1999-04-223912SENATE408901999-04-22The PRESIDENT(Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid) took the chair at 9.30 a.m., and read prayers.408910001CLERK ASSISTANTThe Clerk—A petition has been lodged for presentation as follows:4089839L6Mackay Sen SueTo the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled:The petition of the undersigned shows that citizens of Tasmania think that the government's taxation package, including the goods and services tax, does not provide sufficient information nor detail and hence is open to inequitable application during its implementation.Your petitioners ask/request that the Senate should not pass the legislation until the following questions are resolved fairly and equitable for the citizens of Tasmania:1. How will the government ensure Tasmania is treated fairly in comparison to the more affluent and larger States? Tasmania, on a per capita basis, has the highest unemployment, lowest average weekly wage, the oldest population, the greatest number of people dependent on government income support and the most decentralised population of any state of Australia. The government's model for estimating the cost of the GST does not allow for the different economic and social patterns between states.2. How will the government ensure families can afford good food which will be relatively more expensive in respect to `junk' foods whose price will decrease after the removal of sales tax? Tasmanians pay the highest costs for food in Australia and are among the worst health status population in Australia.3. How will the government ensure that organisations and charities can continue to provide the necessary community services and support to disadvantaged citizens? Community organisations and charities in Tasmania will face a double jeopardy from the implementation of the Tax Package. It is predicted that poverty in Tasmania will increase and more people will be seeking extra assistance. At the same time organisations will have a reduced capacity to meet those needs because of increased administrative costs associated with compliance and in many instances reduced revenue because of the application of the tax to such things as membership fees and fund raising. 4. How will government ensure that service quality and scope of education, child care and health services can be maintained without increasing the costs of these services? The government proposes that essential services such as education, child care and health will be GST free. However, community based organisations offering these services will have increased costs arising from the extra administration and accounting requirements of the tax package.Senator Mackay9L6Senator Mackay(from 83 citizens)Petition received.Notices40894089Senator Ian Campbell to move, on the next day of sitting:That on Tuesday, 27 April 1999:(a) the hours of meeting shall be 12.30 pm to 6.30 pm and 7.30 pm to 11.40 pm;(b) the routine of business from 12.30 pm to 2 pm and from 7.30 pm to 11 pm shall be government business only; and(c) the question for the adjournment of the Senate shall be proposed at 11 pm.4089Motion (by Senator Bourne, at the request of Senator Stott Despoja) agreed to:That general business notices of motion no. 172 (relating to reproductive cloning of human beings), no. 179 (voluntary student unionism) and no. 182 (the preamble to the Australian Constitution) standing in the name of Senator Stott Despoja for today, be postponed till 28 April 1999.Business40894089Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell) agreed to:That the following government business orders be considered from 12.45 p.m. till not later than 2.00 p.m. this day.No. 4— Primary Industries (Excise) Levies Bill 1998Primary Industries (Customs) Charges Bill 1998Primary Industries Levies and Charges (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1998National Residue Survey (Excise) Levy Amendment Bill 1998National Residue Survey (Customs) Levy Amendment Bill 1998No. 5— National Health Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1999No. 6— Customs (Anti-dumping Amendments Bill 1998Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1998No. 7— Sales Tax Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1998Notices40904090Motion (by Senator Allison) agreed to:That business of the Senate notice of motion no. 1 (relating to the reference of matters to the Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts References Committee) and general business notice of motion no. 136 (the appointment of a Select Committee on Superannuation and Financial Services) standing in her name for today, be postponed till 27 April 1999.Motion (by Senator O'Brien, at the request of Senator Jacinta Collins) agreed to:That general business notice of motion no. 162 standing in the name of Senator Collins for today, relating to the introduction of the Employment Security Bill 1999, be postponed till 27 April 1999.Motion (by Senator Brown) agreed to:That general business notice of motion no. 150 standing in his name for today, proposing an order for the production of a document by the Minister representing the Minister for Defence (Senator Newman), be postponed till 28 April 1999.Business40904090Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell) agreed to:That the order of general business for consideration today be as follows:(1) General business notice of motion No. 196 standing in the name of Senator Mackay relating to parliamentary questions and requests for information on government programs and administration; and(2) Consideration of government documents.Leave of Absence4090Motion (by Senator O'Brien)—by leave—agreed to:That leave of absence be granted to Senator Collins and Senator McKiernan for the period 19 to 23 April inclusive, on account of absence overseas on parliamentary business. Motion (by Senator O'Brien)—by leave—agreed to:That leave of absence be granted to Senator Schacht for the period 19 to 27 April inclusive, on account of absence overseas on parliamentary business.Miscellaneous4090Motion (by Senator Mackay) put:That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Services (Senator Ian Macdonald), no later than 12 noon on 23 April 1999, the following document:The Hawke review into the roles and responsibilities of the Bureau of Air Safety Investigation, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, Airservices Australia and the Department of Transport and Regional Services in airspace regulation and management, which the Minister directed Dr Hawke to provide to him by Tuesday, 22 December 1998.09:39:00The Senate divided. (The President—Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid)33Allison, L. Bartlett, A. J. J.Bishop, T. M. Bolkus, N.Bourne, V. Brown, B.Campbell, G. Carr, K.Conroy, S. Cook, P. F. S.Cooney, B. Crossin, P. M.Denman, K. J. Evans, C. V.Faulkner, J. P. Forshaw, M. G.Gibbs, B. Harradine, B.Hogg, J. Lees, M. H.Lundy, K. Mackay, S.Margetts, D. Murphy, S. M.Murray, A. O'Brien, K. W. K. *Quirke, J. A. Ray, R. F.Reynolds, M. Sherry, N.Stott Despoja, N. West, S. M.Woodley, J.33Abetz, E. Alston, R. K. R.Boswell, R. L. D. Brownhill, D. G. C.Calvert, P. H. *Campbell, I. G.Colston, M. A. Coonan, H.Crane, W. Ellison, C.Ferguson, A. B. Ferris, J.Gibson, B. F. Heffernan, W.Herron, J. Kemp, R.Knowles, S. C. Lightfoot, P. R.Macdonald, I. MacGibbon, D. J.McGauran, J. J. J. Minchin, N. H.O'Chee, W. G. Parer, W. R.Patterson, K. C. L. Payne, M. A.Reid, M. E. Synon, K. M.Tambling, G. E. J. Tierney, J.Troeth, J. Vanstone, A. E.Watson, J. O. W.Collins, J. M. A. Eggleston, A.Crowley, R. A. Chapman, H. G. P.Hutchins, S. Hill, R. M.McKiernan, J. P. Newman, J. M.Schacht, C. C. Macdonald, S.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the negative.Notices40914091Senator Ian Campbell to move, on the next day of sitting:That the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Online Services) Bill 1999 be referred to the Select Committee on Information Technologies for inquiry and report by 11 May 1999.Miscellaneous4091Motion by (Senator Reynolds) put:That the Senate—(a) expresses its grave concern that the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination has found that amendments to the Native Title legislation appear `to wind back protections of indigenous title offered in the Mabo decision of the High Court of Australia';(b) supports the committee's call for Australia `to address these concerns as a matter of utmost urgency';(c) urges the Government to immediately `reopen discussions with the representatives of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples with a view to finding solutions acceptable to the indigenous peoples and which would comply with Australia's obligations under the Convention'; and(d) invites the committee to visit Australia and to have discussions with the Government, indigenous people and members of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Native Title and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land Fund.09:48:00The Senate divided. (The President—Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid)31Allison, L. Bartlett, A. J. J.Bishop, T. M. Bolkus, N.Bourne, V. Brown, B.Campbell, G. Carr, K.Conroy, S. Cook, P. F. S.Cooney, B. Crossin, P. M.Denman, K. J. Evans, C. V.Forshaw, M. G. Gibbs, B.Hogg, J. Lees, M. H.Lundy, K. Mackay, S.Margetts, D. Murphy, S. M.Murray, A. O'Brien, K. W. K. *Quirke, J. A. Ray, R. F.Reynolds, M. Sherry, N.Stott Despoja, N. West, S. M.Woodley, J.33Abetz, E. Boswell, R. L. D.Brownhill, D. G. C. Calvert, P. H. *Campbell, I. G. Chapman, H. G. P.Colston, M. A. Coonan, H.Crane, W. Ellison, C.Ferguson, A. B. Ferris, J.Gibson, B. F. Harradine, B.Heffernan, W. Herron, J.Kemp, R. Knowles, S. C.Lightfoot, P. R. Macdonald, I.MacGibbon, D. J. McGauran, J. J. J.Minchin, N. H. Parer, W. R.Patterson, K. C. L. Payne, M. A.Reid, M. E. Synon, K. M.Tambling, G. E. J. Tierney, J.Troeth, J. Vanstone, A. E.Watson, J. O. W.Collins, J. M. A. Alston, R. K. R.Crowley, R. A. O'Chee, W. G.Faulkner, J. P. Hill, R. M.Hutchins, S. Macdonald, S.McKiernan, J. P. Eggleston, A.Schacht, C. C. Newman, J. M.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the negative.Miscellaneous4091Motion (by Senator Brown) agreed to:That the Senate—(a) notes the statements by the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources (Senator Minchin) on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation program `Four Corners' that, `We're not interested in nuclear power and we're not interested in being the world's nuclear waste dump,' and that, `Australia won't be that nation that accepts the waste'; and(b) congratulates the Government on this decision not to allow an international nuclear waste dump in Australia like the one proposed by Pangea.Committees409240924092Motion (by Senator Mackay) put:That—(1) The following matter be referred to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee for inquiry and report by 24 September 1999: The development of the Brisbane Airport Corporation's (BAC) master plan for the future construction of a western parallel runway, with particular reference to: (a) whether BAC failed to adequately investigate alternative runway options; (b) whether BAC failed to release flight path information to the community, and why; and (c) why the Minister for Transport and Regional Services (Mr Anderson) proceeded to endorse the BAC master plan.(2) In carrying out its inquiry, the committee should seek information about and/or inquire into: (a) the adequacy of the methodology used by the BAC in arriving at its recommendation for a western parallel runway and rejection of other runway alternatives; (b) what draft or indicative flight path data was available to BAC; (c) the methodology and adequacy of the Australian Noise Exposure Forecast in assessing the actual noise impact of overflying aircraft on residential areas; (d) the role of Airservices Australia and any conflict of interest which may exist between its BAC consultancy role and its obligation to provide advice to Government; (e) the adequacy of public consultation undertaken by BAC; (f) the basis of the Minister's approval of the master plan; (g) an appropriate methodology for evaluating all runway options including the economic, social (for example, comparative numbers of households affected), environmental, public health and public safety impacts of each; (h) the BAC's capacity objectively to apply this methodology in the major development plan and draft environment strategy and, in the absence of the BAC, other appropriate bodies to do so; (i) south east Queensland's long-term requirements for a second major airport; and (j) the impact of the privatisation of the Brisbane airport by the former Government on the public's ability to participate in the process of consultation on the Brisbane airport master plan.09:56:00The Senate divided. (The President—Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid)32Allison, L. Bartlett, A. J. J.Bishop, T. M. Bolkus, N.Bourne, V. Brown, B.Campbell, G. Carr, K.Conroy, S. Cook, P. F. S.Cooney, B. Crossin, P. M.Denman, K. J. Evans, C. V.Forshaw, M. G. Gibbs, B.Harradine, B. Hogg, J.Lees, M. H. Lundy, K.Mackay, S. Margetts, D.Murphy, S. M. Murray, A.O'Brien, K. W. K. *Quirke, J. A.Ray, R. F. Reynolds, M.Sherry, N. Stott Despoja, N.West, S. M. Woodley, J.32Abetz, E. Boswell, R. L. D.Brownhill, D. G. C. Calvert, P. H. *Campbell, I. G. Chapman, H. G. P.Colston, M. A. Coonan, H.Crane, W. Ellison, C.Ferguson, A. B. Ferris, J.Gibson, B. F. Heffernan, W.Herron, J. Kemp, R.Knowles, S. C. Lightfoot, P. R.Macdonald, I. MacGibbon, D. J.McGauran, J. J. J. Minchin, N. H.Parer, W. R. Patterson, K. C. L.Payne, M. A.Reid, M. E.Synon, K. M. Tambling, G. E. J.Tierney, J. Troeth, J.Vanstone, A. E. Watson, J. O. W.Collins, J. M. A. Alston, R. K. R.Crowley, R. A. O'Chee, W. G.Faulkner, J. P. Hill, R. M.Hutchins, S. Macdonald, S.McKiernan, J. P. Eggleston, A.Schacht, C. C. Newman, J. M.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the negative.40934093Motion (by Senator Murphy) agreed to:That the Economics References Committee be authorised to hold a public meeting during the sitting of the Senate on 22 April 1999 from 5 pm, to take evidence for the committee's inquiry into whether a new reactor should be built to replace the High Flux Australian Reactor at Lucas Heights.40934093Motion (by Senator Calvert, at the request of Senator Eggleston) agreed to:That the time for the presentation of the report of the Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts Legislation Committee on its inquiry into the provisions of the Radiocommunications Legislation Amendment Bill 1999 and 2 related bills be extended to 11 May 1999.Business40934093Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell) agreed to:That the provisions of paragraphs (5) to (7) of standing order 111 not apply to the Export Market Development Grants Legislation Amendment Bill 1999 , allowing it to be considered during this period of sittings.Committees409340934093Motion (by Senator Calvert, at the request of Senator Ferguson) agreed to:That the Economics Legislation Committee be authorised to hold a public meeting during the sitting of the Senate on 23 April 1999 from 10 a.m. to 12 noon, to take evidence for the committee's inquiry into the provisions of the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 4) 1998.Bills4093r7224093Debate resumed from 21 April, on motion by Senator Newman:That this bill be now read a second time.10:00:004093Lundy, Sen KateSenator LUNDY7G6ACTALP00—Whilst the government's proposal to encourage Australian businesses to become Y2K compliant is sensible and should be supported, it must also be noted that there are significant gaps in its proposals. This legislation provides no scope for immediate deductibility of expenditure which has occurred after 1 January 2000. Under this system, such expenditure will, for consideration, fall under the proposed new general rules and will generally have to be written off over a far lengthier period.This is an unusual approach for the government, as presumably the proportion of expenses relating to the development of software to overcome the millennium bug after 1 January 2000 will be devoted to urgent remediation works required for systems which are either not functioning properly or not functioning at all. Indeed, these problems may not become immediately apparent. Rather, the progressive corruption of the software will occur over time, and those problems will only come to light as they impact upon business operations.Surely responsible government should be encouraging businesses to remedy any problems and give them an entitlement to an immediate deduction for remedial millennium bug expenses, at least until 30 June 2000. For this reason, the opposition has proposed an end date of 1 July 2000. This amendment merely brings forward the expenses that would otherwise be claimed later, thus allowing savings to be made in the government's forward estimates which would no doubt have been factored into the government's estimates of the general software depreciation provisions.The inclusion of a multiple purchase rule in the bill means that, when the total expenditure on identical software in an income year is $300 or less, an immediate write-off of expenditure is available to businesses. This is a measure which the ALP supports, as it effectively means that these minor assets will be treated in the same manner as all items of plant and equipment which are valued at under $300.This bill also provides special rules for those who develop software. These taxpayers will be able to make a once-only election to pool their expenditure. Once this election has been made, all expenditure incurred in the developing of software in an income year is to be pooled and written off at a rate of 40 per cent in the following two years and 20 per cent in the third year. This is a reasonable position for the government to take, given its claims that this write-off strikes an appropriate balance between considerations that software is a capital expenditure which should be amortised for taxation purposes and the relatively short expected life of software arising from rapid developments in the information technology sector.This bill highlights an area that is worthy of political attention generally, and that is the tax treatment of this particular product and of the recognition of the crucial capability of software to unlock digital knowledge and information. Software expenditure is a significant and increasing expense of business, particularly if it is viewed in the context of converging technologies. It is also an important consideration, given the rapid rate at which online services facilitated by electronic commerce are developing. Every business now is faced with the challenge of either procuring proprietary software or, indeed, building their own business solutions in a computer or digital environment.The Internet as a distribution channel for services as well as for retail sales will draw a significant proportion of commercial activity in the future. I cannot think of a business or a commercial entity that will not be confronted by the challenge of working within a digital environment in the very near future. The international nature of the Internet, where location is irrelevant and any form of control is extremely difficult to establish, has the potential to significantly affect other taxation issues, such as taxation revenue, in many countries. The Internet has progressed beyond being an efficient communications medium to become a supply medium. However, the way in which products are delivered on the Internet is determined by the degree to which physical products can be transformed into digital products.Information is the most obvious commodity for electronic commerce conveyed through a digital environment and includes both knowledge based products and computer software, including software fixes or patches and new versions and upgrades. This information exchange has the potential to significantly impact on taxation revenue. One example of this problem would include the difficulties associated with isolating an online business which deals in Y2K remediation software to a particular country or location for taxation purposes. This is due to the high global connectivity of the business environment with the Internet facilities and the potential for businesses to locate their premises, their fixed addresses, in nations which provide the best tax benefits. The interaction of this anomaly with the changes proposed in this bill will therefore need to be closely monitored due to the possibility of businesses being able to operate in a particular country in a virtual sense.We agree with the need for business tax changes, and we are prepared to give support to measures where it can be demonstrated, as in this case, that those changes will improve productivity and growth by adding to jobs and strengthening industries. It seems to me that this bill certainly recognises current changes and challenges confronting businesses in their growing need for expenditure on software and digital products. In resisting the temptation to speak at length about the GST, I would comment that the information technology sector is finding it hard enough to deal with the issues of the year 2000 problem without having to face the complex issues of the GST which it now has to deal with.Time is required for redevelopment and testing of the new software, and the increased cost of software under a GST is yet another barrier the coalition government has created, and one which may begin to stifle this area of Australian innovation. It is interesting to note that whilst the government, in the construction of this bill, is offering a taxation benefit for the costs incurred with Y2K, if the GST bills are passed all software purchased will incur an additional 10 per cent on those costs. So there is some irony in this bill. While providing some respite for business, the overall costs of software to businesses—whether they are for Y2K remediation purposes or for general business operation—will increase under a GST.10:08:004095Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEYSF4VICALP00—The Taxation Laws Amendment (Software Depreciation) Bill 1999 deals with the issue of what business people or people who rely on the proper use of software can deduct from the amount of money they bring into their business before they pay tax on the residue. So it is a classical taxation bill. That is, fair taxation requires a situation where people are not taxed on all the money they get in or on all the income they have. What should be deducted from that income is the cost of earning it. Within the taxation philosophy is the concept that you take away from the amount of money that comes in the amount that you expend for the purpose of earning the profit. That is a matter that affects all business. Indeed, it affects people who have to expend money to earn money. In this case what has been talked about is deductions for certain sums that are expended on software or the development of software.There has already been some discussion about this matter in the previous speeches that has pointed out many of the issues that are involved. But there is one issue I want to begin with: who will benefit from this legislation in its present form? I want to quote two different passages: one from the Assistant Treasurer's speech and one from the explanatory memorandum. The second reading speech says:The measures broadly provide for spending to be written off over 2½ years. In certain circumstances, they also allow an immediate deduction. An immediate deduction will be allowed for software spending of $300 or less and for undeducted spending where software development projects are abandoned. This will be helpful for small business.I think everybody in this chamber, as is certainly evident from the debates that have taken place on the GST, wants to help small business. And so we should, because small business faces a lot of pressures that other business and other people do not. Perhaps I will return to that a little later.On page 2 of the explanatory memorandum—I have checked and this seems to be the correct explanatory memorandum—in the context of the summary of the regulation impact statement, the main point is:In common with the impact of many other taxation provisions, compliance costs are likely to be most onerous for smaller businesses without dedicated accounting personnel.I think that is a matter of some concern. The explanatory memorandum is a memorandum put out by the government that introduces the bill, and it explains what the bill is all about.There is a real worry here. The second reading speech says, `We want this measure to be helpful for small business,' and the explanatory memorandum that explains the thrust of the bill says, `In common with the impact of many other taxation provisions, compliance costs are likely to be most onerous for smaller businesses without dedicated accounting personnel.' That probably comes about because, unless you have dedicated accounting personnel, it is getting harder and harder to work out what taxation you have to pay.You can have visions of what businesses are all about. There is very big business: international companies that trade and work around the world that are equipped with a lot of personnel, and some of them can work out very accurately what taxation they have to pay. Then there are smaller businesses who may only work within Australia but who nevertheless have the ability, because of their size, to have a particular person or particular group of people working out what income comes into the business, how much tax they should pay and so on. Then you get to the small businesses. But the businesses that I think are badly treated by the system are the ones who cannot afford to have dedicated accounting personnel—for example, plumbers who might be working on their own. They have to do a day's work. Probably on their mobile they have to get the jobs lined up and go around to each one. They have to try to fit in their ability to do a job with the ability of the people they are helping to be at home. There are all sorts of pressures on them. That has to be considered. The opposition will be moving an amendment to this bill which tries to help those sorts of people.As the legislation now stands, it allows a tax deduction for expenditure on getting computers into a position where they can cope with the Y2K date. The Y2K issue has become a bit like the doomsday issue where we are almost in fear of it—perhaps we should be and perhaps we should not be. We will wait and see what happens. In any event, the Y2K date issue is at the point where the government and the parliament as a whole say, `Yes, some accommodation should be made.' If you are a business person or a small company with computers and other equipment that require new technology to get them into proper condition by the fateful date of the year 2K, and if this legislation goes through as it is now presented, then you will get a tax deduction if you spend money to get that equipment right by the end of the year or the start of the next year. The opposition's suggested amendment is that a further period of six months be given so that small business people in particular might be able to get their equipment right after the Y2K and into the first six months of the year 2000. It was Senator Andrew Murray, a person for whom I have great respect in this area, who said, `No, you shouldn't allow that extra six months because people should have the foresight, the drive and the energy to get their equipment right by the end of the year.' But that does not really take into account the situation that small business gets into.For example, take the corner store, which is now fast disappearing because of the competition from supermarkets and what have you. It is the advance—I suppose you have to say—of civilisation that leads to this situation. But there are still people who run small shops such as the corner store. They might sell papers, so they have to be up at 5 o'clock in the morning to get the papers in, cut the string, work out to whom they have to deliver papers and put the balance of the papers on the counter. They have to get their stock onto the shelves, and then people come in and start buying. A lot of worry and energy is expended just keeping the doors open. At the end of the day—it might be 8 or 9 o'clock at night—they close the doors, get their money in and do their own accounting. So they have a very busy day and they have a lot of pressure on them. The return they get from all that effort is usually quite moderate. You might think it would be a reasonable thing to give those people an extra six months so that they are not completely harassed by the burdens they have to put up with.I will return to the previous example of plumbers who run small businesses. Since they are not employees, they are not entitled to the benefits of workers compensation, although in some states it might not be worth while being entitled to the benefits of workers compensation because the level is now so low. But leaving that aside, they are not entitled to any workers compensation. They are not entitled to lots of other things that employees are entitled to, although those things seem to be disappearing. Nevertheless, they do not have such entitlements.As I say, plumbers are out digging trenches, laying pipes, doing their own paperwork, working out their receipts, working out their next contract, going to the next job and finding people are not home and having to come back. Then they are going home at night and doing all their paperwork. Again, they are getting what could be called fairly moderate returns. We are saying to them, `You not only have to be a labourer digging the ditches, you not only have to be a skilled tradesman putting the pipes together and running the pipes in the right direction, you not only have to be a skilful purchaser of goods because you have to go out and buy the goods and make the decision as to where you are going to lay them, you not only have to be a public relations person because you have to get your custom—not only do you have to do all that but you also have to be your own accountant. Somebody is suggesting that you get an extra six months to get your computers and whatever else you have to get in order because of the Y2K problem.' But people say, `No, you shouldn't be entitled to the extra six months. You have to do all this work, take all this strain but, nevertheless, get yourself into proper shape for the coming Y2K.'That is why I say it is a hard thing to give businesses that have the ability to hire, as it says in the explanatory memorandum, dedicated accounting personnel to have all this done the benefit of this legislation but not to give other people who are out there—energetic, decent and honest people—some sort of extension. An extension of six months is suggested in the proposed amendment to allow them to get what those in more powerful positions get. Small businesses may grow into big businesses. We should encourage them. Small businesses—for example, electricians, small shopkeepers or somebody who is trying to develop some new idea so that cars can run better—may stay at the level they are at now. If you give encouragement to those sorts of people, people who are bringing up families, that is a good thing.The concepts behind this legislation are good but they could be made better if they were extended to small businesses. Running a small business can be a lonely exercise. Your future may depend upon your health: if you get sick, you are gone. If you make a bad contract, in the sense that you haven't quoted enough, things can go wrong. If you have all this sort of uncertainty upon you, you have to be given some help.So the general idea behind the Taxation Laws Amendment (Software Depreciation) Bill 1999 is supported by this side of the chamber, but this side of the chamber says that instead of having this concession, if that is what it can be called, regarding the expenditure you make on the equipment that you have, which depends upon the chips and other things that may be affected by Y2K, or this help going to 1 January, why not extend the help to 1 July 2000? That would seem reasonable. It would at least give small business a pat on the back in the sense that we are saying: `Yes, we understand your situation and we will try to accommodate it.'10:27:004097Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—I also rise to address some of the issues related to the Taxation Laws Amendment (Software Depreciation) Bill 1999, in particular the provisions related to the Y2K compliance software projects. While the bill is primarily intended to modify the general computer software depreciation provisions, there are also a number of provisions which will significantly modify the treatment of software expenses incurred in attaining year 2000 compliance. Under these provisions expenditure will be immediately deductible if the principal purpose of that expenditure is to ensure that existing systems will be made Y2K compliant.The Democrats, as I am sure all senators are aware, have a great deal of interest in the year 2000 problem or issue. A week ago, amid much fanfare, Senator Alston released the first of the Commonwealth government's Y2K agency reports, as required under the Year 2000 Information Disclosure Act of this year. We were particularly interested in the government fanfare accompanying the release of that report. Once again we were informed that the government was taking the initiative in releasing this information and that the picture was a rosy one. We have been told that the government is currently meeting targets and that by July this year all systems will be compliant. According to the government, the remainder of the year will be used to prepare contingency plans.But there are still numerous concerns raised in the pages of the report. As at 5 February a number of agencies still had significant compliance problems, including the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, the Australian Customs Service, Comcare, the Australian Securities and Investment Commission and the Australian Taxation Office. All of those problems are potentially quite serious if compliance is not attained.As we approach Anzac Day, I also note that the Department of Veterans' Affairs was only 31 per cent compliant in early February, although there was a footnote to the report indicating that the compliance level has since risen to at least 56 per cent. It should be remembered that the release of these figures in the detailed quarterly report last week was as a result of a non-government amendment to the Year 2000 Information Disclosure Bill.The Democrats are not alone in their concerns about compliance. One of Australia's foremost experts, Mr Phil Dodd of Unisys Australia, has stated that the government cannot reasonably expect to complete its compliance program before the end of the year. I guess all of us hope he is proved wrong. The head of the government's Y2K industry program, Mr Graeme Inchley, has separately indicated that it is unreasonable to expect that an organisation like the Australian Taxation Office will be compliant by the end of the year, given the current rate of progress. It is also indicated that the government should adopt best practice and issue monthly reports rather than quarterly reports, which I remind the Senate it was only compelled by non-government amendments to do.My colleague Senator Stott Despoja noted other concerns with the Good Samaritan legislation at the time it was discussed in the Senate. She was rightly concerned that the legislation made a number of concessions to businesses which would need to be carefully monitored. The Democrats are keeping a careful watch on the use of the disclosure provisions. We are concerned by recent reports that some of the disclosure provisions of the disclosure legislation have been misused.The Australian Democrats are always interested in concessions that are made to businesses. This current legislation makes additional concessions relating to the costs of Y2K compliance. It allows software costs related to year 2000 compliance to be written off directly, which will result in significant costs to government and savings to business.We can only hope that problems like this do not roll around too often. We certainly do not want the provisions of this software depreciation legislation to be a reward to slow movers in the business community. We are also concerned that this legislation could be used to write off costs of significant upgrades to non-essential systems.Australian business has responded to the year 2000 problem—and the Democrats do acknowledge that—but not as rapidly or effectively as we had hoped. The Australian Securities and Investments Commission has warned of a very poor response to a Y2K readiness survey of securities dealers, investment advisers and insurance dealers. The commission was highly concerned with both the low response rates to the survey and the low compliance levels.The latest reports to the Australian Stock Exchange by listed companies also show major problems with compliance in a broad range of Australian companies. Costs have increased dramatically and the growing delays in reaching compliance are becoming a major concern.Whilst in relation to many other countries in the world Australia has been doing well, the nation as a whole needs to do all it can to improve that performance further. It is not much of a consolation if we are not fully and adequately compliant by the year 2000 and run into problems to sit back and say, `At least we haven't got as many problems as people in other countries.' We need to ensure that we are fully prepared and do not encounter any problems that are in any way avoidable.As my colleague Senator Stott Despoja has indicated, the Australian Democrats are also very interested in the year 2000 problem `problem'. I am referring here to the growing fear, uncertainty and doubt surrounding the year 2000 problem. During a recent MPI debate, Senator Stott Despoja drew attention to the need for governments to take a leading role in educating and preparing the community for problems that might arise during the transition to the year 2000. This is not because we believe there is going to be widespread community disaster, but because uncertainty and ignorance is not conducive to a calm and appropriate response.We need to have decisive action to keep the community informed. Without this, avoidable problems could occur during the transition. I am particularly referring to problems such as bank runs, panic buying and the possibility of a telecommunications crisis. Earlier this month an article in the Bulletin discussed the possibility of self-fulfilling prophecies in this area. A quick calculation was undertaken of the possible effect of all Australians following the advice that has been given to staff of Westpac and the Reserve Bank. These organisations have advised staff to withdraw two weeks' worth of cash in late December to ensure they have enough money to cover the transition to the year 2000. Crude calculations suggest that the amount of cash withdrawn, if all Australians were to follow this advice, would be equivalent to almost half the total amount of coins and notes in circulation.I know there are already moves to increase the amount of cash in actual circulation to address anticipated or possible action in the broader community along those lines. This would most likely lead to serious problems with the Australian banking system if there is a significant run on cash withdrawals in the last weeks of this year, this century and this millennium.The Australian Democrats call on the government to begin an urgent public education campaign to increase awareness and preparedness within the community. Clearly, the sort of advice that is being given to employees in many organisations could lead to serious problems. Again, whilst we do acknowledge that the government has been active in this regard, we urge in as constructive a way as possible that more be done to ensure that problems are minimised and, if possible, completely eliminated. This is not just the problem of the so-called Y2K bug itself, but the problem of people having unrealistic concerns about the nature and effect of that problem.The government needs to do all it can to communicate with Australians about appropriate responses to the concerns of the community. Part of that relates to what this bill does, and that is obviously welcomed, but there is a lot more in a wider context that does still need to be done. The Democrats encourage the government to address those issues and we as a party are doing all we can, as part of our role as parliamentarians, to contribute to broader community debate and understanding about some of these issues.The Democrats remain hopeful about the level of preparedness within the Australian community and hope that this legislation will be used in good faith to improve the readiness of Australian business. Once again, I emphasise that we are monitoring the use of the disclosure provisions and we will monitor carefully the costs and outcomes of this legislation. We do recognise the need to encourage appropriate responses at all levels of the Australian community, both within government and the private sector. In as much as this legislation goes down that path, we would certainly welcome its intent.10:36:004099Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I thank honourable senators who have contributed to this important debate on the progress of Australia towards combating what has become known as the Y2K problem.This is an important measure. It will indeed provide tax assistance to businesses that purchase software to remediate the Y2K problem. We have had a very important debate in relation to that particular measure. There is a debate to ensue about the desirability of extending the measure beyond 1 January 2000 based on an amendment foreshadowed by Senator Sherry.I am pleased that the Democrats share the government's view that it would be desirable that the date stay the same as it is in the legislation. If it does not, you are sending very mixed messages to small business. Senator Lundy in her speech recognised that it is very important for the major sectors of the community, including of course the Commonwealth government, to be Y2K compliant; that, particularly at the Commonwealth level, they have the systems checked, remediated, compliant and back online by July—that looks to be the case for almost every Commonwealth agency; and that we spend the next six months leading up to New Year's Eve working on contingency plans, going through all the what and what-ifs—what if something does go wrong that we have not looked at, what if this supplier of mine, for example, an electricity utility or a telecommunications company or, indeed, another small business, is not able to supply because of the Y2K fault?It need not necessarily be a computer matter. I take the opportunity of saying this is not just something that occurs in PCs, it is not just something that occurs in computers or mainframes; this is something, as the Department of the Senate found out recently, which can occur in a voice messaging system in this very building. It can occur in airconditioning systems where you have got these little black boxes with `embedded chips', as they are called, that control virtually everything that happens on the globe these days. Little date dependent chips in these little black boxes that have got nothing to do with PCs can ensure entire airconditioning systems come crashing down as a result of dates.I repeat a story that tends to turn people's attention to the details of this problem more than anything else. People may be tempted to do what Senator Cooney alluded to in his speech here today, that is, wait and see—`We'll see whether it's a real disaster or a doomsday.' But there are those of us who take this threat extremely seriously. If any business is tempted to `wait and see', they should listen to the story of the Epworth Private Hospital in Melbourne in Victoria, a hospital that I think I could claim is probably at the forefront of fighting the year 2000 date problem within all of its systems.They have had a program going for nearly three years now. They have been going through all of their medical equipment, their internal systems, their accounting systems and their patient systems. Last year they looked at their building systems, which are, of course, just as critical to running a hospital as they are to any other facility where human beings are wandering around, particularly hospitals where people are usually frail, vulnerable and ill. They found that an airconditioning system that was installed less than four years ago will be entirely unserviceable come 1 January 2000—an airconditioning system installed less than four years ago. I think that story highlights the problem of the year 2000. It is not just a computer problem; it is far from it. In fact, the biggest risks to life and to commerce probably come from chips—date dependent chips that are not in computers at all. So this is a very serious problem.I want to quickly respond to some of the points that do demand a response, not only because this is an important tax measure which will help small business but also because it deals with the year 2000 problem. I share with other senators the view that this is an important opportunity to not only debate this measure but also to help inform the public.Senator Murray suggested that there are a couple of `important events', as he called them, that will occur in the life of small businesses between now and July 2000 which will put enormous stress on businesses. He said that the date change is one of them and that the introduction of the new tax system on 1 July 2000 is another. I might say by way of aside that that shows Senator Murray seems to have some confidence in that occurring, which I welcome. I say to Senator Murray and to everybody else that there are a range of events relating to Y2K that are very important for people to be aware of, and I take this opportunity to very briefly alert them to that.Many expert commentators say that July 1999 will be a crucial Y2K date because, all of sudden, spreadsheets, mortgages and a whole range of financial matters that go out over the coming 12 months will start. This has been happening ever since 1 January this year but, as the new financial year clicks in, many year 2000 experts expect a serious rise in the number of Y2K problems—that is, from July 1999 as the new financial year starts picking up the 2000 date. The next date that is a very important event for businesses, and another date that Y2K experts around the world expect to cause trouble, is September 1999 because, in some computer coding languages, the figures 9999 basically say to a computer: stop. That is the red signal for a computer, so many people are predicting serious problems and dislocation on 9 September 1999 as a result of that particular date that sends a different message to computers. I guess it also sends a different message to people who have their birthdays on that date.3M6MURRAYSenator Murray—I think that is Natasha's birthday.H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—Is it? I will not be drawn to say anything about that.The other period, Senator Murray, that we are concerned about is the period that leads up to the date change itself, particularly the period from around mid-November through to December, and particularly for people who do what Senator Cooney said they might do—that is, wait and see. They will start saying, `Oh dear, this is serious. What a shame I didn't do something about it 300 days ago or 253 days ago,' as we are today. People may, indeed, try to make contingency plans that are either sensible or not sensible because they failed to act. That is a period, an event, that could be a problem.The issues that Senator Murray raises are very serious issues. We in the government are very keen to ensure that we move through the Y2K events in a seamless, sound and wellmanaged way. This government has been recognised around the globe in this regard by groups such as the OECD and the Gartner Group. Indeed, our friends and colleagues in the US Senate, who have a special committee on this, have indicated that Australia is amongst the best prepared nations in the world.It has been my privilege and honour to sit with all of the Y2K ministers from around Australia at two ministerial council meetings to discuss this, and to see the level of corporation on this issue gives one hope about the cooperation that can take place between federal and state levels of government. But the issues Senator Murray raised are very important ones. It is important that the government smooths the transition as much as possible through Y2K and, equally, Senator Murray, through the introduction of the new tax system, subject of course to the parliament's agreement to that proposal. And to that end the government has allocated half a billion dollars—$500 million—to ensure, particularly, that the small to medium enterprise sector is assisted through that transition.Senator Murray suggested that we should be considering tax concessions in that regard. We believe there is a whole range of measures that need to be brought in. The opportunities for getting a whole new massive raft of small to medium enterprise sectors into electronic and digital integration directly with the Taxation Office and directly with a range of other government agencies at all levels to make running small businesses in Australia a lot easier and a lot more efficient, giving them a lot more time to actually do the core tasks of their business, rather than complying with piles and piles of paperwork that governments at all levels pile onto them, are actually quite extraordinary and can be tagged onto the back of introducing a new tax system.Senator Cooney—just to move to his remarks, because they flow naturally from the issues that Senator Murray raised—talked about the typical small business persons who have to comply with all of this paper, do much of the paperwork, do much of the accounting themselves, or at least prepare their documents for their accountants to do. The new tax system recognises that and, indeed, it seeks to replace a system that has an average small to medium enterprise doing something like 12 payments on tax instalments annually on behalf of employees, four income tax payments, 12 sales tax payments, potentially four fringe benefits tax payments—something like 32 separate interactions with the tax office, as the law provides at the moment. This does not include income tax and fringe benefits tax returns. And, of course, the new tax system that we are bringing in seeks to roll all of those systems into a new single pay-as-you-go system. So we will be replacing PAYE, PPS, RPS, provision al tax and company instalments with one new comprehensive system.Furthermore—and this directly responds to the points made by Senator Cooney and, I think, by Senator Murray as well—instead of having a range of different numbers that businesses and individuals need in order to interact with the tax office and another business related agencies, we will be rolling all of those into one simple new Australian business number. So each company in Australia will have one simple identifier, which will be available for use by all agencies needing to capture company data. So it is an historic reduction in the amount of interactions made by companies of all sizes, including Senator Cooney's single corner store—and God bless the corner store—and single person enterprises, such as plumbers.I might say, by way of an aside, I have two plumbers who are close members of my family who both had plumbing practices in New Zealand during the introduction of the new tax system in New Zealand. Both of those plumbers—both of them my brothers-in-law—were extremely sceptical about the introduction of the new tax system in New Zealand by the then Labour government. They were worried because they had heard of all of the concerns that are now being scaremongered by my friends and colleagues on the other side of the aisle that this would increase their paperwork and that this would make life hell for small businesses. Both of those plumbers—again, my brothers-in-law—lived through the introduction of the tax system in New Zealand, which was a goods and services tax system, with some assistance I might say, Senator Murray, from the Labour government at that time. They did provide assistance to small business people to allow them to use accountants if they wanted. But both of those people found that the system was so simple and so easy to do that they did it themselves from then on in. They did not need accounting assistance to do it. It required very low compliance. And, of course, they were extremely pleased that their income tax would be lower. I think many small business people would very much welcome the tax cuts that this package would include.But back to rebutting or at least responding to some of the arguments from honourable senators who have contributed to the debate. We heard from both Senator Lundy and Senator Bartlett that we should urgently have a public education campaign about Y2K. At that ministerial meeting I have referred to already the public education campaign that is being planned and coordinated by the Commonwealth with the states was again discussed. The unanimous, overwhelming decision of the ministers, including the federal government and the year 2000 industry program leaders—Graeme Inchley, the Chief Executive Officer, and Maurice Newman, the distinguished Chairman of that group—is that the timing is very wrong for a public education campaign right now.That is the point I made in the last debate in the chamber on this issue. We want to ensure that we have a public education campaign that focuses on the needs of the public about the year 2000 issue. You could have a debate, I guess, with marketing and public relations consultants and pollsters and a range of other people about when is the best time to launch a campaign about the year 2000 problem. I guess whatever we do we will probably get it wrong, but there was a consensus between all state governments, the Commonwealth and the industry program that to launch a public education campaign now would be shooting the ammunition far too early, that we do need—to use a hackneyed cliche—to `keep our powder dry'.But I can assure the Senate that it is a very, very important issue. I do not underrate it. It is just a matter of timing and of the quality of the campaign. The government—and, in fact, governments—are planning a public education campaign. We are, I think, at this very moment talking to experts on this. I think we might even be letting a tender in relation to this in terms of preparing the campaign and seeing how we deliver the information and what sort of information would be useful to put out there.I do not think anyone can complain about a lack of information on Y2K; in fact, some might say that, if anything, there is a bit of an overload of Y2K information. I can assure Senator Bartlett and Senator Lundy that preparations are well in hand. I think the way we are handling it is appropriate and, certainly, our approach has been supported by all state governments across political lines.The conflict in approaches, as pronounced by Senator Lundy, Senator Sherry and Senator Cooney—but particularly by Senator Lundy and Senator Cooney—in relation to preparing Australia for Y2K date change events, is of concern. We are saying to government, small business and large business, `You need to spend the money now. You need to make the investment in time and management resources to ensure that your business is ready. You need to check your supply chains. You need to check with the people who supply you with crucial goods and services and ensure that their failure will not hurt you. You need to work with them to ensure that they are not going to fail. Most importantly, at the moment, you need to work with your customers.'A fortnight ago in Adelaide, Westpac Bank made a presentation to the ministerial council about a program that it has to communicate fantastically clear, concise and easily read information to its business customers—particularly small business customers. The bank is providing counselling, tutorials and consultancy advice to all its customers to ensure that the customers solve their problems.The banks have very quickly realised that they can make sure that there is a seamless delivery of services from their suppliers to the banks on 1 January 2000. The banks will not have very good businesses if their business customers—or, indeed, any of their customers—start to fail because of the year 2000 bug. To survive, the banks require their customers to be successful. If a lot of their customers fail because of the date change problem, then the banks themselves will fail. I congratulate Westpac. I know that the other banks also have similar sorts of programs to ensure that their customers are Y2K ready.That is what businesses should be doing. The strong message to small businesses from government and from the industry program is, `Do all of this and get ready for the year 2000 before New Year's Eve.' That has been the message from the industry program for well over a year now. We are saying to all our government departments and agencies, `Here is some money to help you do it. This is what you have to do. You have to report to your minister every month. We have to report to cabinet every quarter. We have to publicly release every agency's compliance now. But if you are a small business and you can't get it done by Christmas, don't worry. We will give you the tax incentives for another six months afterwards.' It is a confused message, and that is why the government is sticking very clearly to its guns. We are saying, `We will give you a tax incentive on software if you get it done before the change of the first two figures of the four digit year—the year 2000.' We will be sticking to that.We deeply appreciate that the Democrats have seen the validity of that argument. That covers most of the arguments that were made. I genuinely appreciate the assistance of the honourable senators opposite in this debate. (Time expired)Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.4103The bill.10:56:004103Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—by leave—I move:(1) Schedule 1, item 14, page 6 (after line 4), after the Table of Subdivisions, insert:Guide to Division 4646-1 What this Division is about This Division allows a deduction, over 2½ years, for capital and non-capital expenditure you incur in acquiring or developing software for your own use. You may choose to pool such expenditure. This can help you to work out your deductions if it would be hard to attribute your costs to individual projects separately. The Division also allows an immediate deduction for expenditure on software, incurred before 1 January 2000, to ensure that a computer system attains Year 2000 compliance. Immediate deductions are also allowed for minor expenditure and for expenditure on software that you decide never to use.[This is the end of the Guide.][Division 46—insertion of guide](2) Schedule 1, item 14, page 6 (lines 19 to 34), omit all the words and examples after paragraph (c).[section 46-10—scope of Division](3) Schedule 1, item 14, page 7 (after line 13), at the end of section 46-15 (after the example), add: (2) This Division also does not apply to *expenditure on software if: (a) you can get a deduction for the expenditure under a provision of this Act (including section 8-1) outside this Division; and (b) the *software was acquired or developed other than principally for you to use to perform the functions for which it was acquired or developed. Example 1: You incur capital expenditure in developing new software to use in controlling your mining operations. You would consider selling other similar businesses a licence to use the software, but this has not influenced your decision to develop it. This Division still applies to the expenditure, even though Division 330 (Mining and quarrying) might otherwise have applied to it, because you developed it principally to perform that function in your business; not principally as a product to sell to others. Example 2: You incur expenditure in developing new software principally to sell to the general public, but you also incidentally plan to use the software in your own business. Assuming that the expenditure is also covered by section 8-1 (General deductions), this Division does not apply to it, because you developed the software principally to sell it to the public; not principally to use in-house. (3) To avoid doubt, expenditure is excluded from the scope of this Division if it is covered by either or both of subsections (1) and (2). [section 46-15—scope of Division](4) Schedule 1, item 14, page 7 (line 16), after "if", insert "(having taken into account the effect of section 46-15)".[section 46-20—scope of Division]The amendments to the Taxation Laws Amendment (Software Depreciation) Bill 1999 will ensure that all expenditure on software will be deductible, either within new division 46 or elsewhere in the tax law. Following the introduction of the bill into the House, the government received a number of representations that there may be a small number of cases where taxpayers may not be able to obtain a deduction under any provision of the law, including new division 46, for expenditure on software. This would be an unsatisfactory outcome, and the amendments I am moving will address that situation. The amendments represent yet another area where the government's commitment to consult on a new regime for software expenditure has provided a workable outcome. I table the supplementary explanatory memorandum to the amendments.10:58:004104Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRYZW4TASALP00—I wish to raise an issue in respect of that. Obviously, we have just moved into the committee stage. I think it is important to point out to those in the gallery and those listening to the parliamentary broadcast, who would have anticipated that we would be dealing with legislation relating to the goods and services tax package, that that is what we should be dealing with in committee today. Unfortunately, we are not.Today, tomorrow and next week have been set aside to deal with the goods and services tax package but, because of the shambles in the government yesterday, it has decided not to proceed with debate on the goods and services tax package. That is what Labor is here to deal with. We are ready to front up, deal with this goods and services tax and, hopefully, knock it off. Obviously, we are not going to support it. However, instead we are dealing with the Taxation Laws Amendment (Software Depreciation) Bill 1999 .Whilst the bill we are dealing with in committee is obviously very important, it is not what we were told we would be dealing with. We should be dealing with the GST legislation. The Prime Minister, Mr Howard, and the Treasurer, Mr Costello, are still roaming the country telling us to get on with debate on the GST package. They ask, `Why isn't the Labor Party in the Senate getting on with debate on the GST package?' We want to. Instead, we are dealing with the Taxation Laws Amendment (Software Depreciation) Bill 1999 .656FORSHAWSenator Forshaw—Then we will deal with the quarantine bill.ZW4Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRY—Then we will deal with quarantine. We are supposed to be here dealing with the GST package, but the government will not let us proceed with the GST package. Why? Out there Mr Howard and Costello are saying, `Let's get on with the GST package. Get in there, you senators, and pass it.' And we are dealing with software depreciation and quarantine. Why aren't we dealing with the GST package today, as we should be? There are a variety of reasons. There is the incompetence of the acting government leader, Senator Alston. Senator Hill is overseas. We have Senator Alston filling the breach, very badly we might say. Yesterday when we voted on an important amendment to the GST legislation two government members went to lunch early and missed the vote. It was an absolute shambles. Senator Campbell is partly to blame.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—Senator Sherry, whilst the committee stages are fairly lax, you might like to maintain some relevance to the software depreciation bill, please.ZW4Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRY—Thank you. As I said, this is an important bill. We are in committee, but we should be in committee on the GST legislation. Labor stands ready to deal with that legislation. At very short notice yesterday, trying to help the government out, we came in here—H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—I rise on a point of order. Senator Sherry can be expected to make some broad remarks, but I think he should at some stage in the very near future—he has been speaking for three minutes already—relate his remarks to division 46 and the amendments 1 to 4, which have been moved. That is the only matter that can be before the chair at the moment. We have moved past any general debate on the second reading. We have moved on to consider government amendments 1 to 4. I think he would need to at least draw some sort of bow, no matter how long, to those particular amendments, to be within the standing orders.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—I am sure Senator Sherry is getting to those amendments.ZW4Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRY—Yes, I am. I point out to Senator Campbell and to those listening that computer software will be subject to the GST. There is the connection. I do not have much more to say on this general point about why we are in committee on the software depreciation bill—as we know, software will be affected by the GST—when we should be dealing with the GST legislation. One of the other reasons why the government cannot proceed of its own motion with the GST legislation is that Mr Costello and Mr Howard are out there assuring us that their package is all okay. What did we get in this chamber yesterday—128 amendments on the GST legislation!H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—I rise on a point of order.ZW4Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRY—I am speaking on amendments.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—The honourable senator is speaking about amendments to another piece of legislation. He is flagrantly breaching your ruling now, Madam Chairman. I ask you to call him to order or to resume his seat.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—I am sure Senator Sherry is about to address amendments 1 to 4.ZW4Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRY—Yes. Amendments 1 to 4 we are dealing with, like the 128 amendments we got on the GST legislation yesterday, reflect the government's incompetence. There are four amendments here that deal with very important and critical issues on software depreciation. This highlights the general incompetence of the government, just as yesterday, after being assured for months and months that the GST package was all okay, we got 128 amendments on the GST package. I would submit to the chamber that is one of the reasons why we are not dealing with the GST package today. The government made 128 mistakes, as in this legislation they have made a number of other errors and we are considering amendments 1 to 4.Going in detail to the amendments, Senator Campbell, we have received representation from a concerned adviser in the taxation area. I will quickly go to part of the correspondence we have received. I understand that the amendments 1 to 4 we are considering deal with this issue, but I would like some assurance that they do. The amount to be depreciated is the expenditure on software. Expenditure on software includes salaries or wages paid to a person who is involved with the development of the software, section 46-10. Paragraph 14 and onwards in the explanatory memorandum state that where the software is developed in-house the expenditure is to be capitalised until the software is used or installed ready for use and then it can be depreciated. Paragraph 20 of the explanatory memorandum states:Expenditure on a software project which is to be capitalised will include any cost that is directly related to the project. Such costs will generally consist of salaries and consumables.This means that where an organisation has an employee who spends part of their time developing software only part of the employee's salary is deductible. The other part must be included as part of the expenditure on software and depreciated over 2½ years once the software has been developed. It appears to us that the intention of the government's original legislation was not to allow a deduction for part of a person's salary after the company paid it to him or her. My point is, and my question goes to, whether or not the government's amendments we are considering deal with this type of problem that we have had representations about.11:06:004106Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—The answer is no, these amendments do not address that problem.11:06:004106Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRYZW4TASALP00—Let me go into this issue a little more. As I understand it, at the moment wages or salary of an employee are fully deductible in the year in which they are paid. My understanding and the concerned advice we have received is that where employees are partly involved in the development of software for the Y2K bug the effect of this legislation is not to allow their full salary to be deductible in the year in which it is paid. Instead, part of their salary is spread and deductible over time. That is actually taking away an existing entitlement or reducing it.11:07:004106Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—The premise of Senator Sherry's question is not quite right, as is the statement that salaries are not all immediately deductible. As I am advised, and I am certainly not expert in this area, if the salary is being paid to a person who is developing some software which at some time in the future will produce some income, it only becomes deductible when what will become an asset—it might be intellectual property, I guess—starts producing the income. So it is not immediately deductible. It only becomes deductible when that asset becomes income producing in the future. This bill does not affect that regime in any way.11:08:004106Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRYZW4TASALP00—Is the situation you have just outlined the current situation?H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—Yes.ZW4Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRY—Just to try to clarify this point—and it is important—what about, say, a computer manager who is involved in the current development of computer software and/or maintenance, for example, if we deal with them separately? Is his salary or wage immediately deductible?11:10:004106Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—The crucial event that has occurred is the Tax Commissioner's ruling on 11 May 1998. Prior to that, what you said was, I think, ostensibly correct. The Tax Commissioner obviously picked on your computer manager and said, `Well, the time that you're spending on your maintenance duties needs to be distinguished from the time you're spending on the development activities.' Part of the amendments within this bill are indeed to replace the principle embodied in the ruling within the legislative regime. Part of this legislation is the development of that principle. So what you said earlier was right prior to 11 May 1998, but now the Tax Commissioner has required people to distinguish between their activities. In other words, it would still be the case.11:11:004107Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRYZW4TASALP00—If that is now the case, what about the interaction of the research and development if they are involved in research and development? What is the tax implication there?11:12:004107Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—The effect on that is that it is not affected by this in any way. It gets its favourable treatment under the R&D provisions.11:12:004107Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRYZW4TASALP00—Let us take a computer maintenance person. How do you distinguish between maintenance and work on the Y2K bug? I would have thought it would be very difficult to distinguish between those two in reality in some cases.11:13:004107Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—This must be riveting stuff for those people sitting on their tractors listening to the debate, but the answer—656FORSHAWSenator Forshaw—They're waiting to listen to the GST debate. That's what they're waiting for.H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—No, they are waiting for quarantine. They are waiting for Senator Forshaw and quarantine. The difference is that, in relation to the maintenance person who is working on maintenance and maybe in the course of that person's duties is fixing the year 2000 problem—and more speed to their arms in doing that—that portion would be fully and immediately deductible. For the person who is developing software to fix Y2K, if the commissioner's ruling from 11 May applied to them, it would not be deductible until they started producing income from that asset they are producing. What this bill is doing is saying that up until midnight on 31 December that work in developing that software will have the same treatment as the maintenance person who is fixing Y2K. So they are all put together. So it is a special concession up to then. After that, the commissioner's ruling from 11 May has effect. So we are giving them relief from the commissioner's ruling for that period.11:15:004107Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRYZW4TASALP00—I move Labor amendment No. 1347:(1) Clause 46-1, omit "1 January", substitute "1 July".This amendment, like the second amendment I will move when we have disposed of this, deals with extending the dates from 1 January to 1 July, which I mentioned in my speech at the second reading stage. I know Senator Murray indicated he was not going to support this, but I am interested to know in a little more detail what his reasons are.This Labor amendment, which as I understand is not supported by the government, extends the qualifying period for deductibility of expenditure on software expenses relating to the Y2K compliance problem from 1 January 2000 to 30 June 2000. The reality at this stage is businesses can plan for only foreseeable eventualities that occur come 1 January as a result of the Y2K bug. Once 1 January actually ticks around, no-one is in a position to know exactly 100 per cent what the impact will be on computer operating systems. I would argue that, even if it is 99 per cent compliant on 1 January, there may be a small number of businesses who are not compliant, despite their best endeavours and our best endeavours to provide an incentive to do it.We believe it is fair and reasonable to provide an extra six months for businesses to rectify these unforeseen problems and to be able to claim such expenditure accordingly. We are aware of the legitimate argument that to provide such an extension could provide an incentive for some businesses to put off until as late as possible the necessary work they need to do to make their computer systems Y2K compliant, and this is a concern. But I would state that Labor believes, on balance, that a six-month extension is justified because there would have to be some businesses who would not be compliant, would be part-complaint or would have a series of consequences because they are part-compliant or not compliant from 1 January and would need to fix those problems.There is no way that every business in the country will have the opportunity to put the expenditure they need to make in order to cope with the Y2K bug by 1 January. I just do not think it is possible to do that. We believe it is not possible to know every problem that may occur until 1 January 2000 actually comes around. That is why we believe—and there is another reason I will touch on in a moment—that we should be cautiously generous, not overly generous, in providing a cushion for business through this extension of the date.The other great concern of Labor is what will happen if the GST package is passed—and we should be dealing with that now, I might remind the Senate again. We should be dealing with the GST package now in committee. That is what we were called here to do; instead we are on software depreciation and quarantine. They are both important issues, but that is not what we were called here to do. That is not what the Prime Minister, Mr Howard, and the Treasurer, Mr Costello, are out there urging us to deal with. We have the ridiculous situation with the Prime Minister and Mr Costello, the Treasurer, saying that the Senate should get on and deal with the GST legislation, and their leadership in here is bringing before us software depreciation and quarantine. So on the one hand you have the Liberal leadership out there saying we should deal with the GST but, on the other hand, the Liberal leadership in here will not let us deal with the GST legislation—an utterly absurd situation.As I touched on earlier, it was a shambles in the government yesterday: two senators went to lunch early and they lost a critical vote and the Leader of the Government in the Senate is away. I do not know what Senator Kemp is doing and what part he is playing in all of this, but he is the Assistant Treasurer.Opposition senator interjecting—ZW4Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRY—He is not; I will take that interjection. Senator Campbell is looking over his shoulder at Senator Heffernan, trying to take his job from him. It was an absolute shambles yesterday. No wonder they had to defer the committee stage consideration, and we were then presented with 128 amendments to the GST legislation.We were told for months and months that the GST legislation was fine, that the package did not need amendment, and we got 128 amendments from the government yesterday covering issues like the sale of farm land, insurance, anti-avoidance measures and charities. These measures were referred to as finetuning—just another example of the government's incompetence.I will return to the software depreciation bill and the amendment that Labor has moved. I was sparked in my remarks then by the concern that Labor has if this GST comes in. It is an unfortunate coincidence that, if it does come in, small business in particular—obviously it affects all businesses but our particular worry is small business—will have Y2K compliance on 1 January 2000 and then the dreadful GST six months later.I accept that big businesses have some problems. They have to make their computer software compliant with the GST, but it is significantly easier for big businesses to do that than it is for smaller businesses. Smaller businesses which have computer systems, and many of them do not, will be struggling to become Y2K compliant and at the same time planning for the dreaded GST. Where businesses do not have software, computer systems, I am sure many of them will be looking at purchasing computer software to take account of the goods and services tax. So they are really going to have to deal with two serious issues almost on top of each other.The added cost of complying with the GST, as I said earlier, is not so bad for big busi ness. They have in-house computer systems, in many cases, and the overall percentage cost is relatively small, if indeed it is any cost at all. It is different for small business, and that is another reason we think this six-month extension should be given—to deal with this dreadful GST, if it ever gets through and if we ever get to deal with it, as we should have been dealing with it this morning.11:23:004109Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—Can I quickly respond because it is an important issue. I did cover it briefly in my second reading speech. There are two points to make. Firstly, we need to send a very clear message to small business—which is, `Get your systems fixed, replace your software, do what is required, check your supply chain, help your customers. Do all of that work and do it now. You have 253 days to go and we do not want you to wait and see.' We do not want them to put off these decisions. We want them to take action.Those who have not taken action prior to today should be taking action today. We say, `Go to the Y2K web site; go to the Standards Australia web site. Look at all the resources that are there to assist you. Talk to the Y2K officers within your state government, come and talk to the Y2K unit in the federal government, but take some action. Talk to your accountant. Talk to your engineer, if you are a manufacturing business. Do it today. You will get a tax benefit if you do it in the next 253 days.'We do not want to say to them, `Wait and see.' We want them to do the work, particularly the software development and replacement. Not only is it going to have a tax benefit for them if they do it now; clearly it will be a benefit to their business if they do it now. They will be able to be more confident on New Year's Eve that their businesses will survive the date change. Many businesses around the world will not survive it. If they have not done the work, they will not survive it, so we want them to do it now.On the upside, there will certainly be work done on Y2K in the year 2000. I have pre dicted in a number of speeches I have made on this issue that there will be work going on on Y2K remediation in the year 2001, the year 2002 and the year 2003 in many parts of the world. Under Australia's tax law, normal work that takes place on that will be deductible anyway; it is just the software and replacement that will not get special work.So in response to Senator Sherry's specific question of, `Why don't we get a tax deductibility for work that takes place on Y2K?' the answer is that the remediation work that takes place on Y2K will be deductible under the normal tax laws anyway. It is just the special benefits for the replacement that we are talking about.11:26:004109West, Sen SueSenator WEST1X4NSWALP00—I have a question to the minister about these dates. 1 January 2000 is not necessarily the only date that is going to cause a problem with Y2K compliance. 29 February 2000 is going to be an even bigger date, or as big as, because there was no 29 February in the year 1900. There are some dates in March next year that are also critical to that. If you move the date in the legislation out from 1 January to 1 July, those businesses that would have been fine for 1 January but would have had a problem with 29 February may be saved some problems.11:27:004109Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—We are saying to all of those businesses, `Fix the problem in the next 253 days. If you fix the problem in the next 253 days, in all probability you would have fixed the whole problem.' Senator West, you have quite rightly pointed out that problem, too. I just went back to my notes, and that was one of the events that I forgot to mention. In relation to Senator Murray's use of the term `event', it is indeed a very crucial event, as you said. It is again a very unique date, because the year 1900 was not a leap year.So if a computer happens to slip past the date problem on 1 January 2000—because it has turned itself back to 1900 and merrily thinks it is quite happy—it is going to merrily operate on that basis all through January and right through February and then all of a sudden crash on 29 February. If you do the remediation work now, the assessment of whether you have got a date problem will include looking at that. A computer consultant or expert is not going to come in and look at your embedded chips and see what needs to be done in relation to the January 2000 problem in your computer without fixing the 29 February problem; that will of course be solved.We are saying to people that they should get these problems solved, and I think we are sending a loud and clear message from this debate today: `Don't wait till even the end of the year to solve this problem.' July 1999 is a problem, September 1999 is a problem—9/9/99 is a problem—and, as Senator West has quite sensibly and accurately reported, 29 February 2000 could easily be a serious problem. So we are saying, `Fix the problems now and do so because you get a tax incentive as well as a business benefit, in that your business has a better chance of survival by acting now and not delaying.'11:29:004110Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRYZW4TASALP00—Could I touch on the example? What about a firm that get a computer adviser in and are told that they are Y2K compliant, but then the system breaks down after 1 January or some of the other dates we are discussing? That will obviously incur costs. I am sure mistakes can be made, but what would happen if they had been advised that everything was okay? They would have to bring someone in to fix a problem that they were assured would be okay after 1 January; they would have to develop new software to take care of a problem that they believed did not exist.11:30:004110Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I think Senator Sherry in some respects is asking for legal advice in relation to liability.ZW4SHERRYSenator Sherry—No.H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—In some respects one would have to look at that. It may be expenditure for fixing up a mistake that has been made as a result of a consultant giving poor advice, which I think is a real risk in many respects. It is for that reason I think you support my view that to seek guarantees about year 2000 compliance is not a very sensible strategy for anybody. As you have said very eloquently, you cannot give guarantees about this sort of thing. There may well be things that you just cannot find or fix, even if you are 99.9 per cent compliant. To seek a guarantee is not realistic at all.The answer specifically is that, if they are fixing problems that have occurred because they have been given bad advice prior to New Year's Eve, that expenditure in terms of the work conducted is deductible. I have made that point.ZW4SHERRYSenator Sherry—No, you haven't.H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—It is deductible. If they have to replace assets or develop new software, then it will not be.11:31:004110Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRYZW4TASALP00—That is our point. Software may have to be replaced because something has been done incorrectly prior to 1 January 2000 and people do not know about it but have been assured that it is okay. I would have thought that that is at least likely, given the enormous pressure that I understand is on the computer industry. In fact, it may be that some people simply are not able to get a computer expert in to advise them; there may not be the time. I understand that computer advisers who are involved in attempting to fix this particular problem are in very short supply at the moment.As I said earlier, there will be the additional problems of the GST. If the GST goes through, it seems to us a sensible arrangement that businesses, particularly small businesses, have an additional six months. We believe that offsets the argument about the pressure. I do not think the pressure will be any less if there is a six-month extension. There is pressure on business at the moment to get this issue dealt with. But we believe the reality is that, through no fault of the businesses, there will be some hangover problems and businesses should be compensated in the same way as they would have been before January 2000. Inevitably there will be some hangover. I would like to know whether Senator Murray is still saying no to this amendment.11:33:004111Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—I have listened carefully to the discussion, and I think the points put by the opposition on this matter needed to be aired. As is often the case, as the discussion develops, we get more understanding. I must admit, Senator West, that I had read somewhere about 29 February but I had forgotten that issue.Nevertheless, whilst I agree that there is likely to be some hangover, I think the government's point is the appropriate one: the incentive should be maintained as it proposes. But I would expect, in the first sitting of the Senate in the year 2000, the parliamentary secretary with responsibility in this area to report to the Senate with an appraisal of the situation and the hangover—and I do not mean on 2 January but in February when we meet. If the hangover were significant, I personally would expect the government to take due recognition of that and retrospectively address the problem.I cannot, through this discussion, evaluate how big the problem will be post 1 January 2000. I have fairly good information on how big it will be prior to 1 January 2000 because that has been extensively written about. So, Senator Sherry, whilst I agree that you do indeed put a good case, I regret that I cannot support it at this time.11:35:004111Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRYZW4TASALP00—I thank Senator West for bringing my attention to that other date. I was not aware of it.1X4WESTSenator West—Some time in March.ZW4Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRY—I am struggling to use the email, let alone getting into the broader areas of computers. But I am getting there.This is an important issue. With respect to your comments, Senator Murray, there will be some hangover. You are suggesting that we look at the size of the hangover after 1 January 2000. We are into saving the government's time. I hope this government is not in power after 1 January 2000. But, if it is, we will be back here again having the same debate.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—You might be the parliamentary secretary.ZW4Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRY—The only chance of that happening would be in the event of a double dissolution on our rejecting those GST bills—which we should be dealing with here and now, I might remind you again, Senator Campbell.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—I agree with you.ZW4Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRY—And we are ready to go on them.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—So are we.ZW4Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRY—If we accept there is to be a hangover, it would seem to me that we are really questioning its size. Senator Murray is suggesting that we can come back and revisit the legislation, and that is fine, but that will take some hours of the Senate's time. We believe that, on balance, we could have dealt with that matter here and now. But we accept, Senator Murray, that the votes will not be there. So I will not be making any further comments on the legislation.11:37:004111Lundy, Sen KateSenator LUNDY7G6ACTALP00—I would like to take this opportunity to make a few comments on this issue. I think it is a point of consistency. Senator Campbell alluded to the issue of liability being a factor in the consideration of what happens post 1 January 2000. Specifically, I refer to the so-called Good Samaritan legislation, which does address issues of liability for companies, firms and businesses that take advice on the issue of the year 2000 remediation, preparation plans, contingency plans, et cetera. If they act on that advice, and that advice is found to have been given in good faith, the purposes of the Good Samaritan legislation shifts the legal test as to whether or not there is any recourse available to the recipients of that advice.This is relevant in this debate, and the point of consistency is valid. On the other hand, the government moved through that Good Samaritan legislation with our support. There was recognition that there was a great need to promote disclosure and discussion about the Y2K problem and to encourage dialogue between various entities on Y2K. The intent and structure of that particular piece of legislation was very much one of opening up the doors of dialogue in recognition of the fact that no-one could predict precisely what was going to happen.Its relevance with this bill goes to the heart of that unknown quantity. Post 1 January 2000 we may have a situation where advice may have been provided in good faith and acted upon in good faith. If there is a failure, then the ability for the business affected to claim legal recourse has been affected by the Good Samaritan legislation. That is all well and good, and it had a specific purpose. But surely in that context there is scope for the government, given that they were prepared to shift the legal test for companies suffering loss as a result of advice given with the right intent, to provide this minor mechanism to allow them to recover some benefit for taxation purposes in subsequent expenditure.To not do this starts to work against the spirit of the previous piece of legislation brought forward by Senator Campbell in this place and the genuine intent behind this bill, which is to relieve this burden. Because we will not know the extent to which the Good Samaritan legislation will be tested in affecting those liabilities until after 1 January 2000, it is reasonable to apply the same degree of consistency to this bill in saying, `We will not actually know the degree to which businesses will suffer prior to 1 January 2000.' Therefore, we are requesting that it be extended by six months, as Senator Sherry so eloquently conveyed to the Senate. If the government is to be consistent, you must find it within yourselves to support the Labor amendment. Question put: That the amendment (Senator Sherry's ) be agreed to.11:45:00The committee divided. (The Chairman—Senator S. M. West)23Bishop, T. M. Bolkus, N.Campbell, G. Carr, K.Conroy, S. Cook, P. F. S.Cooney, B. Crossin, P. M.Denman, K. J. *Evans, C. V.Faulkner, J. P. Forshaw, M. G.Gibbs, B. Hogg, J.Lundy, K. Mackay, S.Murphy, S. M. O'Brien, K. W. K.Quirke, J. A. Ray, R. F.Reynolds, M. Sherry, N.West, S. M.43Abetz, E. Allison, L.Bartlett, A. J. J. Boswell, R. L. D.Bourne, V. Brown, B.Brownhill, D. G. C. Calvert, P. H.Campbell, I. G. Chapman, H. G. P.Colston, M. A. 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. MacGibbon, D. J.Margetts, D. McGauran, J. J. J.Minchin, N. H. Murray, A.O'Chee, W. G. Parer, W. R.Patterson, K. C. L. Payne, M. A.Reid, M. E. Stott Despoja, N.Synon, K. M. Tambling, G. E. J.Tierney, J. Troeth, J.Vanstone, A. E. Watson, J. O. W.Woodley, J.Collins, J. M. A. Macdonald, S.Hutchins, S. Hill, R. M.McKiernan, J. P. Newman, J. M.Schacht, C. C. Alston, R. K. R.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the negative.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—The question now is that the government amendments on sheet EH216 be agreed to.Question resolved in the affirmative.11:48:004112Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRYZW4TASALP00—I had indicated we were proceeding with another amendment, but its intent is the same as the amendment that was just defeated—and I say defeated regrettably. Labor was taking an important initiative to assist business, particularly small business, with the Y2K problem.AW5CARRSenator Carr—Why aren't we discussing the GST?ZW4Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRY—Exactly—thank you, Senator Carr. While I am on that subject, the extension in the amendment that was defeated took into account the worst case scenario that a GST would be coming in. That was one of the reasons why Labor was endeavouring to ensure that the date for the tax concessions that are available was extended to 1 July 2000. We were defeated on that amendment, regrettably.I noticed, surprisingly, the Democrats not supporting our important pro-business amendment. I note the Greens, Senator Colston and the government were not supporting it but I am a touch surprised at the attitude of the Australian Democrats. Let us hope that there is not a problem that develops after 1 January 2000 and that we do not have to come back and revisit this issue.As I said earlier, we should have been dealing with the GST package. I say to those who are in the gallery and to those who are listening: I am sure many were expecting an exciting debate on the goods and services tax. Instead, we have been debating the Taxation Laws Amendment (Software Depreciation) Bill 1999 , an important issue, and we are now about to move on to quarantine legislation—again, an important issue. But the fact remains that the time was given for the goods and services tax package. We are not dealing with it because of the incompetence of the government—Senator Alston, Senator Kemp and Senator Campbell—and the shambles we went through yesterday with the government pulling the committee stage of the goods and services tax legislation which we should have been dealing with. I indicate that I will withdraw the further amendment.Bill, as amended, agreed to.Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.4113Bill (on motion by Senator Ian Campbell) read a third time.Bills4113r6894113Debate resumed from 29 March, on motion by Senator Ellison:That this bill be now read a second time.11:52:004113Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW656NSWALP00—I commence my contribution to this second reading debate on the Quarantine Amendment Bill 1998 by noting that this legislation seeks to implement many of the recommendations of the committee of inquiry into Australia's quarantine arrangements. That committee of inquiry has become known as the Nairn committee because it was chaired by Professor Malcolm Nairn. The committee was established by the Labor minister for primary industries, Senator Bob Collins, a number of years ago, during the period of the Keating government.The Nairn committee issued its report, entitled Australian Quarantine: A Shared Responsibility, in October 1996. It is now April 1999, 2½ years after that very important, very thorough committee inquiry handed down its report and we are now dealing with the legislation that seeks to implement many of the recommendations of the report. I certainly recognise that a report of such a nature required some time for the government to consider its response, but it should not take 2½ years, particularly when the government's response to the committee's recommendations was published by the then Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, John Anderson, in August 1997. So it took from October 1996 to August 1997 for the government to consider the report and issue its response but it has taken until April 1999 for the government to bring in this legislation.The only reason this legislation is before the Senate today is that this government has adjourned debate on the GST legislation. As I am sure every Australian knows by now, the Senate is sitting this week and next week to deal with the GST legislation. We are sitting at a time when the House of Representatives is not sitting. We are having special sittings to deal with the GST. The Prime Minister and the Treasurer claim that this is the most important piece of legislation that has to be dealt with by this parliament. Those gentlemen are out there in the community urging the Senate, telling the Labor Party, to get on with the job and pass the legislation. Well, we are here waiting for you to bring it on, and what do you do? You squib it. You can't get your act together.I am quite happy now to deal with the Quarantine Amendment Bill. Indeed, I have had my contribution to this debate prepared for some time. We are not about delaying important legislation that needs to be dealt with by the Senate. This is a most important piece of legislation. The Quarantine Amendment Bill 1998 seeks to implement many of the recommendations of the Nairn committee, which I will come to shortly. I wish to pay tribute to the former minister, Mr Bob Collins, for his initiative in establishing this committee of inquiry to broadly look at the important issues of Australian quarantine arrangements.As people are aware from the recent reports regarding an outbreak of Newcastle disease in the poultry industry, quarantine issues are becoming more and more important. Australia can no longer rely upon the fact that it is an island continent, that it has natural boundaries, to maintain its reputation and its status as essentially disease free with respect to many of its agricultural industries. The world today, particularly with respect to international trade and travel, means that we are becoming more exposed to the problems of diseases and pests that exist in other countries. We have to be increasingly vigilant to protect our industries, our agricultural industries in particular, our food industries and our public health.This legislation, I am pleased to say, goes a long way towards enhancing that protection by improving our quarantine arrangements. I must point out, however, that there was one recommendation of the Nairn committee that the government has not agreed to and that we likewise do not support. That was the recommendation of the committee to establish a separate authority which would be largely independent of government to look after quarantine issues. We believe that recommendation was not appropriate. We are glad to see that the government didn't pick it up because ultimately the buck stops with the government on quarantine issues. It is essential that we have a properly resourced public body such as AQIS, staffed by experts, to oversee quarantine in this country.The bill picks up many of the recommendations of the Nairn committee. I will deal with a few of the issues covered by the bill and then move on to some issues that were specifically looked at by the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee. There are a number of definition changes in the legislation, particularly with respect to the use of the terms `disease' and `pest'. Without going into those in detail, we note that they are more extensive and appropriate to today's environment of greater international trade and travel.One particular amendment to the act is the inclusion of the reference to ballast water. Whilst this may appear to be a technical issue, it is in fact a very important issue, as we know. Australia—particularly the state of Tasmania where you come from, Mr Acting Deputy President—is facing a major problem in its seafood industry as a result of ballast water from ships bringing in organisms and pests, particularly the starfish that can attack the shellfish industry. That is one matter that has become increasingly important in recent years and is covered in this legislation.Another provision of this legislation requires greater consultation between the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and the Minister for the Environment and Heritage when looking at quarantine issues and in particular when exercising powers under the legislation. The bill also provides for greater flexibility in pre-border, border and post-border quarantine arrangements. By that I mean that we have moved from the traditional approach of just using border controls to handle many quarantine arrangements and extended that, for instance, by requiring pre-entry reports from vessels so that the quarantine risk is reduced even further.There is much work that can and should be done beyond our immediate border points with respect to ensuring adequate quarantine arrangements within this country. Of course, that is particularly important with respect to the importation of food from other countries.The bill also significantly strengthens the penalties for offences against the quarantine requirements. There are also changes which will bring about greater consistency in the special quarantine zones that exist, such as in the Torres Strait. Special quarantine zones are designated particularly in that area because the traditional inhabitants move from island to island within that region. Whilst that should be facilitated, we need to ensure that exotic pests and diseases are not introduced as a result of the movement of goods or people within those areas.The existing powers which can intrude unnecessarily on the lifestyle of indigenous inhabitants of the Torres Strait have been replaced in this legislation by a more flexible approach in dealing with those quarantine matters. We support the government on that proposal and think it is eminently sensible.As I said earlier, this bill, which was passed by the House of Representatives with the support of both the government and the opposition, was referred to the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee. That action was taken to enable AQIS, the department and such other groups as the National Farmers Federation who have an interest in this issue to appear before the Senate committee to provide more information regarding the legislation.There are two areas of concern I wish to quickly refer to on which we sought information in that inquiry. One was with respect to the privatisation of quarantine stations. The opposition has a concern to ensure that we do not move down the road of the privatisation of quarantine matters, thereby reducing its effectiveness, and move too far away from the public responsibility that rests on government in respect of quarantine.There was a recommendation in the Nairn report that supported the concept of privatising Commonwealth quarantine stations. During the inquiry evidence was given by AQIS. I will quote from their submission. They said:In addressing this issue of privatisation, these stations—that is, the quarantine stations—remain government owned and operated, and thus are not commercial premises at this point. AQIS is about to publicly distribute a discussion paper on their future before taking any further steps down the identified path of privatisation. AQIS would see any new arrangements being made the subject of stringent compliance agreements.We are most concerned as an opposition to ensure that any proposals which involve the greater use of commercially operated premises—if they are to be put forward—are clearly put on the table for the parliament to consider. As I said, we are concerned to ensure that the primary responsibility for quarantine, particularly in respect of high-risk quarantine issues, is retained within a public authority such as AQIS.We do note that this legislation encourages greater interface and cooperation between quarantine services and industry, and that is something that we strongly support. Whilst some low-level quarantine functions can be undertaken by industry successfully, that should not become the hallmark for the future of quarantine across the board in this country.Another issue that the committee addressed in our inquiry—and I urge senators to have a look at the committee's report because, as I said, this is a most important issue for Australian industry, for our economy and for public health as well—is a proposal in the legislation to remove the privilege against self-incrimination. Essentially, this legislation removes the right of persons who have information which should be available to AQIS officers in carrying out their duties of quarantine to rely upon the privilege against self-incrimination in declining to provide such information. The corresponding arrangement is, however, that any evidence obtained by using that provision is not permissible in subsequent criminal proceedings, except in certain limited circumstances. We were naturally concerned to ensure that removal of the right to answer questions on the grounds of privilege against self-incrimination was not being removed without good cause. As we note in the committee's report, AQIS were somewhat unclear regarding the implications of this proposed section of the bill, which is section 79A.8O6O'BRIENSenator O'Brien—You are being very kind.656Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW—I am being kind to AQIS. The committee report notes that clarifi cation was provided by the Attorney-General's Department and, indeed, this issue was looked at by the Scrutiny of Bills Committee. The Scrutiny of Bills Committee noted that, on balance, they were prepared to accept the proposal as being one which strikes a reasonable balance between the requirements of law enforcement and the protection of individual rights. Having had that assurance by the eminent chair of the scrutiny committee, Senator Barney Cooney, I think all senators would at least be willing to accept the proposal on that ground.There is a range of other issues dealt with in this legislation, such as the delegation of powers by the minister, the question of ministerial responsibility and the liability of the Commonwealth, the Crown and the minister in areas where quarantine issues arise. I am sure that my colleague Senator O'Brien will take up those issues in his remarks following my comments.In conclusion, I indicate that the opposition supports the passage of the legislation, but we do so recognising that we have to be ever vigilant in this area. I express our particular concern that we do not wish to see further privatisation in this area. (Time expired)12:12:004116Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEYHX5QLDAD00—I also wish to speak to the Quarantine Amendment Bill 1998 , and indicate that the Democrats will be supporting the legislation.At the outset, I should indicate that at this stage I am not sure about the amendments to this bill foreshadowed by Senator Brown. But I presume we will have time to look at those, given that we probably will not get to the committee stage of this bill today. I am not sure yet what our response will be to those amendments to be moved by Senator Brown, but no doubt in the committee stage we will be able to indicate either agreement or otherwise. I will certainly listen carefully during the debate to Senator Brown's reasons for foreshadowing these amendments. I do not know if Senator Brown was present in the Senate committee inquiry hearings; I presume he was not. I certainly was not able to get there, but was able to read the report. I just wonder where the amendments come from—whether they come from out of the ether somewhere or whether in fact they are valid amendments. They are the questions I will want to hear answered by Senator Brown.I indicate that the Democrats still have concerns about the whole area of quarantine. We believe that this legislation is picking up a number of those concerns and is, therefore, an improvement on the current situation, but I put on the record that we still have concerns. No doubt the experience that we gain from the operation of this bill may suggest further amendments in the future—that remains to be seen—but I think we do need to allow the legislation time to bed down and see how it operates.The bill seeks to amend the Quarantine Act 1908 and reflects the legislative response of the government to the Nairn report, which was released in October 1996. The government is reacting to the report's view of the importance to the community of the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service's contribution to the protection of the environment, and it is imposing an obligation on quarantine decision makers to consult with the Minister for the Environment and Heritage in certain circumstances, and we certainly support that.I do not need to go through the whole history of some of the quarantine disasters that we have experienced in this country, but certainly the one which comes to mind for me was that of the papaya fruit fly in my own state, in North Queensland. In the end, the cost of cleaning up that problem was far in excess of that of the quarantine measures that had been in place and had been removed, which allowed the papaya fruit fly to enter North Queensland and, of course, to cause a tremendous cost in terms of the clean-up of that problem.However, it is good to be able to place on the record that, in fact, that clean-up operation did work and that, to all intents and purposes, it appears we were able to eradicate the papaya fruit fly from North Queensland. So we commend the government and the government instrumentalities on their achievement in that regard. But it underlines again the importance of quarantine, the importance of making sure we have in place proper meas ures to, as far as possible, ensure that there are not breaches of our quarantine protection. I have debated previously—and in fact, I think I remember Senator Calvert also being involved in a debate on this issue some time ago—the whole issue of risk management. I concede that, unless you are going to spend an incredible amount of money, probably risk management is the only way that we can balance out the cost of quarantine measures and proper protection.But I just place on the record again that if you asked the Australian population what they required from the quarantine service they would probably say that they would hope that `no risk' would at least be the goal of the quarantine service. We know that we have got to balance the `no risk' option against the cost of such an option. In fact, I believe that the Nairn report describes `no risk' as being a myth and impossible to achieve in a major trading country. The reality is that they are probably right. But, as an idealist, as I always am, I would still hope that risk management meant that we went as close to the `no risk' option as possible, at least in terms of the goal of the quarantine service.One of the problems in this whole area—and this truly underlines the debate about privatisation of quarantine stations—is that we have experienced in Victoria a number of problems with the privatisation of laboratories. The privatisation of some of those laboratories turned into a bit of a farce when the privatised laboratories found that they were unable to operate economically. So I would like to underline what Senator Forshaw said and to repeat the last sentence of the quote he read, which was from AQIS to the Senate inquiry:AQIS would see any new arrangements being made the subject of stringent compliance agreements.I have to say that the Democrats remain very cynical about that kind of assurance, because we have seen, time and time again, that before you privatise you can give all sorts of promises about compliance agreements and the rest of it, but after privatisation often those compliance agreements are very hard to maintain in a privatised company. I can give you some examples. I have already mentioned the laboratories in Victoria. There is also a problem with trying to regulate the airport in Brisbane. There is aircraft noise and a whole lot of issues to do with the parallel runway which is proposed for Brisbane. The problem, of course, is that now that the airport is privatised it is very difficult to impose any kinds of restrictions on that airport. It is an example of the problem.WH4McGAURANSenator McGauran—You think you've got a problem with the Brisbane airport?WH4Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEY—You are in Victoria, Senator McGauran. Yes, there is a problem with the Brisbane airport. It is not the present Brisbane airport; it is a projected future possibility of a parallel runway and the difficulty of enforcing on a privatised company any kind of regulation about aircraft noise. It is just an example of the problem. I could go on to talk about Telstra or the Commonwealth Bank, but it is the same problem: that it is very easy before privatisation to talk about `stringent compliance agreements' but, in our experience, after privatisation compliance agreements are very hard to impose and to maintain. So I just raise that. In terms of any proposal to privatise our quarantine stations, we know that at this stage that is not going ahead and that there is a discussion paper which AQIS is to issue, or has issued. I believe that, should we come back to further legislation along those lines, it will need to be scrutinised very carefully.I know that I am jumping around a little bit in this speech but I think it is important to put some of these matters on the record. Let me return to the issue of the papaya fruit fly in North Queensland and the particular problem for organic growers. One of the problems that organic banana growers in North Queensland found was that once, the papaya fruit fly had entered North Queensland, all of the fruit from that area had to be dipped in chemicals. That absolutely destroyed those organic banana farms because they cannot use chemicals—that is the whole nature of organic farming. So the pest infestation was far more devastating for them than it was for other farmers who were not organic growers. This example is certainly one that raises issues about quarantine protection.This legislation again raises issues which we have debated previously. Certainly, the Democrats will monitor this legislation very carefully. We commend the government for taking up nearly all of the issues raised by the Nairn report. The legislation is a big improvement in many areas. We will be monitoring it to see just how it works because the whole issue of the quarantine service is very important for the Australian public, for every one of the senators in this place and for Australian primary industry. I note that the committee report recommended shared responsibility between industry, government and the general public in maintaining the high standard of the service.The current situation in our country is that Australia remains relatively free of pests and disease. But as Senator Forshaw pointed out, the recent outbreak of Newcastle disease in the Hunter area is very worrying. Apparently that was an indigenous virus rather than anything that came from imports. This, of course, raises issues for importers from overseas countries who will point the finger and say, `Why are you stopping us from importing? If it is fear of Newcastle disease, you have it here already.' So you can see that debate opening up once more.In closing, let me commend the government and say `Well done.' I do not want to be churlish and say `It is about time,' but we certainly welcome this legislation and will be supporting it.12:26:004118O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TASALP00—As has been said earlier in this debate, the Quarantine Amendment Bill 1998 represents the government's response to the recommendation of the Australian Quarantine Review Committee—more commonly known as the Nairn committee—that the Quarantine Review Act 1908 be revised as soon as possible. It has also been noted that the Nairn committee was set up by Labor and commenced its work in January 1996. This bill provides the legislative framework for many of the recommendations of the Nairn committee, but the government has chosen to make its changes largely within the framework of the existing structures rather than by setting up entirely new ones as envisaged by Nairn. In particular, the government has chosen not to set up a new statutory authority—Quarantine Australia—which was the cornerstone of Nairn's recommendations. Labor supports that view.This bill outlines the scope of quarantine by including reference to the environment and economic activities for the first time, as recommended by Nairn. A requirement to consult the minister for the environment in certain circumstances is included. These circumstances relate to the role of the quarantine service in protecting indigenous fauna and flora from exotic pests and diseases. Moving people and goods in and out of Australia will always involve some level of quarantine risk. The approach taken in the bill is to manage quarantine risks to Australia to an acceptably low level in a manner that provides appropriate protection based on scientific assessment and which is consistent with international rules and standards.Some flexibility is introduced into preborder and post-border quarantine measures. Carriers will gain some flexibility, for example, in the timing of pre-arrival reporting obligations and will be allowed to make their quarantine reports by exception in certain cases, such as for scheduled international flights. The power of quarantine inspectors to use dogs to assist them is formalised. A system of rectification notices is introduced to enable importers to rectify deficiencies which might otherwise cause goods to be refused entry to Australia, particularly where breaches relate to minor deficiencies in required paperwork.Some flexibility is also introduced in dealing with contraventions of the act due to minor technical deficiencies. The power of the Director of Quarantine to order the seizure, sale, destruction or re-export of goods is clarified. Emergency powers are also strengthened to ensure that expedient measures can be taken in respect of newly emerging pests or diseases, even before such threats are proclaimed as quarantinable diseases.At this stage in the debate I wanted to touch on the matter of Senator Brown's amendments, which have only now been tabled in the Senate. There are four amendments to schedule 1 proposed by Senator Brown. The opposition has not seen these amendments before now. The opposition has not heard of any intention to amend this bill before this morning. The bill was referred to the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee. In relation to that reference, a hearing of the committee inquiry into the bill was conducted on Monday, 22 March. Evidence was heard. In addition, the committee met on 29 March to consider its report. There was no indication at the hearing of the committee on 22 March that there were issues which Senator Brown sought to raise. In fact, my recollection is that he did not attend the committee at all, nor did he indicate that he was desirous of doing so but unable to do so for other reasons. In addition, the meeting to consider the report on 29 March, to my recollection, did not have drawn to its attention any intention to seek to amend the bill as proposed in the amendments which were tabled this morning.Whilst recognising that minor parties may have some difficulties in being present at all inquiries, it certainly seems to me to be incumbent upon those minor parties to indicate if they have an interest in a matter. If they are proposing to table amendments, senators should know about that before the debate arises. Indeed, there are processes of the Senate and its committees which allow that to take place, including the process of the referral of this bill to the legislation committee for inquiry. As I have outlined, it is my belief that has not taken place in this case.Resulting from that, the opposition are in the difficult position, if this matter proceeds today, of having to seek to address those amendments on the run, and seeking to address amendments on the run is not a desirable way of proceeding. The opposition's view is that until we have an opportunity to appreciate the intent of the amendments, we would not be keen for this matter to proceed to the committee stage. As that will not occur, I suspect, before this part of the proceedings ends—and this bill will not be due to recommence today, as I understand the legislative program—we may have an opportunity to do that tomorrow. That could not be guaranteed, depending on the import of the amendments and the fact that we will no doubt need to be in contact with our colleagues from the House of Representatives, who are not here this week because the House of Representatives is not sitting. In particular, the responsible shadow ministers may not be easily contactable. I cannot say what their position will be because I do not know. I have only just seen the amendments when I came into the chamber now.I am expressing a caution to the government to say that we may not be ready to proceed with this tomorrow either, depending on the advice we have received. That is unfortunate because we have been saying and continue to say that we support the bill. I think it would be irresponsible for us not to give proper consideration to amendments which are laid before the chamber. To simply say, `They are too late. Therefore, we will oppose them' is not an argument we would use. This circumstance is brought about by the fact that these amendments have been drawn to our attention at the eleventh hour—in fact, well past the eleventh hour. Had the amendments not been tabled today we would have been in a position to finalise consideration of this bill if not today then early tomorrow. I think that would have been the desirable course of events. I must say that it is not necessarily the case now.In relation to a matter that Senator Forshaw referred to—that is, the question of the broadening of the powers of the minister in this matter—we did deal with that at the committee stage. Ultimately, we were satisfied with the information we had as to what the real intent of the bill was, although during our inquiries the evidence from AQIS appeared to be a little confusing and somewhat in conflict with the library's Bills Digest, which described the bill as doing certain things which AQIS were perhaps not keen to concede were the intent of the bill. We have clarified that.I suppose, when you are rewriting legislation and a broad range of material is reconsidered, sometimes items of detail can get lost in the process and be less understood than otherwise might be the case. We did have some difficulty coming to grips with the extent to which the powers of the minister were being broadened in relation to the committee's inquiry process. Ultimately, it is fair to say that the committee's report clarifies the position, if there is a need to clarify it. The position is that we are not at all unhappy with the bill in relation to the broadening of the minister's powers.I did want to touch upon a matter which has been dealt with by the two earlier speakers, Senator Forshaw and Senator Woodley. This is a matter which is of critical importance in terms of the future of the quarantine service—that is, the question of privatisation. In the evidence given to the committee by the Executive Director of AQIS, Mr Paul Hickey, into the provisions of this bill, the AQIS submission to the committee hearing advised that it was about to circulate a discussion paper on the future of the quarantine inspection stations. Mr Hickey said that the release of this discussion paper was the initiation of a process that may or may not lead to the privatisation of its quarantine stations. He said that the privatisation of high risk quarantine stations would depend upon government policy at the time. He stated:If government policy was to authorise the use of private premises for high risk areas, that conceivably could be the case.I also asked Mr Hickey what the value of community service obligation funding is for the high risk quarantine stations. He advised me, and I think I can tell the Senate, that the funding is in the order of $1.5 million per year.It appears to me that this government, as it has done elsewhere, is likely to look to privatise these high risk quarantine facilities based on its philosophical commitment to small government rather than good public policy. It is, I would suggest, a fact that there is a significant public benefit in the provision of effective quarantine management. In saying that, I highlight some of the matters that have been referred to by Senator Woodley and Senator Forshaw about the risk to Australian industries of the introduction of pests and diseases not hitherto present here.The cost to the community of the introduction of pests and diseases can be enormous and can cripple industry. The economic loss to the community can be huge not only in simple dollar terms but also in social terms if that leads to the dislocation of important industries. Short- to medium-term unemployment can also arise from the introduction of diseases. What often happens in some of these industries if things go wrong is that the people who rely on them for their industries lose their employment. They are often in rural and regional areas where there are not alternative employment opportunities. The community dislocation in those circumstances is in fact higher than it might be in other parts of Australia where there are alternatives for people to go to within the community.In terms of the risks occasioned by breaches in the management of quarantine, certainly the high risk quarantine stations should remain as government run facilities. I do not think that there is any doubt that the community should make a financial contribution to meeting the costs of the management of quarantine, particularly for those high risk quarantine stations. As I said, the risk of a breakdown in the monitoring of our borders against the introduction of pests and diseases is too great to take our chances. Having said that, and with the qualifications I made about the amendments which lay on the table, the opposition will support this legislation.12:42:004120Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I, too, support the Quarantine Amendment Bill 1998 , but the Greens are bringing in a series of amendments to tighten it up with regard to the protection of Australia's environment. We believe that this legislation in simply requiring the quarantine officers, where a matter of Australia's environment is at stake, to decide whether or not they will notify the minister for the environment and then decide whether or not they will take advice from that minister is simply not good enough. We believe that if there is a quarantine matter which threatens the Australian environment then not only should the minister always be advised but also the advice from the minister should be taken. I will come back to that a little later.Quarantine is absolutely essential to this nation. Just up the road from my place at Liffey under the Great Western Tiers of Tasmania—and I know that you, Madam Acting Deputy President Reynolds, know that beautiful region well; I understand it is under snow from a fall the night before last—is one of the most wonderful walking places in the world where pencil pines grow. They are a unique pine to Tasmania, but they grace the beauty of many of the posters of Tasmania, particularly those that show off places like Cradle Mountain and the Walls of Jerusalem. Yet at the start of this decade I noticed that one of these was dying by the highway—the only place where a highway goes near pencil pines in the world. Consequent investigations have found that there is a phytophthora. A rootrot germ is attacking those trees which apparently comes from alpine areas in the Northern Hemisphere, maybe America. It was not thought that phytophthora would touch alpine regions until now. The threat of this is enormous—that is, the extinction of the species.If you go to 1,200 metres elevation on the Lake Highway above Liffey you will find barricades and fences, and beautiful little picnic spots that were a past delight to people from Launceston and elsewhere are now blocked off. The quarantine services are trying to prevent the spread of this disastrous blight on the highlands of Tasmania, which probably got in on somebody's boots or on somebody's machinery. We have to be able to put in effective prevention, because otherwise it is not just environmental disaster but economic disaster that comes out of such a blight, such an exotic pest, getting into our wonderful environment here in Australia. That is what this bill goes some way towards preventing.Debate interrupted.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Reynolds)—Order! It being 12.45 p.m., we will now move to non-controversial legislation. Bills4121r687Billsr688Billsr686Billsr683Billsr6814121Debate resumed from 19 April, on motion by Senator Vanstone:That these bills be now read a second time.12:45:004121Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW656NSWALP00—There are five bills before the Senate at this time. They are the Primary Industries (Excise) Levies Bill 1999 , the Primary Industries (Customs) Charges Bill 1999 , the Primary Industries Levies and Charges (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1998 , the National Residue Survey (Excise) Levy Amendment Bill 1999 and the National Residue Survey (Customs) Levy Amendment Bill 1999 .These bills, taken together, form legislation that is intended to amalgamate some 40 separate acts that currently exist and provide for the imposition of levies and charges upon rural industries. This body of legislation, which I refer to as the primary industries levies amalgamation legislation, is intended to provide a framework for the imposition of future levies and charges and to streamline that process, as I said, from currently 40 separate acts to two principal acts and three related acts. The two principal bills in this legislation are the Primary Industries (Excise) Levies Bill 1999 and the Primary Industries (Customs) Charges Bill 1999.Currently, primary industry levies and charges are imposed upon various rural industries, generally at the request of and on behalf of those industry organisations. Those levies and charges are imposed to provide funds for the promotion of research and development for those particular industries. As I said, they are often imposed as a result of industry initiative, and the government acts as the collection agency on behalf of the various industry peak bodies.The specific provisions of the bills and the purposes thereof are set out in the minister's second reading speech, and I do not need to go over that in detail. I do wish to indicate that the opposition supports passage of this legislation, as we are assured that, firstly, it has been the subject of intense consultation with industry, who support it, and, secondly, it will streamline the process into the future.Along with those assurances, I note that, if problems arise in the future, the industry peak bodies will be on the phone to us pretty quickly, as they usually are to let us know when they have some difficulty with either government legislation or particularly government regulation. It is really the regulations powers that are used to impose the additional levies, and we will hear those concerns pretty quickly if they arise, will be able to examine them and, if necessary, will take them up with government. So with those few remarks, and noting that my colleague Senator O'Brien also wishes to add some remarks to this non-controversial but very important legislation, I will indicate that the opposition supports the legislation.12:50:004122O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TASALP00—These bills consolidate 40 levy and charges imposition acts into just two acts. The proceeds raised by these levies and charges will principally fund research and development, statutory marketing authorities and health and safety monitoring in a large number of key rural industries. These bills had a fairly shaky start in the Main Committee of the other place with the eleventh hour introduction of a plethora of amendments. This is yet another illustration of the failure of this government to manage its legislative program properly. We have had these bills on the books for a considerable period of time, then from nowhere the government introduced a significant parcel of amendments. The amendments were sensible, but the manner in which they were introduced was not.The amendments, or the intent of these amendments, have an interesting history. They were introduced into the parliament by the former Labor government in 1995. The purpose of the 1995 bills was to streamline the process of managing a large number of levies and, in doing so, save significant amounts of parliamentary time. They were designed to allow for a levy rate to be amended at the request of the relevant industry by way of a disallowable instrument rather than a bill. The then opposition opposed the bills and they lapsed as a result. Now we have basically the same legislation but this time sponsored by the former opposition. The purpose, according to the government, of this package of bills is to, you guessed it:. . . enable the government to better service industry by simplifying the processes and reducing the long lead times surrounding changes to levies and charges and by being more flexible and responsive to industry requests . . . The government also claims the bills will enable the administration of the levies and charges to be streamlined. We support the government's adoption of our sensible package of bills for the reasons we outlined in 1995 and for the reasons the government presented last month.I want to make only one more point. This approach of pulling down sensible programs or blocking good legislation simply for the sake of it has been a feature of the administration of the primary industry or agriculture portfolio under the Howard government, and these bills are just one more example. A large number of rural industries could have benefited from these changes in 1995—not 1999—but thanks to the former minister for primary industries, Mr Anderson, those industries have had to wait until 1999 for these changes to go through the parliament, and they will today.12:53:004122Troeth, Sen JudithSenator TROETHGX5VICLP10—The most important thing to note about this legislation is that it will make the law more accessible to those involved in agriculture, fisheries and forestry. The main achievement of this legislation is the amalgamation of 40 primary industry levy and charge acts into two main bills. This will reduce the call on the time of parliament and the public sector for the often involved process of making changes to levies and charges by reducing the number of imposition acts that will have to be amended to effect changes in the future.The other important aspect of this legislation is that it provides a framework for future levies and charges to be imposed by regulation. This will enable the government to better service industries by simplifying the processes, reducing the long lead times surrounding changes to levies and charges and being more flexible and responsive to industry requests for such changes as well as for new or additional levies. The streamlining of the administration of levies and charges legislation would also introduce new efficiencies to the public sector.It is important to note that the government intends that, when tabled in parliament, a regulation introducing new levies will be required to be accompanied by a report setting out the extent to which the proposed levy or charge complies with the government's general principles for new primary industries levies and charges. Such a regulation will be subject to disallowance by parliament. In addition, the Office of Regulation Review examines new levies through its regulation impact process, and a regulation impact statement is required for each new levy or charge.Industry is supportive of this primary industries levies amalgamation legislation, as it will streamline the process of amending levy rates and introducing new levies. I would point out to Senator O'Brien that many industry sectors took the opportunity to request minor amendments to the legislation while it was before parliament. The amendments moved in the Main Committee demonstrated the responsiveness of this government to industry's requests, and other minor technical amendments to correct deficiencies and improve the legislation were moved while the bill was before the House. This government is being very responsive to industry in terms of what industry wants. I am pleased to say that the House passed the amendments and that industry will benefit from this. In conclusion, this government's initiative in introducing this legislation represents a major step forward in the administration of primary industries levies and charges, and I commend the bills to the Senate.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills read a second time, and passed through their remaining stages without amendment or debate.Bills4123s1984123Debate resumed from 17 February, on motion by Senator Abetz:That this bill be now read a second time.12:58:004123Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—I wish to speak on behalf of the Labor opposition on the National Health Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1999 and indicate our support for the bill. The bill amends the National Health Act 1953 to restrict the export of medications subsidised under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. The export of pharmaceuticals that have been purchased under the PBS for redistribution to other countries should be stopped, and we support any moves to address what we understand to be a growing problem. We therefore support the bill.It is important we make the point though that the problem that has arisen and is addressed by this bill is an indication of the success of the PBS. Australia enjoys affordable subsidised pharmaceuticals that people in other countries are obviously keen to access. The PBS not only provides universal access to affordable medicines; by setting out a national schedule of prices, the scheme also minimises the overall cost of pharmaceuticals. A 1996 Industry Commission report into the pharmaceutical industry found that Australia spends less per capita on pharmaceuticals than Germany, Canada, the US, Japan, Sweden and Ireland.We hope this bill reflects the government's continuing commitment to the PBS. My colleague the shadow parliamentary secretary for health, Alan Griffin, who is the member for Bruce, will speak when the debate moves to the House of Representatives. He has primary coverage, but I wanted to indicate on this occasion the Labor Party's support for the bill.13:00:004124Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4NTCLP10—I thank the opposition for their support on this very important piece of legislation. I intend to make a few very brief comments because the details have been set out earlier in the second reading speech. The National Health Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1999 is a relatively straightforward piece of legislation aimed at prohibiting the inappropriate export of pharmaceutical benefit scheme subsidised medicines. This bill delivers on a 1998 budget initiative to save Australian taxpayers money. It is estimated that up to $20 million per year of PBS subsidised medication is inappropriately exported overseas. This bill will put an end to these activities and ensure that only eligible people in Australia access PBS subsidised medicine.I want to pick up the point that Senator Evans made with regard to the ongoing support of the PBS. The government will be taking a number of initiatives throughout this year about the quality use of medicine and drawing to the Australian community's attention the important benefits that flow to all Australians from the PBS and the very important budget contribution that is made by the government in this important area. The initiatives in this bill are intended to frustrate inappropriate use of medicine—certainly by taking it out of the country without the appropriate approvals and that type of nature. On behalf of the government, I thank senators for their cooperation on this legislation.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.4124The bill.13:03:004124Quirke, Sen JohnSenator QUIRKEZS6SAALP00—Without wanting to delay proceedings, I want to ask one question. I want to know exactly who is affected by this. If a pensioner from my electorate went overseas to Britain, Italy or any one of a number of countries and stayed there for six or nine months, is this bill designed to cut them off from getting their normally prescribed medicines? If so, at what point does that happen? How long do they have to be overseas before they are cut off? It is for my own information.13:03:004124Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4NTCLP10—I can certainly indicate to Senator Quirke that it is not the intention to frustrate the benefits that would accrue in the example that he gives of a pensioner who is an Australian and who may be away for some time. It is intended to ascertain when a person is attempting to carry or send medication overseas in a large quantity that cannot be reasonably considered to be for personal use, where the prescription labels do not relate to the person who has the possession or control of the medication and where the prescription labels have been removed or defaced so as to not allow identification of the person to whom they were supplied.It is very clearly a matter of intending to ascertain where inappropriate export of prescriptions that have been subsidised under the very generous pharmaceutical benefit scheme in Australia are going to inappropriate purposes or not the purpose for which they were intended. I would hope that Senator Quirke would accept those assurances.Bill agreed to.Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.4124Bill (on motion by Senator Tambling) read a third time.Bills4124r618Billsr6054124Debate resumed from 25 March, on motion by Senator Ian Campbell:That these bills be now read a second time. 13:05:004125Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY3L6VICALP00—I rise to speak very briefly on the Customs (Anti-dumping Amendments) Bill 1998 and related bills to indicate that the opposition is supporting them. I would not want the government to think that just because we are indicating support we are in complete agreement. We believe this bill falls short of many of the needs of industry and falls short of clearing up the mess that the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade got us into.To this day we are yet to receive an explanation as to why Mr Fischer decided to grant this quite extraordinary status to China when many countries around the world in the past have been what we call command economies. This means it is possible for a government to suppress a domestic price. When your local industry is being swamped with imports from some of these countries, you traditionally make an estimate of what the local price would be. But, in a command economy like China, it is possible for the government to make sure that the inputs and the output costs are all very low. Therefore, the domestic price is artificially kept low.For Mr Fischer to have granted what is called free market status to China a couple of years ago as part of an agreement for which we have not yet had an explanation is quite extraordinary. It created job losses in Australia within six to 12 months. Companies that were going to establish in Australia to do business here went overseas. They went to Argentina instead of setting up in Australia. Jobs were lost because of Mr Fischer's ineptitude in dealing with this matter.This bill is a response to Mr Fischer's gaffes. It does not go as far as we would want, but it begins to address the problem that Mr Fischer caused. As I said, I did not want to speak for long. We are supporting the bill, but we do not believe it goes anywhere near meeting the needs of industry.13:07:004125O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TASALP00—I wish to make some brief comments about the Customs (Anti-dumping Amendments) Bill 1998 and the Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1998 . This government has taken an incredible amount of time to progress these import ant amendments. In fact, these amendments were originally introduced into the parliament in June 1997 as the Customs Legislation (Anti-Dumping) Amendment Bill. That bill lapsed with the proroguing of parliament on 31 August 1998.A key feature of this legislation is to provide a special approach for determining normal values of allegedly dumped goods from countries that are in the process of transition to a market economy. This amendment was in fact announced by the government in March 1997—over two years ago.The delay in progressing this important legislation rests entirely with the government. We on this side of the chamber, and our colleagues in the other place, have been keen to progress it. The government has been arguing for some time that its legislative program has been blocked by the opposition parties in the Senate. The manner in which the government has dealt with these important bills stands in sharp contrast to those claims. And they are only one example.A matter of weeks ago, we debated the enabling legislation for the government's rural training program—FarmBis. The detail of that program was announced by the government in September 1997. Funding for the program was actually provided for in the May budget of that year. Yet there we were, in March 1999, still trying to get the enabling legislation through the parliament.We on this side of the chamber see anti-dumping laws as important legal weapons against unfair international trading practices. This is not about protection; this is about fairness. Australian industries should not have to compete with imports where the costs of production do not reflect the price ultimately charged. I hope the government is of the same view. We will be supporting the bills.13:09:004125Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—The Customs (Anti-dumping Amendments) Bill 1998 and the Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1998 provide a special approach for determining the normal value of allegedly dumped goods from countries in transition to a market economy where the selling price of those goods is subject to government control. A number of our neighbours fall into that category.The bills also provide for a new methodology for determining the normal value of allegedly dumped goods where the goods are exported from a country in transition to a market economy and the raw material input into the goods which accounts for more than 10 per cent of the costs of producing the goods is supplied by a state owned enterprise.As the previous speakers have already outlined, these are issues which have been very much at the forefront of consideration by the parliament as a whole and by the Senate, with inquiries into various bills and various debates focusing on the very real problems in this area. For that reason the Democrats welcome the appearance, finally, of these bills on our legislative calendar. We think they are long overdue and very valuable.As a member of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, I point out that the committee was concerned that a number of amendments commenced on 1 January 1993—six years ago. The amendments were designed, according to the explanatory memorandum, to ensure that approximately $12 million in interim duties collected since 1 January 1993 is not subject to legal challenge.The minister replied, in response to the committee inquiry, that the relevant provisions had not been subject to judicial interpretation and that there were no cases currently pending which would be affected by the amendments. It was felt that this particular retrospective activity had been quarantined and could be accepted therefrom. For those reasons, we accept that these bills can be regarded as non-controversial and we support them accordingly.13:13:004126Murphy, Sen ShayneSenator MURPHYFX5TASALP00—In speaking to the Customs (Anti-dumping Amendments) Bill 1998 and the Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1998 we need to look at the course of action—3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—The debacle.FX5Murphy, Sen ShayneSenator MURPHY—Yes, Senator Conroy, a bit of a debacle. Prior to coming to government, the coalition made much ado about anti-dumping and customs controls. In 1996, the government commissioned Willett to conduct an inquiry into the anti-dumping provisions of the Customs Act 1901. The report of that inquiry was handed down in around September 1996.It took the government until the end of 1997 to take any action. Indeed, it was only as a result of the opposition's action—the introduction of two private members' bills, by Simon Crean in the House of Representatives and by me in this chamber—that the government was forced to bring forth its own legislation to implement the Willett recommendations. Even then, they fell short of what Willett was recommending. They referred part of his report to the Industry Commission—now the Productivity Commission—for further consideration and report.Senator Murray interjecting—FX5Murphy, Sen ShayneSenator MURPHY—That is exactly right. Of course, it was important for us to take certain steps to bring about some changes. In the meantime, the Deputy Prime Minister visited China and had a cup of tea with Madam Wu, who certainly wooed Mr Fischer because he came back and said, `Well now, China is an economy in transition, so that's how they ought to be treated—we've got to look after them a bit better.' There was no consideration of the impact, or potential impacts, on Australian industries—none whatsoever.We now have a situation—as has been pointed out before—where these bills, which came forward in 1997, were subsequently amended as a result of the Senate Economics Legislation Committee inquiry and now at least somewhat reflect the position, albeit still short, that we ought to be adopting. But this is only as a result of industry pressure and opposition pressure. This is despite—as I said at the outset—this government beating its chest and saying it was going to do all of these things with regard to anti-dumping measures. We have crept along, ever so slowly, to a point where we finally have got some semblance of the anti-dumping measures that ought to apply.3M6MURRAYSenator Murray—We've got there at last, in the meantime taking a bit of heat.FX5Murphy, Sen ShayneSenator MURPHY—Senator Murray, it is my view that these things are still a long way short of where they ought to be. Indeed, if we look at one industry—the wood and paper products industry, which is the industry with the second largest import trade deficit in this country—we still have circumstances where we ought to be taking other measures. These are not measures that would be inconsistent with the World Trade Organisation rules.We cannot allow the import of paper and pulp, from countries such as Indonesia, which places our paper making industries in great jeopardy, under circumstances where those countries clearly do not meet any environmental guidelines in the harvesting of their forests, when we in this country require environmental guidelines to be met in the harvesting of forests and, in terms of acquiring resource to make paper, require certain forest management practices to be employed. Albeit that these practices are on a voluntary basis, there are measures that governments can take if they are not met. Clearly that is a competitive advantage that some countries have over us but it can be addressed through the customs legislation.We can make changes that will not be in breach of the WTO rules. If we look around the world at the degree of protection that is employed by a whole host of other countries, including some of the biggest economic powers of the world, we see a totally different approach. We see examples from time to time where the US, at its will, takes certain measures that to all intents and purposes would seem to me to be in breach of the WTO rules, but are found not to be.I have people say to me, `You suggest that we ought to take some measures, but they could end us up in a trade war, and we are not in a very strong position to enter a trade war.' I accept that, but there is nothing wrong with any country that takes measures that are consistent with the WTO and the rules that apply through the WTO. There is no reason for other countries to embark upon a trade war with us, if all we have done is to employ measures that are GATT and WTO consistent. If they did, then I would suggest that they should only take measures that are also WTO and GATT consistent because otherwise we could run the same argument.There have been many problems associated with both anti-dumping and, in the other area of customs, our own import restrictions. One example which I think was stuffed up monumentally from the start relates to our salmon farming. Clearly we ought to have a long, hard look at what we are doing in this area. Whilst we do support these bills as a small step forward we still have a long way to go. If we do not take some further steps, we will see the closure of the paper making industry in my own state of Tasmania and, I suggest, potentially the closure of the paper making industry in Victoria.I do not know where we got to with the Productivity Commission's report on the further steps suggested by the Willett report, but we certainly have to proceed to take further steps in the area of making sure that our industries do compete on a level playing field. We should be ensuring that they are definitely not subject to dumping from other producers in other countries as they are faced with at the moment. Because of inadequacies in the legislation and some that still remain, they will continue to be subject to those pressures. I suggest the government seriously consider those matters and do something about them. I commend the bill.13:21:004127Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSONLI4VICLP10—I thank Senator Conroy, Senator Murray and Senator Murphy for their contributions and also thank them for their brevity and cooperation. I want to respond to Senator Murray regarding the comments in the Scrutiny of Bills Committee report. The bill does include a retrospective provision dealing with the collection of dumping duty. This is to correct a drafting error—and I will not be provocative, Senator Murray, and say it was a drafting error from 1993. The amendment will safeguard the duty which has been paid to date. It is not as a result of any court cases; it has not affected anybody at this stage. The duty collection arrangements have not been the subject of any court challenge. The amendment does not result in the imposition of any additional burden on any party—it merely serves to clarify and safeguard existing arrangements. I thought we should put that on the public record since you had raised that issue here. I thank honourable senators for their cooperation and commend the bills to the chamber.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills read a second time.4128The bills.13:22:004128Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—I wish to ask the parliamentary secretary a question. I think the issues raised by Senator Murphy are worth a quick reply. What has happened to the further recommendations of the Willett committee as to be assessed by the Productivity Commission?13:23:004128Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSONLI4VICLP10—I have been advised that there was no recommendation from Willett that it be referred to the Productivity Commission.13:23:004128Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—I have another brief question. As you would have gathered from the contributions made, there is broad support for this bill but there is concern that there are still dumping activities which are not appropriately covered by the legislation. Can the parliamentary secretary advise as to whether there is the intention from government to introduce any further legislation in this regard or are they merely going to keep a watching brief on the issue?13:24:004128Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSONLI4VICLP10—As you are fully aware, it is not my area of responsibility. I do not know the answer to that question. I think the appropriate thing would be for me to refer that question to the minister and have an answer to you as soon as possible.13:24:004128Murphy, Sen ShayneSenator MURPHYFX5TASALP00—I did not hear what Senator Murray's last question was, but I assume the minister referred Willett to the Productivity Commission. I do not know whether you made that point, Senator Murray.3M6MURRAYSenator Murray—No, I didn't make that point; I asked the question.FX5Murphy, Sen ShayneSenator MURPHY—I know, I heard you ask the first question. Willett never made any recommendation but the minister, in the drafting directions, said that certain aspects of the Willett report would be referred to the Productivity Commission for further consideration and report. I think that is the question that needs to be answered.13:25:004128Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSONLI4VICLP10—You were in flight when I answered the question. As you know, it is not my area of responsibility. Obviously you have a concern. It is not relevant to the bill in hand at the moment but it arises out of issues associated with it. I will draw the minister's attention to this debate and ask for responses to the questions they have asked to be given to both Senator Murphy and Senator Murray.Bills agreed to.Bills reported without amendment; report adopted.4128Bills (on motion by Senator Patterson) read a third time.Bills4128r6014128Debate resumed from 17 February, on motion by Senator Abetz:That this bill be now read a second time.13:27:004128Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRYZW4TASALP00—I think it is important to make a number of points about the sales tax system. I have referred to the strength of the current sales tax system on a number of previous occasions in the Senate in the context of the debate on the government's tax package and its continual assertions that the sales tax system is `broke'. It is not just the Treasurer and the Prime Minister who have made this claim but recently the head of Treasury, Mr Evans, in estimates also said bluntly that it was broke. I have referred again on a number of occasions to the Oxford Dictionary definition of broke or broken. We have had this continual mantra: the tax system, particularly the wholesale sales tax system, is broke or broken. The definition of broke or broken refers to such indicators as bankrupt.If we look at the recent revenue collection from wholesale sales tax, in fact the revenue for the six months up until December last year from wholesale sales tax collections grew by approximately nine per cent. To put that into perspective, that is well in excess of the current rate of economic growth. If a tax is broken, why is it collecting an ever-increasing amount of revenue and indeed why is it collecting more revenue than the economic growth of the country? So in terms of revenue projection it is clearly not broken.It is interesting to note that in the last 12 years the Commonwealth budget has been in surplus on six occasions. Of those budget surpluses, four were delivered by Labor in the late 1980s and the early 1990s. As we know, the budget is back in surplus, it will certainly be in surplus when the next budget is handed down, and it is going to be in surplus for the foreseeable future with an alleged broken wholesale sales tax system and without a goods and services tax—at the present time at least and I hope for the long-term future. The notion that the sales tax base is crumbling is just unsustainable.Recently, Access Economics released a paper analysing Australia's tax revenue base. They looked at the wholesale sales tax and pointed out a worst case scenario. They indicated that there was likely to be a loss of revenue of perhaps $100 million per year from the sales tax. Even if this were true, the loss of $100 million per year in revenue over, say, the next 20 or 30 years is absolutely minuscule in terms of the Commonwealth's revenue and the total budget.Again recently, on the Senate tax committee of which I was a member, on the Monash model it was reported that Treasury had asserted that a major change in the tax mix was necessary because the present array of indirect taxes will raise insufficient revenue in relation to Australia's future public sector requirements; however, the Treasury provided no explicit revenue forecasts. I emphasise that point. Treasury, according to Monash analysis, does not provide any explicit revenue forecasts in respect of the sales tax.My colleagues Senators Conroy and Cook and I pursued in the recent estimates this issue with Treasury. We questioned them carefully about some files that we knew existed. We did not know their contents, but we knew that they existed about future revenue projections from sales tax. Initially at least, Treasury was denying that these files existed—until we read out the file numbers, which was a clear indication that the files existed. We wanted to know what was in those files. What are the future revenue projections? We had just had, as I referred to earlier, Mr Evans, the head of Treasury—and I know that Treasury officials do watch these debates on the TV screens down in the Treasury building—LI4PATTERSONSenator Patterson—Wave to them, then.ZW4Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRY—I like to do more than wave to them. I like to give the big finger down to that GST, Senator, and all the misinformation we have been getting on the GST. It does not disappoint me that the government provides misinformation—you expect that, unfortunately—but it does disappoint me that the Treasury has been part of this process, from the fact that we could not get the sales tax revenue forecasts out of Treasury and the fact that Mr Evans says `It's broke' when clearly it is not broken. Labor makes no apologies for its position that the current wholesale sales tax should continue.It is not as though the current wholesale sales tax has not been updated and modernised, and not just in terms of the rates for collection. There have been very significant changes to our current wholesale sales tax over the past 50 or 60 years. It has been continually updated, continually modernised. Sales tax has great flexibility as a tax policy tool. You have a number of levels of sales tax and you can effectively tax progressively—unlike with a GST, where it is a common 10 per cent rate across almost all goods and services. The wholesale sales tax is an input tax, just as this tax in respect of a GST on financial services and home rentals is an input tax; but the wholesale sales tax is a multiple rate structure, and that is an advantage, as I said earlier.We do not believe that the current level of criticism of the wholesale sales tax is valid. Also, the wholesale sales tax does not tax the necessities of life. It does not tax most food, or clothing, footwear, electricity, gas or telephone—as the GST will. All that you wish to achieve in terms of revenue can be accomplished by the maintenance of the wholesale sales tax. It is not an unusual concept, even with a GST, to apply different rates of tax according to your particular ideological position about who should be taxed and at what rate.It is interesting that there are many countries in the OECD—Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, Mexico and a considerable number of others—where their VAT applies at different levels. Labor certainly do not believe that we should have a GST. We do not believe that there is any need to shift from the current wholesale sales tax.It is interesting that, with the goods and services tax proposed to replace the wholesale sales tax and nine other taxes—in the main, state taxes—the GST will raise some additional revenue. But that additional revenue is not critical to the maintenance of the budget surplus, and it is not critical to the delivery of the second element of the government's tax package, which is the income tax cuts.One of the frustrating elements of the last election and the period since then is that, unfortunately, a significant number of Australians do not realise that with the government's tax package—and it is inequitable in terms of income tax cuts—those income tax cuts can be delivered without a GST. They are not dependent upon a GST. You could deliver the government's income tax cuts with the current wholesale sales tax, without it being replaced by a GST, because the proposed income tax cuts are based on a budget surplus that is likely to continue for at least the next couple of years. We do not need a GST. We simply do not need it. We do not need it in order to maintain the revenue from indirect taxes and we do not need it in order to provide revenue for income tax cuts. For numerous other reasons, we do not need the wholesale sales tax replaced.One of the major advantages of the wholesale sales tax is that there are only 70,000 tax collectors—70,000 businesses collect the wholesale sales tax. Initially in the first year the estimates are that under a GST there will be 1.4 million tax collectors, which will rise to 1.6 million tax collectors. In efficiency terms, how can a tax that increases the number of tax collectors from 70,000 to 1.6 million—there will be more than 1.5 million new tax collectors—be more efficient in terms of collection?The vast majority of those new tax collectors will be small businesses and they will have additional compliance costs: the costs of doing business, meeting the paperwork requirements or whatever that may be. It may be $500 in one instance or $1,000 in another. In another instance it might be higher. We do know that the collection of the GST by small business particularly will involve compliance costs which will be greater than they will be for large businesses.The wholesale sales tax is not perfect—I would be the first to say that—but it can be renewed and updated. One of the most misleading comments that is made, and one of the most commonly misunderstood aspects of the sales tax, is the continual assertion that the sales tax system is based on manufacturing and not on the growing services sector. The logic that is drawn from that is that that is why it is not a modern tax and in fact revenue will decline.What is interesting about the sales tax is that it does tax a number of electronic goods, such as computers, to take one element, and they in turn are based on the growing services industries. So a sales tax is, in part, certainly based on manufacturing, but in turn based on the growth of services industries. It is not correct to say that the sales tax is purely based on manufacturing. That is one of the reasons why sales tax revenues are not declining. I want to make a couple of other points about sales tax. Sales tax is maintaining its revenue collection role. It is efficient to collect in terms of the cost of collection, both for government and businesses that are involved in that process. There does not seem to be—certainly to Labor—any good reason for a GST, other than an ideological obsession on the part of this government.As I said earlier, we can have the income tax cuts that the government is proposing without a GST; there is no basis for such a proposal in terms of revenue. The GST can be knocked over, and Labor is certainly intent on doing that and ensuring it is not passed. The government's proposed income tax cuts are grossly inequitable and unfair, and reward the higher income earners by a factor of two or three to one over the lower middle income earners. But, if the government wants to deliver that, it can deliver it tomorrow without a GST and the budget will still be in surplus. Those are a few points I wanted to make about sales tax.In my concluding remarks I might just say that we are debating non-controversial legislation, which is the norm on a Thursday. There are a number of bills put before the Senate that can be dealt with speedily, and Labor has facilitated that. Again I emphasise that it is a matter of deep regret to the Labor opposition that, when we go back after question time this afternoon to debating government legislation, we will not be dealing with the GST legislation.There are more people than normal listening to the broadcast, because the House of Representatives is not sitting. There is a certain degree of public interest in the goods and services tax package. But what is important is that many of those listening—whatever the number—had a belief that we would be dealing with the goods and services tax. The Senate's time this week and next week has been specifically set aside to deal with the goods and services tax.In fact, the Treasurer, Mr Costello, and the Prime Minister, Mr Howard, have been out in the community and on the radio waves saying, `The Senate has got to pass this tax package.' They are telling the senators, `Get in there and pass it.' Labor is here in the Senate wanting to debate the goods and services tax package.2M6COONANSenator Coonan—But you don't want to pass it, do you?ZW4Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRY—We certainly will not pass it. I will take that interjection. But the sooner we get on with it and know what the final position is, the better. Labor will not support a goods and services tax. I am proud of that, and the Labor Party is proud of that. That is the position we took to the last election and, for some of the reasons I explained a little earlier in my comments, it is not a tax that Australia needs. The goods and services tax is not necessary.I indicate to those people who believe that we should be discussing the goods and services tax today that we are not discussing it because the government's own leadership in the Senate yesterday afternoon decided to put off the debate on the GST, and not go into committee and discuss it in detail.There is the Treasurer, Mr Costello, and the Prime Minister, Mr Howard, out there saying, `Get on and pass the GST,' but the Liberal government's leadership in here is saying, `We are not going to consider it until tomorrow,' and I suspect not until next week the way things are heading. This is not because of any deliberate time delaying by the Labor Party.Yesterday there were some examples of confusion in the Senate. Two government senators went to lunch early and the government missed the vital vote. There was some degree of confusion on the government's side. The government leader, Senator Hill, is away and has been replaced by Senator Alston, who has not been able to keep up with the game in terms of dealing with the government's GST legislation.Surprisingly—the Treasurer, Mr Costello, and Mr Howard have been assuring Australians that the GST package does not need any amendment; that it is a good package and it does not need any change—yesterday the Assistant Treasurer, Senator Kemp, presented us with a list of about 125 or 126 amendments to the government's package.3M6MURRAYSenator Murray—There were 128.ZW4Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRY—Thank you. The government is bringing in 128 amendments to its package, which, it has been assuring everyone, does not need amendment. I always get suspicious when Senator Kemp says `minor technical matters' or `minor technical details'—he has done it on another occasion. But on this occasion 128 amendments to the government's GST package are referred to as `minor technical matters'. If you look through some of these `minor technical matters'—and I had an opportunity overnight to look at some of them at least—they relate to the sale of farms and how they will be treated with a GST. Some of the amendments relate to charities and the way in which the GST will be collected and enforced. Quite fundamental issues are addressed in those `minor technical amendments'. Normally Senator Kemp refers to them as `enhancements'—that is the jargon you get when the government is backing down on something in a big way.I emphasise again that the sales tax we have in this country is sustainable and efficient and there is no need to replace it with a goods and services tax. There are particular problems with the sales tax, but they can be addressed and that should continue on an ongoing basis as it has for the last 60 or 70 years. For this and other reasons, which we will get into on other occasions, we do not need a goods and services tax. Labor stands ready to debate that package of legislation. We should get on with it and debate it and hopefully—certainly Labor will take this view—we will be voting the GST down.13:47:004132Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—The Sales Tax Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1998 seeks to exempt from sales tax four main categories. The first one is space equipment. In 1998 the government took several initiatives designed to facilitate the development of a commercial space industry in Australia. That statement on its own is worth noting. I am always pleased when I see the walls of economic rationalism and free marketeering crumble, because the government's support for a commercial space industry specifically entails selecting an industry for development which will be good for Australia. I think that is entirely the right policy, and I am very glad to see the saner minds in the coalition prevail on those issues.The financial impact of exempting from sales tax space launch vehicles, payloads and other goods intended for launch into outer space or to be brought back from outer space—true exports in the bigger sense of the word, I guess—amounts to $60 million. So we can quantify the amount of industry assistance being provided to this very desirable new industry by Australia. Thank you to those in the government who do not believe in the extremes of economic rationalism and who do believe in supporting industries and in providing subsidies and supports where appropriate.The second area being addressed is that of goods imported by Olympians. Certain goods are to be exempted from sales tax when imported by overseas participants and delegations attending the Sydney 2000 Olympics, Paralympics and associated events. The goods are not provided in a scheduled sense—they are just described generally—so it is a fairly loose and broad approach. The exemption for goods imported by Olympians has a financial impact which is unquantifiable but is expected to be low. I am not sure what `low' means but, nevertheless, if we are in for billions with supporting the Olympics this measure is just adding to the sense of supporting an enterprise and a sporting event which has changed the face of Sydney and which will be good for Australia. The whole question of Sydney 2000 Olympics and any support, even by the sales tax bill, is to be welcomed.The third area of attention is that of sales tax evasion in the computer industry. The government has quite rightly tightened up on the potential for such sales tax evasion to occur. But again the financial impact is recorded as an unquantifiable revenue gain.I will need a response from the parliamentary secretary because the Scrutiny of Bills Committee again drew attention to this bill. The committee expressed concern that the starting date in respect of the provisions dealing with sales tax evasion in the computer industry is not defined, and there is no provision for automatic commencement after the lapse of a certain period. The government's response to this, when the Scrutiny of Bills Committee wrote to them, was that sales tax evasion in the computer industry is not yet a significant problem—I do not quite know how they assessed that—and they will only proclaim these provisions to commence if it does become a problem. Given that the wholesale sales tax will be abolished on 1 July 2000—that is, if the GST bills go through—it may be that the commencement of these provisions could be postponed indefinitely and exporters therefore would be saved a compliance cost. This is an interesting approach—and perhaps the parliamentary secretary can explain it in her response—because it seems to me that it is almost like a threat, where the government is saying, `We've got the law, we've passed the law, and if you don't mind your p's and q's in this business, we are going to proclaim it.' That sort of provision makes me a little nervous, frankly, because there is no sunset clause and this could hang around for a long time. I might have misunderstood the intent, but I would appreciate a response on that.The other area picked on in the sales tax bill is the temporary importation of goods. I note that the estimated gain in revenue is $2 million per annum, so it does mean that people who are involved in that area will see themselves squeezed a little tighter by the Treasurer and the Treasury for the gain of $2 million. I do not think it deserves any special attention, but there it is—another revenue raising device. With those brief remarks—I will not take the full 20 minutes that is allocated to me—I record the support of the Australian Democrats for this bill.13:53:004133Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSONLI4VICLP10—I thank honourable senators for their contributions to the debate on the Sales Tax Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1998 . The bill contains four proposed changes to the sales tax law, of which two are anti-avoidance measures, one will encourage the development of the commercial space launch industry in Australia and, as Senator Murray pointed out, the other measure will ensure that sales tax does not apply to certain goods brought into Australia by non-Australian family members of participants and by delegations of participants in the Olympic and Paralympic Games and associated events.With respect to the issue that Senator Murray mentioned regarding a matter raised in the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, in order to facilitate the passage of the bill I will table the letter that was sent to Senator Cooney as Chairman of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills from Senator Kemp so that it is available on the public record. But, as a short answer: it is considered that the proposed export provisions will be a powerful disincentive to evasion, even without a fixed starting date. These amendments will act as a deterrent to discourage this type of behaviour from developing, while allowing for a quick response in the event of an emerging problem with tax evasion of this nature.Commencement of these provisions would lead to potentially significant compliance costs for some exporters. On the other hand, if the provisions do operate effectively as a deterrent to evasion, it may be possible to indefinitely defer the start date and these compliance costs. This is in line with the industry's wish to have laws which target evasion but have a limited impact on complying taxpayers and the industry generally. Industry has noted that such strong statements from government are effective in combating evasion.The avoidance of compliance costs in this case is especially desirable, given the current intention to end sales tax on 1 July 2000. Any fixed starting date for the legislation would be shortly before 1 July 2000. It would not be cost effective for either the industry or the tax office to incur these compliance costs unless there was proof of significant emerging abuse of the export exemption.A similar open-ended commencement date exists with respect to the retailer withholding regime, which is another anti-evasion measure aimed at the computer industry. I table the letter to Senator Cooney from Senator Rod Kemp, and I commend the bill to the chamber.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.Sitting suspended from 1.57 p.m. to 2.00 p.m.Questions Without Notice413441344134West, Sen SueSenator WEST1X4NSWALP00—My question is to Senator Herron, representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Can the minister confirm that, on 1 July 1999, home and community care services in WA will attract a compulsory fee in line with the Howard government's funding policy for HACC? All other states either have introduced these fees or are planning to do so shortly. Is the minister aware that the level of the fee that the government has proposed—20 per cent of the cost of the HACC service—will represent an amount greater than the compensation being offered to many pensioners under the tax package? Does this not prove that the compensation being offered to pensioners for the GST can be wiped out at any stage by the government through the introduction of new fees or charges that will apply to this group?4134Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—I am not aware of the situation in Western Australia—at least, I do not appear to have a brief on that—but I do not believe that the GST will have the effect that Senator West says that it will. In fact, the concerns about the possible effect of taxation reforms on the cost of provision of residential and community services for older Australians are unfounded, although there has been evidence given of course at the Senate committee.The residential care services provided to residents of nursing homes or hostels that receive funding under the Aged Care Act will be GST free. These services include nursing or personal care, accommodation, meals and daily living assistance. There will be some minor services additional to residential care provided that may be subject to a goods and services tax, but these will be things like hairdressing and television hire. Similar services that provide personal care, nursing or daily living assistance—assistance with moving, eating, bathing, maintenance, continence, dressing and communication—are funded by the government.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Madam President, I rise on a point of order. You would note that Senator Herron was asked a question about home and community care. He indicated he could not answer it, and now he is going on to answer a question that was not asked. He said he did not have a brief, so he has decided to find any old brief in his file, pull it out and just read it. Really, Madam President, can't you sit him down?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Herron, I do draw your attention to the question that was asked.VW4Senator HERRON—Madam President, I was leading up to the fact that, in the home and community care services, community aged care packages and extended aged care at home packages will also be GST free. That includes—for Senator West's benefit and for the benefit of those senators on the other side who implied that I had not got to the brief—the home and community care program. It is a fact these programs are funded by the Commonwealth government to help older people and people with disabilities stay in their own homes. Similarly, disability support services—Opposition senators interjecting—VW4Senator HERRON—Those on the other side would not be aware of this because they are all union representatives of one kind or another who have been represented—Opposition senators interjecting—VW4Senator HERRON—Senator George Campbell, State Secretary of the Victorian Branch of the Federal Shipwrights Union 1970 to 1976; Kim Carr, Branch President—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Herron, I think you have strayed from the question significantly.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Madam President, on a point of order: we have the humiliating situation where Senator Herron, unable to answer a question, receives a document with a list of previous occupations of eminent Labor senators. I really do believe—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—What is the point of order, Senator?5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—My point of order is that the answer is not relevant. He is in contempt of the Senate. This is question time. I expect—and I hope you would expect, Madam President—him to answer the question asked. If he cannot, sit him down and let us get on with the next question.LD4ALSTONSenator Alston—Madam President, on a point of order: Senator Faulkner is fundamentally out of order, is he not, when he tells you what he thinks, when he gives you instructions and when he recommends that you ought to tell people to sit down? In other words, if he has a submission to make, shouldn't he make it in the normal form?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Certainly. I remind Senator Herron of the question that he has been asked by Senator West and invite him to address it.VW4Senator HERRON—I was stating that, in the home and community care services, community aged care packages and extended aged care at home packages will all be GST free. That was the point of the question and that is the answer.4135West, Sen SueSenator WEST1X4NSWALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. The point of the question related to the fact that HACC will now incur a charge of 20 per cent of the cost of the service. There has been a compensation package offered by the government under the GST. Does this not prove that the compensation will in fact be less than the 20 per cent cost is going to be? Can the minister guarantee that pensioners will not be worse off under the tax package following the introduction of HACC fees?4135Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—Under the modelling, nobody could show that any group would be worse off.41354135Brownhill, Sen DavidSenator BROWNHILLRD4NSWNP10—My question is to the Minister for Regional Services, Territories and Local Government, Senator Ian Macdonald. Minister, the Howard-Fischer government is reversing years of neglect by Labor in regional and rural areas with strong innovative programs like the rural assistance program and the rural transaction centres.RF4COOKSenator Cook—Madam President, I rise on a point of order. My point of order is under the standing orders about what is permissible in questions during question time. We have had this week a disturbing pattern of government questioners framing their dorothy dixers with propaganda statements about government policy. That is out of order. Question time exists to ask questions, not to make political statements. Unfortunately, Senator Brownhill has now lurched into a political statement and not a question. If he has a question, he should ask it. If he wants to make a political statement, he should find some other time to do so. I suggest you draw him to order and require him to actually do what standing orders require, and that is to ask a question.LD4ALSTONSenator Alston—Mr Speaker, on that point of order, my submission is that it is all a matter of balance. If you spend 55 seconds making a statement and then say, `Is that right?' then clearly that is not within the standing orders. If you have a short preamble or you are seeking to have a point made as a basis for the question, then it is perfectly permissible because it puts it in context. Senator Cook well knows that all of the questions that have been asked this week have followed the latter pattern, and I submit to you that they are perfectly proper.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—It is certainly common for a short preamble to questions on both sides. The one thing I would point out is that it is necessary for there to be sufficient silence for me to hear the question if I am going to be making any sort of judgment about it.RD4Senator BROWNHILL—On the point of order, before I continue with my question—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—I have ruled on the point of order, Senator.RD4Senator BROWNHILL—Thank you. If the person on the other side had listened to my question, he would then have been able to hear it.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator, you will be running out of time. What is your question?RD4Senator BROWNHILL—Will the minister outline the benefits of the government's proposed taxation reform package for regional and rural Australia?RF4COOKSenator Cook—Madam President, I raise a point of order. Under standing order 73(i) it says questions shall not ask `for a statement of the government's policy'. That question asked for a statement of the government's policy and should therefore be out of order. If the government want to make a statement of their policy, there are plenty of other forums in this parliament to enable them to do so or they can do a doorstop and have a media conference. This is question time, when it is appropriate to ask questions rather than make statements. The standing orders are quite explicit on this point.LD4ALSTONSenator Alston—Madam President, on that point of order: as I recall it, Senator Brownhill was asking not for a statement of government policy but simply for an indication of the impact on rural Australia of the government's policies—an entirely different matter. What is at issue is how rural Australia is treated: whether it is treated favourably by policy or whether it is not and whether a particular party has no policy at all for rural Australia. Therefore, the impact on rural Australia of the different approaches is a perfectly legitimate topic for question time.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—On that point of order, Madam President, I would point out to you that Senator Alston is so out of his depth that he had to ask Senator Vanstone for that advice before he spoke on the point of order. 10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—That is not relevant to the point of order and you know it, Senator. The minister may not be asked for a statement of government policy and the minister may not make a statement of government policy. In respect of asking how government policy affects a particular section of people, that is a different matter and may be answered as a question.4136Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALDYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—I can understand why the Labor Party wants to prevent us from talking about the good news in the government's tax package for rural and regional Australia.9L6MACKAYSenator Mackay—Where are our questions on notice?YW4Senator IAN MACDONALD—Not only do the Labor Party have no policy but they have no interest at all, whereas Senator Brownhill does have a great interest in that.AX5EVANSSenator Chris Evans—If you were interested, you would have made a second reading speech. Why didn't you make a second reading speech?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! There are far too many interjections.YW4Senator IAN MACDONALD—I am pleased to confirm to Senator Brownhill that the government's Rural Transaction Centres policy will be putting basic banking services back into the bush. Our regional assistance package, for which Mr Reith announced a further $13 million worth of assistance a couple of days ago, will also be a great boost to the bush.The best thing any government can do for rural and regional Australia is to keep interest rates down and to keep inflation down. Through good and able management, our government has been able to do that. The tax reform package will be another significant boost to rural Australia. That is why the National Farmers Federation are so supportive, because they know that the cost to an average farmer will fall by some $7,500 as a result of our tax reform package. That is also why the Road Transport Forum said:Cheaper groceries, improved exports, more jobs and better living standards for all Australians will be the direct results of this new tax policy.I hope Senator Woodley listens to this. They went on to say:Twenty cents in every dollar spent on most households goods are represented by transport costs. This kind of reform will have positive effects on the hip pocket nerve of every household.Fuel costs will go down. They will fall by some $3.5 billion annually, with rural and regional Australia the principal beneficiary. With 80 per cent of merchandising exports coming from regional Australia, the reduction in costs of exporting of some $4.5 billion annually will be a huge boost to regional Australia. But the Democrats will not support this. Senator Woodley said of their former leader Ms Kernot, `Cheryl was always telling me to stay out of the bush because there were no votes there.' Senator Woodley, you did not have to take any notice of her. Why have you done that? I ask Senator Woodley, when he goes to the Monto Shire Council next week, to explain to them—HX5WOODLEYSenator Woodley—Madam President, I am happy to answer Senator Ian Macdonald's question to me.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—It is not an appropriate time to do so. Senator Macdonald, address your remarks through the chair.YW4Senator IAN MACDONALD—I ask Senator Woodley to explain to the Monto Shire Council, when he goes there, why he is against this reduction in costs for rural and regional Australians, why he is against the Monto Shire Council getting a part of the $70 million reduction in costs for local government, why he is against the Monto Shire Council sharing in the $18 million worth of fuel tax reductions and why he is against the extra $35 million that local government in Queensland will get as a result of this tax reform package. Why did the Democrats support Labor in 1993 when they increased taxes on everything and offered not one cent of compensation?Senator Lees interjecting—YW4Senator IAN MACDONALD—You supported them, Senator Lees. There was not one cent of compensation—HX5WOODLEYSenator Woodley—Madam President, I raise a point of order. In the standing orders in a number of places but in particular in 73(1)(k) it says that `questions shall not refer to debates in the current session', in 73(2) it says that `questions shall not anticipate discussion upon any order of the day or other matter which appears on the Notice Paper ' and 73(4) says, `In answering a question, a senator shall not debate it.' I would like to know what Senator Ian Macdonald is doing if he is not doing exactly that.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—The question of bills on the Notice Paper in question time has been raised a number of times. To the extent that they relate to the topic, they have been al lowed. To the extent that they are specifically on the bill, they have been rejected, as one was yesterday. I agree that the topic should not be debated. You cannot set up a proposition and then debate it in answering a question. If Senator Ian Macdonald is doing that, I would draw his attention to that part of the standing orders, but we have been allowing questions on the general topic of the tax package from both sides.YW4Senator IAN MACDONALD—Not one cent of compensation, and yet compensation seems to be such a big part of this package. I know Senator Woodley personally has an interest in rural and regional Australia, but I ask him why they did not object in those days. This is a great package for rural and regional Australia, and as one who lives there that is why I am so personally keen to see the package come in.656FORSHAWSenator Forshaw—It's a conflict of interest.YW4Senator IAN MACDONALD—Yes, I do declare an interest, because I and a great many Australians live in rural and regional Australia, and we are relying on this tax package. (Time expired)4137Brownhill, Sen DavidSenator BROWNHILLRD4NSWNP10—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. The minister has answered that part of the question very well, but he did not continue to answer the part about the Rural Assistance Program and the results that it would have for regional Australia.4137Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALDYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—The regional assistance package does provide $13 billion for any number of projects, all of which are very good news for regional Australia. I just hope that the Democrats support us on this, because I remind Senator Lees that she sits in this chamber today because she was elected on the second preferences of a Liberal Party candidate in 1993, a candidate who supported the GST in 1993. So was Senator Woodley. You sit here today, Senator Woodley, on the second preferences of a party which supported the GST in 1993. So were Senator Margetts and Senator Harradine. And Senator-elect Ridgeway similarly was elected on the second preferences of a Liberal Party candidate who supported the GST. So the Democrats, if they have any interest in the bush, if they have any interest in rural and regional Australia, must support this package, because it is great news for rural and regional Australia. (Time expired)41384138Crossin, Sen TrishSenator CROSSIN7Y6NTALP00—My question is to Senator Kemp, the Assistant Treasurer. Is the minister aware that there are more than 5,000 postgraduate students at Australian universities receiving tax free Commonwealth scholarships of around $15,000 a year? Given that these students do not pay tax and do not receive social security benefits, can the minister explain how this group will not be worse off when they are forced to pay more for their food, books, clothing, transport, software and even Internet usage under the GST?4138Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—Thank you to Senator Crossin for the question. The tax package, as has been stated many times in this chamber, is of great benefit to Australia. The tax package has been modelled extensively, and under any reasonable assumptions—AW5CARRSenator Carr—Why don't you answer the question, then? Here's your big chance.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Carr, don't shout.WW4Senator KEMP—No-one has been able to point to any particular group which is worse off. On the education front, one of the big advantages of this tax package is that the education sector is largely GST free.Opposition senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! There are far too many people on my left shouting, and it is totally disorderly.WW4Senator KEMP—As I said, there will be significant savings to the education sector, very substantial savings which have been outlined in our tax package. I know this is a big problem for the Labor Party. After 52 weeks of Senate inquiries, after large amounts of modelling carried out by a wide range of experts, in the models that were prepared, under any reasonable assumptions no-one was able to point to any group which was worse off as a result of this package.I find it extraordinary that this question is being raised by the Labor Party. If I remember rightly, in 1993 there was a huge rise in wholesale sales taxes and excise taxes, with not a cent of compensation offered. In fact, it was quite the reverse. As we on this side of the chamber can all remember, the l-a-w tax cuts were effectively abolished by the Labor Party after being promised in the election. This package is good for Australians. It is very good for the education sector. I suggest that the attitude of the Labor Party to say no to everything should be dropped immediately and they should adopt a more constructive attitude, as most of your colleagues in your state branches are saying to you. Most of your Labor Party premiers are saying to you to get this package through.LD4ALSTONSenator Alston—Della Bosca and Hogg.WW4Senator KEMP—Indeed. As my colleague Senator Alston has pointed out, various Labor Party personalities such as Mr Della Bosca have urged that this package go through the Senate. Mr Bob Hogg has urged that this package go through the Senate. I would urge Senator Crossin to listen to her state colleagues and to make sure that this is passed through the Senate.4138Crossin, Sen TrishSenator CROSSIN7Y6NTALP00—Madam President, my supplementary question is: will these students not be worse off?4138Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—Senator, I have explained to you—Opposition senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Kemp, just a moment, please. There are far too many people shouting out and disrupting what is going on. The standing orders are quite clear on the matter of behaviour and I would draw your attention to standing order 203.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—I rise on a point of order, Madam President. Is it appropriate for Senator Conroy to call Bob Hogg a `Liberal Party stooge' and `a paid flunkey of the Business Council'? If not, could he please withdraw those remarks?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—I did not hear the comments; there was so much noise going on at the time. There is no point of order.WW4Senator KEMP—It was an exceedingly general question: will students be better off? Many students of course are in part-time jobs; many students receive Austudy. There are many sources of support, and let me assure you, Senator, that I have no doubt in my own mind that the vast proportion of people that you are referring to where they have a relationship with the tax system and the social security system, will certainly benefit. There is no argument.41394139Watson, Sen JohnSenator WATSONVJ4TASLP10—My question is directed to Senator Newman, the Minister for Family and Community Services. Australian families—thanks to your efforts, Minister—are already enjoying the benefits of the $1 billion family tax initiative. Minister, will you outline how the situation for families will be further improved by the tax reform package and other initiatives of the coalition government?4139Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—I thank Senator Watson. We all know his longstanding interest in tax reform and the specialist interest that he takes.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Why did you try to defeat him in the preselection then if he's so good?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senators will cease interjecting. Labor senators have been doing it persistently during question time and it is in breach of the standing orders.BE4Senator NEWMAN—Families—and particularly low income ones—are going to be particularly the beneficiaries of tax reform. I think it is important to have that highlighted in this chamber because constantly we have had a focus on GST and food in, food out, but it seems to have been forgotten what an enormously important initiative tax reform will be for low to middle income families, especially those with children.Can I just list some of the things that people may well have forgotten. There is the reduction in marginal tax rates, for example, and an increase in the tax-free threshold to $6,000. Every family under $50,000 will face a top marginal tax rate of no more than 30 cents in the dollar—and that is a huge improvement when you consider the existing income tax rates which have not been changed since 1993. Eighty-one per cent of taxpayers will have a top marginal tax rate of no more than 30 cents in the dollar.When you think about the existing system, if we do not do anything about tax reform, those taxpayers on average weekly earnings now will be paying 47 cents in the dollar—that is, the top marginal tax rate—unless we do something now. These are average income earners, and that surely is just not fair. So in all the debate about tax reform let us not forget those people, who are waiting for a fairer system for them and their families.The existing $1 billion of the family tax initiative, which the government introduced as soon as we came into power in 1996, is going to be expanded and the family tax initiative will become a $2.4 billion package. There is the increase in the tax-free threshold to $13,000 for families with children under the age of five: they pay no tax until they reach $13,000. Families will receive an effective 70 per cent increase in support from the Commonwealth for each dependent child. That is an additional $140. There is improved child-care assistance, such that a family with one child in full-time care will receive up to $120 a week in assistance with child-care costs.There is abolition of the assets test for family payment, which will particularly be helpful to those in regional and rural areas; an increase in the level of income at which assistance begins to be income tested from $24,350 a year with one child, which it currently is, to $28,200 a year; and a reduction in the income test taper from 50 per cent to 30 per cent. That means that low income families, who under the existing system face a high, effective marginal tax rate of some 85½ per cent, will see that fall to 61½ per cent under tax reform. These are disincentives that we inherited from the Labor Party, who opposed tax reform. We want to address them with our tax reform package because we believe Australia families deserve a better go. Our tax reform package will deliver that, and in the fire and brimstone that we hear from the Neanderthals opposite they never ever give you any time of day for Australian families trying to raise kids.4140Watson, Sen JohnSenator WATSONVJ4TASLP10—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Minister, could you further expand on that with particular emphasis on the low income earners in receipt of income support?4140Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—Of course the tax reform package has a great deal more measures in it to assist people on income support. I think that in all the argy-bargy between one economist and another economist a simple fact has continually been forgotten. While people on income support from day one get a four per cent increase in their payment in advance of any increase in costs and while people may argue about what the CPI effect will be, the government's commitment is that, regardless of whatever that ends up being—FX5MURPHYSenator Murphy—What does it end up being?BE4Senator NEWMAN—Whatever the inflation effect ends up—FX5MURPHYSenator Murphy—Not four per cent.FX5MURPHYSenator Murphy—Whatever it does, Senator—and I have said it in this place before—the increase will remain 1½ per cent above the CPI.FX5MURPHYSenator Murphy—Not four per cent.BE4Senator NEWMAN—It does because it is prices that determine the impact on people. If they also get wage increases because of our new legislation that protects them by a second benchmark, they will be even better protected against the cost of living. (Time expired)41404140Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—My question is directed to Senator Alston as the Acting Leader of the Government in the Senate. If the government does eventually water down the GST package in recognition of the basically unfair nature of the package, will the Prime Minister apologise to Senator Tierney for the very public dressing down that he received last Monday for suggesting just that?4140Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—Unfortunately, that question is based on a hypothetical proposition, because there is no recognition that the package is basically unfair. So all that follows from that is utterly irrelevant.4140Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Can I ask the minister whether Senator Tierney's public recognition of the unfairness of the GST package puts him in the same category as the minister's backbench coalition colleagues such as Mr Katter and Mrs Kelly and now Mr Lawler, the member for Parkes, or whether it is only the National Party critics who get bagged by you as traitors.4140Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—Once again, the premise of the question is wrong. I have read what Senator Tierney had to say, and he has been misrepresented by Senator Faulkner. But there is nothing surprising about that. You do not really want to hear the facts about tax at all. Mr Beazley was on radio in Perth this morning saying that there would be no amendments to the tax package. He wanted to block the GST and he said, `We recognise that we only have 28 senators.'5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Madam President, I raise a point of order. My supplementary question to Senator Alston went to the issue of why Liberal Party critics like Senator Tierney are treated so differently from National Party critics of the GST.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—The difficulty is that there is not a lot of ministerial responsibility in relation to the question. If the minister wishes to make some comments upon him, I will allow it.LD4Senator ALSTON—I do not want to pursue the matter much further other than to say this: you ought to concentrate on the plethora of critics of the Labor Party's `do nothing, head-in-the-sand' approach if you really want to learn a lesson from this experience. It has been utterly humiliating. You are sitting there doing nothing. Your leader says it is always easier to oppose, so he goes on opposing. (Time expired)41404140Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEYHX5QLDAD00—My question is addressed to the Special Minister of State. Is it true that the Commonwealth government is pressuring the Queensland government to accept some 250 amendments to its native title state regime legislation? What is the nature of the amendments which are being proposed? Is it true that the effect of these amendments will be to wind back the rights of indigenous people which have been achieved by the Queensland government in their recently passed legislation? Is this an attempt by the Commonwealth government to ensure that the inadequacy of the Commonwealth's Native Title Amendment Act is repeated in Queensland?4141Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—Unfortunately, I am unable to assist Senator Woodley because native title is not in my portfolio.4141Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEYHX5QLDAD00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. It was certainly in the portfolio of the Special Minister of State when the native title legislation was debated, so I would like some help.4141Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—This was formerly a matter which was within the responsibility of the Special Minister of State. That was changed by the administrative orders post the last election. I will take up Senator Woodley's question and refer it to the Attorney-General.41414141Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—My question is directed to Senator Herron as the Minister representing the Minister for Aged Care. Can the minister explain why, despite the Prime Minister's assurances, nursing home residents who were in a nursing home before 1 October 1997 are being required to pay the government's accommodation charge when they are forced to transfer into a new nursing home? I have a letter from an aged care provider to a nursing home resident that includes a bill of $1,464 for `accrued accommodation charges' after the resident was transferred to a new home following the closure of the facility they had occupied prior to October 1997. Why are pensioners being forced to pay accommodation charges when the Prime Minister made it very clear that it would apply only to new residents?4141Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—Nursing home charges are a responsibility of the people who run the nursing homes and are not a Commonwealth responsibility. So it is the responsibility of the individuals who are occupying that accommodation to pay the charges.Opposition senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! There is an appropriate time to debate answers to questions, and this is not it.4141Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—Madam President, I have a supplementary question. For the minister's information, the government is responsible for imposing accommodation charges and, as Minister representing the Minister for Aged Care, he is responsible. It is also the case that Mr Warwick Smith, in a letter dated 28 September 1998, committed your government to removing charges applying on those residents. When are you going to implement that decision; and why are people being faced with huge bills when you assured them that if they occupied a nursing home prior to the increase in accommodation charges they would not be hit in this way?4141Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—Where a person alleges that there is a hardship, under the Aged Care Act there is an opportunity for them to make a hardship application to have their care fees reduced or to have accommodation bonds or charges waived on the grounds of financial hardship. So if an individual does claim that, there is an avenue for that to be addressed.41414141Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Alston. I refer to the minister's response to Senator Hogg's question earlier this week in relation to the current turmoil in East Timor and in particular to the comment that `it is therefore imperative in the Australian government's view that the armed forces disarm the militia and that those responsible for the violence be brought to account'. Both the Prime Minister and the Minister for Foreign Affairs have stated publicly that they know that ABRI has armed pro-integration militias. Are they prepared to ask where the approval has come from for such a large expenditure, and how will they persuade the Habibie government to control ABRI when they meet in Bali next week? Does the minister also agree that the involvement of ABRI in arming the militia highlights the need for an international security presence in East Timor as soon as possible for the period leading up to, during and after the plebiscite on the autonomy package?4142Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—It is true to say that the government has consistently expressed concern about the behaviour of some aspects of ABRI and the extent to which those in senior positions are in full control of the actions of others. We welcome the progress made yesterday, with General Wiranto achieving the peace agreement signed by pro-integration and pro-independence representatives.I think it is fair to say that anyone who saw the news reports last night would have noted that both sides were effectively saying, `It's all very well to have something on paper; it'll depend crucially on performance.' It would certainly be our view that it would be premature to consider any further commitment in terms of the United Nations or any other peacekeeping action until such time as we can see what the situation is like after a period of time.The government has made clear its support for an early UN presence to prepare for and conduct the consultation process and as a confidence building measure in East Timor. But by that we do not mean armed UN combat troops. The Prime Minister has already raised with President Habibie, in a telephone conversation of 19 April, concerns about the behaviour of certain militia groups. Those matters will be high on the agenda in the discussions in Bali next week.The government welcomes the undertakings given by President Habibie to take action to restore security in East Timor. That will undoubtedly involve discussions about the extent to which ABRI might be aware of the manner in which pro-integration militias have been armed. To the extent that there is evidence to indicate that ABRI has condoned such actions, we would certainly expect those matters to be vigorously pursued by President Habibie, General Wiranto and all those in positions of authority.4142Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. The figures that have been mentioned are several millions of dollars, the authorisation for which is unlikely to come from the lowest levels of ABRI. I am happy to hear that there is some commitment that there may be some questioning about the level at which that authorisation has been given. I ask: why has the Prime Minister recently rejected all proposals to send Australian troops to East Timor as part of an international peacekeeping force ahead of any final agreement at the United Nations sponsored talks about autonomy between Indonesia and Portugal in New York? Don't we have a responsibility as a close neighbour to provide assistance that is considered appropriate by the key parties to the autonomy negotiations? Aren't we putting at risk the Australian civilians who are being sent to provide assistance in relation to the plebiscite if we are not prepared to confront the very real concerns about the close connections between ABRI and the pro-Indonesia militia?4142Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—We will be confronting those links and wanting to explore the extent of them. But the fact is that peacekeeping forces are only relevant once there is a peace to keep. It is premature to talk at this stage of sending in troops or other contingents to effectively impose a will on the people. If the people themselves are prepared to honour that agreement signed yesterday, matters will change significantly over the period. We would hope that it might then be appropriate for the UN to become involved, particularly in the lead-up to the autonomy plebiscite.41424142Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAYUI4VICALP00—My question is directed to Senator Vanstone, the Minister for Justice and Customs. Will the minister confirm that her office contacted the Australian Federal Police in order to ascertain how many AFP officers were investigating travel irregularities by federal politicians? Will the minister confirm that her office was informed that four AFP officers were then working on such cases? Will the minister confirm that her office suggested this was a misallocation of resources and that the number of officers allocated to this area should be only one.4143Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPJustice and Customs10—No, I cannot confirm that. I cannot say that, on any occasion, the question of MPs being investigated has not come up. However, I can certainly tell you that at no time have the AFP been given an instruction by me or with my authority suggesting they have misallocated resources with respect to the investigation of parliamentarians or, for that matter, with respect to any other operational aspect.AW5CARRSenator Carr—So you are dumping on your staff?7E4Senator VANSTONE—No, I am not dumping on my staff because I am not assuming that what Senator Ray says is true. I do not think that you are necessarily raising something knowing it to be untrue, but I will make inquiries into this matter. However, what I was saying to Senator Ray before I was rudely interrupted by Senator Carr, who never seems to understand what the standing orders are all about, was that I will take his question on notice—I take it to be a very serious question. I will also remind other senators—you clearly do not need reminding of it—that the minister responsible for the AFP can give general policy directions to the AFP, but that is the limit—and that is the limit as it should be. We do not want, in Australia, law enforcement agencies taking instructions from politicians with respect to operational matters.4143Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAYUI4VICALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. I thank the minister for taking the question on notice. There was no implication that the minister would have had knowledge of this because the source certainly did not indicate that. Would the minister expand on the procedures that occur when these sorts of matters are referred to the Federal Police and the role that ministers play? I think there has been similar practice in both the previous government and this one.4143Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPJustice and Customs10—If I understand Senator Ray's question, he is asking me to outline the standard procedures. The standard procedures set out that, if there is a matter to be investigated in relation to something that might be considered politically sensitive over a range of portfolios, the minister who wishes the matter to be investigated writes to the relevant minister—in which case, that is me—and the investigation is passed on through the relevant minister to the AFP. It is not a case that the relevant minister—namely, me at this time—makes the decision whether or not to refer the matter. That decision is made by the minister who has the concern, who then passes the matter to the AFP, but through the minister for justice.41434143Chapman, Sen GrantSenator CHAPMANFF4SALP10—My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, Senator Alston. Will the minister confirm that the coalition's tax reforms will deliver tax cuts for families, remove the worst state taxes, reduce export costs and cut business costs? Will the minister inform the Senate how the government's new tax plan will benefit small business and improve living standards for all Australians? Is the minister aware of any alternative proposals for the small business sector, and what would be the impact on Australia's growth if these policies were implemented?4143Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—Senator Chapman is quite right that the coalition's tax reforms will deliver tax cuts for families, remove the worst state taxes, reduce export costs and cut business costs. All of those aspects are of particular significance to the small business community. Small business, as we all know, is the engine of employment growth.Senator Murphy interjecting—LD4Senator ALSTON—I know you are not interested in small business because most of them are not union members, but the fact is that 80 per cent of Australian small business is in favour of tax reform. About 50 per cent of the work force belong to small business, and in the decade to 1994-95 something like $1.1 million out of $1.2 million net jobs created were in the small business sector. So it is overwhelmingly important, and it is simply extraordinary that those on the other side do not seem to have any interest in trying to address the small business sector.I noticed recently that John Button stated that a GST is good for industry and good for exporters. I do not know, but maybe he is another unpaid Liberal Party flunkey. If he is, we had better send him a membership form, because I have never been aware of it to date, but I am delighted to hear that that is the case. There do seem to be quite a lot of other people that would fit that description of Senator Conroy's.You have got not just Bob Hogg but also the Council of Small Business in Australia seeing it as in the national interest to broaden the tax base. You have got the Master Builders Association, who are unashamed supporters of tax reform; the Chamber of Commerce and Industry, recommending the adoption of the broadest base possible; even Senator Peter Cook, who said there is a quantifiable—subject to advice, of course—advantage to the mining industry from the new tax package; and the Australian Small Business Association, saying the GST will remove the imposition. On it goes. Are these people all unpaid Liberal Party flunkeys? I would not have thought so. You have got the South Australia Employers Chamber of Commerce and Industry, the Tourism Council of Australia, and the Western Australia Chamber of Commerce and Industry. On it goes. They are all supporters of tax reform.The Labor Party used to pride itself on being the party of interest groups. You always feel very uncomfortable about mainstream Australia. You are not particularly interested in being characterised as a family friendly party. You are all about catering to the elites, getting a good run in the newspaper by representing interest groups.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Alston, please address your remarks through the chair.LD4Senator ALSTON—How does the Labor Party so fundamentally manage to get itself offside with all these major industry and professional groups. The short answer is intellectual laziness. It has not been prepared to face up to the need for tax reform. It is wedded to a 1930s ramshackle taxation system which no-one in this country wants, particularly small business. In fact, there is only one interest group that is still basically in the tent. There are of course no prizes for guessing who that is.Small business expects a lot more than this. They want the taxation system reformed as quickly as possible. When Mr Beazley gets out there and says he is against the GST he is saying he is against taxation reform and against relieving the burden on a whole range of those groups that you once thought were very important indeed. It is a classic example of intellectual laziness on the part of Mr Beazley, a burnt-out case—been there too long. I do not understand it and nor do the Australian people.We stand unashamedly there in favour of small business. We know the enormous benefits that will be delivered to them by the tax package. When Mr Beazley says only 28 senators in the Senate represent the Labor Party and therefore they do not have the numbers, I simply do not understand why the logic of that is not that you can see that you do not have a mandate to frustrate and block in the way that you are. Small business knows where to go, and it certainly will not be over to your side of the chamber.41444144Gibbs, Sen BrendaSenator GIBBS6L6QLDALP00—My question is to Senator Herron, the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Minister, on what basis did the Prime Minister arrive at the estimate that the additional $55 million a year to be provided for treatment of heroin users diverted from the prison system would be sufficient to treat 300,000 addicts? Given that the average cost of heroin treatment is in the order of $5,000, is it not the case that the government has created false hopes among many heroin addicts and their families and that in fact there will only be funds for about 10,000 extra treatments a year?4144Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—I acknowledge Senator Gibbs's interest in this field and I commend her for it. It is a problem that affects the whole nation. First of all, as a preface to the remarks, I would ask: what did the Labor Party do about this problem when they were in power for 13 years?5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—It's our job to ask the questions and you try to answer them.VW4Senator HERRON—Because this government has addressed the problem for the first time with our Tough on Drugs policy. We are addressing the problem. We are addressing it comprehensively. We are addressing it with a major injection of funds, which has been increased from the first announcement to the second announcement in this period.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—If you do not know the answer, take it on notice.VW4Senator HERRON—We believe that it is a problem that has to be addressed comprehensively and we are doing so.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—He hasn't a clue.VW4Senator HERRON—The assessment, as Senator Gibbs states, of the cost of treatment was one of the problems that came into account when we considered the heroin trials themselves and the cost and the provision of naltrexone, as I answered within the last day or so about the naltrexone trials and the PBS listing to Senator Crowley. It is part of a whole spectrum of attack that we are taking in relation to the problems of drugs in the community. It includes not only naltrexone and the other modifications that we are doing in relation to the program. It is a whole of government approach that is being taken by the state governments as well as the federal government. The Tough on Drugs strategy does not only take into account the problems that Senator Gibbs is speaking about. For example, on 9 April this year we put another $221 million into the Tough on Drugs strategy.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—That's your worry.VW4Senator HERRON—Senator Faulkner has no interest in this other than carping interjections—5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Take it on notice.VW4Senator HERRON—when it is a very serious problem across the whole community.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Faulkner, you have been persistently interjecting.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—I raise a point of order, Madam President. The minister was asked a very specific question in relation to funding. I think he ought to be directed to answer it. My interjection was very simple: if he cannot answer, he should take it on notice. It is important enough to be taken on notice. He is just presenting or reading a brief that is not relevant to the question that was asked of him. If he does not know, he should get an answer.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—There is no point of order. Senator Faulkner, you were persistently interjecting from the beginning of the question and that is totally out of order. Senator Herron, I draw your attention to the question and invite you to continue.VW4Senator HERRON—He does no good to Senator Gibbs who is definitely interested in this and he is not prepared to hear the answer. The government has injected over $500 million into this program with its Tough on Drugs strategy, which was never done by the Labor Party. The government is addressing this by initiatives to support diversion—and that is the most important factor—and dissemination of cannabis cessation strategies for adults and adolescents. Other initiatives include the augmentation of the existing community-wide education and information campaign on illicit drugs, including increased media activity aimed at increasing parents' and the broader community's awareness and knowledge about illicit drugs and how to access information; the provision of increased education, counselling and referral services through community based needle and syringe exchange programs, with a view to increasing rates of voluntary entry into treatment; additional funding for the community partnerships initiative which provides grants to communities to undertake projects aimed at preventing illicit drug use and the harms associated with such use; diversification of existing needle and syringe programs by increasing the numbers of pharmacies and other outlets distributing needles and syringes; and funding for research to investigate barriers and incentives to illicit drug users accessing and remaining in treatment. Because I respect Senator Gibbs and the question she has asked, if there is any further information that I can obtain in relation to the funding of specific programs I will certainly approach the minister and see if that can be obtained.4146Gibbs, Sen BrendaSenator GIBBS6L6QLDALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Given that the minister is standing by the Prime Minister's assertion that 300,000 addicts will be treated with the additional funds, will he undertake to provide to the Senate the current average cost for treatment of heroin addicts and the statistics on which the 300,000 figure is based?4146Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—The quantification of cost of treatment is extremely difficult to obtain, as is evidenced—UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—The Prime Minister invented it.VW4Senator HERRON—As Senator Ray should know, it is extremely difficult to obtain, because this material was accessed in relation to the heroin trials. As I said in my previous answer, if there is any further information that I can obtain from the minister, I will certainly provide it.41464146Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—My question is also to the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Is the minister aware that diesel exhausts are carcinogenic, in fact 25 times more carcinogenic than cigarette smoke? Is the minister also aware that children going to school or living close to freeways cough and wheeze more and that their lung functions are more impaired than others? Is he also aware that one in five Australian children under 12 has asthma and that diesel emissions trigger asthma symptoms? Is the minister aware that the AMA says that fine particles in diesel exhausts are linked to increased risk of lung cancer and respiratory disorders? What is the minister doing to reduce the serious health risks associated with diesel, and does he agree that any increase in diesel would be unacceptable?4146Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—I thank the senator for the question. It is one of the objections that has been raised in relation to diesel fuels in the GST. As the senator stated, it has been known for a long time that fine particles when inhaled can lead to aggravation of respiratory symptoms in people with pre-existing respiratory illness and to hospital admissions for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. That is correct. But other air pollutants such as nitrogen dioxide and ozone, also mainly due to motor vehicle pollution, can also cause increases in respiratory symptoms leading to hospital admissions for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and heart disease, as reported recently in a study conducted in Sydney. So it is not good enough to start talking about diesel fuel emissions.While diesel vehicles generate 70 to 80 per cent of all vehicle produced particulates in our cities, this figure needs to be seen in context. The State of the Environment report estimates the combined contribution to particulate levels from all motor vehicles at 31 to 46 per cent in summer but only nine to 10 per cent in winter. So it is all very well to make these breathtaking statements that it is all related to this. It is not true. Those proportions that I have mentioned vary from city to city and are due to multiple factors such as domestic wood fires, hazard reduction burning and bushfires. We have to take all that into account.The government, through a coordinated approach between transport and environment agencies, has recently launched a major campaign to reduce the impact from all motor vehicles on public health and the environment, as it should. A key effort of the campaign is to set strict standards on diesel vehicle emissions and improve the quality of diesel fuel. Both measures are aimed directly at reducing particle exhaust emissions from diesels. It is expected that, even if the use of diesel powered vehicles were to increase, the level of air pollution in the future due to diesels should decrease as a result of increased controls on vehicle emissions and improvements in fuel quality. The proposed measures are intended to reduce the overall cost of transport services, which will provide a considerable advantage in terms of reducing the cost of healthy food for those individuals living in rural and remote communities.4146Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Minister, are you seriously suggesting that diesel emissions can be compared with wood fires? Are you seriously suggesting to us that Australia has emission standards that will solve the problem when, in this country, we are four or five years behind Europe and the United States? Is the minister also aware that, on average, Australia's vehicles are 10 years old and that we have one of the oldest fleets in the OECD? Is the minister also aware that even the newest diesel engines emit 100 times more particulates than LPG engines do? Given the conclusive evidence that diesel makes you sick, can the minister assure the Australian people that the government will do nothing to encourage any increase in diesel use in this country?4147Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—Senator Allison should be talking about the biggest pollutant that exists in this community, and that is cigarette smoking. It is all very well talking about particulates matters in the community. As you know, Madam President, I supported the Democrats in that when I first came into the Senate. Cigarette smoking has a far greater deleterious effect on health than any diesel fume ever has or ever will have. I suggest that Senator Allison divert her attention to stopping people from smoking cigarettes—which would have a much greater effect on the health of this country than anything at all that is related to diesel.One of the reasons that we have cars of such old age is the Labor Party's policy for 13 years. They produced the biggest recession we ever had in 60 years, and nobody could afford a decent car under the Labor Party. When tax reform comes in, vehicle costs will go down and people will be able to afford cars. (Time expired)LD4ALSTONSenator Alston—Madam President, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper .Questions Without Notice4147414715:01:004147Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPJustice and Customs10—Yesterday I was asked two questions by Senator Bartlett, and I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard answers to the two questions.Leave granted.The answers read as follows:IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS PORTFOLIOSenator Bartlett asked the questions below in relation to a report in the SydneyMorning Herald of 21 April concerning Mr Manuel Carrascalao, an East Timorese whose 18 year old son was killed in over the weekend and whose home is being used to shelter refugees from the violence. The report details Mr Carrascalao's request for Australia to provide shelter for those refugees who survived the weekend massacre.. Does the minister agree with Minister Ruddock's suggestion that the best course of action for these people who are currently in Dili and East Timor hiding for their life is for them to make an initial approach to the Australian embassy over in Jakarta about their situation?. What measures is Australia taking to enable prompt processing of visa applications of people in East Timor, particularly those who are in reasonable fear of their life?Answer: The Australian government is deeply concerned about the recent violence in East Timor. It has been monitoring the situation very closely.We understand the wish of East Timorese whose family members have suffered as a result of the recent violence to seek to relocate them to Australia on a temporary basis. A situation where all East Timorese can remain in safety and security would be the preferable option.The Indonesian government and armed forces are responsible for law and order and for protecting the people of East Timor. The Australian government has been in close contact with the Indonesian government to express our concern about the situation and to convey our views on how to resolve the security situation. We have strongly urged the authorities to disarm the militias.The Prime Minister and Ministers for Foreign Affairs and Defence will meet with President Habibie early next week to further discuss this issue.The Australian embassy in Jakarta will continue to process visa applications to Australia according to the requirements of the visa class applied for.QUESTION TAKEN ON NOTICEIMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS PORTFOLIO Senator Bartlett asked the Minister what measures the Australian government has taken tort ensure swift processing of applications for special humanitarian and other immigration visas for ethnic Albanians in the Kosovo region and what specific plans have been put in place to promptly deal with Kosovar people wanting to apply for permanent refugee status.Answer:Australia has made a generous offer of both 4,000 places for temporary resettlement and relief aid. This is in addition to applications being considered for permanent resettlement under the Humanitarian Program.Offers from the US, Canada and Australia for temporary resettlement are on hold at UNHCR's request while UNHCR takes up temporary resettlement offers from European countries closer to Kosovo in the first instance. However our offer of 4,000 temporary protection places remains in place. We are in a position to—move people within a very short timeframe of UNHCR reactivating its request.In relation to Kosovo Albanians who have applied for permanent resettlement under the Humanitarian Program, Mr Ruddock has asked that overseas posts process such applications as a matter of priority in view of the extremely difficult situation that many applicants may find themselves in.414815:03:004148Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—In response to Senator Bourne's supplementary question on 20 April regarding whether government aid for Kosovo refugees was coming from the current aid budget, I can provide the following information. The $6 million aid package for Kosovo refugees, which I outlined to the Senate on Tuesday, has been provided from the aid program's emergency relief budget. The amount allocated to emergency relief was tripled by the government in 1998-99 to allow the aid program to respond quickly and flexibly to emergency situations such as Kosovo.414815:03:004148Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—Senator Forshaw asked me a question yesterday about fish exports and the Wildlife Protection (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Act, and I now give the response. The government's approach on the issue has been outlined in our election policy statement, Our Living Heritage, and in Australia's Oceans Policy launched by Senator Hill in December last year. Australia is the first country in the world to develop a comprehensive national plan to protect and manage its oceans. The policy will ensure the conservation of Australia's rich marine biodiversity and security for marine based industries and all other ocean users. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard extracts from relevant extracts from Our Living Heritage and from Australia's Oceans Policy.Leave granted.The extracts read as follows:The Government has always supported, and will continue to support, a healthy and prosperous fishing industry which creates wealth and employment opportunities for Australians and which is conducted in an ecologically sustainable manner. We will continue to work with the industry and other stakeholders to ensure this outcome.Our Living HeritageContinues the Coalition's historic effort to protect and rehabilitate Australia's unique natural and cultural heritage. No government has spent as much on the environment as the Howard/Fischer government.. . . . . . . . . Most fishers recognise their environmental responsibilities and, with the right advice and support, implement environmentally sound fishing practices. The Government is providing $700,000 to assist the establishment of a network of fisheries officers which will promote environmentally sound fishing practices. This is in support of a joint initiative by the Australian Seafood Industry Council, Oceanwatch and the Australian Marine Conservation Society. The Government will implement the Threat Abatement Plan to reduce the impact of fishing on seabirds.Environmental impact assessmentThere can be significant environmental effects on sea floor communities and on juvenile fish from trawling and scallop dredging. Together with the impacts of overfishing, there is sufficient community concern regarding the sustainability of fisheries to warrant a strategic approach to demonstrating that fisheries will be managed sustainably. The Government will undertake strategic environmental impact assessments of all new management plans for Commonwealth fisheries, and, within a five year period, all those fisheries that do not have a management plan. The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conserva tion Bill, currently before the parliament, will be the vehicle for this. The Government will remove the current blanket exemption of marine species from wildlife export controls to ensure exemptions are available only for marine species harvested in accordance with sustainable and ecologically-based management arrangements.Offshore petroleum and mineralsOffshore petroleum is a major economic use of Australia's marine environment. The offshore minerals industry is in a very early stage of development with limited knowledge of offshore resources.Future growth in use of offshore minerals and petroleum will be influenced by the availability of capital for high risk investments and the long lead times to full development. Accordingly, the Government will continue to improve petroleum offshore strategies to maintain relevant and effective access to exploration acreage. The Government will also improve Australia's international investment attractiveness through continued investment in pre-competitive geoscientific surveys and analysis, and improved access to public exploration data lodged under legislative requirements. The Government will spend an additional $33 million over four years to help identify new offshore oil zones in Australia's Exclusive Economic Zone, including the southern continental margin of the Great Australian Bight.The Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act 1967 is the primary legislation for the administration of Australia's offshore petroleum resources. The Act is over 30 years old and has become complex and unwieldy. The Commonwealth Government will rewrite the Act to reduce compliance costs for government and the industry while maintaining a high level of environmental protection.The industry's environmental record has been exemplary in Australia. To help maintain this reputation, the Government is developing objective-based environment protection regulations for the industry. To encourage increased cooperation with the offshore petroleum industry in the development of joint approaches for the protection of marine habitats in areas under existing leases, the Government will remove the existing legislative constraint on the establishment of . . . . . . . . . Australia's Oceans Policycaringunderstandingusing wiselyDuring the next Parliament, the Coalition will:. implement the threat abatement plan; and. complete a regional plan to implement the Bonn Convention decision, which Australia is taking the lead in developing in partnership with New Zealand, South Africa, Chile and Argentina.(v) Marine SpeciesDuring the past two years, the Coalition has strengthened the protection of Australia's marine wildlife—many of which are only found in Australian waters.The Howard/Fischer government has;. established an $8 million Marine Species Protection Program to support projects that increase our capacity to protect marine plants and animals;. introduced export controls for sea horses, sea dragons and pipefish;. begun the development of a recovery plan for Australia's threatened marine turtles; and. provided $1 million to improve our capacity to protect marine species and habitats from the effects of oil spills.During the next Parliament, the Coalition will:. review the current exemption of marine species from wildlife export controls to ensure exemptions are available only for marine species harvested in accordance with sustainable and ecologically-based management arrangements; and. complete a turtle recovery plan.(vi) Whales and DolphinsThe Coalition is proud of the role of the Fraser government in ending whaling in Australian waters. That commitment to protecting whales has been pursued vigorously by the Howard/Fischer government.LD4Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTON—The government has always supported and will continue to support a healthy and prosperous fishing industry which creates wealth and employment opportunity for Australians and which is conducted in an ecologically sustainable manner. We will continue to work with the industry and other stakeholders to ensure this outcome.414915:04:004149Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—Earlier this afternoon I was asked a question on age care, and I wish to add to the answer that I gave, based on advice that I have received from the minister's office. The government is aware that difficulties have arisen in relation to nursing home residents who were in a nursing home prior to October 1997 and transferred to another home. There are a number of legislative and financial issues currently under consideration. These issues are being examined in the budget context, and I am advised that they will be addressed shortly.415015:05:004150Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—I move:That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts (Senator Alston) to a question without notice asked by Senator Faulkner today, relating to compensation under a goods and services tax.This was a question which went once again to the government's credibility in terms of the proposals that the government has for compensation for the GST package that it is seeking to push through this chamber. I use the term `push through' in a very loose sense because, as we know, the debate on the bills has been adjourned and, frankly, the government's program has ground to a screaming halt. What we heard today was Senator Alston's very limp, lame attempt to explain the government's embarrassment over the growing number of backbenchers that are now drawing the country's attention to the inadequacies of the government's compensation package for the GST. We have had Mr Bob Katter, Mrs De-Anne Kelly, Senator Tierney and now the member for Parkes, Mr Lawler, who was quoted today in the Financial Review :But the Government's attempts to hold the line on the package were undermined again, this time by National Party MP Mr Tony Lawler, who suggested economic growth yielded plenty of revenue to meet claims for extra compensation.`While keeping the GST on food is essential to the success of the package, flexibility on concessions is equally important,' Mr Lawler said.Senator Alston suggested to us that Senator Tierney had been misrepresented in the remarks that he had made earlier this week to the TV cameras in front of this building when he had indicated, according to AAP, that `the government is looking at particularly the lower end of the tax scale'. Everyone knows, as he indicated, that that is what the practice is at the moment.We now have a number of government members indicating how inadequate the compensation package is, yet we still have Senator Alston suggesting to this chamber, in a manner very reminiscent of the ostrich with his head in the sand, that there is nothing wrong with the GST package. Nothing could be further from the truth. What we have seen with this package is that the proposals that the government makes on compensation are in themselves acknowledgment of the unfairness of it. You do not seek to compensate people for actions that have been taken by government unless they are in fact hurtful to people. That is the whole nature of compensation, I would have thought.These proposals regarding tax cuts will see more than 50 per cent of the benefits going to the top 20 per cent of income earners. We will see higher income earners benefiting in ways which far outweigh any benefits which might arise for persons on social security payments. We see the situation being developed by this government where a couple with no children earning $100,000 per year will get five times the benefit of low income families with three children.We saw throughout this week Senator Alston trying to sleaze his way through a number of questions on the GST, and in a most duplicitous and disingenuous way suggest that there are no losers in this package. Of course, from the other questions asked today—Senator Crossin asked about the higher education sector, and Senator Kemp failed to address that problem—it was clearly identified that those persons who do not have a direct relationship with government—that is, those who do not pay tax or are not part of a social security benefit—can in no way enjoy any compensation at all. That is not to mention those who do have a relationship with government whose compensation measures will be quickly eroded under this government's proposals. No measures are being taken to protect people from that inevitable consequence.We have been able to establish, as Senator Alston indicated yesterday, that some 19 per cent of Australians will be worse off. His position does not take into account that pensioners will be worse off, that parents with kids at school will be worse off and that older people will be worse off. Average families and poorer people will be worse off under this proposal. If we look carefully at Senator Alston's comments that no-one will be worse off, what we really understand from that is that no-one he knows will be worse off. The circles in which he moves in the leafy suburbs of inner eastern Melbourne are where the people are who will directly benefit from this proposal. (Time expired)15:10:004151Ferguson, Sen AlanSenator FERGUSONEP5SALP10—It never ceases to amaze me when someone like Senator Carr from the Labor Party gets up and talks about compensation. How much compensation did the ALP offer to Australian taxpayers every time they put up tax? Not one cent, Senator Carr. Now all you want to do is talk about levels of compensation that are going to be given to the Australian people as a result of the biggest reform of taxation that this country has ever seen.The Australian government, in formulating this package, made sure that with modelling and consultation they could compensate those people who were going to have the price effect of a CPI affect their household expenditure and their ability to pay—compensation that the Labor Party never offered and never even looked like offering to the Australian people in 1993 when they decided they would increase the wholesale sales tax rate, which is the only way that they can ever increase the amount of revenue that is collected by this government by way of indirect taxation. They just increased the wholesale sales tax rate out of hand, after going to an election in 1993 promising to reject a new form of indirect tax and promising income tax cuts. But what did we get? No income tax cuts, and a higher rate of wholesale sales tax with absolutely no compensation. Senator Carr talked about other members of the coalition who have made comments in relation to this. I just say to Senator Carr that that is one thing that we on this side are allowed to do—over there, you are not. If you do not agree wholeheartedly with everything that your party does, you have no opportunity to say so—unless, of course, you happen to be Mark Latham or Lindsay Tanner or one of the young turks who do not like the way the Labor Party is progressing at present and do not like the way that the party has no policy on anything at all. Some of the young turks have decided that they are going to have a bit of a dig to see if they can put some life into this old Labor Party which has no policies at all and nothing to offer the Australian people in place of the comprehensive tax reform that this party and this government has introduced.I do not know what it is that Senator Carr has against average wage and salary earners in Australia. In all of the debate that we have had over the past few months about who is going to be affected by the introduction of a goods and services tax—we have had body after body of social security and welfare agencies, and people of that sort, coming and giving as evidence—nowhere has anybody from that side of the chamber ever defended the position of average income earners in Australia. Average income earners currently pay far more tax than they should be paying. They are currently paying a far greater proportion of their household income on tax than ever was the case 15 or 20 years ago.The Labor Party have no concerns at all about average wage earners in Australia. They are the party that always says they represent these people. They go off about the big end of town and try to make up what they would call evidence with regard to welfare recipients and low income earners, but the Labor Party could not care less about average wage earners in Australia who have been treated poorly by them now since 1983 and who have seen their relative take-home pay, as a percentage of their total earnings, decrease in every situation.The Labor Party talk about high salary earners who they think are not paying their fair share of tax. We will have a situation soon, if we do not start changing it now, where nearly 80 per cent of Australians will be paying at least 43c in the dollar. Many of those people will be paying the highest marginal rate of tax. If you are a single income earning family, on the average wage, is it fair that you should be paying the top marginal rate of tax or very close to it when you are thinking about trying to raise a family in Australia's current climate, and when your actual household expenditure—or the amount of money you have available for household expenditure—is reduced every time there is a wage increase by the effects of bracket creep? Senator Carr, when you start talking about compensation and all of the other measures, spare a thought for the average wage earner in Australia who you could not care less about and who you have disregarded now for the past 13 years.15:14:004152Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—I wish to join this debate today because Senator Alston's failure to answer this question almost led to a situation of high farce. In fact, I am reminded of the fable of the emperor with new clothes because Mr Howard, the Prime Minister of this country, goes around saying, `I've got this fine new GST suit, and all will be better off as a result of it. The compensation will be adequate, everyone will be better off, it won't be eroded. I've got this brand new suit that's going to solve the problems of our economy.' All the courtiers on the other side—all the members of parliament—say, `Oh yes, Prime Minister, it's a wonderful new suit,' and, `Yes, this is the solution to all our problems.' But one poor lonely backbencher—maybe out of ignorance or maybe he is trying to get noticed; like the little boy in the fable—says, `But the emperor has no clothes. The compensation isn't adequate. The compensation will not protect the poor. The poor will be worse off. We must do something about it.' He has exposed the fact that the emperor—Mr Howard—has no clothes. And what is the reaction? The reaction is to try to hush him up—to go on pretending that the emperor is wearing a fine new suit, because they cannot face the reality.The courtiers have been warned by some of their country cousins that the emperor has no clothes, that the suit is not what they claim, but they have ignored the country cousins because `They never take much notice of them. With the inbreeding and other issues that go on there, they don't worry about them.' So what do they do? They call in the poor little backbencher who has exposed the fact that the Prime Minister has no clothes and say, `You can't go around saying that. You have to believe too. You have to believe that we have this shiny new suit—that the compensation is adequate, that the poor will be better off, that Australia will be better off, and that there are no problems.'I think on this occasion the emperor has to recognise that he has no clothes. They have tried to ignore the peasants, they have tried to ignore the churches and to pretend that when they say the emperor has no clothes that in fact he still does, but we all know the emperor has no clothes. This suit is not a bright, new shiny suit. There are really serious issues here: the compensation to the poor and to low income earners in this country is not adequate. They will be severely hurt by the GST.The government's way of dealing with that critique from within its own backbenches is to call the recalcitrants in and tell them off. They have to continue the sort of pretence that Senator Alston has gone on with this week when answering questions about the GST. But you can see his heart has not been in it. I suspect that, like Senator Tierney, he really believes that the emperor has no clothes. Can he argue the case? No. When he comes in, what does he do? He reads Mr Costello's article from the newspaper. He cannot mount the argument to defend the government's line on compensation.Everyone recognises that the compensation for the poor and low income earners will be eroded over time—it is now an accepted fact—but Senator Alston does not have the capability to argue the government's case. He has to read not only a speech by Mr Costello but an edited version out of the newspaper, because that is the limit of his grasp. He cannot argue the case because it is indefen sible. Compensation is inadequate. The poor and low income earners in this country will be worse off under the GST, and the government will have to recognise that eventually—to get this package through the Senate it will have to recognise that fact. The question posed today was whether Senator Tierney will get an apology. I suspect not. But the government will have to acknowledge what everyone else in Australia knows—that the GST is unfair, that the compensation package is inadequate, and that the compensation will be eroded over time.If Senator Alston wants to be Leader of the Government in the Senate he is going to have to get a lot better at arguing the government's case. Even when there are impossible cases, he will have to do a much better job than to merely read Mr Costello's newspaper articles. It may be a sign of loyalty, but it is not a sign of intellectual rigour and it is not a sign of a leader.WH4McGAURANSenator McGauran—I'm going to read it too.AX5Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANS—If you will be reading it too, Senator McGauran, that makes my case. You have the same abilities as Senator Alston. (Time expired)15:19:004153Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSONLI4VICLP10—Day after day we stand up here taking note of the same issue because Labor has failed to accept that there is a need for tax reform. In 1985 Keating said that tax reform could not wait any longer. He said that a consumption tax is simpler—that it helps reduce income tax and catches cheats. He talked about how consumption tax benefits business. He talked about it being a time for honesty and responsibility, not scare tactics. That was in a speech in 1985. Keating said that it was time for reform. Fourteen years ago he was saying, `It's time for honesty and responsibility, not scare tactics,' and the Labor Party still, after all this time, has not acknowledged it.6E4TAMBLINGSenator Tambling—He didn't take his own advice. LI4Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSON—No, Senator, he did not take his own advice, nor maybe should we, given what we heard yesterday at lunchtime. What did Hawke say? He said that if we do not have a consumption tax, the poor will be hit the hardest. In a Sunday program interview on 2 June 1985, he said:. . . unless there is a source of income in the consumption area, then the mass of Australians—the ordinary taxpayers—are not going to be able to get the substantial cuts in personal direct taxes to which they are entitled.And they did not get the tax cuts they were promised. He went on to say:. . . you can't have a continuation of a tax system which is haemorrhaging, imposing burdens on those least able to bear them, economically inefficient.A consumption tax will force the rich to pay their fair share.At the South Australian ALP conference in June 1985 he also talked about a consumption tax being necessary to pay for social policies. Hawke knew that. He knew that to be able to provide health and social security, and to be able to provide the states with what they need to fund hospitals, roads and education, we need a broad based consumption tax and overall tax reform.You should listen also to some of the people who have become disillusioned with the ALP. Former ALP National Secretary Bob Hogg has called on the party to abandon its opposition to the GST and the full sale of Telstra. He said that Labor should support the GST. He argued that it should be supported provided that measures are introduced to give continuing compensation to low income earners and pensioners. Senator Newman has reiterated over and over again in this place how that will happen, and Hogg has called on the Labor Party to support the GST as long as those compensations are enshrined in law. In an article in the Age on 24 March, he said:While Beazley fights the past on (Prime Minister) Howard's and Harradine's terms, he and the ALP will remain marginalised and diverted from the central task of designing new policies.That is just it. Even the Democrats have come up with a concept—the Irish model. The only way you can describe the Labor Party's model is as `the Atlantis model' or as `the Babylonian model'—ones which are reliant upon wholesale sales tax. It is an ancient, decrepit, outdated and complex system which is unfair and by which the Labor Party was able to increase wholesale sales tax. Just after the 1993 election, it increased wholesale sales tax on everything, from buckets to horse rugs, to pet food, to gladwrap, to alfoil, to toothpaste or toothbrushes—I cannot remember which has wholesale sales tax. I reiterate here in the chamber, as I have done over and over, that wholesale sales tax applies to strawberry Quik but not to chocolate Quik. How they can justify that, I do not know. But that is their policy. They have a tax policy to support wholesale sales tax—a decrepit, outdated system, the base of which is becoming smaller and smaller and means we cannot sustain into the future social security, health and payments to the states.After the 1993 election, Labor increased sales tax on everything—as I said, from buckets to horse rugs. Sales tax on cars was increased from 16 to 22 per cent. Petrol excise was increased by 5c a litre for unleaded petrol and by 7c a litre for leaded petrol. The Medicare levy was increased to 1.5 per cent and company tax was reduced, only to be increased soon afterwards. What did they do? They did not give one penny to compensate for the cascading effect of all those increased wholesale sales taxes. They did not give one penny of compensation, and they failed to deliver on the second tranche of the l-a-w tax cuts. To come in here and talk about compensation is hypocritical and totally untenable, and it is about time they took the advice of the former ALP secretary and supported the tax reform package.15:24:004154Quirke, Sen JohnSenator QUIRKEZS6SAALP00—We are here now to take note of the answer given by Senator Alston to one question this afternoon. In fact if this speech that I am making now was as long as his answer, I would have already sat down. There was change out of 30 seconds in his answer to that question. That somewhat disappointed most of us on this side because, when we heard that Senator Hill was not going to be here, we thought that the ambitious deputy would be really keen to get into the front seat, which he has always wanted to do, to show us and the world how good he is and how he can answer questions. We had also hoped that, as a bonus, during this week of GST sittings he might actually have been able to organise the House. But that did not happen either.What happened in that one question today? And I want to stress that: one question. The other day we on this side asked Senator Alston five or six questions. We did not get very far; we did not get anything more than the usual abuse and, unfortunately for the good senator this week, the fumbling through of all the briefs. In fact, I really have to go back to my state member of parliament days, when I watched representatives from the State Bank of South Australia present themselves for estimates, to see people fumble briefs worse than what I saw here by Senator Alston this week—with, sadly, the same result.When Senator Alston cannot get his fingers on a brief—the idea of actually learning about it or knowing something about the topic before he comes in has actually escaped him—what we normally get from him is a tirade of abuse which normally starts out by pointing out that every senator over here has either been, still is or will be a trade union official. That is the usual start for it. For those of us of the Catholic faith, I suppose you could say that that is making the sign of the cross. Afterwards, we get the usual bombastic bullying and abuse that flows from the deputy leader over there.Today we did not get any of that. In fact for most of the week we have had a really curious stumbling which I can only describe as a curious lack of confidence from the man who wants the job of leading the government in this chamber. Today we got a 30-second answer which said, `It's a hypothetical question,' and he sat down. I must say that I have watched Senator Tierney over the last couple of days, and I think it was anything other than hypothetical. In fact I would have liked to know how severe the carpeting was. I must say that I do not think it was as severe as that of poor old Senator Watson a couple of months ago. When Senator Watson came in here after his tea and sympathy trip up to the Prime Minister's office, he certainly looked like the Spanish Inquisition had dealt with him.Senator Tierney has been sitting back there and probably taking his lead from Senator Watson, who today obviously joined in the show and asked a question and made all the right noises—and I think somebody here said something about the emperor's new clothes, but I do not want to get into that. At the end of the day, he seems to have jumped back on board the bus. Not only should Senator Alston have run this place better and been across his briefs this week; he should have been prepared to do something to show that in fact he could competently lead the government in this place—that is, he should have actually answered a few questions. Today we gave him just one question. All he had to do for us today was answer one question, and he could not even do that. I think that, unfortunately, when Senator Hill's plane touches down that is going to be the end of Senator Alston's ambitions to lead in this place. Bring on Senator Minchin.15:29:004155McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURANWH4VICNP10—Senator Quirke, I think you have misread—which does not surprise me—Senator Alston's demeanour at the front table. He has said to me that he is surprised how easy it is on the front table. He is just shocked by how pathetic the opposition is—in fact, Senator Hill has had an easy ride. Senator Alston had no idea it was that easy. It is more a quiet modesty he has at the front desk than what you say is a sort of nervousness. You have misread Senator Alston. We know Senator Alston is one of the best performers, if not the best performer, in this Senate.AW5CARRSenator Carr—Measured by your like.WH4McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURAN—We know that because, as deputy leader—sitting where he does normally—you never pay him any attention. You have all cuddled together in your party room meeting saying, `The best way to get at Senator Alston is to ignore him.' We notice it. Every time he stands up, you all start talking amongst yourselves. This is the pathetic schoolyard tactic that you first tried on him. It has not worked. You have seen him jump to the front table in the absence of Senator Hill, so now you have said, `If that doesn't work, let's attack him head on.' That is what he loves. He loves the head-on confrontation. Either way, you are not going to knock Senator Alston over. He is too good for you. He has been around too long.AW5CARRSenator Carr—I will agree with that.WH4McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURAN—He is now becoming a very settled cabinet minister. You have misunderstood his quiet confidence for—AW5CARRSenator Carr—His lame performance.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order, Senator Carr!WH4McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURAN—It is more like `rope a dope'. It is a tactic of `rope a dope'. He has absolutely got—Senator Carr interjecting—WH4McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURAN—He is leaning on the ropes as Faulkner throws his punches—as pathetic as they are—and we all know Faulkner will fall over by round eight.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator McGauran, would you—AW5CARRSenator Carr—He is just not up to it.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator Carr, I will have a little less interjection from you. Senator McGauran, you might like to use Senator Faulkner's correct title and also address the chair and not the other senator.AW5CARRSenator Carr—Jeff Kennett's geek—that is what he said, didn't he?10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Carr, I have already asked you for silence.WH4McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURAN—Madam Deputy President, Senator Harradine's speech yesterday to the Senate—which we all tuned in to and listened to for obvious reasons—made the very point that we have been making since this debate began, and that is that this country is in need of tax reform if, for no other reason than, as Senator Patterson said, we have an ageing population and the weight of tax collection cannot continue to be put on the income earner. It is heavy enough now. We have the highest rate at 48 per cent—48 cents in the dollar. Most Australians—the average wage earners—are paying 38 cents per dollar. It is just too much and, as our population ages, government revenue will become scarcer.This tax package is a future-looking tax package. If we remain where we are, we simply cannot sustain the social welfare system and the education and health systems that we have in this country into the future. That is it in a nutshell. It is a forward thinking plan which you will not go along with, Senator Carr. But the irony is that if this bill passes—AW5CARRSenator Carr—Will it bail out the McGauran companies? That is the question.WH4McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURAN—If this reform package passes, such is your confusion and inconsistency, if you happen by chance to get into government, you will not abolish it. You are going to go along with it; you are going to agree with it. Where is your commitment? What an artificial stance to have, Senator Carr. You are not willing to support it here even though it is obvious we need it, but if you happen to get into government you will not pull it out, you will leave it there and you will take the benefits of it—and there will be benefits from this in the years to come.As my colleagues pointed out, when you were in government and brought in the capital gains tax and the fringe benefits tax, there was no compensation. It was just whacked on out of the blue. There was never a commitment before an election, it was always done after an election. When you increased the wholesale sales tax, there was no compensation. When you increased the diesel and petrol taxes, there was no compensation. Worse than that, you lied. You lied about introducing those taxes. It was post-election.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator McGauran, you are not addressing the chair. You have implied that individual senators have lied. Would you please not use that word.WH4McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURAN—I withdraw that, Madam Deputy President. I am sorry I do not have more time to speak because I wanted to address something Senator Brown said yesterday. He actually made a good point yesterday about the Democrats. At another time—and I am sure I will get the opportunity—I would like to take up the point Senator Brown made about the Democrats.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator McGauran, we do need your address to have some relevance to Senator Faulkner's question to Senator Alston today.WH4McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURAN—The Democrats went into the last election saying that they support the tax package, that they support the GST but not on food. But now we have come down to the hard debate, we have them introducing a policy—AW5CARRSenator Carr—You stopped the debate. There is no hard debate.WH4McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURAN—We have a situation where now they will support some food and some not. (Time expired)10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—The time for the debate has expired.Question resolved in the affirmative.Delegation Reports4156415610000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—On behalf of the President, I present the report of the parliamentary delegation to the 44th Commonwealth Parliamentary Conference held in Wellington, New Zealand, and official visits to Samoa and Fiji, which took place in October 1998.Committees41564156415615:35:004156Payne, Sen MariseSenator PAYNEM56NSWLP10—I seek leave to move a motion on behalf of Senator Ferris to authorise a committee to meet during sittings of the Senate.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Is leave granted?QD4BROWNSenator Brown—Before leave is granted, I inquire as to the nature of the motion that is being mooted here and whether it involves sitting on Tuesday night.M56Payne, Sen MariseSenator PAYNE—Just looking at the explanation at the bottom of the notice, arrangements for the hearing were made before there was an indication that the Senate may be sitting extended hours on Tuesday. The motion is sought so that witnesses travelling from interstate are able to confirm their travelling arrangements. It is merely a precautionary motion. Of course, if the Senate does not sit, the committee can meet anyway.Leave not granted.415710000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—The President has received letters from the Leader of the Government in the Senate and the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate seeking variations to the membership of certain committees.Motion (by Senator Tambling)—by leave—agreed to:That senators be discharged from and appointed to committees as follows:Library CommitteeDischarged: Senator DenmanAppointed: Senator FaulknerRural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation and Reference CommitteesParticipating Member: Senator FerrisSelect Committee on the Socio-Economic Consequences of the National Competition PolicyDischarged: Senator CraneAppointed: Senator LightfootMiscellaneous415715:38:004157Mackay, Sen SueSenator MACKAY9L6TASALP00—I move:That the Senate notes the failure of Government ministers and their departments to adequately respond to parliamentary questions and requests for information on government programs and administration.The opposition has seen fit to put this as an item of general business this afternoon to address the failure of a number of government ministers to answer questions and queries in relation to a number of issues. I rise to speak in relation to the actions of two ministers. The first minister I would like to speak about is Senator Ian Macdonald. He is one of the main culprits in relation to this and the one I wish to deal with in particular. I think it is appro priate that this matter be debated here today in general business because of the serious nature of the allegations that I am making.Senator Ian Macdonald has exhibited what can only be described as an arrogant attitude towards the Senate and towards public accountability and transparency in general. This is something that this minister has turned into an art form, dodging questions and inventing various complex excuses as to why the Senate should not be provided with information about government programs and administration.This minister, when he puts out his media releases, often does not even show the courtesy of putting them in the opposition box. The opposition always, as a matter of courtesy, puts its press releases in the government box so that the government can be apprised of what we are saying. He often does not. I am not sure why. If it is deliberate, I think that is pretty puerile. Certainly there have been a number of occasions on which press releases have been put out and we have not received them.Let us cast our minds back to the estimates hearings held on 8, 9 and 19 February. Senator Ian Macdonald made it very clear from the outset that he was not keen on questions on notice. He did not want to answer them and he did not want his public servants to answer them. He attempted to claim that, if the department were to answer questions on notice put by the opposition and others, it would take up too much time, cost too much and it would not happen. He offered the opposition a private briefing.Interestingly, at the conclusion of estimates, Senator Ian Macdonald was being so obstructive that, in relation to a request by my colleague Senator Lundy that he take a question on notice and pass it on to the relevant department, he suggested that Senator Lundy should put a question on notice to Senator Alston because, `That way you are certain of getting a response.'AW5CARRSenator Carr—What a joke.9L6Mackay, Sen SueSenator MACKAY—That has its inherent ironies indeed, Senator Carr, but I think it does say something about Senator Ian Mac donald. It is clear now what he meant in relation to that comment to Senator Lundy, because there is no certainty of getting a response if you put the question on notice to Senator Ian Macdonald. Senator Ian Macdonald showed the full extent of his attempts to obstruct transparency when he told the committee on 19 February:I have got to say there are more important things to be done by the department, and my instructions to the department will be not to divert themselves from the real issues of the department to answer questions which are really matters that could be done at private briefings much more quickly and much more efficiently.AW5CARRSenator Carr—Less publicly.9L6Mackay, Sen SueSenator MACKAY—Not publicly indeed, Senator Carr. That was the point of it. Clearly there is no public accountability in relation to this and this minister is silly enough to admit it—and here he comes into the chamber.Later in the estimates the minister went on to seek to prevent public servants from answering perfectly legitimate questions about consultation between the departments. They were questions such as on what date officials from his department had meetings with the officials from the department of education. This was in respect of Greenwich University. They were very specific questions. Senator Ian Macdonald, in what I regarded as a contemptuous manner, stated:What I am saying is that I do not want the officials to be talking about who they spoke with, when they had these flashes of brilliance where they determined policy, who they got the advice from . . . or which calculator they used to add up the figures.AW5CARRSenator Carr—They didn't; that is the problem.9L6Mackay, Sen SueSenator MACKAY—That is correct. This was somewhat ironic, given that the opposition had been referred to his department to answer questions specifically on Greenwich University, so ably taken up by my colleague Senator Carr.The minister's directive to the department was offensive, not only to us as the opposition but also to the public servants involved, casting aspersions on their competency. Consistently during the estimates, Senator Ian Macdonald would interrupt his officials as they were attempting to answer questions and answer them himself. From an opposition's perspective it is always handy when the minister digs the hole for himself, and that is obviously what happened. However, on a number of occasions we were after answers to very specific questions from the public servants involved, which Senator Ian Macdonald could not have known the answers to. On a couple of occasions he got it wrong.As I said, this reflects very poorly on the department and you could see the frustration on their faces as the estimates proceeded. He is not doing his department a service when he interrupts his public servants and does not allow them to answer questions. Who was it who said while in opposition, in relation to the non-answering of questions, `This is appalling behaviour on behalf of the government and quite typical of the way it manages the country'? Who would that have been? None other than Senator Ian Macdonald. In fact, Senator Ian Macdonald made a real art form of continually coming into the chamber and getting stuck into the previous government in relation to the non-answering of questions. When he was in opposition, in relation to Senator Ray, Senator Ian Macdonald said:The fact that the minister may be busy is tough luck. The standing orders are the rules which run this chamber, and the minister, no matter how busy he is, is obliged, like the rest of us, to abide by the standing orders of this chamber.That is from Hansard , 14 December 1993. Don't comments you make in opposition come back to bite you in government? Here we are, almost five weeks on from the deadline by which the answers to questions on notice were supposed to be tabled, and we have not got one answer from Transport, not one answer from Regional Services, not one answer from Territories and not one answer from Local Government. In fact, we are advised by the secretariat of the committee—I checked this again today—that the minister's own office has advised the secretary of the committee that the questions on notice were sitting on the desks of Minister Ian Macdonald and his colleague the minister for transport. In a week and a half's time we have additional supplementary estimates in which we are expected to ask questions, and we have no indication of when these answers are going to be tabled.It is not just the opposition that is concerned about this. I would like here to acknowledge the efforts of Senator Crane, who as chair of the estimates committee has gone to great lengths to attempt to get answers from Minister Macdonald and Minister Anderson.8O6O'BRIENSenator O'Brien—Fair enough.9L6Mackay, Sen SueSenator MACKAY—Good on him too. He has written a number of times to the department and the minister essentially saying that these questions on notice must be answered. I think that Senator Crane, whatever else we may think, is generally pretty reasonable in relation to these sorts of matters. It was raised again at a committee meeting earlier this week, and Senator Crane basically indicated that there was not a lot more he could do in relation to this matter; hence the general business motion here today.When Senator Macdonald offered the opposition a private briefing in relation particularly to transport, because we had had the temerity to put a large number of questions on notice, we sought the advice of the Clerk of the Senate. I would like to read a section of the written advice. It reads:The Minister for Regional Services, Territories and Local Government, Senator Ian Macdonald, suggested that briefings should be used as an alternative to written and oral questions at estimates hearings, and made this suggestion partly on the basis that such questions divert departmental resources from delivering the services of the department. Two preliminary observations should be made.This is getting to the important part that I invite Senator Macdonald, now he is here, to listen to very closely:Any scrutiny or accountability process diverts departmental resources from delivery of service, but this does not mean that public departments should be free of scrutiny and accountability processes.It then goes on:It is not clear why the Minister thought that there was anything inappropriate about the questions asked or where any particular questions were regarded as unduly diverting resources. Secondly, it is not clear how the provision of briefings that Senator Macdonald offered would involve any less use of resources than answering questions at estimates hearings. It would appear that both processes would equally occupy departmental resources.The opposition took that advice on board. We then wrote formally to the committee and said, `No, we respect the opinion of the Clerk in this instance and we will not be pursuing the private briefing.' This was after a considerable debate at the committee meeting where we did canvass every option in relation to the briefing and we decided that, if we were going to have the briefing the way we wanted it, which was open to the public, which was Hansarded, which was telecast, et cetera, it was effectively an estimates hearing, so what was the point of doing that. We may as well go ahead with the questions on notice and proceed with the estimates process as it is duly determined.As I said before, the questions were put on notice during the estimates in February and the due date for the receipt of those answers was 25 March. It is now a month down the track and we have not had a single answer. So much for accountability. The estimates committee did offer Senator Macdonald the option of his department releasing them to us as they finished answering them. That is fair enough, so we said, `Okay, as you get through them, provide them to the opposition.' No, they are still sitting on the two ministers' desks. I would like to quote from a letter that Senator Crane wrote to the department, with a copy to the minister's office, in terms of the requests, pointing out:Whilst members acknowledge there were a significant number of questions placed on notice during this round of estimates, committee members also noted that the supplementary round of additional estimates hearings are proposed for the first week in May and that answers will be required well in advance of that hearing.Senator Crane is correct, and again I would like to put on record the opposition's thanks to Senator Crane for attempting to get these answers. You would have thought that, as he is one of the government's own members, we might have got some answers to questions on notice. Not a cracker!Senator Crane then wrote on 13 April directly to Senator Macdonald seeking the answers, pointing out the concern of committee members to receive those answers that had been processed by the department well in advance of the supplementary additional estimates hearing scheduled for 4 May. It was 13 April when Senator Crane wrote. Estimates are now six working days away, and we still do not have one answer.AW5CARRSenator Carr—What is he doing?9L6Mackay, Sen SueSenator MACKAY—That is a very good question, Senator Carr. I do not know. As I said, I understand that the secretariat has been advised by the minister's office that they are sitting on the minister's desk. We have had a major reshuffle in terms of departments, we have had major changes, we have new ministers, we have new programs and we have a new structure. It is not in the interests of the public, never mind the Senate and the people we represent, that questions on notice are not answered, particularly in relation to regional Australia, which is so remote and it obviously takes time to get the responses out.Let us just have a look at some of the questions we actually put on notice, which Senator Macdonald trivialised. There are a number of questions relating to the safety investigations carried out by CASA in the past 12 months. That is obviously the subject of a further inquiry. We asked questions in relation to the current status for reopening consideration of statehood in the Northern Territory. I would have thought that would have been of some moment to the minister for territories. We wanted to know what recommendations the review of the Tasmanian Freight Equalisation Scheme had made. No response to that. We wanted to know whether there was funding or technical assistance available from the Commonwealth to assist local governments to meet Y2K compliance. Time is certainly ticking away on that one. No response. We wanted a full list of local government development grant programs made since the publication of the local government national report. Incidentally, the minister has been running around the country merrily announcing these since the estimates, but he does not feel able to provide them in response to questions on notice from the opposition.This is pretty odd: the minister is running around the country announcing them—the minister is announcing some but usually it is in fact the coalition backbencher who is doing the announcing in relation to those—but we still cannot get a consolidated list. We also asked about the criterion process in place for allocating rural plan grants, something which the government and coalition backbenchers have had a lot of rural media about in terms of announcing them. This has been widely advertised, but the minister does not see fit to advise us of what the procedures are in relation to this. These are only a few examples.There are a number of questions that went to the heart of accountability. They were in relation to consultants, expenditure on government advertising—something which I know many people on this side of the chamber have pursued avidly, and correctly so—and what the department and the minister term `communication strategies'.AW5CARRSenator Carr—Polling? Is that what it is?9L6Mackay, Sen SueSenator MACKAY—That is right—questions in relation to polling, questions in relation to focus groups and questions in relation to who is conducting them and so on. I do not understand why this has happened. If it is deliberate, it is puerile; if it is not deliberate, it is incompetent from my perspective.AW5CARRSenator Carr—We are talking about public money.9L6Mackay, Sen SueSenator MACKAY—We are talking about public money, Senator Carr. This minister is not the only one, however, that is failing to pass the transparency test, so Senator Macdonald can relax for a minute because I now want to talk about Senator Alston.YW4MACDONALDSenator Ian Macdonald—Thank you for that; I am so relieved.9L6Mackay, Sen SueSenator MACKAY—I will actually accept that interjection because that is precisely the attitude that we saw for two days during estimates—contemptuous. That sort of attitude and also that false, risible laughter are exactly what characterised his attitude at the esti mates. I know he is a new minister. Maybe next time around he will perhaps get a bit more professional and competent in the way he handles things, but I have to say that Senator Macdonald has been around a long time.YW4MACDONALDSenator Ian Macdonald—Don't hold your breath.9L6Mackay, Sen SueSenator MACKAY—I will accept that interjection. `Don't hold your breath,' says Senator Macdonald.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Please address the chair, Senator Mackay, and ignore interjections from Senator Macdonald.9L6Mackay, Sen SueSenator MACKAY—I will. So Senator Macdonald says, `Don't hold your breath.' Isn't that interesting? I think that can pretty much sum up the fact that we probably will not get these questions on notice answered, which is why this motion has been brought on.In the few moments remaining to me I will touch on an issue in relation to Senator Alston. Senator Alston has continued to assert, in relation to Telstra and the arrangements that were made with Senator Harradine, that Tasmania has done extremely well. Tasmanian senators such as Senator O'Brien and I know very well that this is not the case. But what has Senator Alston done? He has come into this chamber and in what can only be described as an Orwellian manner said, `Tasmania has done well.' `Why?' we say. `Because I said so,' says Senator Alston.The opposition has pursued precisely what the arrangements were in Tasmania through a number of forums—estimates, questions on notice and directly to Telstra through their government liaison officer. Not a cracker! So in absolute desperation, with an impending Telstra debate, I actually wrote to Minister Alston and asked him a number of questions in relation to the staffing situation in Tasmania. The sorts of questions that we asked were not particularly difficult. They were things like, `How many staff are there in Telstra in Tasmania?' and `What are the function/location of the staff in Telstra in Tasmania?' and `How many people are there employed in the call centres?' and `How many of them are casual?' They are the sorts of things that one would think the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, with a department the size of what he has, would be able to respond to very quickly. But we have not had a response.We wrote to Senator Alston on 26 March—faxed him a letter asking a number of questions in relation to this—and I regret to say that up till now we have not had a single response from Senator Alston. We have made a number of attempts to get this information. We have the original fax on the 26th, my office has been in continual contact with the minister's office and we finally sent a fax on Friday, 16 April, requesting a response as to whether he was in fact going to answer the questions at all. Why waste everybody's time if this minister has no intention of answering the questions at all? We still have not got a response, so we do not even know whether we are going to get the answers. I certainly hope we get them before the Telstra debate and I certainly hope we get them before Senator Harradine makes his mind up about whether or not he is going to agree to the 16 per cent sell-down.What has this minister got to hide in relation to Tasmania? Why can't we get the answers to these questions? As I said before, I have only touched on two ministers—that is, Senator Macdonald and Senator Alston—and I am sure there are many more.AW5CARRSenator Carr—Yes, there will be more.9L6Mackay, Sen SueSenator MACKAY—I am sure there are many more, Senator Carr, and I am sure my colleagues will cover those in a very competent and professional manner. However, I reiterate to Senator Macdonald, who is here in the chamber, that we want the questions on notice to be answered. They are now 4½ weeks out of time. Again, seeing that Senator Crane is here, I would like to put on record our appreciation for his efforts. I hope that Senator Macdonald is going to make a contribution so that we can actually get answers to questions that we have due, although `Don't hold your breath' is not a very good indication of the outcome.15:58:004162Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALDYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—Unfortunately, I did not hear all of Senator Mackay's contribution, as it started before I was alerted to the debate coming on. The matter is what you could summarise as the sixty-four thousand dollar question, because during estimates, and I have had some experience in estimates over the years, for six years that we were in opposition we were stonewalled at every opportunity by the likes of Senator Robert Ray, Senator Bolkus and Senator Faulkner—I think they are the only ones that are left here—and we would never get anything from them, Madam Deputy President, as you would well remember. Since we have been in government, we have tried to the best of our ability to answer questions from senators who choose to ask them. Can I alert the Senate to the following facts: in 1994-95 a little over 300 hours of questions were asked when we were in opposition; in 1995-96 a little under 300 hours of estimates questions were asked of the Senate ministers; in our first year of government, 1996-97, the hours taken by the opposition to ask questions increased to almost 450 hours; and in 1997-98, the last we have any statistics for, almost 700 hours of questioning at estimates. It would be different if these questions were getting anywhere, if they were leading to some policy from the Labor Party, but we have a Labor Party with absolutely no policy at all at the moment. And when asked about it, they said `We are in our contemplative stage.' They are now navel gazing. If the questions were going anywhere, you might understand the over 700 hours of questioning. Senator Mackay talks about having a zeitgeist of a policy. Do you know what that means? Well, I did not.Senator Mackay interjecting—YW4Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALD—I am sorry, I cannot even pronounce it, Senator Mackay. I and most other Australians—Opposition senators interjecting—10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Hogg)—Order! Your remarks should be through the chair. Order on my left!YW4Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALD—You, Mr Acting Deputy President, and I and most Australians have never even heard of zeitgeist, but that seems to be the Labor Party policy. I looked up `zeitgeist' in the dictionary—I did eventually find a dictionary—and I think it says something about a breath of fresh air or spirit or change. What is it?9L6MACKAYSenator Mackay—It is German and it means `spirit of the time'.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Address your comments through the chair, Senator Macdonald. It will stop the interjections on my left.YW4Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALD—I have just been helped. It is `spirit of times'. That is the Labor Party policy—spirit of times.Senator Carr interjecting—YW4Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALD—These people are trying to stop me being heard and divert me from my display. As I say, less than 300 hours when we were last in opposition and over 700 hours of questioning in the last year. We have not had the statistics for this immediately past period, but I would suggest that the statistics will be so much higher.I tried to help. I tried to get questions answered and quickly, but we kept getting a series of absolutely ridiculous questions—questions that had in many instances been explained to Senator Mackay in private briefings that I had given previously. I asked the department whether they would keep a rough idea of the cost of answering these questions on notice. I indicated that I did not expect a precise answer and I knew there were difficulties, but they have worked out for me that Senator Mackay's questions on notice to that department cost $64,000 to answer.9L6MACKAYSenator Mackay—Table it.YW4Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALD—I am invited to table it and, more than that, I will incorporate it. You can have the details of how it is worked out. I again say that it is an estimate. I did not ask my department to put a stopwatch on it. It is an estimate of $64,000. AW5CARRSenator Carr—Mr Acting Deputy President, I raise a point of order. Under what standing order is it that the minister finds it necessary to be able to direct his public servants to answer questions about the costs of questions without having the time to be able to answer the questions that are actually asked? Might I ask: could the minister also incorporate in his position to the parliament what the cost was of preparing that futile answer? 10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—There is no point of order.UW4CRANESenator Crane—Can I just take a point of order, Mr Acting Deputy President: I would like to hear what Senator Macdonald is saying. There is a point of order with regard to behaviour in this chamber. Could you ask those on the other side to be just a little quieter?10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Thank you, Senator Crane, for drawing that to my attention. Senator Macdonald, if you address your comments through the chair and if those on my left refrain from interjecting and give Senator Macdonald a reasonable go, I think we will all be better off. Senator Macdonald, before you resume, did you seek leave to incorporate something or was I mishearing what you had said?YW4Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALD—I do want to incorporate. I am not sure that I have to seek leave.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—You need leave for incorporation but not for tabling.YW4Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALD—I will seek leave to incorporate the document.Leave granted.The document read as follows—RURAL AND REGIONAL AFFAIRS AND TRANSPORT COMMITTEE—ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS ON NOTICEFollowing the Senate Legislation Committee Hearing on 8 and 19 February, 580 questions were left on notice to be answered in relation to this Portfolio (the majority of these were tabled following the hearings).This represents no small feat of effort for the Dept and the various Portfolio authorities involved. Following is a broad estimate of the cost of answering these questions.Assumptions:. Questions are of varying complexity (both in terms of length, multiple parts, and accessibility of required information). In order to simplify the estimate of resources required to answer the questions it is assumed that the average consumption of staff time in researching, drafting, checking and submitting an answer to each question is three hours.Aggregate staff resource time is therefore = 1,740 hours (46.4 working days).1. Questions are usually worked on by staff of Executive Officer level, and checked by an Executive Officer level 2 or and SES officer. In order to derive an average remuneration level it's assumed each question consumes 2.75 hours of Executive Officer level 1 (mid increment) plus 0.25 hour of SES 1 (mid increment). Salary cost has been marked up by 20% to account approximately for salary on-costs.Average hourly salary cost = $372Estimate of total staff resource cost:Based on the above assumptions, an indicative estimate of the opportunity cost to the Dept and Portfolio authorities of staff time consumed in answering the questions on notice is `in the order of $64,000'3.1 580 qns x 3 hours/qn = 1,740 hours.2 (2.75 hrs x $57,390 per annum 1950 hrs per annum) + (0.25 hr x $84,208 per annum 1950 hrs per annum) x 120% 3 hrs = $46.3 1,740 hours x $46 per hour = $63,841.Note this is an order of magnitude estimate only. It should not be treated as a definitive number.YW4Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALD—This document will show how the department calculated that the cost of answering Senator Mackay's questions in estimates just this once was $64,000. Senator Mackay has to explain to the Australian public whether the Australian public will get $64,000 worth out of the quite often ridiculous questions that she asks. As I said, if they were leading to the production of some Labor Party policy then that would be appropriate, but so far we have seen no policy at all from the Labor Party.Many of the questions asked were hypothetical—things that were going to happen in the future. And, as I continually pointed out, that is the question you should ask at the next estimates committee hearings. Estimates committees were originally about the expenditure of government departments. The Labor Party have chosen—because they are quite incompetent in question time in this House in getting any information—to attempt to bog the departments down with all of this information. I am yet to see in the time we have been in government what has resulted from all of this. It simply puts the department to an expense for information which is rarely used by the opposition. I have to say one thing to Senator Mackay and I say this genuinely: I am disappointed that my department has not made material available as it was prepared. I will ensure that in future as the questions are done in convenient batches they will be distributed.The questions from my section of the portfolio—that is, Regional Services, Territories and Local Government—that have been completed have been filed with the Table Office. Mr Anderson, I understand, is not in the building at present but he will no doubt get on to these as soon as he possibly can, but I refer to the sheer volume of questions involved. During the estimates process, I kept saying to the committee that this was going to take a long time; that the department was fully engaged in getting together real work for the Australian people—things like our rural transaction centres initiative, the rural plan initiative and our regional communities program.That is what I am asking the department to do—things like making sure that local government got a good deal out of the tax reform package. And they got a fabulous deal. There was $70 million worth of cost reductions for local government. In Queensland alone, there were savings of $18 million for fuel use for local government. As a result of the tax reform package, Queensland councils are going to get an extra $30 million to $35 million from the state government. Admittedly, it is a Labor government, and I congratulate Mr Beattie and Mr Mackenroth for doing that.9L6MACKAYSenator Mackay—Why aren't you talking about Jeff Kennett?YW4Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALD—Don't you shout, Senator. Why don't you get the Tas manian Premier and the Tasmanian Treasurer to give local government in your state, if you are such a great advocate for Tasmania—9L6MACKAYSenator Mackay—They have.YW4Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALD—Have they? Thank you for that. So I mention those two states. This shows what a tax reform package can do. I am pleased that Senator Mackay has allowed me to announce that the Tasmanian government will give local government in Tasmania a fixed share of the GST revenue. That is great for Tasmanian local government, just as it is great for Queensland local government. It shows the benefits of tax reform in Australia.Good on the Labor Party, at least at state level, in that you do embrace the GST because you understand what a fabulous package it is. At state level both the Queensland Labor government and the Tasmanian Labor government have embraced tax reform and, as a result, their councils will benefit magnificently. I hope that in the states where there are Liberal governments in power, they will follow along. I also urge Mr Carr in New South Wales to follow the lead of the Tasmanian and Queensland governments, because that is what tax reform is all about.I will ensure that, in future, as questions are answered and as they come to us, they will be sent to senators on the estimates committees. As I recall, that is what was done with the ones that I was interested in when we were in opposition. I am a fraction disappointed that that has not happened in this instance, but it will happen in future. In so far as my portfolio is concerned, particularly in the transport area, a number of the agencies that are asked questions on notice are independent statutory authorities who have their own timetable agendas.I am always willing to give the shadow minister access to the department, not to fiddle around with political burrow chases, but when she wants information. Similarly, if any relevant shadow minister wants information from my portfolio, I am always very willing to make available access to the department so the opposition can go about its business. I believe the opposition should have access to relevant information, facts and figures. But where they are asking for opinions, for what might happen in the future and for how things might be done in a year or so, when these are just fishing expeditions conducted purely for political purposes—9L6MACKAYSenator Mackay—You never did that, did you?YW4Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALD—Perhaps we did, Senator Mackay, but that does not make it right. We were able to do it in 300 hours, Senator Mackay, while last year you took over 700 hours at enormous waste to the taxpayer. Opposition senators must have access to information. I am a great believer in the sanctity of parliament and its purpose in our whole democratic system. We have to allow such access. That is why I offer the shadow minister private briefings. That is why, if the shadow minister would ask me a question at question time, I would be very pleased to answer her. But in question time—that we have for an hour every day—the Leader of the Opposition spends most of the time taking ridiculous points of order and stopping the process of the parliament.If you are so keen on getting information, why can't you use question time to get that information? Why can't you use questions on notice in the normal course of events rather than coming in and diverting the department from the real purpose of government—that is, in my instance, in providing services for people in regional Australia and for local government, as well as providing for Australia's external and internal territories? Rather than having the department run around on wild goose chases, we should have it doing more appropriate things.I know that a number of my colleagues want to contribute to this debate, but my experience with the number of questions taken on notice is an experience shared by many of my ministerial colleagues. Instead of doing the real work for Australia, they are chasing around spending in the order of $64,000 to answer one senator's question in an estimates committee. Such questions could have been followed up in the additional estimates.9L6MACKAYSenator Mackay—What, like CASA and BASI? YW4Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALD—They can be followed up in the additional estimates. We have a general estimates hearing and then we have additional estimates. We have it twice a year, do we not?9L6MACKAYSenator Mackay—We are talking about air safety here.YW4Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALD—There is every opportunity—10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Hogg)—Order! There should be no cross-chamber discussion of this matter. Address your remarks through the chair.YW4Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALD—Mr Acting Deputy President, apparently the shadow minister indicates she has got some advice from the Clerk. The advice from the clerks at the table is always very good, but it depends on the question that is asked. The question that seems to have been asked is, as always, misleading. What should be asked is: what is a reasonable number of questions? What is a reasonable questioning of the ministry?I have nothing to hide. Ask me anything you like. There will be some technical matters—some detailed facts and figures—that I do not have, and I will get them for you. But is it reasonable to go on and on with questions that, with respect, Senator Mackay in many instances had not even seen before she tabled them—questions that were prepared by her staff? Again, we all do that.Opposition senators interjecting—YW4Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALD—But it is across the board. You could see other senators come in and hand them questions to hand across. You could see staffers running up with questions. I know this happened, Senator, because it used to happen with us, too. When it happens to you I can identify what is happening.I see my colleagues opposite laughing because they know that most of the questions—and most of the questions that come up in question time as well—are obviously not the questions of the senator but questions prepared, worded and written out by staff members. That is pretty obvious. To a degree that is not too bad, but when there are 700 hours of questioning in estimates one has to start to think about where this is going. If it were leading to policy determinations by the Australian Labor Party one might think perhaps that it is right. But all we get from the Labor Party is zeitgeists and contemplative stages—not one bit of policy have we yet got. I speak, I am sure, for all my colleagues in the government in opposing this motion—AW5CARRSenator Carr—Hand him a note. He needs one.YW4Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALD—Yes. I am just trying to see what the motion says, or what it—Opposition senators interjecting—YW4Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALD—Yes, but what does it go on about?UW4CRANESenator Crane—It adds to the monumental ignorance of the opposition.YW4Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALD—It adds to the monumental ignorance. You are quite right, Senator. It is standing in the name of Senator Mackay relating to parliamentary questions and requests for information. So in the government we will always attempt to provide information to senators to the best of our ability. We will make sure that information is provided. But the way that the Labor Party is playing this is simply causing a great deal of waste of money and time for people who have better things to do with their time.16:19:004166Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEYHX5QLDAD00—I normally do not take part in these general business debates, but I thought this was a very interesting one today and a debate that needed to be had. I am as concerned as the Labor Party is about what the government is doing with some of the processes of the parliament. Estimates committees certainly are one of the problems. As well, question time itself has degenerated into high farce—sometimes because of the questions which are asked, I admit. But honestly, you could not say that this government is attempting to answer almost any of the questions asked in question time.But let us return to the matter that is under consideration this afternoon. I have been on the rural affairs committee for almost six years now so I have quite a long experience of how matters are dealt with in this commit tee. It is usually a very cooperative committee. It has an extremely cooperative chair, Senator Winston Crane, a person who is very generous with his assistance to all of us and who is also very patient in dealing with some of us who at times may try his patience.I imagine he is going to come in this afternoon and defend the government because that is his task. But I am quite sure that he will do it very much tongue in cheek, because he knows the problems that we have had in that committee, particularly with this minister, in getting answers. I do not want to cast aspersions on the way Senator Macdonald, who is now a minister, is doing his job in general. But certainly, in terms of estimates, I have a long memory of Senator Macdonald when he was in opposition at times asking many questions which I thought had nothing really to do with estimates. But I found the previous Labor government, particularly in terms of estimates hearings, quite generous in allowing a wide range of questions to be asked.I do remember—and I might tell the story one day—an exchange between Senator Collins and Senator Margetts which is quite a funny story, but maybe this is not the time to tell it. Nevertheless, I think that the Labor Party when they were in government were very generous in allowing very wide-ranging questions to be asked.I was interested when this minister first appeared in the estimates committee, because he made a speech about wanting to be very cooperative and I thought, `This is interesting coming from this minister.' But I am a generous person myself and I thought, `We'll take it at face value and we'll wait and see just how cooperative he is.' He was certainly very profuse in saying how much he wanted to facilitate the committee, as he has again stated this afternoon, I notice. But rhetoric and performance need to mesh together, because without performance rhetoric does not mean very much.I must say that in the particular estimates committees from which most of these questions on notice came it was not long before this cooperative minister began to try to limit—in a way that I had never seen in six years—the range of questions. In the end, unless there was some dollar amount put on the question, he was trying to rule it out of order. In the end it got to be fairly ridiculous but I thought that both the chairman and we committee members were fairly generous with the minister.We thought, `Well, he is a new minister. He does not understand and we will let him grow into the job.' So we did agree to put a number of questions on notice. I had some questions that I asked that I think were quite appropriate. They all really did have reference to expenditure, but not every one of them was about a dollar amount. When you are developing a series of questions, there are often lead-up questions which in the end lead to an implication for expenditure. But he tried to rule my questions out of order. So I had to rephrase many of them.But the problem was that there would never have been as many questions on notice if the minister had been prepared to answer the questions at the time, instead of going on with very pretentious and pompous pronouncements that he was not going to allow this question and he was not going to allow that question and so on. And the department were willing to answer those questions. He interrupted the answers being given. This is the frustrating thing. This is why I am down here this afternoon—because, really, the hide of this minister! I am almost speechless, and that is saying something for me; I can talk under wet cement.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Hogg)—Senator, if you can, you should still address your comments through the chair.HX5Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEY—Sorry, Mr Acting Deputy President. I stand corrected. I really should not have got carried away. But you can understand the frustration that has brought me in here this afternoon, with the performance of this minister. I found it very interesting that he knew he was in trouble, because he admitted that his department should have sent those questions along as they were done. Of course it should have, because the chair had reminded him of that. I guess you read these letters into the record—9L6MACKAYSenator Mackay—Not all of them.HX5Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEY—Well, I will not read them again. In its frustration, the committee itself said to the minister and to the department, `Let's have whatever you have done.' But again nothing happened. It really is not good enough for him to come in and say, `Well, really the department is very naughty.' I suspect it is not the department at all. I think I know where a lot of those questions are: they are sitting on a certain minister's desk. And that is the reason we have not got them. He did not admit that; he sort of tried to blame the department saying, `I've got to tell my department they are going to have to smarten up their act.' I think he probably ought to talk to himself in this case, because that is where the problem is.So you can see that you have here a committee which is incredibly cooperative, a committee that always works together, with a very cooperative chair, but a committee that itself is becoming very frustrated with the processes engaged in by this minister. Not only does he object to questions and tries to make them fit a very narrow preconceived framework that he had dreamt up in his sleep, because it does not exist anywhere in standing orders, but also, having agreed that perhaps we would allow the questions to be put on notice, we then do not get answers.The problem is that part of the reason many of the questions were put on notice was so that we could then see whether or not his assertion was valid, from the answers which were given and by going through them and checking. What we need to know now is whether or not his assertion was valid—I do not think it was—because now we have to prepare questions for additional estimates, which begin on 4 May. I do not know what we are going to do. Are we going to have some big fight between the committee and this minister? When we get to additional estimates I think we are going to have exactly the same problem again. I do not know what he wants, but he certainly does not know. So this is the problem we are dealing with this afternoon.I reiterate that I have been on this committee for six years. I believe the Labor Party was very generous in what it allowed as questions when it was in government. I remember this minister, when he was in opposition, asking all kinds of questions. I think it is a matter of high cheek for him to try to limit the questions during the committee hearing and then, when in deference to him we try to be cooperative because he was a new minister and he was still learning, we put the questions on notice so that he would have some chance of answering them, he comes in here and blames the department. I think he wants to be the cook, have his cake and eat it too—and probably keep it and produce it next week but then blame everybody else.This is what we are faced with this afternoon and this is what has brought me into the chamber to take part in this debate. I have to say that really it can become impossible to operate this place if we do not get cooperation between one another. While we can chuck political bricks across the chamber—and we all do that—in the end, to make the parliament function, really does depend a lot on cooperation. But we have not seen much of that from this minister. We have heard the rhetoric, but the performance does not match it in any way whatsoever.16:30:004168Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—It is ironic because, similarly to Senator Woodley, I do not often participate in these debates. One of the reasons I came into the chamber to participate in this debate was a piece of paper that I got a couple of days ago. It was in fact a response to some questions I had asked on 10 March of the Minister for Transport and Regional Services. I would like to share this with you, and so I was quite interested when I heard that other people had similar issues. We asked a series of 11 questions—Senator Mackay interjecting—DX5Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTS—To a certain extent; you shall find out. I had had electors come to my office with a serious concern that was affecting their lives. They were former Christmas Islanders who had some concerns about the way they were being treated by the government. I must admit that it was something that had carried over for some time, but part of their concern was being dealt with in an ongoing court case. I will give you the answer first and then I will give you the context. This was Senator Macdonald's answer:The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:Part of the question covers matters which are presently being litigated in the Western Australian Supreme Court and it would not be appropriate for me to answer.Of course, sub judice is a really interesting way of getting out of answering questions. The answer is that, if it is not actually before a jury, it is not necessarily sub judice. We had worded the questions, with a lawyer's advice, very carefully—as one does in those kinds of questions, so you do not go to the questions that are being dealt with in the legal case. The irony is that it was very current that the government was choosing to take legal action. The answer continues:The remaining matters go back more than 40 years and are not currently active.Interesting, considering he is saying it is sub judice.9L6MACKAYSenator Mackay—But 40 years ago is too far back to answer.DX5Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTS—But 40 years ago is too far away for him to answer. The answer continues:I am sure the Senator would appreciate that to respond would involve a number of officers and many staff hours, including an extensive archival search for files. Given this, I am not prepared to authorise the resources to answer this question. If the Senator has any questions regarding any current or recent past concerns on Christmas Island, then I would be happy to assist the Senator.I am interested to know what the statute of limitations therefore will be in relation to this minister. What does actually constitute `recent past'? If the problem is that it is too far past, why is the government even bothering to take legal action to stop justice for these particular Islanders?So here we have a situation where people's lives—in the past, but also currently—are being affected by actions by government. They have asked whether I could ask questions to clarify what the government's respon sibility is to them. But the minister is saying, `I am sorry, but this happened so long ago that I can't be bothered answering. However, I am not going to be bothering to answer because there is a current court action associated with the issue.' It is either one or the other. The reality is that he answered none of the questions, because he got out of both of them. As I say, I did not know this debate was going to feature Senator Macdonald, but I thought I would add my little bit too, because I have never seen anything quite like that in relation to a question.There is another issue which I have to mention here, and that is the issue in relation to Senate estimates answers. I came in here frustrated about Senate estimates answers when there was the change of government. The opposition may remember that, having been in government for a long time, when they got to be in opposition, we seemed to be one of the few groups concerned that the turnaround time for Senate estimates answers was not being enforced. In fact, we had a debate on appropriations, if I recall, for which we did not have the answers from Senate estimates.It may have been that the carry-over anger about how it had felt being a minister in government was still there, but I have a feeling that the opposition needs to perhaps share some of the blame for that. I think the government felt early on that they got away with slack answering in relation to Senate estimates and I think it is because the opposition still remembered what it was like being in government and did not want to be as tight with the government then as people had been with them. Whereas we could normally have expected a turnaround time for Senate estimates answers of about eight to nine days, now there seems to be almost no more particular benefit, in terms of getting answers to our constituents, in asking questions on notice at Senate estimates than there is in asking questions on notice in the normal format.That is a pity, because the reality is that we are asking questions in relation to budget documents that we are asked to vote on for appropriations soon after that. So there is and was a good reason for the quick turnaround. I have to say that maybe the opposition have to work out how they might better deal with the issue to put the pressure back on the government and make it more accountable for a quick turnaround. There are very good reasons for requiring a quick turnaround on Senate estimates questions, especially if, as we have had an indication of today, there are some ministers who are requiring the committees to put more and more questions on notice. If that is the case, there should be an understanding that the more questions they put on notice, the more responsibility there is for them to put the resources in to make sure those answers are given.I quite clearly recall—and Senator Ray will recall—questions on Defence. We may have had our disagreements in relation to that, but I do recall that Senator Ray made sure, as far as possible, that the answers to questions were available on the day, realising what the consideration might be for not doing that where it was possible to ask on the spot.It is a lot more convenient, if there is a person somewhere in the room who can answer the question, for the person who is asking that question to get that direct feedback. If they do not get the answer they were looking for in the first question, they can at least change the question and find out the answer. If it has to go backwards and forwards then, yes, there are going to be costs involved. Sometimes you can get to the answer quite quickly if you have that face-to-face question and answer. And if there are problems in the question, they can be dealt with at the time. If there are still problems later, further questions can be put on notice.If the problem is that ministers themselves are deflecting or, as has been indicated today, stopping some public servants from answering questions or requiring senators to put questions on notice which could well be asked and answered at the time, it is hardly fair to suggest the problem is the number of questions on notice. Page 26 of today's Notice Paper says that there are 140 questions still unanswered after 30 days. I cannot say that I know what that means in terms of what it has been in previous years but that does seem to me to be quite a lot of questions outstanding.The other matter I want to bring up today is the whole issue of avoiding answers for various reasons. We have heard the sub judice claim, and we have heard various responses—Senator Allison's request in terms of documents springs to mind—today as to why documents are not provided. The reasons are that some are cabinet documents, some are commercial-in-confidence and some of them are sub judice issues. The reality is that we should be asking more and more and the government should be providing more and more information about the basis of those statements.Commercial-in-confidence can cover a multitude of sins. When you consider that we are operating under a major policy shift called national competition policy, you will notice that the commercial-in-confidence response covers more and more answers these days. Anything slightly embarrassing for bureaucrats may be covered by commercial-in-confidence. I believe this is quite unnecessary in most cases. We have to start challenging government departments when they say that they cannot release information because it is commercial-in-confidence. In many cases, if you scratch the surface, you will find that the private contractor is being asked, or forced, to sign a document stating that they will not release information. The government is requiring them to sign a document saying that they will not release information.We are not protecting the commercial operators at all in some of those instances, what we are doing is protecting the bureaucrats. We are losing that very valuable accountability into the way that taxpayers' money is spent, into the way programs are operated and into the very accountability that we all feel is so valuable in the way the Senate operates.I would like to hark back to a statement that Senator Macdonald made in his contribution which was very disturbing to me. He mentioned Senator Mackay and he said that in using time answering parliamentary questions his department was being taken away from its real work. I believe that shows a contempt of the community, because of course the government does not necessarily ask itself questions on behalf of the community; questions usually come from opposition and crossbench senators. That is the reality. It is the Senate, most often, which asks those questions on behalf of the community. That is our job. It is a job of the government to provide the responses. It is not for us; we are the means by which those questions are being asked, but the answers are going to the community, to the electors, to the people of Australia.If Senator Macdonald is saying that answering parliamentary questions is taking his department away from real work, he is not showing a contempt for parliament—although, obviously, that appears in the response—he is showing a contempt for the community, for the electorate and for the people we are supposed to be representing. I must admit I have had the same arguments with Senator Ray over time. He would know there have been arguments about whether the time spent answering questions is valid or necessary. If it becomes a case where ministers decide whether the question is valid or invalid, I guess what they are doing is saying that they are the best ones to judge whether the information that we require, and the information required by the community, is valid. That is making a lot of assumptions, and I am sure Senator Ray will respond to that later.We in this parliament have to be vigilant that we do not allow the whole situation of the avoidance of questions, sheathed in such things as commercial-in-confidence, to remove governments from accountability. It is their responsibility to explain and change, if necessary, the way they are spending the money provided to them by the taxpayer. If more and more services and roles of government are being forced into private hands—if in fact the parliament is operating more and more on a privatised basis—we have to grow up with that. We have to work out how accountability and privatisation goes hand in hand.I am afraid we will get to the very frightening situation which I have heard of in the UK where a minister, when asked a question, is able to say, `I am not able to answer that question because I have given over that responsibility to a private contractor.' We have legislation coming up, which I will be dealing with in the next few days, which deals with that very issue. What happens if we get to the point in this parliament where we ask a minister a question about their portfolio and they say, `I am not responsible for that any more because I have delegated that responsibility to a private contractor'? What if the impact of that is not just about private profit or loss or about the ability to sue a private individual? What if the impact of those decisions could potentially destroy the health of the community or wipe out an animal species in Australia? What if the potential decisions have a widespread impact, way more than any private contractor could pay in a lawsuit? What have we done to our parliament, if that is what we are leading to? As I said, we have to grow up with that.There have been a number of decisions about this, and I think we will all be interested in the outcome of the finance and public administration committee inquiry currently taking place. I think I might be referring to an old resource there. Basically, I think we have to be vigilant and we have to note what has happened in court decisions in relation to commercial-in-confidence. We have to understand that, in most cases, the courts have suggested that it should be very narrowly interpreted and that, if commercial-in-confidence is used as a means of not providing information, there must be very good reasons.That is what we all have to do with this government. Governments have to grow up—become adult. If governments are saying that the way to go in the future is to use public money to provide goods and services and programs via private companies, then we all have to work out a means by which it is not used as a means of masking responses to legitimate questions. Unfortunately, I think we are going to be speaking a lot more on those issues, but it is certainly not good enough the way it is working out at the moment.I, for one, will not be around long enough to see this through, but I would like to throw in as one of my contributions that this is something that the community has to understand more—that there is usually no valid excuse for withholding entire documents. It is possible to protect individuals without losing government accountability, and it should not be left in the hands of bureaucrats to use commercial-in-confidence to stop accountability for their own decision making.16:46:004171Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAYUI4VICALP00—Let me begin by congratulating Senator Mackay, Senator Woodley and Senator Margetts on their very lucid comments here today. They were extremely constructive. I may not agree with every ounce of what they had to say, but I think they have advanced the argument much further.There is not much amusement in being in opposition. The only downside of being in government is being a minister on chamber duty during general business. That is about the only downside of being in government I can think of. There is not much amusement if you are in opposition, but if you want to amuse yourself you can go back to the Hansard record from 1983 to 1996 and reread the comments of those opposite about the provision of information in this chamber—you will get hours of entertainment when you look at what they said then, and you will get equal entertainment when you see the procedural devices they encouraged and put in place in that time but really hate today.They put time limits on answers to questions. Why? Because they wanted to get more questions up. But time and time again we see them in question time try to run by their four minutes to get their information over. So what they did in opposition has come back to haunt them in government. Then they put in place the 30-day rule for questions on notice, and now it has come back to haunt them. They put in place the three-month rule for responses to Senate committee reports, and now they do not comply with that rule in most cases. This action was not just limited to these areas. They also changed the whole committee structure. They grabbed about 11 chairperson positions about a year before they came into government, and now they are all crying in their soup that they are not all chairmen, that the opposition and the Democrats chair some of these committees.This tells you that, in opposition, they did not have any thoughts for the future—or even any expectations of winning government in the future—otherwise they may not have signed up to these various procedural devices that they now do not want to comply with. Let me go to the first area of non-compliance, and that is returns to order. Most people may not realise that returns to order were an absolute rarity in the first 80 years of this parliament, but in the late 1980s, and certainly into the 1990s, the coalition suddenly discovered that this was the mechanism to seek information. Indeed, in the last parliament of the Keating government, this government when in opposition moved 52 successful returns to order. These days, whenever a return to order is put up, they always oppose it—once again they do not believe in provision of information—and, when they do not like a successfully carried return to order, they simply refuse to supply the information.That is in the nature of governments—I understand that—but there are double standards involved following their previous attitude. They have had a road to Damascus conversion simply on the basis that they have a majority of seats in the House of Representatives. All previous principles have been thrown out, and they now adopt the stance that they are in executive government and the parliament simply does not have the right to know.Let us look at questions on notice. It is quite interesting that it was this coalition government that forced through the 30-day rule. Of more than 40 identified portfolio areas in the last parliament, only four of them averaged a response to a question on notice in less than 30 days—four out of 40 managed to do that. In other words, 90 per cent of portfolios are not obeying the rule that the Liberal-National Party coalition and other allies at the time put into place in this chamber. One of the problems, I should stress, is that answers come from departments, go to the minister's office and then are not approved—they sit there for week after week without coming across.BE4NEWMANSenator Newman—I remember you doing it yourself.UI4Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAY—Senator Newman says she remembers it. Well, why doesn't she do something about it in government? Why don't they do anything about it in government?BE4NEWMANSenator Newman—I am talking about you; specifically, you.UI4Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAY—I did not make the big-principle statements, Senator Newman. I did not make the big pompous statements. I did not puff myself up and demand all these things—you and your colleagues did. What was good for you in opposition is apparently not good for you in government. So these answers just sit in the minister's office and do not get passed on, and that is the problem.Let me give you some examples—and I will only relate my own activities. On 30 November 1998 I asked six ministers about their entertainment expenses being approved by the department. Not one answer to those six questions to ministers has been received. They all happen to be National Party ministers, but not one of them has answered the question. On 25 November I asked all departments about the costs of their market research. Three still have not answered. On 10 November I asked all ministers about Telstra shareholdings by their personal staff—163 days have elapsed since then, and not one of those questions has been answered. Indeed, because of this lack of answering of questions, Senator Hill saw fit to write to me—it was an undated letter, but I received it on 15 February—promising that every effort was being made to answer these questions as quickly as possible. That was 66 days ago.Currently I have 82 questions that have been on the Notice Paper for more than 30 days still awaiting responses. I do not rush into the chamber after question time and demand of every minister that those questions be answered because I take the attitude that some questions will take longer than 30 days to answer; I understand that. But to have 82 questions outstanding beyond the 30-day rule is just a little beyond the pale.To counterbalance that, let me at least positively say that I put a lot of questions on the Notice Paper on 8 March to DOFA and the Electoral Commission. Let me give credit where credit is due: DOFA has answered the majority of those questions within the 30 days and the Electoral Commission is the same, showing that it is possible to answer these questions. So it is not all departments and it is not all ministers, but of course the now government when in opposition always demanded that the 30-day rule be abided by; they cannot abide by it in government.Let me move on to the example of estimates committees and the amount of information that is passed over there. We have the notorious case of one minister, lounging around the table, doing his work and never answering questions. That is Senator Alston—he does not engage, he just does his paperwork and treats the whole process with contempt. We have another example of a minister at the table leaving it to a departmental secretary to answer all the policy questions. Or the technique is used that the appropriate witnesses are not at the table, or they refuse to bring them to the table. We have asked questions about missing documents in the Prime Minister's office. The people who would know about those missing documents are in the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, but that department refuses to allow them to sit at the table to answer the questions, and then the witnesses who are at the table say, `We don't know anything about this.' Efforts could be made to in fact provide that particular information.Probably the worst example, the most contemptuous example, of the treatment of estimates committee hearings comes from Senator Kemp, who consistently refuses to take valid questions on notice. Someone, early on, gave him the formula: `Senator, I will draw that to the attention of the minister, and if he wishes to respond I will forward the response.' That is not the correct attitude to providing information to this parliament. The correct attitude, taken, I acknowledge, by the majority of the coalition ministers is, `Senator, I will take that question on notice.' But time and time again, Senator Kemp will not do that. He will not properly take questions on notice and will not insist that witnesses give accurate answers. He intervenes to divert and move the subject area away from where questions are answered and, as such, he is definitely the worst estimates minister I have ever seen at the table.Some ministers of course do intervene. I have had reason on occasions to note and praise Senator Hill—not always, because I am also critical of some of his estimates performances. But I have seen him sit at the table when witnesses have given insufficient information when they have that information, and he has turned around to them and said, `No. Provide the senators with the full information.' And they do. If ministers behaved in that way, the transparency of government operations would be far better. But one area where Senator Hill will not provide information is to do with the federation grants. Evidence was given that the department assessed all the applications that went to Senator Hill and Senator Alston. They were all marked 15, 12 or 20 out of whatever. A line was drawn and it was said that any grant or any project below 15 should not get a grant. Yet we got evidence that 12 of the projects below the 15 mark got funding but he will not tell us which projects. Were these projects the ones that were scattered through the marginal seats and announced during the last election? I am pretty certain they were. But he refuses to hand on the information to us so that we can make that particular judgment.Then, of course, we move to question time, which is the prime area where governments are accountable in the parliament. The general behaviour of ministers in this government in supplying information could only be described as abysmal. No-one could have failed to notice this week that Senator Alston failed to answer questions asked of him. There is a variety of reasons for this: (1) he never reads his brief; (2) he does not understand any of the issues; and (3) he gets a greater psychological thrill out of abuse than he does out of providing information. You can almost ring a bell in here to know when Senator Alston is in trouble—`union official' comes out, and off he goes in a mad dervish. Indeed, it spread to one of his poor, unfortunate colleagues today who had a break-out in that regard. So coalition ministers do not take question time seriously.You cannot ask Senator Newman a question if she is representing someone else because she says, `I'm sorry, I'm not the minister in charge; I will have to get an answer for you.' Well, that is not good enough. Senator Minchin is the only one who listens to the question and tries to answer it. I do not say he does it adequately on every occasion, but he actually listens to the question, analyses it and tries to provide you with a response. With Senator Vanstone, if it is a question from our side, half the answers we get are, `I'm sorry, I don't have a brief on that.' I will say that she then goes and gets an answer and brings it back, which is commendable, and she usually does it with a degree of rapidity that we acknowledge. But if she does not have a brief, if it is in the immigration area or anywhere else, we do not get a response.It is hard to remember who else is over there at question time, but let me try. We have Senator Herron—who is present in the chamber—who rarely can find his brief, and if he cannot find it he has the honesty to admit it, but then he seems to be able to pull any other one out of the file and just read it for four minutes. It has no relevance to the answer, but all of his colleagues give him the tick for taking up four minutes of question time. That is a good try, we have to say.Then we move to Senator Kemp. If we had the same provision in our Constitution as the United States about unfair punishment, he would be guilty of constitutional breach every day of the week—talk about a mumbling, waffling, hopeless performance day in and day out. Then we have Senator Ellison, who does, I think, try to answer the questions. I would have to say that. I would rate him in the top three—although trying to get eye contact with him as he looks at journalists for four minutes nonstop for reinforcement distracts us from our supplementary questions because we get fascinated by it—Senator Woodley interjecting—UI4Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAY—Well, that is your job, Senator, not mine. So question time basically is not about the transmission of information. That is not surprising, because it never has been. It has always been a rather adversarial process. But the one thing that should happen is that, if you cannot answer the question, you should get an answer and bring it back. That is what differentiates ministers in this government—some are very good at it and some are very bad at it and do not take it seriously.Let me move on to the excuses for not providing information to the chamber. The first one is commercial-in-confidence. In my view, that is a valid reason on the face of it, but it has become much more difficult now. So many elements of government have been contracted out that it is now almost an excuse never to provide anything. In those cases where it is entirely internalised to government, it is amazing how often that 90 per cent or 95 per cent of the information can be delivered with the commercial elements extracted out. One or two departments attempt to do this; the others just use it as a bland and broad excuse not to provide information.The second excuse through which we are refused is internal working documents, yet in many cases these would be subject to freedom of information. So it is not a valid excuse for them not to be produced here, especially in a return to order in the Senate—they should be produced.The third excuse is legal advice. I would assert that not all legal advice should be tabled in this chamber if it is government property, but it should not be quoted from to back up their case if they are not willing to table it, and that is the position we have—`Oh, Senator, we've had incredibly strong legal advice on this matter.' Well, let us see it. But of course the answer is, `Oh no, we don't table legal advice'—unless at the time they want to make a point. Legal advice is tabled in this chamber by governments from time to time when it wholly and solely backs up their case. So that is not always a valid excuse.Cabinet-in-confidence is used. I acknowledge that. I do not know why so many cabinet-in-confidence documents appear in the Financial Review or who puts them there, but clearly they should not be tabled in this chamber. Advice to government basically falls into the same category unless the minister is saying, `Oh, the advice was impeccable.' If they want to rely on the advice, then they should be willing to table it. Finally, there are those areas that impinge on security matters, which I also say from my experience should never be tabled here.The other option for us outside the chamber to pursue these matters is freedom of information. I have done that on a number of occasions, especially with the Department of Finance and Administration. But mid-part through last year a change of policy by that department occurred. Instead of providing me with the information and giving me a cost waiver, suddenly the bills rolled in. For one of my applications I had to fork out $9,500. I did not have the `readies'—I admit it. The other one was, I think, $1,000 to $2,000. The excuse that the department gave me—and this is the interesting thing—was, `We won't give you a cost waiver because you have other avenues in which to obtain this information.' That is, if I had asked a question on notice, they would have responded to me and given me all that detail.There are cases where I want to know the information but not necessarily to spread it around the country. That is why I went the FOI route; that is why I paid my $30. I may have never published that information. If I seek the information by way of a question on notice it is in the back of Hansard as a privileged document and everyone gets to know about it. In one case I wanted to know what the average hotel expenditure of a minister was—not because I had any intention of exposing that minister but so that we could lay down a reasonable approximation and guidelines for future Labor ministers. I did not want to embarrass that person by asking a question on notice and having it all detailed there.In summary, for all the pompous statements about morality and principle by the Liberal and National parties, once they came into government they reverted to type. They have not kept any of those principles. As much as possible, they have tried to deprive this parliament and the Australian people of information that they are entitled to.17:05:004175O'Chee, Sen BillSenator O'CHEEEU4QLDNP10—This motion is actually quite a serious one, in spite of Senator Ray's levity—I think he is known for his levity. Senator Mackay has moved a motion that says:That the Senate notes the failure of Government ministers and their departments to adequately respond to parliamentary questions and requests for information on government programs and administration.Of course, that is her characterisation of this government. It is not necessarily correct. That is her view, and she is entitled to have her view—it is a democracy, it is a free country and she is entitled to have a view if she wants. It is just that those of us on this side of the chamber disagree with that view. We disagree with the suggestion that this government is not trying to adequately respond to requests.I was interested to see that Senator Ray on the other side of the chamber decided that he might take a little trip back in history. As a consequence of his trip back in history, Senator Ray then formed the conclusion that this government was somehow hypocritical, that we had somehow changed the ground rules. If this is correct, then it will stand up for the converse as well. If Senator Ray's argument is correct, then the attitude of the Labor senators would be now one that they favour open, honest and transparent government.Let us put that to the test. If I were to ask for leave to table three documents in this chamber right now—one is headed Memorandum to Head of Credit Recovery, Brown and Hatton Group (BHG)/Constantinidis; the second document is entitled KPMG Peat Marwick, dated 14 February 1995, and is headed Euphron Group of Companies; and the third document is headed Account Ledger, Gadens Ridgeway, dated Monday, 9 December 1996, Brown and Hatton Rural Pty Ltd—do you think that the opposition, which wants open and transparent government and full disclosure of all the relevant facts about what the government does with taxpayers' money, would give me leave to table these documents? I seek leave to table them.8O6O'BRIENSenator O'Brien—The minister can do it without leave, but I am not granting you leave.EU4O'Chee, Sen BillSenator O'CHEE—He is not granting leave. Of course he is not going to grant leave.8O6O'BRIENSenator O'Brien—The minister can do it without leave.EU4O'Chee, Sen BillSenator O'CHEE—Are you going to let me table them?8O6O'Chee, Sen BillSenator O'BRIEN—No, I am saying that the minister has rights.EU4O'Chee, Sen BillSenator O'CHEE—He does not want me to table the documents. Yet again, he refuses leave for these documents to be put on the public record. Why is it important that these documents be put on the public record? It is very simple.8O6O'BRIENSenator O'Brien—Go outside and do it.EU4O'Chee, Sen BillSenator O'CHEE—I note that I was invited by Senator O'Brien to explain why these documents should go on the public record. Let me make it very clear why these documents should go on the public record. These documents evidence that an amount of $4.9 million owed by a company belonging to the former Prime Minister was written off by the Commonwealth Bank when the Commonwealth Bank was in the majority ownership of the public.In May 1994 the first document to which I have referred, headed Memorandum to Head of Credit Recovery, on the second page entitled `Aggregation BHG Facilities', evidences a write-off in May 1994 of interest in the amount of $4,892,231 owed by Brown and Hatton Group and, in particular it appears, owed by a company called Rincraft Pty Ltd. Who had the beneficial ownership of this group of companies? Paul Keating. So he got a gift of $4.9 million because the Commonwealth Bank said, `We are just going to write off that debt. We are not going to pester you about that anymore.' He got a gift of $4.9 million. Over half of the shares in that bank were owned by the government, and he was the Prime Minister.2L6BISHOPSenator Mark Bishop—Madam President, I raise a point of order. There needs to be some relevance to the matters in this debate. This debate is about government behaviour and proper control of documentation of the parliament. It is not about the actions of citizens of this country who have left the parliament and who have been gone for many years. I think Senator O'Chee is getting outside the bounds of relevance in terms of this debate. I would ask you to direct him to be relevant to the motion that is before the chair.EU4O'Chee, Sen BillSenator O'CHEE—On the point of order, Mr Acting Deputy President, it is obvious that the substance of the matter has escaped Senator Bishop. Senator Bishop should be drawing his attention and your attention to the fact that the motion refers to requests for information on government programs and administration. We are examining the administration of a previous government and we are accepting Senator Ray's invitation to look back on the historical performance of both sides of the chamber. We are accepting an invitation made by Senator Ray in his contribution a couple of minutes ago. Senator Ray accused the government of hypocrisy. If that charge is to stick, it should surely be judged by reference to the behaviour of the previous government. Accordingly, my comments are entirely within order.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Watson)—I think this is something of a quid pro quo situation in terms of a response to what Senator Ray has already raised. The response is not surprising under the circumstances. It appears that he is certainly relevant at the moment.2L6BISHOPSenator Mark Bishop—Mr Acting Deputy President, I raise a further point of order. The motion before the chair relates to the action of government, both present and past, and the carrying out of its obligations when requests for information are made. Those were the matters referred to by all of the speakers and they were the matters specifically addressed by Senator Ray in his comments. Senator O'Chee has sought permission to table particular documents. Consistent with the standing orders, the opposition has refused permission for him to table those documents. Senator O'Chee now attempts to evade that deci sion of the opposition, consistent with the standing orders, by discussing both the form of the documents and the contents therein. So he is in breach.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—The matter, if I recall correctly, was raised at the time in this chamber and the debate centres around that matter. Accordingly, it is relevant at the present time.EU4O'Chee, Sen BillSenator O'CHEE—Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President, you are quite right. This matter is incredibly relevant to the disclosure of information by government. This matter is incredibly relevant to the question of requests for information on government programs and administration. I will tell you why this is relevant to requests for information on government administration. Four or five years ago when Mr Keating was the Prime Minister—when Mr Keating oversaw the disclosure of ministerial interests—he misled the parliament. He misled the parliament in direct response to questions about his interests in these companies.So there you have it. You had a request for information. The question was addressed to the Prime Minister—he was in charge of this particular area of government administration—and the Prime Minister misled the parliament for his own interests. And that is the standard of propriety by which the people on the other side of the chamber should be judged. Of course, Senator Bishop starts to get terribly sensitive about these matters because it is very embarrassing. But it is not correct that Senator Bishop can get up here and assert that, simply because the people on the other side of the chamber have decided to continue the cover-up by refusing to allow the tabling of these documents, somehow I should be precluded from even discussing the matter.Here is a group of people who move a debate today to say that this government does not disclose enough information, and yet they not only want to censor the production of information but actually want to censor what people can talk about. They actually want to use a little fiction on the other side to try to stop any discussion of these matters; to try to stop any discussion of what happened to 51 per cent of the $4.9 million written off by the Commonwealth Bank, owed by the former Prime Minister of Australia and owed to the people of Australia, the taxpayers, who own the shares in the Commonwealth Bank. So much for their standards of propriety. So much for their commitment to an open, honest and transparent government process. They love transparency when they think there is something in it for them, but they hate transparency when the truth is yearning to come out. Here they are, sitting on the other side of the chamber, smirking away because they think that they have stopped the truth getting out.Let us talk about what this opposition did when they were in government to prevent the disclosure of how the taxpayers' money, through the majority public ownership of the Commonwealth Bank, was used to enhance the financial position of the then Prime Minister. What happened was that the Prime Minister had a group of companies that invested in a piggery but he just did not bother to pay the interest. It is a fact that the annual report of the Commonwealth Bank for the year ending 30 June 1994 will record that in that financial year the total amount written off by the Commonwealth Bank, across all of the agricultural, forestry and fishery sectors put together, was $26½ million. Almost $5 million of those write-offs was directly attributable to companies owned by the then Prime Minister, Paul Keating. So across three whole industries—all of agriculture, all of fishery and all of forestry—the Commonwealth Bank wrote off $26½ million, and 20 per cent of that was owed by the then Prime Minister. And they did not even bother suing him. That is the amazing thing. This is how the taxpayers' money was applied when they were in government.Every time honourable senators from the coalition parties asked questions about this and every time members of the lower house from the coalition asked questions about this, they were treated to ritualistic abuse. They were called criminals. They were told that they lived in the gutter. They were told they should go back to the gutter. This was how the now opposition responded to very legitimate questions about what happened to millions and millions of taxpayers' dollars. So that is why they do not want this particular document to be tabled. They do not want this particular document to be tabled because this goes to the heart of government administration when they were in government. The only way you can judge whether this motion is reasonable or not is to judge it on the very terms set by the people who moved it when they themselves were in government. That is why this analysis is very important. The document to which I have referred, `Memorandum to Head of Credit Recovery', says:PurposeThe purpose of this memorandum is to formalise the aggregation of BHG and related facilities, itemised in the attached schedule, for DLA purposes.What does that mean? It means that there were a whole heap of related companies here where the bank wrote off millions of dollars of debt. They wanted to lump them in together and they needed to write this memorandum because they had to ensure that this memorandum existed for delegated line authority purposes, as is required by the bank. The next paragraph says:AggregationThe following group facilities (excluding Onoufriades/Scoufis) should now be aggregated for DLA purposes in accordance with Section 5.2.1 Corporate Handbook.It then goes through to list the facilities and the rationale for each one:Facilities1. Brown and Hatton Group (BHG).Rationale: none. It continues:Facilities/Rationale2.Rimwood and Poyntell Pty Ltd (RPL)/RPL facilities guaranteed (unsupported) by BHG director, Mr A Constantinidis.3. A Constantinidis./BHG facilities are guaranteed (unsupported) by director, Mr A Constantinidis. Personal Accounts.4. Efstatious Onoufriades (guarantor RPL)./Not aggregated due to legal challenge to CBA's linkage of freehold mortgages to Rimwood/Poyntell debts.5. John Scoufis (guarantor RPL)./As above.6. Estate late James Scoufis (guarantor RPL)./As above. Here is the interesting thing about what happened to the taxpayers' money. The next heading reads `Delegated Authority'. The original document clearly read:Total principal loss provisions plus principal write-offs amount to $9.3m. DLA level therefore is Head of Credit Recovery.And the document is signed:A PavliManager, Credit Recovery28 June 1994Half of all this money is taxpayers' money, government money, yet they do not want us to discuss this today. On the bottom of this note somebody has written—and I assume it is the head of credit recovery:How much interest did we write off Brown and Hatton GroupSo the same Mr Pavli has gone back and amended the paragraph `Delegated Authority' in handwriting so that it now reads:Total principal loss provisions plus principal/interest write-offs amount to $18.6m.He has initialled it, and down on the bottom it says:Thanks—Keep a copy of this on each relevant fileThanks indeed! Thanks indeed from the taxpayers, whose money financed this. There ought to be a copy of this on every relevant file in the Commonwealth Bank, but do you know what: there ought to be a copy of this sitting on the table of this chamber right now. There ought to be a copy of this sitting on the table of this chamber if the opposition are fair dinkum about the motion they have moved today. If they are fair dinkum about government programs and government administration, they should be fair dinkum not just for when we are in government but for when they were in government. So I will give them another chance, Mr Acting Deputy President: I seek leave to table this document.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Watson)—Is leave granted? Leave is not granted.EU4O'Chee, Sen BillSenator O'CHEE—Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President. It is just as I suspected, so I suppose I will have to turn to page 2 of this document. This is a bit that is really going to hurt. Mr Acting Deputy President, page 2— and I wish I could show it to you because I wish I could table it, but they will not let me table it—details the individual facilities. So let us go across the page; it is divided into a series of columns. The first column is headed `Account Number', the second is `Account Name', the third is `Facility Type and Limit', the fourth is `Balance', the fifth is `Provision' and the sixth is `Write-Offs'.So, going across the page under `Brown and Hatton Group' there are three accounts listed. The first is `Account Number 2213 0022 1543' and `Account Name Rincraft'. It is a BMA account. The balance is $4,760,219 with a provision for bad and doubtful debts of $4,500,000 and in the write-offs column—in handwriting—it says `5/94'—that is, May 1994—`I'—meaning interest—and `$4,892,321' and it is initialled by Mr Pavli. Next is `Account Number 2213 1001 1775' and `Account Name Darling', a BMA facility; there is a balance to the amount of $2,160,000. Next is `Account Number 2213 1001 1783' and `Account Name Hunter'—a BMA facility—and balance, $7,180,000, with a total balance for the Brown and Hatton Group of $14,100,219.The next one is even more interesting, and I hope Senators O'Brien and Bishop enjoy this one. It has `Rimwood & Poyntell' and `Account Number 2213 0011 8220' and `Account Name Poyntell' and a facility type of `FDL'—fully drawn loan—and the words `In Reduction'. The balance was $1,193,847. There was a provision for $1,070,000 and then in the `Write-Offs' column, and this is the really interesting bit, there is `5/93' and `P'—meaning principal—and a write-off of $3,500,000. Underneath that is `5/93' with `I' next to it—meaning interest—and $4,347,240 for a total of $7,847,240, written off on one account.This was a company associated with the piggeries and 51 per cent of the money that was written off here belonged to the taxpayers through the government; and these people on the other side of the chamber—with the exception of Senator Heffernan, who is over there for a better view—do not want me to table this document. Item 3 has `Archilles Constantinidis' and `Account Number 2213 1000 2529'—an FDL account—and a balance of $67,916. It has `Account Number 2726 32108' and `A Constantinidis'; `H/L' is the type of facility—a home loan, I assume—and there is $186,111. There are account numbers 0010 2388 8001 and 0010 2388 8002 and 0010 2388 8003 and `Account Name Monroes/Pandas'; the account type is a lease in the amount of $1 million and next to that, over in column 6—the `Write-Offs' column—is `6/93'—June 93—and under `P' for principal they were there for another $230,736. Then there is `Account Number 2213 0017 1777'—`Monroes/Pandas' and `FDL'; they wrote off—`6/93'—interest in the amount of $29,233—with the total write-offs of principal—`$230,763'—and interest—`$29,233'. The grand total of write-offs, principal—$3.7 million—(Time expired)17:29:004179O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TASALP00—We have had a bit of an interlude from Senator O'Chee trying to obscure the real purpose of this motion. Perhaps I should give him some information for his edification. I believe he has been Deputy Whip for some time, so one would have thought that he would understand the procedures of this place. He should also understand that when the government refuses the opposition leave to table information relating to criminal activity by a member of the Liberal Party—namely, Mr John Elliott—it should not expect that every request that it puts forward to the parliament will be granted.Let me say this to the Australian public so that they can understand the desperation of what is taking place now: the government has an advantage over and above the opposition for tabling documents, because a minister has the right to table any document without leave. But not once has a coalition minister been prepared to come into this place and table these documents and associate himself or herself with these documents. They are not prepared to taint themselves with this sort of activity. Indeed, Senator O'Chee could walk outside this place and make these documents public in any way he saw fit, but of course he is not prepared to do that. But let us understand this also: Senator O'Chee's term ends on 30 June, so he has nothing to lose in throwing this sort of muck around the place. His career is over.However, members of the government frontbench could have at any time come into this place and taken an advantage that is not available to the opposition to table these documents if they were so minded. They have not done that because they do not want to sully their careers with this sort of muckraking. If they are prepared to do so, then there is nothing the opposition can do to prevent that from occurring. But let us not have people like Senator O'Chee who have no future in this place sullying this place with this documentation.EU4O'CHEESenator O'Chee—And you have?8O6O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN—I have a longer career than you apparently, Senator O'Chee, because you have about 70 days to go.EU4O'CHEESenator O'Chee—You reckon so.8O6O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN—Yes, I do, I reckon so. The public record tells me that now. Having dealt with what I consider to be an irrelevance in terms of the motion before the Senate today—all of this has been debated previously during adjournment debates; it is not as though there has not been an opportunity for Senator O'Chee and others to trawl this out as much as they possibly could—this motion states:. . . notes the failure of Government ministers and their departments to adequately respond to parliamentary questions and requests for information on government programs and administration.You have interpreted that fairly broadly, but I want to go to the real purpose of the motion. It is clear that this government has been about hiding information from the public and trying to frustrate attempts from the opposition to do their jobs. In fact, we had Senator Ian Macdonald complaining about the opposition doing its job and asking too many questions. Obviously he does not like being asked questions, because the problem was that we asked too many questions. That is what he said. Asking questions, getting answers and making the government accountable was all too much for Senator Macdonald. Last Monday my office faxed off a note to the offices of the Assistant Treasurer, the Minister for Regional Services, Territories and Local Government, and the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs. I was seeking answers to questions placed on notice that were overdue. Senator Herron's office was able to get answers for me very quickly, and I thank his office for their assistance. Senator Kemp's office is attempting to track down answers to 10 outstanding questions. I would appreciate those answers from Senator Kemp's office by Tuesday. But I received a note from Senator Macdonald's office advising that draft answers to eight outstanding questions were in their final stages of preparation. His chief of staff advised that he expected answers to be provided `in this sitting period'. I would like to know from Senator Macdonald what that means exactly. Is it this week, this fortnight or this month? I believe that the answers—being overdue—should be available by next Tuesday, and perhaps there will be other ways of pursuing it.But one of the questions, question No. 5, was asked on 10 November last year, which is 162 days ago—I think Senator Ray had 163 days, so I have not hit the record—and I cannot get an answer. The rules contained in the standing orders, as Senator Ray said, that this place operate under relating to questions on notice state that they should be answered within 30 days. It was those opposite when they were in opposition who put the rules in place.5L6FERRISSenator Ferris—Oh, you just wait.8O6O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN—I do not have to wait, Senator Ferris, because that is the truth on the record. Thirty days is what the then opposition, now government, wanted to be the turnaround time. Like Senator Ray, I am not in the habit of coming into this place on the 31st day and saying, `Where is the answer?' The process that we have followed has been to request, after a reasonable period, an answer. In most cases we do get answers, although the 30-day rule is not met. Where there are rules that have been laid down, perhaps the government should be prepared to play by the rules—or at least attempt to do so. There were also a large number of questions taken on notice—a number at the invitation of the minister in the chair, Senator Macdonald—during the estimates round, and Senator Mackay has referred to that. The committee set rules requiring answers by 25 March. Who has the majority on the committee? Government senators. So the government senators had the majority—not that we would disagree with it, but that was the rule that was set—and they set the rule, 25 March. As yet we have not one answer from Senator Macdonald—just complaints.UW4CRANESenator Crane—Just hold on.8O6O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN—You will get your chance, Senator Crane. The Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry was also required—this is a different department; this is not Senator Macdonald's department—to answer a large number of questions from that estimates round and, as always, that department provided the answers on time and in full. And again, as usual, additional information was provided as appropriate by that department. I thank the officers of that department for their cooperation. But to this point we have seen nothing from the Department of Transport and Regional Services. I see that there is a sheaf of documents now being produced. Apparently the chair of the committee has some answers that nobody else has received—UW4CRANESenator Crane—No, the secretariat has the answers. All you have to do is visit them. Walk down to the secretariat.8O6O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN—So apparently our motion has generated these answers. Isn't this wonderful? Isn't this a great thing? We have had to get a motion before the Senate and have two-odd hours of debate, and we have finally got some answers from Senator Macdonald. We have embarrassed him so much that he has had to get some answers in here. This is great. Perhaps we will have to do it more and more often, because the performance of his department is appalling.Since September last year, I have asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services 72 questions on notice. They have not been general questions about policy but technical questions mainly about the administration of aviation in this country. The reason for the large number of questions on notice is quite simple. There are significant and ongoing problems in the administration of aviation by Mr Anderson as there were with the former minister, Mr Vaile, and, before him, Mr Sharp. This means that there are also significant community concerns about aviation safety in this country. Everyone talks about how safe it is to fly in Australia. We brag about our international reputation. However, the manner in which this government has managed aviation since 1996 is putting that safety record at risk.I stress again that the hopeless performance of the government in this important portfolio is also the reason why there are a large number of questions flowing from the estimates hearings. That is also why a number of Senate inquiries into aviation are about to commence. If this portfolio were being managed properly and aviation reforms were being implemented effectively, with not only the support of the industry but also the support of the broader community, there would be little for us on this side of the chamber to ask and little for the minister to answer.I might add that not only are the Labor Party and the Democrats putting pressure on the government in relation to aviation; the government is putting pressure on itself. There have been three or four inquiries into aviation since the last election, only a few months or so ago. A matter relating to the administration of aviation safety was even referred to the Federal Police by the former chairman of the Civil Aviation Authority, Mr Dick Smith. The best way to remove the administrative burden currently on the minister, his department and agency as a result of the large number of questions is not to attack us. The solution is not simply to refuse to answer questions legitimately asked. The real solution is for the minister to properly administer his portfolio. We want answers to questions asked both on notice and through the estimates committee. If the confusion and maladministration of aviation continues, there is no doubt that we will continue to pursue the minister and the government. After all, that is the responsibility of an opposition.However, incompetence is not the only reason for the transport portfolio being placed under pressure. If we look back on the fiasco that was the Mr Reith and Mr Sharp waterfront plan, we find a government and a senior officer of the Department of Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business not refusing to answer questions but giving false answers. In August 1997, in response to a question on notice about consultancies, the government advised me that a consultancy had been let to ACIL Economics to prepare a waterfront reform plan. The role of the Department of Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business in the development of the plan was pursued by my colleagues Senator Collins and Senator Mackay at the next estimates hearings. Those hearings were in August that year.The senior officer responsible for waterfront reform in that department claimed to have no knowledge of the consultancy or the plan. Either on his own initiative or under pressure from above, he misled the committee. Effectively, he lied to the Senate. Again, in February 1998, he did exactly the same thing. Again, he misled the committee and lied to the Senate.But it is difficult to maintain the deception in this case. The evidence, much of it from Mr Gillespie's own colleagues, continues to build against his evidence. In a letter from the Secretary to the Department of Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, Dr Peter Shergold, to the chair of the Economics Committee in June 1998, Mr Gillespie fessed up. He said that he had made `inadvertent errors' in his evidence. That evidence was given in several estimates hearings over several hours. I refer to Dr Shergold's letter so that the Australian public will know what sort of obfuscation we have had to put up with in this area.Bear in mind that this is an area where the government had a fair bit to lose. It had become involved in a protracted industrial dispute clearly generated by its own policies, orchestrated by its ministers through the departments and with the funding of the Commonwealth. Consultancies were funded by this government. Hundreds of thousands of dollars were paid to consultants to engineer the sacking of Australian waterfront workers. There was a desperation to conceal this sort of performance by this government. So it is not surprising, I suppose, that there were inadvertent errors in Mr Gillespie's evidence to conceal what was clearly a conspiracy by this government to illegally sack hundreds and hundreds of Australian workers.Dr Shergold was in the practice of writing letters. He did this twice. We always got the letter either during the weekend before a Monday meeting of the estimates or in the morning of the estimates or thereabouts. If there were a matter to be proceeded with, the opposition would be inconvenienced by the supply of this information just before the estimates commenced or after it had commenced. That is another procedure that the government relies upon. While I am on the issue of the waterfront, everyone will recall that the government, when asked about consultancies relating to the waterfront dispute, hid behind the so-called sub judice rule; that is, because the matters were before the court, they could not be answered.What was the view of the Clerk of the Senate on that matter? A letter was tabled before the committee in relation to that matter. The Clerk of the Senate had quite a different view from the government. I am not going to quote it because I do not have the letter before me. However, it is on the public record. I will read Dr Shergold's letter, which is dated 2 June 1998, into the Hansard:I refer to my letter to you—it is addressed to Senator Ferguson, the chair of the committee—of 3 April 1998. In that letter, I set out the Department's position in relation to matters raised by Senator O'Brien concerning evidence given by Mr Derren Gillespie, an officer of the Department, to the Economics Legislation Committee in August 1997.I wish to provide the Committee with further information which has come to light after a recent review of documents, including certain material originally prepared by officers of the Department of Transport and Regional Development. Mr Gillespie has had the opportunity to consider that material to which he did not previously have access and has asked me to draw the Committee's attention to certain inadvertent errors in his evidence.In respect of the ACIL 2 consultancy, Mr Gillespie informed the Committee on 18 August 1997 . . . that he did "not have any insights into any of the work that ACIL may have done under that contract". That answer was in response to a particular question by Senator Jacinta Collins, namely, "(t)o your knowledge does the ACIL plan fit with the terms of the Workplace Relations Act or does it contemplate action outside the legislative framework?"A review of events immediately after the signing of the contract between ACIL and the Department of Transport and Regional Development (the ACIL 2 contract) on 20 June 1997 indicates that Mr Gillespie's response, when considered in a wider context, was not correct.What those listening should understand is that Mr Gillespie was at that time part of a task force into waterfront reform within the department and had access to information about the ACIL plan, so he knew what the answer to the question was. The answer that he gave was, I think, designed without any doubt to hide from the committee knowledge that he had. In other words, he was not being truthful. It goes on:On three occasions (24 June 1997, 8 July 1997 and 15 July 1997) Mr Gillespie attended meetings at which an ACIL consultant, undertaking work under the ACIL 2 contract, was also present. Each meeting took place at the early stages of the ACIL 2 consultancy.The meeting on 24 June 1997 concerned a waterfront issue on which the Department had worked before the ACIL 2 contract took effect. An ACIL consultant attended the meeting. The Department did not arrange the consultant's attendance. The Department continued to work on the matter without further interaction with ACIL.The meeting of 8 July 1997 involved a preliminary discussion of how the ACIL consultancy might be undertaken. Officials present were Mr Gillespie and Mr Manthorpe from the Department of Industrial Relations and officers from the Department of Transport and Regional Development.At the meeting of 15 July 1998 port operations were discussed with representatives of a port authority. Both Mr Gillespie and an ACIL consultant were present.This is the sort of performance that we have had to deal with. The government and particularly Senator Macdonald have complained about the volume of questions asked. But when you have to be careful to ask precisely the right question and listen to the answer from some officials, is it any wonder that the opposition has to be meticulous in asking as many questions as possible to elicit the truth?Here we have circumstances where clearly a deception was practised on the committee, admitted by the Secretary to the department subsequently. I do not accept the term used: `inadvertent errors'. The committee was misled and in relation to that matter it took a great deal of public time to go over the issues and so, if there was cost to the public, it was occasioned by the deception from the department, no doubt with the knowledge of the minister. When I say the minister I do not mean the minister who was sitting at the table, because it was Senator Alston and Senator Alston never takes any interest in estimates—when he does manage to stay at the table and not depart to make telephone calls or whatever else he is doing when he is out of the room. He seems to be busy handling his documents. (Time expired)17:49:004183Ferris, Sen JeannieSenator FERRIS5L6SALP10—Senator Mackay and Senator O'Brien have told the parliament today that they believe the government has been tardy in supplying information on government programs and various aspects of administration in response to opposition requests. Senator Mackay specifically mentioned the tabling of material on government programs and administration. Senator Robert Ray has contributed a quite condescending `term report' on government ministers in the Senate.But Senator Ray has a short memory when it comes to the ministerial performance of some of his colleagues when they were in government. Just taking a short stroll down memory lane through the estimates Hansards during the time of the previous government you can see it all there on the record, Mr Acting Deputy President: `We will take that on notice,' `We will take it on notice,' `We will have to take that on notice,' `I will take that part on notice,' `I would have to take that on notice,' `Can I take that on notice?' I am not going to name the minister responsible. I am not going to engage in the politics of division and derision that has been the characteristic of those in opposition over the last week or two. I will simply say that people in glass houses should not be throwing pebbles across this side of the chamber.We agree that open government is absolutely essential in a democracy and that any government has an onerous responsibility, acting within the appropriate safeguards, to comply with opposition requests for material to be tabled. This government has nothing to hide in relation to public information. I think that was very clearly borne out when the opposition and the Democrats engaged in a quite outrageous witch-hunt in this place, in a fruitless search to find the updated model of the Ros Kelly memorial whiteboard, connected with the Natural Heritage Trust grants. Despite hours of digging in question time and stacks of material tabled in this chamber day after day, the opposition failed to uncover a single thing except some quite disgraceful allegations about a government colleague—who happens to be in this chamber—Senator Winston Crane, regarding his farm family operations in Western Australia, and a very eminent Australian family and particularly one member of that Baillieu family who had died decades before.So if we are talking about a balance sheet of who, on the one hand, has made material available and tabled documents where they can and who, on the other, has attempted to hide, to duck, to weave, under stones and whiteboards and any other place they can hide for months on end, and has had to have material wrenched out of them as was done with the whiteboard material on the sports rorts, we would have to be talking about this opposition when they were in government.However, just yesterday the opposition was given four opportunities in this chamber—and there was another this afternoon by Senator O'Chee—to prove that it not only believes what it says in this motion today but that in government it did what it now claims we are not doing: recognise the need for information on government administration and make government more accountable and more open through the tabling of documents and material related to government decisions and adminis tration. Those are the very words that you used in your motion today, Senator Mackay.The documents I am referring to could not have been more clearly linked to the administration of government policy at the time. I am talking here about the probity of a government-controlled institution with a government-appointed board of directors who were then wholly responsible through the Prime Minister of this country to the people of Australia. Of course, we are talking about the people's bank, the Commonwealth Bank of Australia, which in 1994 gave a special deal to one special farmer customer in this country, former Prime Minister, P. J. Keating, which enabled him and his companies to enjoy a benefit worth $20 million not available to any other farming family in this nation.By far the most important document that I sought to table in this chamber just last night is from the Commonwealth Bank itself. It shows that in May 1994 the bank did indeed write off $4.9 million of the Keating piggery debt. Until yesterday all that had been known about this matter was that in 1992 the Commonwealth Bank had provisioned for a $4.5 million loss. The document, which goes to the heart of Senator Mackay's motion about probity and openness, is a document about the operation of a government-controlled institution which in 1994 wrote off not $4.5 million of piggery debt, as they had expected to in 1992, but $5 million of Keating piggery debt. The Senate must now agree that this document be tabled. I seek leave to table the document now.Leave not granted.5L6Ferris, Sen JeannieSenator FERRIS—Once again, the opposition, for reasons best known to themselves, are refusing to have tabled documents which show the truth of this matter. The second document I now seek leave to table is from the former Prime Minister's own accountants, KPMG. I seek leave to table that document now.ZS6QUIRKESenator Quirke—No, we have not seen it.Leave not granted.5L6Ferris, Sen JeannieSenator FERRIS—You have had plenty of opportunities to see it. This is the fourth time leave has been sought to table these docu ments which go to the heart of the truth of this matter. This document is from the Keating family's own accountants, KPMG, and shows that in February 1995 Mr Keating's piggery was technically bankrupt. In paragraph (vii) the document declares that the Euphron group of companies could continue to trade only with the support of the group's shareholders and bankers. Could there be another document right now in this country that more importantly goes to the essence of Senator Mackay's motion on probity and openness in government?We now know that the Commonwealth Bank came to the rescue of this high profile farming Prime Minister. The bank knows that this was a pork-barrelling exercise that would do a pig farmer proud. Pig farmers in this country, whom Senator O'Brien has referred to time and time again in this place as having gone through a quite tragic set of circumstances as a result of some difficulties in the pork market, would surely be wishing that they could have got their trotters in that pork barrel. But there was no room, because there were some very high profile trotters right up to the top in that pork barrel.The Commonwealth Bank silently wrote off $5 million worth of debt at the same time as the sale to Indonesian interests was taking place. In doing so, it allowed the multimillion purchase price to flow to farmer Keating without any claim by the bank—no claim at all. To put this into perspective, that year the Commonwealth Bank wrote off $26 million across the agriculture, forestry and fishing industries—mostly after the borrowers, those farm families, had been bankrupted, thrown right off their properties, evicted, sold up. So Mr Keating's write-off accounted for almost one-fifth of the total debt written off that year, despite the fact that millions and millions of dollars were on their way from Indonesia. That is the operation of open administration and information on government programs, Senator Mackay, resulting from the probity of the previous government.What an extraordinary double standard has been revealed in this debate today. On the one hand, the opposition call for openness in administration which opens the government up to scrutiny by the opposition, and on the other hand they continually deny us leave—as has been denied to me again in this speech for the second time in 24 hours and as was the same for Senator O'Chee—to table documents that would shed new light on the way the opposition conducted their business when in government. This is a disgraceful double standard which the opposition can now deal with by allowing these documents to be tabled so that the people of Australia can know the whole truth about the gold-plated Keating deal made with the Commonwealth Bank of Australia—the people's bank.Senator Mackay, if you come into this chamber and move a motion about the openness of government and the need to be free and frank in tabling documents, let us have a look at these documents. Let us allow these documents to be tabled so that we can all have a look at what sort of a deal pig farmer Keating was able to extract from a bank which proudly called itself the people's bank and which has operated in this nation since 1916. I would be very surprised if there was one other person—farmer, businessman, small business man, corporate businessman—who was able to extract from the people's bank a gold-plated deal worth $20 million that went to one very high profile member of this nation. Now the opposition, for reasons best known to themselves, are continually denying the opportunity for us to table these documents so that we can all get to the truth of the matter, so that we can know once and for all the detailed special deal that the Keating family company got from this bank. (Time expired)18:00:004185Mackay, Sen SueSenator MACKAY9L6TASALP00—Mr Acting Deputy President, pursuant to standing order 191 I indicate that I have been misrepresented and I wish to make a short contribution.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Watson)—Was it in relation to your speech?9L6Mackay, Sen SueSenator MACKAY—It was in relation to Senator Ian Macdonald's speech.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Proceed. 9L6Mackay, Sen SueSenator MACKAY—Senator Macdonald, in what I thought was a very disorderly fashion, asked me while he was giving his speech whether the Tasmanian state government had entered into an agreement with Tasmanian local government, and I gave my assent. This was deliberately misinterpreted by Senator Macdonald as being that the Tasmanian government had guaranteed a percentage of ex-FAGs funding to local government. I did not say that. What I was referring to was the detailed, thoughtful and highly consultative partnership agreements with local government, agreements which include guaranteed funding for functions to be performed by local government. These partnership agreements need to be ratified formally by local government. It is important, given Senator Macdonald's form on these issues, to have this matter clarified now.Secondly, Minister Macdonald indicated that he was unaware of the opposition's intention to discuss his failure to provide answers to questions on notice in relation to this debate. Here again I wish to correct the record and indicate that in discussions between my office and the office of the Acting Leader of the Government, we indicated that inter alia this issue would be raised in detail. I believe that it is inappropriate to blame the opposition for the incompetence of the government.YW4MACDONALDSenator Ian Macdonald—Mr Acting Deputy President, I raise a point of order. Nothing Senator Mackay says seems to be relevant to a personal explanation. You are simply not giving a personal explanation in accordance with the standing order. You cannot debate the issue. You can simply say where you have been misrepresented. You are going on to debate the issue and talk about what I was saying.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator Mackay, I have interpreted your comments as misrepresentation in relation to your speech. If it is in relation to your speech, you have been granted leave to speak.9L6Mackay, Sen SueSenator MACKAY—No. Can I explain what happened, Mr Acting Deputy President. During Senator Macdonald's speech, he asked me a question across the chamber—in so doing, he was out of order—and in answer to which I nodded. He then completely misinterpreted my assent.ZS6QUIRKESenator Quirke—On the point of order—10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—There is no point of order. You are entitled to give a personal explanation in relation to your actions by leave. If you seek leave in relation to comments made in relation to your speech you can proceed by leave. To clarify the position, Senator Mackay, you need leave if it is not in relation to your speech; but if it is in relation to your speech you do not need leave.9L6Mackay, Sen SueSenator MACKAY—I do not wish to waste the time of the Senate, so I seek leave. I do not know that I need to repeat my comments. I seek your guidance: do I need to repeat it? Perhaps we can take it as read. I have concluded.Debate interrupted.Documents41864186Debate resumed from 30 March, on motion by Senator West:That the Senate take note of the document.18:04:004186West, Sen SueSenator WEST1X4NSWALP00—The 1997-98 Annual Report of the Advisory Panel on the Marketing in Australia of Infant Formula raises a very important issue. I suppose I should declare somewhat of an interest, having spent five or six years working as an infant welfare registered nurse and having had some experience of what happened 20 years ago. There is no doubt, with regard to the feeding of infants, that breastfeeding is the best way and that breast-milk substitutes, whilst effective, certainly do not offer the child the full benefits that breast milk does. There are, however, many women who are unable to breastfeed or who need to supplement the breastfeeds with formula. But that should be done very cautiously and with, on occasions, medical coverage and medical supervision. The report is important because it actually outlines in the foreword an increasingly used market strategy. It says:An increasingly used market strategy that the Panel has identified in the last 12 months is the promotion of specialised infant formulas such as `lactose free' or anti-reflux'. The Panel is concerned that the promotions for such products may involve unsubstantiated therapeutic claims aimed at conditions which may not require treatment with such a product. The Panel has written to the Minister responsible for Consumer Affairs and the Minister for Health and Aged Care to outline its concerns.I will certainly be following up in estimates with those ministers and departments what precisely they have done and if there has been any action that they have undertaken.When I look at the outlines given in the report as to how this is taking place, they are talking about formulas being available that will stop reflux. As a former clinic sister, I would be very loath to allow self-diagnosis and self-decision about treatment of this particular condition. It is one where there is often no major treatment required, as the child will grow out of it. If treatment is required, then I am firmly of the opinion that this should be done at least under medical supervision and preferably under a paediatrician's supervision.There is also one talking about lactose free. Again, the diagnosis of lactose intolerance is something that should be undertaken only under medical supervision, and the treatment of that with a lactose free substitute should also be undertaken only under medical supervision. It is highly remiss of these companies and outlets to be advertising these products in such a way. Whilst we can stop them from doing that here in Australia, I am concerned that when they go overseas to developing countries they might well be undertaking these sorts of marketing programs, much to the detriment—and potential hazards therefore—of the children and babies in those developing countries.We know that they have high mortality rates and that there are problems in some areas with access to sterile or clean water, which of course is essential when making up infant formula. It is something that needs to be watched closely and cautiously. As I said, I will be following up with ministers at estimates to see what they have done about this strategy that appears to be being adopted. It is certainly one of grave concern to those in the profession. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted; debate adjourned.4187The following order of the day relating to government documents was considered:Australia-India Council—Report for 1997-98. Motion of Senator Cook to take note of document agreed to.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Hogg)—The time allowed for the consideration of government documents has now expired.Committees418741874187Motion (by Senator O'Chee)—by leave—proposed:That the Select Committee on Information Technologies be authorised to hold a public meeting during the sitting of the Senate on Tuesday, 27 April 1999 from 8 p.m. to take evidence from the Australian Broadcasting Authority for the committee's review of the government's decision to regulate online services.18:11:004187Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—One has to look behind the effect of this motion which authorises the Select Committee on Information Technologies to sit next Tuesday night, if the Senate itself is sitting. I make it clear that I will be opposing the Senate sitting next Tuesday night for a whole range of reasons but not least because we have a whole year in which to consider important pieces of legislation.I am well aware that the government wants to get through most of its legislative slate for this year in the first half of the year in an extraordinary effort to utilise Senator Harradine and Senator Colston, the Independent senators, to get legislation through which it will not be able to get through after 1 July when the new Senate numbers are here—the Senate that was voted for by the people of Australia in October last year. This item is extraordinary because I believe it is part of the game play going on outside of this chamber to foster legislation, such as the sale of Telstra and GST legislation, through the Senate courtesy of Senators Harradine and/or Colston.The Senate has heard my view on the accelerated treatment being given to the establishment of the Committee on Information Technologies which is looking at how to prevent pornography on the Internet, pornography in cyberspace. I have no worry about that happening, but I am acutely aware of the fact that, after six months of nothing happening, the committee was suddenly established a week or two ago and that the whole process is now being truncated to give a result to the wish of Senator Alston and the government to hastily bring in regulations censoring the Internet by 11 May—budget day.What an extraordinary situation. For six months nothing happens and then everything has to happen within a couple of weeks. We have the establishment of the committee and the hearings. We see from motions now on the Notice Paper, and foreshadowed, the dealing with the legislation itself by this committee. Here we have a motion to ensure that whatever happens, if the Senate does move to have a sitting next Tuesday night, that cannot get in the way of this either, that the committee's hearings will proceed to give a result by budget day. We are going to get, on the day of the budget, the delivery to Senator Harradine of his wish that there be censorship of the Internet.All of us are concerned about material on the Internet. I have a particular concern about violence. I note that the Eros Foundation, and one can take or leave their figures, did a public survey which found that the majority of Australians are more concerned about violence than sexually explicit material in cyberspace. In fact, the figures, as I understand them, are that 50 per cent of Australians would first ban violent films; 32 per cent would first ban racist material; and 12 per cent would first ban sexually explicit material. I think that is probably a fair reflection of what the public thinks. But it is not a reflection, I submit, of what Senator Harradine thinks or Senator Alston thinks.We also know, no matter what this committee comes up with, that the ability to censor explicit material on the Internet deriving from Australia is not going to knock out the ability to censor material coming from overseas, and that is where 90 per cent or so of it is coming from. It is going to be an ineffective instrument. If there are legitimate reasons for such a move, then this committee should be looking at them—but not now.This is purely political pay-off. This is about what the Independents are getting for considering the sale of more of Telstra and/or the passage of the GST. This Senate is being asked to be party to that process without being informed. If we are going to be part of the process of paying off Senator Harradine, then let the government tell us what the process at hand is. Let the government say, `Yes, this is the negotiating process as we see it.' Explicit or inherent, let the government say, `This is what is going on here. We are concerned about the GST. We feel that it would cushion the process of the GST through this chamber if we were able to offer other things to the Independents.' Whether one of them is this legislation and this committee's establishment, let it not be inherent, let it not be inferred—let the government be direct about it, let the Independents be direct about it. On the face of it, we are in the process of establishing a committee to rush through a wish by the Independents, who will be less powerful after 1 July, to effect what Australians can see or cannot see on the Internet. I stress again: it is valid that this chamber look at such things. What is not valid is that the agenda of this chamber be altered to give effect to a negotiating process outside this chamber which has nothing to do with this legislation but which has to do with the government's wish to get through the GST and/or the sale of Telstra.Mr Acting Deputy President, you will be aware that the government has circulated a list of what it calls `high priority' bills to be dealt with by this chamber prior to 30 June—the great date when the new senators come in here and the Democrats take the balance of power, which, as far as the government is concerned, is currently held by the Independents. It is an extraordinary list. There are little asterisks next to the list of high priority bills and the list under it of bills that will be dealt with, `time permitting', by 30 June. The government lists 27 pieces of legislation it would like to see through by 30 June. At the bottom of the page, it says:This list does not indicate the order of priority.But I can tell you it is very close to what the government's priorities are. When you look at this list of 27 bills, the ANTS package of bills come first, the sale of Telstra comes second, and then third is the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Online Services) Bill 1999 —so the anti-porn legislation is No. 3 on this list. What is below it? What has been shuffled out of the way to make way for this priority legislation for Senator Harradine, if that is the case? And the government can tell us whether or not it is the case. There is the Migration Legislation Amendment (Temporary Safe Haven Visas) Bill—potentially for people coming from Albania. There are the appropriation bills, the Wool International Privatisation Bill and the Export Market Development Grants Legislation Amendment Bill. There is legislation to do with radically altering—in my submission, for the worst—the environment laws of this country. There is the Further 1998 Budget Measures Legislation Amendment (Social Security) Bill. There is legislation on telecommunications and superannuation—so that people will have a choice of superannuation funds, a choice that is currently not available. There is new workplace relations legislation: that comes in way down at about No. 10.There is other legislation on taxes, quarantine, the destruction of forests, corporate law, customs and Aboriginal issues as well as on textiles, clothing and footwear matters and higher education. They have all been moved down the list so that a hastily concocted committee can deal with pornography on the Internet, although the government did not move in the first six months of this term of office to do anything about it at all.It is patently obvious what is going on here. I do not want to be party to it. I believe the Senate should order its priorities according to what is important and not according to what is going on in negotiations either in the Prime Minister's suite or in the suites of the Inde pendents. I do not think that we should be a party to having our priorities set without the government being explicit itself about what is happening in those negotiations. It is a matter of extraordinary importance to the public. I would agree with Senator Harradine that pornography or violence or racism on the Internet are important issues we should be dealing with, but I can tell you this: there are many Australians who are more concerned about the effect of the tax package on their lives and about the sale of Telstra and what that might do to people in regional areas or to low income earners who are not in the CBD—there are a whole host of other issues, as I have just listed.I know the government might get up and attack on this and say that it is not so, but give us an explanation, please, as to why a sudden priority has been set now—at this time when the government is engaged in massive negotiations with the Independents, who very often cannot be in here because they are so busy. I respect that—people often are not in here because they are busy. But it has been obvious to me, watching events here in the last week or two, that the Independents are distracted by their heavy burden. Senator Harradine will not cavil at this, as he sees it is on his shoulders to make sure he gets right whatever arrangement he and the government come up with on the GST and the tax package. So it is a very disturbing situation. It is a case of trying to find out what is being traded here but, above all, in my books it is a case of the Senate not having its program changed and important matters being dropped down the list to make way for a negotiating process which might suit the Indpendents but which is not giving priority to the real needs of this nation.18:22:004189Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT5F4TASLP10—I was not intending to speak on this matter that Senator Brown has referred to, but I believe this morning he would not give leave for this particular committee, the Senate Select Committee on Information Technologies, to sit on Tuesday night. He has already referred to the fact that there is a heavy load on senators and that there are a lot of committees in this place. This is a committee of the Senate, and I take exception to some of the accusations made about the motives of it. I am a member of this committee and I certainly take exception to some of the motives that were imputed to it.We had a meeting of the members of the committee this afternoon, as a matter of fact. It was to discuss our future program to bring to an end the particular inquiry into online services. For Senator Brown to say that what this committee is trying to do is not important—as you would know, Mr Acting Deputy President, what we are looking at is the terrific problem, the huge problem, of pornographic material being peddled on the Internet that all our children, other people's children, young people and school-age children around this country are having foisted upon them.We have already had evidence that 60 per cent of the material on the Internet is pornographic—paedophilia, you name it; it is all there. If we as a government or as a country cannot do something to stop the invasion of this disgraceful material, to stop it being foisted upon our young people, then what are we doing here? It is all very well for Senator Brown to get up here and say that we are wasting our time on this committee.QD4BROWNSenator Brown—I never said that, and you know it.5F4Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT—I can tell you: we went down to Melbourne for two days and put up with your circus on the Regional Forest Agreement. You brought all your ferals out of the woods, and they came and made a hell of a mess around the place. They put graffiti all over Parliament House; they attacked the police and the police had to come and keep them away—all orchestrated by you. That is your agenda. But when someone else wants to do something good for the country, all you can do is sit there and complain about it.QD4BROWNSenator Brown—Mr Acting Deputy President, I raise a point of order. Senator Calvert has misrepresented me and he knows that. I seek the opportunity to put the record straight.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Hogg)—There is no point of order.5F4Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT—So Senator Brown is saying that he had nothing to do with the demonstrations that were held in Melbourne when we were listening to evidence on the Regional Forest Agreement and that he was not talking to people outside who came in and started blowing whistles and the like during the public hearing of the Senate Select Committee on Information Technologies. He says he has no knowledge of that. Fair enough; he says that, but I can tell you that it did not go unnoticed by the members of the committee who were there. I think Senator Woodley was there on that particular day.So I am saying that everybody has their own preferences, but do not start throwing stones at other members of this Senate who are trying to do what they believe is the right thing for the young people who are being corrupted by this sort of material. This particular committee has been in existence for quite some time, and we have to finish what we have to do. Senator Stott Despoja, Senator Lundy and others are members of that committee, and Senator Quirke was a member of the committee prior to the last election. He would know very well about some of the evidence that we heard, not just about pornographic material on the Internet but also about some of the standards of material that we have to listen to on the radio and the disgraceful stuff that is being pedalled to our young children around this country. If we cannot have a look at this on behalf of the Senate and the government there is something wrong. All we are asking for is leave for the committee to get on with its work on Tuesday night while the Senate is sitting, and we hope to complete it as soon as we possibly can. I cannot believe that another senator, who obviously has other agendas, would object to that happening.18:27:004190Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—The opposition supports the motion, and perhaps I should explain why. The points that Senator Brown indicates are his reasons for opposing it—QD4BROWNSenator Brown—No. On a point of order, Mr Acting Deputy President, I have not opposed this motion; I have simply spoken to it. AW5Carr, Sen KimSenator CARR—Can I just indicate that this is a committee meeting which, I understand, was organised long before there was a notice of motion given by the government to extend the sitting hours for next Tuesday night. The opposition, like Senator Brown, is concerned about the extension of those sitting hours, and tomorrow we will get an opportunity to explain why we are concerned about the extension of the sitting hours. However, witnesses have been called and they do have to make travel arrangements. It is my understanding that the Australian Broadcasting Authority, which is based in Sydney, has to make the necessary travel arrangements. It is a public holiday in Sydney on Monday—unlike Melbourne of course, where there is no public holiday thanks to Mr Jeff Kennett's retrogressive attitudes and the appalling approach he has taken to the question of Anzac Day—and of course we have a public holiday here in Canberra on Monday.I think it is reasonable to give witnesses before this inquiry an opportunity to make travel arrangements with some certainty as to their likelihood of appearing before the committee. As to the other matters that go to the arrangements with other senators in this place, I have no doubt that the government is very busy seeking the support of senators for its legislative programs, which are highly controversial, and no doubt we will get an opportunity, I trust, to examine the arrangements that may well have been made. We will do all that we can to explore that relationship, should it be demonstrated that the government has in fact entered into arrangements to secure the support of senators for the GST or for the privatisation of Telstra. As to the sitting hours question itself, we do not believe that is a reason in itself to reject the proposition that there be authorisation given for this committee to meet.The government has an opportunity tomorrow morning to express why it believes it needs the extra sitting hours. We will take our chances on that basis. I trust that there will be a majority of senators who will not agree with the government. We have made propositions to the government with regard to a compromise on that matter, and to this point they have been rejected. We think that the issue of the inquiry itself does warrant close examination. It may well be that the minister's attempt to secure the various means of introducing new forms of censorship will be demonstrated to be totally inadequate, totally inept and totally impracticable. It may in fact lead to considerable damage to this country. These are all matters that may well be demonstrated through the committee process. I trust that the committee will examine these issues in some detail.Question resolved in the affirmative.4191419118:31:004191Quirke, Sen JohnSenator QUIRKEZS6SAALP00—With some trepidation, I seek leave to table a document on behalf of Senator Cook.EU4O'CHEESenator O'Chee—About what?ZS6Quirke, Sen JohnSenator QUIRKE—I wish to present the addenda and corrigenda to the report of the Select Committee on a New Tax System and I want to move that the document be printed.18:31:004191O'Chee, Sen BillSenator O'CHEEEU4QLDNP10—by leave—Although this side of the chamber has not been provided with a copy of the documents and the usual courtesies have not been—ZS6QUIRKESenator Quirke—Yes, they were. The other deputy whip saw it.EU4O'Chee, Sen BillSenator O'CHEE—Well, they do not seem to have been observed with me.AW5CARRSenator Carr—With that waistcoat, I am not surprised.EU4O'Chee, Sen BillSenator O'CHEE—With that face, I am not surprised either, Senator Carr, if people do not want to observe some courtesies with you. We will not oppose the tabling—10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Hogg)—Order! Senator O'Chee, may I just assist you. I do know that the document was shown to Senator Coonan in her role as whip.EU4O'Chee, Sen BillSenator O'CHEE—I do note that a fiction like that was used last night to prevent the tabling of documents. We will not oppose the tabling of the document nor its printing, but I note that there is a completely different standard on this side from that side.ZS6QUIRKESenator Quirke—I am not going to let that go.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator Quirke, you will need leave.18:32:004192Quirke, Sen JohnSenator QUIRKEZS6SAALP00—I seek leave to make a short statement in relation to the remarks that have just been made.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Is leave granted?EU4O'CHEESenator O'Chee—We will give you one minute.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Is leave granted?EU4O'CHEESenator O'Chee—One minute.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Is leave granted?EU4O'CHEESenator O'Chee—For one minute.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Is leave granted?EU4O'CHEESenator O'Chee—Yes.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Leave is granted.ZS6Quirke, Sen JohnSenator QUIRKE—I thank the Senate for their indulgence. This document was actually taken around and shown to members of the government. It was shown to Senator Coonan, who at that stage was sitting in the deputy whip's chair. I did actually want to show it to Senator O'Chee, because I know he has been a bit sensitive over these matters in the last day or so, but he was busy on the phone at the time to Senator Boswell, I think it was, and I did not want to interrupt an important conversation between him and his boss.Senator O'Chee interjecting—ZS6Quirke, Sen JohnSenator QUIRKE—The big boss. I want to get it quite clearly on the record here that it was shown to everyone who wanted to see it. In fact, I have been trying to get rid of it for half an hour now. I have already sought leave to table the document.Leave granted.Ordered that the document be printed.4192Debate resumed from 19 April, on motion by Senator Cook:That the Senate take note of the report.18:34:004192Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—I wish to speak to this report which, as senators would know, is the main report of the Senate Select Committee on a New Tax System. This was the final step in the process of consideration by a number of Senate committees of the original batch of taxation bills put forward by the government. Since that time we have had another batch added into the mix, which is also being considered by this committee which, I think, is due to report at the end of next week.It is, of course, an important document. There has been some attempt to disparage the work of the committee and the members of it—from whatever side—by other MPs and people in the general community saying that the report produces nothing that was not already predicted at the start of the whole process because everyone's minds were made up. Certainly from the Democrats' perspective, our minds were not made up on a number of issues. More importantly than that, the report, which consists of many hundreds of pages, details a wide range of information that was provided by the community—by people from all walks of life with all different areas of expertise—on a whole range of areas that were affected by the taxation package.I certainly believe—and I am sure that all my Democrat colleagues would similarly agree—that it is absolutely crucial that the public have the opportunity to have input into consideration of any legislation that is contentious, and particularly legislation as comprehensive and wide ranging as the taxation package. I do not believe, and the Democrats do not believe, that all wisdom on any matter—let alone taxation matters—resides with members of parliament, parliamentary advisers or bureaucrats. I certainly always place great value on the information that is provided by people from the community.As a member of one of the other committees—the Community Affairs Committee—that examined some aspects of the taxation package, I can certainly say that I found it of great personal value. I learnt an enormous amount about the potential consequences of the taxation package from a wide range of people in the community who presented evidence through written submissions and public hearings, as well as from individual meetings and correspondence I have had directly with people.I would like to indicate my own belief and the Democrats' belief in the importance of both the committee process and this process for bringing to light a lot of information that was not available. Part of the reason it was not available was the government's lack of action in considering the potential ramifications in a whole range of areas. A lot of that is contained within this report. A lot of information had to be got from the community because the government did not provide it. The government did not know. The government had not figured it out and had not done the modelling.As members of parliament we obviously have a responsibility and a duty to ensure that we are as fully informed as possible about the implications and ramifications of any legislation, let alone legislation as comprehensive as this, before we decide what is the appropriate way for us to vote. If the work is not done by the government—as it clearly was not done in relation to this taxation package—then it makes it doubly crucial that we have a process that does enable that work to be done, particularly when we can do it in a way that enables us to dip into the enormous amount of expertise out in the general Australian community.In relation to the content of the report, the Democrats' position on some aspects of it is widely known. It has received some attention in recent days, particularly in relation to the Democrats' position on the issue of food. For some reason, some people have seen the Democrats' position on the issue of food and our statements in the last few days about some of the favourable aspects of the so-called Irish model of exempting basic foods from a GST as being some sort of retreat or backflip. Those people who have been following the Democrats' statements on the issue of the exemption of food since before the election would know that we have stated as a bottom line principle that the GST should not apply to food. That is for a wide range of reasons, all of which are contained in this report, but most importantly because of the issue of fairness so that it does not discriminate against low and middle income earners.How that issue of food was defined was something that we had not nailed down a specific position on. Indeed we have not yet nailed down a specific position on that. We have stated some arguments in favour of specific models, but we are quite willing to negotiate and discuss further with other members of the Senate which model of food is appropriate. If the government wanted to accept a food exemption which applied universally, then that would be fine by the Democrats.A range of approaches have been taken by many other countries around the world in relation to food. That in itself highlights that what the government has said about how many problems are involved in treating food in a preferential way is just hot air. Most other countries in the world can manage it. For some reason this government does not seem to have the intellectual capacity to be able to cope with the concept, but the Democrats certainly do.Beyond that I would like to reiterate a number of the Democrats' other positions in relation to the tax package. Again, because of the focus that has been put on food, there has been less attention paid to many of the other problems with the tax package as it stands at the moment. That is why this report is so valuable and why it needs to be so comprehensive. There are many aspects of the package that, as it stands, do present problems. That is why the Democrats indicated in this report our recommendation that the package not be passed by the parliament unless it is substantially altered. Substantially altered does not just mean dealing with the issue of food; it means dealing with a wide range of other issues that need to be addressed to improve its fairness, to remove its regressiveness, to reduce the negative effects on the environment and to reduce the negative effects on employment. The Democrats believe that all of those issues need to be addressed.As a parliament we have a responsibility to consider legislation that is put up by the government. The parliament is elected by the people to do that job. That is why the Democrats have taken this legislation seriously and why we have insisted that it be examined in detail. This report is part of that process. Having done that, we have identified a significant number of issues that need to be addressed before it will be appropriate for this parliament to pass that legislation.The government is formed by the electoral process to put forward legislation, as is its right, its responsibility and its duty. The parliament, which is directly elected by the people, has the responsibility to consider any legislation put forward by the government, and to rubber stamp legislation put forward by the government, regardless of what it contains, would to all intents and purposes remove the purpose of the parliament and completely remove the fundamental underpinning of the separation of powers that operates within our democratic system. So not only is it appropriate for the parliament to consider legislation such as this in detail and to decide for itself what should or should not be passed but it is indeed a very important duty for the parliament to do so.Some of the issues other than food that the Democrats believe do need to be addressed are highlighted in this report, which also contains the Democrats' recommendations from the Community Affairs References Committee that I was on, the Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts References Committee chaired by my colleague Senator Allison, and the Employment, Education and Training References Committee on which Senator Stott Despoja is the Democrats' representative. There are a number of other issues that the Democrats believe are absolutely crucial and that need to be addressed, such as protecting jobs by zero rating inbound tourism, zero rating books as an item essential to education, restructuring the inadequate First Home Buyers Scheme to make it more fair, providing more assistance for small retailers, ensuring and guaranteeing funding for local government, improving income tax cuts so they are fair and a wide range of other issues. I hope the parliament gets the opportunity to address those issues properly over the coming weeks and months.Debate (on motion by Senator Carr) adjourned.41944194Debate resumed from 31 March, on motion by Senator O'Chee:That the Senate take note of the report.18:45:004194Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—This report deals with the Genetic Privacy and Non-discrimination Bill 1998 . This is an issue upon which the Australian Democrats place great importance. The party's Deputy Leader in the Senate, Senator Stott Despoja, has specifically focused on it. Genetic privacy is a very important issue. The whole issue of genetic engineering and the privacy aspects of it are of great concern to the community, and ensuring non-discrimination in relation to those issues is something that the Democrats believe we are lagging behind on. We do need to encourage much more prompt action and much more community debate on the issue and, where appropriate, government regulation on it. This report deals with the genetic privacy bill that was put forward by Senator Stott Despoja. I am pleased that the committee did give consideration to it and I do hope that the issues that are raised within it are given further consideration throughout the community and at government and parliamentary level.The whole issue of cloning, whilst it might seem a quaint issue related to the annals of science fiction until recent years, is now very much part of the world in which we now live and the issue of cloning of humans is an inevitable consequence of that. The Senate has considered motions put forward by the Democrats on that issue in recent times. That is but one aspect of many that deal with the issue of genetic privacy. The Democrats believe that it is something that we all need to make sure we give a much higher priority to.18:47:004195O'Chee, Sen BillSenator O'CHEEEU4QLDNP10—I do not want to take too long to address this subject, but I really do think there are a couple of observations that should be made when we talk about experimentation with human genes. The first is that I believe most decent people would support the concept that cloning of human embryos should be banned—that is, quite simply, for fundamental moral reasons. The first of those moral reasons goes to the sanctity of human life, because to clone a human embryo you actually have to destroy another embryo or destroy the genetic contents of the embryo, and therefore there are many people who believe that cloning is in fact a type of killing.But there is another philosophical reason why cloning of humans poses real problems, and that is, because everybody is genetically unique, people have a concept of self. The concept of self is tied up with the uniqueness of a person. If you allow cloning, you destroy the uniqueness of each human individual and therefore you challenge the very concept of self. Self is tied up with exclusive identity. It poses fundamental philosophical problems if you do that. It flows from that that if you want to use human embryos to grow spare parts there are even more fundamental moral and ethical dilemmas.I think this is symptomatic of technology which is going too fast for our society to deal with it in ethical terms. We really should take time to pause and ask ourselves why we need some of this technology and whether we should accept the arguments of those who say, `The cloning of humans is inevitable and therefore we may as well do it now.' I do not believe that cloning of humans is inevitable. Just because it is possible does not mean that we should do it. It is possible to detonate a nuclear bomb over a city, but just because it is possible does not mean that it is a good thing to do. I believe that one of the fundamental requirements of government is to make judgments about what is good and what is bad, and I do not see much that is good from cloning human embryos.It also creates massive problems—which, of course, were raised in the consideration of the committee—about identifying particular genetic types and then using them for a purpose or limiting their potential. One thing I do know about human beings is that, irrespective of what genetic inheritance a person may have, the fundamental limitation on that person is often their will, and you cannot identify will genetically. Will is something which cannot be tied to a particular gene and cannot be tied to a particular piece of DNA. Will is not inheritable. For those who are religious, will is something which is God-given. The reason I say that is that, if we were to go and identify foetuses and say that this foetus is potentially impaired or that this foetus has a potential problem and we decide to terminate those foetuses, we terminate without any appeal the potential that that unborn child has to a life, and maybe a very important life. It is folly for us to believe that, just because we are busy mapping human DNA, we can tell the future. We cannot tell the future. But the argument that science gives us all the answers, which is inherent in the belief that we should use these technologies to decide which foetuses should be born and which foetuses should not be born, is arrogant. For those reasons, I think we should all consider this matter very seriously.It flows from that that there is another thing that we must examine, which is the whole idea of letting technology run rampant. I believe it is our moral responsibility to form at least a moral framework in which we can examine the application of technology. Too frequently we hear people who create technology saying, `This is good,' because it does something better, faster or more efficiently. But nobody would suggest that the atom bomb is morally good because it kills people faster or more efficiently. I think there is a real difference between the efficiency of a particular type of technology and its moral worth, and the moral worth comes from the application.For those reasons I believe that it is well worth the time of the Senate to examine this report and also well worth the time of all senators to consider the issues about the interface between ethics and the broader spectrum of technology. If we do not do that, we face the very real prospect that we will unleash on our society technological changes which may not in fact make our lives better; they may make them substantially worse. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted; debate adjourned.41964196Debate resumed from 31 March, on motion by Senator Woodley:That the Senate take note of the report.18:54:004196West, Sen SueSenator WEST1X4NSWALP00—The impact of any changes that are made to Sydney (Kingsford Smith) Airport's operations is an issue that is specific to New South Wales and regional New South Wales. The airport is the central access to Sydney for anyone coming in by air of course. There is certainly a lot of conjecture about the future of other airports that may be used and may be constructed. That is not an issue that I want to get into or canvass, but I certainly want to say that this report canvasses very clearly the importance to regional and rural New South Wales of maintaining their access to Sydney (Kingsford Smith) Airport.People from the bush, when they go to Sydney, want to be in the centre of Sydney. That is where most of them conduct their business. If they are going down for medical appointments, most of the major teaching hospitals are reasonably close to Sydney (Kingsford Smith) Airport. If the airport were put further away, they would not choose to fly there; they would actually drive. I have had people from Wagga tell me that if they could not land at Kingsford Smith airport they would drive. I certainly know that people from Bathurst weigh up the options and do on occasions drive if a flight schedule does not suit them. If people from Orange, Dubbo and all over regional New South Wales were to lose their access to Kingsford Smith airport or had longer times to travel, they would take the other option open to them and drive.That would increase the amount of road traffic already going into Sydney and lead to greater backlogs, greater bottlenecks and would increase people's risk of being injured, because certainly the risk of having an accident on the roads leading into Sydney is great. This is particularly so with the Great Western Highway going over the Blue Mountains from Lithgow to Sydney, one of the most dangerous sections of road in the state. The chances of having an accident on that road are far greater than those of having an accident in the air. It is for that reason that I think it is vitally important that we look very seriously at this particular issue.For many people air travel is a lifeline. It may be considered to be a luxury, but it is vital to the development and growth of regional and rural New South Wales. As for industry in my home town of Bathurst, certainly I know that the airlines are used significantly by people from Devro, from Uncle Ben's in particular and from the ISP factories—such as Simplot—as they travel between the various other factories that they have; by people from shops, because they travel to Sydney to do their buying; and by business people to travel to Sydney for appointments. They use and want access to Kingsford Smith airport. They want to be able to just arrive and get in a taxi—or when the rail system is working get on the train—and move off to their destination.Also, a lot of the people who travel out of the bush into KSA, regional commuters, actually on-fly. They board the major domestic carriers and travel interstate. Quite a significant number and percentage do that. So it is very important that this remain a feasibility. Many of the airlines are now operating their schedules so that country people can travel down to Sydney early in the morning, conduct their business and go home in the evening and even have the opportunity to connect with an interstate flight certainly to Brisbane and Melbourne—Adelaide is a bit harder—and come back the same day. This saves business overnight travel costs and it saves individuals overnight travel costs.I know of at least one young lady who is about to have a cochlea implant who lives further away—she lives down in Griffith—and is able to access the Isolated Patients Travel Assistance Scheme. With her mother this little girl is required to travel to Sydney once a week or once a fortnight during this process, which is going to be for almost 12 months. This saves her parents from having to do a nine-hour drive there and a nine-hour drive back, and they can do it by air in the one day. It means leaving home before 6 o'clock in the morning and not getting home until 8 or 9 o'clock at night, instead of having to drive nine hours down, see the doctor and then drive nine hours back.If they had to stay overnight, as would be the case if they had to stay away if things were moved, they would in fact be up for greater cost. So it would cost them more and they would not be able make those same claims on the travel assistance scheme or, if they were able to, it would cost government more to provide such schemes. So access for regional and rural people in New South Wales to Kingsford Smith airport is a lifeline, because otherwise they will drive.We also had evidence in this inquiry from the airlines as to the lack of suitability of other airports such as Bankstown for the mixing of high performance commuter aircraft with slow single engine general aviation. Certainly, passionate pleas were made not to mix those for reasons of safety. Access to Kingsford Smith airport is what country people in New South Wales want. It is important to the future development of that state. I am told that percentage-wise not many people perhaps travel on it, but they know that that service is there. They know that having that access to air transport is vitally important to the development of their communities and to the maintenance of industry in their communities. It is a service. So often these days we are seeing the erosion in the provision of services—a lot of it has been done by this government. We have seen the removal of tax offices. There have been a lot of changes where people are feeling that the services to their communities have been reduced.If this were to happen—if access to KSA for regional and rural commuter airlines were to cease—there would be a major impact on the aviation industry in the state and there would be a major impact on the regional development for New South Wales across the Great Dividing Range, because air transport is vitally important. It is also vitally important that the air ambulance maintain its access to Kingsford Smith airport, again because of the proximity of Kingsford Smith airport to most of the major teaching hospitals. They do not want to be lumbered out to the back of beyond.This is a vitally important report on a vitally important issue. I hope the government takes cognisance of the report. Whilst it is specific to one state, its impact is of major importance. If you talk to the airlines in New South Wales, they will all tell you how important it is for them to maintain access to Kingsford Smith airport as an integral part of maintaining their viability and their existence. Whilst it might seem small in the national scheme, for those in the most populist state it is an issue of significance. It is important to those 1½ million people who live outside of Sydney. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted; debate adjourned.41974197Debate resumed from 25 March 1999, on motion by Senator West:That the Senate(a) in relation to the use of unpublished documents in dissenting reports, adopts the amendment of standing order 37(2) at pages 1 and 2 of the report(b) in relation to the appearance of private witnesses with departmental officers, adopts the views expressed by the committee at page 2 of the report(c) in relation to notices of motion and postponements, adopts as temporary orders ceasing to have effect at the expiration of 30 June 1999 the amendments of standing order 76(1) and 67 at page 4 of the report.19:04:004197Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I move:That the debate be adjourned.1X4WESTSenator West—Mr Acting Deputy President, I wish to speak. As the person who chairs this committee—10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Watson)—Can you seek leave, otherwise technically you are closing the debate?AW5CARRSenator Carr—This is a matter that has been on the Notice Paper since 25 March. This matter has been discussed in this chamber on other occasions. I think we are entitled to know why there is an attempt being made to have this debate adjourned again.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—If I may speak on the matter, I will inform the Senate as to why I moved that adjournment.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Fair enough, you may continue.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—Firstly, Senator Margetts, who is concerned about this matter, is currently at a committee hearing and so cannot be here. Secondly, while in the main I go along with the provisions of this motion, I remain concerned about section (c) in particular, which relates to the way of presenting notices of motion and postponements to the Senate being altered according to amendments to standing orders 76(1) and 67 at page 4 of the committee's report.If Labor senators are amenable, I would like to take another day or two to discuss this with Senator Margetts and then we would be happy for the matter to proceed. I can see Senator Carr shaking his head about that, but the matter is important to us. As the Senate knows, this particularly affects the smaller parties and the Independents in the Senate, because it happens that senator for senator we present more notices of motion than the rest of the Senate, although the big parties present quite a lot of motions by themselves.We are concerned that this change, while sensibly trying to expedite the business of the Senate, nevertheless inherently affects the placing and postponements of motions. I can see some merit in it. I am not wanting to obstruct the matter. I ask, however, that I be allowed further time to consult with Senator Margetts about it and for the matter to be brought on again in the next couple of days of sitting. That would satisfy us. If that is not to be the case, I will have to do the best I can through a vote in the Senate to delay the matter until Senator Margetts is consulted.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—The motion before the chair is for an adjournment of this debate.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—I thank the Senate. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted; debate adjourned.4198The following orders of the day relating to committee reports and government responses were considered:Community Affairs References Committee—Report—The lucky country goes begging: GST and a new tax system. Motion of the chair of the committee (Senator Crowley) to take note of report agreed to.Treaties—Joint Standing Committee—20th report—Two treaties tabled on 26 May 1998, the Bougainville Peace Monitoring Group Protocol and treaties tabled on 11 November 1998. Motion of Senator O'Brien to take note of report agreed to.Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee—Report—Privacy and the private sector: Inquiry into privacy issues, including the Privacy Amendment Bill 1998. Motion of the chair of the committee (Senator McKiernan) to take note of report. On the motion of Senator Bartlett the debate was adjourned till the next day of sitting.Appropriations and Staffing—Standing Committee—30th report. Motion of Senator Parer—That the Senate endorses the committee's recommendation that it agree to changes proposed by the Minister for Finance and Administration in the classification of items in the Appropriation Bills in consequence of accrual budgeting—agreed to.National Capital and External Territories—Joint Standing Committee—Report—Island to islands: Communications with Australia's external territories. Motion of the chair of the committee (Senator McGauran) to take note of report agreed to.Miscellaneous419819:08:004198Crane, Sen WinstonSenator CRANEUW4WALP10—I seek leave to table some documents relating to Senator Brown's matter of public importance yesterday regarding threatened legal action by NAFI against the ACCC. I offered to table two of the documents yesterday, but that offer was not taken up. The third document corrects the statement I quoted from.Leave granted.UW4Crane, Sen WinstonSenator CRANE—Yesterday I quoted from this NAFI document which in effect said that the ACCC had no further interest in the matter that had been raised with them and the action that they had taken. Two hours after that debate—I am not correcting anything I said in that debate but just putting further material on the record—the ACCC put out a statement indicating that they were looking at further issues relating to this matter. The ACCC says that they are investigating other allegations of threatened boycotts. They are not talking about the matters I raised yesterday. I have tabled these documents. Having done so, I thank Senator Brown for bringing them to my attention at about 6 o'clock yesterday, which was approximately two hours after the debate took place.19:10:004199Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—by leave—I thank Senator Crane for taking this opportunity to table these documents. It needs to be said that Senator Crane was aware of a document coming from the National Association of Forest Industries headed `NAFI not in breach of ACCC rules'. It is a statement by Dr Robert Bain, the Executive Director. This is the outcome of a dispute about a book. His association threatened legal action if it was not withdrawn from the shelves of BBC Hardware and other places. The point about this is that inadvertently the Senate was being misdirected. The statement by Robert Bain that NAFI is not in breach of the rules is wrong. It pulls the rug from under his strident attack on environmentalists and others about not having correct information. The ACCC, just a couple of hours after his statement, pointed out:The ACCC is particularly concerned that NAFI, while alleging misleading and deceptive conduct in the book's content, ignored section 65A of the Act, which specifically excludes publishers and information providers from those very provisions. The ACCC has under consideration whether or not this breached the Trade Practices Act.That is exactly the opposite of what Mr Bain was saying on the public record and which, through him, came into the Senate. How could you believe such a man?Adjournment419910000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Watson)—Order! Consideration of committee reports having been concluded, I propose the question:That the Senate do now adjourn.419919:12:004199Chapman, Sen GrantSenator CHAPMANFF4SALP10—Tonight I want to raise a very serious and disturbing issue. I thank my National Party colleague Senator O'Chee for allowing me to take his place in the adjournment debate. The issue concerns an insidious social contagion that has already spread across several states. It is bringing about derision, isolation, erosion and, ultimately, destruction to hundreds of families.For the individuals concerned who are unfortunate enough to have fallen prey in their search for belonging, life becomes one of deprivation, control and total dependency. Imagine a four-year-old boy who has eaten nothing in his life but lambs brain and ox tongue and who can drink only unfiltered tap water and soy sauce. Imagine tommy rough boiled six times a day every day for eight weeks or liver steamed and eaten hourly for days on end. Imagine succumbing to the belief that not adhering to this bizarre regime results in horrid retribution and that if one's husband or wife does not engage in the same bizarre ritual divorce is advised.It has been brought to my attention that 450 people, which means more than 400 families, including young children and babies, in South Australia alone have fallen victim to these practices. They can only be described as the workings of a cult. The Vibrational Individuation Program is a personality cult operated by Joan Phillips of Inglewood and Marie Steinke of Upper Sturt in South Australia. The program is based on the use and control of food to followers of the cult. Members consult either Joan Phillips or Marie Steinke to undergo what is known as a food test, which determines what foods the recipient should eat for a designated period.A person undergoing the food test lies on a couch while the therapist observes the response of the wrist and surrounding muscles as she reads through a checklist of food items. Depending on the response, the therapist determines which foods are to be eaten exclusively, how they are to be cooked or prepared, the quantity to be eaten, how often and for how long. Usually five to six foods and one beverage are prescribed for the whole of the designated period of some two to 11 weeks. Offal always features as one of the required foods. The person is to rigidly adhere to these instructions until the next food test. The body is asked when the next food test should be and, depending on the locking nature of the wrist, a date is set.Despite each client being assigned their own individual program, it seems there are foods that are in vogue at the time for all the clients. For a while, everyone may be assigned brains and tonic water. Another time, it may be corn chips and another time a brand of sardines. After the food requirements are sorted out, the person is `invited to ask the body any other questions you like'. Again, depending on the muscle response, an answer is given.As the person gets more involved in the program, every time they want to do something—anything—the body must be asked if it is okay. Every facet of the person's life is controlled by how the body's muscles respond to the question and, in turn, how that response is interpreted by Joan Phillips or Marie Stienke. Followers have been known to be issued with instructions as bizarre as wearing only pink or white underwear, or not wearing black jocks. Another was told to move to Perth from Adelaide and promptly did so.The person ends up entirely dependent on these two women, who are the only ones who have `the knowledge' to perform the food muscle test. Followers are charged between $30 and $60 for each food test and approximately 10 to 15 of these tests or programs may be required each year. Based on this information, one could estimate an income for this group of some $20,000 to $25,000 a month.This cult has been very cleverly concealed for 10 years in a seemingly innocent facade called a Food Program. You cannot find it in the phone book. Nor will you learn about it at your local health food store. In fact, you cannot find it at all. It finds you. And then the brainwashing begins. Followers are indoctrinated into believing that by not abiding by their individual food program, disease will enter their body. When signs of physiological breakdown begin to show, followers are programmed into believing it is for their ultimate good and to ignore all symptoms. In fact, when a follower in obvious distress calls the Food Program help line, a recorded message immediately lulls them into dangerous submission.As is usual of cult practice, pregnant women are the prime target. Programming the foetus ensures a compliant follower. The cult promotes an anti-medical philosophy, which includes refusing ultrasound testing, refusing immunisation, refusing Guthrie and Agar testing, refusing vitamin K injections at birth, refusing added iron or other mineral supplements to mothers or children and refusing baby health checks. Children born into this cult are fed the most bizarre food from birth and reports have come to my attention of undernourished, underweight babies. In addition to malnourishment, children miss out on vital socialisation which is so necessary to their overall development. In the words of a person who managed to defy the cult:Children can't have birthday parties, can't go to a friend's house for tea or have a sleep over . . . in case the host parents feed the child something normal.You can't go to restaurants, have a coffee, go to barbecues—the whole thing is so isolating—social life becomes totally non existent with a total reliance on others on the program for support and interaction.You can't give blood, you can't see the dentist without asking and then sometimes the body will say you can—you must ask first before seeing a doctor and it is usually no.But the control does not end there. The cult advocates the breaking up of families should a follower's spouse resist the Food Program. They even operate at least one known `community respite house' in the Adelaide metropolitan area. This house is used for members who have been advised by the food test to leave their partners, and as a hidden residence to house them and their children for indefinite periods. Outsiders have no access to these respite houses; nor do the spouses. The cult then advises the separating parent to deny children access to the noncompliant partner for fear of the children discovering foods other than the dictates of the Food Program.The cult does not promote or advertise in any way and only accepts people into its group by word of mouth and after initial `balancing' consultations. Publications of this cult are restricted to members or followers only. Effective from January 1999, all Vibration Individuation Program participants are now required to install fax machines to be in constant contact with the two operating therapists.There is new evidence to suggest that the cult has spread outside of South Australia. My research indicates there are now followers in Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria and Western Australia. With an estimated 450 members and the application of pyramid marketing techniques, proliferation is certain if this group remains unchecked. It is of particularly grave concern that these cult protagonists pose as health practitioners and health therapists, offering their program as a healing modality. This has potentially fatal consequences, as evidenced by an individual who was advised by Joan Phillips that a melanoma class 4 skin cancer—which I understand is the second-highest degree of melanoma—need not be removed.In reality, this group is obviously headed by delusional megalomaniacs whose philosophies run contrary to our social and family structure. Followers of this Food Program are indeed victims, snared in moments of mental weakness and vulnerability, trapped in a cycle of fear and dependency, totally reliant on their cult leaders and the group. Some followers have given as long as 10 years of their life to the cult. Others, not as severely indoctrinated, have sacrificed two or three years and hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars before breaking free.It is for these reasons that I am forwarding information about the Vibrational Individuation Program, its operations and its members to the federal Attorney-General and the federal ministers responsible for health and family services, to investigate whether any breaches of Commonwealth statutes have been committed by the group, and to all state and territory attorneys-general and health and family services ministers, to investigate possible breaches of provisions in the state medical practitioners acts, and/or child protection acts, based on the fact that Joan Phillips and Marie Stienke are clearly giving medical advice, for a fee.I am sure all senators would agree with me when I say that children who are subjected to this type of parental abduction and are harboured inside this cult are at serious risk of physical, emotional and psychological abuse and that this behaviour should not be tolerated by a properly functioning family oriented society.420119:21:004201Crossin, Sen TrishSenator CROSSIN7Y6NTALP00—This morning in the Northern Territory Assembly, the Northern Territory Labor Party tabled a transcript and edited video of a focus discussion group run in the Northern Territory by the notorious Liberal pollster, Mark Textor. I should point out that this is the first time a videotape has been tabled in an Australian parliament—and it is very revealing.Previous evidence presented to the Senate has outlined how Mark Textor, as director of his front company, Territory Focus Consulting, was involved in a shonky plan with Shane Stone, the then President of the Country Liberal Party, to defraud Northern Territory taxpayers by using public money for political research on behalf of the CLP. Of course, the former President of the CLP and recently deposed CLP Chief Minister, Shane Stone, is the same man that the Prime Minister Mr Howard has apparently given his imprimatur to to become the next President of the Federal Liberal Party.In the last five months the Senate has heard much about the Liberal Party's favourite pollster, Mark Textor. Today I have a transcript of the edited video of two of those focus group discussions that Mark Textor held in 1993. They clearly show how he lied and deceived those involved in focus groups. As we will see, Mark Textor's behaviour and the behaviour of those people associated with him have implications not only for the new Chief Minister of the Northern Territory, Denis Burke, but for the federal Liberal Party.The transcript clearly shows that Mark Textor lied to the members of the focus discussion group. At one point, Mark Textor was asked whether the video of the group discussion would be kept. He said the tape would not be kept.WW4KEMPSenator Kemp—I raise a point of order, Madam Deputy President. I think it is a great pity that Senator Crossin seems to have entered into this sort of campaign. I thought Senator Crossin was above that—10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—What is your point of order, Senator?WW4KEMPSenator Kemp—The point of order is that she is calling an individual a liar in this place. I think that is quite unparliamentary and that she should be asked to withdraw.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—It is not unparliamentary. She is not referring to any member of parliament in a manner which reflects poorly upon them. There is no point of order.WW4KEMPSenator Kemp—I raise another point of order, Madam Deputy President. I think that what we are seeing here is an attempt to slander the character of an individual. Surely by the normal rules of this parliament, this is quite unparliamentary. The language is quite unparliamentary. It is uncharacteristic, I might say, of Senator Crossin. I am rather shocked to hear this this evening.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—There is no point of order. If the individual mentioned feels he has a complaint, he has a right of redress under the standing orders.7Y6Crossin, Sen TrishSenator CROSSIN—I would like to read his response when he was asked about the videorecorder, bearing in mind that this is an actual transcript of a video tape. He said to the group of people in the discussion group:In terms of the camera, there's nothing sinister . . . there's 12 people talking over one another because they're in that much of a hurry, so what I do is I record it and later on tonight I'll run over it and then make notes, and then use it for the next group. Okay.In response to another question from a member of the group about whether he would keep the tape he lies:No, it's not stored or recorded, no. I do this stuff all the time.2M6COONANSenator Coonan—I raise a point of order, Madam Deputy President. On a further point in relation to your ruling, pursuant to standing order 197(2) there is reference to a senator being able to `draw attention at any time to a point of order or a matter of privilege arising in the proceedings'. If you look to the exercise of freedom of speech under the standing orders relating to privilege, one of the items refers very clearly to the fact that `there is a desirability of ensuring that statements reflecting adversely on persons are soundly based'. To say that somebody is lying, simply because you have seen a video, seems to me to be getting perilously close to requiring you in your role as chair to take that into account as needing to balance the exercise of freedom of speech with the need to ensure that any allegation made is soundly based.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—There is no point of order. Senator Crossin is giving an indication of why she thinks this is untrue.2M6COONANSenator Coonan—She said that he lied.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—I am using the word `untrue'. She says she feels it is a lie and she is giving evidence and an indication as to why she thinks that. She has the right to outline that under freedom of speech.WW4KEMPSenator Kemp—On the point of order, these allegations are made by Senator Crossin, which is not typical of Senator Crossin, I might say. I guess she has been put up to it by—10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—What is your point of order, Senator?WW4KEMPSenator Kemp—The point of order is that I think we would like to know how this tape came into the hands of Senator Crossin. Was the tape stolen, for example? Are you in possession of stolen goods?10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator Kemp, there is no point of order. The material was tabled in the Northern Territory parliament today.7Y6Crossin, Sen TrishSenator CROSSIN—He went on to say:No, it's not stored or recorded, no. I do this stuff all the time. If I bought a new tape for every one, I'd be broke.He said, `It's not stored or recorded', but he clearly did store the tape, contrary to what he told the group members, because the Labor Party has a copy of the video of a number of those focus discussion groups—a transcript and a copy of the edited video were tabled this morning in the Northern Territory Assembly.Remember that Mark Textor is the same man whom the Senate heard earlier this month had received over $500,000 in contracts from the federal government in the previous 12 months. I can imagine that there are some very angry people in the Northern Territory who were involved in those discussion groups. Why? Because they were deceived. Mark Textor kept a copy of the video, despite the reassurances he had given.WW4KEMPSenator Kemp—I raise a point of order. We are seeing an astonishingly highly selective contribution—10000Crossin, Sen TrishThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—What is your point of order?WW4KEMPSenator Kemp—The Australian Republican Movement, of which Senator Crossin is a supporter, has employed Mark Textor. It is utterly absurd.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—There is no point of order, Minister, and that is a spurious point of order. You know yourself that you are out of order. Senator Crossin, please continue.7Y6Crossin, Sen TrishSenator CROSSIN—Not only that, but unknown to the members of the group, they were being watched on closed-circuit television by a number of CLP operatives. But Mark Textor's deceit did not stop there. On a number of occasions Mr Textor was asked on whose behalf he was carrying out the research. When a member of the focus discussion group asked him why he was conducting this group he said:What I do is I do these surveys, and then people contact me and say, a company that's from down south, or local companies, and they say, what do Territorians think about the politics of the place, the government, the lifestyle . . . And I produce a report.What Mark Textor neglected to tell members was that he was working for the Northern Territory Country Liberal Party. Later a member of the focus group asked him:Do you work for the Labor or the Liberal governments?His reply was:No, I don't work for either. What I do is I come up in different states for companies that operate in that state. And I try and find out what is the big picture.When further pressed by members of the group about who he was working for Mr Textor says:I conduct these surveys without actually having a proper client.That is probably right, because he had quite an improper client. He then went on:I then sell on the information . . . And a company might want to come up here and assess what Territorians think about the government, or about lifestyle, about drinking, and a bunch of other things . . . . And then I sell them a report and say this is what people think.But his client was the Northern Territory government and he was being paid for by Territory taxpayers. It is on the record that this man, Mark Textor, a favourite of the Prime Minister and the federal Liberal Party, as well as the Northern Territory CLP, has been involved in activities in the Northern Territory and in push polling activities in the ACT that can only be described as unethical, illegal and immoral. The Senate has heard recently—2M6COONANSenator Coonan—I rise on a point of order, Madam Deputy President. The privilege resolutions that were agreed to by the Senate on 25 February 1998 very clearly require the Senate to balance the very valuable right to exercise freedom of speech, and they enjoin senators to be very careful about the need to exercise their valuable right to freedom of speech and to do it in a responsible manner and not to reflect adversely on persons unless the reflection is soundly based. Once you get into accusing a citizen of illegal activity, in my respectful submission you really do cross that line, because you get into a line of country where you have passed from making a comment in a free-flowing and robust debate, which we all engage in from time to time, and which is precisely the function of the Senate. Once you get into accusing someone of illegal activity, then it seems to me that that is a sustainable objection.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—There is no point of order. Senator Crossin is quite aware of the spirit of the resolution. What may be your interpretation of one particular side may well be different from Senator Crossin's—as has happened previously during the day.WW4KEMPSenator Kemp—On a point of order, we are interested in the interpretation of the chair. This is why we seek points of order—to seek your interpretation.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—I hope you are not reflecting upon the chair. The chair is not able to interpret what is in the senator's mind. The senator is aware of what the spirit of the resolution is. It is up to her to interpret it, and I am not about to start.WW4KEMPSenator Kemp—On a point of order, the President or the Deputy President, the person in the chair, makes rulings. The whip has drawn attention to a particular standing order, and we would like your ruling as to whether Senator Crossin is transgressing that.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—I have ruled that there is no point of order. However, I have drawn Senator Crossin's attention to No. 9. I cannot work out how she chooses to interpret it. Senator Kemp, I do not appreciate your sighs and hums and hos. They could be taken as a reflection upon the chair. I am sure you are not intending to do that.7Y6Crossin, Sen TrishSenator CROSSIN—To carry out the research in the Northern Territory, Mr Textor was being paid $740 a day of Northern Territory taxpayers' money. The contract was arranged by a Mr Paul Cowdy, who worked for the then CLP Chief Minister, Marshall Perron. Paul Cowdy also witnessed Mr Textor's signature on the $740 a day contract. The contract was signed with the Northern Territory Chief Minister's Department on 14 April 1993. There was no tendering process for the contract, which was put together at the behest of the Country Liberal Party.The same Paul Cowdy now continues to work for the new Chief Minister of the Northern Territory, Denis Burke, as his senior political adviser. What is disturbing, and what also concerns the taxpayers of the Northern Territory, is that so many of the key players who were either directly implicated in the defrauding, or those who must have known about it, continue to play an active role in politics both in the Northern Territory and at the federal level.I know Denis Burke. He is a decent man. But what I do not understand is why Denis Burke continues to work so closely with people like Paul Cowdy, who was so actively involved in the scam with Mark Textor to use public money for blatant political research on behalf of the Country Liberal Party. Mark Textor has not only been busy in the Territory but his involvement in push polling here in the ACT is well known. His push-polling activities for the Liberal Party in the 1995 Canberra by-election resulted in him and Andrew Robb paying substantial damages and apologising to the Labor candidate. Mark Textor's involvement in push polling raises an important question about the new Chief Minister, Denis Burke, and his apparent—2M6COONANSenator Coonan—I raise a point of order, Madam Deputy President. Much as I hate to interrupt the free flow of Senator Crossin's contribution this evening, I know that this might only seem to be the case from my point of view, but it seems as if time has stood still here. Are the clocks in fact stuck?10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—No; every time the point of order is taken the clock is frozen.2M6COONANSenator Coonan—But they are not moving.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—No, because the clock is frozen at present. The speaker has 10 minutes to speak. If you take points of order, you do not restrict the time of the person speaking, you restrict the number of speakers but not that speaker's time. There is no point of order. Senator Crossin, you may continue with three minutes and 23 seconds.7Y6Crossin, Sen TrishSenator CROSSIN—Senator Coonan, if you know the standing orders so well, you should have known that one as well. What I cannot understand is why Denis Burke continues to work so closely with people like Paul Cowdy. They were politically involved in this Mark Textor exercise. They used public money for blatant political research on behalf of the CLP. As I went on to say, he has been busy in the ACT. His involvement in push polling raises an important question about the new Chief Minister, Denis Burke, and his apparent lack of concern about working so closely with those CLP operatives implicated in defrauding taxpayers' money in the Territory. It is on the record that the push pollster Mark Textor was also used as the Country Liberal Party's exclusive pollster in that 1994 election.In l994, Denis Burke was the CLP candidate in the seat of Brennan where push polling was used. I do not think it is any coincidence that Mark Textor was working for the CLP in the Northern Territory when push polling was being used. It is inconceivable that Denis Burke would not have known that push polling was being used in his own seat. He may not have approved of it. It may have been out of his control. But now he is the Territory's Chief Minister he has the opportunity to show the Northern Territory that he does not approve of push polling as an election technique and that he does not approve of the misuse of taxpayers funds for party political purposes.Mr Burke should sever links with any CLP operatives involved in push polling. He should get rid of any other CLP operatives involved in the defrauding of Northern Territory taxpayers. He should make it clear that Mark Textor's special services are not welcome in the Northern Territory, and he should cut Paul Cowdy adrift.The CLP's defrauding of taxpayers' funds for their own party political research also has federal implications. Mr Gary Nairn, now the Liberal House of Representatives member for the seat of Eden-Monaro, succeeded Shane Stone as the CLP president. According to one of the co-conspirators, Andrew Coward, Gary Nairn received much of the research and, indeed, was present at a number of discussion groups, watching the proceedings on closedcircuit TV—without, I might add, the know ledge of the participants. Textor, Stone, Nairn, from humble beginnings in CLP politics in the Northern Territory, are people now active in conservative politics on a federal level.If the Liberal Party is prepared to accept Shane Stone as federal president, then they will be sending out a clear message to the Australian community that they condone the defrauding of taxpayers' funds for party political purposes. If the Liberal Party is still prepared to use the questionable services of the immoral and dishonest Mark Textor, then it shows they support push polling.We know push polling techniques were used on a number of occasions by the Liberals in the recent New South Wales election, and Textor was directing both the polling and advertising strategy for that campaign. The abject failure of that campaign is symbolic of Textor's incompetence, as well as his willingness to use improper polling techniques. The evidence presented today in the Northern Territory further highlights the dishonesty of Mark Textor, and the federal Liberal Party must rid themselves of his questionable services.420519:38:004205Watson, Sen JohnSenator WATSONVJ4TASLP10—As senators would be aware, the Ralph Review of Business Taxation has the task of developing recommendations for an internationally competitive and structurally sound business taxation system for Australia. The Ralph committee deliberately encourages a structured debate on the reform of the business taxation system. That is the purpose of my contribution tonight.In February, the review released its second discussion paper entitled `A platform for consultation' where various options were raised. That discussion paper considered a range of issues and problems exposed by the current taxation treatment of investments and entities. The proposed reform of the investment base is undertaken with four key policy objectives: (1) to encourage business development with an internationally competitive tax treatment of business investments; (2) to achieve closer alignment of tax value and commercial value; (3) to achieve the goal of reducing the company tax rate from 36 per cent to 30 per cent; and (4) the need to achieve overall revenue neutrality. I believe a fifth priority should have been included, and certainly it is an issue that was ignored by the Ralph committee, to reduce the cost of compliance for all business in relation to taxation, particularly for small business. In fact, for small business, the cost of compliance, in terms of options put forward by Ralph, increases dramatically.Also, the mining industry has drawn attention to compliance costs which are exacerbated by the extraordinary amount of anti-avoidance provisions in the current legislation. In the discussion paper, the Ralph committee is missing an important feature of investment decisions. It is not merely the reduction in the corporate rate but the overall impact of tax on any entity. The discussion paper focuses on capital intensive industries required to fund the revenue gains necessary to achieve the proposed reduction of the company tax rate to 30 per cent. The base broadening required to achieve a 30 per cent company tax rate requires a significant paring back of current accelerated write-off arrangements for depreciation.The desirability of such changes must be considered in light of the differential impact on industry sectors of reduced write-off concessions. The services sector would benefit at the expense, for example, of capital intensive activities such as farming, manufacturing and mining. Therefore, the financial wealth producers gain at the expense of the physical wealth producers—in other words, the real wealth producers versus the money churners.Let us look firstly at farming. On 17 March 1999, in his opening address at Outlook 99—`Building on our past to secure our future: continuing the great traditions of Australian agriculture'—the Hon. Mark Vaile MP stated, `The government will honour its election commitment to retain the many primary producers' tax arrangements.' So the Ralph report must be read in relation to that commitment given by the Prime Minister and reiterated by the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Mark Vaile.The removal of accelerated depreciation would significantly impact on the rural sector. The proposed depreciation rates reflect write-off over the effective life of assets and allow a deduction equal to the actual decline in value of an asset year by year. Accelerated depreciation allows the farmer to write off the cost of an asset faster than it loses value.The standardised model proposes that deductions will be available to the taxpayer bearing the economic cost of the asset after the investment becomes income producing. That is the theme that runs right through the Ralph proposals. For example, the costs of planting horticultural and viticultural plantations would not be deductible until they produce income.The review proposes that the cost of a wasting asset is the actual cost to the taxpayer. This proposal impacts on horticultural and viticultural plantations and forestry where the deductions are based on original cost. For horticultural plants, the taxpayer can obtain a deduction for establishment expenditure even if the previous owner incurred it.In my state of Tasmania, this deferral of expenses until income produces can have a severe impact on some new crops. I refer to the pyrethrum industry, which is not an annual crop. It is a sunrise industry and one that will be particularly affected. Another industry which will be affected in Tasmania is the forestry industry. I remind the Senate that a similar suggestion was put forward in New Zealand which altered and reduced investment in forestry so much that the government subsequently had to change its legislation.A negative proposal for the rural sector is the removal of the balancing charge rollover for depreciated assets. The rollover now allows the balancing charge to be deducted from the cost of new plant for depreciation purposes and reduces for future depreciation deductions. Of course, this balancing charge can apply to all other sectors. I put it to the Senate that this balancing charge argument must be viewed in the light of certain capital gains rollover changes announced several years ago. The Ralph proposal did not mention this specifically, but the concept of a balancing charge removal attacks the same sort of issue. So I ask the question: will these capital gains tax provision mooted changes be caught up in the Ralph type proposals? Perhaps the minister might respond later on that issue.Farm machinery and capital equipment are often in much need of upgrading, so the potential impact of removing accelerated depreciation for agriculture will be to slow the adoption of new technology. This will create difficulties for farmers to update ageing machinery and equipment. Of course, there is always a need in this country to encourage investment in new technology. Any measure that makes investment in capital equipment less attractive is cause for concern. There is a high reliance on latest technology, capital intensive farm machinery that has given Australia the edge as a low cost producer in primary industry matters.There are many negative impacts for the average family farm. The removal of accelerated depreciation would affect all farmers, but the benefit of a lower corporate tax rate is not available to all. For example, most farms operate as partnerships or sole traders. The proposal creates particular disadvantage for those farmers who do not operate their business via a corporate structure because they will receive very little benefit from a reduction in the corporate tax rate since only five per cent of farmers operate in the corporate form. I also put it to you that most small businesses do not operate in the corporate form either.With the mining and resources sector, the Ralph review recognises that the current system of capital allowances is in need of comprehensive reform and proposes that no special rules are to apply to the resources sec-tor. To implement a standardised model for the treatment of capital allowances threatens numerous concessions available for capital expenditure. To move to a lower 30 per cent corporate tax rate will result in the elimination of the benefit of substantial tax concessions such as the write-off of development and exploration costs and rehabilitation of mining property.The proposal in the Ralph review's second discussion paper clearly puts the nation's miners at a disadvantage. Miners value accelerated depreciation highly, particularly in the formative years, due to the capital intensive nature of their businesses. There is a vital need to enhance the international competitiveness. If the proposed depreciation regime is to apply to the resources sector, it will detract from international competitiveness. Removal of tax concessions results in the tax competitiveness of Australia's mining industry being less attractive compared with other mining operations.There is also a difficulty if we are going to lose development costs and exploration costs—it will only encourage exploration to take place outside Australia. The loss of concessions to the mining industry will lead to a decline both in the investments and the value of their operations. (Time expired)19:48:004207Senate adjourned at 7.48 p.m.Documents42074207The following documents were tabled by the Clerk:Public Service Act—Locally Engaged Staff Determinations 1999/8 and 1999/9.Sydney Airport Curfew Act—Dispensations granted under section 20—Dispensation No. 3/99 [2].Answers to Questions on Notice4208The following answers to questions were circulated:4208(Question No. 437)4374208Brown, Sen BobSenator BrownQD4TASAG00 asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 5 March 1999:With reference to the Western Australian Regional Forest Agreement (RFA):(1) Will the RFA set levels of logging for jarrah, karri and marri in state forests that are ecologically sustainable.(2) Will these levels subsequently be open to full review by the panel of experts which the Western Australian State Minister for the Environment has announced; if not, why not.(3) Will both the levels of logging and the comprehensive adequate and representative (CAR) forest conservation system be open to full review and possible alteration in the course of the development of the new forest management plan, including the assessment by the Western Australian Environmental Protection Authority; if not, why not.(4) Will the Commonwealth be liable for potential compensation payouts under the Regional Forest Agreements Bill 1998 if, as a result of subsequent reviews of logging levels or the adequacy of the CAR reserve system, further reductions in logging levels are necessary.4208Hill, Sen RobertSenator HillBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—The Prime Minister has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) In line with previous Regional Forest Agreements (RFAs), the RFA for South-West Western Australia will accredit a process for forecasting sustainable yield. The harvesting levels for jarrah, karri and marri following the RFA will be established in accordance with that process. A panel of independent experts will confirm the figures to be included in the RFA. The Western Australian Environmental Protection Authority has been asked to nominate a member of this panel.(2) In addition to the expert panel above, the Western Australian Minister for the Environment has announced that the Western Australian Government will appoint a separate expert panel to externally review the expected sustainable yield figure, in accordance with the principles of ecologically sustainable forest management, as part of the development of the next Forest Management Plan, due in 2004. This panel is independent of the joint Commonwealth-WA RFA process.(3) I am advised that the Western Australian Government will implement a number of their RFA commitments, including proposed harvesting levels, through a new Forest Management Plan, as required under the WA Conservation and Land Management Act 1984. The statutory process for the Forest Management Plan involves full public consultation and assessment by the Western Australian Environmental Protection Authority. It is anticipated that the WA Government will initiate action to create the formal reserve component of the comprehensive, adequate and representative reserve system prior to the next Forest Management Plan. Any new informal reserves within State Forests will require action under the Forest Management Plan. Any consequent amendments that may be suggested as a result of this process would need to be agreed with the Commonwealth should they be contrary to the RFA.(4) The Regional Forest Agreements Bill 1998 (clause 7(1)) sets down the obligation of the Commonwealth Government to pay compensation to a State in accordance with the compensation provisions of an RFA. Individual RFAs set out the processes by which any compensation liability will be assessed, agreed and paid.Under the standard RFA compensation scheme which is to be included in the RFA for South-West Western Australia, the Commonwealth Government would only be liable for compensation if it were to breach an undertaking in the RFA. The Commonwealth has no intention of breaching any such undertakings.4208(Question No. 505)5054208Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator Faulkner5K4NSWALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Finance and Administration, upon notice, on 10 March 1999:(1) How many internal staff development courses has the department conducted since 3 March 1996.(2) What is the cost of the internal staff development courses the department has conducted since 3 March 1996.(3) How many staff have attended the internal staff development courses the department has conducted since 3 March 1996.(4) How many of the internal staff development courses the department has conducted since 3 March 1996 have contained training on making decisions under the Freedom of Information Act 1982, and of this number how many: (a) were specifically focusing on the subject of Freedom of Information Act 1982 decisions; and (b) how many dealt with this issue amongst others.(5) What was the total cost of the courses in (4).4209Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator Ellison9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—The Minister for Finance and Administration has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:I am advised that the training and development needs of staff are identified and addressed within local work areas in line with the Department's business needs. Records of training and development attended by staff are the responsibility of the local work areas and are not maintained centrally by the Department. They would be both time-consuming and difficult to obtain.4209(Question No. 513)5134209Brown, Sen BobSenator BrownQD4TASAG00 asked the Minister for Environment and Heritage, upon notice, on 9 March 1999:Following the Tasmanian Regional Forest Agreement, how much:(a) old-growth Eucalyptus regnans is protected in dedicated reserves in Tasmania;(b) old-growth Eucalyptus obliqua (wet) is protected in dedicated reserves in Tasmania;(c) old-growth Eucalyptus delegatensis (wet) is protected in dedicated reserves in Tasmania;(d) old-growth Eucalyptus viminalis (wet) is protected in dedicated reserves in Tasmania;(e) old-growth Eucalyptus regnans is protected in proposed and existing informal reserves in Tasmania;(f) old-growth Eucalyptus obliqua (wet) is protected in proposed and existing informal reserves in Tasmania; (g) old-growth Eucalyptus delegatensis (wet) is protected in proposed and existing informal reserves in Tasmania; and(h) old-growth Eucalyptus viminalis (wet) is protected in proposed and existing informal reserves in Tasmania;4209Hill, Sen RobertSenator HillBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:The Tasmanian Regional Forest Agreement (RFA) includes a comprehensive, adequate and representative (CAR) Forest Reserve System of Formal Reserves, Informal Reserves and values managed by prescription. Boundaries of some new reserves are still being finalised by the Tasmanian Government in accordance with the RFA. I assume that by dedicated reserves Senator Brown means formal reserves. Noting that the boundaries of reserves are still being finalised the following approximate areas are provided. The provisional boundaries of the CAR reserve system provide for the protection of the following area of old growth forest communities in existing and proposed Formal Reserves:(a) old-growth Eucalyptus regnans forest—4 600ha (35%)(b) old-growth wet Eucalyptus obliqua forest—35,900 ha (43%)(c) old-growth wet Eucalyptus delegatensis forest—50,100 ha (48%)(d) old-growth wet Eucalyptus viminalis forest—100 ha (71%)and in existing and proposed Informal Reserves:(e) old-growth Eucalyptus regnans forest—1,700 ha (13%)(f) old-growth wet Eucalyptus obliqua forest—9,000 ha (11%)(g) old-growth wet Eucalyptus delegatensis forest—7,900 ha (8%)(h) old-growth wet Eucalyptus viminalis forest—0 ha (0%)Percentages are based on the total area of forest reserved for each forest type.4209(Question No. 514)5144209Brown, Sen BobSenator BrownQD4TASAG00 asked the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, upon notice, on 9 March 1999:(1) With reference to Attachment 2 of the Tasmanian Regional Forest Agreement, which implies that a recovery plan has been completed and is being implemented for Astacopsis gouldi: is this the case. (2) Has Environment Australia adopted the recovery plan for Astacopsis gouldi completed in August 1997; if not, why not.(3) Has the Tasmanian Government adopted the recovery plan for Astacopsis gouldi completed in August 1997; if not, why not.(4) (a) What implementation actions for recovery of the species are committed and/or under way; (b) how much money has been allocated; and (c) what are the completion dates for the actions.(5) If no recovery plan has been adopted what steps have been implemented to prevent pre-emptive logging or road construction in areas which might impact on the species.4210Hill, Sen RobertSenator HillBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:(1) A recovery plan was finalised in 1997. Natural Heritage Trust funds have been allocated for two sub-actions.(2) The Tasmanian Parks and Wildlife Service have not yet submitted this recovery plan to Environment Australia for adoption, as events in the two years since it was prepared have necessitated some revision of the plan. The Tasmanian Parks and Wildlife Service will be proposing some changes to the plan at a Recovery Team meeting to be held in April.(3) The Tasmanian Government has not adopted the recovery plan. The Tasmanian Government has reconvened the recovery team to review the plan in the light of current knowledge.(4) (a) The recently signed contract for 1998/99 provides Endangered Species Program funds for two sub-actions of the recovery plan: community involvement and localised population monitoring.(b) Natural Heritage Trust funds approved for 1998/99 amount to $48,200.(c) The completion date for the project is 31 January 2000.(5) The Forest Practices Code for Tasmania details prescriptions to manage rivers and streams to negate any detrimental impacts of forestry activities. Under the threatened species notification system, a notification form must be completed for any forestry activity that is planned within the known range of a threatened species. Conservation measures include establishment of streamside buffers, retention of nature conservation strips and habitat clumps. 4210(Question No. 517)5174210Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Trade, upon notice, on 9 March 1999:What was the total cost during the 1997/98 financial year of the provision of newspapers, magazines and other periodicals to the minister's:(a) Parliament House office;(b) Home/state office; and(c) Private home4210Hill, Sen RobertSenator HillBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—The Minister for Trade has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:Expenditure by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade for the provision of newspapers, magazines and other periodicals to the Minister for Trade during the 1997/98 financial year was as follows:(a) Parliament House office: $11,316.56(b) Home/State office: Nil(c) Private Home: Nil4210(Question No. 518)5184210Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 9 March 1999:What was the total cost during the 1997-98 financial year of the provision of newspapers, magazines and other periodicals to the minister's: (a) Parliament House office; (b) home/state ministerial office; and (c) private home.4210Kemp, Sen RodSenator KempWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(a), (b) and (c) The cost during the 1997-98 financial year of the provision of newspapers, magazines and other periodicals for the Treasurer was: $17848.16.4210(Question No. 528)5284210Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Finance and Administration, upon notice, on 9 March 1999:What was the total cost during the 1997-98 financial year of the provision of newspapers, magazines and other periodicals to the minister's: (a) Parliament House office; (b) home/state ministerial office; and (c) private home.4211Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator Ellison9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—The Minister for Finance and Administration has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(a) $7,186.60(b) Nil.(c) Nil.4211(Question No. 533)5334211Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, upon notice, on 9 March 1999:What was the total cost during the 1997-98 financial year of the provision of newspapers, magazines and other periodicals to the minister's: (a) Parliament House office; (b) home/state ministerial office; and (c) private home.4211Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator Vanstone7E4SALPJustice and Customs10—The Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(a) $3,947.00.(b) $1,946.05.(c) Nil.4211(Question No. 537)5374211Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Assistant Treasurer, upon notice, on 9 March 1999:What was the total cost during 1997-98 financial year of the provision of newspapers, magazines and other periodicals to the minister's (a) Parliament House office; (b) home/state ministerial office; and (c) private home.4211Kemp, Sen RodSenator KempWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:(a), (b) and (c) The cost during 1997-98 financial year of the provision of newspapers, magazines and other periodicals for the Assistant Treasurer was: $6692.22.4211(Question No. 544)5444211Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation, upon notice, on 9 March 1999:What was the total cost during the 1997-98 financial year of the provision of newspapers, magazines and other periodicals to the minister's: (a) Parliament House office;(b) home/state ministerial office; and (c) private home.4211Kemp, Sen RodSenator KempWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—The Minister for Financial Services and Regulation has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(a), (b) and (c) The cost during the 1997-98 financial year of the provision of newspapers, magazines and other periodicals to the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation was nil as there was not a Minister for Financial Services and Regulation during that financial year.4211(Question No. 555)5554211Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, 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 individual 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.4212Newman, 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) $3,206,911.(2) $2,947,354.(3) (a) Consultants were engaged to assist in the conversion of the existing Defence cash budget to accruals and to assist in the valuation of inventory for accounting purposes. Consultants engaged included qualified accountants and professional presenters involved in the training and education of Defence staff. Programmers and technical consultants were engaged to develop new systems to support both the upgrade of old technology wherepossible, and to install new technology and associated software.(b) Consultancy firms engaged by Defence were Acumen Alliance, Ernst & Young, Australian Valuation Office, Fujitsu, Coopers & Lybrand, Major Training Services and Mincom.(4) (a) Not known. Within each contract, the number of contractors working on any one project varied daily, depending on the requirements and complexities of the work being performed at any given time. (b) Contractors were paid on varying rates per day depending on their qualifications, whether part-time or full time, term of contract and period of involvement.(c) Total cost(s) of each consultancy for 1997-98 was as follows:Acumen Alliance$567,964Ernst & Young$463,481Australian Valuation Office$46,220Fujitsu$48,443Coopers & Lybrand$77,867Major Training Services$39,966Mincom$20,532Total$1,264,473(5) (a) $3,934,000.(b) Expenditure on outside consultants for financial 1998-99 is $1,291,276 as at 31 March 1999.(6) The total forecast for departmental expenditure on preparing for accrual accounting for the 1998-99 financial year is $17,133,900. $12,669,000 of that figure represents costs involved in the continuing development of the Department's replacement financial management and budgeting system.