1999-04-303912SENATE463701999-04-30The PRESIDENT(Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid) took the chair at 9.30 a.m., and read prayers.Bills4637s2144637Consideration resumed from 29 April.The bill.09:31:004637Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—by leave—I move:(1) Schedule 1, item 3, page 3 (line 23), at the end of subsection (3), add "because of changes of a fundamental, durable and stable nature in the country concerned".[section 37A—reasons for shortened visa period](2) Schedule 1, item 3, page 3 (after line 23), after subsection (3), insert: (3A) If a notice under subsection (3) is published in the Gazette , the Minister must cause a copy of the notice to be laid before each House of the Parliament within 3 sitting days of that House after the publication of the notice, together with a statement that sets out the reasons for the notice, referring in particular to the Minister's reasons for thinking that changes of a fundamental, durable and stable nature have occurred in the country concerned.[section 37A—scrutiny of reasons for shortened visa period](3) Schedule 1, item 3, page 3 (after line 30), at the end of section 37A, add: (6) In this section: country concerned means the country or countries in which the circumstances exist that give rise to the grant of temporary safe haven visas.[section 37A—interpretation]These are the amendments on sheet 1374. As I said yesterday in the second reading debate, the aim of these amendments is to introduce greater transparency into the minister's decision to extend or shorten the temporary safe haven visa. Conclusion 69 of the executive committee of the UNHCR outlines the condi tions under which repatriation of refugees could or should take place. It says:Refugees may only be sent home where a change of circumstances in a country is of such a profound and enduring nature that refugees from that country no longer require international protection, provided that it is recognised that compelling reasons may for certain individuals support the continuation of refugee status.It also says:The executive committee stresses that in taking any decision on application of the cessation clauses based on circumstances, states must carefully assess the fundamental character of the changes in the country of nationality or origin, including the general human rights situation, as well as the particular cause of fear of persecution, in order to make sure in an objective and verifiable way that the situation which justified the granting of refugee status has ceased to exist.It also says:The executive committee underlines that an essential element in such assessment by states is the fundamental, stable and durable character of the changes.Basically, it can be seen that the changes in Kosovo must be of a fundamental, stable and durable character. These are the criteria by which I would like to see the minister make his or her decision and to inform the parliament as to the reasons for such an assessment having been made. I am not saying that the minister will necessarily make a premature decision or one that does not meet the criteria, only that the possibility exists, especially given political volatilities in refugee issues.Indeed, the possibility has occurred in the past. We saw that in 1996 several German state governments commenced the forcible repatriation of Bosnian refugees. Forcible in this case means premature. These refugees had been afforded only temporary protection by the federal government. Even before the German and Bosnian governments signed the repatriation agreement, expulsions began. The move was highly criticised by a wide range of humanitarian organisations, including the United Nations High Commission for Refugees and the United States Committee for Refugees, which called on the German government to postpone the repatriations. They pointed out:Significant barriers to freedom of movement remain. The strong showing by nationalist candidates who have not renounced ethnic cleansing or partition, the uncertainty surrounding the postponed municipal elections and continuing reports of incidents of violence and intimidation all serve as further evidence that forced repatriation is premature.It is even prophetic that in October of the same year, 1996, German and Yugoslav governments signed an agreement to repatriate back to Kosovo ethnic Albanians from Kosovo who were seeking asylum in Germany. They numbered more than 100,000. At the agreement signing in Bonn, the Yugoslav government representative said that deserters from the Yugoslav army would not face prosecutions upon return. All of Germany's high administrative courts that have issued rulings on Kosovo Albanians have rejected the notion that they are subject to persecution as a group.My point is simple. Governments make mistakes. Ministers make mistakes. The cost of making a mistake in this situation is grave, and I would not like to see a similar thing happen in Australia if it came to deciding when Kosovo refugees should return. Requiring a statement by the minister does not mean that a mistake may never be made, especially in individual cases, and I will be moving to that a little later. But it does mean that there is a requirement that at least the minister has to look at the requirements of the UNHCR before making a final decision. I would like to indicate that I am appreciative of the government's willingness to support this amendment—4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—Which one is that?DX5Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTS—Amendments 1, 2 and 3 on page 1374. This is my first lot of amendments. I urge support from the Senate—4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—Are you withdrawing the ones on sheet 1386?DX5Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTS—Perhaps I could deal with that when we get to it, Senator Schacht, but I am still moving it.09:37:004638Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT4J4SAALP00—I have just been asking, by way of kindly interjection, for an indication that the government will support the amendments from Senator Margetts on sheet No. 1374. The opposition has no objection to those amendments. Firstly, on behalf of the opposition I would like to express the view that, although we appreciate and are trying to cooperate with the government's business plans here in this chamber to get their legislation through and we agreed that this be non-controversial, it is clear that this legislation is of an important nature. The fact that there are amendments being moved by Senator Margetts indicates that from the beginning this legislation should have been dealt with in what you would call `controversial time'. There are many issues dealt with by this legislation which some of my colleagues, speaking in the second reading debate, indicated yesterday.Although we are supporting the government—and Senator Faulkner's remarks made it clear we are bipartisan with the government on this legislation—we do believe that, wherever possible, legislation of this nature should from the beginning be considered and debated in normal government business time so that all issues related to it can be considered. Even though the opposition is supporting this legislation, there are still plenty of questions to be asked and some of those were raised by my colleagues Senator Cooney and Senator McKiernan yesterday when they spoke.The fact that Senator Margetts is raising questions and moving amendments today indicates to me that this is more than a non-controversial bill. Other senators who are yet to speak or make comments in the committee stage may express views about this and raise very important questions. I have already taken the opportunity, on behalf of the opposition, to give to the advisers to the minister some questions that we would like—if we can get them—some answers to by the end of this debate, which we have said we will try to finish within an hour. They are very relevant questions seeking information for the Australian public on the issue of refugees from Kosovo coming to Australia.To save time yesterday I did not take my opportunity, as representing the shadow minister for ethnic affairs and immigration, Mr Sciacca, to speak in the second reading debate, but I want to make a few remarks here in the committee stage. Some two weeks ago I had the opportunity to visit refugee camps in Macedonia. I also had the opportunity to speak to four ministers of the Macedonian government and to speak to many Australian journalists and journalists of other nationalities who were and still are in Macedonia covering the awful human catastrophe of what is happening to the people being expelled from Kosovo and consequently becoming refugees.One of the important things about this legislation that cannot be overlooked is that, although it is draconian in one sense because it means that nobody has the right to appeal for automatic refugee status—that being at the discretion of the minister—Mr Milosevic and his dictatorship cannot succeed in ethnically cleansing Kosovo. If it turns out that, because of the humanitarian nature of the Australian people, we are willing to accept 4,000 refugees from that region and that they are able to come here and may well apply to stay here permanently, that will be considered by Mr Milosevic as a victory. And that means that they will not return—or ever return—to Kosovo. That is exactly what he wants.In my visit to Macedonia I had the opportunity to speak to the UNHCR representative there and he made it very clear that, although they very much welcomed the response of the Australian government, opposition and people to take 4,000 refugees, they were in no hurry for those refugees to come to Australia. This was for two reasons. One was that at that stage there had been no proper list compiled by UNHCR of all the refugees who had come out of Kosovo and were in at least 10 camps spread round Macedonia and Albania and they did not want to accidentally further separate family members by ending up having some people from one family sent to Australia, some to Canada, and some to Norway. So, until they had completed the list, had good records and made every effort to keep families together, they did not want people spread round the globe, particularly to places as far away as Australia.The second thing that was made quite clear is that nobody supports ethnic cleansing or giving Mr Milosevic any comfort that he is succeeding in his dreadful program of getting rid of Albanians out of Kosovo. I think we should recognise why it is important to make it clear that these are temporary refugees coming to Australia but who will return to Kosovo. If we give any suggestion that they are going to become permanent residents of Australia, Mr Milosevic and his supporters in Belgrade will give it a great big tick and say, `We have succeeded.'I have to say that while speaking to the refugees in the camps just outside Skopje I came across none who wanted other than to return to their homes in Kosovo. They want to go back and live there for the rest of their lives because that is where they and their forebears had lived for many generations. So we have to make sure that what we do in this parliament with this legislation gives an unmistakable signal that Australia does not in any way support ethnic cleansing, that we do not accidentally give that indication to Mr Milosevic.I want to take this opportunity to also briefly say something about my talking to the refugees. It is often easy to be remote from the agony of these people and those elsewhere in the world, but from the several hours that I spent in two refugee camps talking at random to the refugees I can only say that an unmitigated horror, an atrocity, has been committed against hundreds of thousands of ordinary human beings.These are people who were successfully living their lives in their homes—and, by the way, most of them are not poor peasants. They are not Third World peasants like you would have seen in a Cambodian, Sudanese or Burmese refugee camp; you are dealing with people who are well educated in the middle class/upper middle class who had comfortable lives and had very good houses in places such as Pristina. You are dealing with people who are tertiary educated—I met doctors, psychiatrists, school teachers, technicians and tradespeople—and even those from the farms are well educated and are running successful farms. You are not dealing with a Third World population of illiterate peasants.At a minute's notice, they were told at gunpoint to get out of their homes and go. If they did not go, some of them were shot, some of them were beaten up and some of the women were raped. I have to say that it was extraordinarily difficult to listen to a young woman explain what was done to her by drunken Serbian militia and to know what to say to her as she described the indignity of what happened to her in one particular case.I know it is hard to run diplomacy based on emotion, but I think it would be a good time for all politicians in the national parliament to listen to the horror and the endless stories, although uncorroborated as yet, of mayhem and murder, of people being shot as an example in front of their families, who were told, `This will happen to the rest of you if you do not get out, if you do not leave forthwith.' Most of them were given no more than between one and five minutes to leave their homes. As they left their homes and were marched down the street, they could see the Serb militia pillaging and burning their houses.There were extraordinary stories of children under five years being taken from their families, who were told `If you don't pay us all the deutschmarks you have, you will never see your child again. You will have to buy them back in an auction.' This is what ethnic cleansing really means. It is not a purely theoretical thing that is devoid of what happens to people. It is dreadful. We must make sure that this parliament gives an unequivocal statement that we will never support ethnic cleansing, and that we will never support countries being based on only a racial, ethnic or religious nature.President Clinton, two weeks ago in America, made a very important statement when he said that the Balkans cannot survive as a series of tin-pot countries, ethnically cleansed, with only one small pure ethnic group in each of those countries. As he said, we have to support multi-ethnic democracy in the Balkans because, if you do not, you would have to keep dividing the Balkans into smaller and smaller pure ethnic groups, and that would mean dividing every village and every town. That would not work, and in the long run we would leave a dreadful example.Mr Milosevic makes it clear that he wants a greater Serbia. Ironically, he is creating a smaller and smaller Serbia by saying, `We want only a pure Serbia.' There is an opportunity in this bill for the parliament to say, `Yes, we are responding in a humanitarian way, but the refugees will go back to Kosovo,' even if it means for a generation that the United Nations—NATO and European countries in particular—have to have a peacekeeping force in those places to ensure that there is no more ethnic murder—no more ethnic cleansing.There has been criticism of how countries like Macedonia and Albania have dealt with the refugees. In one week, nearly 200,000 people crossed the border into Albania. In proportion to the population, that is the equivalent of 1.8 million refugees arriving in Australia in one week. How do you think any Australian government would respond to that number of refugees arriving—being dumped—in our country within a week or two?Other issues we have to deal with, which I do not have time to cover today, include the impact on countries like Macedonia, which is petrified—I have to put it as strongly as that—that it will be destroyed; that one way or the other it will be ethnically upset. They have a 25 per cent Albanian population, and there are ethnic Albanians in the government. They have been successful in Macedonia in establishing a multi-ethnic democracy—with many difficulties, I will admit. If they end up with two or three hundred thousand permanent Albanian refugees in Macedonia, the strain—both economically and socially—on the country will be immense, and they are worried it may draw them directly into the conflict. For example, one of the things I can see happening is the Kosovo Liberation Army operating out of the refugee camps in Macedonia. The Serb militia could come over the border and start fighting in Macedonia, chasing down the KLA, and thereby overturning the Macedonian government.There are really important issues to consider. I understand the need for this bill to be passed quickly, to which the opposition has agreed, but to say that it is non-controversial and that we should have a restricted time for debate is incorrect, even though there is a very crowded agenda and other bills might appear to be more important. When we are dealing with the futures of several hundred thousand people who have been turned out of their homes in horrifying circumstances, it ought to be debated. We are willing to take refugees temporarily, and that issue ought to be given more time for debate.I think many more senators would, in one form or other, like to take the opportunity to express their views. Therefore, although the opposition support this bill—and have supported it from the beginning because we understand the humanitarian nature of the issue we are dealing with—we also cannot give a signal to Mr Milosevic that his ethnic cleansing campaign is in any way going to succeed based on the humanitarianism of the Australian parliament and the Australian people to help these Albanian refugees. If we do take 4,000—or any number—let us make it clear that we want them to go back to their original homes, farms, towns and cities where they have lived successfully for many generations. That is the best way to defeat Mr Milosevic and his evil of ethnic cleansing.09:51:004641Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEYSF4VICALP00—I have something to add to what Senator Schacht has said. He was there recently, and the image he gave of people just being cleaned off the street, of coming home and having a minute to get out is a very evocative one. These are people, if they come here, that we can clearly identify with because it would be as if somebody had taken us off the streets of Canberra, Melbourne, Adelaide, Sydney, Perth, Darwin, Brisbane, Hobart or any other city and put us where we did not want to be.The bill will make it possible to bring those people here. It is a good bill and one that we all agree upon, to the extent that it allows that to happen, but it has what I see as a difficulty. We are saying in the bill that if any of these people for any reason want to stay or need to stay here there is a process to enable them to do that. It is a different process from the one that generally operates through the migration system because this system will be arbitrary in the sense that it depends upon the decision of a minister and it is not subject, as it should be, to what I call quality control.I ask the parliamentary secretary: do the provisions for decision making in this bill, and the way that they can be reviewed, anticipate a debate we have not had yet but which to some extent is suggested by the Migration Legislation Amendment (Judicial Review) Bill? It seems to me that we do have a problem if we have these people, tortured as they have been, ripped from the place where they want to be, brought here and for whatever reason if they need to stay beyond three months, six months or ultimately to settle here, why is it that we do not have provisions that allow the decision making to be overseen by a process, either quasi-judicial or judicial?09:54:004641Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT4J4SAALP00—I want to put on the record questions that I hope the minister can answer by the end of the committee stage. We have already given the questions to the adviser, but I want to quickly read these questions into the Hansard because I think they sum up many of the issues that are of concern to the general public. Firstly, can the minister give details of the selection criteria to be used by the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and UNHCR in the selection of temporary safe haven candidates?LI4PATTERSONSenator Patterson—I will be going through them one by one.4J4Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT—You will read out the questions?LI4PATTERSONSenator Patterson—Yes.4J4Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT—There are 13 questions but, in that case, I will not read them out. I want to say that by the end of the debate we would like the questions to have been read out and the answers to have been given, otherwise it will be nonsensical for people reading the Hansard , and even for the record of this debate. So at this moment I will not go any further in reading them out.09:55:004641Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—In speaking to Senator Margetts's amendment, which I understand is being supported by the government, I would like to formally indicate the Democrats' support for it. As I mentioned briefly during my second reading contribution on this legislation yesterday, it is of benefit to at least require the minister to have reference to some specific criteria in making his decision to enable people's visas to expire or to reduce the length of their safe haven visas. To that extent we do see it as an improvement. Nonetheless, we do still have concerns that the scope of the power the minister has to require people to be sent back to their country of origin is still extremely wide and not subject to appeal or any sort of review, and that it does not fully require consideration under the guidelines outlined by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.Certainly that the country itself be safe to return to is important and obviously we would not want to send people back while bombs are still falling or there is still widespread conflict happening. One would assume that the government would not do that. But it is important to again acknowledge the individual circumstances of refugees and the fact that it is not simply a matter of the bombs having stopped falling or the killing having stopped. People may still have a well-founded fear of persecution, and indeed the conclusions of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees specifically emphasise that that type of cessation of refugee status still should not apply to refugees who continue to have a well-founded fear of persecution. That can be for any number of reasons. People may well have a fear for their safety despite the immediate intensive conflict having ceased, they may well not have a family to go back to, they may well not have a home or indeed a town to go back to. Those broader requirements and the broader conclusions of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees do need to be taken into account before any person is returned to their country of origin.Of course, technically, as I said yesterday, under this legislation people coming here under a temporary safe haven visa will not be refugees in the legal sense of the word and that, in a sense, means the government does not have to apply the UNHCR guidelines. But I am sure all of us would acknowledge that in reality virtually all of them would quite easily fit the definition of a refugee and that it is only because of the government's insistence on this assistance being only temporary that the need to refer to the guidelines of the UNHCR is less pressing. Nonetheless, as I say, Senator Margetts's amendment is a positive one and we do support it.I would mention briefly as well that—similar to Senator Schacht and in the interests of enabling this debate to proceed more quickly—as we have discussed with the government a couple of times, we will be putting in a number of written questions which I believe are important to have on the record as to the details of how these temporary safe haven visas will operate if, at some stage in the future, people are brought into the country under this legislation. Hopefully, we will get prompt responses from the minister on those.10:00:004642Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT4J4SAALP00—I listened very carefully to what Senator Bartlett said. I want to emphasise that, if we suggest in any way that people will not be returned to Kosovo because they could claim that they have a well-founded fear of persecution—even though the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and the European Community have said that a peacekeeping force will be present on there being a peace settlement; obviously things will still be not the way they were before the people were kicked out—that is only going to encourage Mr Milosevic to keep the pressure up and keep disturbances going in Kosovo to create the circumstances where people will claim they cannot go back or it is difficult for them to go back. That is the exact way this man is operating.We are not dealing with a rational human being who is interested in the United Nations charter of human rights. We are not dealing with a rational human being who believes that the judicial processes of Australia are there to help individual refugees. He wants to use our judicial process to make the point that they will not go back. You cannot say in this circumstance that the normal procedures work, because you are not dealing with a normal rational human being or administration. The refugees will tell you what they are dealing with. They are dealing with irrational madness that is killing them. That is Milosevic's policy.I want to emphasise that, although Australians are rational people who will debate endlessly the role of how to handle refugees and the well-founded fear of persecution, that is the exact situation Milosevic will exploit so that people will not go back. So, if we have 4,000 Kosovo refugees here temporarily, they will all appeal and all apply to be here permanently, and that will be a big tick for Milosevic. We cannot give him that big tick, that victory. Although I have always had an interest in human rights and refugee issues, I know that, politically, if we allow our well-meaning concerns on human rights, civil processes and judicial review to operate, Milosevic will laugh and say, `Beauty, I have won. The Australians have fallen for the three-card trick. They will keep those refugees forever. I do not have 4,000 coming back.' If that happened all around the Western world, he will have ethnically changed Kosovo forever into being a Serbian area, or he will be able to divide it and keep at least half for himself. That is why I emphasise that the discretion in this legislation is necessary.Can you imagine any minister—even a Liberal minister in a Liberal government—trying to force people back secretly? If any refugee was sent back against their will—because they were very scared that there was not a proper peace settlement or arrangement through the UN or the European Community to have a peacekeeping force there to maintain the peace—there would be such a debate in Australia and in this place the minister would end up being sacked. The major protection here is that if a minister used his discretion to force these refugees back into Kosovo, long before a peace settlement was reasonably reached and those rules had been established, there would be outrage in the Australian community. In this case, publicity and the issue itself is so important that no minister could use these rules of personal discretion to force refugees back. I cannot imagine a majority of senators sitting by—I certainly cannot imagine any opposition senator sitting by—and allowing a minister to use his discretion to force people back early. I cannot imagine that of any Democrat, Green or Independent senator who has an interest in this area. I suspect there are a large number of government senators also who would jump up and down. I think that is the major protection.So, although this might appear to be a draconian piece of legislation in the sense that people's right of appeal is being removed from the normal refugee status, the minister has that broad discretion. He should have that discretion. And he should be held to account if he mucks it up, if he makes a mess of it. But let us make sure that, in the legislation itself, we are telling Mr Milosevic these refugees will return to their homes. They will hopefully return within six months as the legislation says, but if they need an extension for another six months then so be it. But we should never say outright that they are permanent residents of Australia, that they will be here permanently and the whole 4,000 can stay.DX5MARGETTSSenator Margetts—Who is saying that?4J4Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT—I am not saying you are, Senator Margetts. All I am saying is that Mr Milosevic wants that position to occur. I do not want in any way to be part of indirectly supporting Milosevic and his evil policy of ethnic cleansing. That would be to say that he has succeeded, that he may have lost politically but ethnically he has succeeded as the refugees will never return.10:06:004643Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSONLI4VICLP10—To say that the Migration Legislation Amendment (Temporary Safe Haven Visas) Bill 1999 , which we debated at lunchtime yesterday, is non-controversial is stretching the friendship a little. We all know that lunchtime on Wednesday is a time when we can discuss these bills. In an attempt to get this bill through, we sought the cooperation of honourable senators and we received it. There was an attempt to get it through at lunchtime, but obviously, because it is a bill of great importance, it is taking us a little longer. But the government was not really saying, in that sense, that it is a non-controversial bill; we were just seeking the cooperation of the Senate.I know that the minister's staff have offered all honourable senators briefings over and over again. I know people have taken advantage of that and I appreciate that. The minister's staff might have been able to answer some of these questions during those briefings, but Senator Bartlett has indicated he is willing to put questions on notice. I have made a commitment to Senator Bartlett that those questions will be answered before the bill goes back into the House of Representatives, which I presume will be in that week of the budget as early as possible. I have made a commitment that those answers will be back by 11 May. I appreciate Senator Bartlett's cooperation in giving me those questions and will do everything in my power to ensure that he has those answers. I have a commitment from the department and the minister that they will be answered by that date.The question asked by Senator Barney Cooney was fairly well answered by Senator Schacht. Obviously, there will be a debate about that issue and we could probably stay here all day debating the rights and wrongs of that issue. Obviously, even on the opposite side there are slightly different points of view, but the most important thing for us to do is to assist the people whom we have committed to assist, if and when UNHCR indicates that they require us to take the 4,000 refugees we have committed to.Senator Schacht gave me a list of questions and I will go through them as quickly as possible. I think these questions were asked in conjunction with Senator McKiernan.4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—Yes. They are Senator McKiernan's.LI4Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSON—Senator McKiernan is asking these questions. Question 1: can the minister give details of the selection criteria to be used by the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and UNHCR in the selection of temporary safe haven candidates? That is set out in the Kosovo safeguard regulations item 448.2. They are in those regulations. Question 2: what amendments will need to be put in place to extend the six-month visas, if such an extension is needed in six months time? The answer is: a simple Gazette notice by the minister.Question 3: where in Australia will the temporary safe haven visa holders be domiciled? This is still under discussion, but initially they will be domiciled in East Hills army facility in Sydney and in Brighton in Tasmania, unless some of those people have relatives here with whom they wish to reside. Question 4: will temporary safe haven visa holders be housed or domiciled in military camps and installations? The answer is: at this stage, yes, but they will not be required to. As I said, if they have family or relatives here, they will of course be able to stay with them.4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—But they are the only two camps, East Hills and Brighton? We are not using Woomera and things like that?LI4Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSON—The advice I have is that the East Hills army facility and Brighton in Tasmania are the two at the moment. A final decision on other locations has not been made. Question 5: what is the estimated cost of providing accommodation in military facilities for the 4,000 proposed temporary safe haven visa recipients in Australia? I should take out the phrase `in military facilities', because obviously some will be with family. I will re-phrase that question: what is the estimated cost of providing accommodation for 4,000 proposed temporary safe haven visa recipients in Australia? The answer is: the estimated cost at the moment is $70 million for three months. Canada has estimated that the cost for 5,000 people for six months will be $Can100 million. They are operating in the same sort of ballpark.Question 6: what is the estimated cost of assisting community organisations to provide accommodation to the proposed 4,000 temporary safe haven visa recipients in Australia? We do not actually have an answer to that question. As honourable senators realise, these questions were actually given to us in the chamber and we do not have an answer. We will take that on notice and I will give the same commitment to the opposition that we gave to the Democrats, that we will get an answer back by 11 May before the bill goes into the House of Representatives.Question 7: what is the estimated cost of providing medical and educational services to the proposed 4,000 temporary safe haven visa recipients? Question 8: what is the financial impact of this bill? Question 9: what are the estimated costs of transporting temporary safe haven visa holders to Australia? Question 10: have any moneys been allocated for torture and trauma counselling and other counselling services for temporary safe haven visa holders? Question 11: if, yes, how much? We do not have a breakdown of those questions here in the chamber at the moment. We will take those on notice and give them to you in the same time frame.Question 12: will the minister give the Senate an assurance that funds already allocated to settlement services for refugee and humanitarian visa holders not be redirected to temporary safe haven visa holders? The answer that I have been given is, yes, the assurance will be given that funds already allocated will not be redirected. Questions 13: in the event of the visa being issued, when will the operative date commence? The answer to that question is: on the date of grant. They are the answers to those questions.10:13:004645Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT4J4SAALP00—I appreciate the minister's quick response to the questions that Senator McKiernan prepared for the opposition. There are two things that come from these questions which we want to comment on. We appreciate that some of the answers could not be given. It is only reasonable that you take them on notice, and you have said the same to Senator Bartlett.There are two issues that we want to make clear. You have said that so far only two Army establishments are being considered, East Hills and Brighton in Tasmania. We do not have any objection to those as a temporary measure. We have made it clear that we thought using a place like Woomera was a bit odd. I have been to Macedonia and I understand the countryside there is very similar to the countryside in Kosovo. You would be taking people from that rather green and over-wet environment and putting them into Woomera within a 24-hour period. We have had plenty of desert experience in South Australia, but I do not think that anybody in Kosovo has had a desert experience in their lives. If they woke up the next morning and found themselves looking out over the Woomera gibber plain, they might suffer a bit of cultural shock.Secondly, it is something like 600 kilometres from Adelaide and remote from any of the Albanian communities and other organisations who may wish to assist them. So we would certainly not support those sorts of military bases being used temporarily. Wherever possible, we encourage the government to put people with the Albanian community already in Australia. That would be, in humanitarian terms, a very sensible thing to do.There is another issue I wish to comment on. The minister has estimated that, for three months, it would cost $70 million to bring the refugees here, keep them here and then send them back. And, if there are to be time extensions of six months, the cost would be multiples of $70 million or thereabouts. The opposition supported the government when it announced $6 million worth of humanitarian aid to Care Australia, UNHCR and International Red Cross.I take this opportunity to congratulate and commend the Care Australia workers who I saw running one of the major camps outside Skopje. We can all be overwhelmingly proud of the work these Australians are doing. But I want to ask, Minister, that if we do not take 4,000 refugees—if we are not asked to take any—will the government consider using some or all of the $70 million they are willing to spend to have them in Australia as future money for economic rebuilding in Kosovo when the refugees go back?This $70 million, or a proportion of it, is going to be needed to rebuild the homes that the Serb militia have destroyed. This is a large amount of money, and it is a significant amount of money compared to our AusAID budget. If we do not have to spend all of the $70 million in Australia—we have no objec tion to this and commend the government on having made this amount of money available—or if some of it or all of it is not spent, we would like some of this money spent as our commitment, in a humanitarian way, towards resettling the refugees in their original homes.10:17:004646Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSONLI4VICLP10—I do not remember whether I referred to Senator Margetts's amendments, but I want to say that the government will be supporting her amendments 1 to 3.With regard to where the refugees would be housed after they have been in the East Hills army facility in Brighton, that decision, as I have said to Senator Schacht, is still being finalised. Because each state would like to be involved, we have to take that into account. Those decisions are still being made and, as soon as they are finalised, I am sure the minister will advise the relevant people in the opposition and those people who have taken part in the debate today.With regard to the commitment of the $70 million if the refugees are not brought to Australia, I think it is difficult to make any sort of commitment. It is within my minister's portfolio and then comes into another minister's portfolio, but I will draw the attention of both ministers to your comments.10:19:004646Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TASIND00—I support the set of amendments currently before the chair made by Senator Margetts. The Migration Legislation Amendment (Temporary Safe Haven Visas) Bill 1999 is a heartfelt response by this government to the crisis in Kosovo and welcome news. However, I suppose it is understood around the chamber and, of course, by the government that the desire of those who have been forced out of their homes and homeland is to return. I believe that the aid and the diplomatic and other measures ought to be directed to that return. I think we all agree with that.This is, of course, going to be costly in terms of human cost—that is to say the transfer of some of the refugees to Australia will be at a human cost, perhaps dividing families, although I understand that department officials and the UNHCR are endeavouring to ensure that families are not split up. There is also a financial cost and one wonders whether that financial cost would not be better served in assisting the organisations, both non-government and government, on the ground there. A huge number of Australians have made personal contributions to those non-government organisations that are working in the area. There is some extremely good work being done—for example, the work of Caritas, and Care Australia has already been mentioned. I am also well aware of what is going on—the email is very handy—and I have a godson who has been in that area for a couple of years.I will support the legislation. It is a heartfelt gesture and I am sure the government understands the desire of these people to return to their homes.10:22:004646Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—I need to respond to a couple of comments that Senator Schacht made. I will be as brief as I can. Again, I acknowledge the government's willingness to respond to the various questions that I have submitted to them, all of which are important but a few of which are of particular importance. The UNHCR executive committee's general conclusions on international protection are very important and need to be acknowledged in any debate on refugees. Going back to some of the comments of Senator Schacht, one is a strong emphasis on the need to ensure respect for the voluntary nature of any repatriation movement. That is a key question and a key issue that must be identified and emphasised.A number of people in the community have suggested that we should offer only temporary assistance because otherwise we would be playing into the hands of Milosevic and his ethnic cleansing. I certainly understand the concept behind that, but the reality of acting in that way is to dehumanise these refugees even further and to treat them simply as pawns in the political game between Milosevic and those who are trying to stop what he is doing. Of course they would want to return home. Everybody wants to return home. Unfortunately and very sadly these are not the only refugees in the world. I am sure all of those others would have liked to have returned home as well, initially, but the sad reality is that often that is not possible. Serbs at the moment are not exactly flavour of the month, but it needs to be emphasised that 100,000—4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—Milosevic, not Serbs. Separate the two. I never attacked the Serb people. It is Milosevic.DT6Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETT—I did not say you attacked the Serb people.4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—You said Serb people are not flavour of the month. It is Milosevic that is not flavour of the month.DT6Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETT—I think it is a reasonably accurate statement to say that Serbian people as a whole, in media treatment at the moment, are not exactly flavour of the month. It needs to be emphasised that there are still hundreds of thousands of Serbian refugees from previous conflicts in the Balkans. I am sure all of those would have liked to have returned home. But to say that their not going home is somehow or another a vindication of the actions of those that pushed them out of their original place of residence is a silly statement. To say basically that we must refuse, on this particular occasion, the right of these refugees to have any choice themselves in their own future—for them to decide whether to go home—purely on the grounds that to do otherwise will make Milosevic happy is also a silly statement. We should be leaving the choice up to them. I am sure all of them would like to go home and hopefully that will be able to happen. But it is quite possible that it will not. That choice should be in their hands. They have already had their futures destroyed and lost control over their own lives. I think we need as much as possible to give them some control over their own future. That is one of my concerns with only offering temporary assistance. I seek leave to incorporate the questions that I was going to provide the minister.Leave granted.The document read as follows—Questions to the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural AffairsThese questions relate to matters connected with the Migration Legislation Amendment (Temporary Safe Haven Visas) Bill 1999The Minister's second reading speech stated that this Bill is "in addition to our commitment to work with the UNHCR to assist through permanent resettlement those people who may not be able to return to Kosovo". What specific measures is the Australian government taking to assist with permanent resettlement of these people?Why has the Australian government refused to increase the size of our permanent refugee intake as part of this assistance to the UNHCR?Is it the case that a holder of Temporary Safe Haven visa will not be able to appeal against any decision to shorten or cancel their visa in the High Court? Has the Minister received legal advice confirming that no appeal would be possible?What criteria will be used in assessing people's suitability for a Temporary Safe Haven visa? Will potential recipients be specifically advised that receiving a Temporary Safe Haven visa will specifically preclude them from being able to apply for refugee status in Australia whilst they are in the country? Will people with existing connections with people in Australia be less likely than others to be granted a Temporary Safe Haven visa?Can the Minister provide details on how the humanitarian aid being provided by the Australian government is being utilised?Item (h) of the United Nations High Commission on Refugees Executive Committee's Conclusion number 65 points to "the responsibilities of states to resolve refugee situations and, especially with respect to countries of origin, to eliminate causes of refugee flows." What contribution is the Australian government making in this regard?In response to a Question Without Notice the Minister indicated that "overseas posts process applications (for Humanitarian Program Visas) as a matter of priority" Where are such applications being processes? Are there any Australian government facilities in Albania or Macedonia to receive and/or process such applications?The government has previously indicated that Temporary Safe Haven visa holders will only receive medical and other assistance at the specifically designated government residences. What will happen is a visa holder is out in the general community (e.g. visiting people or on a day trip) and gets sick or injured in an accident? Will they be required to be transported back to the designated residences to receive treatment? Will any educational or other courses be provided to the Temporary Safe Haven visa holders whilst they are in Australia? If so, what?What other countries outside Europe have also offered temporary asylum to people displaced from Kosovo? Which of these have also restricted the ability of such people to apply for permanent refugee status whilst they are receiving temporary asylum?Will the Australian government be providing Temporary Safe Haven visa holders with identity cards or other documentation?How many people from Kosovo displaced due to the current conflict are believed to be within Kosovo and how many are believed to be within Serbia? How many Serbian refugees are there still within Yugoslavia as a result of previous conflicts in the region? What measures are being taken by the international community to ensure their safety?Is the government aware of reports that degraded uranium is being used in weapons in the current conflict? Are these reports accurate? What are the possible long-term environmental and health consequences of the use of such weapons? Has the government any information about the possible environmental and health consequences of other aspects of the current conflict?Is it the case that involuntary repatriation of refugees is against international law? It is when they are refugeesHow the does the approach being applied by the Australian government to the proposed 4000 Kosovo refugees differ from what was proposed under the refugee policy of the One Nation party released prior to the last federal election?In what ways do the powers for cancelling a Temporary Safe Haven visa on character grounds differ from those which already exist in the Migration Act? What is the rationale for these differences?Does the Temporary Safe Haven legislation bypass the Refugee Convention?Isn't it true that it is the desire to maintain the 12,000 quota that has led to the 4,000 places being dealt with as Temporary Safe Haven?Isn't it true that the cost of settling the Kosovo refugees temporarily, far exceeds the cost under the normal refugee program?DT6Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETT—I thank the Senate. There are some important issues in there. They go back to my overall comments about the importance of the totality of the UNHCR's conclusions on international protection. Another of those items points to the responsibility of states to resolve refugee situations and especially, with respect to countries of origin, to eliminate causes of refugee flows.Whilst it may seem that this is a conflict on the other side of the world and there is not much we can do about it, the fact that Australia is not part of the conflict puts us in a position of being able to make moves to try and resolve the conflict to break the cycle of violence before it escalates even further—which I have great fears it is going to do. It is important to emphasise that that is a responsibility that we all have to try to work not just to deal with the consequences of what is happening but to actually stop it and stop the cycle of violence. I, for one, am certainly not convinced that, the way things are going at the moment, we are going in that direction at all.Another important issue that needs to be considered in relation to the whole concept of whether or not people will be able to return home is what they will be returning to. That involves not just destruction of their villages and killing of their families but also indeed the very state of the environment that they are having to return to. Another question amongst those I have asked is: what details have emerged about the actual long-term environmental and health effects of the existing conflict? There have been a lot of reports in Western media about the use of depleted uranium in weapons. That has been alleged to be possibly responsible for Gulf War syndrome. Obviously in terms of the people there that are on the receiving end of these weapons, which includes ethnic Albanians as well as Serbs, what long-term health and environmental effects is that sort of activity going to have? Would we be again sending people back to an unsafe environment in the sense of a poisoned environment?We have all seen the burning petrochemical plants, et cetera. Certainly there are reports of severe pollution of the rivers in the area. If we are expecting people to go back to somewhere safe, then we need to ensure that it is safe in the long term. Also, if action is being taken by any side in the conflict that increases that widespread environmental damage—an action which according to the Human Rights Watch is against the International Law governing the rules of war—then we as a country need make strong attempts to identify that, acknowledge that and prevent it from getting worse.Acknowledging the reality of what is happening on all sides is a crucial component of being able to move forward. That was one of the key points that I heard made by a World Vision representative yesterday at a briefing dealing with the report that my colleague Senator Stott Despoja tabled in the Senate yesterday. It is important that we do not just look at dealing with the consequences of what is happening; we cannot disconnect that from the causes of this refugee flood. We need to do what we can to try and prevent it continuing and prevent the cycle of violence and similar atrocities happening in the future.Amendments agreed to.10:31:004649Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—by leave—I move:(1) Schedule 1, item 7, page 5 (line 3), omit "it is in the public interest to do so,", substitute: :(a) it is in the public interest to do so; or (b) it is in the interests of a particular non-citizen to do so, having regard to any compelling reasons arising out of previous persecution of the non-citizen in the country concerned;[section 91L—individual circumstances](2) Schedule 1, item 7, page 5 (after line 35), at the end of section 91L, add: (7) In this section: country concerned has the meaning given by section 37A.[section 91L—individual circumstances]These are the amendments to which I briefly alluded earlier. I apologise to the committee for the fact that these amendments were introduced later than the first ones. I believe that these amendments raise an important issue. I would like the committee to consider the issues, and at least have them on the record.As it stands, provision has been made for the minister to allow a holder of a temporary safe haven visa to apply for permanent protection. I congratulate the minister for the fact that some provision has been made. However, the measure does not go far enough. The minister will only need to consider a person's request in terms of it being in the public interest. This excludes from the minister's deliberations persons who, for individual reasons of previous persecution, may wish to apply for permanent protection in Australia.It is not good enough to make a decision that the visa is no longer valid and for all persons, except for some in the public interest, to then be sent home. Some individuals may have overwhelming, compelling reasons for not wanting to return home, even if, in the minister's assessment, stable conditions have returned.I am not seeking that the minister be compelled in this decision, although some would say that that would be ideal. I am simply seeking that the bill conform to standards as laid down in the refugee convention, which states in article 1(c) that individuals have the right not to return to their country for a compelling reason.I heard what Senator Schacht said. The disturbing element of what he said was that it indicated that the refugees, if they are in Australia, will still be part of the weapons of war. I can see that they are being used in many ways. In many ways, some people—and I mentioned this yesterday—would prefer that they be more visible in the Balkans. In many ways, my preference would be that Australia should provide the same, or more, resources to assist them to stay as close to their country as possible.I agree with Senator Schacht that the vast majority of these refugees would probably prefer to go home; even with the offer of a temporary safe haven, they would probably want to go home. There is no suggestion whatsoever that 4,000 refugees would be accepted, or would want to, in any way, shape or form, stay here. The point that Senator Bartlett and I have been making as strongly as we can is that, for humanitarian reasons and under international conventions, to force a refugee to return home under those circumstances goes against everything we have ever signed up to.Some are saying that these refugees should go home; that their sojourn here should only be temporary because that is what the Kosovars themselves want. They do not want to be refugees, whether it is in Albania, Macedonia or Australia. The overwhelming majority of refugees simply want to go home. I agree: let them go home. Let us even assist them to be able to go home. Let us continue to apply pressure to make sure that peaceful solutions are found wherever possible.Let us also give them the choice as to when this happens—not whether this happens, but when. These people have already had their choices stripped from them at gunpoint, as Senator Schacht mentioned. If we are to provide no opportunity for individuals to apply for permanent protection based on their individual circumstances, we are effectively disempowering them—the final act in a long process of giving these people little choice in their own future.I agree that, politically, there are people in the Balkans making absolutely outrageous decisions in terms of human rights. The use of radical nationalism by President Milosevic is, of course, despicable. I return to a comment I have made before in relation to some political forces within Australia: there is one thing worse than racism; that is, using racism for political benefits.The same applies in relation to radical nationalism. There is one thing worse than being a radical nationalist; that is, to use radical nationalism to your political advantage. That, apparently, from what we see in the media, is what has happened in relation to President Milosevic. However, with regard to the situation in the Balkans, from what I can see—and I can only see it from this distance—there has been neighbour against neighbour in many instances. On both sides, there have been issues of neighbour against neighbour.People in the Balkans do not know how they can communicate any more with the people they used to live with, not because President Milosevic is there but because nationalism, inappropriate hatred, fear and the incredibly complex conflicts that have built and fed for a long period of time have stirred people into such awful irrational behaviour that it might be impossible to go back, at least in the interim, to living where they were living. Their own personal circumstances may not be such that they can do that. I am simply saying that to use again each individual refugee as a weapon of war, to force them to go back, if some of them are—4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—Force them to go back?DX5Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTS—Well that is what it is. If you do not allow them the ability to plead their own case in a normal way, then yes you will have people forced to go back. That is the reality. Unfortunately, as I say, this means that once again we are using the same refugees as a weapon of war. If we are not prepared to do that, we should not be taking them. We should be giving that aid for them to stay as close as possible to their country, to be as visible as possible to the rest of the world, and to assist them to live until they can do that. If we are taking them, we do not basically use them again as a weapon of war. It is unconscionable to be doing that.I know the opposition is not prepared to support this. I know the government is not prepared to support this, but it must be put on record now that we cannot allow this to go by without comment and suggest that this is a good way to make legislation. We know that there is generosity in the way the government is acting, but there are issues about the way you treat refugees. I do not think anyone here is saying that we are not dealing with genuine refugees, but there is a point at which we should not disempower human beings any further than they have been disempowered.10:39:004650Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT4J4SAALP00—The opposition does not support these amendments. We do not believe they are necessary. Concerning the argument put by Senator Margetts in the wider context of her concern about process and about handling refugees, I have already expressed my view that the basic issue here is: will Mr Milosevic—not the Serbian people; I make a very strong distinction between the Serbian people and Mr Milosevic and his regime—get away with imposing and succeeding by, de facto, his policies of ethnic cleansing?I agree that there can be criticism of the Western world, that the refugees who were displaced from Bosnia and Croatia who have a Serbian background—I understand about 600,000 who were displaced are now back in Serbia—also should have been dealt with in a wider context, but that is the outcome which Mr Milosevic was willing to embark upon in the early 1990s with ethnic cleansing. The tragedy is that his own Serbian people, ethnic Serbians from Croatia, Bosnia and Slovenia, have also suffered. That is why it is a crazy policy. If you try to divide the Balkans based on ethnicity, you are going to end up hurting your own people as well. That is why our commitment to multi-ethnic democracies in the Balkans is the only way to proceed.The remark that we will be further disempowering refugees who may come to Australia is a very narrow point; the real disempowering has come from the fact that these refugees, in horrible circumstances, have been forced to leave their homes where they were more than happy to live for the rest of their lives.10:42:004651Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—On behalf of Senator Bartlett and the Democrats, I would like to indicate the support of the Democrats for the amendments moved by Senator Margetts. I hope the government will appreciate the discipline with which the Democrats have approached this debate.I would like the opportunity to comment briefly on the amendments, on the Migration Legislation Amendment (Temporary Safe Haven Visas) Bill 1999 and on some of the things that have been said. I begin where Senator Schacht left off. Certainly, he is in a position to know some of the incredible circumstances in which the refugees from Kosovo are living. He also would know first-hand from visiting the various camps some of the atrocities to which they have been subjected and some of the horrific things that people have endured.I know that all senators have an interest in this debate. I am not surprised that it has been a rather controversial and reasonably passionate debate. My personal interest in this debate has been deepened as a result of visiting Albanian Kosovar refugees in Albania, in and around Tirana, and seeing refugees in the whole gamut of circumstances—camps, hostels, hotels that have been turned into refugee camps, and people living in cars, trucks and other people's homes.The point that Senator Harradine makes about the division of families is important. Families are already being divided, people have already lost husbands and children and literally have missing persons being hunted every day of the week, trying desperately to find their loved ones. I think we should bear that in mind in relation to families and how they will be treated or accommodated when they come to Australia, if indeed refugees do come to Australia, depending on what the UN determines.Concerning housing, I pick up Senator Schacht's point about Woomera. Obviously as South Australians, we both live in the driest state in the driest continent and culture shock is probably an understatement in relation to how refugees coming from the mountainous and very different climate in the Balkans would respond to South Australian conditions.To put on record, as Senator Bartlett has done, the Democrats' position on the bill, we have always believed the best way to help these refugees is through the provision of additional funding and technical assistance, both for where the refugees are now and with permanent refugee places under the program as it currently exists. We believe that should have been done through an increase in the size of the program. We maintain that offering temporary haven to these people has a number of disadvantages. We think there is the possibility that we will compound the trauma that many of these people have experienced.I understand Senator Schacht's logic very well, but I think when you ask refugees in the camps whether they want to go home, of course they will say that they want to go home to a safe and free environment. I do not think anyone in this chamber would suggest that anything else was appropriate, but how we achieve that is another issue. When Senator Margetts talks about empowering refugees, or the possibility of disempowering refugees, she refers to the freedom of choice that we are essentially asking be given to these people. Providing a safe haven is one thing, but providing the freedom of choice for refugees to make the decision whether or not to stay in our country or go back to their community is another. I too am very wary of playing into the hands of Milosevic.I see that Senator Patterson is getting anxious so I will not prolong the debate. I thought it was important to raise this matter, given that the one question I had yesterday from Senator Patterson about my trip was `Who paid for it?' Some of these issues are life and death matters, and I do not think asking for a few minutes of the Senate's time, given the role of the Australian government and community in such a crisis, is too much to ask. I commend the government for the fact that, in some respects, it has extended a helping hand. Like Senator Harradine, Senator Schacht and others, I commend the humanitarian and aid groups who are working tirelessly. I also commend the members of the community who have given donations. This bill has shortcomings; it is inadequate. We will be supporting the amendments put forward by the Greens. Without meaning to be too sarcastic, I thank the government for the opportunity for people to speak on the bill. I do not understand why the debate has been rushed on such an important matter.10:47:004652Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSONLI4VICLP10—I will not respond to the comment about rushing the bill. I appreciate, without being cynical either, the cooperation of honourable senators to try to facilitate this bill. I think we all realise the urgency of it. With regard to the amendments moved by Senator Margetts, we will not be supporting them because the formulation used in section 91L of the bill, which allows the minister to permit an application for another visa to be made, is the same as that used for other similar noncompellable powers. For example, section 91F allows the minister to permit a visa application to be made by a person who has come from a safe third country. This provision is about the making of an application for a visa. The amendment would require the minister to make a detailed assessment of matters which would be assessed when the application was considered. Contrary to the view put forward by Senator Margetts, public interest is a very broad term and it is wide enough to allow the minister to consider the circumstances of any person.10:48:004652Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I remind honourable senators that it will not be in normal circumstances. We know the difficulties with legal advice and we also know that, under this bill, there will be no appeal. So it is not a normal situation; it would be very limited. We are also dealing with the potential of some people going home, and some people having to go with the person who is being rejected and other things. We still think the ability for people to argue on an individual case is important.Amendments not agreed to.10:49:004652Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—I have one other question that I want to put on notice. I have not put it with the ones in writing because it is more of a policy question and it is a bit hard to incorporate it as a written question. As everyone knows, prior to the government's change of position on this issue, Minister Ruddock had ruled out a temporary option when he questioned the appropriateness of that. He outlined some of the reasons why that was not a good way to go. I do not raise that to make a cheap shot; I just raise it as a matter of fact.As we are now going down this track, I am interested in getting some indication from the government about whether they see this as a one-off or whether it may serve to be a precedent for similar treatment in comparable circumstances. I am sure we all hope that this will never happen again but, the world being what it is, sadly it probably will. I am interested to hear from the government about the precedent issues in relation to this bill.Bill, as amended, agreed to.Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.4652Bill (on motion by Senator Patterson) read a third time.Bills4653r703Billsr667Billsr666Billsr702Billsr699Billsr698Billsr664Billsr660Billsr658Billsr657Billsr701Billsr663Billsr659Billsr700Billsr6614653Consideration resumed from 29 April.A NEW TAX SYSTEM (GOODS AND SERVICES TAX) BILL 1998The bill.(Quorum formed)10:53:004653Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAYUI4VICALP00—We are discussing 27 bills, although it is fewer than that in committee. I am not sure whether Senator Campbell will be handling the cognate debate on these bills. He might indicate that to me and we might move it along. Senator Campbell, are you handling this for the minister at the moment?H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—Here he is.UI4Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAY—I welcome the minister. I was not actually due to make my contribution on the bills for another five weeks, so I will have to go back to my office and prepare that contribution now. I will let you get on with the proceedings.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator McKiernan)—The question is that the amendment moved by Senator Margetts to Senator Murray's amendment be agreed to.Question resolved in the negative.10:54:004653Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—In wrapping up the debate on this issue, I must make some short remarks. The first thing I need to do is to respond to Senator Cook's question the day before last as to why the Democrats had abstained on a particular amendment which he thought was unusual given the content of the amendment. The reason we did so is that we think that amendment did not go far enough, and we have introduced amendments to correct the very issues that Senator Cook has outlined.I am fully aware of the Labor Party's position on the GST, but the areas to which he referred in fact concerned income tax cuts. As both the Labor Party and we appreciate, nearly all those income tax cuts could go through without the GST bills at all. They can be funded separately. It is our intention to improve on inadequate and somewhat symbolic Labor Party second reading amendments by putting very material amendments to the income tax cuts bills which will deliver the outcomes which Senator Cook and his party profess to support, and I have no reason to doubt that that profession is not genuine.Therefore, Senator Cook, our abstention the other day was designed to test your commitment to those issues. You have now established your threshold. When we come to the amendments which we have put to correct those ills that you have outlined, we will test your commitment at that time. Those will not be GST bills and we will be looking to make sure that you vote with us on that issue. So, if you like, there was a bit of a tactical test under way for your principles and for the way in which you approach that.The final short remarks I wish to make on this particular amendment that the Australian Democrats put is that, for us, it was a threshold question. We wished to make clear, and it was for the parliament to make clear, that tax changes of this scale should not be countenanced by either the country, the parliament or the Senate unless they contain a genuinely progressive redistributive mechanism. We are firmly of the opinion—and I gather from all the non-government speakers that they are firmly of that opinion too—that the overall package in terms of the redistributive principle is regressive and that it in fact makes the rich and the better off much better off and does very little to advance the cause of the poor and the disadvantaged—the lower class and middle class in old class terminology.We are convinced that the package makes millions of Australians worse off, and they are all at the lower end of the spectrum. So, if the package is designed to make millions of Australians at the lower end worse off and millions of Australians at the upper end better off, you can see why the non-government parties would adopt a position of either total opposition or requiring radical amendments. That is why we set out to try to establish a threshold position and philosophy against which this debate should proceed. Given the range and scale of debate on the issue of fairness which we have enjoyed over the last two days, I do not think I need say much more in wrapping up. I, therefore, urge that we move to the vote.10:59:004654Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—I can indicate on behalf of the Labor Party, the opposition, that I accept your urgings, Senator Murray, and I am happy to move to the vote. I have spoken in this debate on a couple of occasions and my remarks have been directed principally at subclause (b) of the amendment you are proposing, 1-4, the intention of parliament amendment. I will not go over that ground again, having put it on the record previously, save to say that the notion that you express in that provision—that the weight of the taxation system should be borne heaviest by those who can afford it and be borne lightest by those who cannot afford it—is of course a notion fundamental to the philosophy of the Labor Party. However, we think, with the greatest respect to you, that putting that philosophy in a bill for a GST, which is a regressive tax and which redistributes the load heaviest on those who can least afford it, saying that that was our intention but the legislation unfortunately got in the way and our intention was not delivered, makes a bit of a nonsense of that.I have not spoken on subclause (a), though, and I will do so very briefly, in the expectation that that will conclude the Labor Party's participation in the debate on this point. You say in there that this tax system should be fairer than the wholesale sales tax system it replaces. The wholesale sales tax system is not a perfect system, and the government has tried to cast the Labor Party in the role of defending to the last letter the existing tax system. At the last election we went to the people with a view of tax reform of our own, and our view of tax reform was a policy which significantly changed the current system but left intact the wholesale sales tax system, with modifications. So the first point I make is that, while we will hear the government explaining to the people what the Labor position is, I would much prefer, as a Labor spokesperson, for us to explain it to the people ourselves, to describe our policy initiatives appropriately and properly and not have them misdescribed for the purposes of winning a political point by the government. But I do not want to spend a lot of time on this. H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—Spend some time.RF4Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOK—If you want me to canvass our tax policy position at this stage and if that is the intent of the interjection, I will. I do not think it is in the interests of the chamber at the moment for us to necessarily move to that, but I am delighted to accommodate such a debate should it be desired by the government.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator McKiernan)—Senator Cook, I will not allow you to accommodate that debate. I ask you to direct your remarks through the chair and I ask that interjections on my right cease.RF4Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOK—The fundamental point of our proposals to change the tax system is that they do not have a GST. You can have tax reform in this country without a GST. The idea that tax reform necessarily involves a GST is a fraudulent idea. The idea that what the government has put forward is tax reform is a matter of opinion. That might be its opinion, but it is not a matter of fact. You cannot say that this is tax reform. Tax reform is a matter of judgment, and in our judgment, and in the judgment of 52 per cent of the electorate at the last elections, a GST is not tax reform.The second major feature of our tax reform policy was to overcome the poverty traps that are recurrent in the present system. The inquiry we had received particular evidence towards the very end of it, unfortunately in a manner in which we were unable to explore it to the extent which many of us—including, to be fair, government members of the committee too—would have liked to do. It was evidence about tax credits. The nub of our policy at the last election was to overcome poverty traps by introducing a system of tax credits. That has been referred to in this debate by the Democrats as well. Without trying to misrepresent them but speaking frankly about how I understand what they said, I think they spoke of tax credits in approving terms and in terms that this is a concept well worth exploring further.If you remove poverty traps from the system, you do encourage people to find work and you do encourage people away from welfare in the most positive way. I have to acknowledge that there would be fewer poverty traps if this bill were to go through than there are currently, but there are still a significant number and they are still a significant deterrent for a large percentage of Australians. If you have a system which removes poverty traps, you do not have a system in which people are reliant on welfare. They do seek work, and that is a positive element of the tax system that we are concerned to promote. But that does not mean to say that the wholesale sales tax system of itself is to be taken by the scruff of the neck and thrown out. It should not be.The government in public debate have derided the wholesale sales tax system on the basis that there are different levels of taxation. They say their system is better because there is one level, 10 per cent across the board, whereas the wholesale sales tax system has different levels of taxation. The government are wrong. The reason that I cannot support this part of the amendment is that it is simplistic to say that all consumption is equal. Consumption involves luxury goods, high quality superior goods, middle goods, lower quality goods and essentials of life. If you tax all of those as if they are equal, you deny the distinctions between the classes of goods. We think it is appropriate that where there are taxes on goods—the wholesale sales tax system taxes goods, not services—you ought to have regard to the type of good and the importance to a family that good has and you ought to distinguish the gradations of luxury, exclusivity or elitism in the types of goods families purchase. This means placing the burden of taxation on luxury and elite goods rather than placing the burden of taxation equally on all goods.I am afraid I may not have explained that concept as clearly I would have liked, but that, I am sure, is a concept that ought to be recognised by the chamber because we have been in this debate for some time. However, the Democrats' amendment suggests that the system that we are to replace the wholesale sales tax system with is a fairer system than the wholesale sales tax system. That is a fundamental contention. It is a contention to which we do not subscribe, because we do think it is essential to distinguish between types of goods and their importance to families and existence—the optional types of goods that go to the comforts of life or the optional goods that people consume that go to high luxury items—and to tax the more exclusive goods at a higher rate than the other goods. So I cannot support part (a) of the amendment moved by the Democrats. My concluding remark—let me assure the chamber—on this amendment is that there is a further amendment moved by the Greens.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—That has been disposed of.RF4Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOK—That amendment has been incorporated into this amendment, as I understand it, and not withdrawn.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—No, it was defeated first thing this morning.WW4KEMPSenator Kemp—We had a vote on it.RF4Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOK—You had a vote on it. Well, I missed the vote; shame on me. But that removes from me at least the need to actually address that matter if it is no longer before us.WW4KEMPSenator Kemp—It has been dealt with, Senator.RF4Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOK—It has been dealt with; thank you. For those reasons the Labor Party will not be supporting this amendment.11:08:004656Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TASIND00—The amendment before us is an amendment to state the intention of the parliament in respect of the A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Bill 1998 . It has been made very clear by the mover of the amendment, Senator Murray, as the amendment says, that:It is the intention of the Parliament that this Act and associated laws for A New Tax System: (a) be fairer than the Wholesales Sales Tax system they replace; and (b) promote redistribution of the load of the tax system from the poor to the rich.Should at the end of the day the parliament as a whole pass legislation entitled the A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Bill which achieves those objectives, I say to Senator Murray and the chamber that would be a triumph of hope over expectation. If that occurs as a result of what has been done here and as a result of a government considering the concerns that have been expressed, that would be well justified. There is a need, as the government ought to know from the debate, for major structural changes to this legislation to achieve these objectives.I know that true hope is an expectant hope. Expectancy is an essential element of true hope. But it is hope in what and hope in whom and, as yet, I do not think the chamber has been given any indication whatsoever by the government that that expectant hope would be justified. We could save a lot of the time of this chamber if the government were to indicate the major structural changes that they would see necessary to achieve the particular intention that has been proposed by Senator Murray.11:12:004656Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—I will make a very brief concluding comment. First of all, I thought an issue which was raised briefly by Senator Cooney was interesting. I think Senator Cooney's remarks, if I can summarise them briefly, were that he could see some problems if the amendment were accepted because of the inevitable role that the courts would play in making interpretations on matters which are more properly the preserve of the parliament. In relation to Senator Cooney's comments, I draw the Senate's attention to division 182. It is made clear in that division that statements in chapter 1 can be used in interpreting an operative position. No-one argues that this package should not be fair. The government feels it is fair. Others have other opinions and the government will obviously listen very closely to the debate as it proceeds and as particular issues emerge. But I think Senator Cooney did raise an interesting point. I am not aware whether in these types of tax bills it is normal to have this type of clause. My advisers tell me this would be exceedingly unusual and it would, as I think Senator Cooney indicated, involve the courts in matters which are more properly the preserve of the parliament.I have stated at some length the government's objectives on this bill. I read from the ANTS package where the government outlined in considerable detail the objectives that we set forth. Fairness of course is an extremely important aspect of them. Another aspect is the need to encourage small business, to encourage growth and to encourage employment. There is the need to reform federal-state financial relations, and it is clear from the recent Premiers Conference that substantial progress has been made on that score. I think I have responded to Senator Cooney's comments. I can assure Senator Harradine that the government will listen to the debate as it proceeds. We believe the package is a fair package. Question put: That the amendment (Senator Murray's ) be agreed to.11:19:00The committee divided. (The Chairman—Senator S. M. West)10Allison, L. Bartlett, A. J. J.Bourne, V. *Brown, B.Harradine, B. Lees, M. H.Margetts, D. Murray, A.Stott Despoja, N. Woodley, J.48Bishop, T. M. Bolkus, N.Calvert, P. H. *Carr, K.Chapman, H. G. P. Collins, J. M. A.Conroy, S. Cook, P. F. S.Coonan, H. Cooney, B.Crane, W. Crossin, P. M.Crowley, R. A. Denman, K. J.Eggleston, A. Evans, C. V.Ferris, J. Forshaw, M. G.Gibson, B. F. Herron, J.Hill, R. M. Hogg, J.Kemp, R. Knowles, S. C.Lundy, K. Macdonald, I.Macdonald, S. Mackay, S.McGauran, J. J. J. McKiernan, J. P.Murphy, S. M. O'Brien, K. W. K.Parer, W. R. Patterson, K. C. L.Payne, M. A.Quirke, J. A.Ray, R. F. Reid, M. E.Reynolds, M. Schacht, C. C.Sherry, N. Synon, K. M.Tambling, G. E. J. Tierney, J.Troeth, J. Vanstone, A. E.Watson, J. O. W. West, S. M.Question so resolved in the negative.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—Before we move on to the next amendments, I would like to make a statement in relation to these bills. Certain of the government amendments to these bills have been drafted in the form of requests. The government drafters have explained that this is because, although neither bill imposes tax or appropriates money, some of the amendments may widen the impact of the tax and that may result in persons paying more tax while others, potentially, may increase expenditure under a standing appropriation in other legislation. These have not been regarded as sufficient grounds for putting amendments in the form of requests on the past precedence of the Senate. In any event, the explanatory memorandum accompanying the amendments states that their financial impact is negligible, indicating that it is not thought that in practice they will have the effects postulated to any significant extent. The amendments will therefore be treated as amendments.11:24:004657Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—by leave—I move:(1) Clause 27-30, page 53 (line 27), at the end of the heading, add "to take account of changes in tax periods ".[tax periods](2) Page 54 (after line 23), after clause 27-35, insert:27-37 Special determination of tax periods on request (1) The Commissioner may, in accordance with a request you make in the *approved form, determine the tax periods applying to you to be the tax periods specified in the request if the Commissioner is satisfied that: (a) your *annual turnover meets the *tax period turnover threshold; and (b) the tax periods specified in the request are consistent with the commercial accounting periods that apply to you; and (c) the tax periods specified in the request would, if determined under this section, result in 12 complete tax periods in each year; and (d) any other requirements specified in the regulations are complied with. Note: Refusing a request for a determination under this section is a reviewable GST decision (see Division 7 of Part VI of the Taxation Administration Act 1953 ). (2) A determination under this section overrides any determination under section 27-15 or 27-30 relating to tax periods applying to you.[tax periods](3) Page 54 (after line 23), after clause 27-37, insert:27-38 Revoking special determination of tax periods (1) The Commissioner must revoke a determination under section 27-37 if the Commissioner is satisfied that any of the requirements of paragraphs 27-37(1)(a), (b), (c) and (d) are not complied with. Note: Revoking a determination under this section is a reviewable GST decision (see Division 7 of Part VI of the Taxation Administration Act 1953 ). (2) The revocation takes effect on the day specified in the instrument of revocation. However, the day specified must be 1 January, 1 April, 1 July or 1 October. Note: Deciding the date of effect of the revocation is a reviewable GST decision (see Division 7 of Part VI of the Taxation Administration Act 1953 ). (3) A revocation under this section revives any election under section 27-10, or any determination under section 27-15 or 27-30, relating to tax periods applying to you.Under the current bill GST tax periods generally end on the last day of a month. But there is a provision to allow a GST-registered person to vary this by seven days before or after the end of the month. While this suits most taxpayers, some very large taxpayers use different accounting periods for particular reasons and the final day of their usual accounting period does not always fall within the required seven days before or after the end of the month. For example, some existing arrangements use four five-week periods and eight four-week periods annually while others use 13 four-week periods. It has been the government's stated intention that its reform should wherever possible utilise existing business arrangements. These amendments now before the chamber will provide more flexibility so that the commissioner can allow different tax periods in special circumstances.11:25:004658Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—As the minister indicated, these amendments do allow for tax periods other than monthly tax periods to accord with entities' commercial accounting practices. The Greens (WA) believe this is good for flexibility and that it does reduce compliance costs without much impact on the Australian Taxation Office. It does, I guess, increase the power of the tax commissioner but, in general, the Greens (WA) support these amendments.11:26:004658Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—We have moved to government amendments Nos 1 to 3 on sheet FA209 which are being moved together by the government. Part 2.6, which is being amended by these amendments, deals with tax periods and the general rule is that a tax period is three months, ending on 31 March, 30 June, 30 September or 31 December. I note that those are months, not weekly periods or an accumulation of weekly periods.A person can elect to have a tax period of one month. If the business has turnover in excess of $20 million it has a tax period of one month. Amendment 1 from the government is an amendment to the heading of clause 27-30 to more accurately reflect the content of that clause, and that seems straightforward. Amendment 3 inserts a new clause which obliges the commissioner to revoke a determination if any of the requirements of that clause are not complied with, and that seems straightforward.But I have a question concerning amendment 2, Minister. Amendment 2 inserts new clause 27-37 which permits the Commissioner of Taxation to determine special tax periods for businesses with a turnover of more than $20 million. The specification of the period must still result in 12 complete tax periods for the year. The explanatory memorandum provides the example of some entities having 12 accounting periods which do not necessarily coincide with calendar months—in other words, some will be four weeks and others five weeks; that is why I drew your attention to the difference between periods which are set with months as opposed to those which are set with weeks.Minister, page 8 of the explanatory memorandum, at point 1.5, gives the example that some entities have 13 four-week accounting periods, and clause 27-37 provides that the determination must result in 12 complete tax periods. Does that mean at least 12 complete tax periods? If not, how will businesses that have 13 four-weekly accounting periods, as specified in your example, be assisted by this amendment? In other words, is there any difficulty for companies which have 13 four-weekly accounting periods as compared with the legislation, which specifies 12 complete tax periods?11:30:004659Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—The advice I have is that in practice some returns are aggregated, so in fact 12 returns are lodged.11:30:004659Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—As you know with these answers, your response matters in terms of the interpretation that will be put on these things by the Commissioner of Taxation. I doubt if this is a matter that will go to the courts. If I understand your response correctly, you are saying that the flexibility exists in the law for the tax commissioner to accept 13 four-weekly tax accounting periods as operated by a company?11:31:004659Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—My advice is that a similar process currently exists under the sales tax arrangements and these amendments provide a legal basis for the commissioner to have a similar ruling in relation to the goods and services tax.11:31:004659Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—So, to clarify, Minister, you are saying that it is a continuation of existing tax practice and businesses should expect no change from that?11:31:004659Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—Senator, I have always been told that you should not ever answer a question with yes, because things may be slightly qualified, but there was vigorous nodding from my advisers, so the answer is yes.11:31:004659Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—With that clarification, the Australian Democrats indicate that they will support government amendments 1 to 3.11:32:004659Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—These are the first government amendments that have come before the chamber of the 27 GST bills we have to consider. I want to say a couple of things from the Labor Party point of view about how we will approach the government amendments to a package of bills that we oppose. I do not need to state for the record—because I have said it often enough, and certainly the Leader of the Australian Labor Party, Kim Beazley, has made it publicly clear—that we are opposed to a GST. That is our sentence—we are opposed to a GST—and it does not brook any further interpretation. We are opposed to a GST and there are no ifs, buts or maybes in that. But we have government legislation here and our view may not prevail.The government is proposing on this occasion 128 amendments to its own legislation. That is 128 amendments to the legislation it put through with a guillotine in the House of Representatives before Christmas. It has now found flaws in that legislation which it rushed through the House. It wants this chamber to be compliant in amending many of those flaws. It classes the amendments it has put as technical, machinery or minor amendments. We do not think that all of the amendments are minor. One of those was referred to yesterday—that is, the casino amendment. We do not think that is minor. I made my position clear on that yesterday. We are opposed to it and, when the amendment comes along, we will not support it.But some of these machinery amendments are amendments that you would class in the category of sensible and good law. I hope we do not lose our argument, but if we do it is obvious that the actual change should work. We think that the government has not disclosed all of the amendments that it will propose to this chamber. Even though this debate has been going for almost a fortnight, just looking at the drafting of this bill—leaving aside the wider issues of structure or any concessions it might wish to make in offstage negotiations outside of the Senate with parties or people in this chamber—and looking at the technical expression of this bill and of some of the other bills, we believe that there are some technical flaws which the government will have to come back and amend further. Either it will do so during this debate, which now appears likely to extend into the budget sittings, or if it got its way against our opposition and this legislation was carried in this chamber and became law, having established the principle of a GST—something to which we are opposed—then at its leisure, later this year or next year, it will come back and beseech this chamber to correct some of the drafting errors and mistakes that it has made.So we do not think that if this legislation were carried—something that we hope does not occur—that would be the end of it. We think there are a number of devils in the detail—technical problems and difficulties—which, if this legislation were implemented, would create considerable obligations and problems, higher costs and administrative charges for business in Australia and problems in the implementation which will inevitably require further and further amendment. We will not oppose these amendments, because we think they are machinery amendments.I say for the record that we in fact proposed amendments to the government's legislation disposed of earlier—the GST fringe benefits tax legislation—because it dealt with anti-avoidance issues. That is, we constructively played a role to make the anti-avoidance provisions, under the GST FBT legislation, more effective and the government accepted our amendments on that occasion. We did so because we believe all taxpayers should pay the appropriate amount of tax and the anti-avoidance provisions should express clearly how they make sure that no-one escapes their proper obligation. So we played a constructive role on anti-avoidance and, where it is appropriate, we will continue to play that constructive role in making sure that the legislation is workable. But, with those remarks as a general approach, I say that none of our activities in not opposing technical amendments by the government should be construed or used in debate as the Labor Party supporting a GST. Emphatically, we do not. But it would be silly not to allow a provision that the government might want which is technically correct, so we will not oppose these amendments.The amendments before the chair have been explained by the minister as dealing with a flexibility of accounting periods and an ability for the tax office to recognise commercial practice and, by special determination, vary tax periods on request. Conceptually, that is a worthwhile change and one that we are not opposed to. However, I seek clarification on one point, and it is a question to the minister. I think it is clear in the amendments, but when the minister explained his amendments to us I did not hear him say that that is all subject to the acceptance by the Commissioner of Taxation of those changes.As I read these amendments they provide what you suggested they do provide—that is, flexibility to recognise commercial accounting periods—but it is not flexibility of right. As I read them, it is flexibility subject to the attitude of the tax commissioner. It is clear from the text, but I do seek from the government an acknowledgment that that is a proper interpretation.11:39:004660Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—The commissioner must be satisfied that the conditions are in fact met.11:39:004660Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—That is how I read it, too. Thank you for that clarification. My second question concerns the three clauses that you are moving as amendments. Your second amendment, clause 27-37 headed `Special determination of tax periods on request', states in subclause (1)(d):any other requirements specified in the regulations are complied with. . . That refers to tax periods, et cetera. By us accepting that provision without knowing what the regulations will say or when we will see the regulations, is this chamber accepting a discretion blindly with an expectation that the regulations will reflect reasonableness? I ask the minister: when is it likely that the government will be in a position to table the regulations that we are now being asked to accept?11:41:004661Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—Work is already being done on the regulations and the regulations, as is the usual practice, come after the bill is passed. Obviously, the regulations will be subject to review by the Senate in the sense that the Senate has the usual procedure of a disallowance motion if it does not feel that the regulations are fair and reasonable.11:41:004661Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—My understanding of the procedure is that the regulations are tabled—as you rightly say—after the bills are carried, but the Senate does not have the power to review the regulations. It only has the power to disallow them. The debate then is, do we accept them or do we reject them as a job lot? I make that distinction because you said `review', which implied a discretion on our part.WW4KEMPSenator Kemp—I think I clarified that.RF4Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOK—Yes. I accept your interjection that you clarified it and that my description of `disallowance' is the correct description for the regulations. Can you give us any guidance—since you are inviting us to adopt an amendment which refers to the content of regulations that we have not yet seen—as to what in your view those regulations will contain on this point?11:42:004661Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—There is no intention to have any onerous power in those regulations. You and I are in agreement that the regulations are subject to disallowance, but the regulations will allow some flexibility by the commissioner as particular issues arise. I can assure you that it will be done in a way which is not onerous; it will be done in such a way as to give effect to the need for some flexibility in these matters.11:43:004661Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—I thank the minister for that explanation. I accept his explanation that it will not be onerous. Given your earlier description that these amendments were minor and technical—the whole 128 of them—and we found amongst that pack some that were not minor but were quite significant, I am not challenging your word that the regulations can be passed off or glossed over easily. I accept your word that the regulations will not be onerous, but I mark the spot for the sake of the record that, if upon viewing the regulations in our judgement that is not the case, we will reserve the right to move a disallowance.This provision deals with a threshold of companies with a $20 million turnover. For the sake of further information on this amendment, is there any indication of how many companies you expect or the tax office anticipates would take advantage of these provisions?11:45:004661Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—I am advised that it is a comparatively small number and probably would be less than 1,000.11:45:004661Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—I refer to your third amendment and the insertion, after clause 27-37, of a new clause 27-38 headed, `Revoking special determination of tax periods'. Thereunder are listed three subclauses. A note in smaller print has been helpfully and usefully included under subclauses (1) and (2), drawing attention to the fact that:. . . a determination under this section is a reviewable GST determination (see division 7 of Part VI of the Taxation Administration Act 1953 ).The fact that the decisions are reviewable highlights the sensitive nature of the discretion that the tax commissioner may exercise at this point. These provisions that you are now proposing to insert in the legislation clothe the tax commissioner with a discretion to make a decision and, if a taxpayer disagrees with that decision, that taxpayer has the ability to then take the tax commissioner to a judicial review under the particular legislation.I am drawing attention to this because, if the parliament agrees to these amendments—and I have already said we are disposed not to oppose them—we will clothe the tax commissioner with particular powers of making discretionary judgments that may offend taxpayers and if they do offend taxpayers, those taxpayers' only recourse is to a judicial process to overturn the decision of the tax commissioner. What steps, if any, will be required in the regulations or as guidelines for the tax commissioner to consult taxpayers or to consider representations from taxpayers prior to the commissioner making a decision that affects their material wellbeing?11:48:004662Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—That would not normally be laid out in regulation, but it would be normal practice to make sure that taxpayers' views are properly considered. I think that is a general practice which occurs in the taxation area. I am seeking advice as to whether there is any other area where there are regulations of the type that Senator Cook proposed.Having consulted with my advisers, my comment stands that there are areas, as you correctly specified, where a decision by the commissioner is reviewable. The commissioner has a responsibility in all cases to take into consideration the representations he may receive from taxpayers who may be materially affected by his decisions. Certainly, from what I can observe, that happens all the time, so I think we are following normal practice in this regard.11:50:004662Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—In this area, the discretion is about accounting periods, so this is not—dare I say—an obvious area of weighty discretion. It seems to be an obvious area of reasonable discretion. The issue for discretion appears, at least blandly to me, without having a sophisticated understanding of the types of issues that the commissioner might have to weigh, to be a matter that the parliament could reasonably expect the commissioner to do properly in the discharge of his obligations—with the safeguard of a judicial review if he fails to do so.As you would know, Minister, before the Senate Economics References Committee is a reference about the administration of taxation in Australia. That reference proceeded only a short way into its hearing and was then set aside because of the inquiries by the Senate into the 27 GST bills, but one expects it will resume in the near future. In that hearing, as I recall, there were questions of the discretion exercised by the tax commissioner for major taxpayers in Australia where, in one commercial takeover of a major Australian company by a foreign company, there was an allegation that the tax commissioner wrote off upwards of $1 million of tax debt. I am not going into whether or not that is a correct allegation, but I acknowledge that, in my experience, allegations of that sort are made distressingly often. This is not to say that those people who make them are right and it may well be that the tax commissioner is 100 per cent correct in the expression of his judgment.I am not going into those issues at all, but you would be aware of a Four Corners expose on the functions of the Taxation Office which made allegations of that sort and, in the same program, allegations of criminal involvement and things of that nature. I do not refer to these as if they do not come from a source that can be easily dismissed. They come from a source that, if they are made by that source, has to be engaged and dealt with, I would submit. That is a preamble to my consideration of issues of discretion and the clothing of the commissioner with the discretion to write off major losses or tax debt by large corporations.The allegation made by the Four Corners program was that, if you are from the big end of town, and particularly if you can engage a major accounting house which may have recruited its senior staff from the tax office by inducing them into the commercial world with much higher salaries and emoluments than they would get in the public sector, you would be able to hook into a network of mates or an old boys club or things of that nature and get access to the decision making processes where discretion could be exercised, in a way in which ordinary taxpayers would not have access to it. As a consequence of a lack of accountability on this basis, things get done that aid the big end of town, a facility which is not available to the small end of town and unavailable to ordinary taxpayers like you and me at all.Again, I do not go to the truth of that because we have got up a reference which the Senate was, thankfully, prepared to endorse and that is under inquiry by a Senate committee. But I give you that background as essential to our approach to questions of the exercise of discretion by the tax commissioner, the reviewability of those exercises and the public disclosure or transparency about how they should be done. The tax commissioner has an extraordinarily difficult job and I do not envy him his task. While I have considerable reservations about his entry into the GST debate, particularly on the subject of food, which seemed to be his only concern, by and large I have a high regard for the commissioner. He is a person for whom the community must also have a high regard.Going back to these questions of the exercise of discretion by the tax commissioner, which now arise before us by virtue of the first of 128 amendments from the government, as I understand your answer there will be no expression in the regulations that would be signposts or guidelines for the commissioner in the exercise of his discretion. On what basis, then, do we know what tests he applies, how he judges these things, what appeals there might be or representations acceptable to the tax office when he forms his judgment to exercise that discretion? Can you address us on that point for a moment, please.11:56:004663Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—Senator, there is a range of matters that were raised with you. My advisers have noted the last matter. When I conclude my remarks I will respond to that. I note the concern you raised about the discretion. I take it from the remarks that people, including Senator Murray and Senator Margetts, have made that we all agree that in this case this is a sensible approach. The questions raised by Senator Cook in relation to various aspects of administration are really broader questions which, undoubtedly, the committee that Senator Cook referred to will be looking closely at.In relation to the Four Corners program and the allegations made there, my memory is that the Commissioner of Taxation made a full response to the accusations which were raised there. I note your appreciation of the work of the commissioner. I am sure he will read Hansard, but if he does not I will be meeting him next week and will draw those remarks to his attention.I think it is probably worth reflecting on the relevant clause of the second amendment that we are making which relates to special determining of tax periods on request. If you read under that clause, essentially the things are quite factual. The commissioner must be satisfied that your annual turnover meets the tax period turnover threshold and that the tax periods specified in the request are consistent with the commercial accounting periods that apply to you. The sorts of issues that Senator Cook raised are far broader than the issues before us here. We are essentially looking at accounting periods and the discretion that the commissioner has. The amendments list the sorts of issues that the commissioner must take into account in coming to his conclusions. If you can bear with me, I will see whether there is any additional material I can bring to your attention.It is also worth noting, Senator, that the matters that may be in the regulation—you have a particular interest in this, I take it from your questions—are not finalised at this time. Of course the ATO and the Treasury would consult with industry to determine, in relation to the regulations, what type of requirements may be appropriate. So there would be a period of consultation as well. That is the normal practice, as far as I am aware, in these matters and that quite often ensures that when matters are brought before the Senate most of the issues have been well thrashed out now that—as you have said—the Senate has the power to disallow. There will be a sensible period of consultation before the regulations are finalised.11:59:004664Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—Does that mean, after the sensible period of consultation with industry, that the regulations will spell out more detail than you earlier foreshadowed they may do in giving expression to these legislative terms?NaN:00:004664Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—There may be issues which are raised. Until we carry out that consultation, I think we would reserve the right to ensure that, if issues are raised that are relevant to the regulations, they can be included in the regulations. You raised some wider policy issues in relation to taxation matters. You were very careful to indicate that you did not make any claim about the veracity of the examples you raised. You were obviously concerned that some of these issues were raised on Four Corners .I do not think that this area is of that order of magnitude. We are dealing with accounting periods. There are discretions which give the commissioner flexibility. The amendments outline some of the things that the commissioner would obviously take into account. Senator, I take it from your comments that you do not have a huge concern in this regard; you just want to be comfortable that the regulations will not be onerous. As I said, they will not be onerous. There will be a consultative process carried out to make sure that issues that we are not aware of, if they are appropriate to regulations, are included in those regulations.12:01:004664Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—I was very careful to say that, from my understanding, there are no difficulties here, and it appears sensible on the face of it. I have only a plain person's understanding of these matters. I do not have a sophisticated understanding. If I had the ability to see into the minds of tax avoiders, I would be a far better legislator than I am. But I do not have that ability and I do not know to what extent these things may be manipulated by skilled experts who are able to have the discretionary funding to pay accountants to find ways to slip through things. That is the reason for my caution, and it is only for that reason.I will take you up on a couple of final, and hopefully concluding, questions on this point. You are now saying that there will be consultations with unspecified people in order to get the clarity and how it will function clear. The outcome of those consultations may be reflected in regulation. That is my understanding of what you are saying.Can you tell us by whom the consultations might be conducted? Is this a job for the tax commissioner or the department, or will you as the minister be involved in those consultations? And with whom will they be conducted?12:03:004664Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—Typically, it would be done by Treasury and the tax office. I think this is normal practice. I do not see us varying normal practice. What happens with regulations, where people are unhappy about it, is that they sometimes bring their concerns—pretty quickly, in my experience—to the attention of the minister. At that stage ministers may well start to become involved. Essentially, we would be following usual practice. Officers would be carrying out the consultation.The advice I have got on tax avoidance, which I think was an issue which you raised prior to your comments on consultation, is that there is really no scope here for tax avoidance. This is not one of those things which would lend itself, in the view of the officers who are providing advice to me, to tax avoidance. So if tax avoidance is one of the concerns that you have, I think we can give you some comfort on that matter.RF4COOKSenator Cook—Can you tell me with whom the consultations will be conducted?WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—The amendment essentially affects large corporate bodies, so it would be with bodies like the tax association. It would be with relevant groups. In my experience, the department has been pretty good about involving relevant groups in consultations. I do not say that I have not received complaints from time to time, but I think it is fairly rare that people feel they have been excluded when they feel they have a view to put. When people feel they have a view to put, the department and the tax office are usually pretty accommodating. We are not seeking to exclude people; we are just seeking to consult with relevant people.12:05:004665Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—Given that the threshold test here is companies with a turnover of $20 million a year or more and that there are only, according to your earlier answer, about 100 or so of those that may be affected—WW4KEMPSenator Kemp—Less than 1,000.RF4Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOK—So it involves only companies with a turnover of $20 million and there are fewer than 1,000 such companies likely to be affected, and the consultations on the regulations that I have been inquiring about are likely to occur with organisations that represent those companies. Can you give us an assurance that included in those consultations will be representatives of ordinary taxpayers or taxpayer organisations?I ask that question for this reason—and it will be a theme of mine, and I foreshadow it now: where other areas of discretion are to be exercised by the commissioner, I do not think it is desirable to place the commissioner in a position where the only organisations to whom he talks are the organisations affected by the particular regulation or legislative requirement. I think it is also desirable that other taxpayers who are not directly affected—or representatives of taxpayer organisations not directly affected—be party to the consultations as well, so that there is transparency. It guards the tax commissioner against any allegations that there was a cosy deal done here between the commissioner and the heavy hitters which the rest of us did not quite know about or understand the nuances of; and, as a consequence, had we known more about them, may have taken a different view on.Are you able to give us an assurance that the consultations that are being conducted will not just be with the people affected but with respected organisations or individuals who are expert in the act and who are the voice of other taxpayers, so that there can be an understanding that it does represent a wider view than that of just those immediately affected and that no cosy deals can then be pointed to?12:07:004665Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—From what I can judge from the press in the last year or so, I do not think too many people in corporate Australia think there are cosy deals between themselves and the Commissioner of Taxation. That is not the usual complaint I get. Let me give you this assurance: the commissioner and his officers will seek to consult with all relevant people. We do not seek to exclude people. If people or organisations feel that they can make a contribution, I am sure any requests from those organisations will be received sympathetically by the commissioner. To my knowledge, there are a large number of bodies involved in the taxation area and people who have a particular interest and focus. Quite a few of them would feel they are not hugely resourced. So it is a bit hard to determine which is the typical organisation which may feel that they represent all taxpayers. There are a few which have umbrella-type names. The second issue is whether bodies that may put themselves in that position really feel that they would want to take part in this exercise on this type of regulation. I think a lot of them are pretty tight with their own resources and may not feel that this would be an appropriate way to focus their attention.We are interested in proper law, in law which is understandable, fair and balanced; we are not interested in cosy deals between the tax commissioner and corporate Australia. As I said, the tax commissioner is not typically criticised on those grounds; in fact, it is the reverse, it seems to me. The best I can give you is the assurance that, if people wish to contribute and feel that they have a case to put, those requests would be received with sympathy by the tax commissioner. There is nothing that we would be doing here and elsewhere which is extraordinary and in any way does not follow normal practice. There are quite a few vehicles for people—the consultation phase, consideration of drafts, representations to government ministers and to shadow ministers and finally the presentation of the material in this chamber—which give plenty of transparency to the development of regulations. Your observations, comments and particular concerns have been noted. I think we can address your concerns but we would want it to be done in a practical manner.12:11:004666Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—Minister, I note that I said, to protect the Commissioner of Taxation from allegations of cosy deals, consultation should be across a wider scope than just the people concerned with that part of it. There are a number of organisations that could be consulted on this matter. If, after being advised that the consultations are open to them, they choose not to exercise that option, that is not something I can do anything about. That is their call and I have to respect that. But they should know about it and have an opportunity to have a say. If the process is proper, at least then if a program—and I do make a judgment, as I have said—like Four Corners makes an allegation of cosy deals with the tax commissioner, there is a process that can be pointed to where all the points were considered about how that discretion should be exercised.However, you have also said that not all of this may be reflected in the regulations. I understand that the tax commissioner has his own operational guidelines as well, which are not reflected in the regulations, and which are tax procedures. Can you give us an undertaking that will go to those guidelines too and that there will be some way in which the parliament can know what those guidelines are?While this appears on the face to be an unexceptional issue of discretion—and I acknowledge all the things you have said and I have said about that—rather than take up the time of the Senate later when we come to the other more weighty exercise of discretion, it is as well now to make our position clear on this point, given that it is the first occasion that the exercise of discretion issue is before us. 12:13:004666Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—The administrative guidelines are not usually brought before the parliament. I have no doubt that, if any senator had a particular interest and wanted to be fully briefed on those operational guidelines, the commissioner would be happy to arrange a briefing. We are not doing anything which is not now public and transparent. These bills will be very closely read by all taxation organisations. They will be very much aware that regulations will be drafted to reflect particular sections of the bill and give effect to them. Those organisations will be reading our debate here and, if they wish to, are invited to make a contribution. Those contributions would obviously be considered by the commissioner and his officers.12:14:004666Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—That concludes my questioning but I need to correct the record because I have misled the Senate. I referred to the Four Corners program. My trusty adviser has reminded me that it was not the Four Corners program that made the allegations but that it was the Sunday program on the Nine Network. So I may well have slandered Four Corners and offended the Nine Network. If I have, I apologise, obviously. It was the Sunday program on which the allegations were made and I just make that correction for the record.12:15:004666Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—In that case, picking up your error, I may have run with that error myself. We note your comments. The Hansard will show that I too might have misled but that can now be corrected.Amendments agreed to.12:16:004666Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—by leave—I move government amendments Nos 4 and 5:[tax periods](4) Clause 29-40, page 61 (after line 5), after subclause (1), insert: (1A) However, any charitable institution, any trustee of a charitable fund or any *gift-deductible entity may choose to *account on a cash basis, with effect from the first day of the tax period that the institution, trustee or entity chooses, whether or not its *annual turnover exceeds the *cash accounting turnover threshold.[accounting on a cash basis](5) Clause 29-50, page 63 (after line 12), at the end of the clause, add: (5) Paragraph (1)(a) and subsection (3) do not apply in relation to any charitable institution, any trustee of a charitable fund or any *gift-deductible entity.These amendments give charities the option to account for the goods and services tax on a cash basis. Under the goods and services tax, entities may choose to account on a cash basis if their annual turnover is $500,000 or less. Businesses that do not account on a cash basis will generally be able to adopt the same basis for accounting as they use for income tax. However, charitable institutions and gift deductible bodies do not need to account for income tax and they often account for their activities on a cash basis. Amendments Nos 4 and 5 that I have moved will therefore allow all charitable institutions, gift deductible bodies and the trustees of charitable funds the choice of accounting on a cash basis, regardless of their turnover.12:17:004667Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—As Senator Kemp has indicated, this is some movement towards allowing a cash basis for charities so that they can perhaps reduce some of their compliance costs. It allows charities to continue to account on a cash basis and it is good for easing compliance costs in that sense. But it is only a minor step, we believe, towards dealing with the issue of compliance costs for this third sector. The government has allocated a mere $500 million towards helping out small and medium business with their increased compliance cost.Figures extracted from the Australian Bureau of Statistics publications indicate that there are 899,700 small businesses and 26,800 medium sized businesses, making a total of 926,500 businesses for whom the $500 million start-up costs were intended in the new tax plan. On average, each small or medium business will benefit, to the extent of $540, for start-up costs. That does not include any ongoing costs associated with the collec tion of tax. We have heard the government saying again and again during the committee stage that there will be a compensation package but let us put that in perspective. We are talking here about an average of $540 per business.Since the original announcement, the government have said that this will have to be spread between small and medium businesses and charities and other not-for-profits. Remember, during the committee stage every time we brought up compliance they said, `Yes, but there is a generous package to assist with that.' We are having to stretch that even further so that will make that $540 less than $540. On the face of it, it seems that this will not even be enough to purchase the software, let alone pay for potential new computer hardware that may be required to do the extra accounting work or to pay for someone to do that extra accounting work. So that $540 is not going to go very far at all.Before I move the Greens amendments Nos 1 to 3 on sheet 1381 to this amendment, I have a number of questions for the government which may assist in determining the adequacy of the sum of $500 million set aside to help small and medium business—and the education, health, charitable and non-profit sectors—with the start-up costs covering computer software and hardware. Firstly, how many small and medium businesses were targeted for assistance in the new tax plan with this sum of $500 million?12:20:004667Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—I am not clear as to what precisely this has to do with the bill before us. A mechanism has been put up—an advisory committee of small business has been established—to look closely at how the funds that are being distributed can be best applied. My understanding is that at present their considerations are still under way. They have not made recommendations to the government. We look forward to receiving the recommendations from those groups to determine how the money—which I think is a considerable sum, but perhaps you and I may differ on that—will be distributed and to whom. There is not a date for reporting on this but I think everyone is aware that it is an important issue. It has been given very serious attention by the government as to how this money will be distributed and to whom.12:21:004668Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—Let me explain the direct relevance. Here we have a few bandaid measures to deal with those people who might not be caught in the $500 million. These questions are directly relevant because we have to ascertain what their real need might be and what might potentially be coming their way. What are the criteria for determining whether a business is a small business or a medium sized business?12:22:004668Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—I think this is part of the process which the advisory committee is looking at. This amendment gives effect to some of the issues which were raised by charities. It was a measure that they were keen to have. The government was pleased to respond to these concerns. The issue of the $500 million assistance is one which is, in a sense, quite separate from this. It is an issue which has an advisory committee looking closely at it to provide proposals to government as to how the $500 million can be most effectively used. Given that there will be widespread interest in this, I am sure the report will become recommendations and the decisions the government makes will be given very wide currency. Once the government makes some decisions based on the recommendations I am sure there will be huge interest in that. This amendment is simply our response to the issues that some of the charities have raised with us. We think it is a sensible amendment. We think it deals with some of their concerns for the reasons which I stated. I see the issues you have raised on the $500 million as really quite separate from this and the government has an advisory type committee which is looking at the issue and will provide recommendations to the government.12:24:004668Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—The nature of my questions will reveal themselves quite soon as to why this is not quite separate from the issue of the bandaids for other groups that are falling outside the loop. You said it is a very gener ous amount, and it sounds like a large amount, but I am just trying to work out in reality how much was intended to be allocated to each small and medium size business for assistance towards start-up costs. So if you have come to this generous amount of $500 million, surely it is based on some calculation of how much it will cost and where that money is going to go—how far it is going to stretch. How much was intended to be allocated to each small and medium size business for assistance towards start-up costs? And has the government obtained any estimates from accountancy or management firms as to the start-up costs of computer software and hardware and training of staff for the average small or medium size business?12:25:004668Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—The first part of your question goes to the advice and the recommendations the government will receive from its advisory committee. The government has put together an expert body to consider these issues. They will provide recommendations to the government and then the government will make its decisions. I do not want to pre-empt what they will tell us. As I said, we think it is a very considerable sum of money which has been put aside and we have established an expert committee.In terms of the net cost to business, I think that is stated in the RIS and in the explanatory memorandum. The EM shows that it is approximately $130 per registrant. That is the figure which has developed and has received wide currency. That is the net cost on an ongoing basis—$130 per registrant.12:26:004668Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I am asking these questions on the response of the government because I remember that Senator Tierney in this chamber was very angry each time groups and members of the committee expressed concerns about the adequacy of the package, and we were very loudly told we should be saying that it is a very generous package and that there is a compensation package. Now you are saying the amount is $130 per registrant. There are at least 92,000 non-profit organisations operating as formal legal entities and as many as 325,000 if the myriad unincorporated associations are included. Has the government obtained any estimates from accountancy or management firms as to the start-up cost to educational institutions, hospitals or other health institutions, other non-profit organisations such as sporting clubs, environmental organisations, overseas organisations and others?12:28:004669Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—A lot of people have accountancy systems and the costs of the change for some bodies will be very small. Others may not have systems in place and they will wish to ensure they have proper accounting procedures, so I think it is a bit too simplistic to say you should just provide a specific sum of money to share out amongst a wide group when that may not be the best way to deal with this issue and to use the $500 million which is available. This is why we have an advisory committee to provide us with advice on how best to use that sum. This is before them at the moment and their considerations are under way.Sitting suspended from 12.29 p.m. to 1.15 p.m.13:15:004669Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—Before we broke for our luxuriant lunch—AW5CARRSenator Carr—You should explain that because no-one else will understand.DX5Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTS—Certainly. Before the 45-minute lunch break, we heard from the minister that in terms of small business and medium sized business the government was allocating $130 per registrant.WW4KEMPSenator Kemp—No, I didn't say that.DX5Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTS—That is what you did actually say. Perhaps you could clarify that before I move to further questions.13:15:004669Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—The estimate of the net ongoing compliance cost was, as set out in the RIS, $130 per registrant.DX5MARGETTSSenator Margetts—You didn't make that clear at all.WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—I have some advisers here who listen intently to every word to make sure that there is not a variation from the straight and narrow.ZW4SHERRYSenator Sherry—Plus those Treasury people watching you.WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—Senator Sherry is right. The Treasury and tax people are watching very, very closely. Senator, I would be very surprised if the Hansard did not show that.13:16:004669Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I thank the minister, but he will find that the Hansard does not show that. I could not even clearly get the word `registrant' for a while. So $130 per registrant is what the Treasury estimates to be the ongoing compliance cost, but we never got to the determination of the software or the hardware costs. Ongoing compliance costs are $130 per registrant. I think the accountant you could hire for that would be very, very short term.I asked about the 92,000 non-profit organisations and 325,000 potential unincorporated associations. I am given to understand from the minister that the potential cost associated with them were still to be looked into. Has the government determined what part of this $500 million will be allocated to various institutions, organisations and groups? I remind the Senate that, even with the businesses we looked at, we were looking at only $540 being available. Has the government determined what part will be available or allocated to various institutions, organisations and groups, which will leave less for small business and medium business? Has the government determined what number of institutions, organisations and groups will be entitled to assistance under the start-up scheme?13:18:004669Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—This is part of the ongoing consultation which is occurring. We have set up an advisory group to look at how the $500 million can be best distributed. They will be providing advice to the government.13:18:004669Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I interpret that as their not really knowing. Are there any plans to determine the assistance to different types of institutions, organisations and groups? What is the general broad-brush plans to determine that kind of assistance?13:18:004670Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—Senator, I simply do not want to pre-empt the work of the committee. This is the sort of work that the committee will be providing recommendations to the government on.13:19:004670Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I thank the minister to a certain extent, but it is far from pre-empting if the whole basis for your argument is that these people will be looked after and you do not actually know if or how they will be looked after. As a result of the lack of clear understanding of the minister, I seek leave to move amendments 1 to 3 together from sheet 1381 revised.Leave granted.DX5Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTS—I move, also on behalf of Senator Brown: Sheet FA 209(1) Subclause 29-40(1A), omit "charitable institution, any trustee of a charitable fund or any *gift-deductible entity", substitute "*eligible non-profit organisation".[eligible non-profit organisations](2) Subclause 29-40(1A), omit "institution, trustee or entity", substitute "organisation".[eligible non-profit organisations](3) Subclause 29-50(5), omit "charitable institution, any trustee of a charitable fund or any *gift-deductible entity", substitute "*eligible non-profit organisation".[eligible non-profit organisations]What we are hoping to do here is to extend the small concession given to charitable institutions to be able to continue on a cash basis. These amendments extend it to all eligible non-profit organisations.What we heard in the responses to my series of questions is that there is no information that the minister can give us about the implications of costs for organisations that currently do not fall within small or medium businesses. We do not know whether the minister has any information specifically about what extent of cost there will be to charitable organisations. Basically, what we do know is that the government is acting in the dark on this issue.Why do we need to move this? We think it is important to remember that the third sector goes far beyond charitable institutions and gift deductible entities. Community organisations are the backbone of society. They play a huge role in supporting and enhancing our communities. When we find further and further cuts to various programs in a whole range of areas—be they in the areas of sport, health or the environment—the role of community organisations becomes more, not less, important. These include a myriad of groups playing a role in welfare, health, education, sport, recreation, child care, entertainment, finance, overseas aid, environmental protection, Aboriginal affairs, emergency services and the organised representation of interests or lobby groups. As I mentioned before, there are at least 92,000 non-profit organisations and as many as 325,000 associations if you include the unincorporated groups. Together they employ 400,000 people—that is, nine per cent of the otherwise private sector work force. That is way above any numbers of people employed in the timber industry in Australia.3M6MURRAYSenator Murray—Or mining.DX5Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTS—Or potentially mining. They spent $15 billion per annum, and that amounts to 3.5 per cent of the gross domestic product. It is also important to remember that many of these organisations have had their funding cut over the last few years. This does not mean they give us better service; it means they have to do with less—and a lot of the time their funding has been cut because they have been prepared to speak up and comment on and respond to government policy.With the GST, this section will face immense compliance costs. Many of these organisations paid no wholesale sales tax and were wholly outside the tax system. Many have limited accounting facilities and personnel, and would currently account on a cash basis. We can also see there being a problem with the government proposing to introduce an artificial distinction between commercial activities and non-commercial activities. It will be difficult to make many of these fine distinctions and, therefore, compliance costs will be increased.With the proposal to exempt food, the government has made a fuss about the costs associated with working out what is food and what is non-food. Contrast the government's fuss over that issue with the lack of response it is prepared to make for all of those groups, all of those who do not fit into its definition of `charitable institution'. This deserves serious consideration. As I said, my series of questions would indicate that, from the government's point of view, they really are the forgotten sector. I would like to think there will be support from the Labor Party. It was prepared to support amendments from the government on what the government considered to be so-called technical amendments, though we have had an indication that the opposition will not be supporting all government amendments.Let us assume that this is an unintended consequence in this area. I would not like to think that any government would deliberately put an impost of this nature onto organisations who are not rich in any way, shape or form, who play such an important role in a whole range of areas and who employ so many people—getting on for half a million people in Australia. It is not a small sector by any stretch of the imagination. I would be keen to see a response to that. If the government is about to jump up and say that the problem is in relation to definitions, I would pre-empt it by saying that we are flexible in relation to the definition from page 1328. I will respond to the government if it thinks that is a problem.13:24:004671Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—Senator, we certainly do see your amendments as a problem. The amendments proposed by Senator Margetts would significantly broaden the concession to account on a cash basis to include organisations such as sports clubs, political parties—the Liberal Party, presumably the Labor Party and others—lobbyists, trade unions and professional organisations. Typically, such organisations would account on an accruals rather than a cash basis, I am advised. The intention of the government's proposed amendments is to ease the administrative burden on charities and gift deductible bodies who would be more likely to account on a cash basis—and universities, schools and philanthropic organisations, which I think you have provided in your list, would be covered by that provision.13:26:004671Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—Considering there already are definitions in relation to the $500,000, can the minister give us an indication about whether this would be a huge extension of coverage?13:26:004671Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—Senator, you have used the words `huge extension'. A wealthy sporting club—for example, the Collingwood Football Club—could come under or fit in with the definition. Many organisations, in effect, running a big business would come under it. Essentially, we see this as a very substantial increase. I have given the example of a political party. The Labor Party, as we all know, is a hugely wealthy organisation and that would come under it. Probably the same amounts do not repose with the Greens.We are speaking now of very large bodies indeed, Senator. The charities about which you have expressed some concern, and I have mentioned some, are already picked up in the definitions that have been provided by the government. But these are very big amendments; they would make a most substantial change to the legislation. For these reasons, the government will not be supporting them.The government has given special concession to the charitable sector. In fact, in the charity sector, most of the large organisations probably would be on an accruals basis already. Any organisation with less than $500,000 can account on a cash basis.I think it is important to state—and perhaps this will give you some comfort—that the commissioner has the discretion for larger turnovers having regard to the organisations' accounting practices. This is an extension of an automatic entitlement to some large businesses. If the commissioner can be convinced that the cash accounting arrangement is fair and proper, he has that discretion. But the government cannot support the way in which you have dealt with these amendments; they are very substantial indeed. For these reasons, we will not be supporting the amendments.13:29:004672Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—Minister, what about such things as a not-for-profit organisation—say, a school which has a parent organisation with a school canteen, a tuckshop or something of that nature?13:29:004672Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—A school is covered by the common law definition of charity. A school is covered, if that is your concern.13:29:004672Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I am talking about the tuckshop which is actually providing food and which, presumably, would be operating on what would normally be considered a commercial basis.13:29:004672Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—I do not think they are necessarily a charity, but they are unlikely to have a turnover of over $500,000, I would have thought.13:30:004672Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—Then presumably these amendments would not be a problem. How about a library, a community broadcaster, a community television organisation or a community Internet services provider on a not-for-profit basis?13:30:004672Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—Senator, I think for most organisations, again, it is the $500,000 sales limit. It is a pretty substantial limit, I would have thought. Then of course there is a discretion for the commissioner if it is felt that the cash accounting basis is the most appropriate way to go.13:30:004672Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I think the minister is just proving my point—that, in fact, we are just trying to make sure there are not-for-profit organisations which are not currently covered by the current measure and that it would not necessarily involve a huge number of bodies which were not already covered. I am happy to deal with the minister. If the minister wants to knock out `political party', that is fine. If the minister has some suggestions about what would make this less problematic, I am happy to hear those suggestions. The reality is that, so far, you have not expressed a problem with the groups. You are just saying, `Oh, they wouldn't fit into that category,' in which case there would be no problem with you supporting these amendments, provided we amended them in a way that took out any particular groups that you believed should not be in there.13:31:004672Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—Senator, I do not want to recap the arguments. Some of the organisations which would be covered in the way you have defined it are big businesses, in effect, with huge turnovers.DX5MARGETTSSenator Margetts—Which ones?WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—For example, a sporting club such as the Collingwood Football Club. These are very big businesses by any stretch of the imagination. I draw your attention to subdivision 29-B of the bill, `Accounting on a cash basis'. The `Permission to account on a cash basis' section says:(1) The Commissioner may permit you to *account on a cash basis if: (a) you apply to the Commissioner in the *approved form for permission to account on a cash basis; and (b) the Commissioner is satisfied that, having regard to: (i) the nature and size of the *enterprise that you *carry on; and (ii) the nature of the accounting system that you use; and (iii) how you account for income tax purposes; it is appropriate to permit you to account on a cash basis.There is a fail-safe clause, if you like, which should, in my view, provide you with a high degree of comfort.13:33:004672Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—It does not actually, because basically each of these organisations is going to have to mount a case. There are going to be costs associated with that. We are talking about not-for-profit organisations, and we include in that indigenous organisations and overseas aid organisations, some of which handle quite a lot of money over time and provide services which could be considered to be commercial services. You are saying that you are not happy with who knows what. You are not happy that some groups may be caught in this which might be rich groups. That is a reasonable response, but you are not prepared to see whether this definition can be changed. I believe we will find that there are organisations that will fall through the gap because of the rush and, I would say, the lazy approach from the government. There will be those organisations that are not considered important enough to actually look at specific amendments.Here we are with all these so-called technical amendments involved with business but, when we are talking about real organisations desperately trying to sometimes carry the mantle of what government have left them to do with the community, you are not prepared to look at it. It is just too difficult, or a bit messy. You are not prepared to look at it. This is very symbolic of the way you have handled this whole legislative package. If it is business, especially big business, you say, `Right. Let's do everything we can to the nth degree to not only make sure they do not have extra compliance costs but also give them rebates to make sure they are all happy and okay.' But when it comes to the community you say, `Let's forget them. It's too hard, too difficult. Let's just say that it's not going to be a problem.' Where are they going to get these resources, Minister?13:35:004673Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—Senator, I think we should probably stick to the facts. The amendments we have moved are in response to charities; the amendments we have moved are not in response to big business. When you say that we have paid no attention to these types of organisations, our very amendments do that. Our very amendments are ones which apply to charities; that is the purpose of our amendments. The substance of what you are arguing is not correct. It is obviously particularly not correct in relation to the amendments we have moved in response to some of the concerns of charities. They are our amendments. They are not in response to business concerns; they are in response to the concerns of charities.I have pointed out to you that in subdivision 29-B there is a section which enables people to account on a cash basis. I suspect that most of the organisations you have quoted would have a turnover of less than $500,000, so they are not caught. On the other hand, clearly organisations such as the Essendon Football Club, the Collingwood Football Club and the Carlton Football Club would be included in your definition. We can quote many examples.We have responded to community concerns. That is why the amendments are before the chamber. Elements of your amendments are already covered in the amendments we have proposed, but we do not plan to extend these concessions to political parties, sporting clubs and a number of other areas which you have put in.13:36:004673Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—This is very indicative of the government. They do not understand the difference, or maybe they are pretending that they do not understand the difference, between charities and the community sector. The reality is that there are many services—and many are needed these days in the community—by not-for-profit organisations which are not classified as charities. We are getting a very 19th century idea that you make the rich richer and that you simply provide some incentives for charities and everything will be okay. Well, it won't, Minister. Unfortunately, it seems the government have dug their heels in.I would be interested to see if there are other responses from other people in the chamber. I think it is a rather indicative response of the government. They do not actually understand that charities do not cover the definitions of many non-government organisations and community organisations. It is part of a very old ideological image: you make the rich richer, there will be a trickle down, and anybody who gets hurt will somehow get picked up by charitable bodies. I think that is disgraceful.13:38:004673Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—I am concerned in this debate by what I regard as a very well-intentioned move by the Greens (WA) but a difficulty in under standing the consequences from the point of view of tax administration and the organisations which the two of you have been discussing. Turning to Senator Brown's amendments on sheet 1328, under item 5 he has offered a definition of eligible non-profit organisations, which I know the amendments before us relate to.Minister, what I know of income tax law is that over decades the definition of charitable and non-profit organisations has been carefully developed in law and has been reinforced through rulings, convention and so forth. So now, as it were, the entire non-profit organisations and the charitable world are very clear about where they stand in relation to tax law, as is the tax commissioner and tax accountants. In other words, it is a very well-understood area of operation and there is little difficulty. It seems to me that the new definition would break open a new discussion as to what falls in and out and what the consequences will be.I was very distressed to hear the minister picking on Collingwood, because they are having a bad enough run as it is—being a one-eyed Eagle supporter, at the moment I feel on the up. The point you made is a good one and so is the definition, as I understood it, put forward by Senator Brown. Quite frankly, with the best of intentions—this is not mischievous—this is designed to throw a wider net, but I do not understand what the consequences of it will be. That is what concerns me. I cannot clearly get a grip on it. The Democrats have attempted in our amendments to section 38 to deal with the definitional problem in our own way, and we will come to that discussion later. Of course we think that is a good outcome.Minister, in Senator Brown's amendment there is a list of definitions from (a) to (p). I doubt if you will be able to advise me because I would not be able to, but I wonder if your advisers would be familiar with which of those already fall properly within the definitions of charitable organisations and which do not—there are 16 listed there—so that we can understand where the problems are within the 16 and the range of difficulties which you have been trying to outline in your response to Senator Margetts's questions.13:42:004674Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—I can provide you within minutes, maybe even sooner, some preliminary advice. It is being done on the run, but we will give you an indication. What is a charity has been an issue for a long time—there have been a lot of cases on this. The definition is pretty broad. At common law, charities are generally organisations that are established for the advancement of education, the relief of poverty, the advancement of religion or other purposes beneficial to the community. We believe the definition is very broad and further extended in this case by organisations that are tax deductible. In a sense, we have extended it as well from charities. We simply do not want to cover organisations such as sporting clubs and political parties. A lot of organisations will be under the turnover limit and therefore they will not be affected by this.This is preliminary advice—and I stress that this was done on the run. We would not want you to hold us to this. The advice I have is: (a) is covered, (b) is covered, (c) is covered, (d) is not covered. We would have to check further on organisations under (e). Some may be regarded as charities and some may not, or some may be gift deductible. An environment organisation, (f), is covered. It has to meet the relevant criteria, we understand.3M6MURRAYSenator Murray—You are going a bit fast. Did you say that (f) was covered?WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—Yes—I have actually got the only copy here—(f) is covered if it comes under the gift deductible criteria. An overseas aid organisation is covered. A political party is not. A trade union or a professional organisation is not. An indigenous organisation—it depends on the nature of the organisation—may or may not be. Obviously, (k) is covered. And (i) and (m) are covered. For a philanthropic organisation, I think the answer is that some may well be and some may not—it depends on the exact nature of the organisation. And (o) and (p) are not covered. So—a point I made earlier when we started off this debate—a substantial section of what Senator Margetts asked about is already covered. A lot of the organisations would be under the relevant limit to register, so those particular bodies would not be affected.But when you get into bodies like sporting clubs and other things, you are suddenly changing—to slightly mix a metaphor—the name of the game. We think that we have moved to cover an issue which the charities raised with us. We certainly do not wish to go further in the way that you have pointed out. As I said, the other thing that is worth pointing out is that where there is a real cash basis issue there is a subdivision—29-B—in the legislation which is before us under which an organisation can make representations to the tax commissioner.13:47:004675Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—Minister, thank you for that. That was actually very helpful. I will just give you a quick check back of your preliminary advice, and I accept that it is preliminary and on the run. Of the 16 items listed, eight you gave a tick to, two had a tick and a cross—some parts were in, and some parts were out—five were out and one you were not sure on and would need to check on.The point that I then want to explore is that for those that are in there is little problem. There is tax precedent, tax ruling, common law, definitions established, and so on. For the remainder that are not in, I would assume it would then be necessary in terms of this legislation to add them to the dictionary of definitions. Is that right? Because if it was the intention of the parliament to put in, for example, a political party you would have to define what that meant, I would guess. Or if it was a trade union or a professional organisation, you would have to define what that meant. Because, otherwise, I assume you have to go through the whole process of common law development, rulings, definitions and all those sorts of things over time. Is that right?13:48:004675Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—If you wanted to give effect to some of these things, my advice is that you would have to have a lot of amendments which would describe the nature of the body. This would not be the way to go. You would have to define what is a political party and what is a sporting club. For example, is chess a sporting club? There is quite a wide range of issues which are involved there. As I have said, we have given a concession to charities. We have listened to charities, and that also includes tax deductible bodies. I do not think we can go further than that. I think if the parliament wanted to move down this road we would have to have a far wider range of amendments to deal properly with it.13:49:004675Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—Minister, could you just recap for us the flexibilities that you believe are already in the legislation? So that you understand what I am talking about, I assume the flexibilities that are there and are established both in the bill and in your amendment are flexibilities relating to methods of accounting, to accounting periods, to threshold levels in terms of turnover and amounts of income received, to activity—in other words, the kinds of activities which generate GST status—or to others.The points Senator Margetts made about the number of people who are involved in these not-for-profit organisations, the size relative to GDP, et cetera, were very strong. The government is as well aware as we are of the importance of this sector. But my assumption so far—and I welcome your response—is that the majority of those organisations, employees and turnover, if you want to call it that, relative to GDP are covered within the legislation. That is my understanding. As you know, we think it needs to be extended a little further, and we will be addressing that later, but I am not too sure that there are major problems emerging at this stage in terms of limitations.13:51:004675Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—The best reference in the bill is section 29-B, which sets out the criteria in section 29-45. It states:29-45 Permission to account on a cash basis(1) The Commissioner may permit you to *account on a cash basis if: (a) you apply to the Commissioner in the *approved form for permission to account a cash basis; and (b) the Commissioner is satisfied that, having regard to: (i) the nature and size of the *enterprise that you *carry on; and (ii) the nature of the accounting system that you use; and (iii) how you account for income tax purposes;. . . . . . . . .(2) The Commissioner must notify you in writing of any decision he or she makes in relation to you under this section. If the Commissioner decides to permit you to *account on a cash basis, the notice must specify the date of effect of your permission.You might say we do have a fail-safe clause in the bill. But, as I said, to move in the direction that Senator Margetts wants us to move, we would have to have a far wider range of amendments to properly give effect to that. That is certainly the advice I have received.13:53:004676Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I thank the minister as well. If it is such a fail-safe mechanism, why has it been necessary for the government to include the category of charities? `Eligible non-profit organisation' does not necessarily mean that we believe all of these are charities but, if the mechanism for people being able to argue their case is so fail-safe, why has it been necessary for the government to specify charities? Does this not actually mean that the interpretation by the tax office may be narrower than what it was when you first drafted the bill?13:53:004676Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—As I said earlier on, the definition is broad and, as Senator Murray pointed out to us, there have been many cases which the common law has developed on this. I have read out the criteria. If Senator Margetts would like, we will carry out a more detailed analysis of the list that she has provided and I will report back to the Senate when the debate next occurs. We could provide that to her and Senator Murray, who has a particular interest in this, so we can look more closely at some of these issues she has raised.13:54:004676Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—I am not too keen on this sort of process I am about to suggest, but I would like to test it with the minister. It seems to me that one of the problems with Senator Margetts's amendment is that she seeks to substitute something with which we are comfortable with something of which we are not certain as to its total meaning and so on. It seems to me possible to simply add to your statement, however, `any charitable institution, any trustee or charitable fund, any gift deductible entity' or `any eligible non-profit organisation'. The difficulty we would then face is that `eligible non-profit organisation' has not been defined, as I see it—I have looked in the dictionary—by the government.But it would provide you the opportunity, if you wished, either to put in the dictionary definition at a later date that an eligible non-profit organisation is such that the government or the tax commissioner may determine—that does not restrict it because we already have the other definitions—or to revisit and reassess that amendment, as you have offered, when Senator Brown's amendment comes up relative to that. The difficulty that I am expressing to you is the substitution principle. I like what you have and I want to support it, but I also recognise Senator Margetts's concerns—and Senator Margetts's concerns attach to a definition which in turn worries me.13:56:004676Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I thank the minister for his offering to provide further information. I will happily accept that. I wonder if at the same time the minister may be able to provide us with an indication of how many entities in each of those categories are eligible for gift deductible status.13:56:004676Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—Senator, I am not sure that that will be possible. Certainly the initial response from the advisers is that it would be unlikely that we could provide that detail, but we will take the question on notice. If there is some way that we can give you an indication when I respond, that will assist. We are trying to be helpful; we are not trying to resist the issue you raise, although we do not agree with it. You have asked a question and we will take that on notice and see what we can do. I agree with a certain proportion of Senator Murray's comments, as I understood them. The charitable organisations and gift deductible bodies are well understood for tax purposes. They are well appreciated, and we rely on well-established principles of organisations that satisfy the charitable aims, which I read out earlier on. As I said, we do not support the amendments, but you have asked me some particular questions and I will provide you with the answers. Some of that detail may not be possible, but we will give it our best shot.13:58:004677Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—I have stood out of this debate until this point because I think it is essential that the government state the reasons for its amendments and the Greens explain the reasons for their amendments to the government's amendments and the chamber satisfy itself with those meanings. That point seems to have been arrived at, and it is, therefore, appropriate for the Labor Party, the opposition here, to state our position with respect to all of these amendments.Firstly, we are dealing with the second set of government amendments on sheet FA209. We have dealt with three government amendments so far. This is the second set, and they constitute two changes. That means that there are only 123 government amendments to go after these two to the GST legislation that the government rushed through the House of Representatives and required before Christmas and to which it has now projected 128 further amendments.I stated earlier the opposition's attitude to government amendments. Briefly, let me recap it. By and large, where those amendments are technical or mechanical in nature, better express the intent, remove ambiguity or close off loopholes, as the government sees it, in its own legislation, we will not oppose those amendments. Our refusal to oppose those amendments should not and cannot be read as support, though, for the legislation. The Labor Party is firm. We are opposed to the GST; ergo we are opposed to the legislation that imposes the GST. But, if a government which has messed up its legislation and now wants to amend it needs an opportunity to get it right, we will concede that opportunity to the government to get its own legislation right. We will not oppose it in that.However, among the 128 amendments are a number of amendments that we regard as not machinery, as not technical, as having implications far beyond simply better expression and greater efficiency of the provisions of the bill. One of those, which I will not delay the committee on now, is the amendment the government slipped into the pack on casinos. We regard that as having far-reaching consequences, and at the appropriate time we will oppose the government amendment.Having said that, I now turn to the amendments to these provisions that have been put forward by the Greens. I acknowledge what the Greens are attempting to do. I am not sure that the Democrats support them in this intent, have a reserve position or will oppose them in this intent, given the nature of the final discussion. It seems to me, if I interpret the body language, if not the words of the debate, that you may well at this point be struggling a little, Senator Margetts. But that is for the chamber to decide, if we divide on this issue.This is the first occasion in the committee stage of this legislation that amendments by the Greens, an Independent or the Australian Democrats have come forward to the first of the 27 GST bills that we have under consideration now. Because it is the first occasion on which minor party or Independent senator amendments have come forward, I would like to take the opportunity just for a moment to state what will be the guiding principles of the Labor opposition in voting on Independent senator or minor party amendments to this legislation. I do so in the expectation that this explanation will clarify the situation and remove the possibility that the Labor Party's attitude can be misinterpreted or misrepresented. I do not for one moment think that that would be the case by the minor parties, I might say, but I do think it could possibly be the case by the government. I have a bone to pick with them, which I have done to some extent thus far and will continue to do at the appropriate opportunities, on where they have misrepresented the Labor Party position.That is not the matter for debate right now. I want to now go to what will be the guiding principles in dealing with minor party amendments in the committee stage. There are roughly 200 minor party amendments. We have before us almost 350 amendments to the 27 bills to consider. Our position in dealing with those amendments relates to our basic principles about a GST. A GST is a regressive tax. That means that middle and low income earners pay proportionately a higher percentage of their incomes than wealthy Australians, and that is therefore unfair. The government recognises that and has announced a compensation package. We believe that you cannot humanise or make fair the GST. We believe that it is a leap of credibility to believe the alleged lock-in mechanism will prevent the 10 per cent ever rising to 12, 15 or 20 per cent, as has happened in every other country in the world. It is a leap of logic to imagine that that will not happen in Australia were this legislation to come into force.Even if you believed that the 10 per cent would remain constant, there is no way in the wide world that the compensation that the government has announced to offset the inequity of a regressive tax can remain constant. There is no lock-in mechanism to make sure that the compensation remains as long as a GST remains. Let us look at the international evidence, most recently in New Zealand. Shortly after their GST came into force the compensation was significantly changed by the government. They argued that they had simply reshuffled it but, because the level of cost was much less than it was previously, I do not think they could fairly argue that they had not reduced it. They certainly did. But governments come and go and, as long as this tax remains, the compensation should offset it. There is absolutely no guarantee about that. For those reasons, we are opposed to a GST. We remain firm in that conviction and we will see the argument through on that basis.As a consequence of that conviction, it therefore automatically follows in logic that, if the principle is wrong, amendments or changes which soften the principle do not remove the basic fault. The principle is wrong; it is only a question of degree about how wrong it is according to the amendments that you make. But, even if you soften it a smidgin here, a tad there or a smaller bit somewhere else, the basic thing remains constant, that this is a regressive tax, that there are no guarantees about its rate in the future and that there are no guarantees that the compensation will remain and the only way you can deal with it is to reject it. As a consequence, we will not be supporting the amendments by the Greens and the Democrats and we will be voting against those amendments. In declaring our position of principle, I do not imply a lack of respect for the honesty of the motives of the movers of those amendments. They may well believe, for all I know, that you can humanise a GST. I think in logic that is not the case. But, if they hold that view, I respect their view and do not attack their motives for holding it. But that is not a reason why we should change on principle, and we will not.This legislation should not pass. If, as a consequence of our position, at the end of the committee stage of this legislation the government has before the chamber the perfect version of the GST that it wants, I would call upon this chamber to reject that package in its entirety and at that particular point there would be absolutely no doubt where the Labor Party would stand. The Labor Party will stand in direct opposition to the legislation at the end of the committee stage and will call upon this chamber to muster a majority vote to defeat it—to reject this bill and send it back to its makers, never to be seen in the legislatures of Australia again—on the basis that we stand for fairness and you cannot make a GST fair. That is the basic guiding situation for the Labor Party.This is the first occasion on which amendments have come forward which, I acknowledge, would make it easier were a GST to apply. But that would, and I conclude on this point, be delusionary because we will perhaps soften the GST but we will not remove the injustice of the GST—ever. It is the fundamental question that we are concerned about, and for those reasons we will be voting against the amendments.14:08:004679Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I am wondering whether we should preface some of our amendments by saying these are purely technical amendments. I just find the logic in what Senator Cook has said a little hard to understand. He will support the government's amendments for their package but will not support amendments which to an extent, if the Senate passes them and the coalition rejects them, are intended—certainly from the point of view of the Greens (WA)—to point out the problems. We can understand the responses in relation to things like a definition—what the problems might still be—but we are trying to point out that there are so many problems and that many of them are in fact unfixable by a quick amendment. I know that sounds like an anomaly, but the point of running these amendments is to show what the problems are, and I am a bit sad that in a way we are being brushed off in that sense by the opposition.Yes, it is probably true that there are not any little fix-it amendments which will make this a fair package. But I think it is necessary, by way of amendment or attempted amendment, to show where those problems exist or to try to tease out where those problems exist. If nobody was running those amendments, people would simply get a very simplified argument from either side as to what is and is not in this package. At least in this process anyone who is following the debate will at least get an idea of what the raft of problems are and note the very fact that the government might be unprepared to deal with it. At least we will get an idea of what problems the government is prepared to deal with and what problems the government is not.In the cases of those organisations which slip through the fingers, whose sales are in such small quantities that they do not get the benefits of any government schemes for rebate, I really feel that there will be some which will have to take the effort of arguing a case, and that is a money effort as well. That will be an ongoing concern in this process and, unfortunately, I think we are going to get a pattern of who are the winners and who are the losers as a result, and putting the amendments will help to show who the winners and losers are throughout this process.14:11:004679Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—As I understand the logic of Senator Cook's position, it is as follows. You are going to oppose a GST, you are going to oppose amendments to improve the GST and, if the GST goes through, we are all going to have to wear any deficiencies in it. That is a bit like saying, `Listen, everybody, you're all going to die but we're going to make sure you die painfully,' and that is a little uncomfortable to live with, I must say.Turning back to Senator Margetts's amendments, the Australian Democrats have a view that the contribution made by charities and public benevolent institutions in all sectors of Australian life—particularly for the disadvantaged and the poor—is absolutely invaluable. The charitable sector performs work at a cost benefit level which is highly productive and it is work which would otherwise need to be undertaken by the government. In a government sense, it saves substantial sums every year. The GST, as it is proposed to be introduced, will harm the charity sector. Improved or not, it will harm it. It will harm it because it will result in an increased compliance cost and increased administration and therefore it is the job of the government and of the Senate to ameliorate that additional cost as far as possible.Senator Margetts, as this debate has progressed and as I think I have intimated beforehand, there are really two areas in which I would have preferred your amendments to have been expressed. The first is that I believe you should not have been substituting `charitable institution, any trustee of a charitable fund or any gift-deductible entity' for the words `eligible non-profit organisation' but that you should have been adding to them. I believe it should have read `any charitable institution, any trustee of a charitable fund or any gift-deductible entity or any other eligible non-profit organisation'. That would have met the government's needs, which I think are properly expressed, and would have met yours. We then move on to the second problem, and that is the lack of a definition for `any other eligible non-profit organisation' which Senator Brown—but I presume with your support, Senator Margetts—has attempted to outline on sheet No. 1328.That definition gives the Democrats real concerns. We do think the definition should be widened, but there are so many potential problems within that. I would suggest, Senator Margetts, that there is time before we reach sheet 1328 for that potential definition to be revisited and reorganised. Whilst the Australian Democrats support your intent, we do believe you should widen the appropriate definitions to support the charitable and community organisations sector as broadly as possible on a straightforward public benefit basis. Nevertheless, I think your solution does not meet your objective, so regrettably I cannot support it at this stage.14:15:004680Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—I am reluctant to rise again, having stated my position, but, reasonably, the Greens and now the Democrats have raised some questions about it and I think it appropriate for me very briefly to reply, although I do apprehend that this part of the debate is grinding to a conclusion and probably the next speaker in line will be Senator Margetts replying to Senator Murray as to whether the changes being suggested are worth while.I do not want to delay unduly on this, but I do appreciate the comments by Senator Margetts that nothing in what I have said runs against the prospect of minor parties raising matters to draw attention to the deficiencies in this bill. Earlier this morning I asked the government, `Would you produce your further amendments? You have produced 128 of them. We believe, in reading these 27 bills, that there are many more technical amendments to come because there are a lot more devils in the detail that you have not yet uncovered. When you do, you will be back into this chamber either after the passage of this legislation—if it goes through—or before this debate is over, with further amendments on technicalities.'This is a complex set of legislation. We think there are still more problems that the government needs to address. I agree with you that it is appropriate to draw attention to some of those faults on the way through, but, in drawing attention to them, we say that if the government accepts your changes we will not oppose them, but it is for the government to make this legislation in its image—as the legislation it wants.On the question raised by you and Senator Murray about our stand on principle, Senator Murray said, `It's like we're all going to die and therefore the Labor Party will make sure we die most uncomfortably.' Therein lies the very basis of our opposition, because your illusion, Senator Murray, goes to the fact that we are all going to die.Senator Murray interjecting—RF4Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOK—That is what you said, `We're all going to die, and therefore the Labor Party will make us die most uncomfortably.' I object to us all dying. I think we should not all die; I think we should all live, and that is why this legislation should be rejected. The way I prefer to depict our position is to say that this legislation sentences all to hang, and the amendments that you are proposing commutes the death sentence to life imprisonment. I do not think we should be in gaol at all, nor do I think middle and low income earners in this country should be convicted of having to pay a higher proportion of their income in tax than wealthy Australians—it goes to the fundamental question of fairness—nor do I think that the government should dangle a pot of money in front of taxpayers' eyes and say, `Look at the tax cuts we're going to give you,' which we know will erode, in order to buy enough marginal voters to impose a tax that will go on forever and that will eventually penalise them. I am not going to fall for the fistful of dollars. We saw that before, and we have seen it in the past many times where you have tried to buy votes in order to impose a measure that is regressive and runs against the interests of the community.Our fundamental proposition—I only say it in reply to the point that you have raised—is that if the illusion that you put forward depicting our situation is that `We're all going to die. The Labor Party will make sure you die most uncomfortably,' which is my understanding of what you said, then our position is that we should not die at all, and we are going to stand for life, not death. But the way I prefer to see it and to explain it is that these bills are sentencing low and middle income earners in Australia to the death penalty as far as taxes are concerned, and the amendments would commute that. I do not think we should be in gaol at all. Taxpayers should get a fair shake—a progressive tax system, not a regressive one. I say that in reply.14:20:004681Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—All this talk of death and dying! I would like to acknowledge Senator Murray's comments in relation to the wording of our amendments 1, 2 and 3 on sheet 1381, and I would also like to acknowledge that that probably would have been our intent. As I guess were most people, we were drafting amendments quickly. I would be happy to make those changes if I thought there was any chance of getting this amendment up, but I can see we would be whistling into the wind on this occasion unless with the change of wording on amendments 1, 2 and 3 the government would suddenly become happy with them. I see Senator Kemp is not nodding his head, so the reality is that yes, we would be prepared to change the wording but it looks like we would be whistling into the wind. I can read the numbers on this issue.14:21:004681Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—I must briefly respond to some of the remarks made by Senator Cook. I am well aware of the passion with which Senator Cook and his party oppose the GST. I have been in proximity with Senator Cook on the select committee on tax for some months, and I am well acquainted with those views. I would remind you that the Greens (WA) and the Australian Greens are also as passionately opposed to the GST, but they have chosen to put up amendments to the legislation to improve those areas which they think deserve such attention.The reason they have done so, Senator Cook, is that neither you nor I nor Senator Margetts can guarantee that the legislation will not go through, because it might go through. If it does go through you know that we will vote against it if food is not made GST free. You know that Senator Margetts and Senator Brown are going to vote against the bill at the end of the debate. But if it does go through anyway and you have failed to exercise your responsibility to make things a bit better, it is my belief that you as a party will have failed to deliver better outcomes than otherwise might have occurred.I understand—because I have heard you say so—why you have made the choice you have. But that is what lies behind my remark. Even if it turned out that you and your party, Senator Margetts and her colleague and me and my colleagues voted against the GST and it went through, I would be proud if at least I had been able to improve it on the way. That saves people harm; it saves people time; it saves people cost; and it saves people difficulties. Of course, we are now talking about the charitable institutions and I would be very surprised if they are not dear to your heart given the nature of the Labor Party commitment to that sector. So that is what lies behind my remarks. I think it is the duty of the Senate, whatever the legislation, to attempt to amend it. It never ever stops you at the end of the process from voting against the bill. That is exactly what we did with Wik. We tried to amend it all the way through and we achieved some amendments which improved the bill, but at the end we voted against it because we did not think it was good enough. Frankly, I would have much preferred the Labor Party, with its tradition of defending its patch, to have indeed adopted that position. I close my remarks on that basis.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Watson)—The question is that the amendments moved by Senator Margetts and the Australian Greens to the government amendments be agreed to.Question resolved in the negative.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—The question now is that government amendments Nos 4 and 5 be agreed to.Question resolved in the affirmative.14:25:004682Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—by leave—I move government amendments Nos 6 and 7:[accounting on a cash basis](6) Clause 29-99, page 65 (after table item 1), insert:1AGamblingDivision 126[gambling](7) Page 194 (after line 22), after clause 126-32, insert:126-33 Tax invoices not required for gambling supplies (1) You are not required to issue a *tax invoice for a *taxable supply that you make that is solely a *gambling supply. (2) This section has effect despite section 29-70 (which is about the requirement to issue tax invoices).These amendments involve the issue of tax invoices and gambling supplies. The GST treatment of gambling is to apply GST to the gambling margin, being the difference between the bets received and the total monetary prizes paid out. As a GST is not charged on individual bets, a gambling supply cannot give rise to an input tax credit. As the purpose of a tax invoice is to evidence the GST that can be claimed, an input tax credit is not necessary to require that a tax invoice be issued for gambling supplies. Amendments Nos (6) and (7) remove the requirement for a tax invoice for gambling supplies.14:26:004682Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—These are the first amendments that the government proposes to make to its own legislation which deals with gambling. As we learned from a statement made by the minister to the chamber yesterday, there are of course other amendments. They are the Crown Casino amendments; the amendments that favour high rollers—amendments which have been extensively covered in the media.I have a couple of questions on the amendments on gambling as a group that I would like to put to the minister. Firstly, Minister, last night you had the distinction of appearing on the 7.30 Report in an interview with the moderator of that program, Kerry O'Brien. In that program he put to you these questions:. . . your amendment will put money back into the pockets of the casinos, will it not?Following your reply, which I might say was incomprehensible to me, he then asked you:. . . will this amendment save the casinos money?Following your reply, which was incomprehensible to me, he then asked:Does the amendment save the casinos money?Following your reply, which was incomprehensible to me, he then said, `Let me put it another way.' He asked, `Why are you making these amendments and what do they do for the casinos?' And I am still none the wiser, given your answer to Mr O'Brien. Minister, will you answer this question now: will your amendments on the casinos put money back into the pockets of the casinos or not?14:28:004682Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—Senator Cook, I am sorry you did not read the transcript. I suppose we can all be abusive if we want to, but I never am of course.Senator Robert Ray interjecting—WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—As is well known, Senator Ray, I am never abusive; I always play it straight and never play the man. The issue that Senator Cook raised is why we have put these amendments before the chamber.Opposition senators interjecting—WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—Senator Cook asked me why we are making these changes in relation to gambling amendments. I am saying that, in relation to the gambling margin, what we have done is to give effect to the policy that we went to the election on.It is not a change in policy; I have stated that before. It is not a concession for high rollers. The basic point is that the GST is a value added tax. The value added amount for the gambling operator is their margin, and the margin is the bets placed minus any payouts that must be made to the gambler. This amendment is not currently before us, but Senator Cook referred to the package of amendments. I think that, since Senator Cook is determined to have this debate about an amendment which is not actually before the chair, I will assist Senator Cook. But I record that this is, in fact, not the amendment which is before the chair.We have given effect to the policy with which we went to the election. It is not the Crown Casino amendment. It is an amendment which is perfectly appropriate, perfectly proper. It was brought to our attention by the industry association that the legislation as drafted did not give proper effect to the policy with which we went to the election. Therefore, it was proposed to us by Treasury, following their negotiations with the industry association, that the amendment relating to the margin be made.That, Senator Cook, is precisely what we have done. The innuendo and disparaging comments that seem to carry forth from that side of the chamber every time this is discussed seem to me, I have to say, to be quite unseemly, not accurate and often defamatory of the individuals involved.You asked me the net effect of these amendments. You will have noticed that I said last night that there is an agreement with the states that there is to be no net revenue collected from gambling because of the current high level of taxation on gambling and the often legislatively fixed margins. States will reduce their gambling taxes by the same amount as the GST. If the Senate does not pass the amendment—not the amendment actually before the chair, but the amendment relating to the margin—then the states will be required by the intergovernmental agreement to take this into account when setting their taxes. The net effect would be similar, but it would complicate the GST and may cause other administrative problems.To summarise the position for you, Senator Cook, it was brought to our attention that there was an error in the drafting. An amendment was proposed to the bill which I have brought before this chamber. There is no change in the forward revenue estimates because this gives effect to the policy which everyone assumed was in the bill. But it was brought to our attention that there was an error in drafting. There is no net change in the revenue effect.What would happen if the amendments on the margin fell over? What would happen if the Senate said no to this? It would be then a matter for the states. But I have pointed out to you the agreement with the states. The states recognise that gambling is heavily taxed, so there is no net increase in revenue collected from gambling because of the current high level of taxation. What would happen then if this amendment did not go through and if the states kept to that principle? I assume they would keep to that principle. The states would presumably, to maintain the appropriate outcome that has been defined, make adjustments to their other taxes. As I said, it is not our preferred course, it is not the way we would prefer to go, but the overall net effect would be similar. If the Senate did not pass the amendment, then the states would presumably have to take this into account when setting their own taxes.UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—By how much? You don't know.WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—The net effect would be the same because the states would then presumably have to adjust their tax.ZW4SHERRYSenator Sherry—Give us the amount.WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—I don't know. If the net outcome is to be the same—ZW4SHERRYSenator Sherry—Were you given a figure? I bet you were given a figure and you are covering it up.WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—Senator Sherry, don't carry on like that.UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—How much?WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—The net effect would be the same.ZW4SHERRYSenator Sherry—Give us the amount.WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—No, I haven't got a figure here. I do not know. What I am telling you is that the net effect would be the same. But it is not our preferred course. It would complicate the GST and may, as I said, cause problems in an administrative sense.14:36:004684Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—I don't know that I have the patience of Kerry O'Brien to ask you four times, Minister, but let me ask you again and let me ask you very simply. I use the same question Kerry O'Brien used last night. Your amendments will put money back into the pockets of the casinos, will they not? Can you answer that question?14:36:004684Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—Senator, I have pointed out to you that there will be no net revenue gain, so the taxes raised from the casinos via the current state taxes and via the GST will remain the same. If the amendment relating to the margin falls over in this place, the states will then have to adjust their own taxes so the net outcome will be the same. That is the principle. The net outcome will be the same. The bottom line to your question is: what will the states do? What the states will do presumably depends on what the Senate will do, but there will be no net revenue gain.14:37:004684Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I have one quick question. I know that Senator Cook and Senator Ray are keen to ask questions further on this matter. Can the minister please clarify which particular COAG meeting he is talking about? When was this agreement made with the states?14:38:004684Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—It was made on 9 April at the Premiers Conference.14:38:004684Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAYUI4VICALP00—I have a couple of questions for the minister. If it was always the government's intention, why wasn't it in the original legislation? Why wasn't it picked up? Was it only picked up when the Casinos Association drew it to your attention? Was it picked up when someone else lobbied the government that you will not admit to?The second question is: Senator Kemp will not give us a quantity as to how much a GST on high rollers' rebates would be. Has anyone ever given the government those figures, and, if so, why won't you release them?To follow your point logically through, let us assume that this clause—that we are going to look at at some time and we are talking about a principle now—was to fail, and you could quantify the amount of revenue, which you would have to be able to do in broad terms, what you are saying is that there are no overall revenue implications because the states would reduce their gambling taxes to equate with what comes in through the 10 per cent on the rebated losses of high rollers.But the implication of that, of course, is that they will not specifically pass on those particular gambling savings to the high rollers. It may well be that they reduce the take from the TAB from 13 per cent to 12 per cent, and that in fact what we will see here is a redistribution of money from the high rollers to the battlers, who are already being taxed very highly. You cannot give many more tax rebates to the high rollers at a state level because those snivelling, crawling individuals have already cut each other's throats to give them the maximum world-wide deal already.You are really saying that this will be revenue neutral overall, but basically the high rollers will pay tax and the benefits of them paying the tax will be passed on to the battling punters out there. You have given me a really good reason to vote against your amendment.14:40:004684Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—I want to add a question which concerns me and which follows on from questions already outlined. But before I do so, an allegation has been printed in the newspapers which I want to put to rest that the Democrats were completely briefed on this issue and raised no concern.I would point out that there was a briefing to the Democrats in the form of myself and my adviser on the 128 amendments. I arrived late for that briefing and left early because I had other hearings and meetings. My recollection is that the matter was not discussed whilst I was there, and the adviser concerned is available in the chamber. My recollection is that the main discussion we had during that period was concerning the insurance matter, and that, if more than one or two sentences were conveyed to him—according to my adviser—on the gambling amendment, he cannot recall much else.The effect of a briefing is not that it is a debate. It is not an occasion on which you raise all your concerns. It is to advise what the government means by the amendments and to go away and consider it thereafter. A briefing does not constitute approval, does not constitute a tick-off, does not constitute an agreement and does not constitute a negotiation; it constitutes hearing from the government what their reasons are for putting forward their amendments.ZW4SHERRYSenator Sherry—You mean you didn't get across 128 amendments in one hour?3M6Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY—It was 45 minutes. As you know, I was only there for 25 minutes. I wanted to put that to bed early because I know I might be caught by the time. I will return to the fundamental question that concerns me. If I understand correctly, the minister is saying that this is principally a matter of revenue adjustment between the Commonwealth and the states. If that is so, the amendment matters not at all to the casinos. They are not concerned about it, surely. If the casinos are not concerned about it, why should we be concerned about it?RF4COOKSenator Cook—Why did they make representations about it?3M6Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY—Why did they make representations about it? If they are not going to make any money out of it, what is their interest in it? If you are telling us that they are not making any money out of it, and it is simply a revenue adjustment between the Commonwealth and the states, then it is not a matter of interest to the Casinos Association, the casinos industry or anyone else.Unfortunately, the only advice I have is in the form of a confidential submission. It seems to me from some of the public statements made in the newspapers and the media that the Casinos Association and the casinos are concerned with the amendment. I do not know of any industry anywhere which is concerned with amending legislation unless it benefits them, and generally speaking financially. Let me make it clear that I think it is entirely proper for the industry to pursue their self interest. All industries do. What is at issue here is the government's motive and manner of responding to that industry in contrast to the charities, churches, bishops and all the people who are scrambling for the poor, disadvantaged and those who are discriminated against in this package.To summarise my question and add to those before, if this does not confer a benefit on the casinos, as you seem to be implying, why should the Senate even concern itself with it?14:45:004685Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—You are coming to this matter at a different angle from Senator Ray. Senator Ray, there was a drafting error, because it did not give effect to the policy.UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—By whom, A-G's or Treasury?WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—I can seek some detail on that, but the legislation that finally emerged clearly did not give effect to the policy with which we went to the election. Therefore, Senator, we want to have the tax paid on the correct margin. Clearly that did not happen with the way the drafting occurred and, in essence, this amendment fixes up a drafting error.What will the states do? Senator Ray said he thought that, if there was going to be no net revenue effect, the states would have to deal with that issue. Presumably, if there is going to be no net revenue effect, the states will have to adjust their taxes accordingly. How they would do that, frankly, is a matter for the states. I am aware—Senator Conroy interjecting—UNKNOWNThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Watson)The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Watson)—Order! The minister has the call.WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—Senator Conroy can make his contribution in the appropriate way.Senator Conroy interjecting—WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—I know it seems strange, Senator Conroy, for you to make your contribution in an appropriate way.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—Order!WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—What would the states do? I cannot answer that question; I do not know what the states would do. The states would then have to deal with the problem and adjust their taxes accordingly if they are going to keep to the principle of no net revenue effect.Senator Robert Ray interjecting—WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—In order to keep to that principle, the states would have to adjust their taxes. How they would do that, Senator Ray, frankly I do not know; that would be a matter for the states. They would have to turn their mind to this issue.Senator Murray raised the question that, if there is no net revenue effect, why would they bother? They bothered because they came to us and said that the benefit, from their point of view, is an administrative benefit. They see complications, I understand, if we go down the other route and the matter is dealt with at the state rather than the federal level. They see that it is an important administrative arrangement which they feel will more effectively meet their needs and give effect to the promise that the government made at the last election. But if it falls over, it then falls to the states to deal with the problem.3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—How is it revenue neutral?WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—Because all the GST revenue, as you know, goes to the states. The states would then, keeping to the principle of—Senator Robert Ray interjecting—WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—Keeping to the principle of no net rise in gambling taxes, the states would then presumably have to make adjustments to their state gambling taxes. Senator Ray asked me what would they do? Senator Ray thought that the states would focus on making sure that, as Senator Ray described it, the battlers would benefit. I do not know what the states would do to be quite frank, Senator Ray—that is entirely a matter for the states. They would then have to work out what they would do.14:49:004686Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAYUI4VICALP00—Minister, is it not a fact that the states, irrespective of whether this clause gets carried or not, are going to have to alter their gambling tax mix? You are already taxing 10 per cent of winnings and the total amount created there is going to have to be reduced from states taxes. That is almost certainly going to be general practice. So if, in fact, high rollers are taxed more heavily and there is more revenue on this side, they are just going to add it to the formula of reduction, surely. It is not going to create a special problem for them. I do not expect you to know exactly how they are going to handle it; they would not have told you that yet. But that is the logical implication that, just because you have got a bit more in the pot, that is going to go into the generality of the reduction.14:50:004686Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I would also like to ask the minister a question following my question earlier. The minister said that the agreement with the states is that there is to be no net revenue collected from gambling. He said this is part of the agreement with the states. To establish when this longstanding agreement occurred, I asked when did this occur and he said that it was at the 9 April Premiers Conference. So we are talking about three weeks ago. Three weeks ago, in order to get the states on board, the Commonwealth promised this measure: that there would be no net revenue collected from gambling. I assume the reason the states were asking that was that they saw there might be a change. So the states—and some in particular—lobbied the Commonwealth at the Premiers Conference for a change to the legislation.Can the minister also give us an idea of when the meeting or meetings took place between the casino representatives and Treasury officials. How did they relate to this 9 April Premiers Conference buy-off? Because that seems to be what it is—it is not in the ANTS package that anyone on this side can see. On 9 April, there is suddenly agreement between the Commonwealth and the states that there is going to be no net revenue collected from gambling. Which states pressed that at the Premiers Conference? Was it all of them or just some, in the latter case which ones? And, in relation to 9 April, when was the meeting or meetings between the casino representatives and Treasury officials?14:52:004687Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—I would like to hear the answers to all of those questions, but so that you have got all the questions at least at this stage of the inquiry that I would like to have before you, Minister, I would like to ask a couple of others. I have great difficulty with your reply because in this place we all know what a `weasel word' is: that is a word that someone uses to weasel out of an undertaking. You have said in your reply, `I don't know.' You have said in your reply `I presume' and `As far as I'm aware'. It may be that you do not know, it may be that you presume and it may be as far as you are aware, but the purpose of this chamber, unlike television last night, is for us to get at the facts. We do want to know. We do not want to know what the state of your knowledge is. We want to know what the facts are. We do not want to know what you imagine is the case. We want to know what is the case. We do not want to know that you do not know. We want to know what the government has done and what the community is up for. That is why these questions are very important.The second part is that you said the government told us all about this before the election. As far as I am aware, the only publication in which the government did that is this document, which was sent around Australia, Tax Reform: not a new tax, a new tax system. In this document on page 98 there is a section headed `Gambling and lotteries'. I want to read this section and I want you to tell us where in this section it says that the government was going to give high rollers a tax break. This is what it says:Gambling and lottery activities will be included in the tax base. The GST will apply to the operator's margin of these activities, not to the prizes paid out. That is, the tax will apply to the difference between total `ticket sales' or bets taken by the operator of the gambling or lottery activity and the value of the prizes or winnings paid out. However, operators cannot always adjust their prices because these are often set by the rules of the game or by State government legislation relating to levels of pay-out. As the States already tax gambling highly there may need to be corresponding reductions in State gambling taxes. This will be possible because, under the proposed arrangements, the States will receive the proceeds of the GST, including the GST on gambling.End of story. That is what you told the Australian people. When did Mr Howard, prior to the election, tell the Australian people that high rollers would get a special tax break? We are talking here about exclusive gamblers who play for the high stakes and wager between $½ million and $5 million a throw. That is the class of gambler we are talking about. This is not someone in off the street. What we are saying here is that it is apparently the practice of the casinos that if a high roller wins they walk away with their winnings but that if a high roller loses, and in those stakes loses heavily, then the casino hands back some of the losses to the high roller so that they do not lose as heavily as they would have done and so, hopefully, they will come back and bet again. That is what we are talking about.I do not know whether anyone playing the pokies, if they lose, when they go to cash their chips in, is suddenly handed back some of their losses by the casino operator because the casino operator did not want to see them do the weekend rent. But if you are a high roller and you lose the practice is that the casinos hand back some of your losses so that you do not lose as badly, and we are going to give them a tax break in order to enable them to do that.When did Mr Howard tell us that? Which speech was it? Was it in the policy speech? Was it in a remark he made during the election campaign? When did Australians know that when they voted for this document they were voting for that type of arrangement? It is not clear in these words. In these words it says that gambling is governed by the `rules of the game'. We all know what the rules of the game are. Anyone that has been into a casino knows what the rules of blackjack, keno or poker are. There is no rule that says if you lose you get your losses paid back to you as a rebate. It is not in the rules of the game and it sure as hell is not in any state legislation. So where does it say here that there ought to be a tax break for doing that?That is the first question. You said it was in the ANTS package. This is the ANTS package I have in my hand. You said we knew about it before the election. When did we learn about it? You said that you are only doing what you told us you were going to do before you got voted back into power. Well, it is not clear to anyone on this side, I can assure you, that you ever made that clear to anyone. And it obviously was not clear to the casino owners either because their association came to see you after they saw your legislation. They said, `Make these changes,' and you did. Why did they do it? According to the explanation that you have just given, there is no benefit in it for them except an administrative efficiency benefit.I chaired the Senate inquiry into the GST. That inquiry did, as is now popularly known, receive a confidential submission from the casinos. I have not divulged that. I will just say this on the record. I hate receiving a confidential submission from an industry group requesting the Senate to do things in that industry group's interest without the rest of Australia knowing what they want. Therefore I thought it was appropriate that if they wanted something it not be asked for confidentially and secretively. It should be asked for openly and publicly so the rest of us can know what they want. And if they persist in wanting it they should come before our inquiry and answer questions about why they want it. They were not prepared to do that, so we never proceeded. I have not released any copy of their submission either. It does seem, though, that because they made no progress with us they then trotted off to talk to you again and you agreed. Among 128 amendments that you slipped into this pack the other day, all of which were `minor', was this amendment, which is hardly minor at all.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Caught red-handed.RF4Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOK—That is right, caught red-handed. You defend yourself in the first part of your answer by saying it is in the document I have in my hand. I put to you, Minister, that it is not in there, it never was intended to be in there, it is a retrospective interpretation by you to justify your current position and it is not true. I put that to you directly. I ask you to show us now where it is supposed to be and what secret words we were supposed to understand it meant. I ask you then to justify how the rest of Australia that voted on this knew that at the time, because on that leg your argument does not stand.I move to the second part of my question. I bear in mind the weasel words that I identified earlier, so please don't include those in the answer. I would much rather, if you do not know, that you tell us that you do not know and promise to undertake to find out for us, rather than say, `I imagine', `I presume', `possibly it was this', `maybe it was that'. Let us get to this honestly, directly and openly. Let us not fiddle around the margins of it.As I understand your explanation, the states, you presume, will correct any problem that the casinos might see if the Senate rejects the legislation. Senator Margetts has raised this point. She has asked a series of questions which I think are right to the point. When was that agreement reached? Where is it written down? How do we discover it? Which premiers sought it? Why did they argue for it? What is on the public record about it?I remember seeing on television the other day the Prime Minister, the Treasurer and the state premiers after the Premiers Conference. I remember what was said. A lot of what you have said was said was never said. For example, it was never said that the Labor premiers supported the GST. I have been through the transcript. They never said it, but you keep telling us that they did. They never did. When was this deal reached?The next leg of the question is: if it was reached, and it is on the record and established that it was reached, what obligations have the states entered into? You say that you presume. I do not know what status `presume' has as a legally binding word. I imagine that `presumed' is not a legally binding word. You presumed wrongly. Well, tough luck; it was something else. But what will the states do? Will they amend any legislation?At the end of the day, we want to be sure of this: if those who bet half a million dollars to $5 million a throw are being subsidised to the effect that if they lose they are handed back some of their losses so that they won't be upset and will come back again as another customer, if that is what the deal is and the states pick up the cost of that, how much revenue do they forgo which would have been spent on hospitals, schools, roads and other services?This is the federal government; they are the state governments. You can say to us, `Well, it's revenue neutral for us.' But if it just shunts it down the chain to the states and it is not revenue neutral for the states and it is a loss to their revenue, in order to meet the social aspirations of their communities, it has to come from somewhere. If it goes to the high rollers at the casino, who does it come off? I would like to know the answer to that question: who does it come off? Which hospitals don't get started? Which schools got closed down? Which roads never went ahead? Which welfare payments were cut or reduced?They are questions which go to where this GST debate has now moved to. They go to the fundamental question of fairness. I said in this chamber the other day that that is a good debate to have. That is an Australian debate to have. We are proud of our record of being an egalitarian country; the country of a fair go. But I do not think a fair go can be defined as a payout for high rollers who lose, being shunted down the chain of administration of this country from the federal government to the state government and then being taken out of services to the communities in the states. That is the issue that I think you should now answer, Minister, along with the questions that Senator Margetts has put and the other questions that I have put. I will now give you an opportunity to answer them.15:04:004689Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—I would be delighted to answer that. The first point I would make is that much of your comments are absolute, total humbug. What is the Labor Party's preferred tax system? The wholesale sales tax is your preferred system. When a high roller goes to the casino, how often is the wholesale sales tax applied to him? Is it applied to him when he goes to a restaurant in the casino? There is no Labor wholesale sales tax applied to him.3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—It is not applied to food, either.Senator Faulkner interjecting—WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—I know it is embarrassing. When he stays in a luxury suite, is a Labor Party wholesale sales tax applied?RF4COOKSenator Cook—A bed tax.WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—There is a bed tax in New South Wales, not in Victoria. This is total humbug. We are applying a GST which picks up high rollers.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Answer the questions.WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—I am answering, Senator Faulkner. That is why it is total humbug, because the Labor Party's preferred tax system lets the high rollers off scot-free—scot-free in their restaurants, scot-free in their gambling, scot-free in their accommodation. The wholesale sales tax is not applied, but a GST will be applied. This is total, absolute humbug from you, Senator Cook. You should point out to me how your wholesale sales tax system catches the high rollers. That is the question, Senator Cook, seeing that you have decided to throw yourself all over the chamber in pious fury. Why don't you tell us how your wholesale sales tax applies to these people? The fact is that it does not.UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—We wouldn't have cut their state taxes from 40 to 10 per cent.WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—Senator Ray has come in because he is embarrassed. It has suddenly occurred to Senator Ray, `Hey, there's a problem here; is the Labor Party being absolutely hypocritical?' The answer is: absolutely, totally hypocritical. You tell me where your preferred tax applies to the high rollers. Because the wholesale sales tax does not apply to services, it does not apply to the high rollers. The Labor Party tax system lets the high rollers off scot-free.ZF4CROWLEYSenator Crowley—They pay more tax.WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—I will be interested in future contributions from the Labor senators who can explain to me just where their tax system applies to the high rollers. Who is it going to be next—Senator Cook, Senator Faulkner or Senator Robert Ray? The question is: where did this occur? In the ANTS pack age, we set out very clearly that gambling and lottery activities will be included in the tax base. It is not in the Labor Party's wholesale sales tax base by the way; you let them off scot-free. The GST will apply to the operator's margin of these activities, not to the prizes paid out. So the question is: what is the appropriate calculation of the margin?RF4COOKSenator Cook—Where does it say that?WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—That is what we are giving effect to, to establish what is the proper calculation of the margin.3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—It says `prizes and winnings'. Losses and rebates are not winnings.WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—I know that you are acutely embarrassed by this because you are a supporter of the wholesale sales tax, which does not apply to the high rollers. The high rollers get off scot-free from your wholesale sales tax. When they go into a restaurant at the casino and order lobster and Veuve Cliquot, where is the Labor Party tax?5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—You are defending it.WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—I am waiting for Senator Faulkner to explain to me carefully where the Labor Party tax system catches this. The answer is: the Labor Party tax system does not. Senator Cook asked me where this was put out in the ANTS package. That is where it was put out.RF4COOKSenator Cook—It does not say that.WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—Senator Cook, with gambling the tax is applied on the margin, and that is precisely what is flagged there.Opposition senators interjecting—10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Reynolds)—Order! Senators on my left are bordering on being disorderly and I would like to hear what Senator Kemp has to say.WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—Thank you, Madam Temporary Chairman. Then we indicated in the ANTS package that, as the states already tax gambling highly, there may be a need for corresponding reductions in state gambling taxes. This will be possible because under the proposed arrangements the states will receive the proceeds of the GST, including the GST on gambling. That was clearly flagged in the ANTS document.Progress reported.Bills4690r750469015:11:004690Coonan, Sen HelenSenator COONAN2M6NSWLP10—On behalf of Senator Knowles, I present the report of the Community Affairs Legislation Committee on the provisions of the Health Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1999, together with submissions and the Hansard record of proceedings.Ordered that the report be printed.Committees4690469010000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—The President has received letters from the party leaders seeking variations in the membership of committees.Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell)—by leave—agreed to:That senators be appointed to committees as follows:Community Affairs Legislation CommitteeSubstitute members:Senator Schacht to replace Senator Denman for the committee's inquiry into the provisions of the Compensation for Non-economic Loss (Social Security and Veterans' Entitlements Legislation Amendment) Bill 1999 .Senator Forshaw to replace Senator Denman for the committee's inquiry into the Australia New Zealand Food Authority Amendment Bill 1999Legal and Constitutional Legislation CommitteeSubstitute member:Senator Calvert to replace Senator O'Chee on 4 May 1999.Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation CommitteeSubstitute member:Senator O'Chee to replace Senator Calvert on 6 May 1999. Business46914691Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell)—by leave—agreed to:That the following government business orders of the day may be taken together for their remaining stages:No. 2— A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Bill 1998 and 14 associated billsNo. 3— A New Tax System (Commonwealth-State Financial Arrangements) Bill 1999 and 11 associated bills.Committees46914691469115:13:004691Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—I present the report of the Select Committee on A New Tax System on the provisions of 12 further bills implementing the proposed new tax system, together with submissions and Hansard record of proceedings.Ordered that the report be printed.RF4Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOK—by leave—I move:That the Senate take note of the report.This is the third report of the Senate Select Committee on A New Tax System. This report is a carryover of some of the bills that we were not able to consider adequately during the main report into the GST. The bills this report deals with relate to Commonwealth-state financial arrangements, to the luxury car tax bills and to the wine equalisation tax bills. This report represents the final considerations of the Senate select committee on those matters. That Senate select committee will now cease to exist.The Senate Select Committee on A New Tax System came into being in December of last year. It delivered a significant report on the macro-economic effects of the GST earlier in February. It delivered its main report on a full consideration of the GST, including the considerations by Senate references committees on the community services, the education, employment and industrial relations, and the environment, communications and sports areas, as well as its own considerations after 27 days of sittings. That is the main report. This report means that about 1,000 pages of reports, cumulatively, over the three references, have now been reported by that committee within the space of four months after exhaustive consideration around Australia.In delivering the main report, I recognised the constructive role played by the secretariat in assisting the inquiry. I also said that lessons had been learnt from the inquiry which would be pursued constructively by me in another way. I can now say that that process has started. One hopes that the lessons we have learnt about how to conduct an inquiry of this magnitude may well be encoded in some changes which will mean that the problems we faced will not occur again. With that in mind, I do know that a number of people in the secretariat have worked extremely hard—in fact, I think all people worked extremely hard and for long hours—and they deserve recognition by the Senate. I formally thank them for that and acknowledge the very fine effort that they have put in.Going to the detail of the report, the first element of this report concerns Commonwealth-state financial arrangements bills. It only became possible to inquire into these measures after the Premiers Conference, held earlier this month, and when the Commonwealth and the states had finalised their arrangements with each other on how the GST would operate in the states. The first thing I should say about this part of the report is that I believe, and our report reflects this, that substantially the outcome of those proceedings has been misrepresented. It is the government that has done the misrepresenting.The government has said that state premiers of a Labor persuasion, by accepting a share of revenue that the Commonwealth wishes to give to the states in the event that there is a GST, have somehow endorsed the idea of a GST. That is not true at all. Our report decisively lays that furphy to rest. It does so by no more complex mechanism than simply quoting what the premiers themselves did say, not what the Prime Minister wants us to believe they said. What they said publicly, and to their own parliaments, was that they have reservations and oppositions to a GST, and that they have a general Labor view of a GST: they oppose a GST. Should this parliament, in its wisdom, decide that a GST will apply in this nation, and I hope it does not, the premiers will operate a GST at state level on the basis that the Commonwealth wishes to move to displace some of the state taxes by providing the states with the revenue. That is not an endorsement of the government's position at all. It ought to be made very clear that these state premiers have not endorsed the idea of a GST and Labor is not divided federally or in the states on this matter. Labor is united nationally in its opposition to the principle of a regressive tax.The second thing that needs to be said is that in these agreements the government has substantially misled the Australian community about the nature of the taxes to be forgone at a state level. It has only become public in the last few weeks that the Commonwealth, based on entreaties by the states—because of the displacement of state taxes and the extra unanticipated costs that the states would therefore have to bear—has agreed to allow one of the taxes that the Prime Minister has claimed will be abolished to continue and be phased out.The announcements about the benefit in dollars to the states of the deal has been substantially overstated by the Prime Minister. Not all of the taxes that were to be abolished will in fact be abolished immediately, and the alleged benefits to the states are much less than what has been publicly said. I do not have the figures at hand but it is about half of what the Prime Minister has alleged, and that is because one of the state taxes will continue for a time. It is important to have that on the record because at this very early stage of the manoeuvring to convince Australia that a regressive tax is good for you the facts are not being stated accurately and the public debate is being clouded by deceptive comments which do not fully portray the issue. I will not comment on the luxury car tax bills, save to say I draw the Senate's attention to our recommendations on those bills.I do want to talk for a moment about the wine equalisation tax bills. The inquiry we conducted had considerable evidence before it about the changes in tax arrangements that the Commonwealth government proposes to make that affect the Australian wine industry. The way this argument is best described in a shorthand way is to say that the small wine producers, who are most of the wine producers in Australia, would prefer to change the basis of tax calculation to a volumetric one away from the ad valorem basis that applies. They want that because they believe it is a fairer tax for them and it would provide as well, without going into the full argument, health consequences to the wider community. They also argue, as does the entire wine industry, that the total take from the wine industry is excessive under the new arrangements and that there has been a grab for cash by the government under the guise of introducing a new tax here. I think the arguments on that score are basically valid.On the question of the small wine producers, the Australian wine industry is a success story of Australian industry. It is one of the industries that give Australia an international reputation. It is a fast growing industry that proposes to export about $1 billion of wine this year. It is a decentralised industry that provides jobs in regional Australia, and its future is inextricably bound up with wine tourism and the tourist industry to create occupations that otherwise would not exist for people by not only showing tourists the sites but also taking them to the local winery to sample a drop of the local grape.7E4VANSTONESenator Vanstone—That is why your government was the first to double the tax.RF4Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOK—You are disorderly, Senator. Behave yourself. So there is a need to amend the government legislation so that the small wineries of Australia are not penalised under the changes proposed by the government. We have made recommendations to do that. I foreshadow now that when the bills come before the chamber we will move down that course. (Time expired)15:24:004692Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I thank Senator Murray for deferring to me and for speaking after me. Alcohol taxation is an area that I have been involved with over a number of years, as honourable senators will know. As it is a drug that wreaks significant havoc on individuals and society, the Greens have immense concerns about what we as a parliament can do to help minimise the negative impacts of alcohol abuse in our community.I have been involved in the designer drink issue. As senators would remember, I have been in this chamber again and again to speak about a commonsense approach to dealing with alcohol as alcohol, not in terms of what produced the alcohol—whether it was wine based or spirit based. In their election promises the government said they were going to deal with that, and we have not seen them dealing with it yet.So when the government's WET proposal came up in the ANTS package the Greens obviously were highly interested in the issue. The first point to be made is that this wine equalisation tax does not go far enough. It relates to wine and a couple of other drinks like cider and sake. The Greens would like to see serious taxation reform of all alcoholic products, with public health and safety being in the forefront of the policy makers' minds. It is, of course, important that the tax system ensure the viability and diversity amongst the various players in the alcohol industry but it has to be remembered that alcohol abuse has serious implications for our community and that as a parliament we should be proactive about it.The most frustrating thing is that there is a proactive path that we as a parliament could be taking. There is an option that has been on the table for a long time. It is a volumetric tax on the alcohol content. A tax on alcohol content would provide a strong incentive for the production and promotion of low alcohol drinks. And from a consumer perspective, low alcohol drinks would be cheaper, so there would be an incentive to buy and drink low alcohol drinks.It makes so much sense, but the government is ignoring this option at the behest of the large bulk wine producers, primarily based in South Australia. It is noteworthy that one of the largest bulk producers, Southcorp, made significant donations to the coalition to the tune of $72,800 and to the ALP to the tune of $15,000 in the last financial year. This does not include the donations in the lead-up to the election. It is also interesting to note—it is not something I usually do—that Bruce Kemp, cousin of brothers Senator Rod and Mr David Kemp, is one of the executive officers of Southcorp.It is therefore unsurprising that the government is maintaining the ad valorem system which makes cask wine incredibly cheap. It is also unsurprising that the ALP have not challenged this properly, despite the clear public health implications that have been documented by a number of esteemed drug research organisations such as the Alcohol and Other Drug Council and the National Centre for Research on Drug Abuse. This evidence is compelling, and it is disappointing that the major parties have failed to take it into account.The minority report submitted by Senator Brown and me argues that there are immense difficulties with the wine equalisation tax. In its own terms, the wine equalisation tax—WET—proposal fails because of its inability to achieve revenue neutrality and the negative impact that the WET will have on the industry and on regions in which they are situated. This is especially so in my home state of Western Australia and in Senator Brown's home state of Tasmania, as evidenced by the motions moved in the houses of parliament there: the unanimous motion from the Tasmanian House of Assembly moved by Peg Putt from the Australian Greens and the unanimous motion in the WA Legislative Assembly moved after a motion on notice in the Legislative Council by Chrissie Sharp from the Greens (WA).In the broader framework of public health, the WET proposal has serious flaws because it totally fails to recognise that alcohol abuse is a major public concern and health issue, that the taxation system can be an effective tool to achieve socially responsible outcomes, and that the wine industry as a whole is likely to benefit to a greater extent from a volumetric tax.This is one area where I think people should be representing their community and their state. But also, when you have a system on which as a national issue we are having drug summits and this is recognised again and again as probably one of the most important issues of drug abuse in Australia, it is crazy to see the government not taking the opportunity to take one of the most effective steps they can—that is, to recognise the impacts of alcohol and to tax according to the alcohol content.I would leave the rest of the time for this debate as far as possible to other senators, as I realise I was not a full member of this committee, but I commend the minority report to the Senate and to the community to look at so they can argue about the issues involved.15:30:004694Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—I advise Senator Ferguson that I will only speak for five minutes, which will allow him enough time to address the issues at hand. This is the sixth report in this overall inquiry and the third from the overarching Senate Select Committee on A New Tax System. I think enough has been said already at previous discussions about the various things that have gone on in the committee. I just want to again thank both the chair and deputy chair for the work they have done during this inquiry and to thank the secretariat. I predict, Senator Cook, that political economists and others of such ilk will be picking over the Hansard records and the other records of the committee for many years to come.This particular report has three main elements. One is the Commonwealth-state financial relations element, the second is the wine equalisation tax and the third is luxury cars. The luxury cars area, although well reported in the report, is relatively uncontentious. As far as I can see, it has not generated much policy heat. The areas of policy interest have been primarily in Commonwealth-state relations and wine. At the Commonwealth-state level, a critical issue has been local government. We have had remarks made before as to how their position needs to be radically improved in this major change that is in prospect. I thank the government, inci dentally, for starting the process of recognising reforms in that area by some of the changes they have already indicated. But the critical thing to recognise is that, regardless of the origin of the Premier, what the premiers want is certainty in revenue and certainty in revenue growth and to be assured that the taxes applied to produce that certainty produce efficient economic outcomes and at the same time are fair for the community. I think those are the kinds of principles that should guide us when considering that issue.On the wine equalisation tax issue, there is a great deal of division and debate. I do not really want to revisit that, because that is well canvassed in the report, but I do want to comment on a deficiency, I believe, in the government's approach to the alcohol area. That deficiency is primarily one of process. Alcohol is not just wine; alcohol is beer, spirits and other alcoholic beverages. I would note, for the intent of the Senate, that we do not have before us bills in this tax system package to deal with the ANTS proposals for changes to the spirits regime and to the beer regime. I think that is wrong, particularly when much of the argument about the wine equalisation tax has actually been from the national and state bodies to do with alcohol and drug abuse. They are concerned about how alcohol taxation influences the abuse of consumption of alcohol. They are supporters of the moderate consumption of alcohol. Not to have the beer and spirits bills to debate cognately with the wine bill I think is a mistake. I think it is bad process. What is more, it is a mistake which the government can rectify. We have probably a couple more weeks before we get to that stage of the debate, given the break we have next week for estimates, and I would urge the government to get before us the beer and spirits excise proposals arising out of the ANTS package which they put to the people. That is an important aspect which has probably been skipped over in this.Finally, I would like to commend to senators the tables at the back of my supplementary report. Fortunately, the Distilled Spirits Council of Australia put in to the committee some very clear and illustrative tables which are very helpful in understanding a complicated area. I have adapted those for my purposes, but I want to record my debt to them. One of the major problems with discussing this area is a lack of understanding as to what products fall into what categories, how they are dealt with and so on. I would suggest that those tables are actually helpful for a better understanding of alcohol taxation in that area.15:35:004695Ferguson, Sen AlanSenator FERGUSONEP5SALP10—Firstly, can I say that I have been at a meeting all day and, while I knew the report was being tabled, I was unaware that anybody was going to be speaking to the report. I thought it was going to be tabled some time after half past three because of other business that was before the Senate. So I have not had time to read in detail the reports of the Labor Party members and the Democrats. However, I did have an opportunity while Senator Murray was speaking to read in brief some of the things that were said.I am disappointed in the start of the Labor senators' report, because they make it sound as though the government was not prepared to hold any public hearings in relation to these matters that were referred to us by Senator Murray, namely, luxury cars, the wine equalisation tax and Commonwealth-state relations. In fact, that is not the case. The government offered public hearings on any one night in the week prior to this report having to be tabled, last week, and this was rejected by the Labor senators. We said we were prepared to have a hearing either on Wednesday or Thursday night of last week, and in conversation with me the chairman said that they did not want to have them those nights but they would like to have them the next week and extend the reporting date. Once the matter had been referred by Senator Murray with a reporting date of today, I do not think it was fair to extend the reporting date when in fact we were ready to hold public hearings in that previous week. So, for the report by Labor senators to give the impression that the government senators did not want to hold public hearings is quite wrong. You certainly did not get government support to extend the deadline, but I do not think you would have got Democrats' support either to extend the deadline, because Senator Murray referred it and to the best of my knowledge he too thought we should stick to the original deadline.However, we did have lots of evidence put before us prior to these bills being referred specifically. We heard evidence at many of our select committee hearings from the Winemakers Federation in particular and also from two state governments. Let me say that, as for their report's introduction, I am surprised and I think it is somewhat misleading to suggest that we would not have hearings. They also say:The Government has consistently and fraudulently claimed that Labor Premiers support its GST package. Nothing could be further from the truth.They should consider all of the public statements from state premiers, particularly Labor premiers, that have been quoted. When you have the New South Wales Labor Premier saying:I have got to say that I have never been at a more successful Premiers' Conference in the four years that I have been in this job. It does seem a transformation. It is the national government handing over a growth tax that is going to be the basis for state revenues from now on in. . . It gives us a growth tax in place of small and messy business taxes that we have had to count on as we have tried to meet people's needs for schools, hospitals and so on—that does not sound to me like a premier who does not support the package. Mr Beattie, the Queensland Premier, says:Queensland if the GST goes through—it is a matter for the Senate—will be better off.That does not sound to me like a premier that does not support the package. The Tasmanian Premier, Mr Bacon, says:I'm the first Tasmanian leader to go to Canberra and come away no worse off.That does not sound to me like a Labor premier that is not supporting the package. So we have this number of Labor premiers who obviously support this package and, as for Labor Party senators saying that we fraudulently claim that Labor premiers support the tax reform package, I think nothing could be further from the truth.They supplement that by a table on page 44 of the report. It has been identified as a table that was presented last November by the South Australian government and which has no status and no relevance because it has been superseded by a subsequent Premiers Conference. An intergovernmental agreement was signed in April which simply overtakes all of the matters that are raised in this table. It was not a table that was presented to us as evidence. It was a table that has been somehow obtained by the Labor Party, who put in their own report a document that was never presented to the select committee as evidence, never tabled and never included in Hansard. It was just simply something that was obtained by the Labor Party and it is put in their report as though it is an official document.7E4VANSTONESenator Vanstone—Most unusual.EP5Ferguson, Sen AlanSenator FERGUSON—Most unusual indeed, Senator Vanstone. I think it is rather misleading to use a document that has no status or no relevance. Senator Margetts spoke about the wine industry and the WET tax, and I must speak briefly about that. She criticises the influence that she says South Australia has, particularly the impact of the large wine producers in South Australia.It is true that South Australia produces 50 per cent of Australia's wine but let me tell you that the advice given to us as a committee by the peak body in Australia—the Winemakers Federation, which represents large producers of wine and also over 400 small winemakers in Australia—was that they requested this government to continue with an ad valorem tax.The peak body represents some 80 per cent of the crush in Australia and at least half of the small winemakers in Australia, bearing in mind that some of the small winemakers do not belong to any organisation. We do have some in Western Australia which I know do not like the system and some in Tasmania who do not like the system but they represent a very small proportion of Australia's wine industry and the total crush. So we listened to the peak body as they made representations to us and the decision was made.In relation to the WET tax and the bills that relate to that, we went to the election with two clear things in mind. One was that the base of the tax would be a four-litre cask of wine. In fact, we said that we would introduce a WET tax to replace the existing wholesale sales taxes which would not increase the price of a four-litre cask of wine greater than the 1.9 per cent CPI impact that the overall indirect tax package would have on the economy. So we have set the WET tax rate at 29 per cent, which actually increases the price of a cask of wine by 1.9 per cent.In agreeing to the peak body's request that we have an ad valorem tax, it stands as a matter of fact that, if you are going to tax wine by value and not by volume, the higher the value of a bottle of wine the more tax is paid on it; it just stands to reason. So in fact we had the situation where we agreed that we would only increase the price of a cask of wine by the average CPI and we acceded to the Winemakers Federation request that we have an ad valorem tax. But the effect of that is that the price of a premium wine will go up by slightly more than the 1.9 per cent that a cask of wine will go up by.But what is not mentioned by those who complain about the rate of WET tax is the saving in production costs that will happen through the introduction of a GST. Nothing is said about the saving in transport costs. Nothing is said about the fact that the GST will not be on exports and neither will the WET tax, so exports will remain very competitive. The other thing that was not mentioned—3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—Nothing about high rollers getting concessions. Nothing about Ron Walker getting his money.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order!EP5Ferguson, Sen AlanSenator FERGUSON—Senator Conroy, just because there is no time for you to speak in this debate—because your committee chairman, Senator Cook, took the whole 10 minutes—I would appreciate it if I could be allowed to finish. You will have another chance in a couple of weeks time. Nothing is mentioned, when we are talking about the tax, about the fact that—Honourable senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senators will cease interjecting. Senator Ferguson has the call.EP5Ferguson, Sen AlanSenator FERGUSON—Nothing is mentioned about the fact that Australians are going to be delivered $13 billion worth of tax cuts which will make wine more affordable. So the people who are complaining the most about the fact that they believe that premium wine is increasing by more than the 1.9 per cent are in fact those people who currently buy premium wine and will still be able to afford to buy it. The other thing is that we wanted to make sure that people on low incomes will still be able to enjoy a glass of wine at a reasonable price. Many of those are people who do buy casks and casks will still be in their affordable range.I know I am getting very close to time but I want to say that this is, thankfully, the final report of the Select Committee On A New Tax System. In doing so, I want to give my thanks to my colleagues on the committee. Some were easier to get on with than others, but I will not name Senator Conroy. I would like to thank the committee secretariat for all of the work that it has done and my colleagues on the committee, who have worked very hard over a very stressful time for four months to produce the number of reports that have been produced and particularly to get this final report out on time. I say to the chairman, Senator Cook, and to all of the other people who have been on the committee: I hope that the committee's work has been of value and that, when we finally pass the new tax reform package before 30 June, all of our work will have been worth while.Adjournment469710000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! It being 3.45 p.m., I propose the question:That the Senate do now adjourn.469715:45:004697Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—Senator Sherry asked how many of the government's amendments represent policy change and how many reflect changes of a technical nature. I seek leave to incorporate the answer in Hansard .Leave granted.The answer read as follows—Senator Sherry asked: of the Government's amendments, how many represent policy change and how many reflect changes of a technical nature.The Government has circulated amendments relating to over 30 issues. Some of these issues take several discrete amendments to implement, so that the total number of Government amendments is quoted as 128. The amendments incorporate suggestions made during the wide ranging and very constructive consultations we have undertaken since the tax reform Bills were introduced. With the assistance of a number of professional and industry representatives, and input from community organisations, we have continued to look for ways of making the design and the operation of the GST even better.The amendments are mostly technical, in the nature of fine-tuning of the Bill. Only 3 issues could be said to relate to new policy initiatives. These 3 measures do not involve significant revenue cost, being relatively minor, but important, amendments to operational aspects of the GST announced in ANTS.The policy changes:. Allow charities to account on a cash basis, regardless of their turnover;. Extend GST grouping provisions to include certain partnerships and trusts; and. Refine the change of creditable use provisions, so that no adjustments will be required for purchases of inputs less than $10,000 used to make financial supplies or less than $1,000 for items of private use.These amendments merely refine the Bills to ensure that the Government's policy is carried through in the most practical, efficient and cost effective way possible.Earlier today, in reference to high rollers I said that meals, gambling and accommodation are not subject to wholesale sales tax, and that is true. I also made reference to Verve Cliquot. Wholesale sales tax does apply to wines, including Verve Cliquot, but the restaurant mark-up does not include the wholesale sales tax. If the government's tax bills are passed, these mark-ups will be subject to GST. As I mentioned, meals, accommodation and gambling will also be subject to GST.469815:46:004698Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW656NSWALP00—This afternoon I rise to make some remarks not about the GST, which has been discussed at length in this chamber over the past two weeks, but about the great game of Rugby League, which is an issue of some importance to the public of Australia, particularly in the eastern states. As we know, Rugby League has been through some very turbulent times over the last few years. The Super League-ARL war split the game and threatened to bring about its demise. In more recent times, there have been scandals with respect to the use of performance enhancing drugs and steroids and, more lately, some rather unsavoury incidents have occupied the headlines.It is unfortunate that in this climate we have seen the retirement from this great game of two of the legends of Rugby League. I refer in particular to Bob Fulton, the recently retired coach of Manly, and to Allan Langer, who retired this week. Both of these individuals are legends, in my view—and I think in the view of the general public, whether they follow Rugby League or not. Rugby League has great players and it has good players, but there are few legends. These two were both legends.Bob Fulton, I would have to admit, was neither the most popular Rugby League player in Australia nor a popular coach, particularly with referees and with the fans of every other club except Manly. I have to confess that I have been a long-term fan of Bob Fulton and, indeed, of the Manly club. In my early years I was a supporter of Manly. I am not sure why, other than that I happened to get interested in Rugby League around the time that Bob Fulton commenced his great career. When I was a youngster, there was no player—I suppose until Wally Lewis came along—who so dominated the game.Bob Fulton was a person of incredible individual ability who could, within a few seconds, turn a game around. It was not until Cronulla entered the competition that I switched my allegiance to my local club. Nevertheless, I found myself rather divided in the 1973 grand final, reputed to be the most hard-fought grand final in Rugby League history, when Manly beat Cronulla. Cronulla had Tommy Bishop, another genius of the Rugby League world, and other great players, and Manly had Bob Fulton. It was only through the brilliance of Fulton that they won that game.Fulton played a total of 213 first-grade games for Manly and 50 games for Eastern Suburbs. He also played in 20 tests for Australia and 15 World Cup matches. There is no doubt he would have played in more had he been picked for the 1967 Kangaroo tour. He toured twice, in 1973 and 1978, and in the views of many he should have been picked to play for Australia earlier. He had an enviable coaching record, having coached Australia in 39 tests for 32 wins and he never lost a series. All told, he coached teams in 405 first-class matches, which is a record in Rugby League. It was sad to see him retire as the coach. I think he probably would have preferred to go out at the end of this year, but the time was of his own choosing—to give someone else the chance to try to resurrect the fortunes of the Manly club.Whilst I know that just about every other Rugby League supporter in the country supports two teams—their own and whoever is playing Manly—and do not necessarily wish any improvement in Manly's fortunes, I think people recognise that the game has lost one of its greatest individual players and coaches. He is certainly a legend—a person who played the game in the spirit in which it was intended, albeit he did from time to time have some rather strained relations with referees. But, there again, that is what referees are there for—to cop a bit but at the end of the day to have their decisions always accepted. Fulton always did that, however reluctantly.I now turn of course to this week. We saw the announcement of Allan Langer's retirement from the game. I suppose there are a lot of differences between Langer and Fulton, but there are a lot of similarities as well. Firstly, they are both small in stature but huge in heart. They were both totally committed 80-minute players. They were both individually brilliant and, in my view, both legends of the game. I put Allan Langer in the same category as Fulton, Gasnier and others.Allan Langer proved that little men can play the game and have an impact—and what a huge impact he had. He started playing for Queensland under the leadership of Wally Lewis and eventually succeeded in the captaincy of the Broncos and of Queensland. He established an unparalleled record for his club, his state and his country. All told he played some 240 premiership games and scored 401 points; he played in numerous state of origin matches, playing 30 games for Queensland; and he played in 22 tests for Australia, including captaining Australia in two tests.Langer represents what everybody recognises, and what has been reported in the media this week, as the good side of Rugby League—that is, firstly, total dedication to your team, to your sport and particularly to your team mates. He was a quiet achiever, a cheeky player with a great sense of humour. He was not one to stand in awe of himself, rather he went out there and played the game as it should be played. Whilst he no doubt enjoyed the events after a game of football, like all other players, particularly after a premiership win or an origin series win, he always did the game, his club, his state and his country proud.I think it is important to recognise, as we have done on many occasions in this parliament, the exploits of great sportsmen and women and most recently, of course, the retirement of Mark Taylor from international cricket. I think it is fitting that we record a few comments noting the retirement of both Allan Langer and Bob Fulton. Langer, again in my view—and I know in the view of many fans and supporters—has retired too early, but that is a selfish attitude that we as fans adopt. I would have loved to have seen him continue to play for the rest of this year and into the future but, after all, it was his decision, he chose the time to go and we respect him for that.As I said, I believe that it is appropriate to place on the record the thanks of hundreds of thousands of fans around Australia to these two great players. I just hope that, after this weekend's round of Rugby League matches, we can be celebrating again the exploits of players and teams rather than some of the more unsavoury incidents which unfortunately are detracting from this great game at the present time.469915:55:004699Payne, Sen MariseSenator PAYNEM56NSWLP10—Before I begin my remarks this afternoon, I cannot resist the opportunity to both note and endorse Senator Forshaw's words in relation to two great Australian Rugby League footballers, Bob Fulton and Allan Langer. I would be remiss of course not to record my own lifelong commitment to what I regard is the greatest southern Sydney club, the St George-Illawarra Dragons. Senator Forshaw and I might have a debate on that question. In relation to the game they play in heaven, which is being played at the Sydney Football Stadium on Saturday, let us hope the Waratahs are successful over the Reds.I do however want to take some time this afternoon to address the issue of constitutional change. In the last 12 months an enormous amount has happened in this area—whether it was conventions, preambles or other issues, the notion of constitutional reform has remained at the forefront of public debate. I think that is a very good thing. Many senators would be aware of the valuable work of the Constitutional Centenary Foundation, which is chaired by Donald McDonald. In fact, our colleague Senator the Hon. Amanda Vanstone, the Minister for Justice and Customs, is on the Board of Advisers of the foundation. Throughout 1997 and 1998 the foundation ran a series of local constitutional conventions in conjunction with the Australian Local Government Association. They culminated today here in Canberra with the completion of a forum which has run over the past three days.The aim of the conventions was to bring together a range of participants from across the country to discuss five key areas: the Constitution as a national symbol—looking at the preamble, changing the Constitution and issues of citizenship and the position of indigenous Australians; parliament and the election of representatives—looking at both houses of the federal parliament as well as state and local governments; the question of an Australian republic; the federal system—discussing the structure of our federation, the division of powers, tax and revenue distribution and recognising local government; and citizens and rights. All in all over 3,000 Australians took part in 58 conventions held across 66 local council areas. In my area of western Sydney the Parramatta Council held one of these conventions, which focused on two of the five areas—the republic and the rights of citizens.This week's forum at Old Parliament House provided an opportunity to synthesise the outcomes of the individual conventions and to make recommendations about the agenda and format for any future constitutional convention. I think it is important that the broader issues of constitutional reform are being discussed. I think it is crucial that Australians do not labour under the misapprehension that all our Constitution does is install the Queen as our head of state. The Attorney-General, the Hon. Daryl Williams, who is also on the board of the foundation, addressed the forum this week and made the important point that `the government is conscious that there is currently a range of constitutional issues beyond the republic and preamble issues which could usefully be addressed'.In the whole debate about constitutional change one of the issues that is important to me is the role and involvement of women in that process. Early last year I was pleased to participate in the excellent Women's Constitutional Convention, held in this parliament. I made the point when I addressed that convention that, when the first conventions were held, our grandmothers and our great grandmothers did not have the opportunity to influence the future direction of their nation in any significant way—they certainly were not delegates to the conventions for a start. It would be a grave pity if we did not seize the opportunity offered by the current climate of debate to ensure that that sort of history does not repeat itself.I am pleased to see that interested Australian women have continued to be at the forefront of the debate on change, and particularly notable is the recent establishment of the Women for an Australian Republic home page. It provides news updates, information on the proposed republican model to be considered at the referendum and details of the women's convention that I just referred to, as well as a range of other information on Internet sites and in newspapers and other publications. Importantly, though, it provides a forum for discussion of issues surrounding constitutional change and a facility to ask questions about aspects of the debate. So, whether you are already active in the debate or whether you are just beginning to develop an interest in the debate, it is a vehicle for expression or a source of information so that you can participate.I also want to make brief mention of the Young Australians for a Republic, an organisation of younger Australians with an interest in matters of progressive constitutional change. They are not a wing of the Australian Republican Movement, they are not party political; they are purely focused on promoting the move to an Australian republic. They played a very big role in the successful `Yes' coalition conference held in Canberra earlier this year. I think one of the highlights of that conference was a session organised by Young Australians for a Republic where they looked at issues such as how to promote a `yes' vote to young Australians and how to encourage their peers to take an active interest in future debate. In the interests of effective communication, they have also established a home page and have an active email discussion list to facilitate involvement.I referred earlier to the Constitutional Centenary Foundation. It also involves many young Australians, particularly through the National Schools Convention which was held in Canberra last year. Many of us met those participants and saw their interest in, and their enthusiasm for, the issue. The National Youth Round Table, which was convened in Canberra in March this year, in its communique also recommended support for constitutional change. I think the views of these young Australians are very important.I was interested in the debate which occurred yesterday in the chamber on the question of the opening of the Olympics. I happen to think that it is very important that we do not get caught in base political confrontation about some of these important issues. That might sound funny coming from a politician, but both the opening of the Olympics and the question of an Australian president are issues that deserve to be approached in a calm and thoughtful manner; not, in my view, reduced to the sometimes fairly base levels of party politics.We heard yesterday reminiscences about the night Sydney won the right to host the Olympic Games. My own recollections are particularly vivid given that, at the time, I was working with the Hon. John Fahey, then Premier of New South Wales, known for ever more after that evening, I think, as `Jumping Jack'. Many other Australians have equally vivid and exciting memories of the announcement. Many Australians will undoubtedly look back on the Olympics hoping to remember the performance of Australia's teams, the medals, the hard work, the glory and the achievement. I hope that as we move closer to the games those memories are not marred by petty political manoeuvring.I recently had the honour of giving an occasional lecture at a graduation ceremony at the University of Western Sydney, an institution of which I have spoken on a number of occasions in the Senate. In giving that address to new graduates, I took the opportunity of discussing both the impending referendum and the issue of constitutional change. I drew an analogy with the pace of change in our constantly evolving world where, in information technology terms, something like 65,000 new sites are being added to the Internet every hour of every day. We are progressing towards a new century with problems and opportunities unlike any faced by past generations, at a pace and intensity that is unparalleled. How we cope with that as a society is a very important question. Even this parliament deals with things in a different manner from that used in decades and generations past. From the simple capacity of members of the public to choose to watch question time on television—although one might occasionally wonder—to the capacity of constituents to readily download legislation from the Internet, these are all points of change.The point I made was that ongoing debate about the republic is all about how we deal with change as a community. It is my personal belief that the move to a republic is a natural incremental change with which Australia is more than capable of dealing. It represents not a radical change in our national identity but a development of the Australian story that has been emerging for many years.I referred earlier to the speech of the Attorney-General to the forum yesterday where he outlined the process from this point in time to the point of the referendum. He noted that the enactment of the Constitutional Alteration (Establishment of a Republic) Bill:. . . would not greatly change the basic governmental arrangements that have served Australia so well. Nor would it graft another country's republic model onto these arrangements. It would change some titles, but not the basic operation of our system of national government.The Attorney also commented on the ongoing nature of the debate on constitutional reform. In particular, he referred to the recommendation of the Constitutional Convention that, should Australia move to a republic, the government should convene another convention to discuss further reform. He made the point that in two weeks, with all its attendant experts, the Constitutional Convention effectively considered a single issue: that of the republic. So debating other constitutional change is important. It is being pursued, but it needs to be done in a patient and considered manner without haste or undue complication.470116:05:004701Macdonald, Sen SandySenator SANDY MACDONALDCX5NSWNP10—I just wanted to take the opportunity of the adjournment debate this evening to make some brief comments about the outbreak of virulent Newcastle disease on broiler farms at Mangrove Mountain, New South Wales, which occurred earlier this month—in fact, on 1 April.This outbreak is already disastrous. It has already had disastrous consequences for the farmers who have seen their livelihood destroyed, for the processors and for the many thousands of jobs that rely on the processing of chicken meat in Australia, but particularly in the Hunter Valley, in the Gosford area north of Sydney, and also further up into the valley itself. It also has the potential to be disastrous for the whole chicken industry if the efforts to isolate and control the outbreak are not successful. It is also potentially disastrous for the disease status of Australia in relation to our WTO undertakings. Today we must be hopeful that the Mangrove Mountain outbreak has been contained after a substantial effort from the industry and through state and federal government cooperation.A suspect broiler farm on Peats Ridge, outside the Mangrove Mountain restricted area, has now been shown to be negative to the virulent Newcastle disease virus. This is, of course, very good news. The National Consultative Committee on Emergency Animal Diseases met again the night before last to consider test results from that broiler farm on Peats Ridge. Genetic testing of the isolated virus from the farm at the Australian Animal Health Laboratory at Geelong showed that broiler birds were infected, but that they were infected with a known, low virulent Australian strain of Newcastle disease.Under existing arrangements, the federal Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, all states and territories, emergency services and Defence personnel are involved in assisting New South Wales Agriculture to manage the outbreak. As I said a moment ago, I understand that the cooperation has been very good.As of this morning more than one million birds have been destroyed on the Mangrove Mountain ridge, and I understand that 900 people are assisting New South Wales Agriculture to depopulate and decontaminate the farms on Mangrove Mountain. Scientists believe that the outbreak of viruses is derived from Australian strains of a non-pathogenic Newcastle disease virus, rather than from an imported strain. There is no known linkage to imported birds or products.I hope that this potential crisis in the industry can be alleviated. But it is extremely important for those people already affected by the outbreak to understand that there are many of us in the federal parliament who feel the pain they are going through when they see their livelihoods destroyed. I ask that we keep our fingers crossed that there are no further outbreaks of the virulent strain.16:09:004702Senate adjourned at 4.09 p.m.Documents47024702The following documents were tabled by the Clerk:Civil Aviation Act—Civil Aviation Regulations—Civil Aviation Orders— Amendment of section 82, dated 28 April 1999 [2]. Exemptions Nos CASA 14/1999, CASA 15/1999 and CASA 17/1999.Defence Act—Determination under section 58B—Defence Determination 1999/10.Home and Community Care Act— Agreement in relation to the provision of financial assistance by the Commonwealth of Australia for Home and Community Care Program to the Australian Capital Territory, dated 29 March 1999. Amending Agreement in relation to the provision of financial assistance by the Commonwealth of Australia for Home and Community Care Program to the Australian Capital Territory, dated 29 March 1999.Product Rulings PR 1999/13-1999/17.Taxation Determination— TD 92/119 (Addendum). TD 97/14 (Addendum). TD 1999/2-TD 1999/5.Taxation Ruling— TR 92/7 (Addendum). TR 95/5 (Addendum).Answers to Questions on Notice4703The following answers to questions were circulated:4703(Question No. 308)3084703Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 1 December 1998:(1) On how many occasions did the department pay for dinners or functions, both in restaurants and elsewhere, attended by the then Minister for Transport and Regional Development (Mr Sharp), not including those paid for and approved by the Ceremonial and Hospitality Unit of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet prior to October 3 1998.(2) In each instance: (a) when did the dinner or function take place; (b) what was the purpose of the dinner or function; (c) who were the attendees for each dinner or function; (d) what was the cost of the dinner or function; and (e) what was the venue.4703Macdonald, Sen IanSenator Ian MacdonaldYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—The Minister for Transport and Regional Services has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) 63.(2) I refer the honourable senator to the response Senator Macdonald provided to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee (Reference EXEC03) published in Additional Information Vol.3 of December 1998, page 10, and to my subsequent reply to Senator O'Brien's Question on Notice (Reference No. 215). The following additional information is provided:(a) Breakfast, 27 March 1996(b) Meeting with media representative(c) John Sharp, media representative and ministerial staff(d) $36(e) Royal Automobile Club of Australia, Sydney(a) Dinner, 1 May 1996(b) Discussions on Australia/New Zealand transport issues(c) 7 persons, including John Sharp, NZ Minister, government representatives and ministerial staff (d) $436.60(e) Boathouse Restaurant, Canberra(a) Afternoon Tea, 3 May 1996(b) Discussions on transport issues(c) John Sharp, Japanese Minister for Construction and others(d) $85(e) Parliament House, Canberra(a) Morning Tea, 29 May 1996(b) Fleet Safety Launch(c) John Sharp and twenty others(d) $74(e) Parliament House, Canberra(a) Dinner, 18 June 1996(b) Meeting with media representatives(c) John Sharp, media representatives and ministerial staff(d) $313.50(e) Hyatt Hotel, Canberra(a) Lunch, 2 July 1996(b) Discussions on regional issues(c) John Sharp, John Anderson and representatives from the Southern Tablelands(d) $82(e) Phillip Street Office, Sydney(a) Dinner, 30 July 1996(b) Discussions on transport issues(c) John Sharp, industry representatives and ministerial staff(d) $332(e) Bilson's Restaurant, Sydney(a) Morning Tea, 11 September 1996(b) Signing of an Air Service Agreement(c) John Sharp, Maltese Minister for Transport(d) $45.25(e) Parliament House, Canberra(a) Drinks, 19 September 1996(b) Meeting with media representatives(c) John Sharp and others(d) $163 (e) Parliament House, Canberra(a) Lunch, 19 September 1996(b) Bilateral discussions on Australian/New Zealand transport issues(c) John Sharp, NZ Minister and others(d) $74(e) Parliament House, Canberra(a) Breakfast, 1 October 1996(b) Discussions on portfolio issues(c) John Sharp, industry representatives and ministerial staff(d) $124.29(e) The Weld Club, Perth(a) Refreshments, 13 October 1996(b) Commemorative Tree Planting Ceremony, Cherry Blossom Festival(c) John Sharp, government and community representatives(d) $300(e) Japanese Garden, Cowra(a) Lunch, 15 October 1996(b) Program Advisory Panel(c) John Sharp and others(d) $107(e) Parliament House, Canberra(a) Dinner, 15 October 1996(b) Meeting with media representatives(c) John Sharp, media representatives and ministerial staff(d) $110(e) Ruen Thai Restaurant, Canberra(a) Lunch, 15 November 1996(b) Australian Transport Council (ATC) Meeting(c) John Sharp and ATC members(d) $156.80(e) Poseidon Cafe, Darwin(a) Lunch, 19 November 1996(b) Discussions on aviation issues(c) John Sharp and industry representatives(d) $33(e) Parliament House, Canberra(a) Dinner, 9 December 1996(b) Discussion on transport related issues(c) John Sharp, union representatives and ministerial staff(d) $370(e) Parkroyal Hotel, Melbourne (a) Morning Tea, 11 December 1996(b) Welcome Minister for Communications, Indonesia(c) John Sharp, Mr Haryanto Dhanutirto and others(d) $74(e) Parliament House, Canberra(a) Meeting, 7 February 1997(b) Discussion on transport matters(c) John Sharp and State Ministers(d) $624.50(e) Parliament House, Canberra(a) Dinner, 3 April 1997(b) Discussions on transport related issues(c) 14 persons, including John Sharp, industry representatives and ministerial staff(d) $880.50(e) Phillip Street Office, Sydney(a) Afternoon Tea, 9 April 1997(b) Discuss regional matters(c) John Sharp, Members of Shire Councils(d) $80.25(e) Parliament House, Canberra(a) Lunch, 11 April 1997(b) Discussions on portfolio related issues(c) John Sharp and industry representative(d) $281(e) Darcy's Restaurant, Sydney(a) Lunch, 28 April 1997(b) Discussions on waterfront reform(c) John Sharp and others(d) $39(e) Parliament House, Canberra(a) Dinner, 19 May 1997(b) Meeting with media representatives(c) 4 persons, including John Sharp, media representatives and ministerial staff(d) $413.50(e) Darcy's Restaurant, Sydney(a) Lunch, 22 May 1997(b) Australian Transport Council (ATC) meeting(c) John Sharp and ATC members(d) $73.20(e) Radisson Plaza Hotel, Cairns(a) Dinner, 27 May 1997(b) Discuss portfolio issues (c) John Sharp, Michael Ronaldson (Parliamentary Secretary) and another(d) $89.00(e) Parliament House, Canberra(a) Lunch, 3 July 1997(b) Meeting with media representative(c) 3 persons, including John Sharp and media representatives(d) $276.80(e) Eduardos Restaurant, Noosa(a) Lunch, 7 July 1997(b) Discussions on waterfront reform(c) John Sharp and others(d) $43.30(e) Phillip Street Office, Sydney(a) Lunch, 9 July 1997(b) Meeting with media representative(c) John Sharp, media representatives and ministerial staff(d) $212(e) Catalina Restaurant, Sydney(a) Afternoon Tea, 9 July 1997(b) National Transport Council Inaugural Meeting(c) John Sharp and National Transport Council Members(d) $40.80(e) Phillip Street Office, Sydney(a) Dinner, 17 July 1997(b) Discussions with transport representatives(c) John Sharp and transport representatives(d) $279.60(e) Il Centro, Brisbane(a) Lunch, 21 July 1997(b) Discussion on international marine organisations(c) John Sharp, industry representative and ministerial staff(d) $154.70(e) The Lobby Restaurant, Canberra(a) Lunch, 24 July 1997(b) Meeting with media representative(c) John Sharp, media representative and ministerial staff(d) $120(e) Chesser Cellar Restaurant, Adelaide(a) Breakfast, 29 July 1997(b) Discuss transport issues(c) John Sharp, John Fahey and ministerial staff (d) $36.25(e) The Weld Club, Perth(a) Dinner, 15 August 1997(b) Discuss transport issues(c) John Sharp and business people(d) $790.50(e) Mr Sharp's residence, Goulburn(a) Afternoon tea, 29 August 1997(b) Supermarket to Asia Conference(c) John Sharp, Supermarket to Asia members(d) $225 (includes room hire)(e) Bowling Club, Cowra(a) Dinner, 2 September 1997(b) Discussions on Australia/Japan transport issues(c) John Sharp, H E Amb. Satoh and industry representatives(d) $1456.30(e) Phillip Street Office, Sydney(a) Lunch, 15 September 1997(b) Meeting with media representative(c) John Sharp, media representative and ministerial staff(d) $115(e) Chianti Restaurant, Sydney(a) Dinner, 22 September 1997(b) Meeting with media representative(c) John Sharp, media representative and ministerial staff(d) $100(e) Parliament House, Canberra4705(Question No. 309)3094705Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 1 December 1998:(1) On how many occasions did the department pay for dinners or functions, both in restaurants and elsewhere, attended by the then Minister for Transport and Regional Development (Mr Vaile), not including those paid for and approved by the Ceremonial and Hospitality Unit of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet prior to October 3 1998.(2) In each instance: (a) when did the dinner or function take place; (b) what was the purpose of the dinner or function; (c) who were the attendees for each dinner or function; (d) what was the cost of the dinner or function; and (e) what was the venue.4706Macdonald, Sen IanSenator Ian MacdonaldYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—The Minister for Transport and Regional Services has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) 19(2)(a) Afternoon Tea, 22 October 1997(b) To meet Ambassador for USA(c) Mark Vaile and H.E. Genta Hawkins Holmes(d) $14.00(e) Parliament House, Canberra(a) Cocktail Party, 29 October 1997(b) In honour of Board of Airline Representatives of Australia(c) 40 persons, including Mark Vaile, Ministers, industry representatives, ministerial and departmental staff(d) $840.90(e) Parliament House, Canberra(a) Lunch, 6 November 1997(b) Aviation discussions(c) Mark Vaile and CASA representative(d) $18.00(e) Parliament House, Canberra(a) Lunch, 18 November 1997(b) Aviation discussions6 persons including Mark Vaile, airline representatives and ministerial staff$30.00(e) Parliament House, Canberra(a) Dinner, 13 January 1998(b) To meet with members of the CASA Board(c) Mark Vaile, CASA board members, ministerial and departmental staff(d) $766.50(e) EJ's Restaurant, Sydney(a) Meeting, 6 February 1998(b) Meeting with proponents of major housing developments in SW Brisbane(c) Mark Vaile, Graeme McDougal MP and proponents(d) $30.00 (room hire only)(e) Carlton Crest Hotel, Brisbane(a) Morning and Afternoon Tea, 17 February 1998(b) ERC Meeting (c) Mark Vaile and Committee Members(d) $31.50(e) Parliament House, Canberra(a) Dinner, 20 February 1998(b) Official visit to Tasmania to open extension to Bass Highway(c) 4 persons including Mark Vaile, Hon John Cleary and ministerial staff(d) $190.00(e) Autographs, Devonport(a) Lunch, 26 February 1998(b) To meet with WA Airports Corps Ltd officials(c) 6 persons, including Mark Vaile, industry representatives and departmental and ministerial staff(d) $47.40(e) Lachlan Court Caf, Barton(a) Meeting, 28 February 1998(b) Phase II Program Planning(c) Mark Vaile and ministerial staff(d) $34.00(e) Parliament House, Canberra(a) Meeting, 12 March 1998(b) Aviation discussions(c) Mark Vaile, and CASA officials(d) $26.50(e) Parliament House, Canberra(a) Dinner, 24 March 1998(b) Road Transport Reform discussions(c) Mark Vaile and road transport industry representatives(d) $125.95(e) Parliament House, Canberra(a) Drinks, 30 March 1998(b) Post NTC Dinner Discussions(c) 7 persons including Mark Vaile, industry representatives and ministerial staff(d) $28.00(e) Parliament House, Canberra(a) Dinner, 6 April 1998(b) Rail Reform Discussions(c) 4 persons including Mark Vaile, industry representatives and ministerial staff(d) $157.50(e) Parliament House, Canberra(a) Breakfast, 28 April 1998 (b) Discussions prior to Australian Transport Council Meeting(c) 8 persons including Mark Vaile, departmental and ministerial staff(d) $297.00 (including room hire)(e) Fairmont Resort, Leura(a) Dinner, 18 May 1998(b) Portfolio discussions(c) Mark Vaile, departmental and ministerial staff(d) $59.50(e) Santa Lucia Trattoria, Kingston(a) Dinner, 20 May 1998(b) Meeting with media representatives(c) Mark Vaile, media representatives and ministerial staff(d) $488.08(e) Plantation Estate Restaurant, Perth(a) Dinner, 14 July 1998(b) Rail discussions(c) 5 persons, including Mark Vaile, industry representatives and departmental and ministerial staff(d) $319.75(e) Merrony's Restaurant, Sydney(a) Dinner, 3 August 1998(b) Rail discussions(c) Mark Vaile, government representatives and ministerial staff(d) $189.50(e) Atlantic Restaurant, Canberra4707(Question No. 451)4514707Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 8 March 1999:(1) When did the department last undertake a physical inspection of electorate offices and account for equipment owned or leased by the department.(2) Were any of the assets not able to be accounted for; if so, what was the total value of the assets not accounted for.4707Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator Ellison9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:(1) The department undertakes a rolling program of physical inspections of all electorate offices throughout each parliamentary term. In addition, all regions conducted inspections of the electorate offices of those senators and members who either retired or were defeated at the last federal election.Since outsourcing the provision of Information Technology (IT) services to electorate offices on 1 July 1998, ownership of IT equipment in electorate offices has been transferred to CSC Australia Pty Ltd. That organisation is responsible for conducting physical inspections of the IT equipment in electorate offices. With the upgrading of all IT equipment greater than three years old in electorate offices currently in progress, some seventy percent of electorate offices have recently been physically inspected.(2) No assets were unaccounted for in either the last round of rolling inspections or in the ad-hoc inspections conducted in the electorate offices of those senators and members who either retired or were defeated at the last federal election.CSC has advised that in the seventy percent of electorate offices inspected so far there have been no instances of missing equipment.4707(Question No. 452)4524707Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Finance and Administration, upon notice, on 8 March 1999:(1) What was the rationale for the decision to replace the HP LaserJet 4si Printer with the Lexmark Optra Printer.(2) What advice was sought and received from staff, including electorate officers, prior to this decision being taken4707Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator Ellison9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—The Minister for Finance and Administration has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) HP4Si printers were introduced into electorate offices in July of 1994. Due to their age, spare parts were becoming difficult to source which made swift problem resolution difficult.The Lexmark Optra Printer (S1855) was chosen as a replacement printer as a result of an evaluation conducted by CSC Australia Pty Ltd, which is responsible for the provision of Information Technology (IT), services to electorate offices. CSC found that:* The Lexmark S1855 was not susceptible to jamming or poor print quality;* it had a superior graphics function;* the printer driver was easy to use, whilst providing a greater number of options; and* commissioning a second Lexmark printer within the office would allow all computers to utilise the same type of network printing software.(2) Between August and December 1998 the proposed new printers were tested in five electorate offices. This was later expanded to twelve offices. All the feedback except that from one office was of a positive nature. That office preferred the old printer. The perceived deficiencies of the Lexmark printer were addressed by training the office staff in how to set the machine's default tray options.4708(Question No. 454)4544708Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 8 March 1999(1) How many electorate officers have had 2-yearly eyesight tests at Commonwealth expense.(2) what has been the total cost of providing these tests.4708Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator Ellison9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:Since 1 July 1996 the Ministerial and Parliamentary Services Group has reimbursed the costs of eyesight tests to:(1) 4.(2) The cost to the Commonwealth was $167.60.4708(Question No. 456)4564708Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 8 March 1999:(1) How many senators and members have utilised the entitlement for a post office box in the 1997-98 financial year(2) What was the cost to the Commonwealth of post offices boxes for senators and members over this period.4708Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator Ellison9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:(1) 31 Senators and 91 Members.(2) $13,159.85.4708(Question No. 461)4614708Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 8 March 1999: What was the total cost attributable to Senators and Members for business class equivalent airfares taken on special purpose aircraft between January 1997 and February 1999.4708Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator Ellison9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:Cost attribution for travel by Senators and Members on special purpose aircraft was introduced on 15 March 1998. From that date to 31 January 1999 costs of $266,284 were attributed to Senators and Members. Details for February 1999 are not yet available.4708(Question No. 462)4624708Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 8 March 1999What was the total value of overseas study entitlements forfeited by Senators and Members as a consequence of the commencement of the new parliamentary term.4708Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator Ellison9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:At the commencement of the new parliamentary term in November 1998, 76 Senators and Members had unused study travel entitlements in excess of the permissible carry forward amount. The total value of the overseas study travel entitlement not able to be carried forward was $455,790.12.4708(Question No. 463)4634708Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Finance and Administration, upon notice, on 8 March 1999:What was the total of funds allocated to meet the cost of official reciprocal hospitality functions for the 1997-98 financial year and how much was refunded.4708Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator Ellison9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—The Minister for Finance and Administration has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:The amount allocated in 1997-98 for all Ministers (except the Prime Minister) was $292,500 for the 92 visits undertaken. There is no limit on hospitality which may be extended by the Prime Minister while representing Australia overseas. The total amount expended by the Prime Minister and all Ministers was $63,762.10. Funds for reciprocal hospitality are not provided as personal advances to Ministers but are forwarded to Australian overseas posts for payment on receipt of relevant accounts.4709(Question No. 465)4654709Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 8 March 1999:(1) In relation to the Constituents Request Program; how many requests have been received for photographs of the Queen of Australia and the Duke of Edinburgh in the 1997-98 financial year(2) What was the cost to the Commonwealth of the provision of these photographs.4709Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator Ellison9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:(1) The Department does not keep records of requests for photographs of the Queen of Australia and the Duke of Edinburgh, which have been made by senators, members, or members of the public.(2) In the 1997/98 financial year the department arranged for the printing of photographs (which are actually in a poster format) of the Queen of Australia and the Duke of Edinburgh and individual posters of the Queen of Australia. The costs associated with these printing runs were $2547.00 and $5694.00 respectively.4709(Question No. 466)4664709Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 8 March 1999:(1) In relation to the Constituents Request Program: how many requests have been received for Australian flags in the 1997-98 financial year.(2) What has been the cost to the Commonwealth of the provision of these flags.4709Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator Ellison9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:(1) 602. A request being any number of flags issued from one order form. Under the Constituents' Request Program the Australian National Flag, the Aboriginal Flag and the Torres Strait Islands Flag can be requested.(2) $483,184. 4709(Question No. 469)4694709Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 8 March 1999:What actions has the Ministerial and Parliamentary Services Division undertaken to improve and enhance the environmental efficiency of electorate offices.4709Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator Ellison9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:The Ministerial and Parliamentary Services Group has implemented the following initiatives to improve and enhance the environmental efficiency of electorate offices:* Power save features on Information Technology and Major Office Machine equipment.* The use where appropriate of recycled materials such as paper and toner cartridges* Provision of recycle bins and associated collection services* Collection of shredded wastes* Sympathetic office designs maximising the use of natural light features* Ensure office designs/refurbishments meet all required Australian Standards and relevant building codes4709(Question No. 470)4704709Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Finance and Administration, upon notice, on 8 March 1999:(1) How many training seminars or courses have been provided for staff of the Ministerial and Parliamentary Services Division for the: (a) 1997-98 financial year; and (b) for that part of the current financial year up to and including February 1999.(2) In each instance what have been the nature, objectives and cost of the training provided.4709Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator Ellison9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—The Minister for Finance and Administration has provided the following the answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) The Ministerial and Parliamentary Services Group has funded the provision of (a) 132 courses in 1997-98 and (b) 109 courses in the eight months to end February 1999.(2) See the following table:1997-981998-99 year toNature and objectives of theNumberCostNumberCostPublic sector management18$6,815.0019$18,060.00Information Technology and office automation products18$20,451.0021$17,485.50Personnel systems training15$8,963.2512$21,585.50Office management and procedures22$7,110.0026$24,686.95Individual study courses20$11,407.009$4,474.80Driver training courses34$58,435.2017$13,449.43Media relations courses2$1,400.001$700.00Other3$4,687.504$1,095.00Total132$119,268.95109$101,537.184710(Question No. 496)4964710Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Finance and Administration, upon notice, on 8 March 1999:(1) Who conducted the review of the Entitlements Management Information System (EMIS) conducted for the Department in January 1998.(2) What was the total cost to the Commonwealth of the review.(3) Have all of the recommendations arising out of the review been implemented.(4) What is the status of those recommendations that have not yet been implemented.4710Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator Ellison9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—The Minister for Finance and Administration has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) Coopers and Lybrand.(2) $39,888.(3) No.(4) The key recommendations that EMIS should be replaced but that in the interim, the current system needed to be made Year 2000 compliant are being implemented. A further recommendation that the Human Resources (HR) requirements of Senators, Members and their staff which are managed by the M&PS Group should be incorporated in the (then) current corporate tender for the outsourcing of the Department of Finance and Administration's support services has not been taken up.4710(Question No. 519)5194710Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 10 March 1999:What was the total cost during the 1997-98 financial year of the provision of newspapers, magazines and other periodicals to the minister's: (a) Parliament House office; (b) home/state ministerial office; and (c) private home.4710Macdonald, Sen IanSenator Ian MacdonaldYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—The Minister for Transport and Regional Services has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:The total cost during 1997/98 financial year of the provision of newspapers, magazines and other periodicals to the minister at: (a) Parliament House—$4,056.00; (b) home/state ministerial office—$345.00; and (c) home—$80.00. 4711(Question No. 522)5224711Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, upon notice, on 9 March 1999:What was the total cost during the 1997-98 financial year of the provision of newspapers, magazines and other periodicals to the minister's: (a) Parliament House office; (b) home/state ministerial office; and (c) private home.4711Alston, Sen RichardSenator AlstonLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—The Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(a) $12,907.35.(b) $ 1,615.10.(c) $ 1,478.65.4711(Question No. 541)5414711Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Minister for Regional Services, Territories and Local Government, upon notice, on 10 March 1999: What was the total cost during the 1997-98 financial year of the provision of newspapers, magazines and other periodicals to the minister's: (a) Parliament House office (b) home/state ministerial office; and (c) private home.4712Macdonald, Sen IanSenator Ian MacdonaldYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is:The total cost during 1997/98 financial year of the provision of newspapers magazines and other periodicals to minister's at; (a)Parliament House—&1,256.70; (b) home/state ministerial office—nil; and (c) private home—$151.85.4712(Question No. 567)5674712Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 10 March 1999:(1) What has been the total cost to the department in the 1997-98 financial year of legal advice obtained from the Attorney-General's Department.(2) What has been the total cost to the department in the 1997-98 financial year of legal advice obtained by the department from other sources.4712Macdonald, Sen IanSenator Ian MacdonaldYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—The Minister for Transport and Regional Services has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) The total cost to the department in the 1997-98 financial year of legal advice obtained from the Attorney-General's Department was $3,039,169.00.(2) The total cost to the department in the 1997-98 financial year of legal advice obtained from other sources was $2,944.50.