1999-04-233912SENATE421301999-04-23The PRESIDENT(Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid) took the chair at 9.30 a.m., and read prayers.Business42134213Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell) proposed: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.09:31:004213Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—We have a motion before us in relation to the sitting hours of the Senate which, of course, has been a particularly contentious issue in the chamber this week. Senators will recall a debate held earlier in the week about the sitting hours for Tuesday of this week when the opposition agreed, on a no divisions and no quorum basis, to extend the sitting hours for that Tuesday to both morning and evening sittings for the Senate because we do acknowledge that there is a considerable legislative program for the Senate to give consideration to.The situation now is that we realise that the Manager of Government Business at that time had not fully and adequately consulted all parties and all senators in the chamber. There were very serious concerns expressed by Democrat senators about sitting Tuesday morning of this week because of the clash of those sitting times with the Democrats' party room meeting.I have made consistently clear in the chamber over a long period of time my view that we have to acknowledge the fact that party meetings take place. As the Labor Party does not have a party meeting on a Tuesday morning—in other words, federal parlia mentary Labor Party caucus does not meet when the House of Representatives is not sitting in Canberra—there is no impediment from the point of view of a Labor Party meeting. I understand there is a similar circumstance on Tuesday for the government parties. However, we were informed only when this matter was being debated on the floor of the chamber that the Democrats had serious concerns in relation to Tuesday, because of a party meeting—H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—Contrary to the advice we were given.5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—Senator Campbell says—and Senator Lees might listen to this—that this was contrary to the advice that the Democrat Whip had given to Senator Campbell. It is very hard for senators who have not been directly involved in these discussions between Senator Campbell and the Democrat Whip, or the Manager of Government Business and the Manager of Opposition Business and so forth. The trouble is that, when the Manager of Government Business is telling one thing to the Australian Democrats, another thing to the Green senators and a third thing to the opposition, it is very difficult for—H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—That is what their whip told our whips.5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—Senator Campbell, you say it is what `their whip told our whip'—I don't know that. I can only deal with the information the opposition has. That is why these things are normally done in a cooperative and consultative way. That is why it is so much better to be open and consistent in what you say around the chamber. Many people criticise the opposition for many things but I do not think that anyone can criticise us for not being consistent in what we put to other parties in the chamber. We don't run around picking favourites; we don't run around saying one thing to the government, another to the Democrats and another to Senator Brown, Senator Harradine and Senator Margetts. We are consistent in what we say and we do attempt to ensure that all senators in the chambers—all parties—know the position of the opposition. We are constructive when it comes to trying to ensure that these matters are dealt with in a proper and open way.I am afraid that we have now a situation where the Manager of Government Business operates very differently indeed. Of course, what is happening here is that, earlier in the week, the Democrats were dudded by the Manager of Government Business. I hope that, by now, the Democrats realise they were dudded by the government in that way. I hope they realise that, because they were concerned that the opposition had indicated it was willing to vote for the motion. We may well have agreed to that motion without full knowledge of the facts, but there is a situation here and we all know how it works. Senator Campbell comes along and says, `This is the motion. The Democrats have agreed, the Greens have agreed and Senator Harradine has agreed—do you think the opposition could cooperate here?'In the spirit of the way these things ought to work, you generally go along with the flow. That is the way it is put to each group in the chamber, as I think now most non-government senators are aware. But I said at the time—last Tuesday, when we were debating this issue—that, as far as the opposition was concerned, we did not think that, given that there would be Democrat party meetings, and given that many senators would be arriving on Tuesday morning because of the public holiday in some states on Monday, it was appropriate that the Senate sit on Tuesday morning next week. I made that very clear when this matter was being debated early in this sitting week. The opposition tends to be consistent with the position it put down at that time. We have made it absolutely clear that sitting the Senate prior to the ordinary time for commencing on a Tuesday sitting day—that is, at question time at 2 o'clock—would be inappropriate in those circumstances. I think that is still the case.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—It is still the case. We will be sitting at 12.30 p.m.5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—If Senator Ian Campbell respects the fact that it is not appropriate for the Senate to commence its sittings on Tuesday before 2 o'clock, then his motion should reflect that; it does not reflect that at the moment. It proposes that there be an extra 1½-hour sitting from 12.30 p.m. to 2 p.m. on Tuesday next week. As I have indicated in relation to the opposition's attitude on this issue, we believe that commencement of the Senate sittings on Tuesday prior to question time in the circumstances of Monday being a public holiday would be inappropriate, and that was made clear.I am not clear even now what the position is in relation to the Democrats and their party meeting on Tuesday prior to question time, and no doubt Senator Lees will be able to inform us of this at a later stage. But I am very clear about the way the government is trying to handle its legislative program—that is, trying to pick off each party or each senator individually, saying one thing to one and another thing to another, and then expecting the Senate to operate in a cooperative and constructive way. It is no way for the Manager of Government Business to run the show.No doubt he has been on the phone to Mr Howard and Mr Costello—it would be easy enough for him to do so—saying, `Look, we dudded the Democrats earlier in this sitting week, and we got an extra few hours because we got the Labor Party's votes.' Probably as a result of what has happened before us today—and the Democrats might give this some consideration—he will be able to ring Mr Howard and Mr Costello and say, `Oh, I dudded the Labor Party today. We got the Democrats' support for a few extra hours on Tuesday, and I've been able to work this up well in the chamber.'I think most senators know that this is always a self-defeating way to deal with the Senate's sitting timetable. It never works when you try and play favourites; try and play one party or one senator in the chamber against another. It always harms you. It always disadvantages you in the long term.The opposition, for its part, in trying to get through this exhaustive legislative program that we have, was going to give serious consideration to not progressing general business on Thursday of the next sitting week. What is the point of us not dealing with the important matters the opposition has to bring before the chamber if the government con tinues to ignore proper process and continues to fail to consult with the opposition and other parties in the chamber as it works through its legislative program and the sitting timetables of the Senate? It is a very inadequate way for the government to approach such an important task. It has never worked in the past. You would think that Senator Ian Campbell now had sufficient experience in being Manager of Government Business to realise that you just cannot try and pick off senators and pick off political parties in this chamber in this way. You have got to be consistent in what you tell all political parties.There is really an integrity issue in this. That is why I objected so strongly when the Democrats suggested earlier in the week that the Labor Party had agreed to a government proposal to extend sitting hours without consultation. That is not the way we work. We always try and seek and hear the views of other senators in the chamber. In relation to what occurred on Tuesday of this week, it was only the Greens that had expressed a view to us and unfortunately, because of difficulties at the whips meeting, I think there were some misunderstandings about what the views of the Democrats were. We always respect the fact that political parties have meetings and that the Senate needs to take account of those sorts of issues.The way to deal with this, which I think is a middle course of action and a reasonable approach in these circumstances, is to commence the sittings of the Senate at 2 o'clock on Tuesday. I do not know what the views of other senators might be—no doubt we will hear them in this debate—but in these circumstances, as far as the Labor Party is concerned, we can mount a case and an argument for the Senate again to sit on Tuesday evening of next week. The government's current proposal is that the question for the adjournment be put at 11 p.m.Last Tuesday we had a situation where that debate on Tuesday was limited to second reading speeches on the tax package. That is behind us now. The second reading debate has concluded. We do think, however, it might be sensible—given there may not be agreement for the Senate to sit on Tuesday evening—for the Senate to sit at that time but to do so on an understanding of no divisions and no quorums. I would invite senators to give consideration to that approach as a middle course here. I do not believe the Senate should commence its sitting at 12.30 p.m. on Tuesday. As I have said before, the Senate should commence at the normal commencement time on Tuesday, which is 2 o'clock in these circumstances. If Monday were not a public holiday in some states and if the Senate had been sitting on Monday, we would have a different situation. But the Senate does need to be flexible when it looks at extending its sitting hours. I will formally move amendments to part (a) and part (b) of the motion before the chair. I move:Paragraph (a), omit "12.30 pm", substitute "2 pm". Paragraph (b), omit "from 12.30 pm to 2 pm and".I extend to the Senate the invitation to consider the question of the Tuesday evening sittings, which the opposition will agree to, to be conducted on a no divisions, no quorums basis. I point out that at least this is a slightly better procedure to the one we faced earlier.8U4LEESSenator Lees—It is one step in the right direction.5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—I accept that, Senator Lees.UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—One giant step for Neanderthal man.5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—That is probably true too, Senator Ray. We made the point very clearly on Monday of this week as we looked at this issue that, when you laid down the notice of Senate sitting times, it would have been better for the government to have included its proposals for Tuesday of this week in its original notice.8U4LEESSenator Lees—We have Friday instead of Monday.5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—That is true, Senator Lees. I think you agree with this point. At least we have here a notice that does allow the Senate to give consideration to this issue in advance of the Senate's next sitting day, which is a slight improvement.But there is an awful lot of room for improvement with the Manager of Government Business. I hope that the minor party senators are now awake to the fact that they, as well as the opposition, are being manipulated in this inadequate consultation process that the government engages in. You tell one senator one thing or one party one thing, another party another, and you hope in the end that you get the result you want. It is a Pyrrhic victory because, at the end of the day, you waste more time when you do not tell the truth than you do if you are honest, open and transparent with all senators.I know that Senator Campbell will probably produce another—what does he call it?—roadblock document and say that he has been successful on this occasion in conning the Democrats on Tuesday of this week and he will con the Labor Party on Tuesday of next week. I read his last media release which was under the heading of `Slinky'. Let me quote it so senators know what we are dealing with. This is the Manager of Government Business on 16 April. In the first paragraph it says:Labor has employed additional arsenal to block the Government's legislative program said Senator Ian Campbell, Manager of Government Business in the Senate, Senator Ian Campbell, at the launch of the fourth edition of Road Block .That is how it starts, and I can assure senators it gets worse as it goes along.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—I think you would enjoy it.5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—Senator Campbell, did you actually write this yourself?H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—I think it was all my own work.5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—So you are responsible for a paragraph that reads—let me read it again:Labor has employed additional arsenal to block the Government's legislative program said Senator Ian Campbell, Manager of Government Business in the Senate, Senator Ian Campbell, at the launch of the fourth edition of Road Block .He is also responsible for this great sentence:Detailed consideration of the Appropriations Bills were moved to Senate Estimates Committees to supposedly decrease lengthy debate in the Chamber. I commend this to people. This is just gobbledegook. (Time expired)09:51:004216Lees, Sen MegSenator LEES8U4SAAD00—This is, as I said, one step further in the right direction in that at least we have a motion before us that we can debate, unlike last Tuesday. However, I do not accept the government's excuses for asking for extra time. At the time we looked at the tax package, how we would need to debate it and how long it would take to debate it, we actually slotted in these two Fridays to make up for the public holiday. So we cannot have the excuse that we are not sitting on Monday. We are actually getting more government business on Friday in replacement for what we are missing.So the excuse came that we have lost about 4½, five or six hours—in fact, it is probably closer to four—because the Democrats were not ready for the committee stage. We all know the reason for that: because you put on six or seven extra hours last Tuesday to hurry the second reading stage through so we would have problems getting ready for the committee stage, and we did not even see your amendments—128 amendments—until Wednesday. I find this process extraordinary. On any other piece of legislation where people were struggling to get ready what is a very complex set of amendments to some 27-odd bills there would be time given, not time shortened—cooperation, support and time given. But, instead, we have this government working in the other direction.However, when this was put before us yesterday we were prepared to consider the extra hours that the government wanted. But we said we were not going to have the system that we had this week—in fact, I think the discussions were the week before. So we asked Senator Campbell to make sure that Senator Harradine had seen it, that the Greens knew that the motion had been moved and that Senator Colston and the Labor Party knew. We know that we do not have consensus, but we wanted an assurance that at least people knew what was going on, and we were given that assurance. And, while I understand that there are still people not happy, at least we have a process where there has been some discussion and an attempt to reach a solution.But can I say to Senator Alston, in particular: we will not be agreeing to any further extra sitting hours for the entire remaining period of this debate without leaders and whips meetings that people attend and work through constructively. We do not want any further individual approaches to anybody. But, instead, we want to actually sit down and work through cooperatively, as we used to do in the past. Then we would not have any need for these debates. We would all know what was going on. We could argue the points as to whether or not we actually needed the time. At this point we certainly do not need it. We got through the second readings very efficiently—in fact, we would argue far too effectively from the government's perspective in terms of forcing us into a corner.So I put you on notice that the Democrats will not agree to any additional sitting hours beyond what is formally down on paper, unless we have had proper consultations and unless reasonable agreements have been reached. We may not get complete consensus, but at least we would have gone through a democratic process of consultation, giving people an opportunity to discuss it.I am going to make some further points when we actually get on to the legislation, but I would like to say here that I do find the government's attitude to this legislation extraordinary. In my 10 years as a senator, working with governments that do not like the Senate—you lot were no different when you were in government; you did not particularly like dealing with us—UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—We never showed contempt; we tried to hide it.8U4Lees, Sen MegSenator LEES—Thank you, Senator Ray. In most cases I think you did an admirable job. But we do have a situation now where our job is, I believe, being deliberately made difficult by government. I have survived, I think, something like four health ministers in my time here. I still have the health portfolio. While from time to time we have to agree to disagree on some particular aspect of amendments—that is fine—I have never before experienced a situation where the govern ment's attitude and the minister's attitude is, `Just keep the pressure on. Don't let them relax for a minute. Push the debates through quickly. Force them into committee when they are not ready. Don't negotiate. Just keep the pressure on.'So I say to government, and I will expand on this once we get to the legislation, here is another example of your minister's attitude to negotiations: `Keep the pressure on. Ask them for more hours before we have even got into the committee stage to know how many hours we want. Don't sit down and talk about the key issues. Don't wait for our amendments. There is no discussion about your amendments, because you won't leave your principles at the door. Just keep the pressure on and keep blaming the Senate.'But we are not going to stand in your way for next Tuesday. We will agree to the extra sitting hours. As Senator Faulkner has already said, we have a major problem with Tuesday mornings. That has been overcome by government. They have moved it from 9.30 to 12.30, which accommodates our needs.I do understand, however, Senator Faulkner—and this is the sort of issue that should be raised at leaders and whips meetings—that there are some senators who have to travel considerable distances to get back from what will be a long weekend. So I think we do need to take account of that. I hope that the government will be sympathetic to some additional pairs, if necessary. Indeed, I understand that Senator Cook, who is in Western Australia for the weekend, is going to be leading the debate for the ALP, so there may indeed be some considerations there. This is the sort of issue that should have been raised at leaders and whips meetings before individuals were approached and pressured to agree.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Why do you have to respond to pressure?8U4Lees, Sen MegSenator LEES—We are not. This is the whole point with our amendments. We are not rushing our amendments. You, unfortunately, will not have them today in their final form.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—You said you were approached and pressured to agree.8U4Lees, Sen MegSenator LEES—Absolutely, and we did not agree at the time we were pressured. My colleagues went through the process—AW5CARRSenator Carr—You have agreed now.8U4Lees, Sen MegSenator LEES—Have you any idea of the sorts of pressure that this lot are putting on us? We are absolutely having no part of it. We looked at this issue—Senator Carr interjecting—8U4Lees, Sen MegSenator LEES—What about the pressure you guys put on?10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Watson)—Senator Carr. Senator Lees, please address the chair, not individual senators.8U4Lees, Sen MegSenator LEES—Thank you, I shall make sure I address my comments to the chair.Opposition senators interjecting—8U4Lees, Sen MegSenator LEES—Lots. Perhaps this is—10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Lees, would you mind continuing, but please address the chair.8U4Lees, Sen MegSenator LEES—Thank you, I shall refrain from being—shall I say—`encouraged' to respond to some side comments. But let us just look again at the issue before us. The government is asking for extra hours before they need it, before we have even got into the committee stage. We have been at all times cooperative, but we will not respond to a minister who is simply hoping, I presume, that we will give in on this issue. But our decision today, after consultation yesterday, on the motion before us is that we will support it, but we will support no further motions without leaders and whips meetings. So until Senator Hill returns—UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—So you are making changes, but not just yet.8U4Lees, Sen MegSenator LEES—We have no choice on this one. We are being pushed to a vote now and this is our decision. Presumably, Senator Alston will pass the message on to Senator Hill, who is due to be back about Wednesday next week. From that point on, we are asking government that the normal processes return. In other words, the government is on notice that this is the last time we will agree to any changes without those meetings.10:00:004218Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—As I mentioned earlier in the week, we have had some interesting theatre this week. Labor have just provided some of it in the heckling, I guess, and now they are saying there has not been proper consultation. They are blaming the Democrats for giving in to pressure. That is a very interesting concept considering they have been saying, `Bring it on now. Bring it on now.'I notice that we have just now got Senator Cook's amendments. Remember Mr Beazley said there were not going to be substantive amendments to the bill? Well, we have just got Senator Cook's amendments. That is fine, as I was asking where they were; but now, on Friday, we have got some substantive amendments. They are not as wide reaching as some other parties' amendments in the Senate, but the reality is that there are now some Labor amendments for the committee stage, which they had said there would not be. So we have a changed scenario from a few days ago, which is fine, but it is not the kind of message we were getting earlier in the week.It is interesting that the government did not actually speak to their own motion this morning. That is because the reason given earlier in the week was that the Senate had lost time. We know—and Senator Lees has mentioned—that that is not the truth. This week we have gained in actual total debating time. If the situation is that we are debating a number of bills to the end of June and, in that sense, there is no time—then, in fact, the Senate has gained time in debating some of the other legislation that the government had on their program. It would not have made sense—and the government realise that they would have been cut down in flames if they had given that as their only reason, which was the only reason they had the other day. The reason still does not hold water.I would have to disagree with one of the proposals put forward by Senator Faulkner, however, in that if we are going to sit on Tuesday night—and from the numbers it would appear that that is the case—and if it is a complex committee stage of a bill, which it is, it really will not work with no divisions. It makes a complex committee stage more complex to put off divisions. We have had some in recent times which have showed just how complex it is. So if it is an important piece of legislation, we need to be as careful as we can in its consideration. If the parties, including Labor, believe that we should be sitting on Tuesday night, then I believe we should sit in a way that allows us to give proper concentration to what we are doing—instead of having to stop-start and put off divisions, then vote on divisions in a way that can be potentially open to error.So if we are going to sit on Tuesday night, then I do not think it is a sensible solution to have no divisions. Quorums will happen if they happen—sometimes because someone is not in the chamber. But the reality is that it is not a helpful solution not to have divisions on Tuesday night. It is only useful if you are having second reading debates. If the two major parties have decided that it is important to progress this legislation over others, then I say we sit and we make sure that we can concentrate on what we are doing.As I say, it is very telling that the government did not argue their own case. I think they realise that the arguments they were giving did not hold water. This is about theatre and about appeasing the arguments about who is ready and who is not ready. In reality, all we are doing is gagging a rather silly argument that has gone on this week which nobody really had their hearts in. The reality is obviously that we will sit on Tuesday. It is the position of the Greens (WA) that if we sit on Tuesday, it should be a proper sitting of the committee stage of a complex series of bills. It will only make it more complex not to have divisions.10:04:004219Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—The unfortunate position we have before us today reflects the government's concept of consultation. They seek the Labor Party's agreement to their proposals and, if they cannot get it, they rely upon what they regard as special standing order 39, that is, if you have a majority on the floor of the chamber you can forget whatever consultations are being proposed. I have made it clear that I think Senator Ian Campbell has an extremely difficult task. He is not assisted by the incom petence of the government in the way they have proceeded to deal with this legislation that they claim is so critical to them. He is not assisted at all by approaches to individual parties within the chamber seeking different positions with each of them.We have indicated very strongly from the moment this matter was first raised with us that we had concerns about the additional sitting hours being proposed for Tuesday. This arose essentially because persons involved in this debate are entitled to expect a reasonable time to return to this place after the weekend. Senator Cook, in particular, who is coming back from Western Australia, is entitled to have that provision made available to him. We are entitled not to expect this lowbrow, grubby approach whereby the government comes into this chamber and says, `We have basically got the equivalent of 39 votes, so it really does not matter what you think.'We have said in discussions that, if there was agreement around the chamber for additional sitting hours, we would reluctantly accept those additional sitting hours. We do not see the need for it at this time, but we are prepared to accept the thrust of that proposition being put to us. We did say, and this is why I support the amendment of Senator Faulkner, that we thought the commencement time should be 2 p.m. and that the evening session should be on a no quorums, no divisions basis.Some will say that that is not particularly practical. I say to you that that is not the case. It has occurred on other occasions. What can happen is that senators who are not directly involved in this matter and who do have other activities and other matters to attend to should not necessarily have to be kept here until 12 o'clock on Tuesday night as this proposal suggests. Not all of us need to be here until 12 o'clock. It does not really matter to me and to the whips because we will be required to be here—we will be on duty.ZS6QUIRKESenator Quirke—But we will call lots of quorums though.AW5Carr, Sen KimSenator CARR—I have no doubt that other senators will now feel the need to make sure that there is proper consideration of these matters by all senators. I think it is only appropriate, if the government wishes to proceed in this way, that there is thorough scrutiny of the attendance of senators in this place. I hope the Greens and the Democrats, who so easily caved into this government's pressure, as we have heard—DX5MARGETTSSenator Margetts—We'll be here.AW5Carr, Sen KimSenator CARR—Well, that would be good. We will not have any trouble witnessing your attendance on Tuesday night until the conclusion of the adjournment debate. I have no doubt there will be plenty of opportunity for us to have a good look at that. If nothing else, the Democrats' approach to this matter is touching. Their concern to respond to government pressure is moving.ZS6QUIRKESenator Quirke—A bit like All Bran.AW5Carr, Sen KimSenator CARR—Yes, very moving indeed. I would be delighted to hear what the nature of that pressure is. I find it extraordinary that mature professional politicians find it necessary to come in here and explain to us how concerned they are that they feel the need to respond to government pressure. What exactly is this pressure that you find so difficult? I am touched, and I am deeply concerned about your welfare on these matters.There is a great deal of touching going on in this matter. There is no doubt that the Manager of Government Business has touched us all up because he went to Mr Howard earlier in the week and said, `Look, what a great little arrangement I have here. I have sorted out the Democrats.' By the end of the week he is saying, `What a great opportunity it has been. I have sorted out the Labor Party.' Well, we will see who sorts out whom in this approach. This low-life approach that is being taken, this grubby, bottom feeding approach that this government are pursuing in terms of the management of this chamber, will rebound upon them. As I say, on Tuesday night I anticipate that there will be a very careful examination. I will take the opportunity to see that there is a thorough examination of the record of attendance of senators on Tuesday night, particularly of government senators seeing they are so keen to press these questions in the face of opposition by the Labor Party.It is not as if we have been unreasonable in the granting of additional hours of sitting. It is not as though we have been uncooperative. It is not as if we have taken a dog in the manger approach to the management of the business in this chamber. Throughout the last parliament and this parliament we have taken actions which the government, when they were in opposition, failed to take. We approached the management of the legislative program on a reasonable basis, on a cooperative basis, with due consideration to a proper examination of government legislation. I think this could be clearly demonstrated by the record.Let us look at the additional hours of sitting this chamber has undertaken with the cooperation of the Labor Party. In the winter and budget sittings of the parliament in 1996 there was the equivalent of seven additional weeks of government business time—95 hours and 38 minutes. In the autumn sittings in 1997 there was the equivalent of three additional weeks—43 hours and 52 minutes. In the budget sittings in 1997 there was the equivalent of four additional weeks—58 hours and 15 minutes. In the spring sittings in 1997 there was the equivalent of five additional weeks of government business time—66 hours. In the autumn sittings in 1998 there was the equivalent of two additional weeks. In the budget sittings in 1998 there was the equivalent of six additional weeks of government business time—89 hours and 34 minutes. That is a massive productivity increase.In the 38th Parliament the opposition agreed to the equivalent of well over an additional year of government business time to consider government legislation—that is 27.1 weeks. That is a trend that has continued in this parliament. Already there has been an agreement in the spring sittings in 1998 of an additional nine hours and 14 minutes, and in the autumn sittings in 1999 there were an additional five hours and 35 minutes—a total of 14 hours and 49 minutes. This additional time was to discuss such things as the government's private health insurance bill. We have given additional time to allow the government to present its case in regard to the GST and to examine that case. Already an additional five hours and 35 minutes have been provided to the government in the second reading stage of this debate.It is not as if we have been unreasonable. It is not as if we are being uncooperative or inconsiderate. I am sure many people will not understand how this is done, but there is a whole series of devices available to an opposition to allow an opposition to put a view. I think one of the great things about the parliament of this country is that there is plenty of opportunity for the opposition to consider the issues. Equally there is an enormous amount of time for the government to pursue its legislative program and have it examined and voted upon.We have allowed the government to take opposition time, such as consideration of government documents, general business, consideration of committee reports, government responses to committee reports and matters of public interest, when senators have an opportunity to present matters of concern to them. These are all opportunities we have willingly agreed to give the government on the basis of making sure that the government has ample opportunity to put its case. That does not mean we have to vote for the government's case. It does not mean we have to agree with the propositions that are being put to us, but we do believe there should be plenty of time for the government to consider its position in this parliament.We have given the lie to the nonsense that is spoken about Senate obstructionism—that is, the old hoary chestnut that governments constantly refer to when they cannot manage their program properly and say, `It's all down to Senate obstructionism. If only the Senate wasn't so obstructionist we of course could solve all the problems confronting this country.' The truth is very much different. What we can see from this record is that in the last parliament an additional total of one extra year of parliamentary business time was given to the government to get their lousy program through. Of course, that demonstrated again how wrong they were from our point of view but, from their point of view, it gave them the opportunity to put the case which they say is going to solve the problems of this country.What this government then does to us is to suggest, `Look, we don't agree with what you're doing on this matter. We'll go around the chamber, we'll get the numbers elsewhere and you can stick it up your jumper.' The cost of that approach is that you might reckon you gain an hour and a half here or an hour and a half there but you lose a lot of goodwill. I can assure you of this, Senator Campbell: goodwill is a commodity that you need a lot of. You need a hell of a lot of it, and you are not going to be able to keep it. You are certainly expending it at a far greater rate than you are accumulating it by these sorts of actions.When the question arises in the future, `Will you give up general business?' as we were discussing doing on Thursday, we will have to start asking ourselves, and I am sure that people within the Labor Party such as Senator Faulkner will say, `What is the point if you get this level of cooperation from a government that in fact treats you with such contempt?' That is the problem, Senator Campbell. You think it is a real smart alec trick, real clever, to get an hour and a half of extra business time next Tuesday by doing this behind the curtains arrangement. I can assure you that you are going to lose your hour and a half by a simple process of losing the goodwill when senators then take their opportunities and their rights and exercise them to the fullest.I am afraid that if you rely upon the Democrats in these matters you do so at your own cost. Sure, the Democrats are great fair-weather friends, but they are not so good when it comes to the hard work that is required of making sure that the legislative program is considered properly. If you think you can pressure them—and they are so precious, I know that—so they will tumble to the odd eye-raising exercise and the odd eyeball that you exert their way, then God help this country, that is all I can say.I am sorry; I should not say that. I am not a very religious man, but I say this to you, and my wife puts this old Jewish saying to me many times: if you ever want to make God laugh, you tell him your plans. Senator Campbell, I say to you that about now you should start telling people your plans, because they are going to make a lot of people laugh. This is your problem, Senator Campbell. You think you have played the smart one on us today. You are going to live to regret it. That is unfortunately the way it works. That is the way it works in this place. You can get goodwill or you can lose goodwill. Senator Campbell, let me assure you: you have lost it.10:18:004222Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I am not in favour at all of us sitting next Tuesday night. I do not believe it is warranted. It is not as if this just comes out of thin air. There is a lot of pressure on senators to be looking after their constituents and to be meeting a whole range of obligations to the community. The Senate will be aware that with estimates we are sitting for seven of the 11 weeks between now and the end of the financial year. That leaves precious little time for us to be dealing with a whole range of issues which are very important to our constituencies.Senator Margetts interjecting—QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—Senator Margetts says eight weeks. The question is: why should we be sitting on Tuesday night next? It is an effort by the government to expand the sitting times to not just get the GST legislation through before the budget comes down on 11 May but, consequent upon the budget, to get through as many pieces of its legislation as it can before 1 July, when there is a new make-up in the Senate and when the Senate reflects the vote of the people of Australia from October last year. In essence, the Democrats will have the balance of power as far as government legislation is concerned and not Senator Harradine and Senator Colston.3M6MURRAYSenator Murray—And all of us.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—And all of us, as Senator Murray quite rightly says. But as you know, Senator Murray, there is not so much likelihood that, as with the judicious and free-minded Greens, we will see Labor or Democrat senators going in different directions to those directions of their whip when the time comes. 5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—There will only be one of you, Bob. I don't know how strong a point that is.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—It is a well put point, Senator Faulkner, I can assure you. It is one that requires some reflection. The question is: am I as a Green going to be party to giving the government the numbers to get through a whole range of legislation coming down the line in the next 11 weeks including legislation on superannuation, immigration, assistance to industry and two vital pieces of legislation including legislation which locks millions of hectares of Australia's forests into the woodchip industry for the next 20 years and removes all federal environmental laws over the destruction of that forest? That is an example of what is coming down the line. I am not going to be party to fostering the potential for the government to get such legislation through by sitting next Tuesday night.It is not as if we do not have a heavy sitting schedule in front of us. I have heard no senator come up with evidence that in any other previous sitting year have we had a heavier sitting schedule for this time of the year. Normally, as senators know, it is at the end of the year just before Christmas that things tend to crush up and government pushes for extra sitting time to get through a sitting schedule because it is in the interests of the nation that we make sure we get through legislation for the good running of the nation.But on this occasion it is different. The government is pressuring the Senate to sit longer so that it can get its point of view through the Senate before the people elected by the Australian voters last October are sitting in here, and I am against fostering the government in that end. I believe that the Constitution ought to be altered so that, as with the House of Representatives, the new Senate sits directly after the election so the vote of the people is immediately reflected, and we would not be in this situation. Unfortunately, it is very difficult to see that coming down the line. We are stuck with this situation where a Senate elected in 1996 is dealing with legislation brought in by a government—UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—1993.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—You are right there, Senator Ray. A Senate elected in 1993—and part elected in 1996—is dealing with legislation brought in by a government elected in 1998. If we wait until 1 July, at least there will be some sort of reflection of the popular will. But that is not the case at the moment.I agree totally with Senator Margetts that, if we are going to have extended sitting hours on Tuesday, we should treat it fair dinkum, we should treat it seriously. If we are going to have sitting hours on Tuesday on a matter as important as the changing of the tax laws of this country, consequent on the enormous debate there has been, senators should be here. That means that quorums should be called if there are insufficient senators in here listening to the debate and taking part in it and that, if there is a dispute in the Senate as to some component of that tax legislation, it should go to a vote then and there in the wake of the debate, not put off until some future time when the Senate is asked to vote on a matter, having presumably not heard the debate.It is commonsense and Senator Margetts is absolutely right. If we are going to sit on Tuesday, or at any other time, to debate an issue as important as the GST tax package, the divisions and quorums should be available at that time. I am opposed to this motion by the government. It reflects the government's politics, not what is good for Australia. I am also opposed to the move by the opposition that, if we do sit, there should be an absence of divisions and quorums.10:25:004223Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAYUI4VICALP00—One of the first questions asked in this debate was by Senator Margetts: why has not the manager attempted to justify this motion? He simply gave notice of it yesterday and moved it today without one reason. The answer to your question, Senator Margetts, goes back into history. Senator Campbell was trained in politics by someone who is no longer here and who always had the technique of entering the debate very late in the piece so he would never be a target; that is, if you come in and just use your right of reply, no-one else can actually contradict what you say. So the easiest thing for him to do here today was to move the motion and sit down so no-one could analyse his reasons, et cetera. All of those will be given in his right of response so no-one will be able to examine the veracity of what he says by way of speaking afterwards.His major contribution today was during Senator Faulkner's contribution when he managed to articulate the phrases `you idiot' once and `you dope' twice. This is the level of maturity we are dealing with in the Manager of Government Business in the Senate. It is the usual petulant performance by Senator Campbell. What Senator Campbell does not know is that I have managed to get hold of his memo to the Prime Minister he sends every week, and I would like to read it into the record here today. It begins, `Your magnificent eminence, I, your humble servant, Senator Ian Campbell, wish to report that, on Tuesday, I managed to con the Labor Party and annoy the Democrats by getting an extra sitting period. Further to this, I wish to add that, on Friday, I managed to con the Democrats and annoy the Labor Party and are thus going to get some extra hours of sitting. Yours sincerely, Master Ian Campbell (aged 39 years 11 months).'As Senator Carr said, yes, we have been outmanoeuvred on this occasion. Our amendment not to sit between 12.30 and 2 o'clock on Tuesday will go down, our suggestion for no quorums or no divisions on Tuesday night will go down and we will all be here until 11.40 on Tuesday night. Good win, Senator Campbell! Congratulations, Senator Campbell! You will actually get an extra 32 minutes debate on your legislation if I sit down immediately and you say nothing. What a big victory!We would have eventually signed up to Tuesday night. All you had to do was be reasonable yesterday and say, `We'll scrap 12.30 till 2,' we would not have had this debate and we would now be 56 or 57 minutes into the tax bills. Are we going to do the tax bills today? You have not mentioned that. Do you intend to proceed with the tax bills? Dead silence. Have you not made up your mind yet? You are not going to inform the chamber whether the red is right or not or whether you are going to seek to put it off again until Tuesday. That information is not before us because you did not have the courage to get up and tell this chamber what the situation is. You lack the internal fortitude to put the position forward here just in case.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—You were told last night.UI4Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAY—What were we told last night?H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—You were told last night.UI4Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAY—Is it going to proceed or not, Senator Campbell? Silence again.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—You were probably out to dinner, as usual. You were told last night.UI4Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAY—I see, I am supposed to have been out to dinner last night. You were not entitled to have dinner last night? No Liberal or coalition member ate last night?3M6MURRAYSenator Murray—I ate.UI4Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAY—Senator Murray fessed up. Senator Murray has aligned himself with me. He managed to have dinner last night as well. But we want to assure the public, because I know they are worrying, that we did not have it together, did we, Senator Murray?3M6MURRAYSenator Murray—No, we didn't.UI4Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAY—So we cannot even establish whether the tax debate will go ahead today. We cannot establish whether it will start at 12.30 on Tuesday, which in many ways may affect a voting decision in this chamber.What we have reminds me of the old Red Skelton film. I do not know whether many would remember it. It was set in the Civil War. The Red Skelton hero happens to be between the confederate lines and the union lines. To get to where he wants to go, he has to walk right down the middle of the battlefield. He then gets a very bright idea a la Senator Campbell. He cuts half a union uniform off, half a confederate uniform off and puts it on so that he is confederate on one side and union on the other. He then gets an even brighter idea. He gets a union flag and a confederate flag and sews them together, and then proceeds to march right down the middle of the battlefield to the cheers of both sides. That is Senator Campbell this week. But guess what?DX5MARGETTSSenator Margetts—The wind changed.UI4Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAY—Halfway through, the wind changed. I am telling you, Senator Campbell, the wind is going to change. Your ability to play off the Democrats against Labor and the Labor Party against the Democrats will only work a few times. We are mugs; we will fall in a few times.3I6STOTT DESPOJASenator Stott Despoja—You do fall for it.UI4Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAY—The real thing we fall for, Senator Stott Despoja, is that when we give our word we keep it. Even though we find out afterwards it was given on the basis of false information about your attitude, having given our word we will not break it. But we have learnt our lesson. We will not give our word. We will not give our word every time Senator Campbell comes to us for some courtesy, like he did this week, with no papers, and asks for half an hour for government business. Of course, Senator Campbell, you can have it. Well, not anymore you can't. Why should we? Why should we deal with someone who tries to double deal everyone, as Senator Campbell does in this chamber? I want to remind people of the old Sherlock Holmes short story of the dog that didn't bark. There is a case here of the dog that didn't bark. We are going to sit until 11.40 p.m. on Tuesday.DX5MARGETTSSenator Margetts—You are a very literate man.UI4Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAY—Shallowly illiterate, actually. What happened in all these cases when we used to say, `Will we sit late or not?' A very distinguished gentleman used to come into this chamber—white-haired, handsome, with a great background in the medical profession—and lecture us on the evils of late sittings.HX5WOODLEYSenator Woodley—I remember that.UI4Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAY—I remember it too. Can you assist me with his name, Senator Woodley?HX5WOODLEYSenator Woodley—Is he a minister these days?AW5CARRSenator Carr—Is he a surgeon?UI4Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAY—Not anymore. He is a minister and he is a former surgeon, yet he is absent from the chamber today. You would think after all those great speeches he gave in the 1980s and the 1990s he would have rushed down to the chamber and opposed Senator Campbell's motion, but he does not because he is now in government and he is a team player. Double standards would in no way bother him whatsoever.Our proposal on no divisions and no quorums is not finding favour around the chamber. I understand what Senator Brown said. It is essential that this be a well-attended debate. Senator Brown, others and I are certainly going to keep the government up to the mark on that throughout the entire tax debate. I doubt we will be in a position to have a division on Tuesday because there is so much debate. That is why I think we put that motion forward. We could not have put that motion forward later in the week, but I think it would have been practical for this occasion.In summary, I congratulate Senator Campbell. He has had an extra six hours sitting this Tuesday thanks to our cooperation. Now he is going to get an extra five hours sitting on Tuesday next week. I congratulate him again. I will tell you something, Senator Campbell: the bill is in the mail.10:33:004225Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEYHX5QLDAD00—I was not going to speak on this debate because our leader, Senator Meg Lees, has adequately put the case from our point of view, but Senator Carr has provoked me. I was very taken with his Jewish proverb and his reference to the fact that he is not a religious man, although I have to say that in conversation with Senator Carr he has quite an extensive biblical knowledge.UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—I bet you've never seen him turn the other cheek.HX5Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEY—I said that he had an extensive knowledge. I did not say that he put it into practice, Senator Robert Ray. There is a difference.AW5CARRSenator Carr—That is not a very Christian view!HX5Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEY—But I am waiting because everybody is redeemable. That is one of the things that I believe in absolutely: everyone is redeemable.I want to make reference to Senator Robert Ray. I also want to make reference to the Jewish scriptures, because I thought Senator Carr's reference to that Jewish proverb was very appropriate. There is a Jewish scripture that I think also applies to this debate, and it comes from the psalms. It is the reference which says that in the sight of God a thousand years is as one day and one day is as a thousand years.My reference to Senator Ray relates to a story he told me. The story goes that there was a Liberal, a Democrat and a Labor person about to be executed. They were all given one wish. The Liberal person to be executed was the first to be granted his wish. He said, `My wish is to have a slap-up dinner with all of the special wines that I can imagine.' He was granted his wish. The Democrat was then asked what his wish was. The Democrat said, `I would like to make a two-hour speech on the environment.' He was granted his wish. Then the Labor person was asked what his wish was. He said, `I want to be killed straightaway so I don't have to hear the Democrat speech.' The point I am making is that if a thousand years is as one day and one day is as a thousand years, then in this debate I am sure that will apply. I thought I would leave that for your consideration and meditation, because in Kim Carr's contribution today I was inspired and provoked to make that response.10:37:004225Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—I would never have arisen had I not been extraordinarily confused by the last speaker and felt that the debate needed to be brought back on track. In my younger days I was a student of philosophy, and that stuff is extraordinarily tortuous. I rank it with econometrics— 5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—And Democrat party meetings.3M6Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY—You're getting the point. That is the trouble with the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, he has a quick mind. Sometimes when Senator Woodley expounds those kinds of theories and views, it is quite difficult because you do get a little sidetracked from the issue of the day.In discussing this matter, it occurred to me that all too seldom we as a Senate argue for fewer sitting hours. One of the great burdens that 20th century democracy has given people is the mountain of legislation which just keeps increasing; it gets piled on month after month, year after year. Take the example of the select tax committee bills. This is an astonishing point which is inclined to slip by in the heat and the passion and the morality of the whole debate: a set of bills is being introduced by the government which, it maintains, will produce a much more efficient tax system and improve the lives of all Australians—but those bills do not reduce the size of the tax act. They do not reduce that massive tome which has increased exponentially over the last decade or so. In that regard, I would think it an absolute wonder if the Prime Minister would at some time set an objective for his ministers as to the number of bills or pieces of legislation they should seek to withdraw over time, because we are an overlegislated, overregulated society in many respects, and particularly in the area of tax.Sometimes, quite frankly, the demand for more legislation is counterproductive. There obviously is good legislation, but an awful lot of it just makes our lives that much more complicated. I think that arises from a difficulty that modern governments in our society have in understanding the difference between the parliament and the government. The government is elected to run the country with the existing laws, to deal with international matters, to meet and greet with foreign ministers and dignitaries, to deal with crises that occur both domestically and on occasions in foreign parts and to represent the country. The police have all the laws they need to do the work of the police force. They do not continually need more laws. What happens is that ministers arrive here and forget that their job is to run the country with the existing laws; they think their job is to produce new legislation and get the parliament to sit endlessly.Having got that off my chest, I want to return to Labor's proposition. I have some sympathy for the position that Labor has outlined today. Without in any way derogating from the views of my leader, I do not agree that, when having extra sittings, we should do so without divisions and quorums. I just do not think that works, unless it is a second reading debate.But I certainly have sympathy with the 2 o'clock idea because, being very parochial, I am a Western Australian. Many people listening to this debate would not understand why senators get aggravated and agitated about the issue of sitting hours. Everyone in this place knows that a hard sitting week is 80 hours of work at least, and a reasonably consistent week at home would be a 55- to 60-hour week at least. It is a fact that many citizens think parliament only works when it sits. They forget about the preparations, the meetings, the constituency work and the party room debate. Often when debating amongst ourselves, we forget how much ignorance there is out in the community about what we do and what takes up our time. It is an extremely time consuming job—from party political activity to media activity, to meeting constituents, to meeting lobby groups, to reading legislation and to going to hearings.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—So are you going to cross the floor?3M6Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY—I am not talking to people who do understand the issue; I am explaining it for the purpose of those who are listening to the debate.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—You are a bit patronising, you know.3M6Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY—Therefore, when extra time is loaded on to us, as is happening, it can be agitating.Senator Faulkner interjecting—3M6Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY—I can see that I have the full attention of the Leader of the Opposition. 5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—I am worried, in that you sound a little patronising; that is all.3M6Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY—I do not mean to be patronising. I just mean to explain to people why this is an issue of concern to us.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Are you going to cross the floor?3M6Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY—When we come to the question of time, people would know that senators from Western Australia, the Northern Territory, North Queensland and probably other places lose days which their colleagues from the eastern states are fortunate not to lose. If there is a sitting on a Monday, we fly on a Sunday. If there is a sitting following a public holiday, we fly on the public holiday.The point being made by the Labor Party is that, if you sit at 2 p.m., it allows people, such as Senator Peter Cook, to get up at 5 o'clock in the morning in Western Australia to catch the 6 o'clock flight and be here by 2 o'clock that afternoon. That is my point. I know—because I have calculated it—that, in comparison to my colleagues from the eastern states, I lose 20 days a year because I have to travel a day before. That is what I lose; I lose 20 Sundays a year.If I have a meeting in Sydney, I cannot fly in and out on the same day—I have to be in the day before. It is a fact of life. This is a massive country. I have to be here early on Tuesday so I will be flying on Monday anyway, so from my point of view this particular change does not affect me. But I have great sympathy for those it does. I am repeating a line I very frequently hear from Labor with regard to the Democrats. You have a great deal of sympathy for us, you feel for us—it is quite touching—and all those sorts of words, and I also sympathise with your position on that basis.When we fly and how much time we lose is a serious issue, so let me be very serious for a moment. I would bet you that research into the lives of senators and members from far-off places would find that their level of home-life trouble is probably greater than those who live a little nearer, just as a consequence of the stress and strain of that much more travel. Maybe that is not true, but that is my instinct. I think I will leave my contribution there.10:46:004227Quirke, Sen JohnSenator QUIRKEZS6SAALP00—Mr Acting Deputy President, we would like to thank Senator Murray for his refreshing contribution, where he recognised—WW4KEMPSenator Kemp—You weren't going to speak, Quirkie, were you?ZS6Quirke, Sen JohnSenator QUIRKE—At least I am in my seat, Minister, before I open my mouth.WW4KEMPSenator Kemp—That's all you can say.ZS6Quirke, Sen JohnSenator QUIRKE—No, I am going to have a bit more to say, and you might get mentioned in dispatches too. At the end of the day, Senator Murray made the case very well for why we should sit at 2 o'clock on Tuesday. It may well be the case that he has to be here early Tuesday morning, but he is not the only Western Australian in this place. What he said was refreshing because, when Senator Lees made the statement about the pressure she feels, I was inclined to call for the lights to be turned down and for some soft music to be put on.The reality in this particular debate is not quite what it seems. We have had a number of things go on here during this week which I think have been rather interesting. The first one was the other day when, in the words of Senator Ray, we were conned. The Manager of Government Business in the Senate came around and wanted some extra hours to enable us to get into the GST debate, and we agreed with that. We were told, as I understand it, that others were in agreement with this—that it would be a mere formality. But not everything is as it seems around here.A more cynical person might say that the Democrats were not prepared for the debate on the GST, and a more cynical person might say that they would not be prepared until two minutes past midnight on 30 June—or is it 1 July? However, the Labor Party agreed the other day to sail into the debate. What did we find as the week went on? We found that all sorts of rumours were going around about the sitting times for next week. We were told by a number of people, `These things are being planned.' But has there been any serious discussion around the place? Has there been any attempt to get everyone around the same table to say, `Look, there is obviously a shortfall of time and more time is necessary?' Of course, that is unlikely to happen, and the reason it is unlikely to happen is that inasmuch as the Democrats would like this debate in July, the government, for other reasons, would like this debate much sooner.The Labor Party has always facilitated extra time. I think it was Senator Carr who told us that in the last three years or so we have spent some 37 extra weeks on smelly government legislation. I say that because these are the people who are bringing these proposals before us that are going to take such time. They are going to take time because they are seriously being questioned out there—and, again, not all is as it seems.I do not want to take up too much more time here today except to say that if some decent cooperation had taken place with the different sides represented in this Senate, then we would not have had the debacle of this week. I point out that we are yet to start the committee stages of the ANTS legislation, and it could have been started two or more days ago.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—Why did you vote against it then?ZS6Quirke, Sen JohnSenator QUIRKE—The parliamentary secretary was the one who came in here and gagged his own bill. That is how organised he is—he gagged his own bill. We wanted to debate it, but he gagged his own bill. Why did he do that? Well, we are yet to find out. Maybe when he gets up shortly he will tell us why he gagged his own legislation—the stuff he has told the Prime Minister that he wants to get through here as soon as possible. Every time you turn the radio on, you cannot help hear Prime Minister Howard and the others around the place saying, `Look, it's got to be done.' And now where do we find the parliamentary secretary? We find him talking to the adviser in the adviser's box and not even listening to the debate. I have to tell you: I hope the adviser can put some sense in there. But I do not want to go on with that.It has been customary here today to have a biblical quote, and I do not want Senator Woodley and others to infer too much from that because I suspect when he talked about `irredeemable persons' he was looking in my direction. The good senator might correct me on this, but I think it is in Ecclesiastes that it says, `There is a time and a season, a purpose and a reason'. What we would like to know from the parliamentary secretary is at least two or three parts of that very important quote.10:52:004228Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TASIND00—As I mentioned a couple of days ago, my definition of the purpose of government is that it is for the administration of the common good. We are part of the government of Australia. The government of Australia of course is the executive, the judiciary and the legislature. The last three speakers, I think, have done what was required in this debate—they have brought a bit of goodwill into it. Prior to that, on a number of occasions, at least on the face of it, there appeared not to be the type of goodwill that should prevail in this chamber. In other words, I think we should take each other as attempting to do the right thing. It may be misguided—and I have probably been more misguided at more times than others—but we can have vigorous debate, although let us not impugn the intentions of people.In fairness, I think the intentions of the Leader of the Government in the Senate, the Manager of Government Business in the Senate and, indeed, the acting leader of the government in this chamber have been impugned. I do not think we should make that judgment. I think we should examine the matters and see how best we can come up with the answers without imputing improper motives to other honourable senators. The question of cooperation has been raised—it is a difficult question. It is a very difficult time for all of us not only because of the fact that the government and the opposition do not have the type of cosy arrangement that occurs in the House of Representatives but also because this is a chamber which is charged with meticulously reviewing the material that comes before it. And we have got to do it. All of us here in this chamber, who were elected by the people of Australia, have got to do it.That is why I take issue with a view that Senator Brown was expressing this morning. I do not know precisely what he has against Senator Dee Margetts, his colleague, but I would like Senator Margetts to be here during the debate on the ANTS package, on the GST. She has contributed to the committee work on the matter and, frankly, I listen very carefully to what Senator Margetts says on these particular matters. I think she makes a great deal of sense on a number of matters, and I look forward to her contribution on the GST debate prior to 30 June. It is a nonsense to say that we should suspend all business now after a general election and that the Senate should not do anything until after the new senators come in. The people of Australia, I believe, understand what the Constitution says. The Constitution says that senators are elected for a six-year term. To suggest, as Senator Brown is continuing to suggest, that no matters should be dealt with—QD4BROWNSenator Brown—I've never said that once.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—We can deal with the matters that Senator Brown likes.6H4Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE—Yes, with whatever he likes.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Brian, goodwill—come on.6H4Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE—Yes, goodwill—vigorous debate with goodwill. With the best of will I am saying that it is a nonsense—5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—I am surprised at you.6H4Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE—I am surprised, frankly, that such a suggestion has been made. It has not been made by any other individual member of this chamber because every one of us, and I hope now Senator Brown—QD4BROWNSenator Brown—No, you haven't convinced me.6H4Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE—I am trying my best—understands what the Constitution says. The Constitution says that we are elected for a six-year term. Senator Brown is saying, `No, no, Senator Margetts should not enter into this debate on the GST.' Well, she has every right to; she was elected for a six-year term. Those of us who have been elected for a further six-year term, until whenever it is—5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Are feeling very tired.AW5CARRSenator Carr—It is the weight of the world, too.DX5MARGETTSSenator Margetts—Some of us are looking forward to 30 June.6H4Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE—Yes. Even some of us who are going to be around for another six years are looking forward to 30 June, I can tell you that.AW5CARRSenator Carr—Not very much goodwill there.6H4Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE—No, that is said with perfect goodwill—roll on 30 June, I say. But then we come to the question of the government's responsibility. The government has a responsibility to bring forward its legislation in the manner that it considers is the most appropriate in the public interest. With regard to the matter that we are dealing with—that is, the times—I take the view that the government obviously wants to have this matter fully considered next week; it wants extra time to consider it. That certainly is an annoyance but, nevertheless, I believe the government is entitled to suggest that that occurs.But can I make this very clear: in agreeing to the additional times, that should not be regarded at all as an indication of my support for the measure. It should have been obvious to everyone that the measure requires substantial structural alteration before it will get anywhere near meeting the approval of the parliament as a whole—that is as I read what people are saying around the place. So whilst I am voting for the extension of the debating time on the legislation, that should not at all be taken as an indication of my views on the legislation. So I am supporting the motion by the very hardworking Manager of Government Business in the Senate.11:01:004229Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I will be brief. I would like to make a few points. I would like to thank Senator Faulkner, Senator Carr, Senator Ray, Senator Quirke and others for the advice they have given me on how to run the program.AW5CARRSenator Carr—It has taken you an hour and a half to get it.H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—Indeed, Senator Carr, it has taken an hour and a half to debate this and it is indicative of the approach of the Labor Party in regard to the program. As Senator Carr said, the opposition has been constructive in providing many hours of additional sitting time for the Senate to deal with the legislative program. On the other hand, those hours have been chewed up by some of the longest debates in the history of this Senate.AW5CARRSenator Carr—We give proper scrutiny.H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—I am sure you do give it proper scrutiny. In the last three years we have had seven of the longest debates in Australian history. Between 1901 and 1996—and I do not claim that these statistics are absolutely the last word on it; I may be out by a bill or two—on second reading debates, for example, there were roughly six bills debated prior to 1996 that extended for longer than ten hours and since 1996 there have been seven bills. In the last three years we have at least equalled or bettered the record for lengthy debates in this chamber.For an opposition that has set out to delay debates and obstruct the government's program, that is some mark of achievement. In three short years they have equalled the record that the parliament was able to put together in the previous 95 years. That is undeniable. You might be able to argue over a bill here or there, but the Labor Party—with the assistance on some occasions of some of the minor parties—in three short years in opposition have been able to tally up more lengthy debates than all of the debates in the Senate in the period from 1901 to 1996, a period of 95 years.To put that in context, honourable senators who sat in this place for most of that period after 1901 and up to the early 1990s were able to speak on second reading debates with no time limit whatsoever. So Labor as opposition have been acting under an enormous constraint in that their speeches during second reading debates are limited to 20 minutes, so they have to add people to the speakers' list ad nauseam.I will respond to a couple of other points. The only points of any substance that were made in the last hour and a half were made by Senator Bob Brown in relation to the heavy sitting schedule. I am happy to table the record of parliamentary sitting patterns going back to 1977. This shows that the pattern for this year—when you exclude election years when obviously the Senate does not sit for as many weeks as in a non-election year—is relatively light. I am informed by the clerks and the people in the Table Office that the first half of this year is actually a relatively light sitting pattern.8U4LEESSenator Lees—What about committee work?H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—Senator Lees is right. Part of the agreement reached in November last year was to give up some of the sitting weeks to allow the committees to sit. To respond directly to Senator Brown's point—DX5MARGETTSSenator Margetts—You are not. He talked about the autumn sittings. You are not directly addressing what he said. He said the autumn sitting. You are not actually addressing what he said.H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—I hope that by tabling attachment B of the document called `Parliamentary sitting patterns' showing the number of sitting days in the first half of this year and, indeed, for this year, it will be of assistance.QD4BROWNSenator Brown—No.H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—If Senator Brown wants to have a discussion on Senate statistics with me, I am happy to have that, but it is not an overly busy sitting schedule.Could I make one other point. We are seeking to sit at 12.30 p.m. on Tuesday. We normally sit at 12.30 p.m. on a Monday, which allows senators such as myself and Senator Murray to return from Western Australia. Unfortunately, as Senator Murray says, that does ensure that Western Australians have to travel the night before. Western Australians, Queenslanders and Northern Territorians have had to make extra sacrifices on their family lives ever since this parliament was formed, particularly since it was placed in Canberra. The parliament has been sitting here since 1924 and they have always had to travel extra hours and extra days. That is a particular strain, as Senator Murray has quite rightly said, on all of our families.AW5CARRSenator Carr—Parliament should have been sitting in Melbourne.H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—The point of substance that I am seeking to make—with the great assistance of Senator Carr—is that we would normally sit at 12.30 p.m. on a Monday. I put the proposition in the words of Johnny Farnham from his hit single in 1968 that, indeed, this may not be a Friday kind of Monday. To paraphrase John Farnham—as he is called now—in fact, next Tuesday will be a Tuesday kind of Monday. I suspect that, if you can get to parliament at 12.30 p.m. on a Monday when the Sunday is a holiday of course, then senators should be able to get to parliament at 12.30 p.m. on a Tuesday and pick up the hour and a half that we have now lost during this debate.Senator Robert Ray accused me in an otherwise frivolous speech—if not enjoyable for most senators in this place—of not indicating our intentions about why we needed these extra sitting hours. He may have been misguided or misinformed, or he may not have listened to what was said by the government on only Tuesday this week, which was that if we could not commence the committee stage we would be seeking extra sitting hours. We are true to our advertised position in seeking extra sitting hours with this motion. We have made it clear to the Democrats that we would have to have achieved significant progress on these bills—the tax reform bills—during this sitting week. We lost all of yesterday to that, and we are simply trying to make up that time. That was the position we placed on Tuesday; it is our position today. Again, if we are to lose more time, we would seek to extend the hours.Senator Margetts did make another very important point in the debate, one that I am very happy to respond to—and I think Sena tor Lees might also have made the point very starkly today—that is, the issue of having these agreements made at leaders and whips meetings. We did have the practice of having leaders and whips meetings that Senator Lees and Senator Vicki Bourne from the Democrats did engage in. Those meetings did prove productive on some occasions. I might suggest to some who were in those meetings that they did tend to become unproductive and were sometimes shouting matches towards the end of the last sittings.The only problem with approaching senators on an individual basis is that you need very clear lines of communication. There was a breakdown in communications with the Democrats on Tuesday. We had been given one set of information by the whip which was different to an understanding that the leader had—that does happen from time to time—and that has been cleared up. But I reject any allegation that I have said one thing to one senator and one thing to another. I have never done that, I will never do that, and any assertion to the contrary is in conflict with the truth. I commend this motion to the Senate. Question put: That the amendments (Senator Faulkner's ) be agreed to.11:13:00The Senate divided. (The President—Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid)26Bishop, T. M. Bolkus, N.Brown, B. Campbell, G.Carr, K. Conroy, S.Cooney, B. Crossin, P. M.Crowley, R. A. Denman, K. J.Evans, C. V. Faulkner, J. P.Forshaw, M. G. Gibbs, B.Harradine, B. Hogg, J.Lundy, K. Mackay, S.Margetts, D. Murphy, S. M.O'Brien, K. W. K. Quirke, J. A. *Ray, R. F. Reynolds, M.Sherry, N. West, S. M.38Abetz, E. Allison, L.Alston, R. K. R. Bartlett, A. J. J.Boswell, R. L. D. Bourne, V.Calvert, P. H. Campbell, I. G.Coonan, H. Crane, W.Ellison, C. Ferguson, A. B.Ferris, J. Heffernan, W.Herron, J. Kemp, R.Knowles, S. C. Lees, M. H.Lightfoot, P. R. Macdonald, I.Macdonald, S. MacGibbon, D. J.McGauran, J. J. J. Minchin, N. H.Murray, A. Newman, J. M.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.Troeth, J. Vanstone, A. E.Watson, J. O. W. Woodley, J.Collins, J. M. A. Brownhill, D. G. C.Cook, P. F. S. Gibson, B. F.Hutchins, S. Hill, R. M.McKiernan, J. P. Eggleston, A.Schacht, C. C. Tierney, J.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the negative.Original question resolved in the affirmative.Committees423242324232Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell) proposed: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 1999.11:16:004232Bishop, Sen MarkSenator MARK BISHOP2L6WAALP00—I move:Omit "11 May 1999", substitute "25 May 1999".The intent of the amendment is to have the report date extended from 11 May to 25 May. In speaking to that amendment, I wish to place a few comments on the public record concerning the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Online Services) Bill 1999 . This matter has been under discussion on two occasions before the relevant Senate committee, the newly created Senate Select Committee on Information Technologies.At the first meeting of the committee almost a fortnight ago, the committee had before it a press release put out by the relevant minister, the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, Senator Alston. At that meeting there was nothing else before us for consideration. The meeting determined to refer the substance of that press release for an inquiry. After some discussion, the meeting also agreed that, if the relevant bill was tabled in the Senate during the life of that inquiry, the bill would also be referred for investigation.The chair of the committee, Senator Ferris, foreshadowed to the meeting—and it was recorded in the minutes—three dates for the possible reference review of the Broadcasting Services Amendment (On-line Services) Bill, those dates being 10, 14 and 17 May. A briefing paper was to be prepared by the Australian Broadcasting Authority, circulated to relevant Senate members, and a committee meeting was set down for public hearing next Tuesday evening. At that first meeting a report date was not considered for the Broadcasting Services Amendment (On-line Services) Bill.Yesterday afternoon there was a second meeting of the same committee, and all parties were in attendance. There was extensive discussion as to the tabling of the bill and possible dates for hearing because of the important matters contained in the bill. It was not possible at short notice to set out an extensive agenda of dates, although it was agreed at that meeting, as I recall, that next Tuesday evening's public hearing would proceed and that there would be a full day hearing on Monday, 10 May. A report date was agreed of 25 May.Under those circumstances, it is a bit of a surprise to have this motion before us with a report date of 11 May. In fact, if the agenda and dates of the committee had been adhered to, having its second full day meeting on 10 May, it would be a patent absurdity to have a report date on 11 May—10 and 11 May being in the budget week when everyone else will have other important matters for discussion and resolution.Members of the committee only received the relevant bill, the second reading speech and the EM on Wednesday afternoon. The government proposals in the bill are interesting. It appears they intend to treat domestic service providers and international service providers differently. They have extensive regulatory arrangements, creation of institutions and various appeal mechanisms for aggrieved individuals to pursue rights granted under the bill. The government approach, as I say, is interesting. The minister in this debate has been playing a considerable degree of politics for the last two or three weeks. He has been keen to portray the government as the sole protector of Australian families and protector of Australian children. That is something that the opposition takes some offence at. I know that the concerns of Australian families and the concerns of Australian children are uppermost in the considerations of all senators in this place. They should not become the subject of party division or simple political nitpicking.In the outcome of this bill the opposition wants to achieve sound and permanent regulation. We want effective and proper regulation of offensive, pornographic and harmful material that might be accessed in this country from both domestic sources and offshore sources. But what we do not want is to have a public relations sell-out. We do not want some little fix put in and sold out there to the public as a permanent resolution to difficult issues when, indeed, it is a con orchestrated by the government and by Minister Alston.We all know that it is not, at this stage, technically feasible or technically possible to regulate the content, no matter how extraordinarily offensive or harmful, of material from offshore. The technology may well be in the process of development and, if it is, we encourage that. We will be very interested in the public hearings in receiving submissions about effective and sound regulation of material from offshore from technologically minded people and from those who provide these services.But I do say, again, that in this debate concerning accessing of pornography, violent material, offensive material and harmful material from offshore the opposition is not interested in engaging in an ongoing PR game, in one-upmanship between ourselves, the government and other players in this debate. We are interested in finding resolution of these difficult issues by sound regulation, and we are interested in going down that path. It is, indeed, a complex area. Some of the propositions that emerge go to the nature of family in this country, to proper family responsibilities and to the role of educational institutions in educating children and other youngsters as to their obligations and responsibilities.The technology that is emerging may be useful in terms of the filtering devices and the like that are emerging out of the United States and Australia onto the market. The concern of the government in this issue is the regulation of, as I say, pornographic and other harmful and offensive material. This is also the concern of the opposition. There is going to be, apparently, a role for the industry in this debate. The government has foreshadowed extensive self-regulation measures in its draft bill, and they are also of interest and concern to the government.So, bringing all that together, there are serious issues to debate. There are serious issues that need to be resolved properly and permanently concerning the publication, distribution and accessing of what we all agree is harmful or potentially harmful material. We are not particularly interested in going into a PR game with the government and indulging in a one- or two-day fix that gets you a headline on page 5 but does not solve the issue now and for the next 10 years.So, moving the amendment to extend the report date by a fortnight, from 11 May to 25 May, gives the opposition time to get on top of the material, to think through the policy position and to engage in proper questioning of the relevant interests that come to the committees and to their public hearings. We do agree with the government that it is a matter of concern that should be resolved ASAP, but we do not believe in these circumstances that an extension of the report date from 11 May to 25 May is unreasonable or unwarranted. 11:26:004234Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I will not reiterate my views on the unseemly haste and priority which has been given to the matters before this particular committee. They are, as Senator Bishop says, very complex and very difficult. They do affect the home, the schools and the wider community. They affect everybody in the Australian community. Everybody in this place, without exception, is concerned about the impact of deleterious material on the Internet on all areas of the community. I say that without exception, and this debate needs to keep that in mind.The fact is, however, that nothing was done by the government about this matter for the first six months of this year, although there had been extensive committee hearings on this matter before the last elections. It is just in recent weeks that this matter has suddenly been put on the frontburner, so much on the frontburner that, of 27 pieces of legislation that the government wants to deal with between now and the end of this financial year, suddenly this matter of controlling material in cyberspace has shot to No. 3 on the indicative list, asterisk notwithstanding.Can it be dealt with in a matter of a couple of weeks by committee people representing all parties except the Greens, because we got voted out of it? Can it be dealt with properly and judiciously? Does the wider public have time to respond to legislation which, as Senator Bishop said, was only available to parliamentarians last Wednesday afternoon? Are the people in industry, on those matters of social interest—and they are very complex—which are involved here going to have adequate time not only to draw up their submissions to this committee, but also to be able to respond to the committee in such a way that all committee members are fully informed of the extraordinary ramifications of not only the Internet in our lives, but also the efforts that are inherent here in controlling what goes on the Internet.We do know that the CSIRO and service providers in Australia have warned that it is difficult, if not impossible, to put in place the sorts of censorship mechanisms that the government apparently wants. Notwithstand ing that—and the talk is that the domestic impediment to material going on the Internet may be one thing, but regulating what comes from overseas is another—I side with, I think, every other member of this place in saying that we must know what the options are and we must be able to look at whether regulation is in order and, if so, how to apply it.But let us look at other matters which are of enormous importance to the community. Let us look at gambling. Is this committee going to be looking at the impact of the Internet facility for gambling on the Australian community and people in the home? We know that gambling has a massively deleterious effect on those people who are caught up by it, not least low income earners where one of the adults in the household can very easily give away money to the poker machines and other forms of gambling that ought to be providing for families.I am indebted to last weekend's Sun-Herald. In the Gadfly column, which I follow regularly, under the heading `Internet Backflip' comes this piece:When a politician launches an inquiry, self-interest is usually the most pressing outcome.LD4ALSTONSenator Alston—Except in your case.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—Thank you, Senator Alston, I will take that on board. To continue:So when the Federal Treasurer, Peter Costello , launched his Productivity Commission Inquiry into Gambling , it was widely interpreted to be the Government's first step towards getting in on a piece of the State's taxation action.That action is derived from our $10 billion-a-year—and growing—gambling habit.- that is, Australians spend $10 billion a year in gambling. Back to the article:But calls made at the inquiry for federal legislation to ban or at least nationally regulate internet gambling have obviously caused a rethink in the Howard government.Communications Minister Richard Alston told the media last week it would be "technically difficult" to ban internet gambling."We are not passing the buck, but gambling is a state responsibility," he said.So while Canberra pulls out all the stops to ban access to pornography on the internet, gambling online conveniently goes into the too hard basket, even though US authorities have had no compunction or trouble banning online gambling.And then this:Of course, the fact that Australia's richest man has said publicly he wants to use his stake in Crown casino to develop a worldwide internet gambling facility, would have nothing to do with it now, would it?I think the government has been caught out here.I challenge the government to say that gambling in Australia is a lesser problem than invidious material being available on the Internet. I wonder why the government has given precedence, as a priority, to preventing the enormous ramifications of gambling on every aspect of Australian society, in particular on the home. Why is that not being brought up as an urgent committee matter? Why don't we have legislation No. 3 out of 27, `To regulate the horrendous impact of gambling'? Add to that—and Senator Harradine will know—`and the destruction of lives through the scourge of gambling addiction.' We know about this in Tasmania, where the first casinos in this country were set up. This now very threatening access to international, as well as domestic, gambling facilities—being promoted, apparently, by Kerry Packer and others with, for example, Crown Casino being a centre for a worldwide Internet gambling facility—alarms me enormously.One does not have to have too much of an imagination to know how that will affect many Australians and, in particular, innocent Australians who depend on breadwinners who are caught up in gambling and losing money. And with that, very often, there are the pathetic cases we all know about involving not only the loss of money but the loss of houses, of businesses, of livelihoods and of marriages, families and children's prospects across this country. If they are doing something about that in the United States—and this article says that they have had no trouble banning online gambling—if they have gone that far in the United States, surely we can be making the first steps to look at it here in Australia. I would have thought Senator Harradine would want this to be a matter of urgency. I would have thought that it has more urgency than even some of the matters that this committee is looking at.I reiterate that there is a need for this committee. I reiterate that the matters this committee will be looking at concern every person in this chamber as well as every Australian. But what I do not go along with is the crass urgency which is being given to this measure to enable a government which wants legislation like the GST and the sale of Telstra through to be facilitated. And you cannot disconnect the two things. This is manifestly an abuse of good management of parliamentary business. This is manifestly kicking aside more important issues to fulfil a political schedule being set in the Prime Minister's office. I do not go along with that.The committee should be sitting. But to say now that we ought to direct it to have finished deliberations, written its report and reported here to this chamber within the next month is ridiculous. It is a political outcome, not a good outcome for the people of Australia. If this was being taken seriously, it would have been on the agenda of this Senate months ago and, if it was being taken seriously now that it is on the agenda of the Senate, there would be adequate time for it to be properly deliberated. You cannot tell me that that is going to be the case in the next four weeks.Sure, we will get a report, but I will tell you, Mr Acting Deputy President, what sort of report we will get. We are going to get one along already set party political lines. It is not going to reflect the wisdom and the expertise and the insight of experts throughout the Australian community because this committee simply is not going to get time to hear that advice—now that we are a year or more away from previous sittings which did take into account some expertise. This area is moving so quickly and there are such enormous innovative efforts being made to control the Internet in other countries that I do not believe all that information can be adequately assembled, put before this committee, absorbed by the committee people and reflected upon—the inevitable questions arising therefrom being settled—with a fully informed and comprehensive report coming back to this Senate by 25 May.I would have moved that the hearings should at least extend until 8 August, which is when we come back after the winter sittings. That would have given a proper time for due deliberation. That is not available under this proposal by the government. While I will support the opposition amendment simply because it provides for an extra fortnight, it is not a fair go either as far as this committee is concerned and as far as the public interest in the matters of the community is concerned.11:38:004236Lundy, Sen KateSenator LUNDY7G6ACTALP00—I rise to make a few comments with respect to the motion before the Senate proposing that the IT select committee report back on the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Online Services) Bill 1999 on 11 May. In speaking to our amendment, which proposes to remove that reporting date to 25 May, it is worth traversing the activities of both the minister and the IT select committee to date. It is an interesting story.What we are seeking to do is have an adequate and a logical process of scrutinising the content of this bill. The ability for the Senate to seek public views, to have the time as a committee to prepare recommendations and to analyse the bill to the degree necessary is why the IT select committee was established in the first place. In recollection of the re-establishment of that committee, we debated in this place for some time the relative merits of that exercise. Identified as one of the key motivations of the re-establishment of the IT select committee was in fact consideration of these bills.To put this particular debate into context we have to go back a number of years when many industry and community people started getting together to talk about the challenge presented by the new medium of the Internet and access to information. A number of organisations, including industry groups, began talking about what constituted an effective means of maintaining community standards in such a way that it did not create impossible technical expectations to achieve a degree of community standard on the Internet.It was interesting that as this debate progressed—and I know that Minister Alston's office was involved in negotiating with the industry the development of a code of practice—a lot of goodwill was displayed by all parties involved and, indeed, progress was made over the last year or so. It was with some surprise and, for many, anger when the minister chose to hijack what was quite a constructive project in developing a self-regulatory code of practice for the industry which did reflect and did take into account the community standards issue at the time. At that point the minister issued a press release which articulated the government's intention and left that progress within the community out on a limb.The next phase, if you like, in this whole course of events saw the committee put together a very shabby motion to reconstitute the IT select committee. In doing so, they forced a debate in this place which identified a whole series of, I suppose, allegations about the motivation of the government, of the minister, in providing a reason for the re-establishment of that committee. It became patently clear that it was something the minister had done off his own bat as part of a motivation to serve other politically expedient ideas that the government had at the time.What ensued was a subsequent debate about the actual terms of reference because the government's motion originally did not contain terms of reference with respect to the re-establishment of that committee. During that particular debate the point was raised about whether the consideration of the proposed bills by the government would be considered by the committee. An additional term of reference was placed within the charter of the IT select committee. As my colleague Senator Bishop has said, that committee met two weeks ago to decide their program. At that stage all the committee had before it as a reference was a press release issued from the minister's office which articulated a certain proposal.Yesterday, when the IT select committee met to discuss the timetable for the bills which had been referred to it, a very practical discussion ensued in relation to what was a suitable timetable for due consideration of the bills. Our amendment today reflects, in my view, what was acknowledged as a reasonable timetable that did not attempt to extend the period of consideration of the bills beyond a point of reasonableness, but it acknowledged the need, because of the technical nature and complexity of this bill, to give an opportunity for those who have an interest in the community to come before the Senate committee and express their view.In doing so, the IT select committee would be not only servicing the specific term of reference that was inserted into it previously but also serving the purpose that the minister has asked it to serve, which is to inquire into the relative merits of this bill. We have heard so much rhetoric in this place about the need to explore what options are available. The proposed date of 25 May allows for a time frame for those options to be explored. It will still be a very tight timetable, and the committee will have to schedule hearings during Senate sitting times, it seems, to actually perform that task, but at least it will give us an opportunity to traverse those issues in some detail worthy of the magnitude and the significance of this particular issue.Hence, this morning we heard that Minister Alston has in fact disregarded what I considered the acknowledged view that this was a reasonable time frame and he came here this morning persisting with a motion that calls for a reporting date of 11 May. This more than anything else shows that the government, indeed the minister, is controlling this agenda. The IT select committee members have not had the opportunity to traverse, explore and inquire into this bill in the way we see fit and which is necessary for us to do a comprehensive job of bringing forth in the public arena the myriad of issues that we will be confronted with in discussing these bills. We are asking for a reasonable time frame for the consideration of these bills. We do know they are complex. We do know they are controver sial, and I will make a few comments about that shortly.I turn to some comments made by Senator Harradine which I know were made in absolute good faith. In the context of the previous debate about the terms of reference and the establishment of the committee, he said, `Let us see what merit or otherwise there is in the government's propositions in respect of the Net.' That is all we are asking to do, Senator Harradine. We want the opportunity to explore what merit or otherwise there is in the government's propositions with respect to the Net on this particular issue. We are hopeful that the IT select committee, albeit within still a tight time frame if we report on 25 May, is in fact able to do that.I now turn to this issue generally. Whilst the role of the IT select committee is confined to the consideration of the bill at this time, there is no doubt that we are at a point of a coming of age of the online community in this country. Debates about censorship of the Net do extend far beyond just the content of this bill, and yet the minister knowingly has provoked a debate that is occurring now in cyberspace. There is a storm out there. I expect that, as parliamentarians, we will receive thousands upon thousands of e-mails with respect to this issue. Why? Because for many people the debate we are currently experiencing traverses many issues beyond what is currently articulated as the intent of the government's proposals, regardless of the relative merit of the content of those proposals. This coming of age for the Internet in this country is something that this parliament needs to acknowledge—that is, there has been a change and there is a change at this time in how we as a parliament need to address our constituency's concerns.No longer can we as a parliament pretend that there is nothing happening on the Internet. No longer can we pretend that there is not a cultural shift and that somehow we have to deal with that. Indeed, no longer can we pretend that legislation relating to the Internet is something that can be dealt with hurriedly or almost surreptitiously in this way whereby it is being pushed through the parliamentary process with what seems to be undue haste when there is, through our amendment, an opportunity to traverse it comprehensively and at least with some diligence. These issues are a broad challenge for the parliament. It is my hope that support for this amendment will be found so we have an opportunity to, at minimum, traverse the contents of this debate with the level of diligence it deserves.11:48:004238Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—The Democrats will support the amendment that has been put forward by the Australian Labor Party in relation to an extended reporting date for this committee. I do not believe that it is a particularly unreasonable request to extend that reporting date by almost a fortnight. Given the seriousness, the specificity and the comprehensive nature of some of the issues and legislation under discussion, that is not a bad thing.We seek not to—to use a phrase that I think was used perhaps unfortunately—`blow out' the committee reporting date. That is not our intention at all. It is just simply, as most members in the chamber have suggested, to ensure that there is adequate time for debate, time for consultation and, more importantly, adequate time in which to receive information and submissions from those various relevant witnesses—indeed even if it means getting up to speed, to paraphrase some senators. Bear in mind that this is a reconstituted IT committee. It is a new committee and there are some senators who have not served on the committee before and who may want additional time to familiarise themselves with some of the work that has been done.We are asking for a couple of months. I think that is an entirely reasonable request. My party and I are genuinely sorry if members in this place or the government feel that this is an unwarranted extension of time. As Senator Lundy referred to, we had a reasonably cooperative committee meeting yesterday in which everybody sought to find out what time they had available to meet as a committee. Given some of the pressures of debates and committees and legislation before the Senate, I actually thought we did a pretty good job in trying to mull around to find some dates that were acceptable to everybody. That leads to two broader issues—that is, the amount of legislation before us and the assumed urgency relating to some of these bills.Clearly, the key area of debate before us at the moment is the taxation legislation. The government has impressed upon all parties in this place the need to deal with that as soon as possible and in great detail. Certainly, we accept that and we do not doubt the importance of the bills before us that relate to technology, particularly the Internet and broadcasting. But I do doubt the degree of urgency with which the government has argued that they should be dealt with. They are important. They need to be dealt with in the next couple of months, but I am a bit surprised today to hear of time lines that suggest not only a reporting date in the next couple of weeks but also that these bills be debated and dealt with in budget week. Senator Brown has referred to the timetable that has been put before us. There is this sense of urgency relating to all bills.There is also a second issue here—that is, the role of this select committee, bearing in mind it is a select committee. This was touched on by some senators yesterday. The fact in this case is that a select committee is effectively functioning not only as a references committee with the potential for a number of wide-ranging references on a broad range of topics but also as a legislative committee as a result of the reference of these particularly relevant bills to the committee.We are going to have to evaluate this further—and I think this is appropriate, given the rush and the procedural debate that accompanied the passage of the terms of reference for the committee. It is appropriate for us to continue to evaluate and monitor the ongoing role of the select committee.A select committee, of course, raises other problems for members of parties, specifically minor parties or Independents—and Senator Harradine and I are two of the members on this committee—that is, it is not possible to have substitute members. I know that the suggestion has been put forward by some, including our chair, Senator Ferris, and not unreasonably so, that we look at subcommittees. In this case for this particular set of bills, which I would suggest would probably be the most important bills before this select committee this year, or certainly in this parliament's time, I actually think we should ensure not that subcommittees are present for those debates, discussions and committee meetings but that we have a full complement, in as much as we can a full complement, of senators. So I do ask the government and also the chair to take that on notice too: that we continue to ensure that we involve as many members of the committee as possible.The Democrats believe in the importance of this bill, but not necessarily the time line that has been outlined. I will not talk more about the time line as I outlined in the committee meeting yesterday some of the concerns that I and my party had, and certainly I think the extended date put forward by the ALP solves some of those concerns.In relation to some of the policy matters, in some ways I support comments that Senator Harradine has made a number of times, that is, let us get it out of the way. I think that by 25 May we will be able to have this report and, following that, the legislation out of the way. I do not want to see this information technology committee in the Senate hijacked or bogged down in policy matters that yes, are important but are one part of a range of policy areas that we should be investigating as part of our work. I have put on record many times before, not only as a member of this committee and the committee in the last parliament but also as a member of the precursor to that committee—the community standards committee, as it was then known—that the Democrats have long believed in the formation of a specific information technology committee.We have long put forward ideas and recommendations for evaluation and report, and they are not specifically to do with illegal and unacceptable material on-line, although we acknowledge the importance of that. It has been canvassed in a fairly goodwill kind of way in the chamber today—everyone acknowledging that everyone has a concern about illegal or offensive material on-line, especially in relation to the impact on minors, on children, in our community.5L6FERRISSenator Ferris—That's what we're trying to deal with.3I6Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA—And I do accept that. We are trying to deal with that. That leads on to comments that have been made in reports previously and in the chamber today—that is, it is an incredibly complex issue not simply because of the philosophical or our intellectual responses to this debate but also because of the technical difficulties associated in this debate. In the last committee reference which dealt with this kind of material on-line—and I was a member of that committee that reported—I did a comprehensive report on behalf of the Democrats that looked at some of these feasible technical difficulties that come with filtering, blocking, stopping, controlling or regulating information on-line. So there are those two aspects that make this debate worthy of an extra couple of weeks of consideration.A lot of people could happily wax lyrical, as I am sure many of us will in this place, about the positive features of the Net, the democratic power of the Net, if you like, as a channel of communication, as a medium for information. There are people who talk about the potential dark forces of the Net, and I noted yesterday the comments attributed to the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Kim Beazley, in relation to the unfortunate and tragic occurrence in Colorado where he said that the uncontrolled growth of information on the Internet had probably helped contribute to the massacre.There is this whole minefield of issues and assumptions about the Net that legislators as well as members of the community generally have about the role of the Net, and that leads on to the issue of regulation. Still I note that the government sought to respond to the reports that have already been tabled in relation to on-line technologies not only by the precursor to this committee but also by the ones before that in a single response. Hence, the legislation that is before us.I note that on 19 March the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, Senator Alston, announced the government's policy for regulating the Internet but, to date, the government, as far as I am aware, has not actually responded specifically—I acknowledge it has responded in the form of legislation—to those outstanding recommendations that are contained in previous reports. Reports in 1997 were for part 3, the on-line regulation report, and those in 1995, I think, were for part 2. So we have not actually seen a detailed response, and I am happy to be corrected by the minister if that is not the case.I do acknowledge that the single response of 19 March is here today in the form of legislation, but I actually think that most members of this place would benefit from an analysis of those recommendations, the government's response or otherwise to those recommendations and the government's rationale for what changes are put forward. I am very curious too, given that these previous committees have dealt in detail with the issue of self-regulation. I do not really believe that that has been dealt with most properly by the government in relation to any kinds of responses to those recommendations or, indeed, in the legislation. But they are the things that we will be evaluating.In terms of the broader issues that have been canvassed by Senator Brown, Senator Lundy and Senator Bishop, the Democrats are more than happy to deal with other policy matters in the information economy, information society or information technology area. You take your pick.Again, I draw the Senate's attention to the final report by the Democrats to the last committee, the report on the need for the committee in the 39th Parliament, signed off on by our very capable chair, Senator Jeannie Ferris. Her recommendation was one that I did endorse: that the committee continue. Certainly the Democrats were keen to see that happen, but we were rather bemused and a bit disappointed by the procedural nature of and the lack of information about the terms of reference that accompanied the debate that reconstituted that committee when we were here last.I draw the Senate's attention to the report I submitted to the IT committee's final inquiry. The report proposed that a whole range of other areas be explored. Whether to do with self-regulation, encryption, e-commerce, vilification or information property laws, there is a whole range of other areas that I do not think this committee has even begun to grasp. So, yes, I am with Senator Harradine, and perhaps Minister Alston even, when it comes to getting some of these issues out of the way. But that is no reason to rush them in a way that will result in anything but a proper analysis and comprehensive debate of the issues. We have to ensure that we do have such a debate, as opposed to rushing this legislation through for the sake of rushing it through.I look forward now to perhaps hearing from the government as to its rationale for the urgency in this debate—not as to the importance of this legislation, nobody doubts that—why we should be anticipating debating these bills in budget week and why we need a reporting date of 11 May. Let's face it, it is pretty unusual for a government itself to refer legislation directly to a committee; certainly when we tend on occasion to do it, we hear no end of complaint.But why should the reporting date be 11 May when the cross-party committee members yesterday, in good faith, identified the best date for a second committee hearing as being 10 May? Even if people are not convinced with the pleas or the concerns of the members of that committee, and members of the Senate generally, then at least think of the secretariat whose responsibility it is to draft that report and have it ready for tabling by the following day. It is not possible.I am sure that responses will be forthcoming, either in the Senate today or behind the scenes, such as, `Why can't we do it earlier?' or, `Don't we have time?' or, `What about that first nonsitting week?' If anyone was a fly on the wall yesterday, they would have seen that committee members did have other functions and they did have other obligations, be it in their electorates or, indeed, in Canberra—7G6LUNDYSenator Lundy—At an estimates committee.3I6Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA—Or at an estimates committee, as Senator Lundy has just reminded me. Before anyone responds that 3 May is not an estimates committee day, I note that many of the members yesterday identified that day as being one on which they had other commitments; certainly I did. If it had been the will of the committee to proceed on that day, I would have accepted that, albeit reluctantly. But that is no way for a committee such as this to function. It is no way for a select committee to function, given that we cannot have substitute members. We should identify dates and stick with them. I think it was quite extraordinary in the first place for such a tight reporting date to be put forward.As I have said, I am sorry that Senator Harradine was not available; we certainly would have taken his concerns into account. By no means do we intend to suggest that this bill is any less urgent or that his rationale for dealing with it quickly is any less valid. But these are important matters. They deserve comprehensive and wide ranging debate, and that is what we intend to give them. It is certainly not an unreasonable request to extend that reporting date by a couple of weeks. For that reason, the Democrats will be supporting the ALP amendment.12:03:004241Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—There are five more sitting weeks to go, the government has publicly and repeatedly identified the priority legislation that it would like to see through the parliament in the current session and this bill is one of those pieces of legislation. The issue that needs to be addressed today is one that, by and large, has been skated over by everyone who has contributed to the debate; that is, of course, the timing of the hearings that need to be conducted by the Senate committee.I am pleased to hear that there does seem to be general in principle support for this legislation and, to the extent that that means the Labor Party is now very supportive of our provision in relation to this legislation, I am pleased to acknowledge that. But this is not a timeless debate. In many respects the debate is still at a fairly immature stage.I notice that people like Senator Lundy have been sending out emails which offer no constructive suggestions, no alternative approaches, but simply seek to ferment trouble and whip up a storm—a `cyberstorm', as she refers to it. These emails even tell some members of the Internet community that the anticipated report date is 25 May. There has been no basis at all for putting that out. It is simply misleading and dishonest propaganda. However, it highlights the fact that Senator Lundy is not particularly concerned with doing anything other than delaying as much as possible the reporting date.The issue confronting the Senate at this point in time is: what is a reasonable time in which to enable the select committee to have hearings on the legislation? I understood that this legislation was made available Wednesday morning; I heard Senator Bishop say that it was Wednesday afternoon. But in any event, as you know, it has been out there. The industry itself had a two-day session earlier this week. There has been a lot of consideration given to this legislation since the committee started considering that press release and the issue itself. Quite clearly, a lot of people have been giving a lot of thought to the matter.As I understand it, the committee hearing yesterday actually preceded a resolution of the Senate. That is not the normal way in which these things occur. It is normally desirable to look at the Senate's timetable, and committees are then subordinate to that timetable. In any event, the committee took the opportunity to see what it thought would be required in order to give a fair hearing to submissions that might come in. It took the view that two hours on next Tuesday evening would be sufficient for a briefing from the ABA and to then hear from the Internet Industry Association, which I think it would be fair to describe as the principal peak body in this area.The committee also took the view that there should be another opportunity for hearings, but for some reason it chose 10 May. Despite that date being right up against the 11th, the fact is that the committee still acknowledged the 11th as the report date implicitly because there is a clear opportunity there. But it seems to me that that is a tight and unnecessary timetable. Although no-one has mentioned it to date, the Senate will not be sitting next Wednesday; we have heard that from the Democrats this morning. Therefore, there is every opportunity for the committee to hold a further hearing on the Wednesday evening. Indeed, it can sit as late as it likes on the Tuesday night to take submissions and it can sit as late as it likes on the Wednesday night. It could sit Thursday as well, or it could sit the following Monday evening preceding the estimates committee hearings on the Tuesday. In other words, there will be ample opportunity for anyone who is interested in this matter to put their submissions.It is important to understand that we are not trying to ram through some sort of technical or technological response which we think we have identified and which somehow the rest of the industry has to accept. That is not the government's approach. We have said time and again that we accept that ISPs, for example, should not incur strict liability. They should have only a degree of responsibility if the content providers are beyond the jurisdiction and if there are matters that they can deal with themselves. But it has to be technically feasible to do that, and you have to take account of the commercial considerations involved. What we have in mind is codes of practice developed by the industry which we would hope would be sufficient to encompass these matters so that the government would not be doing anything other than requiring anyone who was dilatory to adhere to those codes of practice and for those codes of practice to be organic, to evolve in such a way that they would accommodate new technology developments.The reality is, from a number of people who have spoken to me, that hardly a week goes by without someone coming up with a new technological solution. We are not just talking here about new software filtering technologies that parents might be able to use or that they could subscribe to ISPs for clean universes. We are talking here about filtering and blocking technologies or guessing engines or other mechanisms that will enable you to identify sites and to exclude them from the universe. We do not want to get out there and prescribe the technology. What we want to do is have codes of practice that require the industry to take account of the latest technological developments and to use those in support of a principle that I think we all accept.If that is the case, there is a significant degree of urgency, given that the Senate has only five more weeks before it. If we were to have a report date of 25 May, then you are halfway through the third-last week. You would then have two further weeks. In order to get to 1 July, you would have a truncated week in the second of those last two weeks. Time is of the essence. Clearly we do not want to not provide opportunities for industry to make submissions, but it is not as if industry or members of the community have not been very much on notice over recent months. This matter has had a lot of publicity. A lot of people out there have had meetings on it, discussed it endlessly and taken account of what has occurred in other jurisdictions.We know, for example, that the American Congress has time and again endeavoured to grapple with this issue—in my view, perhaps heavy-handedly in trying to impose strict liability—and they have run up against the first amendment. We do not have that problem here, but it simply demonstrates that all responsible legislatures are trying to come to terms with a difficult problem. We think we have an approach that could set a precedent for other jurisdictions. In other words, it is sufficiently flexible, by virtue of promoting industry codes of practice, to be able to adapt as new technologies come along.Given that everyone is committed to the principle, and given that time is fast running out in terms of the priorities for this session, it is very important that we stick to the report date that is contained in the original motion, which is 11 May. There are plenty of days on which further hearings can be held if there is a modicum of goodwill. I simply do not accept what Senator Stott Despoja says—that is, there are other priorities that she may have that are superior to those of the Senate. The fact is that constituent appointments do not take priority over Senate committee hearings. The mere fact that it might be somewhat inconvenient to come to Canberra on 3 May, for example, is no good reason at all to say that you are not available for a committee hearing.Certainly, when we are all here next week, there can be no excuse at all about constituency demands or any other electorate responsibilities. The Senate is sitting next week. There are ample opportunities to take evidence from any interested parties. Then you have a full non-sitting week with some estimates days thrown. If you put your Senate responsibilities first, you would surely be able to allow additional time. On that basis, we will be opposing the amendment, and we urge the Senate to support the printed report date.12:13:004243Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—by leave—I have a question for the minister. I understand that the way this is going, debates would occur in budget week. I simply want to know that, if the debate on the tax package of bills is not completed by budget week, will the bills be leapfrogged? And will the debate on this legislation and this matter take precedence?12:13:004243Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—by leave—The government's timetable will have to be determined as we go. We will be wanting to ensure that we can expedite all of the legislation that we regard as priorities. I am not saying that we will be debating the legislation in that week; we simply want the capacity to do that. That will then involve judgments based on progress being made with the tax package. I fervently hope that debate will have been concluded by the end of next week. If that proves not to be the case, then we will have to make a decision accordingly. I am simply urging the Senate to support 11 May as a date that gives us the ability to bring the matter on if the opportunity is there.12:14:004243Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TASIND00—I wanted to speak briefly on this matter and indicate to the chamber, if the chamber is not already aware of the fact, that this whole issue has had a very long gesta tion. It goes back to statements by representative ministers of the previous government, who were very strong and undertook to do something to meet the concerns of parents about material that is easily able to be accessed. Those were the statements of the previous government. I assume that those policies and those views have not changed.Senator Ferris's committee and the previous committee have been considering these matters for some considerable time—actually for years. The fact of the matter is that the parents of Australia are sick of talk; they want action. This is why there is some urgency about the matter the government has been discussing with the ABA. Mind you, I agree with Senator Bishop that we have to have a very good look at this material to see whether it is going to work properly. The ABA, to my mind, is a very passive regulator at the best of times. If it is going to be responsible for this, let us see how it responds to questions that we have asked of it.There is a need for further time to be given to the committee, and I agree with that. Quite seriously, I do apologise for not being there yesterday—there was something called the GST that was around the place at that particular time—and I agree, as has been indicated, that there is a need for possibly up to two long evening sessions and a day or two. As has been explained, they could take place next week, the following Monday and/or the Monday after that. I agree that we should not just allow it to be a formality. It should not be a formality if all of that time is spent on it—and that is entirely possible.I am not happy about some provisions in the legislation, and I will be very interested to hear what the department has to say about those particular provisions. Nevertheless, I think the government is to be congratulated for at least responding to the appeals of the committee over a period of time and for doing so in a practical manner by developing legislation. It is now up to our committee to consider that legislation and to see whether it meets the objectives which I think we probably all adhere to. I would like to say this: clearly if you leave it entirely to the industry itself, the industry is not going to come up with the answers.I will very briefly refer to the matter that was dealt with—or at least adverted to—by Senator Brown. He read out a news item about gambling on the Internet. For Senator Brown's and honourable senators' information, I met a couple of weeks ago with Mr Tim Costello in Melbourne and with Mr Nick Xenophon. I agree that Internet gambling is going to be a very major concern. With the advances in technology, you will have a situation where the feeling and the atmosphere of the gambling casinos in Melbourne will be in the homes of Australian citizens. It will be virtual reality. I am very concerned about that. I believe that our committee should consider those matters, but that it should not be done in a manner that is going to torpedo the recommendations that have been made and actions that have been taken by our committee over the years, and the views that have been expressed by successive governments and by this government to do something about it and to respond to the concerns of parents.The matter of Internet gambling is a primary responsibility. The states should take action on that particular matter but so should the federal government. As a member of the committee, I will be seeking to have the matter considered. I thank the Senate, and I look forward to the debate and to a vigorous questioning and examination of the details of the legislation. It is a fact of life that if we do not deal with it now—if we do not set this deadline—we are not going to have this matter debated for months and probably not until next year. I believe the parents of Australia deserve better than that. The people of Australia have said they want action. Question put: That the amendment (Senator Mark Bishop's ) be agreed to.12:26:00The 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.Crowley, R. A. Denman, K. J.*Evans, C. V. Forshaw, M. G.Gibbs, B. Hogg, J.Lees, M. H. Lundy, K.Mackay, S. Margetts, D.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. Calvert, P. H.Chapman, H. G. P. Colston, M. A.Coonan, H.* Crane, W.Ellison, C. Ferguson, A. B.Ferris, J. Harradine, B.Heffernan, W. Herron, J.Kemp, R. Knowles, S. C.Lightfoot, P. R. Macdonald, I.Macdonald, S. MacGibbon, D. J.McGauran, J. J. J. Minchin, N. H.Newman, J. M. O'Chee, W. G.Parer, W. R. Patterson, K. C. L.Payne, M. A.Reid, M. E.Synon, K. M. Tambling, G. E. J.Troeth, J. Vanstone, A. E.Watson, J. O. W.Hutchins, S. Hill, R. M.Schacht, C. C. Brownhill, D. G. C.Collins, J. M. A. Campbell, I. G.McKiernan, J. P. Tierney, J.Faulkner, J. P. Gibson, B. F.Murphy, S. M. Eggleston, A.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the negative.Original question resolved in the affirmative.Sitting suspended from 12.30 p.m. to 1.15 p.m.Bills4245r703Billsr667Billsr666Billsr702Billsr699Billsr698Billsr664Billsr660Billsr658Billsr657Billsr701Billsr663Billsr659Billsr700Billsr6614245Consideration resumed from 21 April.A NEW TAX SYSTEM (GOODS AND SERVICES TAX) BILL 1998The bill.13:15:004245Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—I have a couple of questions to put to the minister. Minister, yesterday, you made available to the chamber 128 amendments to the GST legislation which, by use of the guillotine, had been put through the House of Representatives before Christmas. That means that the legislation which the government rushed through the House was clearly not properly considered. On further thought, the government has come up with a further 128 amendments.I read in today's press that senior members of the government are considering further amendments in addition to the 128 that have been tabled in this chamber. Therefore, I ask: will there be further amendments? If so, how many? To which bill or bills, or, if you prefer, which topic areas, will they relate?13:16:004245Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—Thank you for the opening question, Senator Cook. I tabled amendments to the bill in the parliament this week—and I think the Labor Party has also now tabled amendments and, hopefully, the Democrats and other senators will shortly also be seeking to move amendments. Those are the only amendments of which I am aware. I do not have any information on other proposed amendments. I do not rule that out and I do not rule that in. I will just say that the amendments of which I am aware are those which I have tabled.There are just over 30 substantive issues in those amendments. Those amendments arose from wide-ranging discussions that the government has had with industry and with people who have expertise in particular areas. We think that those amendments help to address a range of concerns which were put to the government.13:18:004245Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—You do not rule out or rule in the prospect of further amendments, but I have read reports in the press, as no doubt you have, that senior members of the government are considering additional amendments. I have to say that—and I confess it frankly here in public—I have heard rumours that there are additional amendments. I note that, yesterday, Senator Harradine made a speech in which he raised a series of questions. There is speculation that that might bring forth some additional amendments from the government.What worries me, Minister, is that we are kicking off Mr Howard's great tax adventure in the Senate, considering the 27 bills—starting with the first one—clause by clause, and you are not able to rule out or rule in whether or not the government will be introducing further amendments. It is on the record, as it arose during the Senate select committee inquiry into the GST legislation, that a number of organisations gave evidence that they were making representations to the government about further amendments to the legislation.You have come up with 128 amendments and, as you have described them, some are technical, some are matters of substance and some, as matters of substance, are matters of considerable concern—and loosening of the compliance provisions is one of them, but we will come to that in due course. I understand that you have said that the amendments that you have now tabled are amendments that the government has arrived at after consultation with organisations. Which organisations' evidence have you taken note of and is, therefore, reflected in the sheaf of amendments you have tabled this week, and which organisations, which have indicated public amendments to this legislation, are you either in continuing discussion with or have declined to accept changes from?13:20:004246Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—I will seek to find out whether I can provide you with that detail on the organisations. As far as any future changes are concerned, the remarks I made in my opening answer to your question remain. These bills reflect the tax reform package which was announced last August which was extensively debated during the election. I think you and I shared the same platform on at least one occasion during that debate—and others will judge, Senator Cook, who won that particular exchange. However, I note that the government won the election, with the central issue being tax reform. Following that, bills were brought into the House of Representatives and, following the passage of the bills through the House, we then had a very extensive Senate procedure.As Senator Ian Campbell has pointed out on a number of occasions, this is probably the most extensive inquiry that the Senate has conducted into any package that any government has brought forward. We have received a range of submissions from people. As we have held discussions and listened to the evidence, we have noted some areas in which the government wishes to finetune the legislation, and that has occurred. As to providing names, I will see what particular information I can provide to you.13:22:004246Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—Just on the question of not ruling out further amendments, can you be more categorical about that? Will there or won't there be further amendments?13:22:004246Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—As I said in answer to your first question, I have got no particular knowledge of any amendments the government is proposing. I do not rule it in and I do not rule it out. It is a matter which I do not have any particular knowledge on, so I am not in a position to provide you with that type of information. There will be a very extensive debate in this chamber and undoubtedly views will be put forward by people, and the government will always listen to views which are put forward. So I think the answer I gave is a responsible answer and reflects reality.13:23:004246Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—What is of particular concern to me, if I can pursue this point one step further, is that the bill before us now is the first of a series of bills, but this is the bill which imposes a GST. Some of the subsequent bills provide compensation. If you cannot rule out amendments, are you asking the chamber to consider the imposition of a tax without knowing whether or not you will change your position on what compensation there might be, particularly to low and middle income earners, whose position is made worse by this tax? Are you expecting us to deal clause by clause with the first bill imposing a tax without knowing whether you are going to amend the compensation provisions that come later?13:24:004247Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—This is not the imposition bill that we are discussing. But, in relation to other amendments, it is entirely up to the Senate whether it passes any amendments that the government is proposing. If you are worried about any future amendments, equally it is entirely up to the Senate whether it passes those or not. That is a matter for the Senate. We have acted in a way which I suspect has always occurred in relation to major bills. I can hark back to tax bills which the Labor Party has brought in where we have sometimes had amendments brought forward early and then there have been further amendments. I do not think there is anything new in the procedure which has been adopted. It is entirely up to the Senate whether the Senate accepts amendments which are brought forward.It is quite possible that the Labor Party may be bringing forward further amendments. I understood initially that the Labor Party were not going to be bringing forward amendments to the bill, Senator, but I notice that you yourself have brought forward amendments today. We were surprised, because there was a statement made in the press—this is the danger, as you would always note, of reading the press—that the Labor Party were not going to move amendments. I do not know whether the Labor Party are ruling out bringing forward any further amendments. I suspect that you are not and that you will see how the debate flows. As I said, the government has been up-front with the amendments that we think are appropriate, given our present state of knowledge. We will listen carefully to the debate.13:26:004247Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—My reason for being concerned is that the government, by use of its superior numbers in the House of Representatives, in the debate in the chamber on this legislation applied the guillotine as a matter of urgency to carry that legislation in that chamber prior to Christmas. Obviously you have thought that the scrutiny of that chamber in a full-blown way was not necessary but upon further consideration you have now, of your own motion, moved to amend the bills that were so urgent then. My concern, at the beginning of this debate in this review chamber, is to establish the full extent to which the government proposes to alter these bills here and refer them back to the other house for further endorsement.On the basis that you cannot rule out the prospect that there will be further government amendments, can I say, Minister, that you would be aware of the submission made to the inquiry of the Senate Select Committee on A New Tax System by the Taxation Institute of Australia. You would be aware that the Taxation Institute of Australia is a non-party political body. You would be aware that the Taxation Institute of Australia does not occupy a high profile in public debate in taking a partisan stand on matters before the community on issues of tax, rather that the Taxation Institute of Australia, as it describes itself, is a collection of tax experts, some 10,000 members in all, who are tax agents, who are lawyers, who are accountants, who are members of the judiciary, who are members of the Commonwealth, state and territory governments, and whose principal interest and concern is proper and effective tax law.You would be aware, I am sure, that in their submission to the Senate select committee this body, which is a credible and respected body in the community, said that they had concerns with the legislation as it stood. On those concerns they made a number of points. They said:the currently proposed GST regime is not simple, either to implement or to administer. The TIA—that is, the Taxation Institute of Australia—notes that New Zealand's GST regime is encapsulated in only 86 sections, compared with in excess of 420 sections in A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Bill 1998 .This could well be indicative of complexity, excess wordage or both. That is the first point that they have made. The second point they have made is as follows:a comprehensive assessment of the impact of the GST is not really possible in the context of overall tax reform until all the Government's tax reform proposals have been tabled in Parliament;I interpose at this point to say that what I want to be sure of is that all of the government's proposals, including the amendments, are available to us in this parliament. I go on to cite the concerns of the Taxation Institute of Australia. In the next dot point on the first page of their submission to the inquiry, which is, for your reference, submission No. 899, they say:the efficiency of the enterprises affected by the GST will be adversely impacted by the escalation in professional costs to meet the implementation and administration requirements of the GST, in particular the cost of valuing assets affected by the GST (. . . by 1 July 2000);They go on in their next dot point:the `in principle effect' test in the GST general anti-avoidance provision is far too broad and is inconsistent with the general anti-avoidance provisions in other taxation legislation;They conclude with their last dot point:sufficient time must be allowed for the implementation of the GST.Elsewhere in their submission they call for an independent body to review the legislation to get the devils out of the detail. As you would be aware, Minister, in addition to making those headline remarks, in appendix A to their submission to the Senate select committee inquiry they attached eight pages of suggested amendments to the legislation. Again, I make the point that this is not a party-political organisation, this is not an organisation trying to take a position in the tax debate: this is an organisation that simply wants to see good tax law in Australia and which says on evidence to us that, once it is clear what the direction of the parliament might be, their concern is to see that that direction is implemented efficiently and without flaw.In the eight pages of appendix A to their submission—I do not propose to read them, of course—they make extensive suggestions to amend the legislation. In my review of the amendments put forward by the government, I cannot see how the Taxation Institute amendments have been picked up or reflected. My question to you at this point is: have any of the changes recommended by the Taxation Institute of Australia been reflected in your amendments or, on further reflection, do you intend to take the advice of a non-partisan political body, expert in these matters, composed of the professionals who administer tax law at the coalface in Australia, and incorporate some of these changes, or do you intend not to?13:32:004248Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—Senator, as I pointed out to you, there has been very extensive exposure of these bills. There has been very extensive consultation. A Senate committee has examined these bills and, in the light of the consultations which the government has had, the government has moved a range of amendments. As far as the Taxation Institute of Australia is concerned, if I recall correctly—I am sure you will correct me if I am wrong—they are very supportive of taxation reform and are supportive of a goods and services tax. They may well have concerns, and you have drawn the attention of the Senate to some of the concerns that they have raised. In the end the government must make decisions. The government must decide what it wishes to do. As I have said, we have looked at some 30 substantive issues and have proposed a range of amendments which have been circulated.Concerning your question whether any of the particular proposals by the Taxation Institute have been picked up in the government's amendments, the advice that I have is that a number of their concerns were addressed in the amendments which we brought forward, including the one that you raised—the general anti-avoidance provision. The government announced earlier this week that we would amend the provision to make its scope and operation clearer to ensure that it does not apply to anything done or any arrangement entered into before 2 December 1998, to make it clear that it will not apply to the exercise of an option provided for under the legislation, and to ensure that it applies to where the tax benefit is obtained in the principal effective arrangements and not simply in a principal effect.We have looked at the anti-avoidance provision issue again and proposed a range of amendments. I would have to seek advice from the Taxation Institute as whether they are completely happy with what we have proposed. This is an example of where the government has listened to the concerns which were brought to the government's attention and has proposed an amendment.13:35:004249Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—I would be very interested to know because, on the evidence given to me, it is unlikely that you would get an affirmative response from the Taxation Institute on the anti-avoidance legislation, but that remains to be seen. This is not the time and I do not intend now to debate in detail the merits of that legislation. But since you have mentioned it in some detail, let me observe in passing that the amendments which you propose to make will weaken the anti-avoidance legislation and will enable a coach-and-four to be driven through the anti-avoidance mechanisms This, I would have to say, goes to one of the principal points raised in this entire debate: that tax reform, if that be the enterprise we are embarked on, should be about preventing avoidance of taxation obligations.There is a strong debate in Australia, and rightfully—my party has subscribed to it very powerfully—that tax cheats should be stopped and that people ought to pay their full rate. If they did pay their full rate, there would be less tax levied on the rest of us who are honest taxpayers. The provisions to which you have referred I note now—and we will debate this when it comes up at the relevant time—weaken the anti-avoidance provisions in these bills. Frankly, I think that is a disgraceful step and I will deal with it appropriately. It is also a reason why I think it is very unlikely that the Taxation Institute of Australia would necessarily give you a thumbs up on those changes, but that remains to be seen.To take you one step further, you say that some of the measures raised by the Taxation Institute have been met. You may wish to take this question on notice. Would you please indicate which ones, in the eight pages of amendments which they have proposed to this legislation, have been meet and which ones remain at large? With whom in the government did the Taxation Institute confer and who in the government made the decision to exclude those ones that have not been adopted? I ask this for information purposes, Minister, because I do not think that this chamber should turn its back on professional and expert advice by bodies such as the Taxation Institute.I go to one other matter associated with their submission and turn to the Hansard. I apologise to Senator Harradine, who is in the chamber, because I am going to quote a line of questioning which he undertook of the Taxation Institute when they were before the inquiry. This appears in the Hansard of the select committee inquiry on Thursday, 4 March. Senator Harradine comments on an answer which was given and then turns to this question:The other question that I have is on the issue of anti-avoidance, section 165.55 in the legislation, which states:For the purposes of making a declaration under this Subdivision, the Commissioner may:(a) treat a particularly event that actually happened as not having happened . . . Further down on that page, if I may put it in these terms, Senator Harradine hits his stride and says:To a layman, to provide a power to, as the act says—he quotes it in full, and I will do so now—(a) treat a particular event that actually happened as not having happened; and(b) treat a particular event that did not actually happen as having happened and, if appropriate, treat the event as:(i) having happened at a particular time—and furthermore—(c) treat a particular event that actually happened as: (i) having happened at a time different from the time that it actually happened; or(ii) having involved particular action by a particular entity (whether or not the event actually involved any action by that entity).That is the end of the quote from the bill. Senator Harradine continues:seems to me to provide the Taxation Commissioner with power that even God does not have. God cannot act in the contradictory manner, can he?Mr Cooper from the Taxation Institute then said:Our conclusion is that the draftsman at the time must have just finished reading Alice in Wonderland.Minister, can you explain what the foregoing quotes from the bill mean?13:40:004250Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—I was under the impression when you raised your questions you were worried that the measures that we had proposed weakened the position and you were opposed to that. I think the Hansard will show you that you have argued both sides of the case. You wanted us to accept the proposals of the TIA, which—if I can bring it together—are, I suspect, that they felt that the anti-avoidance provision was too onerous. Then you attacked us for having, in your terms, weakened the provision. We do not accept that. The Hansard would, I think, show that you seem to have argued both sides of the case.You read out a clause of the bill and I will provide you with a few brief words on what that clause means. The particular clause you read out allows a power of reconstruction so that the commissioner can compare the scheme with a legitimate arrangement. It is essentially the same as part 4A, the general anti-avoidance provision.13:42:004250Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—If my questions were attacking you, Minister, they were attacking you on the basis of you not being able to decisively inform this chamber as to whether the government is intending to bring forward further amendments to its own legislation that it so urgently pushed through the House of Representatives before Christmas with the guillotine and to which now it has 128 amendments in this chamber. Certainly in the press—and I accept your answer that the press is not always an honest or an adequate purveyor of true information—they are reporting that senior government figures are saying there are further amendments. If I was attacking you at all—which I did not think I was; I thought I was just making the observation—for this debate in this chamber to mean very much, we need to see the entire position of the government displayed before us, including all of the amendments that the government is intending to make, and not have a situation in which the government at some other time in the future, when we have dealt with particular clauses, wants to come back and amend them again.My reference to the Taxation Institute was that here is a body of professional opinion, learned in this subject, suggesting changes to the tax act. I think it is important for us to know from you why you accepted some particular changes from them and why you rejected others.The other matter that you mentioned—before I turn to the question that I have just read out—was the anti-avoidance measures. I think the anti-avoidance amendments you have proposed to this chamber weaken the protection of Australian taxpayers at large from tax avoiders. If they were carried it would be a diminution of power in the bill you have before us and that would be a sad event. I am not proposing to debate that in great detail now. When we come to that we will have an opportunity to do so.My reason for having read this extended quotation to you is that the Taxation Institute, a learned body of august men and women expert in these matters, say in response to a rather pointed question, `Our conclusion is that the draftsmen at the time must have just finished reading Alice in Wonderland.' While it is, as I understand, related to the powers of the Tax Commissioner that you refer to, this is indeed quite a large expression of discretion on behalf of the Tax Commissioner—almost an unfettered one. If a tax professional organisation such as the Taxation Institute of Australia says this is Alice in Wonderland stuff, do you defend all of this? If Senator Harradine, for one, thinks that this is powers greater than reside in the Almighty, do you still defend this or are you considering putting any amendments to this provision in any way?13:45:004251Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—Senator, you have raised quite a range of questions in that contribution. Let me make it clear that this government is very opposed to tax cheats and you would be aware yourself that, when we have had debates in this chamber, we have brought in a raft of bills and clauses which cut down on tax avoidance schemes. I think that we have moved exceedingly firmly to close loopholes which we perceived occurred in the act. We believe that we have a fine record of dealing with tax avoidance. There was one, I think, where you and I differed, particularly the issue of R&D syndicates, where you were very critical of the government closing down that particular loophole.I took what you were saying. I understand that this will come back into the major debate; we will have major debate on this as this clause comes before the chamber. But I understood that initially when you spoke you were supportive of the anti-avoidance provision that was in the act. You then seemed to be supportive of the TIA's position, which again, by your terms, seems to have weakened the position. I will examine the Hansard very carefully, but I feel you have been arguing on both sides of the issue there. We believe that we do need a strong anti-avoidance measure and the government does not make any apology for that. I think that the measure that we have put in is a responsible measure and we believe that it is an important part of the bill.In relation to the TIA there are a number of issues you asked me about which I said I would take on notice. I think that we will provide you with a response on the measures that have been picked up. That will give you a guide on the things which we felt it was sensible to make some adjustment on. As to the individuals concerned, it is most unlikely that the government would provide you with the information on that. That is probably not relevant to the decisions that are made. The government takes advice and ultimately the government is responsible, whether it accepts that particular advice or not. So I do not think there is any need to draw the names of individuals into this particular issue.Again, you went back to the issue of whether there would be other amendments brought forward. In the normal course of debate, there may well be some issues which are raised in this chamber. As I said, we are entering into this debate. The government's position is well known. But if there is a need to finetune the bill, as we have done before, that may occur again. As I said, I do not rule it in and I do not rule it out. We will be listening very carefully to the debate in this chamber, as you would expect us to do.13:49:004251Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—Perhaps we should take the points one at a time. Let us settle this point. I think that the amendments on anti-avoidance that you propose—which we now seem to be debating, which I was not intending to do—make avoidance easier, not harder. You seem to be saying that the tax institute advised you to do that and you have accepted their advice. I am questioning you as to whether that is in fact true. Did they advise you to do this? I do not see that advice in the document they supplied to the Senate select committee. Are you defending the change in those provisions because the tax institute advised you or not? That is the first part and perhaps I should pause for answer on that.13:50:004251Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—No, I am not defending the Taxation Institute on that ground. The government takes advice from a wide range of sources. There was the general issue of whether we had examined the positions put forward by the Taxation Institute. The advice I have is that we did. They raised some issues, and I think I was very careful to point out that I am not saying that they would sign on to all of the amendments we made. I make no claim to that whatsoever. But the institute did raise some issues. You asked me to be more specific in relation to a number of other things. If you put them on notice, I will respond to them as speedily as possible. I hope that by next Tuesday we can give you a response to them.You do not want to set up an unreasonable hurdle. I think we have been very straightforward with the legislation. The general package has been out since last August, and the legislation has been before the public gaze since December. The Senate committees have gone through the legislation with a fine-toothcomb. The government have continued to carry out consultations with people who have wished to come and see them. I have seen a range of people and I guess everyone in this chamber has been approached by groups putting forward views. Indeed, I think some of the debate that we are having relates to whether we except those views at all or in part. As the debate comes on, the positions of various people and parties will be revealed. With major tax bills, and any other major bills, it is inevitable that during the debate issues will be raised. The government will always look seriously at the issues raised.13:52:004252Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—I do not want to set up unreasonable hurdles, I want to get to the nub of the debate. You say that the government's position is well known and has been known since October. The bills that we are now considering came forward in December, so we only saw what your legislative changes were in December, and we now have some amendments. All I want to do here, and it is nothing more complicated than this, is find out whether this is the extent of your amendments, whether this is the extent of what you are asking the Senate to consider or whether you have further amendments elsewhere. You are unable to confirm or deny whether there will be further amendments. I then come to those questions that I have asked. I still do not have an answer for the last one, relating to section 165-55 of the legislation. It says:For the purposes of making a declaration under this Subdivision, the Commissioner may:(a) treat a particular event that actually happened as not having happened;The Taxation Institute says that the draftsman must have been reading Alice in Wonderland when he or she wrote those words. You are not in a position to say whether there are any further amendments, but is the government examining that matter? Does it have it under consideration? Is it the position that it has not decided whether it should tighten those provisions in any way? Are we therefore to expect that when it does make a decision on that, we will hear further? Or is this the proposition that you will be putting to this chamber for us to vote on, when we come to it, and you do not have under review any provisions to amend the section?13:54:004252Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—I am not aware of any further amendments that the government is proposing to this section.3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—Have you seen Senator Harradine?WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—Senator Conroy, the debate was proceeding quite well before you arrived in the chamber. It took about one minute and then you started. I thought you might restrain yourself for at least two minutes.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—Minister, could you address the chair and ignore the interjection. It would make life easier.WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—Yes, I will certainly do that. But it may help matters if, when the interjection occurs, you also make a ruling. As I said, Senator Cook, there is a debate occurring and undoubtedly issues will be raised. On the specific matter you raised, I am not aware of any further amendments that the government will be seeking to move to that clause.13:55:004252Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—I have here a press release from the Treasurer, dated 22 January 1999. It is headed `Treasury portfolio—allocation of ministerial functions'. It says:ASSISTANT TREASURER1. Taxation.. detailed design of taxation laws.The reason I ask you whether there is anything out there in the wings is that, according to the Treasurer, you are the person who has, under your responsibilities, the obligation to preside over the detailed design of our taxation laws. You would know if there are any changes, would you not? You would have the ability to rule in or rule out future changes. Are there matters not yet resolved—still under active consideration—which may result in further amendments to this legislation?13:56:004253Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—Thank you for reading out the press release. On the broad policy issues, I think you will find that the Treasurer takes an active and interested role. On those broader issues, you would understand that the Treasurer plays the key role. I responded to your question when I said that, in relation to the issue you asked me about tax avoidance, the government is not considering, at this stage, any further changes to that clause. I think that provides the answer you wanted.On the general issue, I brought forward to the chamber the amendments that the government has felt it needed to finetune the legislation, reflecting the consultation which we have had. I also said, with respect to further amendments, that I do not rule any in or out. At this stage, these are the ones of which I am aware.13:58:004253Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—Let me go back to the press release. It says:The Assistant Treasurer and the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation will have responsibilities in the development, implementation and administration of the policies in the areas set out below.ASSISTANT TREASURER1. Taxation. detailed design of taxation laws.On that basis, Assistant Treasurer, one of the submissions to the inquiry was from the Housing Industry Association of Australia. The Housing Industry Association, if I can summarise their comment, regarded the compensation provisions for home buyers in these bills as not adequate. The HIA's fair compensation has three elements: the first one is the exemption of stamp duty for first home buyers under the First Home Owners Scheme; the second one is a targeted GST rebate on new houses and renovations; and the third one is a mechanism to link the GST compensation to contracted work in the formal economy. They said they were urging the government to accept those changes.They said that they were not in the cart of supporting the government's legislation. But they were not out of the cart either; they were in the `it depends' category. It depended on whether or not the government would remedy its legislation in terms of compensation for home owners as to whether or not the HIA would support your legislation.I make those remarks—they are not germane to my question—as an observation on the way through, because I think your answers are prone to trying to indicate whether submissions support the concept of a broadly based consumption tax or not. They are in the `it depends' category. Dr Silberberg, speaking on behalf of the Housing Industry Association of Australia, said in his submissions to the inquiry:The proposition that HIA puts to this committee, and has put to the government, we consider to be a very fair and reasonable one. We are not asking for additional GST revenue to be forgone. It is primarily a cost neutral set of proposals. Those proposals do not disadvantage the national economy. Indeed, they improve them. In response to your question, I would have to say that HIA could not support the tax package in its entirety were the compensation arrangements for the housing sector not to be amended.Given that your responsibility is the detailed design of tax laws, and accepting your answer, which obviously is true, that the Treasurer himself has an engaged interest in this matter, is the government still considering or has it ruled out entirely any changes to any amendments that we would wish to bring forward that would reflect the concern of the Housing Industry Association that the tax package is not fair to home buyers and to those in the housing industry? Has it ruled that out or in, or is it still considering it? What is the situation?14:02:004253Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—The amendments which the government has brought forward are the package of amendments which we think are appropriate to finetune the legislation, and I hope those amendments will be welcomed. We think that the compensation arrangements for first home buyers are fair and that we have put forward an appropriate proposal. We do not propose to make any changes to those amendments which have been brought forward. We would respectfully have to differ from the HIA on that issue.There has been a pretty extensive public debate, if I recall, almost from day one. I think the HIA had a pretty strong view on what they thought was appropriate compensation. The government has stated its position. We have heard the debate and we believe that our position as originally stated is a fair position. We are not proposing to amend that position in the amendments that have been brought forward.14:03:004254Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—I too, like Senator Cook, am concerned about the lack of clarity in what the minister has been able to inform the committee about. He does not know whether the government is going to bring any further amendments or not or, if he does know, he is certainly not going to inform the committee of that. He will neither rule in nor rule out any option that the government might have.There is an extraordinary lack of detail here. You would expect that, as the committee stage debate begins on such an important package of bills, we ought to be provided with that level of important information because we are expected to debate the detail of the package itself. The government appears to be unable to grapple with some of the detail of its own package. We have serious concerns, for example, about the veracity of the government's figures on the cumulative GST payout to the states, which quickly eroded this week—along with the Prime Minister's credibility on this very issue.Let us cast our minds back to the Sunday program and to what is quickly becoming known as a very notorious interview that was conducted with the Prime Minister, where in a fireside chat on regional television he was caught out misquoting OECD figures and where he also claimed that the states would receive a handsome return from the GST of $20 billion per annum by the year 2010. The opposition quickly realised that the Prime Minister was going, yet again, into Billy McMahon mode. This was real Billy McMahon speak.HX5WOODLEYSenator Woodley—He hasn't got the ears for it, though.5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—This is really Billy McMahon speak if ever I heard it: just quote any old figure at all that comes into your head. That is the Prime Minister's approach, the same as Billy McMahon's: any old figure that comes into your head, grab it out of thin air and quote it, particularly if it sounds like a really big figure, and hope you get away with it. The Prime Minister has not got away with it. The use of slippery figures became a hallmark of Mr McMahon's prime ministership, and I have drawn attention to the parallels between the prime ministership of Mr McMahon and Mr Howard before. I think this same approach really is starting to characterise Mr Howard's prime ministership as well.I think the Prime Minister is becoming arrogant. He is becoming sloppy when it comes to his duty to explain the details of this package to the Australian people. We picked up this $20 billion gaffe about the detail of the tax package in question time in the Senate on Tuesday of this week. Who could forget the embarrassment and humiliation of Senator Alston? Who could forget his embarrassment in that question time on Tuesday, 20 April, when I asked him whether the Prime Minister was wrong on the Sunday program when he claimed additional revenue of $20 billion a year to the states or whether he was wrong last year when he claimed $25 billion over 10 years. You would think it was a simple enough question. The Prime Minister could not have been right on both occasions, and I think the opposition, the Senate and the Australian people are entitled to know whether either of those two figures were correct and which one it was.What did Senator Alston eventually say in reply? Poor old Senator Alston. He struggled through question time, as I think everyone knows, and eventually he scrambled and scrabbled around and found a question time brief and hurriedly read it into the Hansard. He said this:. . . on agreed Premiers Conference estimates, the states will gain around $1.8 billion in 2004-05 and around $2.9 billion in 2005-06. Thereafter, the annual gains will continue to grow as GST revenue grows. Even if the annual gains remained at $2.9 billion, by 2010 the states would be around $17 billion better off in cumulative terms. That sounds pretty much like $15 billion to $20 billion to me.3M6MURRAYSenator Murray—That is how he got the Telstra price wrong.5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—I do not think he got very much right at all, Senator Murray. I know that you try to be objective, and you would probably acknowledge that that is the case.What Senator Alston did in question time was really let the cat out of the bag about the Prime Minister's continually sloppy use of figures. He almost swallowed when he used those three little words `in cumulative terms', because he knew that the Prime Minister had been found out again on the detail of the package. He was exposed again as sloppy, not across the detail, not able to quickly correct the record and, in fact, negligent in that regard.Senator Alston let the cat out of the bag on that occasion. I suppose the opposition did not realise at the time that there were two cats in the bag. We quickly did, because he said also in his answer that the gains to the states by 2010 would mean they would be `around $17 billion better off'. So that meant that the original pie that the Prime Minister quoted last year of $25 billion had been cut by almost a third. We have since found out that the pie is even smaller, and I will talk about that in a moment.Here we are at the commencement of the committee stage of the debate with Senator Cook asking reasonable, responsible and sensible questions about the government's intention in relation to amendments, and we have a government that is struggling already in the committee stage of the debate, proving time and again that it is struggling with the detail of its own tax package. I want to refer to what Mr Howard was asked this morning on the Neil Mitchell show in Melbourne. Mr Mitchell said:Mr Howard, I've seen you describe this as a growth tax for the States. And I saw you, I think it was with Laurie Oakes the other day, saying it could grow to $15-$20 billion a year for the States. Is that right?HOWARD: Well, the amount involved—it will grow to that figure. If I said a year then that was a slip.ZW4SHERRYSenator Sherry—Ha, ha! Big slip! A $20 billion slip!5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—I understand that it was a very sotto voce slip on the Neil Mitchell program, Senator Sherry. He continued:If I said a year then that was a slip. It will grow to about $15-$20 [billion] perhaps a bit more, it's a bit hard to estimate. I've been told by the Treasury that by the year 2005 the States will be $2.9 billion better off than they would have been if the old system, that's the present system, had continued.This interview went on, and I commend the transcript to interested senators. I quote Mr Mitchell again from a bit later in the interview:The way I read this, the GST is not the main growth component of the tax. I mean, you talk about $25 billion, extrapolating $25 billion. Only $8 billion of that looks to be GST and the rest of it, on the figures I've seen, is this non-residential stamp duty.HOWARD: I think we are looking at two separate sets of figures. I think we really are at cross purposes. I'm talking about the fact that once the GST is fully operative, once all the State taxes have been abolished, all of the revenue from the GST, that is the 10 per cent collected all around the country, all of that goes to the States.MITCHELL: And it leaves them $3 billion . . . HOWARD: By 2005 they'll be $3 billion better off than they are under the existing arrangement.MITCHELL: Although they've wiped out all their other taxes? All the taxes . . .HOWARD: They don't get the GST unless they do that.I commend this transcript to honourable senators, because Mr Howard again has been clearly caught out on the detail of his own tax package. That is becoming the pattern. What we are seeing again in this committee stage today is a government unwilling even to provide information to the committee as to whether it will be coming forward with further amendments at a later stage.ZW4SHERRYSenator Sherry—Why didn't Alston own up?5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—I do not know why Senator Alston did not own up; I think he has had a pretty bad week, Senator Sherry, and I think you would acknowledge that that is the case. It is humiliating to have to come into the Senate and correct the record, but ministers are required to do that and, of course, Senator Alston should have.You only get the $17 billion to $20 billion if you keep one of the state taxes the government has been promising to cut since the launch of the ANTS package. You have got to ask, `Which tax is it?' And the only one that comes within the ambit of $17 billion by the year 2010 is the business conveyancing tax—stamp duty on the transfer of a business. Without this tax, the flow-on from the GST alone to the states by the year 2010 will be only $8 billion—less than a third of the Prime Minister's first proposal of a year ago and less than half of Senator Alston's correction on Tuesday.I think we are now in the situation where the Prime Minister has got to explain himself and where the government has got to explain itself on this issue. The great GST growth tax is shrinking rapidly: $25 billion to $17 billion, to $8 billion now by the year 2010. Mr Howard has problems in reading tables. He showed that with the OECD tables, which I thought was very effectively exposed by Senator Cook in question time earlier this week. But here is another table that I would commend that senators read. He has read a total from a table of net budget impact from the year 2005-06 but failed to read from the appropriate table—final budget impact after abolition of non-residential conveyance duty when sufficient surplus available. He has misread another table.Some of my colleagues might not agree with this, but I think the Senate has a lot to thank Senator Alston for. State premiers—Mr Kennett and others—probably have a lot to thank Senator Alston for. After all, Senator Alston has been singularly responsible for exposing this further fraudulent instalment of this massive fraud of a tax package. I have to say this, Mr Temporary Chairman—and I am sure my colleagues in the opposition would agree: this only stiffens Labor's resolve to vote this dodgy and fraudulent package down.14:18:004256Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—In contrast to Senator Faulkner, who seemed to come in quite late, I actually thought the debate got off quite well. He misquoted me, as he often does. The general line that Senator Cook was running was would there be other amendments and would I rule out any further amendments? I said, `The amendments we have brought in reflect the consultations that the government has had. They finetune the bill and they are amendments which we think are appropriate.' As to any future amendments, I said, `I simply cannot rule that in or out. We will listen to the debate as it proceeds.'I did ask Senator Cook whether he could rule in or rule out any other Labor amendments because, as I understood the press, there was some confusion about whether Labor were going to be moving amendments or not. What in fact happened was that we received some Labor amendments this morning. I do not dispute that—Labor are perfectly entitled to move amendments. All I am saying is that it seemed to be in contrast, Senator Cook, to what I understood was being said in the press by Labor spokesmen. Perhaps the press got that wrong.But then I asked, `Will Labor be moving any further amendments?' and I did not receive any answer to that. I think, probably, that Senator Cook will be listening to the debate as it proceeds, and the Labor Party will then make judgments about whether they wish to move further amendments or not. That is the way debate has always proceeded in this chamber. It was a somewhat courteous question from Senator Cook. I hope that, if I did not give him entirely the comfort that he sought, it was a somewhat courteous response.Then in comes Senator Faulkner and bangs the table, saying how hopeless the rest of the world is apart from Senator Faulkner. For the record, Senator Faulkner was the only Labor environment minister to actually lose the environment vote. I was personally very grateful to Senator Faulkner for that. I cannot say that I have an affectionate spot for Senator Faulkner, but I was grateful for that major blunder. Then, of course, we got a torrent of abuse about Senator Alston this and Senator Alston that, then a bit on Senator Kemp and a bit on the Prime Minister—blah, blah, blah—which went on for 20 minutes. If Senator Faulkner or anyone else wants to have a slanging match, we can always have one. But it seems to me we have had plenty of debates on the general issues on the bill. I think this is an important bill and, to my mind, it should be considered very seriously by this Senate chamber.The premiers walked away from the Premiers Conference feeling very pleased with the deal they had received under the package. They were very pleased with the response that the government had made. All the premiers walked away thinking this was an historic occasion, very happy with the package that had gone through. The government was not unhappy to receive the supportive comments that Labor premiers made about the package, and rightly so. Why wouldn't we be?14:22:004257Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—The question put to me directly by the Assistant Treasurer is: has Labor put down all of its amendments to these bills or are there more to come? That was the question. I seek a nod in the affirmative from the Assistant Treasurer, and I receive one. That is the question. The answer to the question is: yes, we have. We have put down all of our amendments. They were in the chamber and distributed before we commenced the debate on these bills.The one amendment that applies to the bill that is before the chair now is an amendment in which Labor wants the legislation changed so that the price of the GST is shown on the retail docket of consumers—that is, when people at the checkout receive their final docket, they will have the price of the good, how much tax they will pay and the total amount they will pay shown on that docket. So they will know how much tax grab there is on one of the goods they have bought in a store, and when there is a service delivered they will know how much tax they are paying on that service when they were not previously taxed on that service. That is the only amendment and, when we come to it, I will move it. The answer is: we do not occupy the position of refusing to rule in or rule out further amendments to the bills now before us. All of our amendments are there and all of our amendments were put down before we started this debate.14:24:004257Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—I want to deal with the amendments issue, which is what we have been focused on since the beginning. Before I do so, I want to remark on the section 165 discussion that we just had. Whilst it is true that we should be very careful of weakening or making loose anti-avoidance compliance provisions and clauses, we also have to be careful of going the other way and having far too authoritarian and dictatorial conditions. One of the real worries we all have with section 165 is that it gives absolute and utter discretion on issues to the commissioner. The question is whether that is properly done. It reminded me, in the authoritarian sense, of something I heard from a South African brigadier in the South African police.In the apartheid era, the people you would have been very wary of and who could be pretty scary people were senior police officers in the South African police. See whether what I am going to quote to you sounds a little like this clause. In regard to some fairly nasty events in the Eastern Cape, this brigadier said, `I deny it is true, but I would deny it even if it wasn't true.' That is what nasty authoritarian people do. That is how they behave. We have to be a little careful with language like this which allows people in a regulatory situation to make a declaration that something that did not happen will happen or something that has not happened has happened. Part of the concern of the parliament should always be to protect the rights and liberties of its citizens.Moving on from that issue, which was raised earlier by Senator Cook, I have two questions relevant to the line of questioning of Senator Cook. The first question is: are we likely to receive more bills which will influ ence the way in which we should view what is already before us? I am aware that in terms of the ANTS package, a new tax system package, there are still due bills on beer and spirits excise, for instance. But I would wish to know if there were new bills coming through which would alter the situation—matters that are relevant to the ANTS package as announced by the government. I know business tax reform is due, but that is over the horizon.Coming back into the amendments arena, I am not overly concerned if the government have more amendments or less or Senator Cook has more amendments or less if they are not matters of substance. I think the real issue that concerns us is: are we likely to see amendments from government which address fundamental matters of substance? Let me explain what I mean by that. The view that is taken on the GST package and this first bill which is before us is profoundly affected by the view that the parliament takes of the income tax cuts and of the compensation package.If the government were to contemplate, for instance, changing its income tax scales as an amendment or, for instance, adding hundreds of millions, maybe billions, of dollars to its compensation package because of the criticism which has come arising from the Senate inquiry and the conclusions of that inquiry and because of the comments by such people so close to the coalition as Dr Hewson, it could profoundly affect the way in which people regard the GST provision. Let us be extravagant. If compensation was boosted by $10 billion—I know that is not possible—everybody might suddenly say, `That makes a difference.' You appreciate the point I am making. If the government is going to come forward with those amendments, it would materially affect the way in which the provisions which affect the poor and disadvantaged in our society are looked at by some senators.The other issue which would affect it is the compliance issue. If the government had decided, for instance, to compensate charitable institutions for the heavy dose of compliance they are now going to get through dealing with the GST issue, it might balance out the kinds of amendments which otherwise would be considered. It is for that reason that, if the government has been subject to and indeed responsive to admonitions for greater compensation from such persons as Dr Hewson or on the compliance side with the business world and the charitable world, we would then need to be advised that that is coming.We do not need to know the details right now, but it does materially affect the matter at hand. What I am talking about here are really matters of substance. Obviously you will have all the leeway you like to add in anything technical. I am not concerned about that, and I look forward to it. But I think that, in relation to those four issues—that is, income tax scales, compensation, compliance costs and whether you intend to widen the GST free arena in any respects—you should signal to the chamber whether the government is considering any amendments of substance in those areas.14:31:004258Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—Senator, in relation to your first remark about protecting the liberties of the people, I think it is vital that parliament has very much uppermost of its collective mind protecting the liberties of the people. So, to the extent that that summarises your argument, I have no quarrel with you there. In terms of the package before the parliament, the government has stated its position on many occasions. We believe this is a comprehensive and fair package. This is the government's position. This is the position which we have put forward, which we went to an election on, which we then translated into legislation, which then was subject to an intense period of Senate inquiry and further public consultation of which we are all aware and which has now emerged for debate in this chamber.I would say to Senator Murray that this is the government's position. The government believes that in relation to the issues you have raised such as income tax scales, compensation and GST free areas we have developed an appropriate, balanced and fair package. If I understand your views, you have stated on occasions that you do not accept that. We have had a vigorous debate up to this time because we in the government and the Democrats differ. I think food is one of those issues where the battle has been joined in the public arena because we do not accept your position and you do not accept ours.Senator, what we have put forward is the government's position. This is what we think is a fair package. I am not aware of any other amendments the government will bring forward. We have brought forward the package of amendments to finetune the bill and we have had some discussion about those with Senator Cook. So, as I said, to summarise, this is the government's position. We believe this is a fair package. Others may hold different views on that, and I am very well aware of the debates which have been run by various senators. In relation to the bills, all the bills which are to be passed by 30 June are in the parliament at present.14:34:004259Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TASIND00—I want to go now to the fundamental question as to whether the legislation, if it is passed, is constitutional. We as legislators do have a responsibility to examine very minutely whether measures that come before us would pass the test of constitutionality. It was for that reason that I raised the issue of constitutionality in my speech at the second reading stage. It is for that reason that I asked a question of Senator Vanstone, representing the Attorney-General, whether the Attorney-General himself had given consideration, since this is a very important piece of legislation, to its constitutionality.Senator Vanstone indicated that she would be referring the matter to the Attorney-General. Of course, Madam President ruled me out of order under standing order 74 for asking a detailed question relating to a matter that was on the Notice Paper. Nevertheless—and I accept that; she was perfectly accurate and correct—Senator Vanstone said that she would pass the question on to the Attorney-General. She also said that I should ask the question of the Assistant Treasurer, who is gracing our presence here today, and no doubt the honourable senator is expecting me to ask this question. I deal merely with two pieces of legislation—that is, the A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Bill 1998 and also the A New Tax System (Commonwealth-State Financial Arrangements) Bill 1999 .I am going to ask the question of Senator Kemp as to the validity of those measures, if enacted. I remind the chamber that section 55 of the Constitution states:Laws imposing taxation shall deal only with the imposition of taxation, and any provision therein dealing with any other matter shall be of no effect.I hope the states are listening to that, and I will come to that point directly. The second point of section 55 is this:Laws imposing taxation, except laws imposing duties of customs or of excise, shall deal with one subject of taxation only;And then it goes on to what happens with laws imposing duties of customs and excise. In respect of that last matter—one subject of taxation only—there does arise a question as to whether the GST bill is constitutional. Might I, first of all, refer to Jeffery Hodgins, whose excellent work Sales Tax in Australia —page 14—states:When the original sales tax legislation was in the process of formulation in 1930, the opinion of eminent Counsel was that it would involve nine separate subjects of taxation. In order to comply with section 55 of the Constitution, therefore, it was enacted in nine consecutively numbered Assessment Acts each with a corresponding Rates Act.Of course, in 1992, three imposition bills were used for the new sales tax, whether or not the drafters of those bills had considered the High Court case in 1992. Nevertheless, sales tax is a single-stage tax on goods only. By contrast, the GST is a multi-stage tax with refunds. The GST bills include many disparate subjects of taxation, including land transfers, services, transfers of intangible property and restrictive governance—surely not a single subject but a number of subjects.The High Court's decision in the Mutual Pools case seems to indicate that the Commonwealth may not be able to make up a subject of taxation entirely as it pleases and that it cannot tax land and intellectual property, for example, under the one imposition act. That is one side of it.What about this arrangement that has been made with the states in respect of the GST rate and the disposition of the GST money, which is very important, of course, to the states? I am indebted to the Parliamentary Library for advice on this particular aspect, and might I just indicate that this advice is in respect of A New Tax System (Commonwealth-State Financial Arrangements) Bill 1999, and reference is made to the case of Nott Bros & Co. Ltd v. Buckley. The advice that I am given says:If Nott is followed, proposed subclause 10(1)—of the Commonwealth-state financial arrangements bill—being an important condition in changing the rate of GST, may be a law imposing taxation for the purposes of section 55 of the Constitution. In that case the other provisions in the Bill may have no effect. The other significant provisions in the Bill which may be invalidated are those dealing with changing the base of the GST, the distribution of the GST revenue to the States by way of grants and the appropriation made to effect the distributions.The next point of the advice that has been given to me by the Parliamentary Library, the Economics, Commerce and Industrial Relations Group. It goes further and states on page 10:Thus proposed subclause 10(1) of the Bill which provides `The rate of the GST, and the GST base, are not to be changed unless each State agrees to the change' could only give the States a veto power by a constitutional amendment following the procedure in section 128 of the Constitution.The states currently do not have a veto power; under the Constitution they cannot have one. I believe the Parliamentary Library is pointing out that that could be done only by way of a constitutional amendment following the procedures under section 128 of the Constitution, unless the government is going to load the referendum with such a constitutional provision. The advice continues:Until that process is gone through, that provision would be of no effect and the Commonwealth Parliament would be able to vary the rate and base of GST without the consent of the States.. . . . . . . . .Thus the provisions in proposed clause 10 , requiring the consent of the States to vary the rate of GST and the base of GST, would not be binding on the Commonwealth Parliament and there would be nothing to preclude the Commonwealth Parliament from unilaterally changing the rate of GST and the GST base.Clearly, they are constitutional questions that need to be examined, and there are ways of dealing with them. But they have been raised. I raised the initial one in the second reading speech and in my question. Now this other issue has come to my attention, and I am grateful to the Parliamentary Library for giving me this advice. So I ask: before long, can we expect from the Attorney-General of this country a seal of approval in relation to the constitutional validity of the bills that are before us?14:46:004260Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—Let me make it clear, Senator: the government has no doubt that the bills are constitutional. Not only legislation of this nature but in fact all Commonwealth legislation is drafted by the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel, as you know.ZW4SHERRYSenator Sherry—What happened to the super tax?WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—I am not aware of that having been challenged.ZW4SHERRYSenator Sherry—It is being challenged so it can be amended, fixed.WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—Is it?WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—Just to get this clear, is bringing an amendment into this parliament the same as a constitutional challenge?Senator Sherry interjecting—WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—Oh dear, I would have thought they were profoundly different, Senator Sherry. But I understand that the Labor Party now supports the superannuation surcharge.ZW4SHERRYSenator Sherry—That is not the issue.WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—I thought that was the issue.Senator Sherry interjecting—WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—Well, it has never been challenged.3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—Why did you bring in the amendments?WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—It has never been challenged. 10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Murphy)—Order!WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—Thank you; I appreciate the chair's intervention. I think that was Senator Sherry creating a diversion. It seems that 95 per cent of his waking hours are spent on the superannuation surcharge.3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—It is 96.WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—He spends 96 per cent of his waking hours on it. Thank you, Senator Conroy, for the interjection.WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—Senator Harradine has raised an important issue to which he has asked for my response. As I have said, legislation is drafted by the Parliamentary Counsel. Where complex issues are involved, the OPC seeks advice from the Attorney-General's Department to ensure that there is no ambiguity. So we are very confident that this bill is constitutional.Senator, if you wish, I would be very happy to arrange for you to be provided—and we could do it in the chamber—with a briefing from our legal people on the bill in relation to its constitutionality. As I have said, it is the belief of the government that this legislation certainly is constitutional. You have asked whether you could receive some written advice from the Attorney-General. It is my understanding that it is fairly rare for written advice to be provided on legal issues. I know there has been the odd exception, but as I understand it the general principle is that legal opinions are not provided often. However, I will look at the particular issue raised by you and seek further advice from the Attorney-General. He may wish to supply some additional information and written advice. But I do add the caveat that that is not a typical view or position taken by the government. In fact, all governments in the past have been loath to do as you request; they have adopted the practice of not tabling legal advices. That is my understanding.A number of more technical issues were raised by Senator Harradine. One I think was the general issue of whether the GST taxes land or intellectual property. The GST does not tax land and intellectual property in that sense. It taxes supplies, which includes supplies of land and intellectual property. `Supplies' is one subject of taxation. You raised another issue relating to the GST base and changing it. I am seeking advice on that.14:51:004261Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TASIND00—While the minister is seeking advice, I will indicate that I did not say that the GST legislation taxed, in the words of Senator Kemp, land and intellectual property. I said that the GST is a multistage tax, with refunds, and that the GST bill includes many disparate subjects of taxation, including land transfers, services, transfers of intangible property and restrictive covenants. That is the purpose of my raising the initial point—that, under section 55 of the Constitution, an imposition bill can only deal with one subject.14:52:004261Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—My understanding is that the fact that it is a multi-stage tax does not go to the core of the legal issue. Each is treated in isolation as a supply. So we think the constitutional provisions are met by the bill. The arrangement in the bill with the states to which you refer protects the states from the Commonwealth changing the rate when the revenue goes to the state. It does not impose the tax. One of the matters which I think you reflected on was whether it was an imposition bill. Again, I make the point that you can rest assured, and the Senate can rest assured, that the government is very conscious in all legislation it brings forward, particularly in bills of this nature, of ensuring that they are constitutional. It is the government's firm belief that they are.14:54:004261Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—Although I shortly want to get back to the questions I was pursuing on the housing industry, Senator Harradine has raised an extremely important point. It is one that, since his speech on Wednesday, I have given some thought to. Perhaps I should make some remarks on this topic at this juncture. The issue that was raised by Senator Harradine in his speech at the second reading stage and which he has pursued today is whether the GST legislation is constitutionally valid. He raised the possibility that the legis lation may not comply with section 55 of the Constitution. Section 55 reads:Laws imposing taxation shall deal only with the imposition of taxation, and any provision therein dealing with any other matter shall be of no effect.Laws imposing taxation, except laws imposing duties of customs or of excise, shall deal with one subject of taxation only; but laws imposing duties of customs shall deal with duties of customs only, and laws imposing duties of excise shall deal with duties of excise only.As I understand the argument that Senator Harradine has put, the GST legislation—specifically the general imposition bill—might be in breach of the second paragraph of section 55 on the basis that it deals with more than one subject of taxation.In order to better understand the role of section 55 of our Constitution, I think it is necessary to say a little about its history. Like all things, our history of this section originates in Britain. Before the middle of last century, the Westminster system placed no limitations on the power of the House of Lords to accept, reject or amend taxation legislation. The turning point came in 1860, with what became known as the Paper Duties Precedent. The Prime Minister was then Henry Palmerston and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, William Gladstone. Both were Tories—Gladstone did not join the Liberal Party until 1867. They ended up provoking a fight with the other house of parliament—that is, the House of Lords—over the issue of tax. One could say that there is some sort of ancient parallel with what is happening here.Palmerston and Gladstone drafted three pieces of legislation—one which increased property taxes, one which increased stamp duties and a third which repealed the duties on paper. The Commons passed all three bills but the Lords rejected the Paper Duties Repeal Bill, thwarting the government's package. The response of the Commons was to pass a resolution to the effect that legislation imposing taxation `is justly regarded by this House'—that is the Commons—`with peculiar jealousy', thereby preventing the Lords from amending the legislation. Such resolutions have a peculiar force under the United Kingdom's constitutional system.The Commons then re-presented their tax package—to increase property taxes, increase stamp duties and repeal paper duties—in a single bill. Unable to amend it, the Lords had to accept or reject all three measures together, and they were forced therefore in this case to accept them. The same principle applied in other British dominions and in the pre-Federation colonies. Arguably, it was justifiable in those cases. After all, upper houses were generally unelected. Unlike this Senate, they had no popular mandate. So it made some sense to limit their power to amend legislation emanating from the lower house.When the founders of the Australian Constitution came to consider this problem, they strove to attain a better balance. Our Constitution entrenches one aspect of the Westminster system. Section 53 reads:The Senate may not amend proposed laws imposing taxation, or proposed laws appropriating revenue or moneys for the ordinary annual services of the Government.Incidentally, because of section 53, the Senate is confined to making `requests for amendments'. I note that what the vast majority of the media and those in this chamber have been calling `amendments' are in fact requests for amendments. The same applies for government `amendments'. Most of those are also requests.But the House of Representatives cannot abuse section 53, as the Commons did to the Lords in 1860. Why? The answer lies in section 55. The Senate, unlike the Lords, is an elected chamber. The constitutional founders therefore put in place a protection, in the form of section 55, which ensures that the Senate should never find itself faced with a composite tax bill. Such a bill would be unconstitutional.There was some debate in the Constitutional Conventions as to what form the prohibition in section 55 should take. At the Adelaide session, in 1897, George Reid, the then Premier of New South Wales, moved to insert the word `proposed' before `laws' in order to prevent the clause from affecting the validity of a law when passed. But the delegates present felt that this was more than a matter of ensuring harmonious relations between the houses. It went to the very role of the Senate. It was concluded that the Senate, if threatened by a composite tax bill which it could only accept or reject, should have the protection of the High Court of Australia. Reid's amendment was withdrawn. If the section 53 gun was held to its head, the Senate might pass a composite tax bill. But the High Court policeman would soon declare the law invalid under section 55. Invalid in part? No, invalid in full.At the Melbourne session of the Constitutional Convention debates, Reid moved another amendment—you start to get the sense that he did not really like section 55. The effect of this amendment was that if a law contained more than one subject of taxation, the tax first in order of enactment should be valid. The amendment was defeated 27 votes to 15. Thus an act embodying a plurality of taxes would be absolutely and completely outside the power of the Constitution.How has the second paragraph of section 55 been interpreted by the High Court? The key words are `one subject of taxation'. In Resch v. Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1942) 66 CLR 198 at 223, Justice Dixon expressed the view that section 55 had only a limited impact. Because of his concern with political relations, he stated it `must be taken as contemplating broad distinctions between possible subjects of taxation based on common understanding and general conceptions, rather than on any analytical or logical classification'. His Honour pointed out that the classification of taxes into categories was common amongst economists and lawyers. But he held that section 55 was not bound by such categories. It was, he found, for the legislature to choose its own subject matter, `fettered neither by existing nomenclature nor by categories that have been adopted for other purposes'.The principle that the parliament can choose its own subject matter was repeated in State Chamber of Commerce and Industry v. The Commonwealth (1987) 163 CLR 329. At page 344, Chief Justice Mason and Justices Wilson, Dawson, Toohey and Gaudron held that the test is whether:the subject matter which is dealt with as if it were a unit by parliament . . . can . . . be fairly regarded as a unit or whether it . . . consists of matters necessarily distinct and separate.In applying that test:the court will naturally give weight to parliament's understanding that its tax act deals with one subject of taxation [and will] not resolve such a question against the Parliament's understanding . . . unless the answer is clear.So the High Court authorities are unequivocal on one point—if parliament thinks an act deals with `one subject of taxation', the court will usually agree. But this assumes that parliament speaks with one voice. In the cases I have referred to, both houses of parliament did speak with one voice. The Senate had not complained that a gun was being held to its head by the House of Representatives. The challenge simply arose because both houses had decided that it was convenient to put slightly different types of tax legislation in the one bill. As there was clearly no abuse of section 53, the High Court agreed with the parliament's view that the legislation dealt with only `one subject of taxation'.But here, there is a strong argument that the government are abusing section 53. As they themselves have claimed, it is the biggest tax reform in Australia's history. We have just undertaken the biggest Senate inquiry in Australia's history to find out the truth about it. And yet the essence of the tax is locked up in one single piece of legislation— A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Bill 1998 . The Senate cannot amend the main provisions of that bill. It must take them or leave them.What does the general imposition bill do? Let me run through its effects. It imposes tax in some way on: personal property—such as sales of food, clothing, books, over-the-counter medicines, shoes, flowers and cars; real property—such as sales of farmland or sales of land that is part of a business; intellectual property—such as sales of copyright in books, films or software, sales of trademarks and sales of patents; and services—such as rent of property for a business, swimming pool entry fees, lawyers' fees, domestic air tickets, theatre tickets, public transport, membership of organisations, sponsorships, sporting grants and body corporate fees.If a challenge to this legislation comes before the High Court, how will `subject of taxation' be defined? Are taxes on real property and personal property different subjects of taxation? If so, this legislation is unconstitutional. Are taxes on tangible property and intangible property, such as intellectual property, different subjects of taxation? If so, this legislation is unconstitutional. Are taxes on goods and services different subjects of taxation? If so, this legislation is unconstitutional.Senator Harradine asks whether this bill deals with more than one subject of taxation. My reply is that it might well do just that. And in case any future High Court seeks to assert that `parliament' was confident that the main GST bill dealt with just one subject of taxation, let me make it clear that that is not the view of at least 28 members of this house of parliament.15:06:004264Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—Senator Kemp, it may help if I add some remarks and then you could encapsulate a response. Minister, when you respond to the contributions by Senator Cook and indeed by Senator Harradine—I think these are matters which both have researched at length and do need a very considered response—I would like to know the following things, and I will deal with a number of matters fairly shortly: firstly, the Democrats were aware of this issue, as no doubt were the government and other political parties because we have all received letters from constituents and concerned citizens in this area.One way in which the High Court could look at this matter, if they chose to do so, would be not only how it was presented to parliament and in what form but also the way in which it was marketed, if you like—through the government advertising to the people, and paid for by taxpayers—because the way in which it was presented to the people may colour the view in which it is held. I would like to know if in your view that matters. I would like to know if the way in which it was dealt with during the election period as a new tax system—in other words, as a grouping of taxes across a wide area—and the way in which it is being presented to parliament matter in your view. One of the things which strikes me about the constitutional provision and the way in which we are dealing with this matter is that all the bills have been presented to us to be debated cognately—in other words, in one lump. They have not been presented to us either at the second reading stage or the committee stage, nor, obviously, at the third reading stage, to be voted on individually and discussed individually. So I would like to know whether you think that dealing with these matters cognately through the Senate makes a difference at all.The other point I wish to have you respond to is that, if the Senate did pass these laws, they were then proclaimed, subsequently challenged and, for instance, the High Court's decision came down in, say, August 2000 and it was that the bills were unconstitutional, would the government be subject to liability? If business had incurred between $1.9 billion and $2.7 billion worth of expenditure to put in the GST hardware and software that is required to manage this new system, and if the High Court declared the laws to be unconstitutional, what would be the liability of the Commonwealth? So they are questions that I would need to have answered as well.15:10:004264Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—It is far from me to speculate on what may or may not be in the minds of High Court judges and what the High Court itself may do with particular issues or whether they would take account of some of the matters which you have raised. I would have thought it most unlikely, as a layman. As I said, what judges take into account is a matter for the judges to determine, but I would be surprised.This debate is interesting because Senator Cook has raised the application of section 55. My understanding, Senator, is that the High Court has consistently refused to give the expression `one subject of taxation' as used in section 55 any narrow or inflexible interpretation. I am not a lawyer, but as Senator Cook went through he cited a number of cases. One was Resch v. Federal Commission er of Taxation (1942) and, in particular, he quoted the judgment by Justice Dixon. He then cited another more recent case. Senator Cook may correct me if I am wrong, but I think he was referring to the State Chamber of Commerce and Industry v. the Commonwealth (1987).The reason I raise that is that Senator Cook, I think, had to accept that in fact the very judgments he raised were actually judgments supporting the view of not taking any narrow or inflexible interpretation. I think that Senator Cook then arrived at the end piece of his argument and said that, effectively, despite those particular judgments and quotations—and you can recall the exchanges we had because I was following the advice and the judgment that Senator Cook had in hand—he thinks that something else may occur.But, essentially, the way I take it, Senator Cook, is that the very judgments and decisions which you cited actually supported the government's position on this, which rather intrigued me. Senator Cook then said that that may be the case but, on the other hand, he did not think the government could take too much comfort from this because they will look at the fact that there are at least 28 people in the Senate who do not happen to agree. Senator Murray then raised a number of other issues which he thought might turn or influence the minds of judges. Senator Murray, I as a layman cannot reflect on what would turn the minds of judges.So, in a sense, Senator Cook's argument basically supports the government's position because by applying the observations that I think he made it becomes pretty clear that the general imposition bill deals with one subject of taxation only. The GST is a broad-based indirect tax which taxes particular transactions between entities, and specifically it taxes the conferral of a benefit by an enterprise on another entity in exchange for a consideration. Upon the enactment it would be pretty clear that parliament believes that the imposition bill deals with one subject of taxation only.In a sense, I was very curious about Senator Cook's argument because the briefing note I have contains exactly the same quotations to support the government's position. Then Senator Cook said, `Well, something else may have intervened and maybe the High Court will take another look at this position. Maybe it will take a look at what the Senate said.' Senator Murray said, `Well, maybe the High Court will take a look at the government advertising campaign.' I am not sure why it would do that, but that is what Senator Murray said. He also said that they may look at the overall tax package.This brings me to my conclusion, which is, essentially, that the reasons that Senator Cook stated for 95 per cent of his argument give comfort to the position that the bills are constitutional. As I said earlier on in relation to some debate I had with Senator Harradine, the government is, of course, entirely mindful of the need to protect bills against constitutional challenge. Great effort is made to ensure that bills are constitutional. Let me assure the Senate that great effort has been made in this case, and that is why we believe the bills are constitutional.That brings me to the final point about speculation. Senator Murray has asked me to speculate on what happens if such and such happens with the High Court and the decision means that these bills are not constitutional. Senator, I would not speculate on that because we believe the bills are constitutional.15:16:004265Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—To pursue the line of questioning I was putting, I think what has prompted real attention to this matter has been raised by Senator Harradine. Senator Harradine is sometimes somewhat jocularly referred to as the father of the Senate, but there is a real seriousness to that matter—that is, he has been here for 23 years. None of us regards Senator Harradine as being a flippant senator. He does not raise issues to be amusing or to be diversionary. He has researched this issue, he has raised it and it requires a serious response because it would be a serious matter, obviously, if something were to be subject to constitutional challenge.The point I made to you is that the Democrats were aware of this issue but we have not pursued it because it is, quite frankly, the government's job to make sure that these things are done properly. However, once we get into committee it is also the government's job to reassure the Senate that it has been properly looked at by people with real constitutional law experience and that they have assessed all these matters. Even if you are unwilling to table the legal advice, we would need to know that appropriate legal advice of the most senior sort had been taken.Let us move on from there and go back to the questions I was asking. The questions I was asking were not speculative at all. What legal cases do is provide a precedent, and what I want to know is: does the way a bill is marketed, in the political sense, both through advertising and through the election process, and in terms of case law which has been established on tax law, affect the way in which the High Court regards these things? The answer is either yes or no because, if it has not before, that question falls away. The second serious question I put to you was: does the way in which the bills are presented to the parliament matter? You have, I think, 27 bills here, of which 16 or 17 are being dealt with cognately. Does that process of putting them together as a group infringe section 55? I would expect your answer to be either: `That has never been raised before,' and therefore you do not know, or, `The case law has established that it is irrelevant.' So it is a serious question, that is all—it is just a protection device.The third serious question I asked was about government liability: what is the precedent for laws which are found to be unconstitutional on a tax basis in terms of imposing potential liability on the government? Either there is none or there is that danger. Again, the reason that I raised that issue is that your own regulatory impact statement says that the cost of implementing this package for business will be $1.9 billion. In my mind, that says you are potentially liable for $1.9 billion if, by some chance, it was found to be unconstitutional. That was not speculative stuff; I am looking for reassurance.15:20:004266Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—Senator, you have posed a number of questions. Let me make it clear: the government believes these bills are constitutional. These bills have been through the appropriate assessments to ensure that their drafting is constitutional, and the government's view is that they are.Senator Cook and I had a frank exchange of cases and, in fact, both the cases were the same and the quotes that we drew out of those cases were the same. The particular quotes that Senator Cook gave for the two cases were ones which I think he recognised at the end of his remarks supported the government's position, particularly the earlier case which quoted Justice Dixon.Senator Cook then went on to speculate what may turn the minds of judges if someone decided to make a constitutional challenge. We present these bills to parliament because we believe they are constitutional. If we did not believe they were constitutional, they would not be presented to the parliament. We have taken every step in the drafting of these bills to ensure that they are constitutional. Let me assure the committee of that position.Senator Murray has asked me what would happen if there was a successful challenge. We do not believe there will be a successful challenge because we believe the bills are constitutional. We would not have presented these bills if that was not the case. So the case which you refer to is not one which the government contemplates, because we believe they are constitutional. If anyone wants to spend a lot of money taking these bills to the High Court, on the advice and on the way we have drafted these bills that would fail. I do not plan to speculate on a hypothetical case in this committee stage. You say it is not a hypothetical case; in my view it is a hypothetical case. I do not plan to speculate on that particular matter.Equally, in relation to the matters that Senator Cook raised, I believe that a fair view of the Hansard will give comfort to the government's position rather than the position that Senator Cook put at the end of his remarks. I will read the Hansard as soon as it comes out, but I am pretty sure I am absolutely correct.15:23:004266Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—I thought I should rise, since my words were being quoted and since I am the author of them, to say a little more on the matter lest my words be misconstrued.WW4KEMPSenator Kemp—Never.RF4Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOK—Never, of course, Minister. That is like one of those never ever promises such as `There won't be a goods and services tax.' For anyone to think that words in this chamber have never been misconstrued is drawing a very long bow indeed.WW4KEMPSenator Kemp—Have you ever misconstrued anything?RF4Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOK—Not in my case, I have not. But I am aware of other examples. Let me work my way through this. First of all, it is my understanding that what the government has offered Senator Harradine, who has raised this question, is a briefing on the matter from the relevant legal authority in the government—I assume that is the Attorney-General—so that the question of the constitutionality of these bills, at least the government's view of them, can be fully canvassed with Senator Harradine. There was an interjection, maybe from Senator Woodley, at that point asking can the chamber have that information because it is in this chamber that each of us as senators are equal. This is an important matter touching on whether these bills have power to proceed or not. It would be useful to get that briefing. On behalf of the Labor Party, I would like to ask: if it is the intention of the government—although I would ask that the government do this—not to do it, would we also be able to get a briefing from the Attorney on the same matters that Senator Harradine has raised on this matter? I imagine other parties would like that as well. I do not derogate from the point that Senator Woodley has raised that it would be appropriate for the chamber at large to get that briefing. But if the government is not going to do that, we would like it.The second thing is that Senator Harradine in his remarks on Wednesday raised a series of questions for the government about the GST legislation. One of the questions was the question of constitutionality. It is a fundamental question as to whether this parliament has the power to enact this legislation at all. I expressed a view to this chamber a moment ago about that and, Minister, you have interpreted it for me. Thank you for your interpretation. But let me insist that, if people really want to know what I have said, they should read my remarks and concentrate on what I said.I will repeat what I said at the conclusion of my remarks. If a challenge to this legislation comes before the High Court, how will `subject of taxation' be defined? Are taxes on real property and personal property different subjects of taxation? If so, this legislation is unconstitutional. Are taxes on tangible property and intangible property, such as intellectual property, different subjects of taxation? If so, this legislation is unconstitutional. Are taxes on goods and services different subjects of taxation? If so, this legislation is unconstitutional. Senator Harradine asks whether this bill deals with more than one subject of taxation. My reply is that it may well do just that. And in case any future High Court seeks to assert that `parliament' was confident that the main GST bill dealt with just one subject of taxation, let me make it clear that that is not the view of at least 28 members of this house of parliament.If I am asked to try to summarise that, I think there are real concerns here. Those real concerns hopefully can be addressed before we conclude our consideration of these bills. It has been suggested to me that it may even be necessary to do that in a committee forum from the Senate. If we go back to the key words `subject of taxation', the title of this legislation is `A New Tax System'. I would regard it as likely—although like you, Senator Kemp, I am not a lawyer either—that anyone who would want to argue that these bills are a subject of taxation might want to point to the title `A New Tax System', which brings all of the legislation together. It points out the fact that this is not just a bill to amend the tax law but to create an entire new system embracing several forms of tax law.I just put it on the record to bolster my remark that there may well be serious prob lems here, and I do not wipe the issue aside. I think the Senate has been assisted by this issue being ventilated, as it was on Wednesday by Senator Harradine. From the Labor Party's point of view, I wanted to get that on the record so that our concerns were clear.15:29:004268Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—Senator Cook, I do not think I misquoted you, because the quotations that you gave were, I thought, as I said before, very similar. You quoted from Resch v. the Federal Commissioner of Taxation and you quoted from the judgment by Justice Dixon, which concluded—and I think this is the exact quote:What is the subject matter of the tax may be gathered from a general consideration of the enactment or enactments in question, remembering, however, it is for the legislator to choose its own subject and that its choice is fettered neither by existing nomenclature nor by the categories that have been adopted for other purposes.Then I think you referred to another judgment, the State Chamber of Commerce and Industry v. the Commonwealth in 1987. Again, you quoted from that. If my memory is correct, one of the quotes that you used was that `in applying the testate above', their Honours—and `their Honours' in this case are Mason, Wilson, Dawson, Toohey and Gaudron—said:Although the court is bound to insist on compliance with the requirements of section 55 so that the section achieves its purpose enabling the Senate to confine its consideration in each case to a taxing statute dealing with a single subject of taxation, in applying the testate above the court will naturally give weight to the parliament's understanding that its tax act deals with one subject of taxation only. This is because the application of the test involves what is in substance a question of fact or judgment. The court would not resolve such a question against the parliament's understanding, with a consequence that the statute is constitutionally invalid unless the answer is clear.Then I concluded from that. I think we were in blazing agreement on the quotations that we exchanged. In fact, we both quoted the same cases. I then went on to say that, in applying these observations to the present matter, we think it is clear that the general imposition bill deals with one subject of taxation only. I went on to say that the GST is a broad based indirect tax which taxes particular transactions between entities and, specifically, it taxes the conferral of a benefit by an enterprise on another entity in exchange for consideration. Upon the enactment of the bill it is our view that it will be manifest that the parliament believes that the imposition act deals with one subject of taxation only and, therefore, that is the position which I put.Where we differ with your position, Senator Cook, and I do not seek to misquote you, is that you say that in looking at what is described as `the largest tax package in Australia's history'—and I have said that many times, so I do not quarrel with you on that—the judges might have a different view. I think that, in a way, there was another development of that argument with Senator Murray. He said that because of the way in which bill was presented to the public, and he mentioned the advertising campaign, the judges may take a different view.RF4COOKSenator Cook—I said, Minister, that you might have a problem with the title `a new tax system', which suggests more than one tax.WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—The government has looked very closely at these issues, and I have quoted you a number of cases which I think give great comfort to the government's position, and they are the same cases which you quoted. But you said that, despite these cases, despite what has been previously decided, the judges might have their minds turned by other factors. So, in summary, you think that there are questions. I do not think you went quite so far as to say that you did not think the bills were unconstitutional; you said, I think, that there are questions. The government has great confidence that these bills are constitutional. If the government did not believe that, we would not have presented them to the parliament. We are aware of these particular questions.Senator Murray, I think, has gone a bit further and has asked me to speculate on what would happen if the bills were found to be unconstitutional. I am not going to speculate on a hypothetical case, because we believe the bills are constitutional. We would not have presented them to the parliament if we did not believe that was the case. Just to conclude, I believe the cases that both Senator Cook and I have used support the government's position and not the position that Senator Cook has put to the chamber.15:34:004269Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEYHX5QLDAD00—I am still confused about what the minister is saying in this respect. I am not sure if he is actually saying he is going to seek any further advice. It seems to me that he is saying that conclusively the government believes it is right. I did hear him earlier in the debate offer a briefing to Senator Harradine, and at that point I interjected that I hoped the chamber would have the benefit of that.6H4HARRADINESenator Harradine—Yes, and that is what I said.HX5Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEY—Yes, I thought you would have, Senator Harradine. The point is that the government could have given Senator Harradine a briefing at any point, because he has raised this both as a question and in a speech in the second reading debate. I cannot understand why the government has not at this point brought a briefing into the chamber, because Senator Harradine gave plenty of notice of these questions, and they are fundamental to this debate.6H4HARRADINESenator Harradine—And tabled it.HX5Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEY—Yes. The reason I say that the time for any private briefings for any of us has passed is that the debate is now here in the chamber, and that is why the answers have to be given here in the chamber. Private briefings are just not applicable. I am sure that is what Senator Harradine's position would be. So that is the problem, Minister. I hope that you will take that away.There is another problem. I do not know if you said that you were not a lawyer; I am not sure what your profession is, Senator Kemp. But if you are not a lawyer and Senator Cook is not a lawyer, I would suggest that we ought not to be depending on either your interpretation or Senator Cook's interpretation. We really do need a constitutional lawyer to give us proper advice. I am not a lawyer either, nor am I a Scribe or a Pharisee, but I think it is critical that we have a constitutional lawyer come back and give this House the information that it needs.10000Woodley, Sen JohnThe CHAIRMAN—Senator Margetts. Sorry, the Minister.15:37:004269Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—Senator Woodley, I did not think you were a Pharisee, I have to say.DX5MARGETTSSenator Margetts—Excuse me; I had the call, didn't I?WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—I am easy if someone wants to speak. But you called me, Madam Chair.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—You were jumping, Minister. I presumed you wanted to answer the question.WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—I do. I wanted to respond to—DX5MARGETTSSenator Margetts—It is on the same issue. I think it would be better if you answered all of them, not just one at a time.WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—That is actually not the case, because there are complex questions which are appropriately raised by every senator. I will make that judgment, Senator Margetts, but it seems to me that if a senator speaks for 10 to 15 minutes and raises a number of issues, they are better dealt with at the time if I can. If we can save time by dealing with them all together, let me say that I would be the first person to do that.DX5MARGETTSSenator Margetts—Madam Chair, on a point of order: if I have got the call, then the minister does not just stand and overrule it. I was actually called to speak.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—Sorry, Senator Margetts; I did call Senator Kemp.DX5MARGETTSSenator Margetts—You actually called me first, Madam Chair.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—But my attention was drawn to the fact that the minister was on his feet so I called him. He is giving his answer that you may or may not agree with. I will call you next and then I intend to call Senator Sherry because he is also jumping, I think, on this issue.DX5MARGETTSSenator Margetts—As am I, on the same issue. 10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—I think there are a number of questions that people want to raise about this issue, and the minister is choosing to individually answer them.WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—As the senator is so keen and enthusiastic to make a contribution, I would be very pleased to hear what she has to say.15:38:004270Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I have actually been involved in quite lengthy committee stage debates on a number of very important and complex bills so far, and I have found that it works better if a number of people make their contribution on a complex issue and the debate is not interrupted by the minister answering each one separately.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—I am not responsible for whether the minister jumps or not, I am sorry.DX5Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTS—Certainly. However, I wanted to simply add that I have also sought advice from a constitutional lawyer, as have many people in this chamber, and I would share the concerns that have been expressed by Senator Harradine, Senator Cook and the Democrats on this issue. We are going to be involved in a very complex range of debates on a whole lot of issues. The government is very concerned about wasting time, and it would be an entire waste of time if what we find in the end is that the bills are not worth a cracker. I do not think they are worth much of a cracker anyway but, if we are forced into this process of going through bills which can clearly be knocked out holus-bolus on constitutionality, it is a waste of everybody's time.I simply wanted to add that the Greens (WA) share the concern and are also seeking advice. The advice so far is that it certainly ought to be looked at—not just for a political debate, but seriously looked at in terms of its constitutionality. If necessary, it needs to be changed so that it is quite clear we are not going to be simply required to waste our time and taxpayers' money to debate a bill which will be thrown out in the High Court.15:40:004270Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—I have stated this four or five times but let me repeat it: the government believes that these bills are constitutional. We would not have brought them into this chamber if there was some doubt. We have had quite an extensive debate on the various judgments and precedents which people are relying on, and the government above all does not wish to waste the time of this chamber. We wish to ensure that these bills have speedy passage. Let me assure you that the government is very mindful when bringing any legislation before the parliament to make sure it is constitutional, and we believe this is. I have quoted a number of cases in my remarks which I believe make it very clear and provide the precedents which certainly support the government's position.Senator Woodley raised the point that he believes the briefing should be here; in a sense, this is what we are currently having. This debate has gone on a bit further than I would have predicted but, nonetheless, there has been an extensive debate. There has been a pretty frank exchange of precedents and court judgments which I believe have supported our position. It is up to this Senate chamber how long it wishes to continue; it is quite entitled to continue this debate if it wishes. To the extent I can assist and respond to questions and get further advice to the Senate, that is precisely what I will do.What does happen is that sometimes senators have a particular interest in a topic which they feel they would like to obtain more information on, and the government is always happy to assist in that area. If Senator Harradine, Senator Cook, Senator Murray and Senator Margetts wish to continue the debate on the constitutionality of the legislation, that is entirely up to this chamber. I would think from what I have stated from the government's position, from what I have stated from the government's procedures and from what I have stated from the various judgments that the High Court has made, I believe you could come to the position which I have made clear—which is, we believe these bills are constitutional.15:42:004270Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRYZW4TASALP00—The matter I wanted to raise does not relate to constitutionality, so I am quite happy not to proceed. I do not see anyone else springing up, so I assume there are no further questions this afternoon on constitutionality. I have two matters, and we are only two or three minutes away from conclusion for this week. I am glad to say that, in this special week that we have had set aside for the GST debate, on Friday after lunch we have finally got to the bills. After much obstruction by the government, we have finally got to debate these GST bills. Our intention on the Labor side is to see these bills, hopefully, defeated.I have two issues. Firstly, while Senator Harradine and Senator Murray are in the chamber, I want to draw to the minister's attention an issue relating to the 128 amendments that he might be able to enlighten us on next week when we resume. The 128 amendments have been presented by you, despite assurances from you on behalf of the government and despite assurances from Mr Costello, the Treasurer, and the Prime Minister, Mr Howard, that this package was fine, it did not need fixing or amending, et cetera.Anyway, there are 128 amendments, and these amendments go to a wide range of issues. Briefly, they go to financial institutions, insurance, reimbursement of employees in respect of imported supplies, nursing homes, free medical aids, farm land sale and the GST, long-term accommodation, the sugar industry—and that is just to name a few of the issues to which these 128 amendments go. Why does the regulation impact statement say that they have a nil or negligible impact on revenue? Surely, if these are significant amendments responding to concerns, they must have some financial impact.Progress reported.15:45:004271Senate adjourned at 3.45 p.m.