1999-03-303912SENATE346501999-03-30The PRESIDENT(Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid) took the chair at 2.00 p.m., and read prayers.Questions Without Notice346534653465Campbell, Sen GeorgeSenator GEORGE CAMPBELLNB5NSWALP00—My question is to Senator Kemp, the Assistant Treasurer. I refer the minister to the words of Dr Ken Henry, the head of the Treasurer's tax task force, in the Senate GST committee. He said:We have not attempted to develop a model which would be capable of analysing this package, and that is really for the reason I have already indicated. No such model exists anywhere else—nothing that we would say is quite up to the task, given the complexity of the package.Is the minister aware that such modelling is in fact possible and that even the Prime Minister's preferred modeller, Mr Chris Murphy, has provided information to the tax inquiry, along with Professor Dixon, about shifts in the economy in terms of employment levels, something that Dr Henry denied was possible? Why has Treasury consistently refused to investigate the wider ramifications of this tax package?3465Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—I was at that hearing, Senator George Campbell—and I suspect that you were not at that hearing—when evidence was given by Dr Ken Henry. Senators should be aware that Dr Ken Henry was extremely supportive of the package—not surprisingly, given the way the package was constructed. He was subjected to considerable questioning by the Labor Party on this package; the questions were not very good and I think they left the hearings feeling rather bruised, and quite rightly so. We have made it very clear that modelling shows that the tax package—3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—What modelling?WW4Senator KEMP—Let me quote the Labor Party's preferred modeller of choice, the so-called Dixon model. Before Professor Dixon accepted the assumptions which were fed in by the Labor Party, before he accepted the assumptions which the non-government members of the committee insisted he feed into his model, even he, the Labor Party modeller of choice, said he believed that it would have a beneficial effect on employment in the economy to the tune of, if I remember correctly, some 30,000 people.Opposition senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Would senators on my left please cease shouting.WW4Senator KEMP—If we leave the modelling and the evidence from Professor Dixon, Access Economics in their a AEM model forecast report of December 1998 indicated that, as a result of the tax package, there would be an additional 190,000 jobs created in the long term. The research undertaken by the Melbourne Institute shows that the tax changes could increase the number of jobs by 50,000. So there is plenty of evidence on the record. Plenty of evidence has been presented to the Senate committee which shows that the tax package has very beneficial effects on the Australian economy and employment.It is a great pity that Senator George Campbell did not listen closely to the evidence Dr Henry gave to that committee when he explained the assumptions behind that particular question the senator asked me. The evidence that is on the record, the evidence that has been produced by a wide variety of other models, including evidence presented to the Senate committee by Professor Dixon, shows that this package is very good for jobs. It is very surprising that the Labor Party refuses to support this package. I would have thought that, as a party that holds itself out as the representative of employees—which is of course untrue; it is the representative of trade union bosses and trade union interests—it would have strongly supported this tax package.3465Campbell, Sen GeorgeSenator GEORGE CAMPBELLNB5NSWALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Minister, it is a fact that Treasury did not conduct any modelling in terms of this package. Why is the government so reluctant to have the tax package examined properly? Is it because Mr Costello does not want the truth about the GST to get out?3466Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—Again Senator Campbell's question contains a very misleading statement. Senator Campbell meant to say that the employment effects of the tax package were not modelled. I suspect that is what he meant to say. I have pointed out to Senator George Campbell that there is a range of other models around, all of which show that this tax package is very good for the economy and very good for jobs.34663466Gibson, Sen BrianSenator GIBSONBX5TASLP10—My question without notice is to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. The coalition government is strongly committed to fostering the growth of small business. How will the coalition's small business initiatives make the economy work better and improve living standards for all Australians? Minister, are you aware of any alternative policy proposals and what would be the impact if these were implemented?3466Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—There can be no doubt at all that our tax package is the best possible news that small business could have.RF4COOKSenator Cook—They don't believe you.LD4Senator ALSTON—It is interesting that you say that, Senator Cook, because it just shows that you still attend the branch meetings and you won't even read the newspapers. According to the Yellow Pages small business index, 80 per cent of Australian small businesses want the Australian taxation system reformed. We would like to have 100 per cent, but I will settle for 80. They know all the benefits that are there. Of course, a lot of people have had a view on this subject over the years—the ramshackle nature of that taxation system. Who said this:Australian governments have known for years that the country's tax system was unfair, antiquated and almost unworkable.Do you know who said it? It was the ALP. They published a booklet called The Guide to Tax Reform and they ran ads in 1985 saying just that. In other words, they are monumental hypocrites. They know it.Of course, what is very interesting is that they know that small business is the engine of jobs. But they are not really interested in creating new jobs; they want to hang on to union jobs. That is the fundamental difference between the parties. We want to assist small business. It is very interesting that in their heart of hearts and even in public people like Gareth Evans and now Senator Cook have come out endorsing the tax reform proposals. Bob Hogg was running the show for a number of years. Once he is freed of the shackles of the union movement and is able to actually tell it as it is, he gets out there and says, `Support the tax package; allow the Telstra bill to go through.'Do you remember Peter Duncan, Madam President? He was not just your average Labor hack. Peter Duncan was from the left wing of the Labor Party and he was a minister in the Labor government. At the time Peter Duncan said things like this:. . . as all my colleagues realise, the democratic nature of the Labor Party means that its policies are decided upon by the Party as a whole after extensive debate throughout our branches and affiliated unions.In other words, he was a wholly owned subsidiary like the rest of the team. But what has happened now? This is a very instructive tale because it shows what happens when people get out into the real world, when they are not actually bound hand and foot by their union masters. Peter Duncan started up a little company called Dine-out Victoria Square Pty Ltd, and he had the temerity to actually employ non-union labour—a criminal offence, as we all know. So they dragged him off to the Industrial Relations Commission.It is not only sad that Peter Duncan is singled out for that sort of treatment, but also what happens is that small businesses get a letter from the Liquor, Hospitality and Miscellaneous Workers Union saying this sort of thing, `On behalf of the union, I enclose a log of claims and demand that within seven days you will observe the wages and conditions of employment set out in the log or we will take you to court.'Do you know what the log of claims says? It demands weekly wages of between $1,000 and $2,500 a week, a $200 superannuation contribution a week, a 30-hour working week 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. only, a 40 per cent casual loading, a one-hour meal break every 4 hours, triple time for overtime and public holidays, 100 days sick leave per year and eight weeks annual leave with a 50 per cent leave loading.Madam President, I ask you, who do these people think they are: ALP senators? It is appalling. They want all the money and they do not want to do anything for it. They will tell small business, `Unless you sign on to an utterly preposterous and ludicrous ambit claim, we will take you to the Industrial Relations Commission and we will ruin your businesses.' That is the penalty you pay for not toeing the union line. It is an absolute disaster for small business. No wonder they want the tax package. Why don't you do the right thing and give it to them? (Time expired)34673467McKiernan, Sen JamesSenator McKIERNAN1I4WAALP00—My question is directed to the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs. Can the minister confirm that the official unemployment rate for indigenous Australians stands at 23 per cent and that the real rate is generally understood to be considerably higher than that? Isn't it the case that the Howard government has consistently reduced coverage of the Community Development Employment Program through limiting the growth of existing schemes and the establishment of new programs? How can the government justify this reduction in specific employment programs for indigenous Australians, services which have both employment and community development aims for Aboriginals?3467Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—I thank Senator McKiernan for the question because it is a very relevant question in relation to the Community Development Employment Program. The Community Development Employment Program was introduced by the Fraser government. It is one of the highlights of what has occurred in Aboriginal affairs over a long period of time. It was introduced to address the problem that occurs particularly in remote communities, where employment is a major problem. As Senator McKiernan has pointed out, there are particular problems in remote communities, where there are no other means of employment available, and the Community Development Employment Program allows the community to determine what action should be taken for the community itself rather than for the individuals. In the majority of cases it is part time.There have been claims recently that there have been deliberate attempts at reducing the number of CDEP places, and I am aware of the claims that Senator McKiernan referred to. I would refer senators to the Spicer report into the CDEP, which recommended a number of changes. They were accepted by both the government and ATSIC. Ian Spicer was formerly the executive officer for the—RF4COOKSenator Cook—ACCI.VW4Senator HERRON—ACCI. Thank you, Senator Cook. In any case, Mr Spicer suggested that as many as one-third of CDEP recipients are not working but instead receiving what they call sit-down money. His view, which the government accepts, is that these people should be progressively shifted from CDEP to more appropriate social security programs. This means, if Mr Spicer's estimates are correct, that some 10,000 CDEP places will be freed up for use in new CDEPs or to expand existing ones. This issue needs to be addressed before additional CDEP places are funded. That was accepted by ATSIC as well, as Senator McKiernan may be interested to know.In regard to other recommendations by Mr Spicer, the government and ATSIC are enthusiastically pursuing them but they are being threatened by the Labor Party. In line with Mr Spicer's report, the government has sought to remove anomalies from the CDEP scheme. For example, CDEP recipients do not receive rental assistance, nor do they receive health cards or the $10 special allowance paid to mainstream Work for the Dole recipients. We have introduced legislation in the other place to correct these anomalies, to the benefit of the vast majority of CDEP recipients. So the vast majority of CDEP recipients will in fact have their position improved by these amendments. Labor, however—Senator McKiernan is reflecting this—was caught in its blind desire to oppose everything the government does and so voted against these changes. I would strongly urge senators opposite to reconsider their totally indefensible position when the legislation is debated in this place.3468McKiernan, Sen JamesSenator McKIERNAN1I4WAALP00—I ask a supplementary question, Madam President. I thank the minister for his answer so far and I thank him for raising the Spicer report. Isn't it true, Minister, that Mr Spicer also said:Across Australia CDEP has been critical in developing an improved sense of pride in community and culture, and has provided the basis for acquiring greater skills, employment and enterprise development resulting in ongoing social and economic growth.Are these the aims of the government in considering issues of Aboriginal employment and, if so, will the government commit itself to maintaining and expanding the Community Development Employment Program?3468Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—I thank Senator McKiernan for the congratulatory message in the supplementary question because there should be bipartisan support for those very aims. We are maintaining the CDEP programs. We are following the Spicer report, which was accepted, to the letter and we will encourage that the report be fulfilled. That is why I would ask the Labor Party to support the amendments that were brought in, in line with the supplementary question.The problem that exists—and I have put this to the government itself—is that with the burgeoning number of young Aboriginal people in the community, particularly in remote communities, action will need to be taken in the future to provide further CDEP places. So I can assure Senator McKiernan that that position is being addressed by the government.34683468Eggleston, Sen AlanSenator EGGLESTON4L6WALP10—I have a question for Senator Newman, the Minister for Family and Community Services. The Howard government has a strong commitment to a fair and equitable social security system. Could the minister advise the Senate what the government is doing to ensure that people are meeting their obligations to the taxpayer and the community to be genuinely looking for work? 3468Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—I thank Senator Eggleston for his question. The government recognises that the majority of people who are obtaining assistance under the social security legislation are both meeting their obligations to the taxpayer and genuinely looking for work. But unfortunately there is a small core of people who are not prepared to do either.We have had as a government, in the three years we have been in government, a very good track record in being determined to do what is needed, in terms of both legislation and also administration, to make sure that people are not able to defraud the system. We are honouring the public commitment we made to clean up the social security system. We are doing that because it is very important that the public have confidence in the social security system, because only then can those who are genuinely in need be assured that people will recognise that they are doing the right thing.There is a story on the front page of the Courier-Mail this morning which refers to the government's continuing commitment to crack down on a small group of `hard-core' welfare rorters. The government is intending to legislate to further tighten the jobseeker provisions.There are a couple of areas where we believe that people are setting out deliberately to cheat on the system. Currently people cannot continue to get the dole if they move from an area of high employment to an area of low employment. Unfortunately, some people have decided that they can circumvent that by taking themselves off unemployment benefits in the area of high employment and then immediately moving to an area of low employment and applying, so there is a break in their social security payments. In that way they have been able to avoid the legislation. People who try to circumvent the system like that are not deserving of the sympathy of those who are paying for the system.DX5MARGETTSSenator Margetts—What?BE4Senator NEWMAN—People who try to deliberately circumvent the system—DX5MARGETTSSenator Margetts—They are not defrauding anything.BE4Senator NEWMAN—They are defrauding. The taxpayer is paying for people who are breaking the spirit of the legislation, and it is interesting to know that Senator Margetts is prepared to condone and support people who will go surfing on the taxpayer. Now, I don't mind people surfing in their own time but I think most Australians are not prepared to have people go surfing at their expense.Opposition senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! The level of intervention is too high.BE4Senator NEWMAN—Madam President, for all the noise that is coming from the other side of the chamber about this, I would point out that the department retains discretion. Where somebody moves to an area of high unemployment for compassionate reasons—for example, to look after a sick parent—discretion can be exercised to allow the payment of the unemployment benefits to be made. But it is not on to simply subsidise people sunning themselves at taxpayers' expense.The second measure that the government will be legislating to deal with relates to people who apply for a job, thereby satisfying the activity test—a job that is some distance away from their place of residence, outside an area where they are compelled to look—and then turn down the job. Currently under the legislation they are able to do that. I do not think anybody who has been offered a job, who has been on unemployment benefits, should artificially use that as a means of satisfying the activity test in order to continue to receive unemployment benefits. The government will close that loophole as well. (Time expired)34693469Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—My question is also directed to Senator Newman, the Minister for Family and Community Services. Is the minister aware that submissions to the Senate GST community affairs references committee from individuals with disabilities and organisations representing people with disabilities have detailed time and again the very real concerns these people have as to the negative impact this tax reform package will have on them? Minister, given that a high proportion of these people will not be eligible for the much feted tax cuts, will at best receive a pension increase in real terms of a paltry $6.50 and will now be required to pay a GST on goods and particularly on services that were previously tax exempt and are vital to their existence, how can the government be sure that the modelling undertaken and compensation package offered to people with disabilities are adequate?3469Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—It is of concern to all of us that people with disabilities be protected. But the government does believe, in formulating its draft legislation, that we have addressed the issues that need addressing to protect people with disabilities. We accepted the recommendations of the Voss committee's report and we made the vast bulk of disability services available GST free to the people who need them. Additionally, a comprehensive list of medical aids and appliances used by people with disabilities will also be GST free. If you are concerned about the commercial activities of charities and business services, they will be liable to GST.AX5EVANSSenator Chris Evans—That was not the question.BE4Senator NEWMAN—No, but I am giving you the information you obviously need, Senator, and I am happy to help you. The charities will be able to claim back any GST paid on all the inputs for these activities as an input tax credit. I do understand that sometimes the opposition does not want to be given the truth, but that is what they are getting.I think Senator Evans might be interested to know that the government's tax reforms are actually expected to reduce the cost of community services by about 2.7 per cent due to the abolition of 10 existing and inefficient taxes. That is not something which the government or members of parliament claim; it is something which has been determined on the advice of the Treasury.RF4COOKSenator Cook—No modelling.Opposition senators interjecting—BE4Senator NEWMAN—Of course that is modelling. What do you think, you goose? Madam President, there is a bit of yapping on the other side of the chamber.Turning to income support for people on disabilities, the Senate has been told over and over again—I think they must be tired of hearing it—that people on disability payments or any other kind of payment under the social security legislation or the veterans' affairs legislation will be receiving a four per cent increase in all the payments they receive. Before we hear the chorus from the other side of the chamber, let me say that not only is that four per cent up-front before there has been a single change in the cost of living for people, whether they are disabled or not, but also the commitment of the government is that that will be retained above the cost of living into the future so that people will always remain above the effect of the tax reforms.Madam President, there is an awful lot of noise from across the way. Senators on the other side of the chamber are so determined to show that they are Neanderthals that they are not prepared to look at the assistance that is being given to community organisations to assist them to get ready—Opposition senators interjecting—BE4Senator NEWMAN—Madam President, I don't know if I can shout over that noise much longer. Do you think that you could ask them to be quiet?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! The level of noise is unacceptable.BE4Senator NEWMAN—Thank you, Madam President. I was trying to point out to the opposition and to the Senate generally that there is a fund of $500 million which is available to small business and also to the charities and to those organisations providing disability services. That fund is there to help them in the implementation of tax reforms. In my consultations with the organisations, they appreciate that very much.The changes to the fringe benefits tax exemptions and the abolition of the wholesale sales tax, together with the removal of exemptions to sales tax, will streamline the funding arrangements for charities and public benevolent institutions, and make them more trans parent. The government is not in any way trying to harm them at all. (Time expired)3470Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. I remind the minister that my question was actually about the very real concerns of people with disabilities, and she failed to address those concerns at all. Isn't it true that the former Department of Social Security and the former Department of Health and Family Services had absolutely no input and gave absolutely no policy advice to the Treasury in respect of the effects a GST would have on people with disabilities? Isn't it true that the coalition have absolutely no idea how a GST will affect people with disabilities? Isn't it also true that the reason why the coalition government has not done any research in relation to the impact of a GST on people with disabilities is because you simply don't want to know the answers?3470Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—The answer to the question is no.34703470Lees, Sen MegSenator LEES8U4SAAD00—My question is also to Senator Newman, the Minister for Family and Community Services. I ask the minister: is she prepared to listen to the 15 leading church and welfare groups who have, with one strong and united voice, today condemned the government's tax package as unfair, unjust and unacceptable? Will the minister and the government finally accept that the majority of Australians, supported by Australia's churches and welfare groups, do not trust the government to either deliver or maintain adequate compensation for a GST?3470Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—I thank Senator Lees for the question, but I point out to Senator Lees that the press release issued today by ACOSS, while it may have included more church and community groups in its announcement, is essentially based on the same analysis that ACOSS put out some time ago. I recognise that they have been desperately going around trying to find some analysis which will show tax reform in a less positive light than the submission that they made previously which indicated that every group would be better off—confirming what the government said. I know that they are now in a position where they are very keen to try to point to a failure by the government to see that people will be better off, but their own research that they commissioned, and that they released earlier, demonstrates that all those groups will be better off.Yesterday the Labor Party was indicating that they would not vote against excluding food from the tax reform. I think that is a very interesting development in that it is very important, from the point of view of a simple GST system—as you will have heard in the evidence given to you, Senator—that there be a very uncomplicated, simple system applied across the board. You would know that all the credible economists who have given evidence to the Senate committees have endorsed the fact that food should be included in the GST.UNKNOWNOpposition senatorsOpposition senators—Who are they?BE4Senator NEWMAN—Well, I will give you some names. Dixon, the Food Council, Professor Harding, and Professor Warren all made those claims about the inclusion of food in a simple system.3I6STOTT DESPOJASenator Stott Despoja—What did Lawrence say about compensation?BE4Senator NEWMAN—I am hearing Senator Lees talk about compensation—5F4CALVERTSenator Calvert—That was the other leader; that was Stott Despoja.3471Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—Was that Stott Despoja? I beg your pardon—Bib and Bub. I am sorry about that. Madam President, how can you tell whether it is Senator Stott Despoja or Senator Lees interjecting when the noise from across the way is so loud?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Newman, you should ignore interjections and apply yourself to the question.BE4Senator NEWMAN—I understood that whoever was interjecting was seeking after wisdom, and it is desirable that the Democrats as well as the Labor Party seek after wisdom, because there is a great need for it. I do not know that there is a great deal to answer on the question of compensation that Senator Kemp has not answered over and over again.UNKNOWNOpposition senatorsOpposition senators—He hasn't answered it!BE4Senator NEWMAN—Prior to that I have answered it. The Treasurer continues to answer it. The Prime Minister continues to answer it. We believe the compensation is fair and just. And ACOSS's own analysis has demonstrated that the groups will not be worse off.3471Lees, Sen MegSenator LEES8U4SAAD00—I am sorry, but I have to disagree with the minister. There is no such evidence before the committee, and I would suggest that she goes back and has a look. Madam President, I ask the minister: is she aware that the bottom 40 per cent of Australian households on average have incomes of less than $300 a week, and is she aware that the top 20 per cent of Australian households have on average incomes of over $1,500 a week? In the face of this evidence and the united opposition from churches and welfare, how can the minister justify the imposition of a 10 per cent GST on food on low and middle income Australia to fund $5 billion worth of tax cuts for the top 20 per cent of income earners?3471Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—Let me just answer Senator Lees in this way. I understand that if you remove the GST from food—and evidence has been given to this effect—you are benefiting the top bracket of wage earners to the extent of $5 and you are benefiting the bottom level of wage earners by $1. Is that fair? Is that what you are about?34713471Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—My question is to Senator Newman, Minister for Family and Community Services. Is the minister aware that last Thursday in the House Treasurer Costello described Professor Sijbren Cnossen, a judge of the Dutch tax court, as `one of the world's foremost indirect tax experts'? Is the minister also aware that the Treasurer told the House that it would be well advised to take notice of Professor Cnossen's view on the GST? Can the minister confirm that Professor Cnossen has criticised the government's tax package, particularly on the basis that it undercompensates the poor through assuming a uniform household spending pattern? If the man recognised by Treasurer Costello as one of the world's foremost experts on indirect tax believes the compensation package is inadequate and inaccurate, why should it have any credibility with the Australian community, including low income earners?3472Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—The professor acknowledged that the compensation package in the government's tax plan is more than sufficient, though you would not know that from the opposition's question. He also gave his firm support for retaining a GST on food. However, he argued for a compensation model based on different household spending types. The government has not tried to do this for what we believe are very good reasons. Small differences in the CPI effects across household types simply cannot be reliably measured, according to the advice I have—AW5CARRSenator Carr—Oh, you don't know.BE4Senator NEWMAN—Madam President—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! There is an appropriate time to ask follow up questions and it is not now.BE4Senator NEWMAN—The advice I have from my department is that small differences in the CPI effects across household types simply cannot be reliably measured and are therefore not an appropriate basis for designing compensation packages.3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—What about Fightback? This is not what you did in Fightback.BE4Senator NEWMAN—Madam President, they do hate the truth, don't they? It is also far better to build compensation around the total CPI effect across all household types. In any case, we have put sufficient extra compensation in to ensure that low income earners are fully compensated, even if the worst case numbers in the household expenditure survey were accepted. And I expect that the study referred to by the professor will find this.Boosting direct payments and delivering income tax cuts was the easiest way to provide compensation. In the case of family payments, in respect of which the Treasurer announced today that legislation is now coming into the parliament, the changes will also greatly simplify and improve people's choices, and make a great deal of difference to the choice of life for families. The alternative approach put by the professor—refundable tax rebates—could be made to deliver similar cash outcomes but it would be much more complex and it would limit choice. For that reason, the government did not go down that route.3472Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. How can you say, Minister, that low income earners are fully compensated when your party's expert—the Treasurer's expert, Professor Cnossen—says that the package undercompensates the poor through assuming uniform household spending patterns? Are you aware that Professor Cnossen is a former adviser to the International Monetary Fund and has assisted 25 governments in the design and implementation of their GSTs? Again, Minister, if this acknowledged expert believes the compensation package is inadequate and inaccurate, why should it have any credibility in the Australian community?3472Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—I do not think Senator Cook heard more than what he wanted to hear out of my answer. I am very happy to repeat for him that Professor Cnossen acknowledged that the compensation package in the government's tax plan is more than sufficient. Senator, I think you just did not listen. That is the answer to your supplementary.34723472Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Defence. I refer to the recent announcement of an inquiry into the Collins submarine project by an independent panel headed by Mr John Prescott, former CEO of BHP, and Dr Malcolm McIntosh, and I ask: was the government aware when making these appointments that BHP has done large amounts of business with the submarine project, including the supply of the CMAC system which was criticised by the Australian National Audit Office in its 1992 report? Was the government also aware that in 1987, when the submarine contract was under consideration, Dr McIntosh was First Assistant Secretary, Defence Industry and Materiel Policy in the Department of Defence, in which capacity he would have been involved in deliberations leading to the choice of ASC as contractor? Does the minister agree that the choice of these men for a so-called `independent' investigation compromises the investigation before it begins? If not, why not?3473Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—The Minister for Defence will have his reasons as to the people he has chosen. In fact, in both cases, I believe them to be people of eminent qualification. I point out that, as far as Dr McIntosh is concerned, his experience is a great deal wider than that which you chose to quote, Senator. He headed defence procurement for the British Defence Force for a number of years. When I spoke to defence leaders in Britain some years ago, they were very loath to lose him because of his capabilities. He is now, of course, the head of CSIRO. I would have thought that that sort of expertise was invaluable in this sort of exercise.3473Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. We were not talking about expertise, we were talking about conflict of interest. I remind the minister that my question goes to the issue of possible or perceived conflict of interest for Messrs McIntosh and Prescott, both of whom have long track records with organisations closely connected with the submarine project. Does the minister not agree that, in supposedly independent inquiries such as this, the perception of conflict of interest is as important as it is in judicial circles?3473Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—Madam President, I think the conflict of interest in this case is in the eye of the beholder. I would suggest that you would have to go a very long way in Australia to get the sort of expertise that you will need to make an intelligent inquiry. There can be nothing worse—Senator Margetts interjecting—BE4Senator NEWMAN—Senator, hear me out. There can be nothing worse than having somebody who knows nothing about these matters at all inquiring into issues which are of very serious import. The arrangements for the submarine over the years are complex and technical, and it is very important that they be sorted out. The government could have had the choice of doing an internal inquiry. I presume you would not have thought that was the appropriate way to go. This is quite clearly an arms-length inquiry and I believe that it is an appropriate use of people with great technical and managerial abilities.34733473Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—My question is directed to the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts. Minister, in the interests of maintaining a strong and independent national broadcaster, will you rule out any possibility of Mr Max Moore-Wilton being appointed as Managing Director of the ABC?3473Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—I am not sure what underlies that question. Is Senator Carr suggesting that public servants who have held high office, who have performed very important services, who have proven track records in the commercial sector, are therefore disqualified from appointment? Presumably, that was the approach adopted by Labor when they appointed a whole bunch of hacks that had to be approved, no doubt, by the trades hall council.Senator Carr interjecting—LD4Senator ALSTON—I can assure you that if there is a list, you are at the very bottom of it. You are disqualified on almost every count known to man, particularly the criteria spelt out in the act. They are very broad, I know, but I have to tell you in advance: you fail. We are interested in—Senator Robert Ray interjecting—Senator ALSTON —Are you applying, too? You are back a bit early from your job this afternoon.Honourable senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! There are too many interjections on both sides.Senator Hill interjecting—LD4Senator ALSTON—Senator Schacht spends most of his time in retirement homes these days, so I doubt that he would have the time to attend board meetings. Madam President, we will consider all serious applications. If Senator Ray has had enough and he would like his name put forward, no doubt we will measure it against the criteria. I suspect it would be a bit too onerous. He would actually have to turn up on time. He would have to look at what the future was. Of course, that involves serious policy issues. There is absolutely no sign of you lot being interested in policy at all.Opposition senators interjecting—LD4Senator ALSTON—The difference is that I am not applying.Senator Robert Ray interjecting—LD4Senator ALSTON—If you are promising to reform, I take you at face value. If you are going to be in here from now on, we will put your name on the probationary list. You can be a provisional applicant and we will give it serious consideration. In the meantime, I have to tell Senator Carr that we are not particularly interested in the sort of people he would have in mind. We want people who have a genuine understanding of commercial realities, who do not take their instructions from outside, and who do have the best interests of the national broadcaster at heart. It is a great institution. It is not helped at all by the likes of Senator Carr constantly trying to impose union rules on the way in which the ABC operates. We want people who will flex up the system. We want it to be productive, we want it to be forward looking, and you fail on all counts.3474Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Minister, I ask you again: will you rule out any possibility of Max Moore-Wilton being appointed as Managing Director of the ABC? Can you confirm the claims made in last week's Bulletin that your view is that, contrary to the ABC's charter, the ABC should be reduced to just a news and current affairs broadcaster? Does the minister agree that Max `the axe' Moore-Wilton would facilitate that agenda?3474Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—Those are the dangers of taking what you read at face value, because that certainly has never been my view. The way in which that story came about is really quite extraordinary.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—You would not know. You are just a doormat.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Faulkner, that sort of interjection is totally unacceptable.LD4Senator ALSTON—We had calls suggesting that Mr Max Moore-Wilton's name had been put forward by several people. As it turned out in the article, the most they could say was that he had been `recently seen at a party hosted by Mr Donald McDonald'. If that constitutes a job application I would be absolutely amazed. It is a classic beat-up. I suspect they got your fax saying that this should be added onto the list of issues that might be canvassed to try and beef up an otherwise pretty pedestrian contribution. I thought it was little more than cafeteria scuttlebutt. It certainly did not constitute a serious, forward looking analysis of where the national broadcaster should go. Just for the record, I think it has a lot more to offer than news and current affairs. I hope it will continue to have a broad agenda. (Time expired)Honourable senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! There is sledging going on across the chamber today which is absolutely unacceptable and out of order.34743474Boswell, Sen RonaldSenator BOSWELLYE4QLDNP10—I address my question to Senator Herron, the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs. The coalition government was re-elected with a clear mandate to replace Labor's outdated and unfair tax regime with a new system that will boost Australia into the next millennium. Will the minister explain how tax reform will benefit indigenous Australians, particularly those living in remote and isolated areas?3474Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—I thank Senator Boswell for this very important question. Low income people living in remote areas, whether indigenous or not, will gain a great deal from the government's tax reform package. The tax package will be of considerable benefit to indigenous Australians.Senator Cook interjecting—VW4Senator HERRON—Senator Cook may be interested to know that, when the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission's own research on the impact of the reform package is analysed, it is very favourable. While ATSIC's submission to the tax reform Senate inquiries raises a lot of rhetorical questions, the ATSIC figures by Allen Consulting actually support the government's position. For example, Senator Cook may be interested to know that ATSIC's figures show that, in a worst case scenario, there would be an inflation increase of 3.74 per cent. This is below the four per cent compensation package the government will put in place. The ATSIC figures do not take into account the benefits of lower transport costs by reduced diesel fuel prices.In developing the tax package, we have been very careful to ensure that geographically isolated people get as much benefit from tax reform as people in cities and towns. In specific terms, increases in social security payments and income tax cuts are part of a raft of important compensation measures. These measures will ensure that indigenous people on low incomes, income support and CDEP—as Senator McKiernan mentioned—are not only compensated for the impact of the GST but also share in the gains of the new system.It also has to be remembered that the indigenous median age is about half that of the wider community. Senator Cook may be interested to know that, as a result, indigenous families are larger and younger. So they will also receive substantial benefits from increased family allowance payments. We have allowed sufficient margin for people not to be disadvantaged in remote areas, where costs can be higher. Social security payments will be increased by four per cent to cover an estimated cost of living increase of around 1.9 per cent. Income support benefits will be kept 1.5 per cent higher than they would have been had the normal indexation arrangements been applied. While some food items might increase, many in fact will be cheaper because we will abolish Labor's hidden tax—the wholesale sales tax—which taxed people at up to 30 per cent. That included people in rural and remote areas.A reduction of diesel fuel excise will significantly cut transport costs for heavy vehicles, by up to 19c a litre, resulting in an overall balance in the cost of living. Road transport organisations have already indicated that transport cost savings will be passed on to consumers, particularly those in rural and remote areas. We will see benefits flowing on to consumers at the supermarket shelf and the petrol bowser.Opposition senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! There are senators on my left interjecting persistently.VW4Senator HERRON—Businesses in remote areas can expect, on average, a 3.2 per cent reduction in operating costs, as well as looking forward to other avenues of non-tax related support that the government is planning to introduce over the next 12 months.RF4COOKSenator Cook—There is no evidence for that at all.VW4Senator HERRON—If Senator Cook and the opposition parties are serious about helping Australia and its peoples, particularly those in rural and remote areas, they will support the government's tax reform package.34753475Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—I address my question to Senator Hill as Minister for the Environment and Heritage. Can the minister confirm that drilling associated with the Jabiluka mine will be conducted in the next few weeks within the area of the Boyweg-Almudj sacred sites? Can he also confirm that these are the sites which were recently considered by the World Heritage Committee of UNESCO to be integral to the Kakadu cultural landscape and therefore of unique value to the world? What action does the minister intend to take to protect these sacred sites?3475Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—Senator Bolkus would be aware of the expanding definition of the Boyweg sacred site in the Jabiluka area. It is difficult to reconcile recent claims with the history of research in the area, the facts relating to legally binding permissions given for works on the lease, and the actions of traditional owners over the last 20 years. From 1975 on, the site of Boyweg has been known, photographed, mapped and protected. Several reputable anthropologists, working closely with traditional owners, including the father of the current senior traditional owner, have defined the site of Boyweg as a `small discrete soakage or spring on the edge of the wetlands located to the west of the Jabiluka mine valley'. It was regarded as a sacred but not a dangerous site.This site is linked by a dreaming trail to another separate site known as Almudj, also protected and registered. The area between these sites is claimed now by some to be a sacred site. The location and definition of the site was discussed and confirmed in the 1977 Fox inquiry, the claim book for the 1982 Alligator Rivers stage 2 land claim, and the research necessary for registration on the National Estate for sites on the lease, including Boyweg and Almudj. Furthermore, between 1971 and 1978, before the area became Aboriginal land, Pancontinental drilled some 250 holes in the mine valley in the area between the two sites.In 1980, Justice Toohey heard evidence in the Alligator Rivers stage 2 land claim. Evidence was provided by the current traditional owner's father who described Boyweg as: `Just up here where the buffalo wallow is now. It used to be a sacred site before.' In 1981, Justice Toohey reported his findings on the land claim. While his report gives considerable attention to the proposed Jabiluka project—as it was, of course, then planned—no concerns over Boyweg or Almudj were noted. Although the proposal was much larger than the present initiative, the site does not appear to have been under any threat.In the years leading up to 1982, the Northern Land Council carried out extensive consultation with traditional owners and affected Aboriginal communities over the Jabiluka project. In 1982, an agreement was signed which stated:It was agreed by the NLC on behalf of traditional Aboriginal owners that there are no sacred sites within the fenced area. Traditional Aboriginal owners have instructed the NLC that they have no present intention of conferring upon any place the status of a sacred site within the fenced area during the term of the deed.That is, in 1982 the traditional owners were saying that there was no sacred site. The current area now claimed to be Boyweg includes part of that fenced area to which I just referred. It was not until 1997, some 15 years later, that claims started to be made about an extended area for Boyweg, possibly covering the whole of the mine valley. These revisions also upgraded the category of the site from sacred to sacred and dangerous.In 1997, the Aboriginal Areas Protection Authority, including 10 out of 12 Aboriginal site custodians, declined to register the site citing disagreement among traditional owners over its location and significance. It was not until 1999 that traditional owners informed me that they now believe that this site was wider, covering the whole mine valley, and more significant, et cetera. Therefore, the sign is one of evolutionary growth, Senator Bolkus. (Time expired)3476Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Does the minister contend, despite the assessment of the International World Heritage Committee, despite a deed of trust between the company—ERA—and the traditional owners, that there is no sacred site there? Why will the minister take no action at all to protect sacred sites recognised by the World Heritage Committee? Why is the minister now expounding an argument that he has not expounded before bringing into dispute the actual existence of the sacred site? Minister, what action will you take to meet your responsibilities as Minister for the Environment and Heritage responsible for Australia's world heritage properties to protect the values of these sites?3476Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—Madam President, Senator Bolkus was not listening. What I said to him was that by 1999 the site had suddenly been expanded to include the whole of the valley. It increased in significance to involve more dreaming ancestors and to become a dangerous site and, of course, for the first time it had become an underground site as well as an on-ground site. The trouble with the new expanded claims is that they are not consistent with the known facts. They are out of step with the agreement signed by the traditional owners, supported by the NLC, and they have not been accepted by the Aboriginal Areas Protection Authority.34773477Bourne, Sen VickiSenator BOURNETW4NSWAD00—My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Does the minister agree that for Australia to have a peaceful neighbour in East Timor it is essential that the so-called resistance groups on East Timor be disarmed and that ABRI be discouraged from arming any more East Timorese residents? What action is the government taking to encourage Indonesia to disarm these groups, both at a diplomatic level with the Indonesian government and at a high military level with the Indonesian defence force?3477Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—We believe that for long-term peace and stability in East Timor the disarming of these various groups would be desirable. It is clearly an issue that will be relevant to whether or not the autonomy ballot that is to be conducted will be conducted in a way in which the East Timorese can have confidence in the outcome. Our capacity to bring that state of affairs about is limited. We have made representations to the government of Indonesia, not only on the issue of disarming the civil militia groups but also, as the honourable senator knows, on the desirability of reducing the presence of ABRI with East Timor. That remains our position and we will continue to make these representations. The subject is obviously also being discussed with the United Nations in the preliminary planning for the autonomy ballot. There is not much more that can be said at the moment but to acknowledge the validity of what the honourable senator has said, the desirability for the disarming of these militias, and to seek to encourage the Indonesian government to support that state of affairs.3477Bourne, Sen VickiSenator BOURNETW4NSWAD00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. I thank the minister for that answer. I understand he is not the Minister for Foreign Affairs, but could the minister find out for the Senate the answer to part two of my question about whether the ADF has had any discussions with the Indonesian defence force, with ABRI, about this, and what sort of response we have had? Also could the minister find out what sort of response the Australian government has had from the Indonesian government?3477Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—I will endeavour to get further information. As I said, I know that the Australian government has made these representations and I will ask whether the Defence Force has also made representations to its counterparts. To the extent that I can give information on a response, I will do so.34773477Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT4J4SAALP00—My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. Why is it the current policy of your government to treat compensation in the form of a veterans' disability pension as income under the Social Security Act while at the same time treating similar compensation from other sources more generously? When will the government stop discriminating against tens of thousands of veterans in this way?3477Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—That is the system we inherited from the Labor government.3477Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT4J4SAALP00—Wrong again. Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Minister, are you aware that, in a policy speech you made in 1996, you said that you would always err on the basis of generosity towards veterans. Therefore, are you aware that the present government policy denies veterans who receive a disability pension at least an extra $20 a week that non-veterans who receive a similar compensation payment will be entitled to?3477Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—I take it that the senator is accusing us of not being more generous than they were prepared to be. In fact, we have been considerably more generous than the Labor Party was. I refer you to a number of measures that have been implemented by the Howard government since we came to office—most notably the gold card which, for 13 years, you were asked to support and did not do so. So we do not have a trouble with providing support for veterans. We have been most generous.34773477Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT5F4TASLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs. The Howard government has a strong commitment to provide education opportunities for all Australians so that they can reach their full potential. I refer the minister to children of itinerant families who have great difficulty in attending distance education or boarding schools due to the occupation of their parents and I refer in particular, as you would know, Minister, to the children of travelling show workers. Would you advise the Senate of the efforts the Howard government has made to improve educational outcomes for the children of such itinerant workers?3478Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—Showmen and show-women in travelling shows throughout this country have made a very colourful contribution to Australia's history. A contribution has also been made by the families of those showmen and show-women and for many years the children of those families have been overlooked. That was until now. The Commonwealth has announced $1.42 million in capital funding for a school for the children of members of the Showmen's Guild.I acknowledge the work that Senator Calvert has done in relation to this. Senator Calvert lobbied me last year when I was minister for schools and he continued that good work with Dr Kemp, the minister for education. I want to congratulate Dr Kemp, the minister for education, for recognising the plight of these children which had gone unnoticed previously. The Commonwealth will meet the capital costs of establishing a school for the children of travelling show workers. The Queensland government will run the school through Education Queensland. The school will operate in two parts, with each part accompanying a show troupe as it moves across the eastern part of Australia. Two circuits will make that journey on the eastern seaboard. Each part of the school will be staffed by two teachers, a teachers' aide and a school principal will coordinate the school's activities. It is expected the school will commence operations later this year.The children of families who lead an itinerant lifestyle, such as show workers, cannot use the normal educational services that the rest of the community takes for granted. It is no secret that the children of these people are disadvantaged in an educational sense. The choice they have is either to stay at home and not see their parents or to join them on the road. We now have an answer to that. Although there are some 80 children involved, it is still a very important move because we are now setting an example not only for other areas where mobile schools might be used but also on the international scene where there has been some international interest in this. Senator Calvert brought to my attention the fact that there have been similar exercises in Europe. This initiative underlines the government's strong commitment to those children in regional areas who suffer educational disadvantage. In fact, we have announced $22 million in funding for isolated children to boost the funding in place of $150 million over five years which will start this year. Although this is just part of our program for educating children in regional areas, it is nonetheless a very important part. I look forward to the success of the school for the children of travelling show workers and, once again, I acknowledge the efforts of Senator Calvert in pushing this issue.BH4HILLSenator Hill—Madam President, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper .Miscellaneous3478347815:06:003478Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—I move:That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Family and Community Services (Senator Newman), to questions without notice asked today, relating to the proposed new tax system.I particularly want to concentrate on the answer Senator Newman gave to my question about the concerns of people with disabilities regarding the impact of the GST on their standard of living, their quality of life and the barriers that the GST will erect to their full participation in the community. It was very clear from the minister's answer today that the government has done no modelling and conducted no impact studies on the effect of the GST on the lives of people with disabilities and the organisations that support them.It was very clear from answers to questions during the committee inquiry process that the Department of Health and Aged Care and the Department of Family and Community Services have done no work to try to influence Treasury's modelling and Treasury's compensation packages for people with disabilities. This means that the government has no idea of the impact of its GST tax package on people with disabilities. We think this is deplorable. We think the government stands condemned for failing to do the work, for failing to take enough interest to work out what the impact will be and to work out whether or not the compensation packages offered in conjunction with the tax package will be sufficient to assist those people through the changed taxation regime.It is just not good enough for the government to say they do not know. They have an obligation to care, they have an obligation to do the work to ensure that the tax package is fair for those persons. What is clear today from the press release from the Joint Church and Community Services Alliance Group is that they reject the government's often asserted claim that the tax package is fair. It clearly is not fair, and one of the key groups disadvantaged by the tax package is people with disabilities, but of course that also includes pensioners and a whole range of other people on fixed incomes who will be severely disadvantaged by the totality of the tax package.It is clear that the government have taken the attitude that we will throw everyone into a pot, work out the average and the average will do for all: the average compensation package, the average outcome in terms of housing, the average outcome in terms of cost of living. People are not averages. People do not eat averages. People's lives are different, their experiences are different and their needs are different. One of the key groups that is very different in terms of their needs is people with disabilities, because they have very different needs from others in the community.One of the things that is clear about people with disabilities is that they have a very different consumption pattern. They are large consumers of services and they need extra services. They need assistance with personal services—and most of those look like they will be GST free. But there is a range of other services which they consume in greater quantities than other people do—things like transportation, home help services, handyman services, home maintenance. All those things that we are able to do ourselves, very often people with disabilities have to employ someone to do. They use services that are largely discretionary for other people.In introducing a goods and services tax, the government are introducing a tax on services, in most cases, for the first time. People who use a lot of services have a disproportionate impact placed upon them by the imposition of this tax. The services part of the new taxation regime will seriously impact on the quality of life of people with disabilities. In general, these people are doing it tough already—surviving on low incomes and having to overcome huge barriers to their full participation in the community. And we are adding another 10 per cent barrier to their participation in the community, their enjoyment of life and their ability to participate in the things that other people take for granted.The services that people with disabilities use are widespread and costly, and they spend a disproportionate amount of their income already on services. By taxing services, we increase the cost of that consumption and we increase their inability to fully participate in the community, because the costs of the services they need are increased.The government have done nothing to appreciate that. They have done nothing to examine the impacts of the GST on the lives of people with disabilities. All the groups have been before the GST Community Affairs Committee making this very case. They have provided the detailed information on consumption patterns, and the government say, `You will all be better off because, on average, it will all be okay.' But, with every average, there has to be someone above the average and someone below the average. And the people below the average are the people with disabilities—the people who will have to consume large amounts of services. They are going to be taxed a disproportionate amount, and there will be a much more adverse effect on their lifestyles as a result of the government's taxation package.The government must do some modelling. The government must address the issues of people with disabilities and ensure that they have a much better result from this tax package than they currently look like getting if the government is successful in having this legislation passed.15:11:003480Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSONLI4VICLP10—Again we are hearing the opposition trying to justify why they will not support the taxation reform—something they realised has been needed since 1985. Because they did not have the gall or the guts to do it, they left it languishing and they left us with a ramshackle wholesale sales tax system with a labyrinth of taxes on food, personal items and many other goods. I find it amazing that members on the other side can come into this chamber and go on and on peddling myths. Senator Evans just said that people with disabilities will be paying 10 per cent more on every item. That is absolutely outrageous.7G6LUNDYSenator Lundy—How can you say that?LI4Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSON—I can say it because none of those on the other side understand the system that they currently support. They have no policies—not a policy between them. There are a couple of ways: third ways, fourth ways, fifth ways, halfways—with Latham and some of the—BH4HILLSenator Hill—Pathways.LI4Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSON—Oh, pathways.7G6LUNDYSenator Lundy—Why don't you say something of substance?LI4Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSON—Senator Lundy never says anything of substance in this chamber. What we have is a party on the other side with no policies. The only policies they have is that they support a wholesale sales tax system which is ramshackle. It is a system which has tax on some items of food and most of the things you see in the supermarket: dog food, gladwrap, birthday cards—all those sorts of things. When Labor put up the wholesale sales tax, by an enormous amount, was there one penny of compensation? No.Gary Johns, a former minister in the Labor Party, tells us what they did. During the 1993 election, they promised that they would not raise taxes and that they would reduce income taxes. They promised l-a-w tax cuts. They raised wholesale sales taxes, they delivered only half the income taxes and they gave no compensation to people on pensions and no compensation to any individual whom they are pretending to represent. What absolute hypocrisy!Gary Johns said that they should realise what they should be doing and support taxation reform, because that was what was identified by Paul Keating in 1985. He said there are three main advantages of a consumption tax: it would allow a more rational indirect tax system than the wholesale sales tax system, it would allow greater tax revenues to be generated for the benefit of individuals and tax rate reduction, and it would generate tax from those who evade or avoid income tax. It would provide a useful net dividend for distribution to the rest of the community.The other thing they forget to remind people about is that we have a tax system, the base of which is becoming narrower and narrower. In fact, what we have not got is a party on the other side with a vision for the future, that asks, `How are we going to support health? How are we going to support social security? How are we going to support benefits for people with a disability into the future?' Under current Labor Party policy—I can only presume that their policy is to support wholesale sales tax and increases in wholesale sales tax—BH4HILLSenator Hill—That was their past.LI4Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSON—That was their past, as Senator Hill said. They have no pathway for the future so they have no plans for how they are going to provide pensions, support for people with disabilities and health care into the future. As our dependence on goods narrows and our economy depends more and more on services, our tax base is narrowing. They have no plans at all for the future.ZF4CROWLEYSenator Crowley—This whole program means no extra revenue.LI4Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSON—Senator Crowley keeps shouting across the chamber. You have nothing to say. You are going to have a chance to get up and respond but you have no policies and nothing to offer. Let me say to you that the Australian public—Honourable senators interjecting—10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Gibbs, Senator Hill and Senator Crowley. I want some order in this chamber, please.LI4Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSON—Thank you, Madam Deputy President. It was a bit of a challenge. I was trying awfully hard to talk over the top of those people on the other side, who are supporting a system which is totally insupportable. No wonder they need to shout across the chamber.Senator Hill interjecting—10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator Hill!Senator Gibbs interjecting—10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Gibbs, you are not helping either. If the three of you were to remain silent, Senator Patterson might have some chance.Senator Eggleston interjecting—10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator Eggleston, you will get a go later on.LI4Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSON—Taxation reform is not just about a GST, it is about righting the mistakes of the previous government and providing a fair and more equitable system. That is what we are about—a system which is sustainable into the future, which is something that you know nothing about. (Time expired)15:16:003481Crowley, Sen RosemarySenator CROWLEYZF4SAALP00—We have here today answers from a minister that show very clearly that this government, at best, does not know what its new tax package is about, does not know the impact of the GST, because it has done no modelling except in Treasury. Senator Newman's department has done no modelling. The health department has done no modelling, and it could answer no questions when we asked it in our committee, `What will be the impact?' But many of the witnesses who came before our committee knew the impact.Many of those are back today as an alliance of the Australian Council of Social Service, the Uniting Church, the Brotherhood of St Laurence, the Women's Electoral Lobby, the Australian Catholic Health Care Association, the Australian Consumers Association, the Australian Pensioners and Superannuants Federation, Anglicare, the Catholic Social Welfare Commission, St Vincent de Paul and some elements of the Salvation Army. No way are these paid up stoolies for the Labor Party, and no way are they are a bunch of ratbags. They brought excellent evidence before our committee, and they have brought it back again today. They say what is clear to anybody who is serious about looking at this bill—that this tax package is very unfair, and it will entrench inequality in Australia well into the future if it should pass. It will divide Australia into the haves and the have-nots. It is based on a trickle-up effect, where the poor pay the tax and the rich take it home. It is quite outrageous.The government over there pretend that they know it is about something else. Those people whose names I have listed have all done the serious work. They got groups of reliable, responsible accountants like Ernst and Young and Arthur Andersen to do the work for them—to make sure that they have not got it wrong—and they are clear: low income families in Australia will have grossly inadequate compensation.It is very interesting that, at the very time that legislation was introduced that will divide Australia into the haves and the have-nots, the Prime Minister went before large sections of corporate Australia last weekend to say, `I've got $50 million of precious taxpayer money, and I'm going to set that aside as tax deductions for corporate Australia to encourage them to become philanthropists.' For the first time ever, he is taxing the charitable institutions in this country—if he has $50 million to spare, why doesn't he give it to the charities that do the work on the ground, instead of giving tax cuts to corporate Australia in case they are generous?It is a very big irony that the Prime Minister should be encouraging philanthropy with massive tax cuts when at the same time he is introducing for the first time ever taxes on the charitable and not-for-profit sector in this country. It is completely against the fabric of Australian society to tax charitable and not-for-profit institutions. How about this: for the first time ever, a tax on the Girl Guides and a tax on the Boy Scouts. We have seen how the government says, `Well, we didn't mean it on bob-a-job.' What about bob-a-job week? What about the Girl Guide biscuits? What about the surf lifesavers and St Vincent de Paul? What about the GST on the lamington cake stall? That is what this government is introducing.Government senators interjecting—ZF4Crowley, Sen RosemarySenator CROWLEY—You may bay, but it was those institutions that brought this evidence before us—not the Labor Party. For the first time ever, you are taxing the charitable and not-for-profit sector, and at the same time your Prime Minister has found $50 million, which he is setting aside for institutions in this country should they get into further philanthropy. It is an extraordinary piece of legislation. It takes no regard of the sort of Australia that we have become—a society where people want to put in their pennyworth and contribute through voluntary activity and through charitable and not-for-profit institutions. Now that is under attack.More importantly than anything, it is an unfair, ungenerous bill that is going to make the poor and the low income families poorer and worse off than ever before. Under law, that poverty and that lack of income will be there forever. We all know that any compensation, small as it is, will not last. In every other country the GST has risen. It will rise in this country because there is no extra revenue out of these bills. It is just a different way of making the money go round. What is happening is the poor are paying for the rich. (Time expired)15:21:003482Eggleston, Sen AlanSenator EGGLESTON4L6WALP10—I must say that Senator Crowley made a lot of very strong assertions there which have absolutely no basis in fact whatsoever. She said, for example, that the minister did not understand what the government's tax package was about. It is absolute nonsense to think that the Minister for Family and Community Services would not understand how the tax package impacts on the 1.5 million Australians who have some disability and need personal care and assistance. Of course the minister understands that. Senator Crowley's assertion that the government did no modelling to work out what the impact on people with disabilities would be is absolute nonsense, as was her first assertion that the minister did not understand what the package had for people with disabilities and what compensation it provided.In formulating its draft goods and services tax legislation, the government accepted the recommendations of the Vos committee report and made the vast bulk of disability services available GST free to people who need them. Additionally, because we are a caring and sensitive government that makes sure that people with disabilities are not in any way unfairly dealt with, the government has made available a comprehensive list of medical aids and appliances used by people with disabilities which are to be GST free. So, in following the recommendations of the Vos report, the government has made sure that the services available to people with disabilities and the mechanical and other aids they need are GST free.It is true that the commercial activities of charities and business services run by organisations involved with disabled people will attract a GST. However, just as with any other organisation or business, they will be able to claim back the GST paid on all inputs and will receive an input tax credit.6L6GIBBSSenator Gibbs—What about the services?4L6Eggleston, Sen AlanSenator EGGLESTON—Furthermore, the government's tax reforms are expected to reduce the cost of community services by 2.7 per cent due to the abolition of 10 existing and inefficient taxes. Those taxes pervade the whole work environment. So the answer to `What about the services?' is that the services will be cheaper and that people with disabilities who are on disability service pensions will be compensated by the four per cent increase in pensions and by the other compensation means available through the tax package. An essential theme of this tax package is that people with disabilities should not be disadvantaged at all. For that reason, the government has gone out of its way to make sure that, as I have said, the services and mechanical aids required by people with disabilities are GST free.Senator Crowley mentioned a long list of people and organisations who made submissions to the committee. I attended hearings of this committee, along with Senator Crowley and a number of other members of the Senate, and I must say that my impression was that many of the people who made submissions displayed a great lack of knowledge and understanding of the tax package. This was in spite of the fact that the government distributed a comprehensive community sector briefing kit which covered most of the issues raised. All this goes to show that, like the opposition and like many other organisations who appeared before the various GST committees, the bill had not been read, that the proposals had not been understood and that most of the evidence given and the complaints made were in ignorance of how the proposed tax package will work and, in particular in terms of disabled people, in ignorance of the fact that the government has gone out of its way to ensure that the disabled of Australia are not disadvantaged and are adequately compensated by this package.15:26:003483Gibbs, Sen BrendaSenator GIBBS6L6QLDALP00—I have never heard such waffle in all my life. First of all, we had Senator Patterson slagging off, talking about anything and everything apart from people with disabilities.Senator Patterson interjecting—6L6Gibbs, Sen BrendaSenator GIBBS—Yes, you were, Senator Patterson—slagging off, just like you always do; you talk about anything apart from the subject.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Gibbs, would you address the chair and, Senator Patterson, cease interjecting, thank you.6L6Gibbs, Sen BrendaSenator GIBBS—We then had Senator Eggleston defending the minister and saying that of course the minister knows about this legislation and of course the minister knows about modelling. But Senator Eggleston was actually on this inquiry with us, and he was there when the department of social security and the department of health gave evidence that they were not consulted by Treasury or by the minister, that they had absolutely no input into what would happen with people with disabilities, with aged care or with people in need of health services.Senator Eggleston interjecting—6L6Gibbs, Sen BrendaSenator GIBBS—You were actually there, Senator Eggleston.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Please address the chair, Senator Gibbs.6L6Gibbs, Sen BrendaSenator GIBBS—Madam Deputy President, time and time again the witnesses before the Community Affairs GST inquiry stressed that the four per cent compensation was not adequate, that it was not going to be enough to cover the costs that would impact with the introduction of the GST.People with disabilities suffer higher unemployment rates and have lower incomes than people in the community generally. Their cost of living is much higher due to the specialised living expenses they have, including housing, transport, medical, pharmaceuticals, disability equipment, personal care and miscellaneous costs. Transportation in particular is vital to people with disabilities. We were given evidence that taxis are commonly used because people with a disability are often unable to access public transport or drive a car and so have no other option. A normal person can get into their car or can catch a bus, train or plane. Whatever they want to do, they have that choice. But these people do not have an option.They do not have an option with the services they have to have in their homes. If people choose to live independently, they have maintenance costs—the lawnmower man has to come, they need house maintenance and cleaning and gardening services and the car has to be washed. These people must even employ someone to fit a light bulb—something which is nothing to us. This is a service and the GST applies to services. They do not have a choice; their expenses are enormous. They have special needs in areas that we take for granted.Let me quote something:The Physical Disability Council of NSW submitted an analysis of the effect of the GST on people with a disability. The council contended that the CPI effect on people with disabilities will be greater than the 1.9—2.2 per cent Treasury calculations and could be as high as 2.4—2.7 per cent.5F4CALVERTSenator Calvert—They will get four per cent.6L6Gibbs, Sen BrendaSenator GIBBS—Four per cent is not going to cover it, Senator—absolutely not. To show the inequity of this tax, a single person on $75,000 will receive a benefit of $68.55 per week. This is equivalent to 38 per cent of the total disability support pension, which will increase by merely $2.54 a week. It is not enough to cover their expenses. They are going to pay GST on services that have no tax now; you are going to put a GST on these people. Do you know what you are going to do? Do you care what you are doing to these people?8O6O'BRIENSenator O'Brien—No, they do not care.6L6Gibbs, Sen BrendaSenator GIBBS—No, you do not care. Have you any idea how these people have to live?LI4PATTERSONSenator Patterson—Tell the truth.6L6Gibbs, Sen BrendaSenator GIBBS—I am telling the truth. (Time expired)15:31:003484Coonan, Sen HelenSenator COONAN2M6NSWLP10—What is really extraordinary in this debate is the fact that, if there were any compelling evidence at all that the compensation package is inadequate, the government could address it. But we have had four months of a travelling roadshow—the inquiry into the GST—which has turned out an absolute mishmash of criticisms without very much foundation at all. That is the problem—look at today's report of the litany of organisations that joined in the criticism that ACOSS made of the GST. As Senator Newman said, ACOSS's criticisms do not seem to have changed much since the very beginning. You have to understand that ACOSS was never, ever going to support the model because it shifts tax from a direct to an indirect base and that is just something that ACOSS will not support.By the same token, and this must be said, ACOSS supports tax reform because it realises—I would suggest it is an absolutely self-evident proposition—that unless there is fundamental tax reform there is a serious problem for the social security base—it is put totally at risk. It is self-evident that ACOSS does support tax reform; it might not like the model, but it was never going to like it. If you accept these fundamental assumptions then you can put the criticisms in context.It is very easy to criticise the GST package and to not really expose your own conclusions. Although I have not been on the GST committees, I suspect that that is very much what has happened over these past four months. There has been a barrage of criticism with very little foundation and very little to support conclusions.I find quite offensive the suggestion made this afternoon that the government is unsympathetic to people who are adversely impacted by the GST, by any reform package or by any policy position. The fact that there is a generous compensation package clearly underscores the fact that the government is concerned about people on low incomes, people with disabilities and certainly the elderly. Proof of that is not only in the compensation package but also in the fact that, in the formulation of the draft GST legislation, the government has accepted recommendations of the Vos committee's report and made the vast bulk of disability services available GST free to people who need them. That does not seem to me to be a government that is not concerned about how a package will impact on people with disabilities.A comprehensive number of medical aids and appliances used by people with disabilities will also be GST free. As Senator Newman pointed out, commercial activities and business services of charities will be liable for a GST because they are just that—they are commercial activities—but they will be able to claim back, as indeed any other business can, any GST paid on inputs for these activities as an input tax credit. No convincing case has been made as to why there should be any different treatment for commercial activities.The government's tax reforms are expected to reduce the cost of community services by about 2.7 per cent due to the abolition of 10 existing and inefficient taxes which pervade the whole system and which, I strongly suggest, impact much more strongly and much more unfairly on people with disabilities. They are hidden taxes that everyone in the community has to deal with.Pensions for people with disabilities will rise by four per cent to assist with the impact of tax reforms. There has not yet been one convincing bit of modelling or evidence before any GST committee, so far as I know, that proves that that is inadequate. If somebody can come forward with convincing evidence, then you would be talking to a government that would be prepared to listen, but so far no-one has come forward. (Time expired)10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! The time for the debate has expired.Question resolved in the affirmative.348510001CLERK ASSISTANTThe Clerk—Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows:348548TW4Bourne Sen VickiTo the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled.The petition of the undersigned recognises the vital role of a strong, comprehensive, independent and publicly funded Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) and asks that:(1) Coalition Senators honour their 1996 election promise, namely that `The Coalition will maintain existing levels of Commonwealth funding to the ABC' [at pre-1996 levels].(2) The Senate votes to maintain and strengthen the existing role of the ABC as a fully independent, publicly funded and publicly owned organisation.(3) The Senate opposes any weakening of the Charter of the ABC.Senator BourneTW4Senator Bourne(from 48 citizens)348519TW4Bourne Sen VickiTo the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled.The petition of the undersigned shows:(a) a proposal has been made by the Department of Transport to build a major no-curfew international airport in Sydney's western suburbs;(b) airports and attendant infrastructure are a major source of air and noise pollution;(c) Western Sydney already suffers from the worst air pollution in Australia;(d) an additional airport in the Sydney airshed will only serve to greatly increase such pollution; and(e) an airport in Sydney's west will harm the lifestyle and wellbeing of citizens living and working within the Sydney airshed.Your petitioners therefore request that the Senate not pass any bill which would lead to the construction of any new airport within the Sydney airshed.Senator BourneTW4Senator Bourne(from 19 citizens)3485275F4Calvert Sen PaulTo the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: The Petition of the undersigned shows:That services and goods provided by natural and traditional therapy practitioners are an integral component of Australia's health care system and should be included in the health care exempt (zero rated) category under the Government's proposed Tax Reform Package. Preclusion implies a discrimination and could seriously restrict the choice of affordable health care available to Australians.Your Petitioners request that services and goods provided by natural and traditional therapy practitioners be included in the health care exempt (zero rated) category under the Government's proposed Tax Reform Package.Senator Calvert5F4Senator Calvert(from 27 citizens)3485203I6Stott Despoja Sen NatashaTo the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled.The petition of the undersigned shows: that Australian students oppose any form of VSU on the basis that it is not in the best interests of all students, for the reasons given below:that Voluntary Student Unionism reduces students' representation by weakening student associations and limiting their power to work for students' best interests alongside (and occasional ly in conflict with) tertiary institutions and governments;that VSU leads to students benefiting from services which only a section of the student community has paid for and that student unionism should be considered in the same category as taxation, a necessary subsidy for public services;that VSU leads to declines in student facilities and campus infrastructure, disadvantaging not just current but future students, who will suffer from the lower levels of representation and services even more than current students.Your petitioners request that the Senate: oppose federal VSU legislation and at the same time examine the educational, economic and social ramifications of state VSU legislation on tertiary institutions in Victoria and Western Australia.Senator Stott Despoja3I6Senator Stott Despoja(from 20 citizens)348659WP6Lightfoot Sen PhillipTo the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate assembled in Parliament.We the undersigned petitioners of Western Australia view that any change to a Republic should not be achieved by amendment to the Australian Constitution, but by invitation to join a new constituted Federation. Therefore, your petitioners respectfully request that the Senate will ensure that the result of the vote cast by Western Australians for their decision to accept or reject the change to a Republic be treated as a choice exclusive to Western Australia, as was the case when asked to join in Federation of the Commonwealth of Australia.Senator LightfootWP6Senator Lightfoot(from 59 citizens)Petitions received.Notices348634863486Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I give notice that on the next day of sitting I shall move: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:A New Tax System (Commonwealth-State Financial Arrangements) Bill 1999A New Tax System (Commonwealth-State Financial Arrangements—Consequential Provisions) Bill 1999 A New Tax System (Wine Equalisation Tax) Bill 1999A New Tax System (Wine Equalisation Tax Imposition—General) Bill 1999A New Tax System (Wine Equalisation Tax Imposition—Customs) Bill 1999A New Tax System (Wine Equalisation Tax Imposition—Excise) Bill 1999A New Tax System (Luxury Car Tax) Bill 1999A New Tax System (Luxury Car Tax Imposition—General) Bill 1999A New Tax System (Luxury Car Tax Imposition—Customs) Bill 1999A New Tax System (Luxury Car Tax Imposition—Excise) Bill 1999A New Tax System (Wine Equalisation Tax and Luxury Car Tax Transition) Bill 1999A New Tax System (Indirect Tax Administration) Bill 1999.I also table a statement of reasons justifying the need for these bills to be considered during these sittings and seek leave to have the statement incorporated.Leave not granted.Senator Hogg to move, on the next day of sitting:That the time for the presentation of the report of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee on Australia in relation to Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) be extended to 30 June 1999.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 Australia New Zealand Food Authority Act 1991 , and for related purposes.Australia New Zealand Food Authority Amendment Bill 1999 .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 Customs Act 1901 , and for related purposes.Customs Amendment (Temporary Importation) Bill 1999 .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 Customs Act 1901 , and for related purposes.Customs Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1999 . Senator Ian Campbell to move, on the next day of sitting:That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend legislation relating to the environment, and for related purposes.Environment and Heritage Legislation Amendment Bill 1999 .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 Migration Act 1958 , and for related purposes.Migration Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1999 .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 Norfolk Island Act 1979 , and for related purposes.Norfolk Island Amendment Bill 1999 .Senator Denman to move, on the next day of sitting:That the Senate—(a) notes that, at the recent local government elections in Tasmania, Mary Binks was elected as the first female Mayor of Devonport;(b) congratulates Mayor Binks on her success; and(c) pays tribute to former Mayor Squibb for his dedication and commitment to the Devonport Municipality over a period of 14 years.Senator Murray to move, on the next day of sitting:(1) That the provisions of the following bills be referred to the Select Committee on a New Tax System for inquiry and report by 30 April 1999: A New Tax System (Commonwealth-State Financial Arrangements) Bill 1999 A New Tax System (Commonwealth-State Financial Arrangements—Consequential Provisions) Bill 1999 A New Tax System (Indirect Tax Administration) Bill 1999 A New Tax System (Luxury Car Tax) Bill 1999 A New Tax System (Luxury Car Tax Imposition—Customs) Bill 1999 A New Tax System (Luxury Car Tax Imposition—Excise) Bill 1999 A New Tax System (Luxury Car Tax Imposition—General) Bill 1999 A New Tax System (Wine Equalisation Tax) Bill 1999 A New Tax System (Wine Equalisation Tax and Luxury Car Tax Transition) Bill 1999 A New Tax System (Wine Equalisation Tax Imposition—Customs) Bill 1999 A New Tax System (Wine Equalisation Tax Imposition—Excise) Bill 1999 A New Tax System (Wine Equalisation Tax Imposition—General) Bill 1999.(2) That, when the bills referred to in paragraph (1) are first introduced in the Senate and a motion is moved for the second reading of the bills, debate on that motion shall be adjourned at the conclusion of the speech of the senator moving the motion and resumption of the debate shall be made an order of the day for 30 April 1999 without any question being put.Committees3487348734873487Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT5F4TASLP10—Pursuant to notice given on the last day of sitting, on behalf of Senator O'Chee and the Regulations and Ordinances Committee, I now withdraw business of the Senate notice of motion No. 2 standing in his name for today.Notices34873487Senator Brown to move, on the next day of sitting:That the Senate—(a) notes: (i) the statements on the Channel 9 Sunday program by the New South Wales Premier (Mr Carr) that, `a modern Labor party, a modern social democratic party, must have a keen focus on saving the great natural areas of this continent', and (ii) the push by the Premier to be involved in reshaping the national environment platform of the Australian Labor Party (ALP); and(b) supports the Premier in his wish to change the national environment platform of the ALP so it better advocates the protection of Australia's great natural areas, including its wild forests. Senator Stott Despoja to move, on the next day of sitting:That the Senate—(a) notes: (i) the pronouncement of the Ethical Committee of the Human Genome Organisation at the annual human genome meeting in Brisbane on 29 March 1999 that reproductive cloning should not be attempted, and (ii) that some forms of cloning of human cells may be appropriate for the development of medical treatments to reduce human suffering; and(b) calls on the Government to: (i) lead a wide public education campaign on the issue, stimulating public debate, (ii) review the current lack of regulation of cloning in Australia, (iii) undertake a thorough investigation of the ethical issues, possible applications and the use of donated human embryos in therapeutic cloning research, and (iv) ban reproductive cloning of human beings.Senator Brown to move, on the next day of sitting:That the Senate—(a) expresses its profound regret and sympathy in the wake of the recent personal tragedy of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi;(b) notes reports of the ongoing nationwide tragedy of one million people internally displaced in Burma, many of whom are starving to death; and(c) calls on the Australian Government to suspend trade and investment in Burma until a tripartite dialogue within Burma leads to meaningful democratic reforms and an end to human rights violations.3488Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I give notice that on the next day of sitting I shall move:That the provisions of paragraphs (5) to (7) of standing order 111 not apply to the Taxation Laws Amendment (Software Depreciation) Bill 1999, allowing it to be considered during this period of sittings.I table a statement of reasons justifying the need for this bill to be considered during these sittings and seek leave to have the statement incorporated.Leave not granted.Senator Ian Campbell to move, on the next day of sitting:That senators be discharged from and appointed to committees as follows:Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee Appointed: Substitute member: Senator Eggleston to replace Senator McGauran for the committee's estimates hearings from 4 May to 6 May 1999.Select Committee on Information Technologies Appointed: Senators Bishop, Calvert, Ferris, Lundy, McGauran, Stott Despoja and Tierney.Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances Discharged: Senator McGauran Appointed: Senator Coonan.3488Motion (by Senator Allison) agreed to:That general business notice of motion no. 164 (proposing an order for the production of documents by the Minister for the Environment and Heritage (Senator Hill)) and business of the Senate notice of motion no. 1 (reference of matters to the Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts References Committee) standing in her name for today, be postponed till the next day of sitting.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) 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 Ian Campbell) agreed to: That business of the Senate notice of motion no. 4 standing in the name of the Minister for the Environment and Heritage (Senator Hill) for today, relating to the reference of a matter to the Employment, Workplace Relations, Small Business and Education Legislation Committee, 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 19 April 1999. Committees348934893489Motion (by Senator Calvert, at the request of Senator Crane)—by leave—agreed to:That the time for the presentation of the report of the committee on the provisions of the Petroleum Retail Legislation Repeal Bill 1998 be extended to 20 April 1999.Notices34893489Motion (by Senator Reynolds) agreed to:That general business notice of motion no. 155 standing in her name for today, relating to native title legislation, be postponed till the next day of sitting.Business34893489Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell) agreed to:That on Friday, 23 April and 30 April 1999:(a) the hours of meeting shall be 9.30 am to 4.25 pm;(b) the routine of business shall be government business only;(c) the sitting of the Senate shall be suspended for 45 minutes from approximately 12.30 pm; and(d) the question for the adjournment of the Senate shall be proposed at 3.45 pm.Miscellaneous3489Motion (by Senator Bourne) agreed to:That the Senate—(a) notes: (i) the tragic passing away of Doctor Michael Aris, the British Tibetan studies expert, humanitarian campaigner and husband of Burmese Nobel Peace Prize winner Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, who died of cancer early on Saturday evening, 27 March 1999, (ii) the refusal of the Burmese military junta, the State Peace and Development Council (SPDC), to allow Daw Suu Kyi to unconditionally travel to Oxford in time to visit her dying husband, (iii) that this refusal amounts to a callous and cruel disregard for even the most basic humanitarian principles, as does the refusal of the SPDC to grant visiting visas to Daw Suu Kyi's two sons, (iv) that the apparent change in the SPDC's policy in relation to Daw Suu Kyi's attendance at her husband's funeral is conditional on her giving up her people's struggle for democracy and human rights, and (v) that the SPDC has reneged on earlier undertakings in relation to Daw Suu Kyi's freedom of movement, but, more particularly, that its refusal to allow the National League for Democracy (NLD) to form government after democratic elections means the SPDC cannot be trusted to abide by its undertaking that Daw Suu Kyi will be allowed back into Burma and retain leadership of the NLD; and(b) calls on the SPDC to unconditionally allow Daw Aung San Suu Kyi to attend her husband's funeral in Oxford on Friday, 2 April 1999, and return without fear of retribution or `special' treatment.Committees348934893489Motion (by Senator Calvert, at the request of Senator Payne) agreed to:That the time for the presentation of the report of the Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee on the provisions of the Genetic Privacy and Non-discrimination Bill 1998 be extended to 31 March 1999.Miscellaneous3489Motion (by Senator Margetts) agreed to:That the Senate—(a) notes, with grave concern, the appearance on 12 March 1999 of the Australian Government before the International Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, following a request from the committee under its early warning and urgent action procedures to examine the compatibility of recent changes to the Native Title Act 1993 with Australia's obligations under the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination; and(b) calls on the Australian Government to comply with the committee's call to 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.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—Madam Deputy President, I refer to the motion that was moved by Senator Margetts that was called for the ayes. Our whip had been informed it was going to be deferred. We did call out `no' to it. We did not call for a division on that matter, but we would like it if the government's opposition to the motion could be recorded.Miscellaneous3490Motion (by Senator Brown) put: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.15:54:00The Senate divided. (The President—Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid)9Allison, L. Bartlett, A. J. J.Bourne, V. *Brown, B.Lees, M. H. Margetts, D.Murray, A. Stott Despoja, N.Woodley, J.42Bishop, T. M. Brownhill, D. G. C.Calvert, P. H. Campbell, I. G.Carr, K. Chapman, H. G. P.Collins, J. M. A. Cook, P. F. S.Coonan, H. Cooney, B.Crane, W. Crossin, P. M.Crowley, R. A. Denman, K. J.Eggleston, A. Ferguson, A. B.Ferris, J. Forshaw, M. G.Gibbs, B. Gibson, B. F.Herron, J. Hogg, J.Kemp, R. Knowles, S. C.Lundy, K. Macdonald, S.McGauran, J. J. J. McKiernan, J. P.Murphy, S. M. Newman, J. M.O'Brien, K. W. K. *O'Chee, W. G.Parer, W. R. Patterson, K. C. L.Payne, M. A.Reid, M. E.Reynolds, M. Sherry, N.Synon, K. M. Tambling, G. E. J.Troeth, J. West, S. M.Question so resolved in the negative.Ministerial Statements349034903490Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I table a statement by the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Mr Bruce Scott, entitled Success of government mission in Sandakan , and I seek leave to incorporate the statement in Hansard .Leave granted.The statement read as follows—Ministerial Statement by Hon Bruce Scott MPSuccess of Government Mission to SandakanTuesday 30 March 1999During the period 13-22 March it was my privilege, and I might add, a very real pleasure—to lead on behalf of the government a visit by former prisoners of war, widows and next of kin to Sandakan, in the State of Sabah, Malaysia.The shadow minister for veterans' affairs, Senator the Hon. Chris Schacht, also accompanied the mission party representing the federal opposition.Members may have seen television or press coverage of the events undertaken during the mission tour.The mission was formally farewelled by the Prime Minister at the historic Victoria Barracks in Sydney. The first stop for the mission group was Singapore where ceremonies were held at Kranji War Cemetery and Changi Chapel. These ceremonies commemorated all those who died or were captured at the fall of Singapore and were imprisoned and died at Changi and buried at Kranji.The mission party then moved to Sandakan for the two major ceremonies of the mission program. These were the opening at the Sandakan Memorial Park of a commemorative pavilion and the dedication of a memorial stone, in memory of those who suffered and died as prisoners of war of the Japanese at Sandakan, on the death marches and at Ranau during World War II.There was no worse worst wartime atrocity to affect Australian servicemen than the Sandakan-Ranau death marches, yet relatively few Australians know of the events.In 1942, more than 2,700 prisoners of war were moved from Singapore to Sandakan to construct an airfield for the Japanese. During the latter part of 1943, following the breaking of an underground intelligence ring in the camp, almost all of the prisoner of war officers were moved to Kuching.As the tide of war turned, and fearing an allied invasion, the Japanese marched most of the Sandakan POWs to Ranau, 250 kilometres to the west. By September 1945, all but six of the POWs were dead—and these survived only because they had escaped. As well, the Japanese destroyed the POW camp at Sandakan in an effort to hide evidence of their brutality.Among the Sandakan mission party was Mr Owen Campbell, now the only one of those six escapees still alive.The commemorative pavilion contains a number of panels which set out in full detail the background and history of the camp. At one end of the building is a stained glass window, which helps provide an appropriate setting for contemplation.The Sandakan Memorial, an imposing monolith measuring some three metres tall, also offers visitors a place where floral tributes or other tokens of remembrance may be laid.The structures are part of a $750,000 upgrade to the Sandakan Memorial Park, which follows a 1995 memorandum of understanding between the Australian government, the Sandakan Municipal Council, the Returned and Services League of Australia and the Sabah State Forestry Department.Following an emotional ceremony at the Sandakan Memorial Park, which included many local dignitaries and local veterans, the mission group travelled to Ranau, closely following the death march route.At Ranau a commemorative ceremony was held at the Gunner Cleary Memorial on the site of the old POW camp. The story of Gunner Cleary is a particularly poignant one and it has come to symbolise the fate of all those who suffered and died at Sandakan and on the death marches.Gunner Cleary was recaptured after trying to escape. He was chained by the neck at a stake, brutally beaten, spat upon and starved for almost eleven days. When he was at the point of death he was given to his mates who cleaned his wounds and comforted him before he died in their arms.The final destination of the mission group was the Labuan War Cemetery. Here in the tranquil surrounds of the carefully tended Commonwealth War Graves cemetery, lie the remains of all those who died at Sandakan, on the death marches and at Ranau.Along the walls at the entrance to the cemetery are the names of those with no known grave. The ceremony at Labuan was a fitting commemoration to all those who had suffered and died during that tragic period. Attended by local dignitaries, local citizens and expatriate Australians living in Malaysia, the final ceremony was a fitting tribute to those who suffered and died.What are the benefits of missions such as this?The main objective is to raise awareness within the community through the publicity that surrounds such a visit. Far too many Australians are unaware of events at Sandakan and I trust that through this visit many will have come to know about this enormous tragedy.The impact on those who took part in the mission was quite overwhelming. No-one on the mission could fail to be moved by the emotion surrounding the commemorative ceremonies.For some there was a healing of the heart that for far too long had carried the hurt and pain of the loss of a husband, brother or father. For others, there was, as described by one, `a sense of peace from having, at last, stood by his grave to say goodbye'.It is regrettable of course, that not every person who suffered loss at Sandakan could take part in this particular mission. But it is my fervent hope that many more widows and next of kin will undertake the journey to Sandakan to view the new memorial as part of their experience of remembering and honouring the loved ones who never returned.May I also here express the thanks of the Australian government to the government and people of Malaysia, and in particular the State of Sabah, for the very warm welcome we received. We also appreciate the assistance provided during the planning stages and during the visit by the mission party.The mission was funded under the government's commemorative program Their Service—Our Heritage which, as members know, offers all Australians the opportunity to acknowledge the debt of gratitude we owe to our veterans in helping preserve the freedom we enjoy today. Miscellaneous349210000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—I present a response from the Acting High Commissioner for India, Mr Pavel Diengdoh, to a resolution of the Senate of 11 March 1999 relating to the death of Mr Graham Staines and his two sons.Committees34923492349215:59:003492Crowley, Sen RosemarySenator CROWLEYZF4SAALP00—I present the report of the Community Affairs References Committee on the GST and a New Tax System, together with the Hansard record of proceedings, documents presented to the committee and supplementary material.Ordered that the report be printed.3492Crowley, Sen RosemarySenator CROWLEYZF4SAALP00—by leave—I move:That the Senate take note of the report.In opening my remarks I would particularly like to thank the community affairs committee secretariat—Christine McDonald, Peter Short, Leonie Peake, Ingrid Zappe and Elton Humphrey—who have done a tremendous job in getting this report written in spite of the very tight time lines we have had to deal with. The select committee's first report was not published until 19 February, we have had visits to all of the capital cities except Darwin, and we have had to write a report in that very tight time frame. So I thank the secretariat very much for their achievement in this area.The committee considers that this government's tax package is unfair, complex, confusing and significantly flawed in many areas. Evidence presented to the committee over two months confirms that this tax package will entrench inequality. It will divide the community and ensure and entrench that division in the community, if it should pass, for years to come. It will divide Australia into the haves and the have-nots. High income earners will get generous tax cuts and low income households will have paltry compensation. It is, if you like, a trickle-up effect: the poor shall pay the tax cuts for the rich.It has often been said that this is just the Labor Party being negative and mean. This report is not the Labor Party's view; it is the Labor Party and Democrat conclusion as a majority report on the evidence given to the committee. That evidence was given by any number of witnesses, some of whom had gone to the bother of finding organisations—firms like Ernst and Young or Arthur Andersen—to examine the legislation and its impact on their organisations and the people they represent. So in no way are these a bunch of paid stoolies coming to run a Labor line; these are people who for the first time have had the opportunity to look in detail at the impact of the GST legislation. They have found it wanting—particularly wanting in its compensation for low income and middle income households.The package's compensation is very unfair and very unjust. More than that, any number of people of significance have reminded us that that compensation will be eroded over a very short time. The last to do so was Professor Geoff Carmody, certainly not a renowned spokesperson for the Labor Party. His evidence needs to be taken very seriously. The compensation is insufficient. It takes no account of the expenditure patterns of low income households—that they spend at least 25 to 30 per cent of their income on food, which for the first time will have a 10 per cent GST, and that they spend about another 25 to 30 per cent of their income on the cost of rent and housing. The government itself admits that that will rise by 2.3 per cent, and the evidence given to us is that it will rise by far more. We need to remember that people on pensions and fixed incomes, but particularly pensions, usually have a requirement that they pay 25 per cent of their income for rent. The minute they get another four per cent, one per cent of that automatically goes through to rent. So they have much less as disposable income to spend on their requirements.The other point that I find very disappointing is that, at the very same time as Prime Minister Howard is meeting with corporate Australia urging them to practise philanthropy and telling them that he will find $50 million to assist them if they should choose to do that, his government has introduced for the first time ever a tax on the charities and not-for-profit sector in this country. This is the first time we have seen a tax on the Boy Scouts, the Girl Guides, the surf lifesavers and St Vincent de Paul. They know that, as a result of this tax, to maintain their services they will have to make significant cuts. But what they also realise is that to maintain their organisations' viability they will have to cut services at precisely the time that low income people affected by the GST will have an even larger need for the services they provide.Lest people say, as some people have said in this place and in evidence to our committee, `Oh well, these people do not know what they are talking about,' the Boy Scouts, for example, were acting on written advice from Treasury. We know of other examples. The funeral directors were told on written advice that they should introduce the 10 per cent GST on prepackaged funerals right now. So it is not that this committee made it up. It is not that people are running amok out there. It is the first time that the community, these organisations and the witnesses before our committee have had the opportunity to look at this legislation in detail, and they have found it very significantly wanting.At its core, what lots of witnesses say is that it is unAustralian. It will enshrine that divide of the poor and the rich. It will legislate to ensure that we have that division forever, and that has never been the case in the past and it is very unAustralian. For the first time we have seen a tax on charities. That is also very unAustralian. It is important that we recognise the contribution of the not-for-profit and voluntary sector and the charities to the fabric of Australian society. For the first time, that is now significantly under threat and significantly changed.The compensation that people worry about needs to be considered like this. If you earn $75,000, you will get about $86 a week in tax cuts. If you are a single pensioner, you will get $2.89. If you are a pensioner couple, you will get $4.81—as one witness said to us, just enough for the price of a package of cereal.Finally I would just like to make a few comments about the way our inquiry was conducted. In her report and in her other contributions Senator Knowles argues that the government has a mandate for this legislation, but she spends significant pages of her minority report explaining that many of the witnesses did not understand it. How can you claim a mandate when you can point out that the witnesses do not understand the legislation? If you have a mandate, people have voted for what they know about. Indeed, what is clear is that when people do know about it they vote against it in significant numbers.The other thing is that the inquiry, as I have said, has done the work for government. For the first time ever, these organisations and the witnesses before our committee in health, welfare, child care, aged care and local government have finally realised the detail that is now available to them that was never available during the election. Senator Knowles attacked people for what they did not know. She refused to admit that the departments of relevance had done no modelling, that the community had no evidence. And I take this opportunity to apologise to all those witnesses who were directly offended by Senator Knowles's very unsenatorial attacks on them on many occasions. This is a critically important report. (Time expired)16:07:003493Knowles, Sen SusanSenator KNOWLESTH4WALP10—It is interesting, in speaking to this Community Affairs References Committee report today, that Senator Crowley concluded by doing what she did throughout the entire hearing—that is, sledging. It has been a great shame because, while this committee inquiry was taking place—and Senator Crowley now leaves the chamber because she does not want to hear this contribution—she continually sledged anything that was put to the witnesses in terms of explanation.It needs to be put clearly, once and for all, that this process was flawed right from the start. The Labor Party and the minor parties decided to send legislation to the references committee instead of sending it to the legislation committee. Legislation should rightly go to the legislation committee. But no; they wanted to control it—and that they did. That is why, whenever I tried to explain to witnesses where their assertions were wrong, I was told I was then badgering the witnesses.One witness said, `I'm not here to hear what you've got to say; I'm here to tell you what I think.' I suppose, to a degree, that is true, but it was sad that they did not want to know the reality, because there was a lack of understanding about the embedded taxes that are being paid right throughout the system, from Labor's reign in office.The claim that there was lack of consultation is pretty remarkable, given the fact that there have been thousands of consultations, both prior to the election and following it, through the tax task force chaired by Senator Gibson, of which I was a member, through the Vos committee and through subsequent consultations with ministers and members of parliament generally.Following those consultations, there has been this continuing misrepresentation of a lot of the information that is available. Most people had not read the bill. I asked a lot of people, considering that this inquiry was into the bill, `Have you read the bill?' Most people said, `No, I haven't.' There were some very decent, honest, well-intentioned people who simply had it wrong. They begged for GST-free status. The legislation clearly showed that they had already been given GST-free status, but they had not read the bill.There was also a lack of understanding of how people would get the tax credits, and that they would get the money back. Some places, such as the child-care industry, for example, have the best of both worlds: they do not pay the GST and they do not charge it. They came along and said, `We're going to increase our fees.'The non-commercial activities of charities will not be taxed. They are GST free. Once again, they do not pay the tax and they do not charge it. Local government said that they did not understand it. I have personally met with local government dozens of times, as have various committees and ministers. Local government stands to be about $70 million better off, to say nothing of the diesel fuel rebates as well.Witnesses talked about compliance costs as though they were not keeping any records whatsoever at the moment. For a goods and services tax, they know their outgoings and their incomings. All they have to do is work out one-eleventh of both—if they are paying a GST and charging a GST—and submit the difference at the end of the reporting period. It is not particularly complex. When I asked witnesses, `Are you keeping records at the moment?', they said, `Yes.' I asked, `What is difficult about calculating one-eleventh of it?' Their eyes glazed over as if to say, `Is it that simple?'This whole process has been badly misrepresented. It needs to be noted that Senator Evans regularly let the cat out of the bag, saying, `I'm from the Labor Party; we're voting against it.' The obvious question then is: why on earth did we have the inquiry? Clearly, the opposition parties were never going to change their minds. They did not really want to know what was going on; they were just going to vote against it.Some witnesses, some of whom I would have thought should have known better, claimed there would be a cascading effect of the tax throughout the system. Precisely the reverse will happen. Yet Senator Crowley, as chairman, kept egging them on, saying, `Yes, that's right.' She clearly had not read the bill, and to this moment she has not read the bill.On some occasions—Senator Abetz did it once in Tasmania and I did it regularly—I referred to page 79 of the bill, regarding various health professionals who will be GST free. Senator Crowley raised her eyebrows as if to say, `Is that so?' I referred to the list of medical aids and appliances. She did not have a clue what was contained in that list.There are many calculations that are simply wrong. Senator Crowley referred earlier to the wonderful work done by accountants on behalf of some of these organisations. In many cases, I have to say, Madam President, I think they wasted their money. The Australian Catholic Health Care Association has written to say that the figures presented in Arthur Andersen's report to the committee were wrong and they have had to be revised down. There were more and more examples of evidence given by accounting firms on behalf of their clients—for which, presumably, they paid very good money—which was simply wrong. I cannot understand how that can happen.Many witnesses and Labor consistently claimed that food and services would go up by 10 per cent. They will not and cannot understand that that will not be the case. Nothing will go up by 10 per cent. They refuse to understand that there will be compensation, that the worst case scenario presented to the committee was that price increases would be 3.9 per cent. This package offers four per cent compensation plus 1½ per cent consistently above the CPI. Senator Crowley argued at the time that during their term in government the CPI was adequate on its own. We are offering 1½ per cent above the CPI plus the four per cent. So many of those calculations were wrong. They would consistently forget about that.I think it is very sad, and it is equally sad that my time has run out. I commend to the Senate the minority report, because it does set out the facts yet again. I encourage people from these various community groups and organisations to read the minority report if they do not want to read the legislation. I do encourage them to read the legislation, but if they do not want to read the legislation, they should at least read this report. Their minds will be put at rest, because in fact they will be better off. They will not be paying the embedded taxes that they are currently paying and most of them will not be paying the taxes that have burdened them in the past. (Time expired)16:15:003495Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—I thank all the people who put in submissions and appeared as witnesses before the inquiry. They provided a great deal of information which was very helpful to me and to the Democrats. I express my disappointment at the very inadequate information provided by government departments that appeared before the Community Affairs References Committee—the Department of Aged Care and the Department of Family and Community Services. Clearly, they had done very little in the way of investigating the implications of the tax package on a whole range of people that came under their responsibility. I think that is a great shame.One of the main issues the Democrats want to emphasise is that of housing. I draw people's attention to the supplementary report. Housing has received very little notice to date, but it is a serious matter which will clearly impact on people—particularly those in the private rental sector and in the public and community housing sector—more heavily than has previously been realised. Some action must be taken on this significant area. The treatment of charities has also received some attention to date. This is an area which, on the whole, should not cost the government money. It is simply applying a tax system in a more logical way and not penalising non-profit organisations that provide a community service because, if they did not exist, it would cost the taxpayer a hell of a lot more. That is an area that obviously needs close attention.The other key area under the responsibility of the committee is that of health. There are many anomalies, particularly in relation to what nowadays are called complementary medicines and complementary services. There are massive problems and clear inconsistencies concerning acupuncturists and also some other health practitioners like massage therapists and others in the complementary medicine field. Again, this is an area which, in totality, should save the government money if they addressed it, rather than cost them money.Those areas, apart from the broader concerns that the Democrats have expressed time and again since the package was brought down, are ones that we believe need closer attention. We have outlined them in our supplementary comments on this report. We urge the government to take them more seriously than they appeared to do in the course of the inquiry. I know they are having discussions privately with groups, and that is certainly to be welcomed, but it would be better if there was some acknowledgment that perhaps the package as it was handed out prior to the election is not the Ten Command ments written in stone and it can be significantly improved. Indeed, it must be significantly amended in many areas, including some that have been outlined in this report, if there is any prospect of the package being in any way fair, particularly for lower and middle income earners which, from the Democrats' perspective, are the group of people that must be assisted by any tax reform before we ensure that people on higher incomes are adequately looked after by any tax reform.16:18:003496Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—In July last year the Greens warned that there would be a comprehensive loss to low income earners, women in the work force, non-profit organisations and charities if a GST as mooted by the government were brought in. We pointed to the tax being an impost on a whole range of community activities aimed at helping those people who are least advantaged in our society—things such as raffles, ordinary fundraisers. Larger fundraising organisations would face—WH4McGAURANSenator McGauran—They are GST free.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—Larger organisations' income activities are not going to be GST free, as the interjector opposite says. Subscription fees, grants, sponsorships and fundraising events will have a GST applied.The Greens went to the election totally opposed to the GST because of the impact it would have across the board in dividing the gap between rich and poor in this country. We are well aware, for example, that $3 billion was going to be handed on a platter in tax rebates to wealthy corporations, including transport, mining and woodchipping corporations, at a time when poor people were going to face the brunt of this tax. Community organisations, charities and non-government organisations, such as sporting and environment organisations, were going to have to not only face the tax but also face the difficulties involved in collecting the tax. Whereas it may have been all right to use an honorary accountant in the past, they will now need professional, paid accountants to deal with the much more complex system coming down the line. The problem was that the Democrats said, `We will make the GST fair.' Many people in the Australian community thought that, if the government were re-elected, the Democrats would be there as a backstop to ensure that the taxation system would not damage non-government organisations, charities and the interests of the poorer people in our community. Now we find that what the Greens warned is true. In the report released today we find the Democrats either calling for a massive overhaul of various parts of the GST package or implying that the GST package should be rejected.A broad band of community organisations, from Anglicare Australia to the Australian Psychiatric Disability Coalition—a large range of people who work, give their life, their spare time and their money to helping people who are disadvantaged, who are in minority groups or who have special interests in our society—today have endorsed what the Greens were saying last year. Let me read from the community call that they have made today:. . . the Government's Tax Package as it now stands is unfair and unacceptable. It needs substantial changes to make it fairer and do justice to people on low incomes.The proposed GST, by unnecessarily raising the costs of necessities of life, would be very harmful to people on low and fixed incomes such as pensioners, unemployed people, and most young people and people with disabilities. It would also cause major problems for families with children on modest incomes. Women would be disproportionately affected by the large increase in taxes on consumption due to their different work patterns and family responsibilities.These groups representing a diversity of Australians who work for the good of this nation went on to make these observations. First of all: `keeping food GST free is critical'. The government says it will not. The groups say:. . . removing other essentials or providing adequate compensation for them, are crucial necessary steps to protect people on low and modest incomes and to improve fairness.The government says it will not. The groups say that the government's tax reform proposals need to be redesigned to take account of these concerns and to transparently safeguard the interests of all Australians. The government will not.With the government standing firm, these groups say that the current legislation should be rejected. I say to the Democrats: where do you stand in this? The information is now in. Are you now going to make it public—too late, as I would have it? Are you going to vindicate the stand of the Greens and say that, unless the government makes comprehensive changes to the tax package as called for by these community groups, this tax package should be rejected because it is so unfair to the Australian community, because it advantages the rich and disadvantages the poor, because it advantages those who have, and that includes wherewithal and access to government, but it disadvantages those who do not have, and that includes those who are cut off from government and from the power that comes through political connections?The Democrats fostered this legislation through the last election by saying that they could make it fair. It is now manifestly clear that the Democrats cannot make this legislation fair. The government is not going to go into comprehensive rearrangement of the package. The Democrat senator who has just spoken said that in housing this legislation needs some action. There are other areas which need close attention. What is the action? What is the attention?I can tell the Democrats that they have to reject this legislation. We said that all the way down the line. They enabled it to get through the last election because they said, `We'll cushion it, we'll make it fair.' It is time now for the Democrats to agree that they can do nothing of the sort, that they have consorted with a GST package and have fostered it through the last election—a GST package which is going to be an invidious package for the interests of poorer Australians and, I think, for average Australians as well. It is going to help divide the gap between the haves and the have-nots in this nation. It is time for the Democrats to say, `We were wrong. We reject this package.'Debate (on motion by Senator McGauran) adjourned. 349734973497McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURANWH4VICNP10—On behalf of Senator Gibson and the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit, I present the following reports of the committee: No. 366—Review of Auditor-General's Reports 1997-98—Second Quarter and No. 367—Review of the Auditor-General's Reports 1997-98—Third Quarter . I seek leave to move a motion in relation to the reports.Leave granted.WH4McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURAN—I move:That the Senate take note of the reports.I seek leave to incorporate my tabling statement in Hansard .Leave granted.The statement read as follows—Madam President, the main purpose of these reports is to inform the Parliament that the Committee has reviewed the audit reports presented by the Auditor-General during the Second and Third Quarters of 1997-1998.The Committee selected a number of Auditor-General's reports for further examination at public hearings. Today, I propose to highlight those issues about which the Committee has the most concern.REPORT 366: REVIEW OF AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS 1997-98: SECOND QUARTERI turn first to Report 366 which reviewed the Second Quarter Auditor-General's reports. The Committee looked at Audit Report No. 16 on equity in employment in the Australian Public Service.The Committee found that more attention needs to be given to under-reporting of Equal Employment Opportunity data and to refining data requirements. Greater clarity in performance and reporting requirements would enable agencies and the Public Service and Merit Protection Commission to more effectively communicate performance to the Government and the Parliament.The Committee notes that the Public Service and Merit Protection Commission is facing a considerable challenge in facilitating the development of agency diversity management programs and reporting on diversity management in the Australian Public Service.The second audit report reviewed in Report 366 is Audit Report No. 24 on matters relating to a contract between the former Department of Em ployment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs and South Pacific Cruise Lines Limited.The Committee considers that the staff of the former DEETYA who were responsible for the cruise ship project decisions, were simply not aware of the risks involved in the contracting out process because of a lack of expertise in arranging and managing contracts.The former DEETYA implemented changes to its contract approval, advance payments and risk management processes and placed more emphasis on personal responsibility principles in its guidelines and staff training program. However, the Committee does not think that the Department's changes to its administrative processes are necessarily an assurance that the underlying risks have been appropriately addressed.In October last year, the Department of Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business was given the responsibility for the Job Network. The Committee recommends that the Department incorporate the Australian National Audit Office's better practice guidelines on risk assessment of new suppliers as part of its evaluation process for future employment services market tenders.REPORT 367: REVIEW OF AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS 1997-98: THIRD QUARTERMadam President, I now turn to Report 367 which reviewed three Auditor-General's reports. First, I wish to comment about Audit Report No. 35 . This report relates to the then Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs International Services, known as DIS.The Committee's concerns about this audit report related to the lack of focus of DIS' operational framework. In particular, DIS' inability to clearly defined the level of "commerciality" it wished to achieve, while operating on a commercial basis.The Committee notes that since the audit DIS refocussed its business direction and now operates on a cost recovery model. Under this model DIS intends to free itself from a drive for profit, while continuing to compete for contracts in the international market for the provision of expertise in the field of education and training. The Committee has concerns about DIS' ability to achieve its intended aim against vigorous international competition, particularly with a staff of seven. The Committee has recommended a further review of DIS.Madam President, I now wish to make some comment on Audit Report No. 38 . This report relates to the sale of Brisbane, Melbourne and Perth Airports. The sale of these airport leases represented the first stage of the planned privatisation of the 22 Federal airports previously owned and operated by the Federal Airports Corporation. The simultaneous sale of these leases was the third largest asset sale ever conducted by the Commonwealth Government and the largest ever trade sale.A key concern of the Committee related to the apparent weaknesses in the contracting process. The Committee was unconvinced by the argument that external timetables imposed tight deadlines which prevented the Office of Asset Sales and IT Outsourcing from following set procedures and processes designed to lessen risks to the Commonwealth. The Committee supports the general direction taken by the audit report and endorses the recommendations made in it.Madam President, I now turn to the final audit report reviewed by the Committee, Audit Report No. 39 relating to the management of selected functions of the Child Support Agency.The decision of the JCPAA to choose this audit report for further scrutiny was made on the basis of continuing negative community perceptions about the administration of the Child Support Scheme. A key concern of the Committee is the complex nature of the letters and documents the CSA sends to its clients. The Committee believes that the Agency should take immediate action to simplify the language and style used in the documents and should employ an outside consultant to achieve this task.Another area of concern related to the CSA's handling of client complaints. Madam President, most of us in the Parliament have first hand knowledge of the high level of client dissatisfaction. Statistics in the audit report show that thirty-four per cent of complaints are made direct to parliamentarians' offices.This high level of client dissatisfaction is unacceptable and must be addressed. To this end, the Committee has recommended that the Agency should commission an expert consultant to undertake comprehensive and regular client surveys in order to determine the level of client awareness of the Client Charter and complaints service.May I conclude, Madam President, by thanking my colleagues on the Committee who have dedicated much time and effort to reviewing these Auditor-General's reports. As well, I would like to thank the members of the secretariat who were involved in the review process.Madam President, I commend the Report to the Senate.Question resolved in the affirmative.349934993499The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Knowles)10000PON/A10—I advise the Senate that in addition to the letters from party leaders nominating senators to be members of the Select Committee on Information Technologies and other committees which the President announced yesterday, the President has received a letter from the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, Senator Faulkner, nominating opposition senators to be members of the committee. I also indicate that the President has received letters from Senators Harradine and Brown nominating themselves to be members of the Select Committee on Information Technologies. As there are now two nominations for the one position on the committee to be filled by either an Independent senator or a Green senator, a ballot will need to be held to determine which one of the two senators who have nominated is to be appointed. Before proceeding to a ballot in relation to the position on the select committee to be filled by an Independent or a Green senator, I propose to call the minister to move a motion in respect of the other nominations which the President has received, if leave is granted to move the motion. Is leave granted?QD4BROWNSenator Brown—I object, Madam Acting Deputy President.Leave not granted.10000The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—As indicated previously, a ballot is necessary in respect of the position on the select committee to be filled by an Independent or a Green senator. I understand that it would suit the convenience of the Senate if a ballot were to be held on another occasion.Bills3499r742Billsr741Billsr7453499Bills received from the House of Representatives.Motion (by Senator Heffernan) agreed to:That these bills may proceed without formalities, may be taken together and be now read a first time.Bills read a first time.349916:30:003499Heffernan, Sen BillSenator HEFFERNANC16NSWLP10—I move:That these bills be now read a second time.I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard .Leave granted.The speeches read as follows—FINANCIAL SECTOR REFORM (AMENDMENTS AND TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS) BILL (No. 1) 1999I rise today to introduce three bills that represent the culmination of the Government's financial system reform efforts over the last few years. The reforms spelt out in these bills were initiated in response to the Report of the Financial System Inquiry, chaired by Stan Wallis. They represent a further step along the path of financial system regulatory enhancements.Such regulation should not stand in the way of economic and technological progress; nor should it promote the interests of one group over another. Instead, financial system regulation should provide a sound, stable environment to encourage the creation of wealth, and to facilitate trade.As we approach the end of this millennium, it is helpful to consider these changes in the wider perspective of both international financial system developments and changes to the Australian regulatory environment.And there have been massive changes. Twenty years ago, if you wanted to access your money, you had to go to a branch between 10:00 am to 3:00 pm Monday to Friday. Back then, the Automatic Teller Machine was just a distant idea, credit cards were virtually unknown, and no one could spell `EFTPOS' let alone pronounce it.As the Treasurer has stated, we now have the lowest interest rates since man last walked on the moon. At least today, you can borrow relatively easily—including over the phone and internet. Back when Jack Schmitt ascended to the Apollo 17 lunar module on 14 December 1972—the last man on the moon—interest rates were of a similar level. But it was virtually impossible for the majority of people to borrow. Going cap in hand to your local branch manager—you were lucky to get a small proportion of a housing loan at the reasonable interest rate. The balance of a housing loan was made up from an assortment of sources at considerably higher rates of interest, often up to five percentage points more.In 1981, the then Treasurer, now our Prime Minister, received a report on the performance of financial regulation completed by the Australian Financial Inquiry. This formed the basis of many of the regulatory changes of the 1980s, including the floating of the dollar.In the years following that report, it became clear to many that further reform was not just desirable but it was essential.Honourable Senators will be aware that the Government introduced into the Senate last year a package of legislation to complete the first stage of the Government's financial sector reform program.That package of legislation instituted wide-ranging measures aimed at improving the efficiency, competitiveness and stability of Australia's financial system. Included among those measures were the creation of a single prudential regulator—the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA), the strengthening of Australia's payments system with the creation of a Payments System Board within the Reserve Bank, and a refocusing of disclosure and consumer protection through the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC).The purpose of this bill is to provide for the transfer of regulatory responsibility from the States and Territories to the Commonwealth of building societies, credit unions and friendly societies. This bill will allow building societies and credit unions to better compete with banks and to operate outside their existing State / Territory boundaries.As such, consumers will have a greater selection of financial service providers, and a greater selection of financial products. In other words, Australian consumers will have greater choice. Providing consumers with greater choice is a further example of this Government's commitment to consumer empowerment and its commitment to consumer sovereignty.The bill will also provide a single regulatory framework for life insurance companies and friendly societies, while recognising the special features of friendly societies. The amendments also strengthen regulation for life insurance and increase the flexibility of its application.All told, about 20 building societies, 237 credit unions and 85 friendly societies will be involved in the regulatory transfer. These organisations represent 1326 branches nationally, with $38 billion in assets and 12,420 employees. To complement this package, State and Territory Governments will be signing with the Commonwealth a Financial Sector Regulation Transfer Agreement and enacting legislation within their jurisdictions to effect this regulatory transfer.Then, for the first time in the history of the Commonwealth, there will be a single consistent regulatory regime for deposit-taking institutions, life and general insurance, and superannuation.The bill also proposes to make sundry minor amendments to correct errors that have been detected in the relevant acts and to improve consistency.Madam President, after the last election the Prime Minister created a new ministerial position—the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation. The new responsibilities taken by my colleague Mr Hockey reflect the realisation that the financial services industry comprises more than just the banks; there are also building societies, credit unions, friendly societies, insurance companies, asset managers, custodians, trustees, financial advisers and superannuation funds—to name just a few. This realisation also reflects the Government's desire to see these institutions playing a larger role in the financial services industry by increasing competition and offering a broader range of products to consumers.This is also one of the country's fastest-growing sectors—a sector employing hundreds of thousands of Australians, a sector that is strongly contributing to our record economic growth, and a sector which is innovative and integral to our continued efforts to secure Australia's place as a centre for global financial services.I will now turn to the bill in more detail.Amendment of the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority Act 1998 (APRA Act)The bill will expand and clarify APRA's ability to take on functions as a result of an agreement with a State or Territory. This will enable APRA to be contracted to provide prudential regulation and advisory services on a fee for service basis subject to the agreement of the Minister. The Commonwealth, States and Territories agreed that State and Territory Governments would remain responsible for the prudential regulation of housing cooperatives and trustee companies but they will be able to enter into an agreement with APRA to provide prudential regulation or advice services for these entities.Amendment of the Banking Act 1959 (Banking Act) and the Reserve Bank Act 1959 (Reserve Bank Act)The bill proposes to apply the Criminal Code—which is scheduled to come into force by March 2000—to the Banking Act and the Reserve Bank Act. There will be no change in the penalties associated with any of the offences.To ensure consistency between banks and other deposit-taking institutions, the bill proposes to extend the banking holiday and unclaimed moneys provisions to all authorised deposit-taking institutions.The bill also proposes to extend the scope of APRA's standards and directions powers and to facilitate the development of voluntary industry support arrangements.Amendment of the Corporations LawMadam President, to enable the transfer of regulatory responsibility of building societies, credit unions and friendly societies to the Commonwealth, a new Schedule will be added to the Corporations Law that will provide for the registration of financial institutions and friendly societies as companies and the regulation of those companies under the Corporations Law by ASIC.Both Ministerial Council for Corporations (MINCO) and the Ministerial Council for Financial Institutions (MINFIN) have unanimously approved the proposed amendments to the Corporations Law in the bill. Unanimous agreement of MINCO and MINFIN Ministers is required under the Corporations Agreement, because the amendments will have the effect of extending coverage of the Corporations Law to various classes of financial institutions established under State and Territory statutes.The objective of the new Schedule is to facilitate the registration of the entities as companies with as little disturbance to operations, and as little conversion costs, as possible.In line with this objective, the bill is structured so that at the transfer date, the entities themselves need do little to give effect to the transfer. Entities will be deemed to be registered as a company type that most closely fits their current structure, unless they elect to be registered as a different category prior to transfer. The bill provides for a transitional period of 18 months following the transfer day. Entities will be given this period to make the necessary changes to their own rules to recognise their new status as a company.The change to a company form is not expected to present significant difficulties for the institutions concerned, since much of the Corporations Law regulatory framework already applies to them through the respective governing Codes. However, there are some matters that will require exemptions and modifications to be made. Most of these are of a transitional nature, such as the publication of Australian Company Numbers on documents, but there are some matters that are likely to justify ongoing relief from ordinary Corporations Law provisions. There are facilities in the bill to make regulations with respect to such matters. Furthermore, there are powers on the part of ASIC to make exemption and modification orders to facilitate the transition.The existing conduct and disclosure obligations which apply to friendly society benefit fund products will, as far as possible, be maintained pending the current review of conduct and disclosure obligations applying to financial products under the Government's Corporate Law Economic Reform Program.Amendment of the Life Insurance Act 1995 (the Life Act)The transfer of friendly societies to the Commonwealth regime will increase contestability in the market for life insurance products. Until recently, multiple prudential regimes applied to life insurance business offered by financial institutions in different jurisdictions. In late 1997 a unified State scheme was created for state based friendly societies under the guardianship of the Australian Financial Institutions Commission (AFIC). As friendly societies are still in transition under those arrangements, it is appropriate to make their entry into the life insurance regime as seamless as possible in the first instance.To achieve this, it is proposed that for a transition period, the detailed requirements in respect of friendly societies (particularly in regard to actuarial standards) will be reinstated on the basis existing under the AFIC regime. However, this should not be taken to imply that friendly societies are subject to lower prudential standards during this transition period. The development of the AFIC standards was based significantly on the existing, relevant actuarial standards set by the Life Insurance Actuarial Standards Board under the Life Act. Differences between the two sets of standards are intended to reflect the structural and operational differences in the respective industries.In the longer term, it is proposed to harmonise the actuarial standards for all companies registered under the Life Insurance Act to the extent appropriate given these structural differences between friendly societies and other life companies.The arrangements will retain the distinct identity of friendly societies so that the industry differentiation can continue. This enhances choice to consumers. For example, the unique benefit fund structure and rules of friendly societies are to be recognised in legislation.Other changes open up opportunities for the development of new prudentially regulated products under the life insurance regime. In particular, companies will be able to have certain insurance, annuity or financial benefit business declared to be life insurance business so that it can be offered in a prudentially regulated environment alongside other life insurance business.Consistent with the thrust of the first stage of the financial sector resform, APRA's powers will be enhanced to facilitate early intervention in the life insurance market. Prudential requirements will be able to be set to better match the profile of the life insurer.Miscellaneous amendmentsThe bill proposes a number of minor miscellaneous amendments to several acts, correcting previous drafting errors and improving clarity within those acts. In addition:. States and Territories will be able to confer powers and functions on ASIC which, prior to the regulatory transfer, were performed by State and Territories in relation to transferring financial institutions.. Friendly societies that operate both life insurance business and health insurance business will be able to be jointly regulated under the two regimes.Consequential amendmentsMadam President, the bill proposes a number of consequential amendments to various acts to amend references to `friendly societies', `credit unions' and `building societies' where necessary and appropriate.The bill also provides transferring institutions 18 months in which to obtain necessary approvals under the Financial Sector (Shareholdings) Act 1998.Amendments to the taxation laws will ensure appropriate taxation treatment of transferring friendly societies, including for RSA business.Transitional, Saving and Application ProvisionsTo ensure the smooth transfer of institutions to the Commonwealth, the bill proposes a number of transitional, saving and application provisions. These provisions include the transfer of staff to APRA, the transfer of assets and liabilities from State and Territory regulatory bodies to APRA and ASIC as appropriate, the granting of authorities and approvals for the use of business names, and transitional provisions relating to unclaimed moneys.The provisions include a number of transitional regulation-making powers which are intended to be of limited duration and which need to be developed in consultation with the States and Territories and industry.I commend the bill to the Senate.FINANCIAL SECTOR REFORM (TRANSFERS OF BUSINESS) BILL 1999In transferring responsibility from the States and Territories to the Commonwealth, the Common wealth was aware that there were some parts of State and Territory laws which were not allowed for under the Commonwealth regime.The State and Territory regulated entities—such as building societies, credit unions and friendly societies—along with the Commonwealth, were keen to ensure that these groups were not disadvantaged by the transfer. In fact, the Commonwealth's view was that some of these provisions were very useful prudential regulation tools.Transfers of Business was one such power. Under the State and Territory legislation, building societies, credit unions and friendly societies were able to transfer their business amongst themselves with the approval of the regulator. The Commonwealth is keen to provide a similar mechanism as it will provide an efficient and effective prudential tool for protecting depositors or policy owner monies where their institution is in severe financial hardship. It is also good to facilitate change in the industry.This bill contains that proposed mechanism.As a result, the Commonwealth has carried over this useful prudential tool and extended it to all authorised deposit taking institutions and also all life insurance companies.There are two types of transfer of business. The first is voluntary—where two entities apply to the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority to transfer part or all of one entity's business to the other. If APRA is satisfied that the transfer is in the interests of depositors or policy owners, and other criteria are satisfied, then with the approval of the Minister, APRA may approve the transfer.The second type of transfer of business is a compulsory transfer. These can only be done in limited circumstances, where the transfer is in the interests of policy owners or depositors. It is expected that in circumstances such as severe financial hardship, where an entity was no longer able to meet it's financial requirements, APRA may seek the agreement of a receiving body to accept the business of the transferring body, and thus protect the interests of depositors or policy owners.This is a proven effective and useful prudential tool that will complement APRA's other powers under the Banking Act 1959 and the Life Insurance Act 1995.I commend the bill to the Senate.INCOME TAX RATES AMENDMENT (RSAs PROVIDED BY REGISTERED ORGANIZATIONS) BILL 1999The accompanying bill dealing with the transfer of financial institutions from the State to the Commonwealth regulatory regime provides for friendly societies that operate benefit fund business to become regulated as life insurance companies. By becoming life companies under Commonwealth legislation, friendly societies will be able to seek approval to be a retirement savings account (RSA) institution so as to provide RSA business.Therefore, the transfer of friendly societies into the Commonwealth regime opens up opportunities for the industry to conduct new business. This outcome will be achieved by having friendly societies enter a competitively neutral financial market. New entry into the RSA market increases competition for retirement savings products and expands the choice available to consumers.This also means that another Wallis Report recommendation will be met—recommendation 43 that sought the extension of the right to offer RSAs to other APRA regulated institutions.A necessary consequence of this extension of RSA business is to provide appropriate tax treatment for RSA business of friendly societies and other registered organizations. The accompanying bill includes amendments to the taxation legislation to achieve this. This bill amends the Income Tax Rates Act 1986 to specify the rates of tax that apply to the RSA business of friendly societies and other registered organizations. The RSA business of friendly societies and other registered organizations will be taxed at the same rate that applies to the RSA business of competing entities, including life insurance companies and banks.In particular, income credited by a friendly society to an RSA will be taxed at the 15 per cent rate applying to complying superannuation savings. Any profit generated by the friendly society will be taxed at the company tax rate.I commend the bill to the Senate.Ordered that further consideration of the second reading of these bills be adjourned till the first day of the winter sittings 1999, in accordance with standing order 111.Bills3503r7503503Message received from the House of Representatives intimating that it had not made the amendment requested by the Senate.Ordered that the message be considered in the committee of the whole forthwith.House of Representatives message—Schedule of the request by the Senate for an amendment (1) Page 14 (after line 28), after Schedule 1, insert:Schedule 1A—Amendment of the Health Insurance Act 1973 relating to the Medicare rebate for certain procedures rendered in approved procedures facilities1 Subsection 10(2) Omit "A benefit", substitute "Subject to subsection (2A), a benefit".2 After subsection 10(2) Insert: (2A) Subject to subsection (3) and section 14, the level of benefit that is payable in respect of the performance, in an approved procedures facility, of an out-of-hospital procedure determined by the Minister under subsection 73BA(2C) of the National Health Act 1953 is an amount at least equal to the sum of 85% of the Schedule fee and the facility benefit determined by the Minister under that subsection in respect of that service.16:31:003503Heffernan, Sen BillSenator HEFFERNANC16NSWLP10—I table a supplementary explanatory memorandum relating to the government amendments to be moved to this bill. I move:That the committee does not press its request for an amendment not made by the House of Representatives but, as an alternative to the request, the committee reconsider Schedule 1, Part 5.16:32:003503Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—When the Health Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1999 was first considered by the Senate last week, a number of sensible amendments were made to it. A request was also made to the House of Representatives to overcome the deficiency that the proposal for surgery to be permitted outside a hospital or day procedures centre setting should be made available to public patients as well as to those who are privately insured. The House has declined to act on this request.After further discussions, the government has now accepted that the objections and issues raised by the opposition and other non-government senators need further consideration. I thank the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Aged Care—through the Parliamentary Secretary to Cabinet in his stead—for deciding to withdraw part 5 of the bill, which contained the provisions for approved facilities for out-of-hospital surgery.As the shadow minister foreshadowed in the debate in the House over the request, this is the action that the opposition would have taken. We will now agree with the government. If the minister wishes to persist with out-of-hospital surgery, he should come back with a more developed proposal which clarifies exactly which procedures will be carried out, what the fees are likely to be, how public patients will be catered for, how quality standards will be set and enforced, how many approved facilities he envisages being established and how approved facilities will operate to complement the existing services provided in day surgeries.I will conclude by briefly summarising our position on the rest of the bill. The opposition agrees with the proposal in part 1 of the bill to discount rates of contributions where there are administrative savings. The opposition also agrees with the proposals in part 2 to provide for loyalty bonus schemes. The proposals in relation to waiting periods in part 3 are acceptable with the amendments that the government accepted when the bill was last debated in the Senate. The opposition supports the inquiry announced by the government into the pre-existing ailment rule. This is a positive response to the anomalies in that rule that were raised by Senators Margetts and Harradine.The opposition has supported the amendments in part 4 in relation to coverage of pharmaceutical gap payments. In the debate we made a series of points on how such a scheme needs to be confined to avoid rorting if large quantities of pharmaceuticals are prescribed whilst the person is in hospital and the person is then taken home. This proposal is limited to situations where the medicines are provided on a policy providing for no gaps. There should not be an extension of the provision to allow any wider coverage being given to pharmaceutical gap payments. It is understood that it is the government's intention to maintain this limit and that the problem of misuse will be dealt with by regulations. We also welcome the deletion of schedule 3, which dealt with deregulation of private health insurance premiums, and part 6, which provided for a poorly thought through scheme to allow specialists to cover gap payments through private health insurance if they entered into contracts with health funds.In summary, the opposition will be voting for the motion not to press the request and to reconsider the bill. We will be voting for parts 1 to 4 standing as part of the bill; we will be voting against part 5 standing as part of the bill; and we will be voting to substitute a new schedule 2, which I think the government will move, to replace the existing schedule 2.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Knowles)—The first question is that the motion moved by Senator Heffernan be agreed to.Question resolved in the affirmative.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—The question now is that part 5 of schedule 1 stand as printed.Question resolved in the negative.Amendment (by Senator Patterson) agreed to:(2) Schedule 2, page 15 (line 3) to page 18 (line 6), omit the Schedule, substitute:Schedule 2—Amendment of the National Health Act 1953 related to the amendments made by Parts 1 and 2 of Schedule 11 After section 5A Insert:5AB Changes in the instruments of a registered organization relating to rates of contribution If a registered organization changes its constitution, its articles of association or its rules so that the constitution, articles or rules as changed: (a) provide, or purport to provide, for discounted rates of contribution to the health benefit fund conducted by that organization; or (b) implement, or purport to implement, loyalty bonus schemes of the kind referred to in paragraph (ma) of Schedule 1 for certain contributors to the health benefits fund contributed by that organization; those changes in the constitution, articles or rules are not to be taken, for any purpose of this Act, to be changes that relate to the rate of contribution of contributors to that fund.[approved procedures facilities]Resolutions reported; report adopted.3505Bill (on motion by Senator Patterson) read a third time.Bills3505A message from His Excellency the Governor-General was reported, informing the Senate that he had assented to the following law: Therapeutic Goods Legislation Amendment Bill 1999 Miscellaneous350516:37:003505Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—I move:That the Social Security (Meaning of Seasonal Work) Determination 1998, made under subsection 16A(2) of the Social Security Act 1991 , be disallowed.The Social Security (Meaning of Seasonal Work) Determination defines intermittent work as work that is to be regarded as seasonal work for the purposes of the seasonal work waiting period provisions in the Social Security Act. The seasonal work waiting period was introduced by the Social Security and Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Budget and Other Measures) Act 1997, and applies to seasonal workers applying for Newstart allowance, youth allowance, mature age allowance, parenting payment for married people and partner allowance who have been engaged in such work in the six months prior to claiming one of these payments and who have earned above average weekly ordinary time earnings from that work—currently $736.70 gross per week.The act defines seasonal work as (a) work that, because of its nature or factors peculiar to the industry in which it is performed, is available at approximately the same time or times every year for part or parts only of the year, or (b) work that is intermittent and is determined by disallowable instrument to be seasonal work.Under the government's original proposal, the length of the period was calculated by determining how much in excess of average earnings the person made while engaged in seasonal work and dividing the excess by the average earnings figure to arrive at a period of weeks. This ignored the fact that some seasonal workers work for intermittent periods and support themselves during intervening periods before claiming a social security payment. It also failed to take account of the fact that some seasonal workers such as shearers who travel from job to job have unusually high employment-related expenses.The government agreed to amend the provisions to deal with these issues, and we supported the measures as amended. I understand that the original provisions were aimed at seasonal workers and certain industries where people can earn very substantial amounts of money in short periods each year and claim benefits for much of the remainder of the year. In some cases, seasonal workers can earn considerably more than average yearly earnings in well under 12 months and can then apply for Newstart allowance; and they can do this year in, year out. Of course, they may be subject to other waiting periods under the Social Security Act, but they could still receive benefits for substantial parts of the year if it were not for the seasonal work waiting period.Despite the baseless accusations made recently by the government, Labor is not about allowing people to take advantage of the system in this way. That is why we supported the original measures once the government had agreed with our proposed amendments concerning workers who support themselves between periods of work and workers who have high employment costs. What we are opposing is the government's extension of the seasonal work waiting period to casual and contract workers in virtually every industry, regardless of their average yearly earnings or whether they have any job security. It is an important matter because of the increase in contract and occasional work and the number of people who operate on that basis. That is the effect of this instrument.BE4NEWMANSenator Newman—That is not true.AX5Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANS—Senator Newman, you will get your go to reply.BE4NEWMANSenator Newman—I just cannot believe you would say that.AX5Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANS—As I say, Senator Newman, you will get your turn. That is the effect of this instrument. It applies to: (a) managers and administrators, (b) professionals, (c) associate professionals, (d) tradespersons and related workers, (e) clerical, sales and service workers, (f) production and transport workers, and (g) labourers and related workers, provided that they are engaged to do a specific project or task, or for a set period, or to do work that is affected by regular shutdowns and they do not accrue leave entitlements and the work in question has lasted less than 12 months.This appears to represent a substantial departure from the original rationale for the rule. It is no longer aimed at workers who are routinely engaged in extremely lucrative employment for the same short period every year. Some casual workers who would come within the definition contained in the disallowable instrument might wait for many months before securing a relatively short period of highly paid work. These workers may struggle through months of poverty over the year and have no idea if or when they might find such work again.Casual teachers are an example. I understand there are something in the order of 20,000 casual teachers in New South Wales alone. New teachers may have to wait up to three or four years before finding a permanent position and face very uncertain employment prospects in the interim. In some areas there is a shortage of casual teaching positions and work is hard to come by. Some of these teachers have significant teaching experience and can make well over average earnings when they are lucky enough to find work. But their income over the whole year may be well below the average wage.As with other waiting periods, the seasonal work waiting period is subject to hardship provisions, but the conditions under which the waiting period can be waived are stringent. Before waiver can be considered, the person must be in severe financial hardship due to unavoidable or reasonable expenditure. A single person will not be regarded as being in severe financial hardship unless their liquid assets are less than the equivalent of two weeks of the allowance they are applying for, plus rent assistance and pharmaceutical allowance if they qualify for these amounts. This can be as little as $323.40 for a single Newstart Allowance claimant. It effectively means that the waiting period will not be waived if the person has managed to save a reasonable amount to help them through the next period of unemployment, which may well be lengthy. Clearly, people in this position will try to do that. That would be the only prudent thing for them to do.The effect of the seasonal work waiting period on casual workers may be much harsher than the rules applying to permanent employees who lose their employment. For example, the income maintenance period for a person who has lost their permanent employment will be equal to the number of weeks of leave they are entitled to. If they took their leave as they became entitled to it, they would probably have to wait no more than four weeks to become entitled to a social security benefit, regardless of how long they had been working or how much they had earned. If that person had savings of $2,500 or less at the time they became unemployed, they would not be affected by the liquid assets test.By contrast, a casual worker who had been unemployed for eight months before obtaining casual work for four months at 1½ times the average weekly earnings could be subject to a waiting period of two months. Reduction of the waiting period on the basis of hardship could not even be considered while they have savings in excess of $323. In short, this measure will often single out casual workers and treat them more harshly than those with a permanent job, who might well have had that job for a long period of time. This may be fair enough in cases where workers earn above average yearly earnings over short periods each year and claim social security entitlements for the remainder of the year, but it is simply inequitable when it applies equally to workers who are without employment for much of the year, have no job security and earn less than average wages over a 12-month period.On the other hand, Labor understand that there are some casual and contract workers whose circumstances accord with the original rationale for the rule. These workers are fortunate enough to secure reasonably regular highly paid employment which provides them with an above average yearly income and allows them to claim social security benefits for other periods during the year. It is for this reason that we support a modified version of the current proposal which would allow it to meet the original intention of the rule while not penalising those casual workers who have no job security and earn low incomes over the year taken as a whole.Our suggestion is that casual workers whose average income over the 12 months before claiming a social security benefit is less than the average earnings figure should not be regarded as seasonal workers for the purpose of the act. This would protect any workers who are effectively on low incomes despite having occasional periods of highly paid work. However, it would not protect those who are genuinely high income earners.This is not just an issue about fairness; it is also about work incentives. It could be argued that casual workers who earn significantly more than average yearly wages in short periods will not be discouraged from doing such work because they will no longer be able to receive benefits. But the situation for casual workers on low yearly incomes is very different, regardless of whether they earn those incomes in relatively short spurts of high paid work. The fact that they will receive less benefit from that work as a result of this disallowable instrument can only reduce the incentive for them to take up that work. The fact that waiver of the waiting period will be considered only if they have virtually no savings from their work would surely make many of these workers wonder what the point of accepting the work might be.We must not forget the real value of casual work. It not only takes people off welfare dependency in the short term, but it also increases the worker's confidence, skills and overall employability and can lead to further work in the longer term. Perhaps we do not need to encourage people who perform very lucrative work at the same time every year and who have incomes well in excess of what most people earn over an entire year, but for those whose employment prospects are less certain and who have struggled for the most part of the year on low incomes, we must provide every encouragement possible.In conclusion, we do support moves to restrict access to benefits to those seasonal workers who earn a reasonable income during the year. We supported that when it was proposed, and we continue to support that position, but we are not in favour of cutting benefits to those who are genuinely qualified by virtue of their taking up casual work as it becomes available, even if that is relatively high income work at that particular period. Because of the demand that occurs in our society for specialist skills and the increase in contract work, there are large numbers of workers who do avail themselves of short contract work that may well be reasonably well rewarded but is only available for a short time. We think the government has not done enough to cover the circumstances of all those who may be affected by this measure.I accept that the disallowance motion is a blunt instrument, but the opposition, through discussion with the government, have been unable to resolve the issue any other way. We would like to see a way through this but, as we have not been able to get the government to come up with a compromise which we think would meet the concerns that we have raised and the government's genuine policy objectives about cutting out those who should not be entitled, we have no option but to move the disallowance.I have been alerted today that there is some concern from the government about the timing of the measure coming on today. I only point out that it has been on the books since Wednesday, 17 February. I understand there was some communication difficulty, but I have been postponing it for a number of days. We are running out of time to deal with this. It seems to me it is in the government's interest it is dealt with. Anyway, I think that is a minor point. I indicate that there was a problem in communication, and I apologise for that, but it seems to me it has been on the Notice Paper for a considerable period of time. It is important that the matter be resolved and we are keen to do that before Easter.In moving this disallowance, the opposition think this would at least force the government to reconsider the issues around the sorts of people that I have identified today and ensure that regulations they bring before the parliament do not unfairly impact on people in those circumstances. We accept the need for the general seasonal work rules—we supported them then and we support them now. We are disappointed that the government see fit to seek cheap publicity in the press by accusing us of not supporting those measures, but that is their call.BE4NEWMANSenator Newman—But it is not.AX5Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANS—Well, I read the press, Senator Newman. I do not know where they got it from, but if they did not get it from your office, I would be very surprised. Nevertheless, there is an important public policy issue here, and we urge the Senate to support the disallowance.16:50:003508Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—I am speaking on behalf of the Australian Democrats on this disallowance motion, and I must say at the start that I do find it a little difficult understanding exactly what the position of the ALP is on this issue. This measure of penalising seasonal workers who earn above average weekly earnings by making it harder for them to get unemployment benefits or unemployment payments and imposing a longer waiting period on them is one that the Democrats opposed when it was brought in in June last year.The Democrats do not believe it is an appropriate measure for seasonal workers to have a higher hurdle than other workers in terms of waiting periods. For that reason, the Democrats will be supporting this disallowance motion. We believe it will broaden out the number of people who are caught in this measure even further.In terms of the concerns that Senator Evans was expressing, I am not quite sure, when the Labor Party supported this government measure back in June last year, exactly what they thought would happen with this measure. Who did they think would be affected by it and who did they think would not be? In the second reading debate on the bill back in May last year, I expressed the Democrats' opposition to the proposed changes relating to seasonal workers, and said that they would include such workers as fruit-pickers, shearers, casual teachers and people who perform locum roles in various jobs. It was pretty clear at the time, certainly to the Democrats, that people such as these were likely to get caught up in this measure.Indeed, as I imagine Senator Newman recalls, probably not half an hour after the bill was actually passed Senator George Campbell, on behalf of the Labor Party, stood up and asked a question in question time which expressed concern about construction workers being affected by this proposed measure, which his own party had supported less than half an hour earlier in this very chamber. Not surprisingly, Senator Newman gave that question fairly short shrift in response.I found it fairly astonishing at the time that the ALP did support the measure, and I will quote former Senator Neal, who was the spokesperson at the time. I guess that lets Senator Evans off the hook, because it is was not his responsibility, as indeed it was not Mr Swan's responsibility in the other place, either; it was the responsibility of the previous spokespersons for the ALP. But Senator Neal at the time said:The opposition does believe it is appropriate to take into account the income of those who may have up and down periods because of seasonal work. We do not agree with the Democrats' view that those particular people should be omitted from the income testing . . . I should hasten to add that that is not actually our view. Our view is that they should have the same income testing as everybody else. Seasonal workers, broadly speaking, are not likely to be better off than people who have permanent jobs. Whilst I am sure there is a very small proportion of people who get huge amounts of money and are able to spend the rest of the year living in luxury—and I think it would be a very small proportion of people—I do not see how, firstly, you can determine a measure which separates out those people from other people who are just getting seasonal, casual or locum work where they can. Clearly, a lot of these sorts of jobs occur in rural and regional areas—not all of them, but a reasonable proportion of them.The Democrats and I think most parties certainly espouse the need to encourage employment in regional areas. We have had issues in recent times of illegal non-residents being caught working as fruit-pickers in parts of Australia and the people who employ them saying that they cannot find people to do those jobs. I do not know how difficult it is to find fruit-pickers in various areas—obviously it is easier in some areas than in others. But measures such as this which actually penalise people further and make them face an extra waiting period or an extra test before they can access income support obviously are not going to provide an extra incentive for those sorts of people to engage in such work.The determination we are debating at the moment which it is proposed be disallowed—and I reiterate that the Democrats support that disallowance—extends the seasonal work waiting period to a huge range of industries, such as managers, administrators, professionals, associate professionals, tradespersons, clerical and sales and service workers, production and transport workers and labourers and related workers. That is a pretty wide range of people and, certainly, I think you would be hard pressed to say that a lot of those people are somehow or other getting away with something unfair—rorting the system or living the high life or whatever might be implied. I think the very vast proportion of those people who will be caught up in this measure are simply people who are trying to get work where they can and are not likely to be in what would be called a high income bracket over a prolonged period of time. Certainly all of those people—and that will include people who are in lower income brackets—will clearly be caught by this measure. It is for that reason that the Democrats opposed it initially and why we maintain a consistent position in opposing this determination.I believe the opposition suggests that this determination represents a substantial departure from the original rationale for the rule as it is no longer aimed at workers who are routinely engaged in extremely lucrative employment. I do not see anything in the wording of the act or in the original speech—or for that matter in anything when the matter initially came up—that suggests it is significantly different from what is contained in this determination, that it does represent a substantial departure. I think it is a broadening—somewhat more than one might have interpreted from the wording of the act, but it is certainly not what I would call a substantial departure. I would see it as an unhelpful broadening, perhaps catching even more people than one might have anticipated from an initial reading of the act.I cannot see how the opposition see it as being something massively different from what they initially agreed to when this measure was put into law in June last year. It does baffle me. Casual teachers, as indeed the construction workers who Senator George Campbell provided as an example in his question not long after the bill went through, are examples of people who are clearly going to be potentially caught by this measure. They are absolutely, definitely caught by this measure under this determination in terms of labourers and professionals. Again, I just cannot see how this is seen as somehow or other being a massive departure from what was initially intended. I guess in that sense I would probably understand if there was a little perplexity or frustration from the government.AX5EVANSSenator Chris Evans—The people in this are not seasonal.DT6Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETT—The act defines seasonal work as the Senate applied it—that work that is intermittent and is determined to be seasonal or that is available at approximately the same time or times every year for part or parts only of the year. And I think that sort of thing can easily be interpreted by the department. It is a pretty broad definition which gives a lot of room for interpretation. Again using examples such as teachers, it would be quite easy to say that it occurs at similar times of the year—it occurs at the times of the year when school is in, not at the times of the year when school is out.The other issue is that there is no specific original indication, either in the original measure or in this determination, that it was somehow or other targeting people in extremely lucrative employment. It was targeting anyone who earned anything over average weekly earnings, despite the fact that they only earned that money for a proportion of the year. By definition, seasonal work or non-permanent, regular casual work is work that is not going to bring in an income all year round unless people are able to bounce directly from one job to the next. Those people are often in a more difficult situation, as I said previously, than permanent workers. To suggest that somehow or other they are getting away with more than everybody else is something that the Democrats find fairly baffling.It is a measure the Democrats did not support when it came in. For that reason we certainly do not support any determination that extends in any way the measure. It is one that we believe should not be there in the first place. We believe it is just another in a string of enforced poverty measures that we have seen over the past few years, basically requiring people to provide their own personal unemployment insurance from their earnings when they get casual or regular seasonal work. There are plenty of other measures—existing income and assets tests and the taxation system—which apply to people when they earn a significant amount of money. To catch the very small number of people who are somehow earning a fortune in a very short time, we are, through this measure and the initial inclusion of it in the act, catching a lot of people who could not possibly be seen to be earning lucrative amounts of money. It is something we found difficult to see a justification for initially and we certainly do not see any now. For that reason the Democrats will support the disallowance. I do wish the extent of the concerns that the ALP see now were realised at the time the measure was put into law in June last year—then we would not be having this debate now.17:01:003510Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSONLI4VICLP10—Once again this chamber is being held to ransom by what can only be now termed the wholly-owned subsidiary of the union movement—the Australian Labor Party. In the past few weeks we have had a plethora of motions from the other side designed to reassure their former masters—and I have to say `former masters' because 67 per cent of Labor senators have come up through the union ranks. I have nothing against that as a legitimate career path, but it does seem a bit excessive when 67 per cent of a group here are former union officials. It would pay the Labor Party to look very carefully at their preselections and perhaps preselect people with some broader experience who are not as likely to kowtow to their former masters.While I usually find the posturing of Labor Party members on the other side who are at the beck and call of the unions pathetic, I find today's disallowance motion from Senator Evans particularly odious. This disallowance is designed to advantage highly unionised, highly privileged workers against less unionised and less privileged workers. That is what is happening today. Let me say it again: it is a disallowance motion designed to advantage highly unionised, highly privileged workers against less unionised and less privileged workers. The ALP has caved in under pressure from the CFMEU. The CFMEU includes workers who are able to negotiate lucrative short-term contracts—often in the construction industry or in industries where they have a contract they can undertake over a limited period of time and earn substantial amounts of money. Let us be very clear: the instrument the opposition is moving to disallow is designed to block access to unemployment payments for people who earn high incomes for parts of the year then spend or dispose of their income in some way to avoid the liquid assets test.What Labor do not understand, if I am being kind, or what they do not want to understand, if I am being less kind, is that for work to be classed as intermittent or seasonal it must fulfil three criteria. The first criterion is that it must be for less than 12 months. The second criterion is that it must be performed by a person who has been engaged to do a specific project or task or for a set period. The third criterion is that, if the work is performed by a person who accrues leave entitlements, it will not be classified as seasonal work and hence will not be affected by the initiative. All three of these criteria—not one of them; all three of them—must be satisfied for the work to be classified as seasonal. Most work performed by part-time or casual employees will not be affected by the seasonal worker initiative because most casual or part-time workers are not receiving the high incomes that would affect their unemployment payments.Labor have continually refused to understand the simple truth that this is a fair measure. They have sought to misguide, mislead and misinform the Australian public about the true effect of this measure. The real question today is: why should anyone who earns over $100,000 on a six-month contract be able to spend the money and then claim a holiday at the taxpayers' expense for the next six months? It is totally unacceptable.It is important to remember that workers who are unemployed prior to taking up employment can remain registered for newstart allowance for up to six fortnights after commencing work, even though their income would preclude them for payment. The formula for calculating the preclusion period provided in legislation ensures that only those workers earning more than average weekly ordinary time earnings will be affected. This disallowable instrument determines only the kind of intermittent work that is to be treated as if it were seasonal. The length of the preclusion period is calculated according to a formula based on the average weekly ordinary time earnings last published by the ABS in the calendar year prior to claim. Currently this amount is $736.70 per week. We are saying that single people earning less than $736.70 a week or $1,473.40 per fortnight will not have a waiting period applied.For the opposition to come in here and say they are talking about people on low incomes is a nonsense. Let me say that again: single people earning less than $736.70 a week or $1,473.40 a fortnight will not have a waiting period applied. Couples earning less than $1,473.40 a week or $2,946.80 a fortnight will not have the waiting period applied. I ask honourable senators, particularly the Democrats and the Greens, to think about that. The Labor Party cannot come in here and say that this is affecting people on low incomes; it is not. We are saying that people who have similar incomes over a period of time ought to be treated the same.When we came into government we found that—and we knew about this when we were in opposition—a lot of the social security benefits were riddled with anomalies associated with older people on the pension and people receiving unemployment benefits. To be fair, we need to treat people in similar circumstances with similar incomes in the same way for the purposes of receiving benefits. I think most fair-minded Australians would agree.The ALP's alternative proposal is that intermittent workers' income should be calculated over a 12-month period and that the worker would be treated as a seasonal worker only if the income was more than an average income, that is, average weekly ordinary time earnings, for the year. This would create a gross inequity in the treatment of seasonal and intermittent workers. Intermittent workers would be treated far more generously than seasonal workers. Of course, many of those seasonal workers are less likely to be unionised than intermittent workers. What we are seeing is that these people would be treated quite differently and unfairly. For example, a single person receiving newstart for six months and then earning $30,000 for six months work would have total earnings in the 12 months prior to the claim of around $34,000, which is lower than average weekly earnings for a year. If the person had been engaged in seasonal work, they would have a preclusion period of 14 weeks, whereas if the ALP's proposal was adopted and they had been doing intermittent work such as contract work, they would not be precluded at all. I cannot see how you can justify that. I know you are frowning, Senator Evans.AX5EVANSSenator Chris Evans—I do not understand you.LI4Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSON—You might not understand. If you cannot understand what I am saying then I feel sorry for you, but what I am saying is right. Maybe you have been misinformed by someone from the lower house.BE4NEWMANSenator Newman—Mr Swan's office. He was given the detail.LI4Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSON—He was given that detail. It is a clear demonstration that these two different groups of people would be treated totally differently. If that is what your party wants, you have been hoodwinked, or should I say you have become a party to what the unions want, because these intermittent workers are more likely to be union members than seasonal workers.AX5EVANSSenator Chris Evans—That's not right.LI4Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSON—It is right. And it is right that people with a similar income are going to be treated differently if you disallow this. I do not know how the ALP can tolerate the inequity. If you are not sure about this, maybe you should withdraw from this and be briefed properly so that you can actually make sure that you are not treating people unfairly. I can tell you that some of those seasonal workers will be pretty upset about what the Labor Party is doing—DX5MARGETTSSenator Margetts—What?LI4Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSON—Senator Margetts, what is happening in this situation is that you have two groups of people who are employed differently in different operations. There are intermittent workers who have a job they have been asked to do under the three conditions I talked about, and/or the job finishes at a certain time, and they earn a certain amount of money. Another group are seasonal workers, and they are treated differently, if you go along with this. What you are doing is creating inequality between two groups of workers because they happen to work in different industries or happen to work under different arrangements. In fact, you will find that some people on reasonably high incomes—I am not saying high incomes—will be eligible for benefits and seasonal workers on less will not be eligible for benefits. Is that correct, Senator Newman?BE4NEWMANSenator Newman—Yes.LI4Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSON—So I do not know how the ALP can protect some classes of workers over others. It seems very strange to me. I suppose it is also not interested in requiring those on higher incomes to put their money aside to provide for themselves, because there is an incentive there to actually spend it and to receive benefits. If the ALP was genuinely concerned about fairness and equity, it would withdraw this disallowance motion. Senator Evans over there is looking very perplexed, and I can understand why.AX5EVANSSenator Chris Evans—I do not know what you are talking about.LI4Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSON—You might not know what I am talking about but I know what I am talking about, and I know that if you continue with this disallowance motion you will be ensuring that two groups of workers will be treated differently—AX5EVANSSenator Chris Evans—That is what you are doing.LI4Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSON—People who are intermittent workers will be treated far more generously than seasonal workers. That is what the effect of what you are doing today will be. If that is what you want to do, go out and defend that, but I think you will be defending the indefensible. If the ALP was genuinely concerned with fairness and equity, it would withdraw this disallowance motion.17:12:003512Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I listened to Senator Patterson's contribution, but she said the same thing over and over again and unfortunately did not actually defend the government's case at all, in my opinion. What we are talking about is a determination which would extend the definition of seasonal work well beyond the intent of the seasonal work provisions of the Social Security Act. If the government want to do that then they should come to the Senate with legislation which can be the subject of scrutiny and amendment by the Senate. Again and again Senator Patterson's contribution was that we should treat all workers the same. Quite clearly, the government are not treating all workers the same. In this particular case I guess what they are saying is, `We are treating one group of workers, seasonal workers, badly and we would like to treat all workers just as badly as we are treating seasonal workers.' That is not a particularly good strategy, as far as I am concerned.The act defines seasonal work as, and I paraphrase, work that is available at approximately the same time or times every year for part or parts only of the year, or work that is intermittent and is determined, by disallowable instrument, to be seasonal work. The second part of the definition does not, however, give free rein to the government to call anything it likes seasonal work. It is intermittent work that is referred to. This determination would extend it to include almost any short-term, occasional, one-off period of work for which an individual was paid more than average weekly earnings. This goes well beyond the commonsense understanding of seasonal work, which is usually identified with activities such as crayfishing or shearing.Coming at this sort of change by a determination is an underhand way of bringing in changes which have the potential to impact quite extensively on potential recipients of a wide variety of social security payments, including newstart allowance, youth allowance, parenting payment or partner allowance. In effect, it begins to treat all kinds of casual and contract workers in virtually every industry as seasonal workers, and its impact extends from managers and professionals to labourers and production workers. The extension of the definition of seasonal work particularly impacts on the waiting period—the period before benefits can be paid. It is during this period that people in need of assistance are most vulnerable to hardship.Given the sorts of changes we are seeing in the nature of employment across the board, this particular change will affect more and more workers. Work is becoming much more impermanent. Casual work is more common. Short-term contracts are becoming the norm. It is not unusual nowadays for workers to have a relatively short period of highly paid work after being out of work for a considerable time. This does not actually mean that those people need to eat less during the times of unemployment. It does not necessarily mean that somehow these people are automatically rorting the system. It does not mean that these people should be considered to be people who are cheating the system. That is basically what this government is doing.The work comes along and people pay off the debts that they may have accumulated. They manage okay for a few weeks but they do not necessarily have the capacity to put away the sorts of savings that someone permanently on that income would do. In short, they might not be in any position to support themselves or their family for any extended waiting period before being able to access benefits. The appropriate way to deal with this kind of situation would be to average out people's total income over the previous 12 months. If they were still over average weekly earnings, it might be appropriate to have waiting periods.But the current proposal makes no such allowance. People in short-term employment will be exposed to waiting periods which, in some instances, could actually be longer than those of people who have lost permanent employment. Instead of a waiting period equivalent to their accrued annual leave—usually four weeks—casual workers who are treated as seasonal may have to wait considerably longer. For a worker who had, say, four months work after a long period of unemployment, this delay could easily be two months or more.Constantly we were hearing from Senator Patterson that we on this side of the chamber were talking about supporting the union. The reality is, as Senator Evans interjected on several occasions, that the figures do not back this up. The level of union membership amongst casual workers is—as Senator Patterson could find out if she checked—very low.People will also be disadvantaged by the tougher rules on exemption from the waiting period that usually applies to seasonal work. I know it is difficult for the coalition to understand that we on this side of the chamber might actually be doing this because it is the right and fair thing to do, not because we are necessarily instructed by a particular interest group. If workers or the people out in the community are concerned about this, they have a legitimate right to be heard.Whereas the former permanent worker can have $2,500 in the bank before the liquid assets test applies, the casual worker—the worker you want to pretend is a seasonal worker—cannot get any reduction in waiting period even if they have as little as $323 in savings. So what we are doing? We are making sure that people are actually turned away from taking up any work opportunities. This includes, I would think, some graduates who are desperate to get work in their actual profession. Yes, this might mean that they might get short-term work—consultancy or whatever—at a relatively higher wage package. However, this might also mean that they have to wait a long time before they get other similar experience.It is no wonder, as the Melbourne Institute showed us today, that the participation rate of students in Australia is reducing in terms of people wanting to go into tertiary education. This is because, as one would have to think, that people are looking into the future and wondering whether or not they are going to be able to use the skills for which they are trained. The workers we are talking about could well be suffering hardship, in the normal sense of the word, and still not be able to access the hardship provisions which, as far as seasonal work is concerned, are extremely strict. Coming at this sort of change by a determination is, as I said, an underhand way of bringing in changes which have the potential to impact quite extensively on the potential recipients of a wide variety of social security payments. As such, it should be disallowed by the Senate.I want to bring in another issue. Commonsense would say that in a time of high unemployment, which is what we still have in Australia, you do not make it more difficult for people to participate in the work force. You do not actually penalise people for working for short periods of time. You do not make it so that, somehow or other, there is an assumption that, if you work full time, you are necessarily better or that you get rewarded for that but, if you manage to get short-term work or seasonal work, somehow you are penalised.The government have to make up their mind whether they are actually on the side of the people in this country who want to work. They often say they are, but here they are penalising people who will take up work for short periods of time or have the opportunity for short periods of time to take up work. It simply makes no commonsense. What they are doing might mean that some people's choice will be not to take up that offer—and that would be very sad in terms of experience, wasted human capital in Australia and the actual implications for people which the government are refusing to see. They are refusing to see that there are real human consequences from the hard-hearted, cold approach that they are taking to anyone who happens to be able to currently access social security payments. Therefore I urge the Senate to support this disallowance.17:20:003514Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—First of all, I would like to draw to the attention of the Senate—and I know Senator Evans did advert to this in an indirect way—that Mr Swan from the shadow minister's office actually gave a commitment that there would be one day's warning before debate on the disallowance. They have not met that commitment, and this chamber does work on that sort of level of trust between the parties, I would have hoped.Senator Chris Evans interjecting—BE4Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMAN—You have said you are sorry and I accept your apology, but I thought I had better explain quite why an apology was appropriate.I find, as the Democrats do, that Labor's position on this is quite incredible. Senator Evans has said that their purpose in moving this disallowance is to force the government to reconsider the issues. He also said that they accept the need for general rules and that this is an important public policy issue. The point—as Senator Bartlett said—is that the government has not moved from the legislation which you endorsed. Not only did you endorse it, your frontbencher in this place who represented the shadow minister is on the record in the chamber—in the Hansard—as saying so. We have not moved from that legislation.The reason for your move is quite clearly evident, Senator Evans, in the chamber at the moment with Senator George Campbell sitting there, giving you his instructions—and that is exactly why. He was embarrassed at the foolish question that he asked in the chamber last year—NB5CAMPBELLSenator George Campbell—That's because you told lies.BE4Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMAN—I did not tell lies, Senator, and I take great exception to that.LI4PATTERSONSenator Patterson—Mr Acting Deputy Chair, I raise a point of order. I ask that you ask Senator Campbell to withdraw that—and he should not interject from a seat other than his own. He should not interject anyway, because it is disorderly.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Sherry)—I uphold the point of order. Senator Campbell, you should not interject, full stop. Would you please withdraw that remark.NB5CAMPBELLSenator George Campbell—I withdraw the remark.BE4Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMAN—So the Democrats are at a loss to understand Labor's position. Senator Bartlett acknowledged that the disallowable instrument was not a substantial departure from the legislation. It is important that that be on the record. The sad thing about this is that the CFMEU, and maybe some of the other unions, have seen fit to pressure the Labor Party to change their original position. That is what has to have happened, because we have not moved away from the purpose of the legislation and the debate that took place in the Senate.I think a question of equity between workers is an issue here. Senator Patterson has made that very clear—although Senator Margetts did not like hearing it—more than once. But that is the fact. This legislation and this disallowable instrument are based on the concept, which all governments have acknowledged over the years, that social security is a safety net based on the needs of people. If we have one group of workers who get caught by the legislation and another group who are in similar circumstances who do not, it is not equitable. If all of them have earnings that are above average weekly ordinary time earnings, then they are in the more privileged elements of our society. They are not the people for whom a social security safety net was intended by any government.It is very clearly demonstrated by an example. In the same industry you can have a fruit-picker caught by the legislation who could have the same amount of income as the packer in the cannery who is packing the fruit that has been picked by the picker. They can both have the same amount of income over the same period. But if the motion for disallowance were to go through, the fruit-picker who is not unionised would be of no concern to the Labor Party. The packer in the cannery who is unionised would be of concern to them. That can be the only reason for the change of position by the ALP on this measure—which they supported, and said so, in the chamber.Senator Evans also made some comments about teachers. Let me address that question. Quite interestingly, in the legislation—I hold it up for the benefit of the Senate to see what I am talking about—there is schedule 4, `Amendments relating to seasonal workers'. There is a description of seasonal work. There are parts A and B. Under part B, `Work that is intermittent and is determined to be seasonal for the purposes of this act', there are examples. Examples of work in paragraph (a) are fishing, fruit picking, shearing and work in an industry that is subject to Christmas shutdowns. Examples of work that is intermittent are relief teaching and work as a locum. Where were they? We were not hiding anything from anybody. That was there.Let me make it clear about the teachers. To be included within the scope of this measure, teachers would need to satisfy the following conditions. They would need to be employed for a set period—that is, for less than 12 months. Most of these relief teachers would be employed for a day or two, or for an indefinite period, and so would not serve the preclusion period. They would also be needing to earn more than AWOTI over the period of the work. As Senator Patterson made clear, it is $736 for a single person and $1,473 for couples. In my book, that is a pretty high wage in Australia, yet the Labor Party has gone into bat for people who are earning that.AX5EVANSSenator Chris Evans—Is that right? $736 for contract work?BE4Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMAN—It is $1,473 for a couple.AX5EVANSSenator Chris Evans—Single is $700?BE4Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMAN—Yes, $736.AX5EVANSSenator Chris Evans—For contract work in Kalgoorlie, working 14 hours a day. Try and tell them that is good pay.BE4Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMAN—I think it is honourable work and I am glad that they have got it, but it is not a justification for them going on a holiday on the taxpayer as soon as they finish it. That is what I would complain about.AX5EVANSSenator Chris Evans—There is unemployment in Australia.BE4Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMAN—Of course you can pick and choose when you are in some industries.AX5EVANSSenator Chris Evans—A lot of them are unemployed because they cannot get work.BE4Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMAN—I point out that there is yet a third criterion: that they would not have accrued leave entitlements while they were working. Many of them would in fact be accruing leave. So, on a whole lot of scores, I think the ALP have simply caved in to their union mates, who have forced them to change their minds.The reason behind this is to block access to unemployment payments for people who earn high incomes for part of the year. Within the last 12 months the ALP thought that was fair enough and said so in this chamber. To move a disallowance motion claiming that large numbers of casual and part-time workers will be affected by the seasonal workers initiative is ridiculous. It is not so. It will not apply to most casual or part-time workers because most are not receiving the high incomes that would affect their unemployment payments. Most casual and part-time workers will not be receiving the figures that you have just been talking about.Senator Chris Evans interjecting—BE4Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMAN—Most people are not caught up by it, Senator. It is wrong of you to infer that this is something that is going across the board to a whole lot of people. It is very much confined to relatively few.AX5EVANSSenator Chris Evans—Contract work—$700 a week.BE4Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMAN—For it to be classed as intermittent or seasonal, it must fulfil those three criteria that I referred to in the discussion about teachers. For it to be treated as seasonal it must be for less than 12 months; it must be performed by a person who has been engaged to do a specific project or task, or for a set period; and, thirdly, if it is performed by a person who accrues leave entitlements, it will not be classified as seasonal work and hence will not be affected by the initiative. So there are more people who do not get caught by it.Clearly, most work that is performed by part-time or casual employees will not be affected by the initiative. It is sad, because really it means that the ALP is out of touch with the Australian community. Why would anyone who earns over $100,000 on a six-month contract be able to spend the money and then claim a holiday at the taxpayers' expense for the next six months? Senator Evans was complaining before about me using that example. But let me give you some up-to-date information about what has actually been happening.AX5EVANSSenator Chris Evans—Save it for the press release.BE4Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMAN—Senator, I would like you to listen very carefully to how—LI4PATTERSONSenator Patterson—I raise a point of order, Mr Acting Deputy President. Senator Evans was listened to in silence. He has done nothing but interject on Senator Newman the whole time. I ask you to call him to order.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Sherry)—Yes, I have noted, Senator Evans, that the interjection level is exceeding what I think is the normal debating level, so would you come to order, please.BE4Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMAN—I would like to give you some examples of people who have been given long preclusion periods. These are from 1 January until about a week ago. A metal worker had earnings of $45,594 with allowable deductions of $500. He is a single man who worked in Western Australia and moved back to Sydney prior to claiming newstart allowance. He started work on 20 August 1998. He ceased working on 8 February this year and he claimed newstart allowance on 2 March this year.LI4PATTERSONSenator Patterson—How much did he earn?BE4Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMAN—He earned $45,594.AX5EVANSSenator Chris Evans—Is that Mr Wright?BE4Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMAN—I'm sorry, I have got the information from my department. I have no names. You know that I do not invade their privacy.AX5EVANSSenator Chris Evans—I was just checking whether it was Mr Wright.BE4Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMAN—I would not make any claim as to who it was. I also inform the Senate of another worker who appears to have been on a construction contract. His earnings were $88,429. He was married and his partner did not work but claimed parenting allowance. He started work earlier than 1 July 1998 and he finished on 23 December, just in time for Christmas, with his $88,429, and he claimed newstart allowance on 1 February. He will have a preclusion period of 29 weeks.The third example I give the Senate is a person in the mining industry involved in several different contracts, a single person with earnings of $34,430. This person claimed on 10 February this year, and his end date will be 22 weeks time on 13 February. In the first three months of the initiative there have been only four cases in which the preclusion period has applied to teachers. Their average preclusion period was 6.75 weeks.I have some more general information about the first three months of the new arrangements. The number of cases where it appeared that somebody had been doing seasonal work—in other words being coded by Centrelink—was 898. The total number of cases where a preclusion period has been applied has been 106. For hardship, 10 cases were waived. So there has been some discussion here about the coverage of this measure. There has been some discussion also about waiving and hardship. Those are the facts out of the Centrelink administration of the scheme from 1 January to 26 March provided to me by my department from Centrelink.I do urge the Labor Party to reconsider. Their original position was the right one. It was fair to people who are all in similar kinds of employment, and they were being treated in the same way if they earned the same income. What could be fairer than that? In addition, it is fair to the taxpayer that people who have substantial means until they have served a preclusion period should be expected to look after themselves before they ask their neighbour, the taxpayer, to support them. What ever has happened to the Labor Party? It is just incredible that you would do this somersault, this about-turn—call it what you like. Our legislation and the disallowable instrument were all based on the fair notion that high income earners who know that they will be without income for a period should put some money aside so they can provide for themselves rather than ask the taxpayer for support. Virtually all social security systems around the world have special provisions relating to seasonal workers. This disallowance motion should be opposed.17:36:003518Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TASIND00—I have listened very carefully to the debate thus far. I particularly understand the points that have been made by the minister, but also I was very interested in what Senator Bartlett was saying and, in particular, what Senator Margetts was saying. I heard Senator Patterson and Senator Evans also. On the balance, I am going to vote for the disallowance. Members of the opposition who have spoken are talking about a situation where they really do not know what the total outcome will be. Already the minister has indicated that there has been no real research done as to the likely effect of this measure on casual workers.I think a figure of $6 million in savings has been suggested. I have heard mention of figures—including figures coming out of Minister Newman's office—which do not necessarily add up. I will not refer to the last occasion when I had my fingers burnt in regard to that area. I point out that there is a growing number of casual employees in the work force at present, and the figure will grow and grow.One of the reasons for this is the attitude of the current government. Many workers may have low average yearly incomes and no job security—that is, their work is not seasonal, yet you are bringing them into this area. I thought there were four seasons in the year, not an innumerable number of seasons, when we talk about the meaning of `seasonal work'. Many of these people—including fishermen, for example—are seasonal workers, but they know that the job will come around next year. Unless something awful happens to the world, the season will come around next year. You are lumping together all of these other people who are listed as seasonal workers.The hardship provisions apply, but they are very strict. The liquid asset may be as little as $323.40 for a single newstart allowance claimant to meet the provisions. I believe that if the regulations are not disallowed there could be quite serious effects and, I suppose, unintended consequences. A casual worker should not be treated worse, in this regard, than a permanent worker who is retrenched. The casual worker does not have the advantage of leave and super entitlements. As I mentioned, there are going to be more and more casual workers in the work force.By disallowing this determination, the Senate will be doing a service not only to those people who will be affected but also to the government. I think the government should take this matter back and discuss it with the parties concerned. I understand that the opposition has suggested certain things to the government which I think the government should thoroughly consider. The government should take this matter back, once it is disallowed, and enter into discussions with the opposition, if they are so sure that the opposition does not understand it, or if they are following the same principles but the practical application of the determination is adverse. I support the motion moved by Senator Evans.17:42:003518Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—in reply—I appreciate the comments made by all senators in contributing to the debate. I want to make a couple of points. Firstly, I acknowledge that Senator Margetts put the case for the measure far better than I did, and I thank her for that. I think she summed up the core issues; Senator Harradine paid due respect to that. She encapsulated the case very well and that was important for the debate.Senator Bartlett spent most of his contribution bagging the Labor Party, as seems to be his wont, but as long as he votes with us, I am prepared to wear it. I do not know what Senator Patterson's contribution was about. She is obviously upset about trade unions in this country. I am obviously off the CFMEU friends list because they did not bother talking to me about this. It seems to me that we are talking about workers who, in my experience, are not unionised. They are generally contract and casual workers who are most vulnerable to exploitation in the workplace. It is far from being a union issue, but it seems to be the preoccupation of the government that that is what this is about.My only personal experience of people affected by this comes from a couple of representations we received from schoolteachers and one from a discussion I had with a friend who is a metalworker and who has been forced to seek work in the Goldfields because of an inability to get work in Perth. He is caught by this rule. I think he would be a bit shocked that the minister thought he was a high income earner.The last point made by Senator Harradine is the most important one. The opposition supported the government's original approach to seasonal workers as we thought that was a fair thing to do. It was about excluding people from social security who were, by virtue of their seasonal work, not entitled to it. What we have done is put a proposition to the government that we ought to look at the earnings over the year, make a proper assessment of whether people are entitled to social security support and take a broader view of that, rather than the narrow view that the government takes—that it all depends on what they earn in a short period of time.The reality of the world is changing. A lot of people are forced, because of unemployment and the changes in the workplace, to take short-term contract work that lacks security and has no predictability to it. They rely on what they earn from that. At times they are forced to fall back on the social security safety net if their earnings over the period are not sufficient to sustain a reasonable lifestyle.What we have suggested to the government is that, rather than try to bulldoze this measure through, they have a look at a reasonable compromise to get what I suspect we would all agree—bar the Democrats—is a reasonable policy outcome; that is, to find a way in which those that deserve some social security support receive it and those that do not are excluded. I do not think it is beyond the wit of the Senate to do that, but we were not able to get that result from the government. Hence we have to go with, as I described before, this blunt instrument of disallowance. However, this will at least force the government to go back and look at how best we can achieve the right policy outcome. I commend the disallowance motion to the Senate.Question resolved in the affirmative.Committees35193519351910000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Sherry)—As was announced earlier, a ballot will be necessary to fill the position on the Select Committee on Information Technologies for an Independent or a Green senator. I understand that now is a convenient time for the ballot to be held.17:46:003519Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I have put myself forward for membership of the Select Committee on Information Technologies and for this ballot because I bring to that committee a very necessary added even hand and open mind.Mr Acting Deputy President, as you will know from the debate a couple of days ago, the terms of reference of the committee have caused some concern to the Greens and indeed the Democrats. But I bring balance, I believe, to the narrowness of the specific terms in paragraph (c) of the committee's terms of reference. As you know, this committee is a re-established one. It sat before and has looked at a wide range of issues regarding information technology.The committee has been set up again to further the work of previous committees in evaluating the development of self-regulatory codes in the information industries and to monitor the personal, social and economic impact of continuing technological change created by industries and services utilising information technologies. The committee is to inquire into and report on other matters referred to it by the Senate. That, I believe, is a very important purpose.We have a need in Australia, with the onrush of information technology, to put a priority on such things as the need for all homes to have access to information technology. We must ensure that all students, indeed all schools, are well serviced by information technology. This is a critical matter because we know that many homes and schools in Australia do not have such access.We also need to look at the impact of this technology on the community at large. Many people feel left out. They feel bewildered by modern information technology. Many Australians are disadvantaged. I would add that the disadvantage in information technology runs fairly roughly along the lines of those who are already poor and those who are already in minority groups—for example, groups for whom English is not their first language.I will bring an open mind to this committee. In particular, I will be keen to see that the specific term of reference which has led to the establishment of this committee is kept in place. I refer to paragraph (c), which follows upon Senator Alston's announcement of the government's move to establish through, amongst other things, legislation coming before the parliament a means of restricting—without going into the technological terms—what can be shown and purveyed on the Internet, especially matters that encompass pornography.There is a widespread feeling in the community that this committee is being established to clamp down on what Australians might see, hear or turn to on the Internet. Let me state at this point for the Senate's deliberation that I have concerns that, in particular, gratuitous violence ought to be kept in check. I am totally opposed to any form of entertainment or other transmission which involves the abuse of any person and the infringements of their rights and wellbeing. That said, I am not in the business of following—5F4CALVERTSenator Calvert—I raise a point of order, Mr Acting Deputy President. I think you should draw the honourable senator's attention to the relevant standing order. I understand that his remarks should be related to why he should be elected, rather than how the committee should operate.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—I do not uphold the point of order.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—I will not speak for much longer because I know there is some anxiety to have a vote before too long. I refer to the make-up of the committee as it stands. It is a committee of eight. There are already four government appointees. There will be two from the Labor Party and a Democrat. That leaves the vital eighth position to either Senator Harradine, as nominated, or myself.I do not want to speak for Senator Harradine on this, but I think few would argue that he is very much closer to Senator Alston and Mr Howard's point of view—that is, the government's point of view—on regulation of the Internet than I am. Therefore, it would seem, on the face of it, a very good thing to help balance the weight of this committee—not to lead to further imbalance. Already half the committee members represent the government. If Senator Harradine were elected rather than me, it would be five-three. I think the committee would lose an open mind, an inquiring mind, but a very necessary balance to the more narrow viewpoint of Senator Alston and the government appointees. On that ground, it would be judicious of the Senate to put a Green onto this committee.There is another added ground. Both Senator Harradine and I come from Tasmania and will represent various components of the Tasmania community, but I also have a wide access through the Greens to with the whole of the Australian community. We are a vigorous, forward looking, fresh entity in politics. We are particularly concerned and open about the impact of information technology not just on this generation but on future generations. The words of Ralph Nader, the great consumer advocate who came to Launceston in 1980 during the Franklin Dam debate, are ringing in my ears. He said, `Information is the currency of democracy.' In so far as we trammel information, we trammel democracy. It is very important that we do not stray into unnecessary censoriousness or any close-down of point of view with one citizen putting his or her viewpoint across those of other citizens to censor what they may see, hear, listen to or indeed disseminate.I am not a regular visitor to the Prime Minister's office. I am not negotiating with, nor will I be indebted to, Senator Alston or to anybody else in the government. Moreover, I have declared my hand on both the sale of more of Telstra and on the GST package. So the government has no tradeable entity with me. I ask the Senate to consider that seriously in this important vote and ensure that Green representation is the outcome.The bells having been rung—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—The Senate will now proceed to a ballot. I would ask that all senators sit in their allocated places for the conduct of the ballot. There are two nominations for the one available position. The candidates for the position are Senator Brown and Senator Harradine. Ballot papers will be distributed to honourable senators who are requested to vote for one candidate by striking out the name of the candidate they do not wish to vote for.The ballot papers having been distributed—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Has every senator received a ballot paper? The Clerks will now collect the ballot papers. I invite Senator Calvert and Senator O'Brien to act as scrutineers.The ballot having been taken—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—The result of the ballot is as follows: Senator Bob Brown, 17 votes; Senator Harradine, 48 votes. Senator Harradine is therefore elected as the member of the Select Committee on Information Technologies nominated by an Independent or a Green senator.RD4BROWNHILLSenator Brownhill—I presume the ballot papers are to be destroyed, are they?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—The ballot papers are retained as part of the record of the Senate.Bills3521r697Billsr6653521Consideration resumed from 29 March.A NEW TAX SYSTEM (FRINGE BENEFITS REPORTING) BILL 199810000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Knowles)—The question is that government amendments Nos 14 and 15 be agreed to.18:10:003521Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I seek leave to withdraw government amendment No. 15 and substitute it with a new amendment No. 15.Leave granted.H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—I move new government amendment No. 15:(15) Schedule 2, item 8, page 19 (lines 7 to 12), omit subsection (5GC), substitute: (5GC) The employer must give the employee 2 copies of the form completed under subsection (5GA) no later than 14 July in the calendar year after the calendar year in which the employee ceased to be employed by the employer. Note: For employees described in subsection (5GA), the maximum time between the employee ceasing to be employed by the employer and the employer giving the employee copies of the group certificate will be no longer than 15 months and 2 weeks.Amendment No. 14 and new amendment No. 15 remove the requirement for employers to issue group certificates earlier than the end of the financial year in cases where the employee will have a fringe benefits amount shown on their group certificate. The existing provision, subsection 221F(5CA) of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936, allows employees to request an early group certificate if they cease to be employed. Amendment No. 14 removes the requirement for employers to issue an early group certificate where the employee will have a fringe benefits amount shown on their group certificate.Item 8 of schedule 2 of the bill provides for an additional group certificate to be issued to an employee who leaves employment between 1 April and 30 June where the employee has a reportable fringe benefits amount on or after 1 April. The need for this additional group certificate arises because of the non-alignment of the FBT and income tax years.Item 8 also includes a provision to allow employees to request an early group certificate if they cease to be employed. In line with amendment No. 14, the new amendment No. 15 removes from item 8 the requirement for an employer to issue an early group certifi cate. Of course, neither of these amendments prevents an employer providing an early group certificate to an employee who has ceased to be employed where the employer is able to calculate the reportable fringe benefits amount. In addition, employees who cease to be employed and who do not receive any fringe benefits, or who receive fringe benefits with a total taxable value of less than $1,000, continue to be able to request an early group certificate.The amendments have the effect that, for a very small number of employees, the maximum time between the employee ceasing to be employed by the employer and the employer giving the employee copies of the group certificate will be no longer than 15 months and two weeks. Not having the amendments would subject employers to more complex and expensive record keeping systems just to calculate an employee's reportable fringe benefits amount partway through a year.18:13:003522Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—Could I just ask: are there any penalties for a person who chooses not to put in a tax return for up to 15 months and two weeks?18:14:003522Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—The answer to Senator Margetts's question is that the group certificate for the year in which they have to lodge their return will be out on 14 July, which will mean they can furnish their return within the law. Question put: That the amendments be agreed to.18:18:00The committee divided. (The Chairman—Senator S. M. West)39Abetz, E. Allison, L.Alston, R. K. R. Bartlett, A. J. J.Boswell, R. L. D. Bourne, V.Brownhill, D. G. C. Calvert, P. H. *Campbell, I. G. Chapman, H. G. P.Coonan, H. Crane, W.Eggleston, A. Ellison, C.Ferguson, A. B. Ferris, J.Gibson, B. F. Heffernan, W.Herron, J. Kemp, R.Knowles, S. C. Lees, M. H.Lightfoot, P. R. Macdonald, I.Macdonald, S. MacGibbon, D. J.McGauran, J. J. J. Murray, A.Newman, J. M. Parer, W. R.Patterson, K. C. L. Payne, M. A.Reid, M. E. Stott Despoja, N.Synon, K. M. Tierney, J.Troeth, J. Watson, J. O. W.Woodley, J.23Bishop, T. M. Bolkus, N.Campbell, G. Carr, K.Collins, J. M. A. Conroy, S.Cook, P. F. S. Cooney, B.Crossin, P. M. Crowley, R. A.Denman, K. J. Forshaw, M. G.Hogg, J. Lundy, K.McKiernan, J. P. Murphy, S. M.O'Brien, K. W. K. Quirke, J. A. *Ray, R. F. Reynolds, M.Schacht, C. C. Sherry, N.West, S. M.Hill, R. M. Evans, C. V.Minchin, N. H. Gibbs, B.O'Chee, W. G. Faulkner, J. P.Tambling, G. E. J. Mackay, S.Vanstone, A. E. Hutchins, S.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative.Bill, as amended, agreed to.A NEW TAX SYSTEM (MEDICARE LEVY SURCHARGE—FRINGE BENEFITS) BILL 1998The bill.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—The question is that the bill be now passed without requests.18:22:003522Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—There were some amendments listed down for me but, because of the loss yesterday, I am going to withdraw them all.Bill agreed to. A New Tax System (Fringe Benefits Reporting) Bill 1998 reported with amendments, and A New Tax System (Medicare Levy Surcharge—Fringe Benefits) Bill 1998 reported without amendment or requests; report adopted.3523Bills (on motion by Senator Ian Campbell) read a third time.Business35233523Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell) agreed to:That intervening business be postponed until after consideration of government business order of the day no. 4 (Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 1998-99 and two related bills).Bills3523r706Billsr704Billsr7053523Debate resumed from 25 March, on motion by Senator Ian Campbell:That these bills be now read a second time.18:24:003523Quirke, Sen JohnSenator QUIRKEZS6SAALP00—by leave—We are just sorting out a few matters here right now. As I understand it, these particular bills are not on the red. I wonder if I could be advised as to what exactly is the issue at stake here. I understand that it is the Senate appropriation and that the Manager of Government Business in the Senate told us that in fact it was the fourth item that he moved we go to. I do not have that at all here on the red. As a consequence of that, it is pretty difficult for us over here to deal with this particular matter. In the spirit of cooperation, I wonder if we could be told a little more about this in case there are in fact some speakers.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—I will seek leave to make a statement.ZS6Quirke, Sen JohnSenator QUIRKE—I would be very happy with that, thank you.18:25:003523Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—by leave—I appreciate the assistance of the opposition deputy whip on this matter because the alternative quite often for the Senate when they get to these impasses in programs, when things actually start moving more quickly than people expect, is that people call a quorum to see if a speaker comes down, and that disrupts a lot of senators who are otherwise working in their offices.I think the next item on the red as I saw it today was to be the regional forest agreements legislation. It is obviously an issue of genuinely great importance to a lot of senators, but there is a speakers list of something like 18 people. So the government made a decision earlier today that it would be better in the very limited time available to us prior to Easter—we only have a Wednesday sitting day before us and only a few minutes of Senate time left to us tonight; we also have a couple of contentious disallowance of regulation debates to be conducted tomorrow, one to be moved by Senator Bolkus and one by Senator Bartlett, and both of those could take some time—to move to the consideration of some bills that could be dealt with and completed prior to the luncheon matters of public interest debate tomorrow.It was quite clear from the speakers list that, in the time available between now and the Easter adjournment, the regional forest agreements legislation would get only a part of the way through the second reading, whereas dealing with something like the appropriation bills could actually see that matter brought to a conclusion. We did inform parties of the decision some time ago, and I think we already have a speakers list for the appropriation bills. I am not sure whether there is an opposition speaker or a Democrat speaker. I think there has been an amendment distributed in the name of the opposition.RF4COOKSenator Cook—I will be seeking the call.H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—You are ready to speak in this debate?RF4COOKSenator Cook—Yes.H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—So I hope that explanation is of assistance to the deputy whip and members opposite. That was the reason—we moved a little quicker. The Senate sometimes does that. I do appreciate dealing with it in this way instead of calling a quorum; it is a big help.18:28:003524Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW656NSWALP00—by leave—My statement is actually in the form of a question, and it relates to the comments of the parliamentary secretary a moment ago that this change had been brought about in part as a result of the extensive time that might be required for the second reading speeches at least on the Regional Forest Agreements Bill 1998, let alone the committee stage. From that, do I take it that it is not the government's intention to seek to bring on that bill for debate at all before we rise tomorrow night? If you can clarify that now, it would be of great assistance.18:30:003524Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—by leave—What I said earlier is the full explanation of what we are doing. Quite clearly, with the limited time available between now and 12.45 p.m. on Wednesday we would make little progress through an extensive second reading list and we would not be able to finalise that bill. What we thought we would do is get something like the appropriation bills dealt with—which do need to be dealt with before the budget.Certainly, if there is time available after these bills then we could make a start on the Regional Forest Agreements Bill debate. It is very high on the government's list of priority bills. We want to see the Regional Forest Agreements Bill dealt with as quickly as we can. There are a number of bills that we have identified that need to be dealt with before the end of the financial year and we will be seeking to deal with not only the Telstra bill and all the bills associated with the new tax system but also bills like the RFA and a number of others. So we have a heavy program. I appreciate the progress we have made this week; it has been a much better week than previous ones.18:31:003524Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—The Senate is debating the Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 1998-99 and associated bills. I draw the attention of the Senate to an amendment to the motion for the second reading to be moved by Senator Faulkner which is to add at the end of the motion the words, `But the Senate is of the view that the $19.433 million spent on the community education and information program on the tax system is an improper use of public money.'I want to address that issue and some of the other issues that have arisen as a consequence of the government's ANTS package—or in shorthand terminology, the GST legislation—coming before this Senate chamber. On the weekend I saw a news report of the Prime Minister at, I think, a Liberal Party function in Melbourne. He had once again thumped the lectern and told his assembled audience of true believers that as far as he was concerned he was not going to put up with any Senate delay and that he was going to confront the Senate about dragging out any debate on the GST legislation. He claimed a government mandate to proceed.To that proposition I say: the Senate is not delaying. Those remarks by the Prime Minister were so much hot air in terms of public positioning of expectations—expectations, I believe, that are aimed at casting a wrong impression of what the Senate is up to. Let us resort to the facts to defend what I have just said. The decision to hold an inquiry into the government's GST legislation was a decision arrived at in this chamber, but it had its genesis in an agreement between the government and the Australian Democrats with some input, I understand, from Senator Harradine. Only after the die was cast between those players were the Labor Party brought into the story. We proposed some modifications. We were not successful in doing that and, at the end of the day, voted for the inquiry.The important first fact deduced from the foregoing is that the initiative arose from a joint government and Australian Democrat desire to hold an inquiry in whatever form. Irrespective of the reluctance with which the government were dragged to such a decision, the truth is that they were part of it. For the Prime Minister to say the Senate is dragging the chain is to deny the historic circumstances of how the inquiry arose at all.The second salient feature of all this is that the inquiry overall was to report by the 19th of next month. It was constituted just before Christmas; it has 16 bills of legislation to examine, all involving complex legal matters concerning taxation law, and it has a range of other bills—12 or so, I think—that have since been put on the table in the Senate. Overall, the number of bills constituting this package adds up to 28. The Senate would be derelict, in my submission, in its duty if it did not proceed to examine the devil that is in the detail of such a vast number of bills introducing such sweeping changes to the tax act. The Senate inquiry mechanism has enabled the Senate for the first time to listen to the voice of the Australian community.What we saw before the last election was a declaration by the Prime Minister that he would embark on a great new tax adventure for Australia—an adventure of his making. We saw, in secret, the preparation by the Department of the Treasury of the contents of that package. We heard, just before the Prime Minister rang the bell and said that the election was on, the content that he was proposing to the electorate. We saw then a government advertising campaign, referred to in the motion from Senator Faulkner and costing the Australian taxpayer $19.433 million, explaining to the Australian electorate or educating them on—to use the euphemistic terms employed by the government—the contents of the government's tax package. One can be cynical, but the truth about that expenditure of public moneys is that it was to put down, advertise and put in every letterbox in Australia a document which was, at the end of the day, nothing more than government propaganda on the central plank of the election campaign it called forthwith. There was no attempt to have a public debate about tax reform in Australia.To label what the government has done—introduce a comprehensive set of bills changing the tax law—as `reform' obviously flies in the face of the proper use of that word. It is not reform; it is tax change. Whether you think it is reform depends on your standpoint. Do you support the government? Do you support the welfare sector? Do you support any number of organisations that have argued in the Senate hearings against the changes? Or do you support the view of the Labor Party or the Australian Democrats in terms of calling for the massive change or the defeat of this legislation? The government cannot call it reform. Reform is not a matter of fact; it is a matter of opinion. Nonetheless, we have had shoved down our throats in the public debate that this is reform. Reform backed by a cheque for $19.433 million signed by the Australian taxpayer is indeed a piece of propaganda that kicked off the election campaign.In the election campaign, what was the outcome? Of course, the government was returned. In terms of votes, Labor got close to 52 per cent of the total votes cast and the government got close to 48 per cent of the total votes cast. If this were a referendum on a GST, Labor would have defeated the government, because the government did not get a majority of votes in a majority of states. So, if it were a referendum, the government would not have had a mandate. Whether or not all those people who voted for either party voted solely on this matter is a matter for subjective assessment. I cannot say that it is true that they did, but there is no doubt that this was the centrepiece of the election campaign. So, to the question of whether or not the tax package is fairly before us with a mandate, I say it is not and that this Senate chamber, which has to deal with the legislation, ought not approach it as if there were a cast-iron, watertight mandate for the government. If there is delay, the delay is in the government agreeing to the inquiry before it consulted us, in the face of whatever our views were. So it is not right for the Prime Minister to make the public allegation about Senate delay that he has made, but I do expect that we will hear a lot more of that sort of thing before the Senate settles down and considers this legislation.I want to canvass fairly briefly but in short summary to give an overview of the sort of evidence that has come before the Senate committee that I have chaired, the Senate select committee into this legislation. Of course, the full report of this committee will come down on 19 April and comprehensively express the views of the various participants in the inquiry. I do not speak for anyone other than myself and I do not speak in completion of a full consideration of all the evidence, because key evidence is yet to be educed. Some of that key evidence, which I think will be fundamental and on which will turn a lot of judgments in the Australian community, is evidence from work commissioned by the Senate inquiry into the distributional effects of the GST; in other words, let us look at how the government package affects middle and low income earners, not according to the way the government put it out in the package, financed by this $19.433 million election campaign, but rather how independent modelling, taking the most reasonable assumptions, values the government package. We can see then whether or not the assertions made to the electorate before the election are held to be true under independent scrutiny and analysis. But that is yet to come, and I do not know what that survey will find. I do expect, though, that it will not be comfortable for the government. That is a view of mine which may or may not be borne out.The evidence given to our inquiry which I think ought to be the first stop for any analysis up to this stage of the inquiry is that given by the Taxation Institute of Australia. The Taxation Institute of Australia is a body which consists of professional experts in taxation. It is not a political body; it owes no political allegiance anywhere. It actually concentrates on being professional and expert in assessing the implications of tax law. Its membership is made up of people who have got the necessary qualifications to be taxation advisers, accountants and experts in helping in the preparation of taxation returns and understanding the implications of tax law.They do not in their evidence express a view one way or another about the legislation the government proposes. They shrink from doing that lest their opinion be used in political debate. They prefer to be experts, saying, `If that is what the community has decided then we will comment on whether the translation of that intent into legislation effectively and adequately succeeds in delivering what was meant in the first place.' That is, they are experts on technicality and they are experts on the detail. They do not make value judgments on what motivates the legislation, they look at its effectiveness.What evidence did they give to our hearing? They gave this evidence. They said that there is so much devil in the detail of this legislation that if you supported the government's view then you would in fact defer the operative date of this legislation by between six and 12 months so that there could be a proper assessment of sorting this sort of detail out, and make sure that the government's intentions as enunciated were in fact properly translated into legislation to come before the parliament. They believe there is considerable devil in the detail. They believe that the bills that we will have to consider are not what the government intended and would introduce a whole range of complexity, a whole range of costs and a whole range of interpretative difficulty in working out what the true meaning is, if they were to come forward in their present form.They are still in the process of going through this and articulating carefully and professionally what that detail is. They do expect to be in conference with the government to explain their views and they do expect, as they said in evidence before us, that there will be a number of substantive amendments to the government legislation as well. We cannot inquire into what those amendments will be, because they are likely to arise after we have reported. But the bills before us, on their evidence at least, are going to be changed and changed in ways that at this stage we do not know about, and that is an important consideration. But the fundamental point I want to educe from all the above is that the expert body in this nation that comments on these things regards the legislation as flawed, and flawed in a manner that would require any earnest advocate of it to delay until those changes were made and the legislation was sorted out. That is the first and I think most important piece of evidence given to us by the Taxation Institute—as I was saying, an expert body.The next piece of evidence that I would like to refer to is that given by the Insurance Council of Australia. The Insurance Council of Australia is an industry body consisting of insurance companies and brokers in Australia. The council simply represent their point of view. They in fact said on the record that they support the intent of the government in its legislation, so they are favourable to the government about this legislation. But they identified a cost to their industry of $2.5 billion if the legislation were to go ahead in its present form. That $2.5 billion is not a trifling amount, I would submit; $2.5 billion is a rather large figure. In their view, the legislation would impose that cost on them if the government did not heed the transitional arrangements that were necessary to protect the insurance industry from that sort of cost.They said that in their view it was not intended by the government that this level of cost be imposed and that they had argued to the government that level of cost should be removed. At the point of giving evidence and since—because they are under an obligation to notify us if the facts change—the government had not notified them as to whether it would accept their view. If the $2.5 billion had to be met by the insurance industry, would they meet it by rifling their profit and taking it out of that? Would they meet it by cutting down their costs and sacking workers? Would they meet it by passing on that cost to their policy holders or their consumers? Would they meet it by any one of the combination of all of the above? We asked them that question. They said that they would meet it by passing on the costs to their policy holders. That is to say, those people who have insurance in Australia would face an extra cost because of the transitional costs of this legislation to that industry—$2.5 billion all up.The government has made much of what I think is a quite fraudulent argument, and this is a way of demonstrating how fraudulent it is. The government has campaigned up and down this country, saying, `These are the tax cuts that we offer Australians and, if you vote for our package, you will get these tax cuts.' They have quoted the flamboyant figures set out in their ANTS report—as part of the tables for families ranging from single income earners on low incomes up to families on high incomes with multiple dependants—and they have identified what people at each level would get. Of course the government propaganda concentrates on what middle Australia would get, because middle Australia is the voting population that has been targeted for the government as the swing vote in this issue.What the government keeps quoting to Australians on the package of tax cuts is the gross figure of tax cuts; that is, the figure that they will pay you if they pass their legislation. But I emphasise the word `gross'. Everyone in Australia knows the difference between gross income and net income—income before tax and after tax. When you start going around and looking at the submissions we have received, time after time industry groups which support the government's intentions have raised objections to the way in which they are done, transitional difficulties, difficulties about compliance or difficulties about special areas of their industry that have pointed to extra costs—and one of the biggest areas where that has arisen has been in local government.Every time extra costs have been pointed to, government members of our committee have said that in the case of those extra costs there is the compensation package and there are the tax cuts, and very soon you begin to realise that the gross figures—proselytised around this country as what people would get if this package went through—get degraded at every turn with extra hidden costs.I have not done the sums yet but I promise this chamber I will before the debate comes on. But the overwhelming impression one now gains, given what else we have not been told about what the package will have to meet, is that the tax cuts at gross level, when reduced by the amount of extra and hidden costs that will have to be paid, are nowhere near substantial and are probably in most cases in the negative for most Australians. In other words, give with one hand, take with the other; the net outcome—what is the real gain—is in fact a real loss.As I said, I have not done the sums but I promise the chamber I will do them before we get to the debate on this. But I stand by my remarks that, as for the overwhelming impression—taking the business, local government and other objections raised to this package on the basis that they have been given to us—that is the outcome. So next time any Australian hears from a government spokesperson what is the value of the tax cuts, remember: that is what they are giving you up-front, but what they are taking away behind the scenes is another thing entirely and you will probably end up in the negative.The worst example of this blatant misrepresentation occurred last month when on the front page of the Sydney Telegraph newspaper there was a photograph of Senator Harradine and Senator Margetts with the newspaper saying, `These people are denying you these tax cuts.' What a fraudulent argument. What an absolutely despicable—Debate interrupted.Documents352810000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Knowles)—Order! It being 6.50 p.m., the Senate will now consider government documents.3528The following government document was considered:Advisory Panel on the Marketing in Australia of Infant Formula—Report for 1997-98. Motion to take note of document moved by Senator West. Debate adjourned till Thursday at general business, Senator West in continuation.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—The consideration of government documents has now concluded.Adjournment352810000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! It being 6.50 p.m., I propose the question:That the Senate do now adjourn.352818:50:003528Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I have been requested by members of the End Secrecy on Sydney group to table some documents which call for a formal Defence Force board of inquiry into the sinking of HMAS Sydney during World War II. As most senators would be aware, the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade recently tabled its report on the loss of HMAS Sydney . I was involved with that inquiry prior to the October 1998 federal election.I make no reflection on that report today, nor do I wish to comment on the merits or otherwise of the call for the board of inquiry. I am tabling this request because I feel that it is important to fulfil my responsibility as a parliamentarian to these people, who feel that they have not received satisfactory answers to their concerns about the tragic loss of HMAS Sydney. I have given copies of these documents ahead of time to the whips and they have indicated very kindly to me that they would agree to the tabling, so I seek leave to table the documents.Leave granted.18:52:003528Senate adjourned at 6.52 p.m.Documents35283528The following government documents were tabled:Advisory Panel on the Marketing in Australia of Infant Formula—Report for 1997-98.Foreign Investment Review Board—Report for 1997-98.The following documents were tabled by the Clerk:Australian Horticultural Corporation Act—Australian Horticultural Corporation (Australian Dried Fruits Board) Orders No. 1 of 1999.Fisheries Management Act—Northern Prawn Fishery Management Plan 1995—Directions Nos NPFD 23-NPFD 27.Public Service Act—Senior Executive Service Retirement on Benefit Determinations 1999/13-1999/20. Remuneration Tribunal Act—Determinations Nos 1-8 of 1999.3529The following document was 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—Statements of compliance—Department of Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business including Affirmative Action Agency, Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal, Australian Industrial Registry, and Office of Employment Advocate (nil return).Answers to Questions on Notice3530The following answers to questions were circulated:3530(Question No. 187)1873530O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 24 November 1998:(1) Did the Manager, Corporate Security, at Kingsford Smith Airport, Mr Peter Beaver, conduct an investigation into the closure of Sydney Airport in July 1998.(2) What were the major findings and recommendations of the Beaver report.(3) Is it a fact, that, prior to the closure of Kingsford Smith, Airservices Australia's senior management in Sydney had been alerted, over a period of time, that the airport was vulnerable to closure on night shifts due to the staffing arrangements.(4) What action has been taken to rectify this situation.(5) Is it a fact that Australian Air Express threatened to sue for losses incurred as a result of the closure.(6) Has Airservices Australia received notification of any lawsuit as a result of the closure of Kingsford Smith Airport.3530Macdonald, Sen IanSenator Ian MacdonaldYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—The Minister for Transport and Regional Services has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:Airservices Australia has advised that:(1) The investigation was undertaken by Mr Peter Beaver, Manager Corporate Security, Canberra.(2) Mr Beaver's findings dealt with contingency planning, staffing arrangements for the particular night and findings in relation to individual staff members.(3) Yes. Airservices Sydney management had been made aware of potential deficiencies in contingency plans applying in the event there were not sufficient rated air traffic controllers available to maintain normal operations.(4) Contingency plans have been modified to ensure the continued operation of the airport in the event that normal air traffic services cannot be provided.(5)&(6) Neither Air Express or any other operator have initiated any legal action against Airservices as a result of the closure of Kingsford Smith Airport. Airservices did contact Australian Air Express to apologise for the closure and discuss its impact on their operations.3530(Question No. 338)3383530O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 3 December 1998:With reference to part (2) (b) of the answer to question on notice no. 4 (Senate Hansard , 23 November 1998, p.318), which states that the agreed mechanism to vary the rostering principles, which contain the 10 day rule, is to `negotiate a change to the rostering principles with the Civil Air Operations Officers Association (CAOOAA) and reflect the change in a letter of agreement': can a copy be provided of the letter of agreement with the CAOOAA that confirms the agreement to reduce the maximum number of days worked from 10 to 8.3530Macdonald, Sen IanSenator Ian MacdonaldYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—The Minister for Transport and Regional Services has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:Airservices Australia has advised that:The rostering principles do not need to be changed to reduce the maximum number of consecutive shifts from 10 to 8. The change was made by the manager to address workload and fatigue concerns. The CAOOAA was informed of the change by telephone to the Federal President on the morning before the change was introduced.3530(Question No. 341)3413530O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Re gional Services, upon notice, on 7 December 1998:(1) Can it be confirmed that a preliminary inquiry by the Bureau of Air Safety Investigation (BASI) has found that a misunderstanding about radio frequencies and radar coverage caused a Qantas-owned aircraft carrying 19 passengers and a Royal Australian Air Force aircraft carrying two crew to pass within 100 metres of one another about ten kilometres south-west of Williamtown airport on 16 November 1998.(2) What was the basis of the claim by a Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) spokesperson, reported in the Canberra Times of 21 November 1998, that it was an air traffic controller and a trial radar tracking system that averted the near tragedy.(3) Can it be confirmed that the near miss would not have occurred had the original directed traffic information service been available in the Newcastle area.(4) Can it be confirmed that under the procedures that applied before the commencement of the Class G air space trials departing aircraft would have received information on conflicting flight plans while on the ground.(5) Under the new traffic arrangements does a pilot have to wait until his or her aircraft is on radar before accessing traffic information.(6) Can it be confirmed that this near miss may have been a collision had not Qantas forced CASA and Airservices Australia to revise the flawed Class G procedures.(7) Can it be confirmed that by the time the two aircraft showed up on radar they were already breaching normal separation tolerances.(8) Were the two aircraft operating instrument flight rules, that is non-visually, and were they completely unaware of each other's presence.(9) What are air traffic controllers required to do under radar information service procedures.(10) What action was the air traffic controller required to take in response to the Williamtown incident to prevent a middle air collision.3531Macdonald, Sen IanSenator Ian MacdonaldYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—The Minister for Transport and Regional Services has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:I am advised by the Bureau of Air Safety Investigation, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority and Airservices Australia that—(1) The preliminary investigation by the Bureau of Air Safety Investigation (BASI) did not find that a misunderstanding about radio frequencies and radar coverage was a cause of the incident. BASI is conducting an analysis of the factual information in order to determine the significant factors relevant to the occurrence. The analysis will consider immediate and systemic factors that BASI regards as being relevant. BASI's policy does not provide for the use of the term `cause' in its conclusions. The initial analysis of the radar data indicated that the British Aerospace Jetstream 31 and the Beechcraft Super King Air B200 passed each other with 0.54NM horizontal separation and 600ft vertical separation. A more recent analysis indicates a 0.39NM horizontal separation and 800ft vertical separation.(2) The Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) has advised that the basis of the statement was an Airservices Safety Incident Report that advised that the air traffic controller identified a possible conflict from radar returns, transmitted avoidance advice to pilots of both aircraft and had a 95% certainty that the pilot of the military aircraft acknowledged the level.(3) No. Normal practice is for Flight Service to pass traffic information to pilots. However, Airservices Australia is not in a position to determine what would have occurred if the original arrangements were in place including how the pilots involved would have acted on the information provided.(4) The procedures in place prior to the commencement of the G demonstration required such information to be passed to pilots.(5) No. Traffic information can be obtained by pilots using radio procedures applicable within the demonstration airspace. Radar based traffic information requires that aircraft be within radar coverage and radar identified before services can be provided.(6) No. Airservices Australia has no way of determining what may have happened if the previous airspace arrangements had been in place.(7) There are no separation tolerances in Class G airspace. Pilots are responsible for their own separation. Separation is only applied within controlled airspace (Classes A, B, C, D and E).(8) The two aircraft were operating under instrument flight rules and they were unaware of each other's presence.(9) The Manual of Air Traffic Control (MATS) defines the Radar Information Service (RIS) as: "An on-request traffic, position or navigation information service based solely on radar derived data, to assist pilots to avoid other aircraft, or to assist in navigation. Ultimate responsibility for aircraft and terrain avoidance rests with the pilot in command. This service is provided as a workload permitting on-request service to VFR flights in Class E airspace, and IFR and VFR flights in Class G airspace".The following summarises the main provisions laid down in the Manual of Air Traffic Control: The radar information service provides traffic information and safety alerts based on radar observed traffic. The service is not intended to relieve the pilot of the responsibility for continual vigilance to see and avoid other aircraft. Provision of the service is not optional on the part of ATC, but must be provided as workload permits. Many factors, such as limitations of radar, volume of traffic, controller workload and communication frequency congestion could prevent ATC from providing this service. Controllers possess complete discretion for determining whether they are able to provide RIS in a specific case. Prior to providing a radar information service, ATC must identify the aircraft and notify the pilot that the aircraft has been identified.(10) Prior to the incident occurring, the air traffic controller was providing radar services to the crew of the Beechcraft Super King Air. In providing radar services within controlled airspace the air traffic controller has no responsibility to initiate avoiding action in respect of unknown aircraft which can be reasonably be assumed to be outside controlled airspace.Nevertheless, if in the judgement of the radar controller, the action of an observed radar return or information received from other sources gives good reason to believe the observed radar return of an unknown aircraft is likely to be a hazard to an aircraft under control, the controller has complete discretion to take such action as considered necessary to maintain the safety of the aircraft under radar control. This may comprise the provision of traffic information, controller initiated traffic avoidance advice or a safety alert.The air traffic controller attempted to pass traffic information to the pilot of the Beechcraft Super King Air. However, the crew did not hear that transmission. The controller later attempted to apply a vertical separation standard between the British Aerospace Jetstream 31 and the Beechcraft Super King Air B200. That attempt was also unsuccessful, as the instruction was acknowledged and actioned by only the British Aerospace Jetstream 31.3532(Question No. 345)3453532O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 8 December 1998:(1) How many air safety incident reports have been submitted to the Bureau of Air Safety Investi gation (BASI) since the commencement of the Class G airspace trial.(2) (a) Was any direction either formal or informal given to Airservices Australia staff regarding the reporting of incidents which occur during the Class G airspace trial; if so was this direction of a formal or informal nature; (b) what were the terms of the direction; and (c) can a copy of that direction be provided.3532Macdonald, Sen IanSenator Ian MacdonaldYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—The Minister for Transport and Regional Services has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) During the period of the Class `G' airspace demonstration, the Bureau of Air Safety Investigation (BASI) received 160 incident reports related to the airspace demonstration. Sixteen of those reports were assessed as requiring further investigation and the remainder assessed as Category 5 investigations (recorded for statistical interest).Of the sixteen incidents investigated, one was classified at the Category 3 level requiring a preliminary report. The preliminary report for this occurrence was released on 4 December 1998.(2) (a) No (b) Not applicable (c) Not applicable.3532(Question No. 350)3503532Brown, Sen BobSenator BrownQD4TASAG00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aged Care, upon notice, on 8 December 1998:(1) (a) How many nursing homes in Australia have been closed following a standards review panel; (b) what was the time span between the review and closure of any such nursing homes; and, (c) what are the names and locations of these facilities.(2) Following notice of intention to revoke being served on the Derwent Court Nursing Home: (a) was the Department aware from either Southern Cross Homes or Derwent Court Nursing Home of how many residents indicated their intention to move; if so, specify the number of residents and the dates those indications were given.(3) (a) How many approved beds in other nursing homes in the Hobart area were available at the time of the notification of the imminent closure of Derwent Court Nursing Home; and (b) were relatives provided with this information.(4) Given that the Curruthers building was decommissioned as a geriatric institution in 1994: (a) is the Department aware of any improvements made to the Curruthers building from 1994 up to 20 July 1997; if so, specify the improvements including the dates the improvements were carried out; (b) why and when did the Department determine the Curruthers building to be suitable as a nursing home; (c) on what dates did the Department inspect the Curruthers building to make such a determination; (d) with reference to part 10(a) of the answer to question on notice no. 1184 (Senate Hansard , 11 July 1998, p. 5779) when did the Department gain confirmation that the Curruthers building could be licensed as a nursing home; and (e) on what dates was the relevant Tasmanian State department requested to inspect the Curruthers building.(5) With reference to part 7 of the question on notice no.1184 in which it was stated there were serious risks to the health and welfare of residents if they continued to stay at the Derwent Court Nursing Home: could details of these serious risks be specified.(6) Could the following documents be provided: (a) the inspection report of the Curruthers building referred to in part 10(b) of the answer to question on notice no.1184 concerning the certification assessment instrument; and, (b) the full set of correspondence between Southern Cross Homes and the Department relating to accommodation of Derwent Court residents including documentation from discussions which occurred on 5, 6 and 21 February 1997; 6, 7 and 13 March 1997; 28 April and 21 July 1997.(7) With reference to the letter form Mr Stephen Dellar, State Manager of the Department of Health and Family Services to Southern Cross Homes of 21 July 1997, as part of the agreement, which states that, `an educational visit would be conducted in the first six weeks of its operation and this visit would be used to provide management with information about the service's performancein the event of complaints about the facility this timetable would need to be reconsidered and an earlier formal assessment may need to be undertaken'; could a copy be provided of the report, or notes from this assessment/educational visit, given that the Department has confirmed complaints were received (see part 11(b) of the answer to question on notice 1184).3533Herron, Sen JohnSenator HerronVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—The Minister for Aged Care has provided the following answers to the honourable senator's question in accordance with advice provided to her:(1) (a) One. (b) In the case of the facility that was closed, there were two reviews by Standards Review Panels;4 November 1996, 1st panel9 May 1997, 2nd panel The nursing home's approval was revoked on 6 August 1997.(c) Derwent Court Nursing Home 20 Fitzroy Place Sandy Bay Tasmania(2) Residents and their relatives indicated their preferences regarding transfer to the facilities concerned, not to the Department. There was no requirement for any other advice.(3) (a) There were 885 approved nursing home beds in the Hobart area in August 1997 (excluding Derwent Court and the Curruthers wing). The average occupancy rate of nursing homes in the Hobart area in August 1997 was close to 99%. Therefore, during August 1997 there would have been between six and 10 beds available for occupancy in the Hobart area.(b) Yes.(4) The Curruthers building was not de-commissioned as a geriatric institution.(5) These matters are detailed in the Standards Review Panel Report of 26 May 1997, which is attached for your information (Attachment A).(6) (a) No. (b) No.(7) No educational visit was conducted. However, several visits to investigate complaints were undertaken during the period August to November 1997.ATTACHMENTS(a) Copies of the Standards Review Panel Report of 26 May 1997 are available from the Senate Table Office.3533(Question No. 400)4003533Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MargettsDX5WAG(WA)00 asked the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, upon notice, on 9 February 1999:With reference to section 30 of the Australian Heritage Commission Act 1975:Has any application been made since June 1996 to log or export woodchips from any forest areas listed, or interim listed, on the Register of the National Estate; if so, could the following details be provided for each application: (a) who made the application; (b) what areas were proposed for logging; (c) when was the application made; (d) what advice was provided by the Australian Heritage Commission; and (e) what determinations were made by the Minister in relation to the applications.3533Hill, Sen RobertSenator HillBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:Under the Australian Heritage Commission Act, Ministers and authorities proposing to take an action or decision which might affect a place on the Register of the National Estate are required to consider prudent and feasible alternatives to that action or decision and to consider reasonable measures to minimise effects on the National Estate.Where a place might be affected to a significant extent, the action Minister or authority is required to seek the advice of the Australian Heritage Commission. Neither the Commission nor the Minister for Environment and Heritage make determinations on any referrals under the Act. Responsibility for considering advice and making the decision rests with the action Minister or authority.The Australian Heritage Commission has provided a summary, of forestry-related referrals received since June 1996, setting out information relating to parts (a) to (d). The summary is set out below.A number of the referrals to the Commission relate to regional-scale decisions, such as the Commonwealth's proposed decisions to enter into the interim Deferred Forest Agreements or the subsequent Regional Forest Agreements. In these cases, the Commission has provided broad advice covering indicative national estate values as well as formally listed places. Since these areas were not formally delineated as places, the summary has not identified individual places.In respect of part (e), the Senator should direct her enquiry to the action Ministers and authorities identified in the following summary.If Senator Margetts wishes to obtain copies of selected pieces of advice then she should contact the Australian Heritage Commission directly.Summary of Forest-Related s.30 Referrals Since June 1996Reference No and DateAction Minister or AuthorityProject TitleRNE Place(s)Advice Summary3 09/07/1996Prime MinisterWA Deferred Forest Agreement for comment. The Commission's advice on the Deferred Forest Agreement is based on the clear understanding that the Agreement is indeed interim, and that it will remain in place until an RFA is negotiated which provides for long term protection of the National Estate. 195 30/07/1996Chris Miles MHRNSW Deferred Forest Agreement Changes04/09/1996 Initial letter sent to Miles deferring response until an agreed position has been reached on the revision of the NSW DFA and information relating to proposed harvesting schedules have been made available, possibly later this month 12/11/96 First stage advice prepared on changes to the NSW Deferred Forest Agreement as a result of the outcomes of the NSW Interim Assessment Process. Advice was prepared for the Northern, Central and Tumut regions only as there are still a number of issues to be resolved in the Eden and Southern regions.266 27/08/1996Minister for Primary Industries & Energy (DPIE)Tas—3 year Woodchip Export Licence AdviceThe advice given to DPIE has been framed in a regional context, recognising that, through the DFA, some national estate values will be protected through reservation, through harvesting deferral or through a variety of appropriate management prescriptions. In development of RFAs, which will be based on better information of the nature and extent of national estate values than currently available, the Commission will provide updated advice, based on the national estate values identified through the CRA process. Current practice provides that any woodchip export licence granted includes a clause to the effect that harvesting operations for the purpose of export under the licence which may adversely impact on an area which has been entered on the Register or on the Interim List of the Register of the National Estate, or in a Deferred Forest Area would not occur unless the exporter has received prior written notice from the Minister that such operations may take place.269 27/08/1996Minister for Primary Industries & Energy (DPIE)WA—3 year Woodchip Export Licence AdviceSee general advice given in s. 30 #266270 27/08/1996Minister for Primary Industries & Energy (DPIE)NSW—3 year Woodchip Export Licence AdviceSee general advice in s. 30 #266 272 27/08/1996Minister for Primary Industries & Energy (DPIE)Vic—3 year Woodchip Export Licence AdviceSee general advice as for s. 30 #266274 27/08/1996Minister for Primary Industries & Energy (DPIE)Qld—3 year Woodchip Export Licence AdviceSee general advice as for s. 30 #266 423 08/10/1996Minister for Primary Industries & Energy (DPIE)Degraded forest licence application from North Forest ProductsTarkine Wilderness AreaThe Australian Heritage Commission has received no further information to suggest any changes to our previous assessment of the national estate values of this area. On this basis, the Commission advised that further logging in that part of the Surry Hills property be included in the Tarkine Wilderness Area, which apparently has either less or no disturbance, and may have further impact on national estate values. A final decision on the extent of national estate value remaining in that part of the Surry Hills property which overlaps with the Tarkine Wilderness Area will be made once the comprehensive regional assessment and Regional Forest Agreement process is completed (ie June 97). The Commission recommended that further logging be excluded from the interim listed portion of the Surry Hills property as it is still considered to have national estate value. 432 20/09/1996Prime Minister & Cabinet, Dpt of (PM&C)RFA's referred for commentAn interim reply was sent to Mr Miles explaining that the AHC will be in a position to provide formal advice on the RFAs once the national estate values and reserve options are known. It was noted that these national estate values will be known in the final stages of the RFA negotiations for each region. 433 20/09/1996Prime Minister & Cabinet, Dpt of (PM&C)RFA's referred for commentSee Advice Summary of s. 30 #432 434 20/09/1996Prime Minister & Cabinet, Dpt of (PM&C)RFA's referred for commentSee Advice Summary of s. 30 #432 435 20/09/1996Prime Minister & Cabinet, Dpt of (PM&C)RFA's referred for commentSee Advice Summary of s. 30 #432 436 20/09/1996Prime Minister & Cabinet, Dpt of (PM&C)RFA's referred for commentSee Advice Summary of s. 30 #432 501 10/10/1996Environment Forests Group (EFG, DEST)SX011B Forest Coupe for commentWestern TasmaniaSX011B—is partially within Western Tasmania NE place and near the IFA wilderness area. AHC advised that operations in this coupe will have a local adverse impact on NE. Release of this coupe is not supported until values are investigated.02/02/1997Parliamentary Secretary (Cabinet) to the Prime MinisterEast Gippsland RFAThe Commission provided advice addressing the Memorandum of Understanding between the Commission and the Commonwealth, the protection afforded the National Estate under the RFA, the general and specific impacts of timber harvesting on national estate values and particular localities and the impact of mining on national estate values and places.979 03/02/1997Primary Industry & Energy, Dpt of (DPIE)RFA hardwood woodchip licence export licencesThe Commission advised that the advice on the EG RFA is applicable, and that separate advice is not required. This advice is based on the premise that the commitments made in the RFA and the MOU provide a sound basis for the ongoing conservation of the NE. Further advice will be after the outcomes of the EG RFA are monitored. 1002 11/02/1997Minister for Primary Industries & Energy (DPIE)Proposed removal of export controls in RFA areasThe Commission has advised that, while noting that some timber harvesting activities undertaken during the life of the RFA will have a significant adverse local effect on national estate values, the Commission is confident that the National Estate will be regionally protected in East Gippsland while the East Gippsland RFA remains in place. This advice is based on the premise that the commitments made in the RFA and the Memorandum of Understanding provide a sound basis for the ongoing conservation of the National Estate. The removal of export controls will remove the Commonwealth trigger to seek the Commission's statutory advice. With regard to the removal of export controls for areas covered by the East Gippsland RFA, the Commission advises that this action will not have an adverse impact on the National Estate while the RFA is in place, and the RFA commitments are met. With regard to other RFA areas, the Commission advises that provided that the RFAs for these areas adequately protect the National Estate to a standard at least equivalent to the East Gippsland RFA, the removal of export controls is unlikely to have an adverse impact on the National Estate in those regions where the RFAs apply. 1361 09/04/1997Prime Minister & Cabinet, Dpt of (PM&C)Circular Head area coupes for approval under clause 12(e) under exceptional circumstancesNorfolk Range Area, Tarkine, Temma Coastal AreaSee response in Advice No. 1583. 1396 09/05/1997Primary Industry & Energy, Dpt of (DPIE)Tooms Lake Conservation Area Timber Harvesting applicationTooms Lake Conservation AreaSee response in Advice No. 1583. 1445 24/02/1997Primary Industry & Energy, Dpt of (DPIE)Applications to Log Private Forests in TasmaniaTasman Peninsula, The CascadesTasman Peninsula—The Commission advised that timber harvesting may adversely affect NE, however the AHC believes that protection of these values will be achieved through legislative protection mechanisms. Mole Creek—Clearing already completed therefore no further impact will occur on the NE values of this area. 1516 24/06/1997Minister for Primary Industries & Energy (DPIE)Southern Plantations Co- transitional licence arrangementsAHC advised Minister Anderson that the removal of silvicultural thinnings from operational areas approved under the current Export Control licence, and outside DFA areas, may have localised impact on NE values. However the impact is unlikely to restrict options for the development of a CAR reserve system. 1583Prime Minister & Cabinet, Dpt of (PM&C)Application for forest activity.Copper Creek Area, Great Western Tiers, South Western Tasmania, Tarkine, Tooms Lake Conservation Area. 1. SX11B, DR008G and TE001F—are located in possible areas needed for development of CAR reserve system, and have been identified (in CRA process) as having indicative NE value >> harvesting may have adverse effect on NE values. 2. Tooms Lake and Copper Creek—are located within places listed in RNE, both coupes have been identified (in CRA process) as having indicative NE value >> harvesting may have significant adverse effect on NE values. 3. PS103D, PS104C, TU497C and Silver Plains—were not identified as having indicative NE values nor as being required in development of CAR reserve system, though they do exist within interim listed RNE areas >> harvesting may have sig. adverse effect of the NE and the Commission will consider the outcomes of the RFA process to review the occurrence of NE values in these areas. 4. RP002D, TN025A, PL002A, TE005C, TE006B, TE010C and BF9E—were identified (in CRA process) as having indicative NE values but are unlikely to be required in development of CAR reserve system >> harvesting of these coupes is likely to have localised impact on NE values. 1666 14/08/1997Primary Industry & Energy, Dpt of (DPIE)3 proposals to log private land for wood chips and Copper Creek coupeTasman Peninsula and Copper Creek(THP RML 0072),(THP RML 0073) The Commission's advice is that harvesting these coupes will not adversely impact the national estate values for which Tasman Peninsula and Copper Creek were listed. Localised impacts on the indicative national estate values may result from harvesting, but this will not compromise the protection of these values at the regional level and will not foreclose options in developing a CRA reserve system. 1841 14/08/1997Prime Minister & Cabinet, Dpt of (PM&C)Exceptional Coupe approval: TU497C & TY039CGreat Western TiersAdvice provided for coupes TU497C and TY039C. Advice as per No. 1843. 1843 04/09/1997Prime Minister & Cabinet, Dpt of (PM&C)Approval of 50 Exceptional Circumstances coupes for Forestry Tasmania (Hobart)Great Western Tiers, Western Tasmania. Advice provided for coupes RR 126A, MI 138B, PC 033E, TE OO1F, RP 002B,TI 005G,BC 079A,LI 150C, LI 148C, BU 146A , 44128A, RR133A, UR 0471, UR 047B, GC 212C, MF 031B,DR 008G, RP 0071, TU490C, TU490B,LR446B, NI138B, MF028A, RR128A, RR138A, GC212C, BC079A, AS110A, AS110B, HU304X, BU146A, RP002B. The Commission's advice was made in the context of assurances provided by Dr Drielsma, Forestry Tasmania to Dr Dickson, Environment Australia in correspondence of the 10 October 1997. The correspondence indicated that Forestry Tasmania has implemented its planning processes including the interrogation of databases developed as part of the joint CRA process. This includes data on indicative national estate values and rare and threatened species. Dr Drielsma also indicated that the regional protection of any national estate values or rare and threatened species identified from the interrogation of the database will be achieved through a combination of reservation and through the incorporation of management prescriptions into the relevant timber harvesting plans. In the case of proposed coupes identified as containing one or more of the following indicative national estate values: key fauna habitat for rare and threatened species, fauna values relating to past processes and diversity, flora values relating to past processes and diversity, wetlands, natural history sites, geoheritage values or cultural values, the Commission noted that it understands that the indicative national estate values will be protected at the regional level through reservation and through management prescriptions incorporated in the relevant timber harvesting plans. On this basis, the Commission advised that timber harvesting may have a local adverse impact on national estate values, but these values will remain protected at the regional level. In the caseosed ofop pr proposed coupes identified as containing old growth forest, extensive natural values, or principal characteristics of forest vegetation values, the Commission advised that timber harvesting may have a local adverse impact on these values within the coupes. However, the Commission noted that it anticipates that these values will be adequately protected at the regional level in a CAR Reserve System, to be implemented under the terms of the RFA. Where the proposed coupes were not identified as containing any indicative national estate values, the Commission advised that timber harvesting would not impact on any known national estate forest value. 1844 16/10/1997Prime Minister & Cabinet, Dpt of (PM&C)Approval of 6 exceptional circumstances coupes for Forestry Tasmania (Hobart)Ben Lomond Conservation Area, Ben Lomond National Park, Western TasmaniaAdvice provided for ME015B, TI005G, MN017B, WR008C, TY043A, PC033E, RT216A, LW009A, FN023E, GC041A, RT216D, RT232D, UR047A, UR047B, EV016D, PA171A, PA171B, RS130B, RS130C, SI105A, AR048C, TY042C, TE001F, MF068B, MF068D, MF031B. One proposed coupe (ME015B) was located within the boundaries of the proposed CAR Reserve System (Sumac Road Reserve). The coupe was identified as containing key fauna habitat values. The Commission advised that it was highly likely that forest operations, including timber harvesting and roading, would have an adverse impact on national estate forest values within the coupe, and may compromise the regional protection of key fauna habitat for rare and threatened species within the CAR Reserve System. Accordingly, the Commission advised against approving forest operations at this coupe. Another of the proposed coupes (TI005G) was identified as containing Eucalyptus regnans old growth forest. The Commission noted its concern that Eucalyptus regnans old growth forest was not adequately represented within the proposed CAR Reserve System, and pointed out that it had raised this as an issue with the Minister. The Commission advised against timber harvesting prior to conclusion of the RFA. Advice for other coupes as per Advice No. 18431845 23/10/1997Prime Minister & Cabinet, Dpt of (PM&C)approval of 9 exceptional circumstances coupesTarkineAdvice for coupe SR049B, TG001C, TG003D, TG009B, OL027E, CL368A, NH028A, TE004C, TE007C. Advice as per Advice No. 1843 1893 31/10/1997Forestry Tasmania, Circular Head Forest DistrictRoading/ harvest of 16 coupesWestern Tasmania, Tasman PeninsulaAdvice provided for coupes TI005C, KY007E, KY007F, DU029A, CC158A, CC159B, SI102E, SI102F, BS118H, RR103B, SF157A, PA147B, RT215C, DR007D. Advice as per No. 1843. TI005C is located within the interim listed Beech Creek Extension National Estate place and was identified as containing Eucalyptus regnans old growth forest. The Commission has decided that these are not adequately represented within the proposed CAR Reserve System and has advised against timber harvesting prior to the conclusion of the RFA. KY007E and KY007F are located in the Tasman Peninsula Registered Place. The CRA found that they contained indicative national estate values associated with key fauna habitat for rare and threatened species. Nevertheless the Commission believes that these values will be protected at the regional level through reservation and management prescriptions in the relevant timber harvesting plans. Nov 1997Parliamentary Secretary (Cabinet) to the Prime MinisterTasmanian RFAThe Commission provided advice addressing the Memorandum of Understanding between the Commission and the Commonwealth, RFA legislation, the protection afforded the National Estate under the RFA, achievement of JANIS criteria; national estate places of outstanding quality, the general and specific impacts of timber harvesting on national estate values and particular localities.2035 10/12/1997Parliamentary Secretary (Cabinet) to the Prime MinisterSouth Qld review of Interim Forest Management Arrangements Referral under AHC Sect 30The IFMA for South East Queensland will not adversely affect any listed national estate place. National estate values which may be identified through RFA processes, may suffer local adverse effects as a result of forest operations in the Go Zone and Scheduled MUIDS. The Commission's view is that this will not foreclose options for the development of a CAR reserve system and the long term protection of national estate values in a regional context. March 1998Parliamentary Secretary (Cabinet) to the Prime MinisterCentral Highlands RFAThe Commission provided advice addressing the Memorandum of Understanding between the Commission and the Commonwealth, the protection afforded the National Estate under the RFA, the general impacts of timber harvesting on national estate values and the impact of mining on national estate values and places. 2355 05/06/1998Chris Miles MHRProposed Extension of the Interim Forest Agreement Between the Commonwealth and VictoriaThe GrampiansThe proposed coupes occur in the North East, Gippsland and West Regional Forest Agreement (RFA) areas and are schedules for harvesting in the period 1998/99-2000/01. The proposal includes 8 coupes located within, and 19 coupes adjacent (within 500 metres of) to National Estate Places. The proposed coupes have been forwarded to the Commonwealth for consideration within the context of an extension to the Victorian Interim Forest Agreement (IFA, 1996). The original IFA gives undertakings not to foreclose options for a CAR reserve system. The same undertakings will be made with respect to the extension of the IFA. On the basis of the information provided by NRE and the undertakings in the existing IFA, the proposed coupes in this referral will not foreclose options for a CAR reserve system. Six proposed coupes occur within `The Grampians National Estate Place' in the West RFA Region. Proposed timber harvesting operations in these coupes will be of low intensity involving the extraction of minor forest produce and small amounts of sawlog through single tree selection. Harvesting will occur in accordance with the Victorian Code of Forest Practices for Timber Production and is considered unlikely to have a significant impact on the area's identified values. Two proposed coupes occur within the `Mullundung Forest National Estate Place' in the Gippsland RFA Region. One of these coupes (449/514/05) has previously been approved for timber harvesting following Commission advice of September 1997. The Commission advised that while harvesting may have a local adverse impact, it would not be significant at a regional level and that the protection of rare and endangered species would be addressed through the Wood Utilisation Plan. The other coupe (449/515/01) is a thinning operation and will not cause significant impacts at a regional level. For proposed coupes adjacent to national estate places, timber harvesting is unlikely to impact on the national estate values as the coupes are either downstream of the National Estate Places, located within a different watershed, or contain values that will be protected through agreed management prescriptions. 2900 06/10/1998Chris Miles MHRInterim Forest Management Agreement for South East Queensland—ExtensionThe Commission advised that the IFMA will not adversely affect any listed national estate place. National estate values which may be identified through RFA processes, may suffer local adverse effects as a result of forest operations in the Scheduled MUIDs. The Commission's view is that this will not foreclose options for the development of a CAR reserve system and the long term protection of national estate values in a regional context. 3112 14/12/1998Prime Minister & Cabinet, Dpt of (PM&C)Amendments to 98/99-2000/01 wood utilisation plansGrant Historic Area4 coupes were found to be located in the Grant Historic Area, in the Register of the National Estate. The Commission advised that; Prudent and feasible alternatives should be sought. No timber harvesting should be undertaken in the area until the CRA assessments are completed. If there is no prudent or feasible alternative, a conservation management plan should be undertaken by an approved cultural heritage archaeologist who should also be involved in coupe planning and site supervision of coupe operations.3540(Question No. 401)4013540Murray, Sen AndrewSenator Murray3M6WAAD00 asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 10 February 1999:With reference to the answer to question on notice no. 11 of 10 November 1998: (a) which of the successful amendments to the Company Law Reform Bill 1997 were provided to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer as drafts in advance of consideration by the Senate; and (b) when did this occur.3540Kemp, Sen RodSenator KempWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:Policy advice provided to the Government is a matter for the Government.3540(Question No. 403)4033540Brown, Sen BobSenator BrownQD4TASAG00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aged Care, upon notice, on 12 February 1999:(1) Has the full bench of the Federal Court overturned the decision to revoke the home's licence.(2) What action has the Government taken to compensate the home's owners and remediate the decision to close it.(3) (a) What assistance was given to the owners to reopen the home; and (b) have the financial sanctions regarding funding for the new residents been lifted; if not, why not.(4) Who invoked the sanctions and were they the same entities who instructed the home to be closed.3540Herron, Sen JohnSenator HerronVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—The Minister for Aged Care has provided the following answers to the honourable senator's questions in accordance with advice provided to her:(1) Yes.(2) None. The Court allowed the appeal in part and made only the following orders: (i) Appeal allowed in part. (ii) Set aside Order 2 of the Orders made by the trial judge on 19 June 1998. (iii) In substitution for Order 2, set aside the decision of the Minister, made on 6 August 1997 to revoke the approval of Derwent Court Nursing Home. (iv) The Appellant pay half the Respondent's costs of the appeal.(3) (a) None. (b) No—see answer to question (2)(4) The appropriate delegates in the Department, under the relevant legislation, made and reviewed the decision.3540(Question No. 417)4173540Crossin, Sen TrishSenator Crossin7Y6NTALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 23 February 1999:(1) Is the Minister aware of : (a) an $18 surcharge on a one-way airfare to Yulara; and (b) a $36 surcharge on a return airfare to Yulara.(2) (a) Who sets the surcharge; (b) on what basis is the surcharge allowed to be levied; (c) how long has the surcharge been in place; (d) where does the money raised by the surcharge go; (e) is the money raised by the surcharge subject to tax; (f) what is the money used for; (g) what mechanisms are in place for any increase in the surcharge; and (h) are other airports on private land in Australia allowed to charge the same or a similar sort of surcharge.3540Macdonald, Sen IanSenator Ian MacdonaldYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—The Minister for Transport and Regional Services has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) Yes.(2) (a)The passenger charge is set by the private operator of Yulara airport. (b)I understand the charge is in lieu of landing charges.(c),(d),(e),(f),(g) & (h)The airport is leased from the Northern Territory Government and the questions should be directed to the Northern Territory Minister for Transport and Works. Like all businesses, charges levied by airport operators come under the scrutiny of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission.3540(Question No. 423)4233540O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, upon notice, on 25 February 1999:(1) What role does the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service play in the determination of variation of maximum residue limits (MRLs) for pesticides.(2) How many MRLs have been established for Australian primary industry commodities.(3) Have these limits been determined in accordance with the practice followed by the Codex Alimentarius Commission.(4) (a) How many Australian MRLs vary from Codex determined MRLs; (b) what MRLs vary; and (c) in each case, what is the reason for the variation.(5) If the reason for the variation is good agricultural practice in the use of the pesticide in Australia, how does that enable a higher MRL to be applied than the Codex determined international limit.(6) Are the Australian MRLs endorsed by the Commission.3541Alston, Sen RichardSenator AlstonLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) The Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service has no involvement in the establishment or variation of Australian MRLs. This task is wholly performed by the Australia New Zealand Food Authority (ANZFA).(2) About 4,000.(3) & (5) MRLs of agricultural and veterinary chemicals are based upon their safe use under conditions necessary for effective and reliable control of pests and diseases. The conditions that determine this safe use include such factors as pest pressure, climate, soil types, agricultural practices, crop types etc. These vary from country to country. While Codex and Australia follow the same principles in establishing MRLs, the detailed information for individual MRLs considered by Codex and by Australian officials would be different. Thus, it is to be expected that Codex MRLs will not necessarily be the same as Australian MRLs. To the extent possible, Australian officials try to harmonise Australian MRLs with Codex MRLs: however, this is only possible in a limited number of cases.(3) (a) About 1700 (b) and (c) It is not possible, in a practical sense, to state what MRLs vary, or why.(6) No. 3541(Question No. 546)5463541Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 9 March 1999:(1) What was the total expenditure on preparing the department for the move to accrual accounting for the 1997-98 financial year.(2) What was the department's forecast for expenditure in this area.(3) (a) In which instances were firms or individuals engaged to provide consultancy services associated with the shift to accrual accounting by the department; and (b) which firms or individuals were engaged.(4) (a) What was the total number of days that consultants were engaged to provide this advice or services; (b) at what cost per day in each instance; and (c) what was the total cost of each consultancy in each instance.(5) (a) What is the estimated expenditure on outside consultants to advise on accrual accounting for the 1998-99 financial year; and (b) how much has been spent to date.(6) What is the estimated total departmental expenditure on preparing for accrual accounting for the 1998-99 financial year.3541Hill, Sen RobertSenator HillBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—The Prime Minister has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) I am advised that:The direct costs expended by the department in 1997-98 totalled $6,453. These costs were associated with staff training.(2) The department estimated that $30,000 would be expended on consultancies.(3)—(5) Nil—no consultants were engaged. Staff in relevant areas of the department devoted considerable time to preparing for the implementation of accrual accounting.(6) The estimated direct costs of preparing for accrual accounting in 1998-99 total about $17,500. These are the costs associated with the engagement of a temporary contractor for the period 31/8/98 to 4/12/98.3541(Question No. 564)5643541Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 9 March 1999: (1) What has been the total cost to the department in the 1997-98 financial year of legal advice obtained from the Attorney-General's Department.(2) What has been the total cost to the department in the 1997-98 financial year of legal advice obtained by the department from other sources.3542Hill, Sen RobertSenator HillBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—The Prime Minister has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) I am advised that:The information requested is not readily available in the form requested. The department's accounting system records the amount spent on legal services, which includes the conduct of litigation and other services as well as the provision of legal advice.In the 1997-98 financial year, the total amount spent by the department on legal services obtained from the Attorney-General's Department was $1,913,295. Of that amount, $1,683,185 was spent on indigenous legal issues.(2) I am advised that:The total cost to the department of legal advice obtained from private law firms in the 1997-98 financial year was nil.The total cost to the department of legal advice obtained from barristers in the 1997-98 financial year is not readily available. The department's `compensation and legal expenditure' for the 1997-98 financial year, which includes barristers' fees, damages awarded against the department and some disbursements, was $575,087.3542(Question No. 573)5733542Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 9 March 1999:(1) What has been the total cost to the department in the 1997-98 financial year of legal advice obtained from the Attorney-General's Department.(2) What has been the total cost to the department in the 1997-98 financial year of legal advice obtained by the department from other sources.3542Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NewmanBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) $4,069,362(2) $2,875,986.35423542Kemp, Sen RodSenator KempWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—On 9 December 1998 (Hansard page no. 1056) Senator Stott Despoja asked me a question without notice concerning:The establishment of codes of conduct and implementation of standards for alternative dispute resolution processes for the financial services sector.The Minister for Financial Services and Regulation has provided the following information in answer to the honourable senator's question:A number of codes of conduct and alternative dispute resolution schemes (ADRs) are currently in operation across the financial system. These include the Banking Code of Practice, the Life Insurance Code, the General Insurance Code and the General Insurance Brokers Code of Practice. The financial sector codes range in content from general statements of principle about how the financial services industry operates, to listing specific industry practices which are guaranteed. The various ADRs often operate in conjunction with the relevant industry code of practice. The most notable general feature of the existing codes and ADRs is that they are developed and conducted by industry bodies.The independent development and operation of these codes and ADRs broadly reflects the historical development of the wider financial system. This development was characterised by the emergence of separate financial institutions, regulatory structures and supporting legislation based on what were traditionally discrete industry sectors. The various codes of practice and ADRs arose largely independently of each other and in a form considered to be appropriate to serve the needs of consumers in these formerly discrete industry sectors.As a consequence of the development and operation of codes and ADRs by industry bodies, the role for government in their day-to-day operation and development has been limited. The Commonwealth does, however, have a formal role of nominating consumer representatives to some ADRs and it also provides the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal. The Constitutional basis for the Tribunal's review and determination function is currently uncertain following a full Federal Court decision that the Tribunal was invalidly purporting to exercise judicial power when performing this function.The Government has nevertheless over recent years sought to improve the operation of codes and ADRs. In relation to ADRs, the former Minister for Consumer Affairs released Benchmarks for Industry-Based Customer Dispute Resolution Schemes in August 1997. This publication identified best practice including from existing schemes, to provide a guide to industry in making improvements in their ADRs. This followed the release in 1995 of an Australian Standard (AS 4269-1995) on complaint handling.The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) has also promoted the adoption of best practice standards in the financial services sector. In its 1995 Good Advice Report on the provision of financial services advice, ASIC made a number of recommendations encouraging development of such best practice standards by industry groups. One of these recommendations accepted by the Government was that securities dealers and advisers licensed under the Corporations Law be required to maintain internal complaint handling arrangements. The Government has moved to require that such licensees must also be members of an external complaints resolution scheme approved by ASIC. Both these requirements were implemented from 1 October 1998. ASIC has also required that, consistent with the provisions of the Managed Investments Act 1998 , members of registered managed investment schemes have access to an external complaints resolution scheme from 1 July 1999.The enactment of the Financial Sector Reform (Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Act 1998 provided additional powers for ASIC with respect to the various codes of practice and ADRs currently operating in the financial system. Since 1 July 1998, ASIC has the function of "monitoring and promoting market integrity and consumer protection in the Australian financial system in relation to the provision of financial services". ASIC also has the specific functions of "promoting the adoption of, and approving and monitoring compliance with, industry standards and codes of practice (including standards and codes in relation to the resolution of disputes between the providers of financial services and consumers)". These functions are provided under section 12FA of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 1989.Pursuant to its new consumer protection role, ASIC is monitoring the operation and compliance with the various codes and ADRs within the financial system. It is working with the Reserve Bank on a review of compliance with the Code of Banking Practice and is preparing to undertake similar monitoring of the codes governing building societies and credit unions. In this regard while the Commonwealth has responsibility for prudential supervision and consumer protection for financial services (with the exception of the Uniform Consumer Credit Code for which the States and Territories are responsible), at present, the States and Territories are responsible for the supervision of non-bank financial institutions, such as credit unions, building societies and friendly societies. The Commonwealth is expected to acquire responsibility in these areas in 1999 subject to the States and Territory agreement and passage of enabling legislation. From that time ASIC would be in a position to extend its monitoring and other roles under the ASIC Act to these non-bank financial institutions.ASIC has also undertaken a range of activities to promote alternative dispute resolution procedures. These include chairing the Roundtable of Complaints Schemes, which provides a forum for the promotion and support of complaints schemes. In 1998 ASIC also established the Financial Complaints Referral Centre (FCRC), which assists consumers by directing them to the appropriate complaints scheme for their situation. It also collects statistics to assist ASIC in identifying where schemes need to be improved or expanded. The FCRC trial has been extended a further year to February 2000.ASIC also released an Interim Policy Statement (IPS 139) in August 1998 on Approval of External Complaints Resolution Schemes . The IPS indicates how ASIC intends to interpret and apply section 12FA(2), and identified key issues requiring further consultation prior to settling a final approval policy. On 3 February 1999 ASIC released a Policy Proposal Paper, refining the proposed approach to approval of external complaints handling schemes. ASIC has sought public comment by 5 March 1999 on the key issues raised in the Policy Proposal Paper and will finalise its policy in light of these public submissions.The Government will shortly release a consultation paper which will among other things consider the appropriate role for codes of practice in the financial services industry.