting people who are in perhaps the most vulnerable situations in which human beings can find themselves in this country.We were told in Sydney just a few weeks back that one individual found himself in the Federal Court of Australia on an application to overturn a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal. The litigant himself did not know why he was in the court at all—he was there on the advice of a migration agent on a case he was very unlikely to win. I do not know how the MARA will investigate that particular case. In the hearings in Melbourne, I advised one set of individuals to make complaints to the department, to make complaints to their local member of parliament, to make complaints to the MARA and to ensure that they are thoroughly investigated.As each unscrupulous agent is investigated and found out, it will send a message to others that unwelcome behaviour cannot and, indeed, will not be tolerated. The report details on pages 16 through to 19 some instances of the work that the MARA did in the three-month period the report covers. It gives the Senate some indication of the types of activities that migration agents have been engaging in.In opening, I said I welcome the report. I still think the jury is out on the MARA but, at this stage, I am not condemning it out of hand. It has been in operation now for only 12 months and two days, and it will be reviewed within the next 12 months—before it has been two years in operation. As Senator Bartlett said, I am sure many honourable senators in this place will be watching the performance. We will be scrutinising them. I again encourage my colleagues in this place and in the other place and those who are very active throughout the ethnic communities in this country that, wherever they come across unscrupulous behaviour, they make sure they let the authority know about it. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted; debate adjourned.3044Motions to take note of the following documents were moved, and debate was adjourned:Australian Federal Police—Ministerial direction, 25 February 1999—Government's priorities and expectations for the AFP for the period 1999-2001. Motion to take to note of document moved by Senator Quirke. Debate adjourned till Thursday at general business, Senator Quirke in continuation.Australian Competition and Consumer Commission—Report—Competitive safeguards 1997-98. Motion to take note of document moved by Senator Cooney. Debate adjourned till Thursday at general business, Senator Cooney in continuation. Australian Competition and Consumer Commission—Report—Telecommunications charges in Australia, December 1998. Motion to take note of document moved by Senator Quirke. Debate adjourned till Thursday at general business, Senator Quirke in continuation.Adjournment304510000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! It being 7.17 p.m., I propose the question:That the Senate do now adjourn.304519:17:003045Watson, Sen JohnSenator WATSONVJ4TASLP10—I am concerned about recent articles in the media reporting the increasing weight of Australians. Through the 1980s and the first half of the 1990s there has been an increase in the proportion of men and women who are overweight or obese. A recent article in Australia's Health 1998 quotes data from the risk factor prevalence surveys and the national nutrition survey. The proportion of overweight or obese women aged between 25 and 64 years has increased from 26.7 per cent in 1980 to 45.7 per cent in 1995, while the proportion of overweight men in the same age group has increased from 47.6 per cent to 66.3 per cent over the same period. The proportion of specifically obese men has increased dramatically from 7.8 per cent in 1980 to 17.6 per cent and, for women, from 6.9 per cent in 1980 to 16.1 per cent in 1995.In an article in the Australian Journal of Public Health, David Crawford and Neville Owen reveal that the prevalence of overweight and obesity varies according to socio-demographic characteristics. The odds of being overweight or obese are higher in persons born in Southern Europe compared with those born in Australia; for persons with a low level of education compared with those of tertiary education or qualifications; for married men compared with never-married men; for plant machinery operators compared with professional people; and for women in the two lowest socio-economic categories compared with those in the highest category.Crawford and Owen believe the high prevalence of overweight and obesity, the biological consequence and the socio-demographic distribution make excess body weight a major public health problem. At all ages, significantly more men than women are overweight or obese. Studies show that women are more concerned with body weight than men and are more likely to take steps to reduce or to control it. This has led to some negative effects and unfortunate eating disorders. Men are concerned about being overweight but are less likely to do something about it.The damage caused by obesity has led practitioners to urge governments to address weight gain as an urgent national health problem. Overweight and obesity increase the risk of diabetes, hypertension, heart disease, stroke, gout, sleep apnoea, gallstones, arthritis, some forms of cancer, impotence and infertility. One in three Australian families will be affected by heart disease or stroke. The latest figures from the Australian Bureau of Statistics highlight the alarming fact that heart and blood vessel disease is a major public health problem facing Australia today, claiming one life every 10 minutes. The cost to the Australian national health system is absolutely enormous.While there has been a marked improvement in blood pressure levels amongst men and women in Australia, data from the National Heart Foundation's risk factor prevalence study reveals that the average levels of blood cholesterol are too high and represent a national health problem. More than 47 per cent of men and 39 per cent of women aged between 20 and 69 years had plasma cholesterol levels above the National Heart Foundation's desirable level.The 1980s and early 1990s were tough for Australians. We may be seeing the result of a society in a depressed mood—recession, unemployment and the decline of the family unit. It is recognised that the unemployed and those from low income groups have higher levels of overweight and obesity.There is 24-hour television nowadays. We have computers, computer games and the Internet. These electronic devices, becoming more popular every day, keep people glued to their chairs. Let's face it: there is not much physical exercise in watching television or chatting on the Internet. Additionally, many people are employed in occupations that require little exercise. Take us, for example. We have a limited amount of time available for exercise. We can joke that we walk quite a number of kilometres each day around Parliament House, but how many of our staff take time out to exercise during the sitting weeks? There are people in the parliament who do exercise regularly and quite vigorously, such as Senator Alston. Senator Chapman is another. We all need to set aside time each day for daily exercise regularly and in moderation.The National Heart Foundation reveals that treatment of established obesity is successful in a minority of cases, so particular attention needs to be devoted to the avoidance of obesity. Children consume a lot of food and they also watch a lot of television. Up to 93 per cent of television advertisements in children's timeslots are for food—and they are not for fruit and vegetables.Too little time is spent on physical education in schools and too many fatty items are for sale in school canteens—no doubt the popular ones that are advertised on television—and, as mum and dad both work, the school lunch box is actually disappearing from the school grounds. The Australian Medical Association has called for rigorous exercise to be made compulsory in all schools to `help reverse the ballooning rate of fat Australians'. Perhaps school canteens should be encouraged to stock 100 per cent health food, not junk food. Workplace food should also be addressed and more emphasis paid to eating healthy food in the work environment. Unions and employer groups should be proactive in this area, recognising that physical activity and diet are part of occupational health and safety policies and practices. Local councils can also assist by constructing cycle and walking paths, skateboard parks and the like. There may be a case for government to actually introduce tax deductions for gym fees.The National Health and Medical Research Council is extremely concerned about Australians getting fatter. Background papers contributed to the development of a single strategic plan for the prevention of overweight and obesity entitled `Acting on Australia's weight'. In summary, this report states that the trend of increasing levels of overweight and obesity in the population is likely to be the result of small decreases in physical activity and small changes in food intake by most rather than the extreme inactivity and excessive food intake among the few. Australians, therefore, eat too much and exercise too little. The National Health and Medical Research Council report states that many epidemiological studies report a negative correlation between physical activity and weight gain and that it is highly probable that the increase in overweight and obesity in Australia and similar societies over the past few decades is associated with a reduction in physical activity during the same period.The strategic plan is about changing the macroenvironment to make it easier for people to undertake physical activity and to make healthier food choices. Its goals must be to prevent further weight gain in adults, to eventually reduce the proportion of the adult population that is overweight or obese and to ensure the healthy growth of children. The time frame for implementation of the strategy is 10 years, from January 1997, with an interim evaluation to take place after five years. I will eagerly await the progress reports.The Life, be in it, `Norm', television advertisements, with their familiar music and quaint jingle, may be just what we need now to get us out of our armchairs and office chairs, away from the computer and television, onto our bikes and into our walking gear in order to exercise on a daily basis. I thank the Senate.304619:25:003046Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—I rise to speak tonight on a couple of issues. Firstly, briefly, I wish to remind the Senate of a motion passed by this chamber almost a year ago, on 25 March last year, which noted the commencement of the Victorian duck hunting season and which called on all state and territory governments to `ban the cruel and environmentally damaging practice of duck hunting'. Unfortunately, there has not been much progress in relation to banning that practice in those states where it is still continued, and last weekend we once again saw the Victorian duck hunting season commence. The Democrats believe that the institutionalised killing of native birds for recreation is an ugly practice that has no place anymore in Australian society and that it should not be tolerated. It has gone past its expiry date and needs to be thrown out, like the practice of whaling.I congratulate the many duck rescuers who tried to assist in saving native bird wildlife, including some protected species, last weekend. I congratulate not just veteran campaigners such as Laurie Levy but many other people doing it for the first time, including a number of Democrats and, indeed, the Victorian President of the Young Democrats, Amanda Leeper, who provided me with a report about some of the activities that happened there. There was a range of issues of great concern beyond just the slaughter of native birds, including illegal shooting at least half an hour before the official start, the killing of a number of protected species, swans and cygnets being shot, intimidation from balaclava wearing shooters throwing rescuers into the swamp and their cameras along with them, and various other practices. It is unfortunate that the police present at the scene, as has been the practice, tend to focus more on keeping protesters away from the duck shooters rather than on ensuring that the duck shooters do not inappropriately interfere with those people who are trying to rescue and save the lives of native wildlife.The other issue I would like to speak in a little more depth on relates to piggeries. There has been a bit in the news of late about the piggery of the former Prime Minister, Mr Keating. Whilst debate rages about whether Paul Keating ripped off his piggery partner, misled the House of Representatives or did a deal with the Commonwealth Bank, there is one part of the issue that is being left out—that is, the pigs. In many ways, one might ask, `Why shouldn't they be left out? After all, they can't get an exclusive on 60 Minutes and they can't take part in shonky deals.' But they do pay the highest price of all—a miserable life, followed by a captive bolt in the head. That is why I think pigs and their welfare should not be forgotten.Pigs farmed intensively are confined to life in sheds. Sows are kept in crates where they can take only one step forward and one back. They are never able to see the sun or a blade of grass, and the boredom and monotony of their existence drives many of them insane. Over five million pigs are killed each year in Australia for industry purposes and for food consumption. The vast majority of those are intensively farmed and suffer conditions such as those that prevailed at the piggery previously owned by the former Prime Minister at Parkville in New South Wales.Rescue action by a number of activists in 1995 exposed that particular piggery for having horrendous animal cruelty practices. Over 30 animal rescuers entered that piggery on 20 November in that year, at the same time as the former Prime Minister was performing duties overseas in Japan. They entered the piggery to rescue sick pigs, to highlight the appalling conditions and to demand immediate action.A lot of the accounts that I am about to mention to the Senate come from people who were present on that particular inspection of that piggery. Some of these insights were taken from those eyewitness accounts and the video footage taken at that time, which I have witnessed. The particular eyewitness account I am about to mention comes from well-known animal rights activist Lynda Stoner. It mentions that the overall aim of the inspection of the piggery was, firstly, to remove injured and ill piglets to a waiting vet, and then to obtain videotape and film evidence of the acts of cruelty that were continuing in the piggery and to highlight the unnatural existence of intensively farmed animals.She spoke of the terrible stench of the shed. It was different to the stench of battery hen sheds, no ammonia burning into the lungs, but terrible with dying and dead piglets. Despite the physical response to gag and run, the knowledge that these animals cannot even turn around and needed assistance was motivation to continue. Light from the video cameras highlighted sows lying in afterbirth, faeces, dead piglets, tethers caught in the skin of the sows' necks, bleeding welts, callused lesions, and chains too short, preventing the mother pigs from licking away afterbirth and chewing through umbilical cords. The light also gave testimony to mother pigs unable to reach their babies, tied by a steel chain—unnaturally fat, manacled food machines with no dignity, no consideration at all for natural inclinations, for basic comfort and for the fact that they too are sentient creatures. Part of the major stress suffered by intensively farmed pigs is that they are deprived of separate defecating areas, in direct contrast to their instinct for cleanliness.The sows were all tethered, with the exception of a few. Their huge bodies lay half on concrete, the other half on wooden slats facing their food and water area. It was difficult to believe that the small concreted inserts were for water because there was no water in them at 3 a.m. The room for food was where thousands of maggots had taken up residence with the cockroaches. The remnants of the slop they are fed to put weight on as quickly as possible was hardly discernible as food. The activists reported watching as sows got their trotters caught in chains, the effort of getting up causing them to foam. They saw sows showing clinical stress symptoms, swaying back and forth and gnawing on the bars, intelligent brains deprived of any stimulus whatsoever.It is difficult to view these animals and not think of the outcry that would happen were this to happen to dogs and cats. It is difficult to understand why prosecution is mandatory for ill-treatment of companion animals yet very little consideration is given for animals used for the meat market. Why is such a quantum leap even necessary in finding compassion for animals whose intelligence is deemed by many to be as high as or higher than that of dogs? If many of us who do own dogs thought of our own pets being chained in such conditions, I am sure we would immediately see how inappropriate such conditions were.The evidence of cruelty in the piggery was so damning that on the same day that this piggery inspection occurred the New South Wales government announced it would ban all tethering of pigs—a welcome announcement. New South Wales is now the only state in Australia where the practice of tethering is completely banned. The day-to-day pain suffered by these intelligent, sensitive and curious creatures that are kept and bred as unnaturally fat food machines continues. It is important to emphasise the ongoing suffering that occurs in many intensive piggeries around the country. The particular irony of this piggery was that, whilst the suffering continued, the radio played love songs through the speakers as if to compensate for the concrete slabs, the lack of straw or bedding and the chains locking the pigs to single stalls.As the Keating piggery debate still rages, with its various allegations of a hatchet job and the questioning of the credentials of Mr Keating's former partner, the debate nonetheless continues to ignore the true victims of the piggery operation and the conditions in which a large majority of Australia's pigs live. It is worth emphasising that, whilst many people feel it is difficult to do anything about this issue and they are often not aware of the specific details of the conditions that many intensively farmed animals have to endure, it is something that many Australians do have strong concerns about, particularly when they are made aware of the suffering.I remind the Senate of a program screening on A Current Affair. While it is not quite the same as 60 Minutes, nonetheless it is a reasonably high profile program. It did show conditions in another piggery, following a similar inspection and videotaping by some animal rights activists in New South Wales accompanied by A Current Affair journalist Mike Munro, showing similar scenes to those which I have just described a few years later. I understand that the response to the showing of that particular program was amongst the largest public responses that A Current Affair has ever received to any item shown. That is a strong indication that such unnecessary cruelty is something that does concern many people and when it is brought to their attention they do demonstrate that concern. I believe the demonstration of that concern shows how crucial it is that governments, and indeed the industry itself, do more to address the unnecessary cruelty involved in many intensive piggeries around Australia.304919:35:003049Troeth, Sen JudithSenator TROETHGX5VICLP10—I would like to speak tonight on the work of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics, Finance and Public Administration, particularly the work that has been published in its most recent report entitled Money too far away , which is a report on regional banking services. Then I would like to comment on some of the work that I have done as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry in the work of the Finance Forum, now known as the Agricultural Finance Forum.The removal of face-to-face banking, the aspect of banking which this report most strongly concentrates on, has had particular impact in rural and regional areas. The report looks at this phenomenon, which is a financial move taking place right across the world with leading edge technology that is probably unlikely to be reversed. It also looks at some of the alternatives that both banks and governments can offer in the light of these movements and some of the aspects of banking that lie ahead of us as we move on into the next century. The ability to both store and exchange money has always been one of mankind's strongest needs, along with the desire for food, good health and shelter. Banking has always existed in some form or another. These days we see such improvements as ATMs, electronic banking and the instant movement of money worldwide.Given the undeniable fact that banks have thought it necessary to rationalise or close their services—not only in regional areas, I hasten to add, but also in metropolitan areas—the question arises as to how customers of those banks can access a similar service. This has taken place in many ways, as the committee's work goes on to detail, and I will briefly mention some of those. Firstly, there has been the development of credit unions and the enhancement of the way in which they can work. Some of the movements brought about by the Wallis reforms have certainly boosted the choice of consumers in the way in which they can access credit unions.On 11 March 1999, the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation, Joe Hockey, introduced groundbreaking legislation which will give regulatory responsibility to building societies, credit unions and friendly societies so that customers are able to use those. It is interesting to note that some 342 building societies, credit unions and friendly societies, which represent 1,326 branches nationally, with $38 billion in assets and 12,426 employees, will be able to be used by customers in order to access the sorts of financial services that they need. This is a very welcome change and it is part of the government's fundamental goals of increasing competition and improving efficiency but, at the same time, giving customers the guarantee that the financial system still provides integrity, security and fairness. That is most welcome.Also, there has been the move to set up what are now called rural transaction centres. This means that the government has committed some $70 million over five years to establish up to 500 rural transaction centres in small towns around Australia with populations of fewer than 3,000. These are exactly the population centres that have been left, in many cases, without a single branch of a bank in the town. The funds for the rural transaction centres will be drawn from the sale of a further 16 per cent of Telstra. I can only ask that all non-government parties in the Senate regard the extension of this service as part of their community obligation to constituents, and that they will go on and vote for that further 16 per cent sale of Telstra.The rural transaction centres program delivers not only such services as banking but also post, Medicare Ezyclaim, phone and fax facilities to communities that are no longer able to attract some or all of those services. This is indeed a very welcome development. As well as that, in my own home state of Victoria, we have seen the concept of com munity banks arise. This means that communities who find themselves in the situation with no financial institution can, of their own volition, put community money to help fund a community bank which is then run by the local community. That provides ownership of the financial institution at a community level, and should go on to ensure the survival of that institution when it is owned and run by the community.The first two community banks opened in the middle of last year in the Victorian towns of Rupanyup and Minyip. Since then, many others have set up in centres such as Upwey, which is an outer suburb of Melbourne; Lang Lang in Victoria; Henty, in New South Wales; Toora, in Gippsland; Avoca, in central Victoria; and Wentworth and Coleambally, which are both in southern New South Wales. The Bendigo Bank, which deserves part of the credit for this, expects 15 branches to be operating by the end of June, with a further six to 10 by the end of the year. All of those are very rational type alternatives to the sort of banking that has been offered in the past.As parliamentary secretary, I chair the Agricultural Finance Forum, which came about through recommendations of the National Rural Finance Summit held in June 1996. The forum attempts to facilitate better dialogue between the rural and financial sectors, and it hopes to help improve communication between the two sectors. I now chair that forum and I am very pleased with both the representative membership that we have on it as well as our terms of reference, which give us a very broad base. Basically, the forum is to increase the understanding of rural finance providers of the unpredictable nature of the commodity markets climate, and other factors which influence the profitability of farming, and how to, in turn, increase the rural community's understanding of financial sector operations.Let me give you an idea of the broad base of membership that we have on this forum. I will not name them as persons but they represent such organisations as the National Farmers Federation, the senior agribusiness advisers of the Bank of Melbourne, Westpac, the National Australia Bank, the ANZ Bank and the Commonwealth Bank of Australia. Also represented are rural research agencies, rural adjustment and finance corporations, pastoral houses, chartered accountants, the Bankers Association, as well as representatives from the department. We also have rural councillors on that forum and a representative from the Credit Union Services Corporation. I would like to commend in my talk tonight those particular representatives who give very freely of their time and services in order to help rural communities. As chairman, I appreciate it very much.Some of the things that the forum has looked at so far include the work of property management planning, which goes on in the different states, and how banks can better provide both product and information to serve the farming sector. We obviously took a great interest in the House of Representatives inquiry, which I have mentioned, increased competition in the agricultural sector and, as far as providing banking services goes, what the level of communication should be between the financial sector, the agricultural sector and government. In future, we hope to look at several other directions, particularly the culture of the banking practice and perceptions of the rural sector by media and urban areas.I am very comfortable chairing that forum. As I said, I would like to commend the members of the forum who work in that area. I would also like to commend the work of the House of Representatives regional banking inquiry. The chairman was Mr David Hawker MP. This particular inquiry will lay the groundwork for many of the directions in which regional and rural banking and finance services go in the future. I commend the report to the Senate. It makes very interesting reading.305019:45:003050Abetz, Sen EricSenator ABETZN26TasLP10—Tonight I wish to comment on the government's proposed legislation to give students freedom of choice. The government's legislation is designed to abolish the horrid and unacceptable compulsion and duress which has force-funded student unions and ensured their failure to be accountable to the student body at large. In recent times, people have sought to dress up compulsory student unionism in such terms as `universal membership'. They have tried to dress up the indefensible with a facade of respectability.My response to that very simply is—to use and abuse an old saying—that a rose by any other name smells just as sweet and that compulsory student unionism by any other name still stinks. No matter how people try to dress up the force, duress and compulsion which basically deliver to student unions around this country $100 million per annum, they are unacceptable in this day and age. In recent times, a very strange group have got together to support this completely unacceptable blot on tertiary life. One of them is the Law Institute of Victoria.In my former manifestation as the chairman of the Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee, might I say that I was continually impressed by representations by law bodies right around the country stressing the importance of legislation respecting the freedom of the individual. And here they are, urging compulsory student unionism on the one ground that compulsory student union fees employ a few solicitors around the country! Of course, that in itself is no justification for compelling students to join a student union. Indeed, if the legal services are so great and so good, I would have thought that the students would be joining voluntarily and saying, `We want to contribute to this because we know that we will be the beneficiaries.' So I must say that the law profession in Victoria has done itself a great disservice with its intervention in this debate.What is most telling of course is the article of Friday, 12 March 1999 on page 4 of the Sydney Morning Herald, which reported, `First shots fired in war over uni fees'. We are told in a dramatic opening that about 1,000 university students protested nationwide against the federal government's plan to ban mandatory campus association fees—about 1,000 university students from a total student population in this country of 600,000. As a percentage, that represents 0.167 per cent of the student population. It just goes to show how representative these organisations are and how they have been living off the earnings of other students who are compelled and duressed into paying compulsory student union fees. Those that are seeking the ongoing maintenance of this abhorrent scheme are basically pleading in a self-serving, self-interested and selfish manner. I must say that their representations have been completely unimpressive.For example, the University of Sydney Union's director, Dan Taylor, wrote to honourable senators in recent times and said, `The union is not a political body.' My response to that is,`So what?' I do not care what sort of a body it is. If it is a precondition to a student being entitled to a tertiary education, then it should be removed. Whether the union does good works or bad is, quite frankly, irrelevant to the debate. But suffice to say that so many bad works have been done that the push by many students for voluntary student unionism has increased. Why has it increased? Because as soon as membership is voluntary these student unions will have to deliver services, will have to deliver in a representative way so that they attract the students on a voluntary basis. And that is what the student leadership of this country is so scared about. They will actually have to be servants of the students. They will have to provide services and representation with which the students identify and for which the students will then agree to part with their money.I am also told in this letter from the University of Sydney Union—and I must say that I hope this letter is not a representation of the intellectual rigour of that institution; I trust it is not—that only a member organisation can provide essential services on campus. Well, what an absolute nonsense. Essential services, if they are so essential, would have the students flocking to fund them. Surely students are big enough, old enough, mature enough, to determine what they consider to be essential. They will determine what they will fund, what they will not fund and what they determine to be essential.In Western Australia we have now had voluntary student unionism for four years, and essential services are still on campus and students are still joining. But what was found in Western Australia is that student union fees have come down, the services have increased, and the student representation is a lot more democratic and a lot more representative of the student body, because the leadership know that if they embark on frolics of their own they will lose membership, they will lose funding and, as a result, they will go out of business. I say that, if so-called essential services on campus are essential, the students will make that determination individually by funding the student union.Indeed, it seems to me not to make much sense to have a system whereby at the beginning of the year a student is required to make a compulsory contribution so that they can then, throughout the rest of the year, drink subsidised cups of coffee. Who are we conning in this? If it is so essential, why not just charge the service fee, so that those who want to drink a cup of coffee in fact pay the fee over the whole year rather than paying a huge subsidy at the beginning of the year so that they can enjoy that subsidy throughout the year? It really does not make much sense at all to make that assertion, as the union does.Then we are told that the union is a large employer and an efficient organisation. Whether a union is a large or small employer is completely and utterly irrelevant in this debate, because the issue is student choice and student rights. And should it be that a university is entitled to tell a student, `If you don't join the student union, we will deny you a right to a tertiary education'? That is the issue we are dealing with. So whether the union is a large or small employer is totally irrelevant to the debate.What about the assertion that it is an efficient organisation? If it is an efficient organisation, why are they scared to put themselves to the test and determine on the free market whether the students themselves believe that they are an efficient organisation? If the student body says, `Yes, you are an efficient organisation,' they will join the student union and there is no need for compulsion. In their heart of hearts they know that they are not efficient, that students would say, `We do not get value for money out of this,' and therefore would not join.The most pompous of all arguments and the most distasteful is that `the union is integral to the cultural vibrancy of Sydney University'. What self-serving snobbery. How patronising to the student body. Can students not decide for themselves what sort of cultural vibrancy they want to engage in? We in fact do allow students to make a choice as to what course they embark upon. Why can we not let them decide what sort of cultural vibrancy—to use the term of the Sydney union letter—they want to be involved in? The blot of compulsory student unionism should be removed. It is not about student unions; it is about individual students having a choice. And we as a government stand very proud next to those students who want to exercise that choice.19:56:003052Senate adjourned at 7.56 p.m.Documents30523052The following government documents were tabled:Australian Competition and Consumer Commission—Reports—Competitive safeguards 1997-98.Telecommunications charges in Australia, December 1998.Australian Federal Police—Ministerial direction, 25 February 1999—Government's priorities and expectations for the AFP for the period 1999-2001.Commonwealth Grants Commission—General revenue grant relativities—Report for 1999—Volume I—Main report.Volume II—Methods, assessments and analysis.Volume III—Appendixes and consultants' reports.Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts—Digital broadcasting industry action agenda—Australian industry: Thinking outside the box, January 1999.Equal employment opportunity program—ADI Limited—Report for 1997-98. Migration Agents Registration Authority—Report for the period 21 March to 30 June 1998.Northern Territory Fisheries Joint Authority—Reports—1996-97.1997-98.Queensland Fisheries Joint Authority—Report for 1997-98.Torres Strait Protected Zone Joint Authority—Report for 1997-98.3053The following documents were tabled by the Clerk:Civil Aviation Act—Civil Aviation Regulations—Civil Aviation Orders—Instrument No. CASA 72/99.Sydney Airport Curfew Act—Dispensations granted under section 20—Dispensations Nos 2/99 and 3/99.3053The following documents were tabled pursuant to the order of the Senate of 30 May 1996, as amended 3 December 1998:Indexed lists of departmental and agency files for the period 1 July to 30 December 1998—Office of the Official Secretary to the Governor General.Statements of compliance—Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry portfolio, including Australian Dairy Corporation, Australian Fisheries Management Authority, Australian Plague Locust Commission, Australian Wheat Board, Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation, Australian Wool Research and Promotion Corporation, Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Forest and Wood Products Research and Development Corporation, Grains Research and Development Corporation, Horticultural Research and Development Corporation, Joint Coal Board, National Registration Authority for Agriculture and Veterinary Chemicals, Pig Research and Development Corporation, Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation, Snowy Mountains Hydro-electric Authority and Wool International.Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA).Department of Defence.Department of Finance and Administration.Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade.Industry, Science and Resources portfolio, including the Australian Geological Survey Organisation, Australian Institute of Marine Science, Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation, Australian Sports Commission, Australian Sports Drug Agency, Australian Tourist Commission, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Department of Industry, Science and Resources and IP Australia and National Standards Commission.Treasury portfolio.Statement of compliance—Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs.Answers to Questions on Notice3054The following answers to questions were circulated:3054(Question No. 299)2993054Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator Faulkner5K4NSWALP00 asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister and the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, and the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, upon notice, on 26 November 1998:With reference to the Federation Cultural and Heritage Projects Program and the list of successful applicants noted in the table below:PROJECTAmount $mMAJOR PROJECTSNATIONAL/ACTNational Museum of Australia and associated building for Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies151.9National Centre for Christianity and Australian Culture5.0Anzac Hall, Australian War Memorial 11.9Federation Cultural and Heritage Projects (FCHP) Program70.4Federation Community Projects (FCP) Program29.6WESTERN AUSTRALIAJervoise Bay-Industrial marine park and ship building infrastructure development80.0Australian Prospectors and Miners Hall of Fame, Kalgoorlie-Boulder5.0SOUTH AUSTRALIA/NORTHERN TERRITORYNational Wine Centre, purchase Glenthorne Farm from CSIRO12.0Alice Springs-Darwin Rail Link100.0QUEENSLANDBrisbane Light Rail Project, Briztram65.0Cultural Heritage Network Renovation of Rockhampton Customs House-$1.0m Mount Morgan Mining Centre-$0.5m50.0Institute of Molecular Bioscience, Science Centre of Excellence, University of Queensland15.0NEW SOUTH WALESSydney Harbour Foreshores (Defence Lands)—to Department of Defence for relocation costs—to support clean up of Cockatoo Island—to Department of Defence to establish public access to parts of Garden Island96.0Grahame Park Stadium, Gosford12.0 St Andrew's Cathedral5.0NIDA, new theatre and sound studio25.0Corowa Bridge6.0Robinvale Bridge (plus same amount from Vic)8.5Echuca Bridge (plus same amount from Vic)7.5Holsworthy Rifle Range to replace ANZAC range at Malabar, NSW9.0Marine Science Centre Coffs Harbour12.0Upgrading of Centennial and Moore Parks, Paddington, Sydney10.0Line of Lode Museum, Broken Hill4.6Shearers' Hall of Fame, Hay4.7Belgenny Farm Wool Centre6.0Gunnedah Performing Arts and Cultural Centre1.6Tamworth Regional Entertainment Centre1.2Naval Aviation Museum, Nowra1.6Oddfellows Hall-Acquisition and renovation, Corowa (venue of 1893 conference-Federation) ($750,000)0.8VICTORIAGalleries of Remembrance, Shrine of Remembrance5.0National Gallery of Victoria25.0Australian Centre for the Moving Image, Federation Square50.0Corowa Bridge6.0Robinvale Bridge (plus same amount from NSW)8.5Echuca Bridge (plus same amount from Vic)7.5Commonwealth Technology Park22.5Regional Art Galleries12.0Victorian College of the Arts10.0Llanberis Athletics Track Upgrade, Ballarat1.0Walhalla Goldfields Tourist Train: restoring 1,000m of track and 6 trestle bridges1.0TASMANIATasmanian Symphony Orchestra Concert Hall1.0Abt Wilderness Railway Reconstruction, Strahan to Queenstown TAS20.5FEDERATION CULTURAL and HERITAGE PROJECTSNEW SOUTH WALESWagga Wagga Riverina Amphitheatre1.535Byron Bay Community Centre1.000Gilgandra Centennial Celebration of Federation1.000Rookwood Cemetery restoration0.686Sulman building, University of Sydney, conservation0.837Lady Denman Ferry conservation1.146 The Federation Family-9 National Trust properties:Old Government House—Parramatta-$1.2mWoodford Academy—Blue Mountains—$1.0mGriffin Lodge- Walter Burly Griffin Home Avalon—$0.3mExperiment Farm—Harris Park—$1.0mTomago House—Hunter—$0.6mMiss Trail's House—Bathurst—$0.25mRiversdale Homestead—Goulbourn—$0.26mSaumarez Homestead—Armidale—$0.115mGrossman and Brough Houses—Maitland—$0.6m4.780Norman Lindsay Gallery, Springwood, conservation1.440Great Synagogue Tower conservation1.000St Bartholomew's Church, Prospect, conservation0.500Wivenhoe Villa conservation, Camden0.370Lithgow Industrial Heritage Park1.500Tenterfield School of the Arts2.750Hazelhurst Community and Regional Arts Gallery1.000National Surf Life Saving Institute, Bondi0.600VICTORIANational Wool Museum, Geelong0.630Como House restoration1.000Polly Woodside and Dry Docks restoration2.500Heide restoration 2.500Clunes conservation project0.548Beechworth Historic Towns Heritage Precinct1.060Bundoora Homestead: Centre for Decorative Arts1.000Sir John Quick Federation Project1.250Federation Tapestry1.600Frankston Community Arts Centre1.500Maroondah Heritage Estate, Ringwood2.000QUEENSLANDMaryborough Cultural Centre2.000National Oil and Gas Museum, Roma0.900Townsville Maritime Museum, boat shed for larger exhibits0.936Commissariat Museum, Brisbane1.100James Cook Museum, Cooktown2.300Greenhill Fort restoration, Thursday Island0.572Greenmount Homestead conservation, Mackay0.838Naval Stores restoration, Brisbane2.000Palma Rosa Restoration0.800WESTERN AUSTRALIABalgo Hills Arts Centre0.500Kojunup Federation Park Complex0.650Fairbridge Village redevelopment2.000Dalgety House conservation, Port Hedland0.295New Norcia restoration and conservation1.815 Midland Town Hall restoration0.800Meerilinga House restoration0.471Golden Pipeline restoration 1.000SOUTH AUSTRALIAAyers House Museum development1.260Townsend House 0.448Glenelg Town Hall conservation1.500Port Lincoln Civic Hall1.000Commonwealth Railways Museum0.560Warriparinga Interpretive Centre1.450Mawson Collection0.300TASMANIAClarendon Homestead conservation, Launceston1.000Devonport Cultural Centre1.000Woolmers Heritage and Cultural Estate conservation0.700Historic Female Factory Site0.975Launceston Railway Workshop1.000Tasmanian School of Fine Furniture Museum, Launceston0.460ACTDevelopment of Tuggeranong Homestead0.675Conservation of Academy of Science Dome0.525St Andrew's Church restoration0.500NORTHERN TERRITORYAraluen Centre, Alice Springs2.300(1) Which projects were assessed by the department.(2) When were the submissions for each successful project received by the department and when were they submitted to the Minister.(3) Which projects were recommended to the Minister for funding approval and when were the recommendations made.(4) Where a successful project was not originally recommended for funding by the department: (a) what was the approval process; and (b) what factors were taken into account by the Minister.(5) Can the dates be provided on which the final decisions were taken to fund each successful project. (6) When were these successful projects announced and by whom.3057Hill, Sen RobertSenator HillBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—I provide the following answer on behalf of those ministers listed above:MAJOR PROJECTS(1) I am advised that the Federation Fund Task Force within the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet examined applications for assistance from the Federation Fund and prepared summary assessments of the proposals against the Government's announced criteria for Federation Fund projects.Except for those projects announced before the establishment of the Task Force—the National Museum of Australia and the associated building for the Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies, and the Alice Springs to Darwin railway—all applications for assistance from the Federation Fund were assessed by the Task Force.(2) See Table 1.(3) and (4) I am advised that the Federation Fund Task Force examined proposals and assessed their suitability against the Government's announced criteria. It did not make recommendations to ministers.Cabinet established a Committee of Ministers to consider proposals and the associated Task Force assessments, and to select suitable major projects. All selections were ratified by Cabinet.(5) No—those details are Cabinet-in-Confidence.(6) See Table 2.FEDERATION CULTURAL AND HERITAGE PROJECTS (FCHP) PROGRAMThe Federation Cultural and Heritage projects (FCHP) program is jointly administered by the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts and the Minister for the Environment and Heritage. All eligible projects submitted for funding under the FCHP program were assessed by the Federation Task Group, which was made up of officers from the two departments.I am advised that the National Council for the Centenary of Federation provided additional independent advice on the capacity of all eligible FCHP projects to suitably mark the Centenary of Federation.The assessment process was conducted in line with departmental guidelines, which were developed using the Australian National Audit Office's Better Practice Guide for the Administration of Grants , to ensure that the approval or refusal of applications for grants were transparent and well documented. The guidelines were endorsed by Ministers Hill and Alston in July 1998.(2) See Table 3.(3) I am advised that a list of all FCHP projects was submitted to Ministers Hill and Alston on 14 August 1998. As part of the assessment process conducted by the Federation Task Group, each eligible project was rated against a set of program criteria. Highly rated projects were identified, but no specific projects were recommended for funding.The National Council for the Centenary of Federation forwarded separate advice to Ministers on 7 August 1998.(4) I am advised that no FCHP projects were recommended by the Task Group. A list of highly rated projects and a list of all projects were provided to Minister Alston with a brief requesting that he consult Minister Hill to select a group of projects totalling $70.4 million for endorsement by Government.(5) FCHP projects recommended by Ministers Hill and Alston were approved by the Prime Minister on 28 August 1998.The full program of FCHP projects was announced formally in a joint media release by Ministers Hill and Alston on 15 October 1998.Individual announcements for some projects were made before 15 October 1998. Table 4 provides details of those announcements.FEDERATION COMMUNITY PROJECTS (FCP) PROGRAMI am advised that no funding decisions have been made by the Minister for the Arts and the Centenary of Federation.Members of Parliament have been requested to submit applications and Electorate Selection Committee recommendations to the Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts by 26 February 1999.TABLE 1: SUBMISSIONS FOR FEDERATION FUND PROJECTSProjectDate ReceivedDate Submitted to MinistersNATIONAL/ACTNational Museum of AustraliaNot applicableNot applicableNational Centre for Christianity and Australian Culture4 November 199715 December 1997Australian War Memorial extensions27 June 199715 December 1997WESTERN AUSTRALIAJervoise Bay25 June 199715 December 1997 Australian Prospectors' and Miners' Hall of Fame25 June 199715 December 1997SOUTH AUSTRALIA/NORTHERN TERRITORYNational Wine Centre4 August 199715 December 1997Alice Springs to Darwin rail link Not applicableNot applicableQUEENSLANDBrisbane light rail project12 August 199715 December 1997Queensland Cultural Heritage Network12 August 199715 December 1997Institute of Molecular Bioscience12 August 199715 December 1997NEW SOUTH WALESSydney Harbour Federation Trust8 September 199715 December 1997Grahame Park Stadium16 February 19984 March 1998St Andrew's Cathedral17 December 199719 December 1997NIDA7 August 199715 December 1997Corowa Bridge6 August 199715 December 1997Robinvale Bridge6 August 199715 December 1997Echuca Bridge6 August 199715 December 1997Holsworthy Rifle Range27 February 19984 March 1998Marine Sciences Centre14 July 199715 December 1997Centennial and Moore Parks16 July 19983 August 1998Line of Lode Museum6 August 199715 December 1997Shearers' Hall of Fame28 May 199830 June 1998Belgenny Farm Wool Centre22 July 19983 August 1998Gunnedah Performing Arts Centre17 June 199830 June 1998Tamworth Regional Entertainment Centre 17 October 199715 December 1997Naval Aviation Museum, Nowra5 March 199831 March 1998Oddfellows Hall, Corowa21 July 199715 December 1997VICTORIAShrine of Remembrance25 June 19983 August 1998National Gallery of Victoria6 August 19977 November 1997Australian Centre for the Moving Image6 August 199715 December 1997Commonwealth Technology Park26 June 199830 June 1998Victorian Regional Art Galleries6 August 199715 December 1997Victorian College of the Arts 26 June 199830 June 1998Ballarat sporting facilities26 June 199830 June 1998Walhalla Goldfields Railway23 June 199830 June 1998TASMANIAConcert Hall for the TSO14 August 199715 December 1997 Abt Wilderness Railway14 August 199715 December 1997TABLE 2: ANNOUNCEMENTS OF FEDERATION FUND PROJECTSProjectDate AnnouncedBy WhomNational Museum of Australia*1997-98 BudgetTreasurerAlice Springs to Darwin rail link 23 August 1997Prime MinisterNational Gallery of Victoria, Melbourne13 November 1997Prime MinisterJervoise Bay, WA26 January 1998Prime MinisterCorowa Bridge12 February 1998Deputy Prime MinisterSt Andrew's Cathedral, Sydney27 February 1998Minister for Sport and TourismBrisbane light rail project13 March 1998Prime MinisterGrahame Park Stadium, Gosford29 May 1998Member for RobertsonQueensland Cultural Heritage Network30 May 1998Prime MinisterInstitute of Molecular Bioscience, Brisbane10 June 1998Minister for Industry, Science and TourismConcert Hall for the Tasmanian Symphony Orchestra, Hobart27 June 1998Minister for Communications, the Information Economy, and the ArtsVictorian Regional Art Galleries21 July 1998Minister for Communications, the Information Economy, and the ArtsAbt Wilderness Railway, Tasmania24 July 1998Minister for Transport and Regional DevelopmentVictorian College of the Arts, Melbourne 26 July 1998Minister for Communications, the Information Economy, and the ArtsTamworth Regional Entertainment Centre 11 August 1998Deputy Prime MinisterAustralian Prospectors' and Miners' Hall of Fame, Kalgoorlie25 August 1998Prime MinisterAustralian War Memorial extensions, Canberra2 September 1998Prime MinisterNational Wine Centre, Adelaide2 September 1998Minister for the EnvironmentGunnedah Performing Arts Centre3 September 1998Minister for Primary Industries and EnergySydney Harbour Federation Trust5 September 1998Prime MinisterOddfellows' Hall, Corowa6 September 1998Deputy Prime MinisterShearers'Hall of Fame, Hay8 September 1998Deputy Prime MinisterBallarat sporting facilities11 September 1998Member for BallaratCommonwealth Technology Park, Melbourne14 September 1998Minister for Communications, the Information Economy, and the ArtsLine of Lode Museum, Broken Hill14 September 1998Deputy Prime MinisterWalhalla Goldfields Railway, Victoria15 September 1998Deputy Prime Minister Australian Centre for the Moving Image, Melbourne16 September 1998Minister for Communications, the Information Economy, and the ArtsBelgenny Farm Wool Centre16 September 1998Minister for Finance and AdministrationNaval Aviation Museum, Nowra17 September 1998TreasurerRobinvale Bridge18 September 1998Minister for Transport and Regional DevelopmentEchuca Bridge16 September 1998Member for MurrayHolsworthy Rifle Range19 September 1998Minister for Sport and TourismNational Centre for Christianity and Australian Culture, Canberra20 September 1998Senator ReidNIDA, Sydney20 September 1998Minister for Communications, the Information Economy, and the ArtsShrine of Remembrance, Melbourne22 September 1998TreasurerMarine Sciences Centre, Coffs Harbour23 September 1998Minister for Industry, Science and TourismCentennial and Moore Parks, Sydney24 September 1998Minister for Finance and Administration* Of the projected $151.9 million in expenditure on the National Museum of Australia project, $147 million is to be provided from the Federation Fund.TABLE 3: APPLICATIONS FOR FCHP PROJECTSPROJECT NAMEDATE RECEIVEDDevelopment of Tuggeranong Homestead Property3 July 98Conserving the Academy of Science Dome30 June 98Restoration, Church of St Andrew30 June 98Restore Major Heritage Features at Rookwood—Sydney23 June 98Conservation of the Sulman Building Sydney University29 June 98The Federation Family—NSW Statewide30 June 98Conservation of the Great Synagogue Tower—Sydney29 June 98Conservation of St Bartholomew's Anglican Church and Cemetery—Prospect29 June98Wivenhoe Villa Conservation—Camden30 June 98Lithgow Industrial Heritage Park30 June 98National Surf Life Saving Institute—Bondi29 June 98Conservation and Restoration of the Norman Lindsay Gallery—Springwood30 June 98Tenterfield School of Arts Restoration30 June 98Commissariat Museum—Brisbane29 June 98Green Hill Fort Restoration Project—Thursday Island30 June 98Greenmount Homestead Conservation—Mackay30 June 98Restore the Naval Stores—Brisbane30 June 98Palma Rosa Conservation23 June 98Ayers Historic House Museum Development—Adelaide29 June 98Seeing and Hearing Beyond Federation—Brighton30 June 98Conservation and Development of Clarendon Homestead Historic Site—North East Tasmania30 June 98 Woolmers Heritage and Cultural Estate Longford29 June 98The Historic Female Factory Site Project—Hobart30 June 98Tasmanian School of Fine Furniture—Launceston29 June 98Completion of the Restoration of the Como Historic House and Garden—South Yarra, Melbourne30 June 98Restoration and Interpretation of Polly Woodside and Dry Docks—Melbourne30 June 98Clunes Conservation Project—Clunes30 June 98Fairbridge Village Redevelopment Project—Near Pinjarra30 June 98New Norcia Conservation, Design and Development30 June 98Midland Town Hall Conservation/Restoration Project—Midland30 June 98Restoration and Repairs to `Meerilinga' House—West Perth30 June 98The Golden Pipeline of Western Australia—Mundaring to Kalgoorlie30 June 98Celebrating Federation and First links Town Hall Conservation and Interpretive Centre- Glenelg30 June 98Heide: Growing Cultural Heritage for Australia—Buleen30 June 98Historic Towns Heritage Cultural Precinct—Beechworth26 June 98The Maroondah Heritage Estate—Ringwood30 June 98Fedreation Riverina Celebrating the Centenary—Wagga Wagga30 June 98The Byron Bay Community Centre Redevelopment29 June 98Gilgandra Centennial Celebration of Federation30 June 98Lady Denman Ferry Conservation and Presentation30 June 98Hazlehurst Community and Regional Arts Gallery29 June 98Community Gallery at Alice Springs Cultural Precinct30 June 98Maryborough and District Entertainment/Cultural Centre29 June 98Townsville Maritime Museum Federation Project30 June 98National Oil and Gas Museum—Roma30 June 98James Cook Museum—Cooktown30 June 98Commonwealth Railways Museum—Port Adelaide30 June 98The Warriparinga Interpretive Centre—Marion29 June 98Port Lincoln Civic Hall Redevelopment—Port Lincoln30 June 98Mawson Antarctic Collection Appeal—Adelaide30 June 98Devonport Cultural Centre30 June 98Launceston Railway Workshops Museum Redevelopment30 June 98National Wool Museum Collection Preservation—Geelong30 June 98Bundoora Homestead: Centre for Decorative Arts—Preston29 June 98Sir John Quick Federation Project—Bendigo26 June 98Federation Tapestry—Melbourne26 June 98Frankston Community Arts and Cultural Centre—Melbourne29 June 98New Art/Cultural Centre—Balgo Hills via Halls Creek—Kimberley23 June 98Kojonup Federation Park Complex—Southern WA29 June 98Conservation of the Dalgety House Museum—Port Hedland30 June 98Ministers Hill and Alston were provided with copies of all FCHP applications on 14 August 1998.TABLE 4 ANNOUNCEMENTS OF FCHP PROJECTSIndividual Projects Announcement ScheduleProjectAnnounced byDateTownsville Maritime MuseumPrime Minister3 Sep 98Port Lincoln Civic HallSen R. Hill3 Sep 98Maryborough Cultural CentreDeputy Prime Minister05 Sep 98Gilgandra Centennial Celebration of FederationJ. Anderson08 Sep 98Launceston Railway WorkshopPrime Minister08 Sep 98Roma Oil and Gas MuseumB. Scott11 Sep 98New Norcia ConservationSen I. Campbell13 Sep 98Frankston Community Arts CentreSen R. Alston15 Sep 98Byron Bay Cornmunity CentreL. Anthony15 Sep 98Clarendon HomesteadSen R. Hill16 Sep 98Tasmanian School of Fine FurnitureSen R. Hill16 Sep 98Wivenhoe Villa, CamdenJ. Fahey17 Sep 98Ayers HouseSen R. Hill17 Sep 98Como Historic HouseP. Costello23 Sep 98Maroondah Heritage EstateSen R. Alston23 Sep 98Federation Farnily (Nat. Trust)Sen R. Hill25 Sep 98Heidi RestorationK. Andrews25 Sep 98Norman Lindsay GallerySen R. Hill25 Sep 98Polly WoodsideSen R. Hill26 Sep 98St. Andrew's ChurchSen M. Reid27 Sep 98Tuggeranong HomesteadSen M. Reid29 Sep 98Araluen Centre, Alice SpringsDeputy Prime Minister30 Sep 98Glenelg Town HallC. Gallus01 Oct 98Mawson CollectionSen R. Hill01 Oct 98Townsend HouseSen R. Hill01 Oct 9SBeechworth Historic PrecinctL. Leiberrnan08 Oct 98Global AnnouncementSuccessful FCHP projects were announced in a joint media release by Ministers Hill and Alston on 15 October 1998.3063(Question No. 221)2213063Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 26 November 1998:(1) What was the total value of market research sought by the department on a month-by-month basis between March 1996 and November 1998.(2) What was the purpose of each contract let.(3) In each instance, what was the involvement or otherwise of the Office of Government Information and Advertising. (4) In each instance; (a) how many firms were invited to submit proposals; and (b) how many tender proposals were received.(5) In each instance, which firm was selected to conduct the research(6) In each instance, what was the estimated or contract price of the research and what was the actual amount expended by the department.3063Hill, Sen RobertSenator HillBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—The Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Trade have provided the following information in answer to the honourable senator's question:AusAID and AUSTRADE have recorded expenditure on market research during the period covered by question 221, as follows:AusAID(1) What was the total value of market research sought by the department on a month-by-month basis between March 1996 and November 1998.$89,203(2) What was the purpose of each contract let.(a) December 1996—Review of Community Attitudes on Overseas Aid(b) April 1998—Market testing of information brochure `Commonly Asked questions about aid'(c) May 1998—Identifying and Measuring Public Opinion Towards Overseas Aid Wave I: 1998 (commissioned in response to Government's acceptance of recommendation 19.3 of the Committee of Review of Australia's Overseas Aid Program)—collaborative research project with Australian Council for Overseas Aid (ACFOA).(d) June 1998—National omnibus polling to determine public attitudes to overseas aid through telephone questionnaire (commissioned as part of research detailed at (c).)(3) In each instance, what was the involvement or otherwise of the Office of Government Information and Advertising.(a) OGIA consulted about the tendering process. On advice of OGIA a limited competitive tender process was undertaken.(b) No involvement(c) See (a). These projects were continuations of the initial research consultancy.(4) In each instance; (a) how many firms were invited to submit proposals; and (b) how many tender proposals were received.(a) On advice of OGIA, a limited competitive tendering process was undertaken. Four companies were invited to submit, and four proposals were received.(b) Two proposals invited; one received.(c) See (a)(d) Commissioned as part of consultancy at a) and c)(5) In each instance, which firm was selected to conduct the research.(a) Elliott and Shanahan(b) Orima Research(c) Barry J Elliott(d) Newspoll(6) In each instance, what was the estimated or contract price of the research and what was the actual amount expended by the department. (a) Contract price $18,000; Actual expenditure $21,370.(b) Contract price $8,000; Actual expenditure $8,000(c) Contract price $44,313; Actual expenditure: $44,313(d) Contract price $23,620; Actual expenditure $23,620AUSTRADE(1) What was the total value of market research sought by the Department on a month-by-month basis between March 1996 and November 1998.$722,846(2) What was the purpose of each contract let.i 1995/96 Export Impact Study, Outwards Investment Impact study, Client Service Improvement Studyii 1995/96 Inwards Investment Impact Studyiii 1996/97 Export Impact Study, Outwards Investment Impact study, Client Service Improvement Studyiv 1997/98 Export Impact, Outward Investment & Inward Investment Impact Studiesv 1997/98 Client Satisfaction Survey relating to the Export Market Development Grants (EMDG) schemevi 1998 Client Service Charter focus groups and quantitative follow up surveyvii Monthly client service survey on Austrade's hotline performanceviii Survey to assess the impact of Austrade's awareness campaignix Survey to determine client views on Austrade-sponsored trade exhibitions(3) In each instance, what was the involvement or otherwise of the Office of Government Information and Advertising.Austrade did not use the Office of Government Information and Advertising.(4) In each instance; a) how many firms were invited to submit proposals; and b) how many tender proposals were received.i-iv (a) one(b) onev (a) five(b) fourvi (a) five(b) fivevii (a) one(b) oneviii (a) none (b) noneix (a) eight(b) four(5) In each instance, which firm was selected to conduct the researchi-iv Newspoll Market Research.Austrade had contracted Newspoll on occasions prior to the period of this question to provide market research concerning Austrade's performance (i.e. export and investment impact and client service/satisfaction studies), on which the organisation reports annually and provides trend analysis against previous reports. Prior to 1995/96, a number of companies were used by Austrade to conduct these studies. For 1995/96 and in subsequent years, Austrade chose to streamline its market research by choosing one company to perform all of the organisation's requirements. Newspoll Market Research have proven their ability to satisfy all of Austrade's requirements and has provided services at a standard market rate. Having one high quality service provider has resulted in greater consistency of data and analysis. Newspoll have also worked collaboratively with Austrade to improve the content and collection methodology for market research.v Newspoll Market Researchvi AC Neilsonvii TARP Direx.TARP Direx has been conducting a monthly survey of Austrade hotline callers since September 1994. At that time, TARP had been providing this type of service in the United States for many years and were the only providers of this specific (ongoing tracking) service in Australia.viii Wallace Consulting GroupProposals were not sought by Austrade for this work as the job was organised by an advertising agency (The Principals) with whom Austrade has had an ongoing Consultancy Agreement to provide services since September 1996.ix Stancombe Research & Planning(6) In each instance, what was the estimated or contract price of the research and what was the actual amount expended by the department.Total contract price $713,530Total actual expenditure $722,846The disclosure of the contract price and actual expenditure details relating to any particular Australian organisation, or other commercial-in-confidence information, is prevented under the secrecy provisions of the Australian Trade Commission Act. 3065(Question No. 242)2423065Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, upon notice, on 26 November 1998:(1) What contracts has the department, or any agency of the department, provided to the firm Worthington Di Marzio since March 1996.(2) In each instance what was the purpose of the work conducted by Worthington Di Marzio.(3) In each instance what has been the cost to the department of the contract.(4) In each instance what selection process was used to select Worthington Di Marzio (open tender, short-list or some other process).3065Alston, Sen RichardSenator AlstonLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—The Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) One contract was awarded to Worthington Di Marzio on 19 December 1997, by the then Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs.(2) To provide strategic input for, and evaluation of, a communications campaign about the changes to Commonwealth employment assistance to job seekers and employers.(3) $190 944.(4) The engagement of the consultant for the campaign followed due process as advised by the office of Government Information and Advertising (OGIA), the key components of which were:* the Department and OGIA developed the brief and compiled a list of five consultants who could be invited to tender;* the Ministerial Committee on Government Communications (MCGC) approved the final brief and, as a consequence, the list of consultants to be invited to tender;* the tenders received were assessed by a committee comprised of representatives from the Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs, the Office of the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs and OGIA; and* final selection of the consultant was made by the department with advice from OGIA. 3066(Question No. 258)2583066Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, upon notice, on 26 November 1998:(1) What contracts has the department, or any agency of the department, provided to the firm Australasian Research Strategies Pty Ltd since March 1996.(2) In each instance what was the purpose of the work conducted by Australasian Research Strategies Pty Ltd.(3) In each instance what has been the cost to the department of the contract.(4) In each instance what selection process was used to select Australasian Research Strategies Pty Ltd (open tender, short-list or some other process).3066Alston, Sen RichardSenator AlstonLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—The Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) There has been one contract provided to the firm Australasian Research Strategies Pty Ltd, for "Public Attitudes to Further Workplace Reform."(2) To obtain information on the drivers behind public attitudes to further workplace reform.(3) $37 367 have been expended to date, for the completion of Stage 1. The contract price is up to $340,000 with an additional component for travel to a maximum of $35,000. Stage 1 is completed and Stage 2 is nearing completion. The project was jointly commissioned by the Commonwealth and participating members of the Labour Ministers' Council (LMC). The Commonwealth's share of Stages 1 and 2 is $185,667.50, with the other participating governments contributing $75,222.50.Decisions about proceeding to final stages have not yet been made. Should these stages proceed, the Commonwealth's share is anticipated to be $78,750 and the participating government's share $26,250.(4) The department, on behalf of the Labour Ministers Council (LMC), has established a panel of researchers who are available to undertake workplace relations related research projects including market research. The panel was formed through an open national advertisement. Thirty-four researchers submitted proposals to be part of the panel, including Australasian Research Strategies.3066(Question No. 405)4053066Brown, Sen BobSenator BrownQD4TASAG00 asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 12 February 1999:With reference to evidence given to the Senate inquiry into the Regional Forest Agreements Bill 1998 that, in several forest management areas in Victoria, logging is occurring at levels well above those consistent with legislated maximum sustainable yields:(1) What is the legislated maximum sustainable yield for sawlogs in the East Gippsland, Benalla/Mansfield, Midlands and Wodonga Forest Management Areas (FMAs) in Victoria.(2) What quantity of sawlogs has been removed from each of these areas since licences were introduced in 1989.(3) If sawlog removals exceed the legislated maximum, is this a breach of existing Regional Forest Agreements or those under negotiation.(4) What action will be taken to ensure that overlogging does not occur.(5) What action will be taken to stop the illegal reclassification of sawlogs as residual logs, which is clearly occurring in Victoria, and which is contributing substantially to overlogging in the above FMAs and others.(6) If the Commonwealth took action to prevent either overlogging or reclassification of sawlogs to residual logs in RFA regions, would it be obliged to pay compensation to affected loggers.3066Hill, Sen RobertSenator HillBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—The Prime Minister has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1)Sustainable Yield Rates for Forest Management Areas1Forest Management AreaSustainable Yield rates(m3 per year)Grades of hardwood sawlogsEast Gippsland250,000A, B, C & D gradesMidlands58,000A, B, C & D grades Wodonga28,000A, B, C & D gradesBenalla/Mansfield13,500A, B, C & D grades1. Source: Schedule3, Victorian Forests Act 1958(2) The Commonwealth does not hold this level of detailed information.(3) The legal control of particular levels of timber harvesting is governed solely by Victorian State law, in particular by the Victorian Forests Act 1958. The issue of legality is therefore a matter for the State.The Victorian legislation underpinning the observance of sustained yield was central to the Commonwealth's accreditation of Victoria's systems and processes as providing for ecologically sustainable forest management (ESFM). The existence of satisfactory State ESFM systems and processes, or commitments to improve to an acceptable standard, is a major component of Regional Forest Agreements.Victorian Regional Forest Agreements include a number of specific commitments that taken together, ensure the long-term ecologically sustainable management of Victoria's forests. These include, for example, those provided in Clauses 40, 46, 47, 67 and 71 of the Central Highlands Regional Forest Agreement (RFA).In addition, the RFA creates legally enforceable rights and obligations on the Commonwealth and Victoria in Part 3 of the RFA in relation to forest management, compensation, industry development funding and termination. Clause 92 permits the Commonwealth to terminate the RFA if the State fails to comply with certain provisions of the RFA after the observance of the dispute resolution procedures. These provisions include a failure by the State to implement the Integrated Forest Planning System and the Statewide Forest Resource Inventory in the region.(4) The legal control of particular levels of timber harvesting is governed solely by Victorian State law. Under the RFA, the Commonwealth and Victoria agree that Victorian systems and processes, including its legislation, policies, Codes, plans and management practices, provide for the sustainable management of forests. In addition, RFAs are subject to five yearly reviews which include opportunities for public comment on the performance of the RFA.(5) Classification of sawlogs in Victoria is the responsibility of the Victorian government.(6) In the Central Highlands RFA, clause 90 of the Agreement sets out the terms and conditions pertaining to the payment of compensation for any action taken by the Commonwealth during the period of the Agreement. Under these terms and conditions, the State is to make a claim for compensation by a notice in writing to the Commonwealth which indicates the amount claimed, for whom the claim is made, the area to which it relates and which provides other detailed particulars.3067(Question No. 407)4073067Brown, Sen BobSenator BrownQD4TASAG00 asked the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, upon notice, on 12 February 1999:(1) (a) What communication has the Commonwealth Government had with the Tasmanian or Victorian Governments or the Basslink Development Board in relation to the environmental assessment requirements for Basslink; and (b) can dates be provided of meetings and the issues covered, and copies of correspondence and other documents.(2) What issues will require Commonwealth environmental assessment.(3) In what ways could the Basslink proposal impact on the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area.3067Hill, Sen RobertSenator HillBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:(1) (a) My Department was approached by the Tasmanian Government in 1998 seeking Commonwealth involvement in a joint environmental assessment process for the Basslink proposal assuming a designation would be able to be made under the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act 1974. Based on the likely determination of a requirement for an environment impact statement for this proposal, and in line with the Intergovernmental Agreement on the Environment and the Australian & New Zealand Environment & Conservation Council's Basis for a National Agreement on Environmental Impact Assessment, my Department negotiated with the Tasmanian and Victorian Governments a combined environment assessment process to meet the requirements of all jurisdictions. I have agreed `in principle' to that process which includes provision for public exhibi tion and submissions on both the guidelines and draft environmental impact statement document.(b) No, it is not normal practice to release the documents referred to, however, the Government is committed to a transparent process which includes provision for scoping and public exhibition of guidelines and exhibition of the draft EIS.(2&3) The combined environmental assessment process will meet the object of the Act which is to ensure that matters affecting the environment to a significant extent are fully examined to the greatest extent that is practicable. Given that the environmental assessment process has not yet commenced, and in the absence of preliminary information, it is not appropriate for me to speculate on the nature and extent of issues in relation to this proposal.3068(Question No. 413)4133068O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources, upon notice, on 18 February 1999:(1) Has Dr Dennis Anderson, an officer of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, conducted DNA tests on chalkbrood disease.(2) (a) When did those tests commence; and (b) what has been the purpose of his work in this area.(3) Has Dr Anderson collected a large number of strains of chalkbrood disease from different regions of the world.(4) Would Dr Anderson's work enable him to identify the source of the chalkbrood disease discovered in Australia in 1990.3068Minchin, Sen NickSenator MinchinJX4SALPIndustry, Science and Resources10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:(1) Dr Denis Anderson, as an officer of the CSIRO, did conduct DNA studies on the causative agent of chalkbrood disease, which is a fungus that kills honey bee larvae.(2) (a) Those studies commenced June 1993, after Dr Anderson confirmed the presence of chalkbrood disease in Australia in January 1993.(b) The purpose of Dr Anderson's studies was to find a more efficient means of identifying the fungus responsible for causing the disease.(3) As part of the work, Dr Anderson obtained a large number of chalkbrood isolates from bee colonies and fungal collections around the world. These were imported under strict quarantine and studied in an AQIS approved quarantine safe laboratory at CSIRO Entomology in Canberra.(4) No.3068(Question No. 442)4423068Brown, Sen BobSenator BrownQD4TASAG00 asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 8 March 1999:(1) With reference to the article in the Financial Review of Tuesday, 3 November 1998, under the headline `Multilateral Investment Pact on Ice', in which the Assistant Treasurer (Senator Kemp) is quoted as stating the Government's hope for reviving the Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI) eventually, saying that Australian Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) negotiators in Paris have sought to require that the agreement should be pared back to its core elements: what are the `core elements' the Government seeks to retain.(2) With reference to a press release of the OECD's `International Investment Rules' dated 3 November 1998, in which it was confirmed that negotiations on the MAI were no longer taking place, but that OECD officials agreed on the importance of multi-disciplinary work on the desirability of establishing international rules for investment: what criteria would the Government seek to attach to Senator Kemp's stated intention to `carefully consider' the Government's approach to any further agreement on international investment rules.3068Kemp, Sen RodSenator KempWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) The core elements are National Treatment; Most Favoured Nation Treatment; Investment Protection; and Dispute Settlement.(2) The Government has indicated for some time that it had a number of serious concerns with the draft text of the MAI as it stood. The Government will not sign any agreement on international investment rules unless it is demonstrably in Australia's interest to do so. In that regard, any future negotiation would be subject to the continued scrutiny of established treaty making processes.