1999-06-253913SENATE644501999-06-25The PRESIDENT(Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid) took the chair at 9.30 a.m., and read prayers.Miscellaneous6445644509:31:006445Bourne, Sen VickiSenator BOURNETW4NSWAD00—by leave—There has been some media speculation this morning that Senator Lees and Senator Stott Despoja are acting leader and deputy, at this point in time, of the Australian Democrats. That is not the case. I have been advised by officers of the party that the first stage of the process under Democrat rules for leadership requires that relevant officers check the membership details of the petitioners against the official membership rolls. That is happening at the moment. Until that first step has been undertaken, there is no ballot and there is no change to the status of either the leader or the deputy. If anything happens to change that, I will advise you, Madam President.Bills6446r703Billsr667Billsr666Billsr702Billsr699Billsr698Billsr664Billsr660Billsr658Billsr657Billsr701Billsr663Billsr659Billsr700Billsr661Billsr754Billsr755Billsr761Billsr765Billsr763Billsr764Bills6446r757Billsr760Billsr758Billsr759Billsr756Billsr7626446A NEW TAX SYSTEM (GOODS AND SERVICES TAX) BILL 1998Consideration resumed from 24 June.09:32:006446Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—I would like to make an intervention at this point of the committee stage debate about the process of the committee, and ask the minister at the table if he can give some consideration to a number of matters and, if necessary, in the time available if he is unable to indicate a response immediately, ask him if he would take this issue up with the Leader of the Government in the Senate and perhaps respond to the committee as soon as possible.After listening to the debate closely last night, I did become concerned, particularly when Senator Woodley was waxing lyrical about events in his local football club, that there was an attempt—perhaps a subtle one, and I am not suggesting there was a great deal of malice in this—for the debate to proceed more slowly. When you are operating under the guillotine that has serious consequences of course, and that is of particular concern to the opposition when the government and the Democrats have actually imposed such a guillotine.This is the point I would like to make to the minister at the table through you, Madam Chair. The minister may not be aware, but I know the Manager of Government Business is—as is the Leader of the Australian Democrats and the Democrats Whip—that we did have a discussion in the margins a little earlier this week about dealing in a sensible way with key amendments to the environment bills which were before the chamber at that time. I would now like to seek an assurance, while there is still ample opportunity before we will be voting on a range of issues, that what was accepted as a principle around the table will apply.Obviously it is not appropriate at this time, but I want to flag that the opposition would believe it appropriate that four amendments be taken separately. Those are Labor amendment No. 1 on sheet 1327, the issue of GST price transparency—I think senators in the chamber would be aware of the views of the opposition in relation to the significance of this amendment; this is something that the committee has examined previously—the amendments on sheet 1452, which are Labor amendments Nos 1 and 2, which were circulated last night relating to the GST-free supply of membership to a student organisation; government amendments 3, 66 and 68 on sheet FA210, which I think relate to the casino issue and on which we would be intending to vote separately; and, fourthly, government amendments 79 to 82 and I think government amendments 93 and 104 on sheet FA210. Senator Cook will confirm that at a later stage in the debate.I just want to get some clarity about this. This is within the spirit of what was discussed around the table but outside the actual chamber itself a couple of days ago when we were making little progress in the voting procedures around the environment package. I flag those four and would like an assurance from the minister either now or at a later stage that leave will be granted to ensure that procedure works smoothly and with efficiency.I also acknowledge that the view of the opposition was that, if minor parties or senators or Senator Harradine were keen to put an amendment, a similar approach should then be taken by the committee as a whole. I acknowledge that Senator Brown has indicated to me that, in relation to Greens amendments Nos 1 to 3 on sheet 1428, which relate to GST-free books, he is keen to progress that particular matter to a vote.I raise that at this stage because it might require the minister at the table receiving some advice from Senator Hill. If he feels that that is appropriate in these circumstances, he might have a word to the Manager of Government Business in the Senate or the Government Whip. But I do appreciate that he might want to speak to Senator Hill about this matter. If we can get some clarity about that issue at this stage or as soon as the minister is able to provide that information to the committee, the opposition would certainly appreciate it and will respond accordingly when we hear from the minister.09:38:006447Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—Senator Faulkner has raised a number of issues and a number of requests have been put to us. I will consult with Senator Hill. Our managers can consult together, and obviously there will be consultations with other parties as well to seek their views. I will come back and provide a response to him.09:39:006447Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—I thank the minister for that, but I stress, Minister, the urgency of your response. The situation that we face at the moment—let me stress again—is that we have a guillotine. We have very limited time for debate. We have a situation where there is a growing concern on the part of the opposition that Australian Democrat senators are either raising interesting issues like what is occurring with their local football clubs or bowling up dorothy dix questions to the minister for long and boring responses.That is fine, we take the view that these things can happen in politics, but when you impose the guillotine on other political parties and put these sorts of constraints on a committee stage debate on such an important issue as this, all senators have a responsibility to ensure that the committee stage evolves efficiently and effectively and that we have maximum opportunity to debate the key issues of substance before the chair. So what I request of you, Minister, is that, if you can get an urgent response, that is going to make a difference to the way the committee stage progresses. I would ask you if you could come back before 10 o'clock and provide a response on those issues.09:40:006447Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—I will be in the chamber, but I will provide advice as soon as possible. Senator, I completely reject your views. There was an attempt to slow the debate yesterday. In fact, I would have to say, Senator Faulkner, that you should have looked closely at your own colleagues and the amount of time that they took up. I would have to say that the colleagues that you should speak to are in order—let me list them—Senator Cook, Senator Conroy and Senator Sherry.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—You're wasting time.WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—No, I am not. You raised this issue and I am responding to it. The record will show that your colleagues took up a host of time by asking completely trivial questions. At one stage, Senator Faulkner, if my memory serves me correctly, Senator Cook rose to his feet and complained that I was not responding in sufficient detail. Wanting to assist Senator Cook, I of course took up the invitation. In relation to the Australian Democrats, they can speak for themselves, but my view is that they were seeking to get some views in the Hansard , and they are quite entitled to do that.The truth of the matter is that, when the history of this debate is written, the people who will be accused of delaying the political debate will be the Australian Labor Party. Frankly, at five minutes to midnight, it is a great dose of irony that Senator Faulkner has come in here and complained about people wasting time. Senator Faulkner, I think you should review exactly the tactics your own party has adopted throughout this debate. But I will come back with the request you have made as soon as possible.3M6MURRAYSenator Murray—I would like some guidance from the chair, please, Madam Chair. I thought I heard the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate refer to a number of Labor amendments that are due, but I can find none on my running sheet. We are up to page 5.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—Yes, start at the bottom of page 5. There are opposition amendments Nos 1 and 2 on sheet 1452. We are now dealing with revised sheet 10 of 25 June issued at 9.03 a.m.09:43:006448Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I want to make a quick response. Senator Kemp has undertaken to come back to the chamber. We will hold discussions. I agree with the spirit and I accept the letter of what Senator Faulkner, the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, has said this morning. We did have a very constructive discussion when the votes on the environment package became bogged down with a historic display of independence of mind of Labor senators on a range of amendments. We respect fully—Senator Sherry interjecting—H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—That is right, Senator Sherry. It is good to see, as Senator Margaret Reynolds said last night in an exquisite valedictory speech, which I recommend that you read over morning tea this morning, that sometimes it is the—Senator Sherry interjecting—H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—We will bring Senator Cook a cup of tea into the chamber. I will not go any further on that one.Senator Sherry interjecting—H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—I really will try to get through this as quickly as I can. We can go through the amendments and give them numbers and names, but the real issue at stake is that we would not get through what is an extraordinarily tight and heavy legislative program. We will not go into why that is the case—it does not matter; that is behind us.We can reflect on people's contributions in the debate yesterday and today. I know there are opposition members who feel incredibly strongly about this legislation. There are people at the crossbenches who do—as I turn my head to Senator Margetts, the Australian Democrats and Senator Harradine, who made his contribution a few weeks ago in a historic fashion—and there are some people on this side of the chamber who feel equally strongly about it. No-one could accuse the coalition members of having made many contributions on any debates in the last three years. They are kept under a very tight reign.ZW4SHERRYSenator Sherry—Ha, ha!H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—An incredibly tight reign. I think you would be able to count the total number of speeches made by coalition senators in the second reading debates in the last three years on two hands. There are senators, like Senator Eggleston and Senator Ferguson, who have been involved—ZW4SHERRYSenator Sherry—Senator Heffernan.H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—I do not think Senator Heffernan was involved in the committee process because, as most people know, he is a parliamentary secretary now. But I know that Senator Ferguson was involved in the committee process on this tax bill for most of this year—EP5FERGUSONSenator Ferguson—Years!Senator Sherry interjecting—H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—Madam Chairman, I will get through this a lot quicker if I am not interjected upon.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—Yes, it would be helpful if there were less interjections, from your own side and from the opposition.H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—They are very friendly interjections, but I do want to get through this. I would rather see us getting on with the debate on the substantial issues than talking about dry, process issues. The point I make is that there will be some people who will want to make short and succinct contributions. I do not think anyone from the coalition has made a contribution of more than a couple of minutes at the very most.What I want to say to Senator Sherry, through you, Madam Chairman, is that regardless of the contributions in the past two days, the reality for the government is that we want to see this debate go in an orderly fashion. If we do not have cooperation around the chamber—regardless of the guillotine being in place—then we cannot have a decent debate on the issues, we will end up with disrupted votes, we will all get grumpy, we will all get tired, we will end up sitting all through the night and we will not get the result we want.So the government is committed and it shares the view of the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate that, if we all have an agreement on how we proceed with this debate, if we can accommodate the wishes of as many stakeholders as possible in this chamber, if we get resolutions and if we have the votes done in a sensible sort of way, then that is in the interests of good public policy and good governance, and that is what I think we are all here for, especially in the spirit of the valedictory speeches last night. We are going to try to bring that into the chamber this morning, Senator Margetts. We are going to try to maintain that glorious spirit that pervaded this place only four or five hours ago at 3 o'clock this morning. We were all being so kind to each other.It is my commitment today on behalf of the government to ensure that that takes place. We will ensure that, if any coalition speaker does make a contribution—and we certainly will be trying to limit those—they will be short, sharp and to the point and they will not waste time. I am sure Senator Sherry will swear that he will do the same thing today, as will Senator Conroy and others. We can all agree that when Senator Kemp makes contributions they are short, sharp and to the point.On the detailed issues that Senator Faulkner has raised, we will come back to the chamber. If there is a need for further discussions outside the chamber because of any problems, I am happy to convene little powwows around tables. If anyone sees a problem occurring, I am very happy for that to happen and we can move things along. I hope the considerations and deliberations of the Senate this morning are very constructive.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—The committee is considering A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Bill 1998 and government amendments Nos 31 and 67 on sheet FA210.09:49:006449Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—The siren sounded last night as I had just moved the amendments, and I do not think I had completed the explanation of the government's intention here so I will briefly summarise. The government's expressed intention was that no net revenue would be raised from gambling and this would be achieved by reducing state and territory taxes by similar amounts to the GST. However, in the case of raffles conducted by charities, states and territories do not levy gambling taxes and it is not possible to achieve the government's intent merely by reducing state and territory gambling taxes. To ensure that the government's policy is achieved in the simplest possible fashion, we are moving these requests for amendments to make raffles and bingo run by charities GST free.Fundraising raffles and bingo run by charitable institutions, trustees or charitable funds or gift deductible entities are subject to GST as gambling supplies under division 126. Supplies of raffles and bingo by charitable institutions, trustees of charitable funds or gift deductible entities are not subject to state taxes or gambling. The new subdivision 38-FA will make these supplies GST free. A raffle or bingo supply will not be GST free if it contravenes a state or territory law, such as a failure to obtain an appropriate licence.09:51:006449Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I asked the minister last night what would happen in the case of noted Tasmanian artist Elspeth Vaughan making another one of her many gifts to charity for an auction. How would that be GSTed?09:51:006449Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—Every case must be examined clearly on its merits. It is not a raffle or bingo, as I understand, so in general it would be taxed. That is the advice I have received.09:52:006449Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I wanted that on the record because it does point to the fact that the good-hearted volunteerism, the skills, the enormous gifting to charities that we have in this country is now going to be taxed. When a person like that makes a gift of her work to a charity which is sold through an auction—let us say it brings $500—some $50 of that gift of hers is going to go back into the government to, amongst other things, be disbursed to the big corporations who are going to get a $1 billion a year extra out of this package in terms of the diesel fuel rebate. It just highlights what a terrible change of fortune this country is facing and how the voluntary efforts of millions of Australians giving their time, their skills and their services free are going to now be taxed by this Democrat-government tax bill.09:53:006450Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—I thought I would assist the minister by adding a question to that to avoid wasting time so he can answer both questions at the same time. Minister, the fundraising amendment, as I read it, applies only to charities, but the tax exempt organisations are affected by this sort of activity as well. Could you please outline which sorts of organisations are picked up? Would neighbourhood centres be picked up by your amendment? Would environmental organisations be picked up by your amendment?09:53:006450Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—In terms of the debate we are having, all tax exempt bodies are defined as charities. So, of course, this amendment that we have applies to them. It was one which, I might say, they sought and one which resulted clearly first from the negotiations with the charities and further from the negotiations that the Democrats had with the government. I think that this particular amendment is, as you say, an important one. We believe that it certainly resolves one of the concerns that charities have.09:54:006450Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—Minister, the charities who are affected by these amendments have written to us, and presumably others, saying that GST-free status and these amendments will be of little benefit to them because the effects of a GST on the other side of the ledger will be detrimental to them—namely, paying GST on goods and supplies they purchase and services they purchase. The consequence of the GST regime will be that they will be involved with higher costs—I think they were specifically the points Senator Brown was making yesterday—and, indeed, higher administration activities by introducing new systems and all that sort of thing. I would appreciate it if you would indicate to what respect these amendments on GST-free goods and activities would actually not only improve their costs and their accounting matters but also improve their ability to benefit from this tax package.09:56:006450Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—The truth of the matter is that, with regard to the non-commercial activities of charities, their costs will fall. There are significant embedded taxes in the costs of charities, even though they may at face be value exempt from wholesale sales tax. But in a lot of the goods they purchase there is a range of embedded taxes. The most obvious of these is the wholesale sales tax. In many of the products that they buy there is an embedded wholesale sales tax. In other areas, such as the cost of running vehicles, there are taxes which are embedded there also. With the initiatives we have brought forward in this package, many of those embedded taxes will be removed. That is why we think that the costs for non-commercial activities of charities will in fact fall. We see this as an important advantage that charities are receiving from the ANTS package.Once this is explained and once we try to forgo the hysteria that Senator Brown always attempts to bring to debates, when a fair balance is made, a lot of charities will see that there are major advantages to them in this package. We are as aware as you are that there are concerns by charities. That is why the government has already spent a great deal of time in consultation with charities. In fact, I have had a range of meetings. I know the officers of Treasury and the Taxation Office have had meetings with charities to go through in detail what the proposals are. As I have said earlier in this debate, I think that those meetings have been very helpful and quite a range of the concerns of charities have been effectively addressed. When some of the fears of charities are properly explained to them, they are considerably comforted.I think there are very big pluses in this package for charities. There are very big pluses, not the least, it has to be said, in the social services area with real rises in pensions and benefits to some of the poorer clients who use the services of charities—a very big plus. In terms of fundraising activities, and I think that they have been genuine matters for debate on this bill, there are very substantial income tax cuts. This package delivers $12 billion in income tax cuts. These are the largest income tax cuts in Australian history. The average family will benefit, if my memory serves me correctly, by $40 to $50 per week. It is a very substantial rise in disposable income for families.RF4COOKSenator Cook—Mr Temporary Chairman, on a point of order: the question of tax cuts is not for the chair at all. This is just a propaganda session by the minister. I ask you on the grounds of relevance to draw his attention to what is before the chair and let us get on with the debate. Let us not have this grandstanding and government propaganda session.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator McKiernan)—Minister, there is an amendment before the chair.WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—On the point of order, the issue was fundraising. Where do you raise funds from? You raise funds from the public. The point I am making, which is directly relevant to the question that was asked of me, is that there are very substantial tax cuts which will provide increased levels of disposable income through which people are able, if they so wish, to make contributions to charities. It is a pretty obvious and important point, I would have thought. Given the scare campaign, which has been run by people like Senator Brown, who never considers the whole picture, who never looks at the whole picture, I think it is entirely relevant.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—I had already ruled and asked you to draw your attention to the amendment.RF4COOKSenator Cook—I note that Senator Murray has sought the call. That just gives a lie to the statements made here earlier today that the government is interested in dealing with this legislation properly. The Democrats and the government have put a guillotine on this legislation. We are going to vote on the GST by virtue of that guillotine at 11 o'clock, in just under an hour, and the government and the Democrats are playing ping-pong across the chamber, soaking up the time so none of the rest of us can speak; importantly, soaking up the time so that we cannot get to other amendments that are critically important in the public consideration by the Senate of this bill.I know that the rejoinder from Senator Murray, somewhat tongue in cheek I suspect, is that he is concerned about charities. Well, I am concerned about charities. I am so concerned about charities I am not going to impose a GST. That is how concerned about charities I am, and I am not going to have to go through a whole process of amending a GST to make it somehow more just for charities. I am not going to go through a process of imposing a GST which will hurt the poor and give rise to the need for more charity in this country. Let us cut the chant about who is concerned about charities. On the subject of charities and on the subject of those amendments—10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—Senator Cook, I have already ruled on the point of order. I have allowed a little latitude to the debate. The minister was interrupted in his contribution by your point of order. I have ruled on that, so it really is up to the minister now to continue.RF4COOKSenator Cook—I thought you gave me the call.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—I thought you were further developing the point of order.RF4COOKSenator Cook—No, I'm not. I am speaking to the matter before the chair.RF4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—Let him go.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—The minister is conceding.10:03:006451Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—Thank you. What we are witnessing here this morning now with 56 minutes left of this debate—WW4KEMPSenator Kemp—You're wrong on that. It is 11.30 actually.RF4Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOK—Okay. I am pleased about that.WW4KEMPSenator Kemp—Well, you didn't even know that.RF4Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOK—It is 11 o'clock according to the sheet. I thought you were going to give us another half an hour, Minister. I would be grateful if you would do that. If you are prepared now to lift the guillotine and not stifle debate in this chamber, then that is a good thing.WW4KEMPSenator Kemp—Mr Temporary Chairman, on a point of order: I was just advised by the Clerk it was 11.30. The Clerk is now checking on that to give you some precise advice.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—There is no point of order. Not only is the Clerk checking but the chair is also checking.RF4Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOK—The point is that in 90 minutes or less we are going to have our throats cut and thus be prevented from participating further in debate on this bill. There are some 119 government amendments. We have dealt with about 19 of them, so we have 100 to go. Some of them are amendments that deal with matters of national importance and some of them are amendments which deal with issues of great hypocrisy by the proposers of them—the government and the Democrats. We will not have a chance in this chamber to even debate those.We are now witnessing a tyranny of the majority in this chamber to suppress debate. This is not what this chamber exists for and it is certainly not what the Democrats are supposed to stand for. A Democrat question to a government minister after this package deal has been done between both parties such as, `Would you please explain the content of correspondence between us?' is nothing more than a sham, and a time wasting sham at that. If you want to explain the nature of the correspondence between you, why don't you take the invitation I offered last night: take it on notice and report it in writing to the chamber so the rest of us can get into the debate? This is an absolute farce and any pretence by the government that it is otherwise, any mealy-mouthed explanation such as, `Oh, we've had a record amount of time in this debate,' runs up against this very big logical obstacle which overwhelms it completely. This is a new bill now. The Democrat-government bill to excise food and do a few other things to the GST is a new bill for this chamber and we started afresh when we started here. We started with no notice of these changes in black-letter law. We started with absolutely no notice. We asked you the week before last at estimates: would you please tell us what you are proposing? You said, `You just sit still and wait.' We waited and we got the amendments a few minutes before this debate commenced. That is also a tyranny of the majority in this chamber and it is not a due process question at all.I am concerned about charities and I am concerned, for example, that we will not get to the amendments on books. The amendments on books affect charities in the sense that charities purchase books. If you think that is a long bow, that is about as long a bow as the minister's bow on the tax cuts. Let me explain this about books: the Democrats said to the electorate in Australia before the last election that one of the non-negotiable items in their election campaign was to ensure that there was no GST on books.YE4BOSWELLSenator Boswell—Mr Temporary Chairman, on a point of order: before the Senate is an amendment on charities. The senator speaking now is trying to speak on books. I suggest to you that is not the question before the Senate. If Senator Cook wants to speak on books, then I suggest he wait until that question is before the chamber. Could you ask him to restrict his remarks to the amendment, which is on charities? I certainly would like to ask the minister to confirm—10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—Thank you, Senator Boswell.RF4Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOK—On the point of order, I called a point of order when the minister was speaking on tax cuts. I notice Senator Boswell did not bother to upbraid the minister at that time, but it was allowed that he should proceed to speak on tax cuts because he tried to make it relevant to the issue before the chair, in the same manner I make this issue relevant to the issue before the chair. If the minister is right on his position, I must surely be right on mine. I also note in the point of order that Senator Boswell has raised that he wants to ask a few questions. Senator Boswell, you voted for the guillotine to stop us pursuing the amendments that are before the chair. If you are prepared to lift the guillotine, we can all ask our questions, and that would be fair. This is a pious point of order and a self-serving one, and I ask you to rule out of order, Mr Temporary Chairman.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—I will be consistent in my ruling, Senator Cook. In the earlier point of order that you took on the minister, I did ask the minister to be relevant to the amendment that is before the chair. I would ask you to do the same thing.RF4Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOK—I will conclude my address. This is an important amendment. We will vote for it, and I hope we can get on with the business. I also note that, at the beginning of these proceedings, I asked the government and the Democrats whether they had a statement to make as to what this new deal was and whether they would please explain it to the chamber. They declined that invitation. What they did was impose a guillotine to stop the rest of us. So taking up the time of the chamber seeking explanations is nothing more than time wasting.I want to mark the spot now that, if this is the game, let the public understand that this Senate is blocking proper debate because we are being opposed by a majority guillotine, supported by the Democrats and the government so that we cannot get to the government's own amendments. We cannot, for example, get to the amendment on high rollers and explore what the government wants to do to protect gamblers in this country who only play in the high roller saloon of the prestige casinos.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—We've got an agreement on that.RF4Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOK—We will not be able to get to the debate because these two are hogging the floor and not allowing the matters to proceed.WW4KEMPSenator Kemp—Look at you!RF4Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOK—I am making a protest and I will sit down now.10:10:006453Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—I will respond briefly, unlike Senator Cook, who went into a rant complaining about people wasting time. Let me make it clear that I was responding to a question from Senator Brown.RF4COOKSenator Cook—You were not. It was from Senator Murray.WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—I am entitled to respond to questions from Senator Murray on advantages to charities from the GST. I was addressing my remarks directly to fundraising issues. You are absolutely out of court on that, Senator. If people want to have a debate about this bill and whether this bill has been delayed or not, I will be delighted to have that debate with them at any time, and the first thing I will point out to them is that, by the time this debate has finished, it will have been debated for 65 hours. I will conclude my remarks. I was originally advised by the Clerk that this debate would end at 11.30. I am now advised that the debate will end at 11 o'clock.10:11:006453Eggleston, Sen AlanSenator EGGLESTON4L6WALP10—Mr Temporary Chairman—H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—Can I just have a second?4L6Eggleston, Sen AlanSenator EGGLESTON—Yes.RF4COOKSenator Cook—This is just a farce now. This is just an absolute farce.10:11:006453Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—Senator Cook says it is a farce. Your leader asked me, in a very sensible tone, in a very constructive manner, less than half an hour ago, as you would recall, Mr Temporary Chairman Ferguson, to take away a proposition from him which flowed from a constructive meeting of all the parties—it was not all of the parties because I do not think Senator Brown was included, but he was there in spirit—we had during a breakdown of goodwill in the environment debate a couple of days ago. We sat down and said, `This is how we're going to get through all these amendments in a spirit of cooperation and goodwill.' He came to us this morning at the start of business, which is a very appropriate thing to do, and said, `We have a number of matters. We want to ensure that we can have consideration of what is becoming the books issue, consideration of the casino and high rollers issues—RF4COOKSenator Cook—I know the issues. They were read into the Hansard . We all know the issues. We don't need them recited ad infinitum.H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—I was just responding, and I probably should not have, to what I thought was an inappropriate remark made by Senator Cook, who said that this is ridiculous.RF4COOKSenator Cook—It is ridiculous.H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—A senator sought the call. He has yielded to me so I can respond to a specific request from your leader in relation to—RF4COOKSenator Cook—Well, please respond.H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—I am responding.RF4COOKSenator Cook—Well, please respond.WW4KEMPSenator Kemp—Just keep quiet for a moment!10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Ferguson)—Order! Senator Cook, you are out of order. Senator Campbell has the call.H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—Senator Cook knows the amendments. I will not retell them all. The Leader of the Opposition in the Senate has said that you want to ensure that there is a clear understanding about a vote on the so-called price transparency issue, the membership of student organisations issue, the casino issue and I did not catch the other one because I think Senator Faulkner was interrupted. It was something about amendments Nos 79, 82, 93 and 104 on sheet FA210. I am not sure what they refer to.RF4COOKSenator Cook—Anti-avoidance.H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—Anti-avoidance, I am sorry, I did not catch that. I have, as the leader invited me to do, consulted with the minister, with our advisers and with other parties, and we are quite able to facilitate that. The only thing that seems to have been taking time here is people arguing about people taking time. I suggest, as I did a few minutes ago, that we get on with the debate, allow there to be a debate. The whip will swear before whatever God he believes in that I went to him this morning and said I do not want coalition speakers to interrupt this debate because we will be accused, as Senator Cook is accusing us, of delaying the debate.RF4COOKSenator Cook—Yes, I am.H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—Senator Cook, just so that our bona fides are well and truly on the table here, I said a few minutes ago that, if any coalition senator speaks—and they have been limited, I think you would admit, for years in this place—they will speak for a very short time. I have actually asked the whip—and he is not in here at the moment—to have no other coalition speakers but Senator Kemp here this morning.I went up—as Senator Boswell will attest—only half an hour ago. Senator Boswell said he wants to ask a question; I think it was about the GST treatment of land. Senator Boswell, is that one of the amendments that is coming up? I asked him if he could possibly just deal with it with Senator Kemp in the privacy of his office, which is obviously something that coalition senators can do more easily than opposition senators from time to time. Senator Boswell has agreed to do that. Senator Eggleston was insisting. I will try to suggest to Senator Eggleston that he does the same thing, but if he does have a short, sharp, succinct question to ask—which he may have; I cannot put my control on him—then that is the undertaking.We want this debate, as I have said, Senator Cook, to proceed in a constructive way. You will have to accept that I am trying to do that. I know this is an emotive issue for some people, that people have strong feelings on some of these issues. Regardless, we will get to votes on these things. The coalition is now just undertaking to ensure that leave is granted so all of these issues can be dealt with. It is not as if there has not been a debate.RF4COOKSenator Cook—Leave is granted.H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—I am just committing that. That is why I am standing. I will not take any longer than that.10:15:006455Eggleston, Sen AlanSenator EGGLESTON4L6WALP10—I do have one short, sharp question which has been raised with me by a number of charities, and that is in relation to the administrative cost of setting up systems to cover the GST obligations of charities. I wonder if the Assistant Treasurer would be good enough to clarify the situation in respect of setting up administrative systems to provide for the GST responsibility of charities.10:16:006455Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—Senator, I think you are right. I think that there are concerns on that front. The truth of the matter is that the accounting systems of charities vary enormously. We would anticipate that some charities, because of the sophistication of their accounting systems, would have no troubles whatsoever. Others will need to look closely at their procedures and to make sure that they comply with the law. What we are doing, of course, is undertaking a major education campaign with charities to make sure that they understand what is required. We believe that the systems themselves are not complicated. The reporting arrangements are very straightforward. We believe that perhaps, once the general excitement around the charities and the introduction of this bill calms down, people will see things more objectively. We believe that the accounting procedures are very straightforward and that they are not complex.We do not anticipate that charities—or, indeed, other bodies in small business—are going to find the obligations required under the new tax system onerous at all. In fact, in the RIS that has been passed around with the bills, I think the net recurrent costs are estimated at $240 a year on average. Of course, I accept that this will vary between the types of organisations, but we do not feel that once the systems are in place people will find the reporting obligations onerous. In fact, I think the experience in New Zealand has been that one of the many beneficial effects of the new tax system is that it encourages people to have better accounting systems, so they have a better idea of just where they are at. That is a real plus out of this, and I think one of the things which flowed through to many of the people in small business—and, I suspect, in many charities—was that it was an advantage to have effective and proper accounting systems. Once that was in place, people did not see that as onerous. They saw that as an advantage, because they knew exactly where they were at any point in time.10:19:006455Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—Minister, yesterday Senator Forshaw asked you about sporting clubs. I wish to know what the effects of this amendment will be on sporting clubs which fall below the $100,000—RF4COOKSenator Cook—You negotiated it; don't you know?10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—Senator Cook, that is out of order.3M6Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY—Through the chair—RF4COOKSenator Cook—This is their joint deal, and they are asking questions about it.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—That is out of order. You are out of order.RF4COOKSenator Cook—It's an absolute joke.3M6Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY—Through the chair, the purpose of putting these on the Senate record is that we have been requested by charities to ask these questions.RF4COOKSenator Cook—Table a statement. Don't take up the time of the chamber. You were invited to do it.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—Order! Senator Cook.3M6Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY—Thank you. Minister, the question is: as Senator Forshaw asked you yesterday, what are the effects of these amendments on sporting clubs below the $100,000 threshold, on sporting clubs above the $100,000 threshold and on professional development associations, such as English teachers associations?10:20:006455Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—Thank you, Senator Murray. Of course, many of the sporting clubs that Senator Forshaw—10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—Order! There is far too much audible noise in the chamber, and I can scarcely hear the minister. So could negotiations please be conducted much more quietly.WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—There is one point that Senator Murray raised which I am just getting some further advice on. But, in relation to the issue of sporting clubs that Senator Forshaw raised yesterday, these are clubs which typically will not register. Senator Forshaw was concerned about small sporting clubs. The truth of the matter is that they will not be in the GST system unless they choose to be. We believe, of course, that some may well choose to be. But they will not be in the GST system, so the things they sell, of course, will not be subject to GST.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—Order!WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—I must admit it is very hard to hear.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—Order! Could I ask those people who are talking in the chamber to please conduct their negotiations elsewhere because I cannot hear what the minister is saying.RF4COOKSenator Cook—Would that be the Leader of Government Business?10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—There were some advisers in the box who were making just as much noise, Senator Cook.WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—Before Senator Murray got to his feet, a matter was raised in relation to the question asked by Senator Eggleston about there being some $500 million allocated by the government to assist the start-up costs for charities and small business.DX5MARGETTSSenator Margetts—Ha!WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—I might say, Senator, that it is a great deal of money.DX5MARGETTSSenator Margetts—Not when you average it out.WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—And the government will be making sure it is spent very effectively, and charities will be assisted through this particular funding arrangement. In addition, I just reiterate that the ATO has set up a specialist group to specifically address the needs of charities.4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—Is that report available yet, Minister?WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—Could you control him, Senator Cook? Senator Cook has just asked people to keep their responses short, so Senator Schacht comes in and makes his first contribution in this debate. It has been recorded, Senator. You have made your contribution, so why don't you leave the chamber now?10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—Order, Minister.WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—Further, we believe that the consultative group set up by the government will also greatly ease charities into the new goods and services system.10:24:006456Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—Minister, I did not specifically hear your response to my question about English teachers associations, which ACOSS and the welfare groups have asked me to record.RF4COOKSenator Cook—You did the deal. Don't you know the answer? Why don't you put a statement down so that we can get on with it?10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—Order, Senator Cook!3M6Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY—I repeat that ACOSS and the welfare organisations have asked that these matters be recorded in the Senate chamber. Minister, moving on from the English teachers associations and sporting clubs, I want to know whether grants will be affected by these amendments. The belief exists that grants will be affected and that they will be reduced if the benefits to charities are affected by amendments such as these before the chamber.10:24:006456Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—Senator, as we have mentioned, professional development associations that qualify as non-profit bodies would have the same treatment. I think that is another big plus coming through this particular package.On the issue of grants where they are for a specific supply—and, if I recall correctly from previous discussions in this chamber, we have had this debate quite extensively—there is no reason why those grants would be affected by that, even where the grants may be taxable, because there will be input credits. So, all other things being equal, we do not see the system we have put in place as resulting in a reduction in grants to these bodies.10:25:006457Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—This will be my last set of questions on this matter. Would the minister outline whether art unions are affected? Are they raffles?RF4COOKSenator Cook—Don't you know? You did the deal.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—Order, Senator Cook.RF4COOKSenator Cook—He did the deal!10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—Order!3M6Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY—For the third time, I will repeat that I have been asked to get these details on the record.RF4COOKSenator Cook—Put down a statement.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—Senator Murray, you have the call.3M6Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY—Mr Chairman, I am tempted to respond to these allegations.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—Senator Murray, resist the temptation and continue with your question.3M6Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY—Mr Chairman, so far I think my total time in this morning's debate probably comes to about seven minutes. I make that point.RF4COOKSenator Cook—You imposed the guillotine as well; you gagged the rest of us.3M6Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY—Your hands are not clean, Senator Cook.RF4COOKSenator Cook—You are gagging us, and you are taking up the time of the chamber.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—Senator Cook, you are taking up the time of the chamber with your interjections. I would suggest that they are out of order and that you desist.3M6Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY—These are my last questions. Are the Queensland art unions raffles? Art unions are a form of gambling only available to charities and they are run under a Queensland state government licence. They do not compete against the private sector at all. Running on from that question: what about auctions of donated goods? Will they be taxable, even though the sale price is essentially a donation?10:27:006457Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—Yes, Senator, I can assure you that art unions were a big issue. If I recall correctly what you have said, in the way you have described them they certainly would come within the terms of the particular amendment that is now before the chamber. There was a lot of concern in that area, and I think the art unions themselves will be extremely supportive of this particular amendment. I think that is yet another big plus for this particular package.Let me go to Senator Brown's question. Senator Brown has now left the chamber, but he did raise a question about a painting. Senator Brown is now in the chamber, so I will make sure that he hears this. Senator Brown, this is in relation to whether a painting is donated or not. The advice I have received is that, if the painting is new, it would be taxable when sold by the charity. If it were a second-hand painting, then the sale would be GST free. If the painting were raffled off, then the tickets for the raffle would be GST free. Therefore, in effect, the painting itself—QD4BROWNSenator Brown—Are you talking about a tax on a sale?WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—I am telling you that, if the painting were to be raffled—Senator Brown interjecting—WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—Senator Brown, I know that this is a bit of a concern to you because it means that your big claim falls over. Let me just repeat this—now he is not even listening.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Yes, he is.WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—Let me just repeat this. I will go through it again, as I think Senator Brown was distracted and I want to make sure that he understands.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Try to make it intelligible. WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—If the painting is new, then it would be taxable when sold by the charity. If it were a second-hand painting, then the sale would be GST free. If the painting were raffled off, then the tickets for the raffle would be GST free. Therefore, in effect, the painting would effectively be GST free under these circumstances.10:29:006458Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—The point there is that, if Elspeth Vaughan gives a painting to a charitable organisation and it is sold for $5,000, after the months of work she may have put into that, $500 will be taken back by the government from the charity and disbursed, in my analysis, to the big corporations through the diesel fuel levy.10:30:006458Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—If the painting that you refer to was raffled off by the charity, it would be GST free, thanks to these amendments. That is the point. You do not understand it. This is the point. You have been making a big effort on this but, as a result of these amendments, my advice is that if this painting is raffled off—QD4BROWNSenator Brown—I am talking about an auction.DX5MARGETTSSenator Margetts—We are not talking about a raffle.WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—Why wouldn't the charity, if it so wished, rather than conducting an auction, take advantage of these particular amendments that the Democrats have been very keen to have in this chamber? I tell you why you go on like this. You want to have a big scare campaign. This amendment that has been moved by the government, following negotiations with the Democrats, I think resolves the problem that you have attempted to raise.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—Order! The conversation level is too high in the chamber.10:31:006458Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—Minister, I think the questions on my right relate to auctions of donated goods as well as raffles. They were asking—and I would ask too—whether the sale at the auction would be taxable even though the goods were a donation and whether it is a new item that is donated.10:31:006458Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—If it is an auction, it is like a sale. If it is a new item, it is subject to GST. If it is a donated second-hand item, it is not subject to GST.10:31:006458Boswell, Sen RonaldSenator BOSWELLYE4QLDNP10—It is true that Senator Campbell did ask me to restrain myself today. I am quite happy to cooperate with Senator Campbell, but sometimes you have an obligation to put some of the concerns of your electorate down in the parliament. While I appreciate Senator Campbell requesting me to limit myself today, I am going to have to apologise and reject his advice.This particular amendment that is before the Senate has quite serious ramifications for rural Australia because, while sponsorship of sporting clubs is more available in the metropolitan areas, it is pretty scarce out in the rural regions. Surprisingly, many sporting clubs, landcare clubs and even political parties like the National Party virtually run on raffles. The National Party does not get a great deal of support from the unions or, at the other end of the political spectrum, from the big end of town. At every event or dinner meeting that you go to, there are always a couple of bottles of wine raffled. I do want to put some concerns down.ZW4SHERRYSenator Sherry—Don't vote for them!YE4Boswell, Sen RonaldSenator BOSWELL—Of course I am going to vote for them. It is going to give rural Australia $4.5 billion. It is going to reduce the sales tax on the 200,000 or 300,000 rigs by up to $60,000 and on the trailers by $20,000. If I did not vote for this, I would be tarred and feathered, and rightly so, because this is the greatest thing that has ever happened to rural Australia—and you ask me not to vote for it. That is just ridiculous. I went out last week to towns like Goondiwindi, Dalby and Kingaroy. We did a great trip right up there. I have never had anything better to sell in my life in rural Australia. It was surprising. I could not hear any objections at all. So please do not ask me not to vote for this, because there are some winners in this and there are some—10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator McKiernan)—Senator Boswell, I will not ask you not to vote for it, but I will ask you to come back to the subject matter of the amendment that is before us, just in case there is a point of order taken on relevance.YE4Boswell, Sen RonaldSenator BOSWELL—I respect your ruling, and I certainly would not try to avoid it. Can I ask the minister about the concerns that I have. Would raffles and donations to, say, an organisation like Landcare be GST free? What would happen to a raffle or even an auction conducted by a political party in rural and regional Australia? What about race clubs? I would like to know about the whole spectrum of how people raise money in the smaller communities. I would like to put that down on the record and register my concern.10:35:006459Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—Senator, I think that you have spoken very well about the advantages to rural Australia of this package. Indeed, we believe that the advantages to rural Australia are huge. We are delighted—not that it surprises us—that you will be voting for the package. In relation to charities, bodies are in various categories. A body might be a charity, for example. Fundraising in relation to a charitable body through donations from individuals or a business will not be affected, as there will be no GST on a donation to a charity. In relation to fundraising done through sponsorships from business, we believe it will be largely unaffected by the GST, as the extra cost to the business sponsor will be offset by the input tax credit that the sponsor can obtain.We do not accept that the sponsorships will be affected. We do not accept that donations will be affected. I have given the rationale for sponsorships but, in relation to donations, let me repeat that there is no GST on donations to charities. You should remember, Senator Boswell, that the large income tax cuts to individuals will provide significant extra disposable income for people to make donations to charities. I have indicated to this chamber that, where a body is a charity, a raffle is GST free. Equally, some bodies will not be registered. Senator, you spoke about a large number of very small bodies—community organisations and others—and, of course, if they are not in the GST system, there is again no GST on any raffles they may conduct. The important thing is that this particular amendment is a very big plus for charities. We have responded to community concerns and to the concerns expressed by the Australian Democrats.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—The question is that government amendments Nos 31 and 67 be agreed to.Question resolved in the affirmative.10:39:006459Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—We are about to move to Senator Brown's amendments. As I understand it, as soon as we have finished the discussion on his amendments, we will then move to—I am not sure what the running sheet says, but there seems to be a consensus, dare I use that Hawke-ish word—amendment 1 on page 1327, which was the first of the list that the Leader of the Opposition referred to. While the Leader of the Opposition was out of the chamber, I gave some undertakings in relation to putting a range of amendments separately. That is now clear between the government and the opposition, at least. I have a clear view of what needs to be put separately, so that should ensure an orderly debate between now and 11 a.m.10:39:006459Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—by leave—I move Greens (WA) and Australian Greens amendments Nos 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 on sheet 1424:(1) Clause 38-250, page 92 (line 11), omit "or a *gift deductible entity", substitute "a *gift deductible entity or a *tax exempt entity".(2) Clause 38-250, page 92 (line 16), omit "or a *gift deductible entity", substitute "a *gift deductible entity or a *tax exempt entity".(3) Clause 195-1, page 275 (after line 5), after the definition of taxation law , insert: tax exempt entity means a non-profit body or institution whose income is exempt from income tax under section 50-5, 50-10, 50-20 or 50-45 or item 3.2 of section 50-15 of the *ITAA 1997. (4) Clause 38-250, page 92 (lines 12 and 13), omit paragraph (1)(b), substitute: (b) the supply is not a *commercial activity.(5) Clause 38-250, page 92 (lines 14 to 19), omit subsection (2).I thank the Senate, and I know we are about to be guillotined, so I will be very brief. Having failed to get any support last night for our comprehensive amendments to protect charities right across the board, including student unions, the Greens are now moving the Democrats' own amendments put before the chamber some weeks ago. When introducing these amendments of the Democrats which the Greens are now moving, Senator Bartlett said that the impact of the GST on charities was totally negative and quite avoidable. He continued:Why should the Government be interested in taxing lamington drives, chook raffles, country dances and tuckshops? With Government funding to so many community services organisations being reduced, why would we now make it harder for charities to raise money?The Democrats said that they find it economic rationalism gone mad that lamington drives and lifesaving are regarded as a commercial activity to be taxed. The government's tax treatment of charities is much more harsh than that of Canada or the United Kingdom. It is borne out of theoretical purity rather than practical reality. That government position has now of course become the Democrats' position, and us Greens, in the fall back, are putting forward the more narrow proposals that the Democrats mooted just a couple of weeks ago to offset the very real impact on non-government organisations, including unions, and charities right across the country.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator McKiernan)—Senator Brown, could you clarify with the chair the second group of amendments, just so we are certain.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—Yes. They are those on running sheet 7, second from the bottom: amendments 1 to 3, sheet 1424.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—Thank you.10:42:006460Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—Let me make this absolutely clear. We believe the treatment of charities that the government has legislated for in the A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Bill 1998 is very fair and equitable.QD4BROWNSenator Brown—And we disagree.WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—But the truth of the matter is that you have never properly addressed the arguments. You have never been able to sustain your case over and above relentless assertions that are nothing to do with any proper analysis and nothing to do with the hard yards of public policy making.QD4BROWNSenator Brown—But it's the Democrats' position.WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—The government has indicated in the letter to Senator Lees that we will be looking at issues concerned with the taxation treatment of charities and the effects of rulings that will be issued by the taxation commissioner on charities.DX5MARGETTSSenator Margetts—What if the ruling goes in the wrong direction?WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—It is the government's belief that charities will in fact benefit from this bill before the chamber. Frankly, nothing that you have asserted makes me concerned about the government's position. We have, along with the Democrats, done the hard yards on this. We have gone out and spoken to charities; we have gone out and taken on board their concerns. A number of concerns were raised—particularly in relation to fundraising, art unions, other raffles and things like bingo—and the government has addressed those concerns through these particular amendments. As I said, we announced in the letter that the Prime Minister sent to Senator Lees further consultations with charities to make sure that there are not any unintended consequences.I am getting the wind-up from Senator Ian Campbell, and we always take note of him. When the final wash-up of this comes, and when people look closely at what we have achieved through this tax system that we are imposing, we believe that, unlike your position, charities will benefit from these measures.10:45:006460Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I reassert: this is the position the Democrats took to the negotiating table and failed to carry through. We are now putting it.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—Is a division required? Ring the bells. I have been advised that the lights are working but the bells are not. I will await advice and, in turn, advise the chamber.YE4BOSWELLSenator Boswell—How can we have a division if we do not have the bells? We are at an impasse at the moment.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—There is one way: if honourable senators carried beepers with them, they could be so advised. There will be no division until the bells are repaired and do ring.YE4BOSWELLSenator Boswell—Mr Temporary Chairman, I seek your ruling. What do we do while we wait for the bells?10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—I would suggest, firstly, that you take that piece of paper off your head. I am advised, Senator Boswell, that the technicians are looking at it. We will advise you and the rest of the committee as soon as possible.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—Senators, please remain in the chamber. We are endeavouring to sort out this bell ringing problem.10:50:006461Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—Madam Chairman, if Senator Brown agrees, I suggest that this division be put off until after 11 a.m. Hopefully in the next 10 minutes the Canberra electrical service will be able to find the fuse for the bells and, in the meantime, we could proceed with discussion on the next amendment. I am not sure whether that is Senator Brown's next amendment or whether it is amendment No. 1 on page 1237.10:50:006461Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—That is a sensible approach in the circumstances. Also, while that is taking place, perhaps the Manager of Government Business in the Senate might look at the time we have lost as a result of the failure of the electrical systems in the parliament.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—If we immediately move to the debate, we will have gained time and not lost it, so I suggest we get straight on to it.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—Is it the wish of the Senate that, as suggested by Senator Campbell, we defer this division until the bells are ringing? There being no objection, it is so ordered.10:51:006461Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—Madam Chair, I would ask that, when the vote on the charities amendment is put, the nature of the vote is explained again before it is put, otherwise the importance of that vote will be lost. To help the committee move on, I ask that further Greens (WA) and Australian Greens amendments on running sheet 7 be withdrawn.10:52:006461Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY3L6VICALP00—To try to save time, particularly in light of the confusion at the moment, I rise to speak to a range of different amendments. So I seek the indulgence of the Chair and the government to range a bit wider than normal for specific amendments. I am sure Senator Kemp will not have a problem.WW4KEMPSenator Kemp—I'll listen carefully, and if I object I'll let you know.3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—I appreciate that. The opposition will be moving a couple of amendments. One is on sheet No. 1454. The reason for this amendment is simple, and there was a process leading up to the introduction of this legislation whereby—3M6MURRAYSenator Murray—Madam Chair, I cannot hear at the back here.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—I agree with you, Senator Murray.3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—You will hear me in a minute.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—Order! Senator Conroy, there is no need for that. Can I ask those senators standing and talking to resume their seats or leave the chamber immediately, please. Senators Brownhill, O'Chee, McGauran and Sandy Macdonald, will you please either take a seat or leave the chamber. Senator Conroy, you were going to move some amendments?3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—Thank you. I am speaking to a number of amendments. Firstly, on sheet No. 1454, the reason for this amendment is simple. There was a process leading up to the introduction of this legislation whereby some practitioners would have been in a position to know of the anti-avoidance provisions and may have been able to put into effect arrangements which commenced before 2 December 1998. Accordingly, this amendment proposes to backdate the period from which anti-avoidance amendments would be effective from—the release of the ANTS package. The Democrats should support this, but since they apparently now support tax avoidance I expect they will not.It is quite extraordinary. It became clear from the ANTS document, from that moment, what an effective tax planner or tax avoider could do to get around the provisions in the ANTS law. I find it extraordinary that the Democrats will be party to opening up that window of opportunity. We have the chance right now to close that window of opportunity for people who are smart tax planners, tax avoiders. The Democrats have got themselves into a position where they are in bed with the government on this. It is quite an extraordinary position, but it is another of the sell-outs consistently being shown this week.Because there is not much time, I will leave it at that and move on to the amendments on sheet No. 1452. These amendments relate to one issue only—that is, the defence of students and student organisations from yet another assault by this government. We do not think that students should pay tax to belong to a student organisation. It is wrong in principle and Labor opposes it strongly. I hope we will get the chamber's support for it; I hope we will get the Democrats' support for it; I hope we will get Senator Stott Despoja's support for it, given her strong position on many student organisation issues. Again, it is quite extraordinary that the Democrats have joined in the persecution of student organisations in this country. They have had consistently strong views on this, but where are they today? You are not going to support this.I would also like to move on to what is known as the `high-roller amendment'. In this chamber, the Democrats said they were not going to be supportive of it. Now they are trying, as they have done with a number of their other commitments, to back out. This is the famous high-roller amendment. This is the amendment that sees the Liberal Party look after their mates. This is the amendment that says if you go to a casino, if you are Kerry Packer and you wander in, and the casino decides to put on all these lavish things for you, all these lavish offsets to your losses, they get to claim them as being GST free. This is extraordinary. You can be a student organisation and the Democrats will not support you, you can be a charity and the Democrats will not support you; you can be a tax avoider and the Democrats will support you, but if you are a Kerry Packer, a high roller, they are going to let you out of the GST.They are going to let Ron Walker and Lloyd Williams—their backers in Victoria—off the GST, but not students, not charities and not people who eat different types of bread, different types of food from the Democrats. You are going to be supporting the high-roller amendment. You should stand up right now, Senator Murray, and give us an explanation of why you are going to be letting the government's mates, the government's political backers, get away with this today, in about five or 10 minutes time. We demand an explanation and you deserve to give one to the voters of this country—to the charities, to the student organisations, to the people who are going to be paying GST on food. It is good enough for them. But it is not good enough.You can argue that it is just another input cost. There are lots of other input costs that are being GSTed. If you are a financial institution, notwithstanding the new amendments that you are putting up, you still have to pay tax on your inputs. Why are casinos, why are your mates, being let off on this? Lots of financial institutions will not get a GST exemption for their inputs. But the casinos are a special case; they certainly are special to the government. They certainly are special to the government!What we have here today is a disgraceful sell-out by the Democrats—no principle. Senator Woodley has convinced himself that this debate is being characterised by a Labor Party telephone tree. You can go on convincing yourself. They have argued, `Oh, all these Labor Party people are sending faxes backwards and forwards; they're making telephone calls; they're approaching me.' That's right, Senator Woodley: after Brian Harradine agreed to vote against the GST, we organised 2,000 people to send in faxes and letters and make telephone calls! That is right, 2,000—after he has agreed to support us. You can go on deluding yourself. You can go on pretending that this is just about an organised telephone tree. I said it yesterday, but you were not here. Newspoll did a survey, and guess what? They found that an overwhelming majority did not want the GST. What did they do, Senator Woodley? Did they actually phone Labor Party members only? Is that what happened with Newspoll?The Herald Sun conducted a phone-in. They asked, in relation to the GST, `Do you agree with the deal?' The number who answered yes was 230. The next day they held another telephone poll: `Do you agree with the Ku Klux Klan?' More people—633—supported the Ku Klux Klan than supported this GST deal. But I guess it was just another Labor Party telephone tree, was it, Senator Woodley? Smell the roses. Look at your party membership, look at what the polls say and look at what ordinary Australians are saying. They oppose this package, and so should you.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—Order! It being 11 o'clock, pursuant to the guillotine, the time for the consideration of this bill has concluded.11:00:006463Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—by leave—Madam Chair, given that the bells are out of order—I do not think that this is the bellringers union intervening, I think it is just a technical hitch—I seek the agreement of the chamber that until the bells are fixed, when effectively the guillotine can be levied through a series of votes, we continue this debate.11:00:006463Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—by leave—I am informed that the bells might be fixed relatively quickly. I am not an electrical specialist, and we do not have to pay GST on the electrician's bill at this stage. If we are going to avoid taking time out of the debates for the rest of the day, the preferable option is to seek to have votes put with parties and Independents indicating their votes. That is the first option that I am informed we could adopt. The other option is to move to the next set of bills and agree that the votes on these bills be deferred, as I am informed they can be, until the bells are in fact operable again. The operability of the bells may be a matter that is fixed within a few short minutes.The first option that I would propose is that the votes proceed on the basis that the whips, on behalf of the numeric parties, indicate the way in which their parties will vote. The vote will be called by the chair and a division will not be necessary, so we can move through those. But the voting of all senators will be recorded. So for all intents and purposes the same effect will be recorded, and any senator wanting to record their vote will be able to do so.11:02:006463Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY3L6VICALP00—by leave—We do not agree with your proposition at the moment, Senator Campbell.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—I am just putting the proposition at this stage.3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—We need time to consider it rather than just give you leave, because if we give you leave right now we have agreed to it.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—I am not even asking for leave at this stage; I am asking whether I need leave.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—You need leave for either course.3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—Can we propose a quick discussion?11:03:006463Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—by leave—Certainly. That proposition is a sensible procedure when we have had a technical failure. The next alternative is to not waste precious time today and proceed with the debate on the next bill.11:03:006464Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—by leave—I again recommend that we continue the debate. We are talking about a few minutes. It is going to lead to great confusion. I think we would need a roll call if we were to vote without the bells. Certainly we would need to know that any senator absent from the chamber had knowledge that these votes were taking place and that the absence was a deliberated one; otherwise we are going to be in a great tangle. I would suggest that we do not get into that tangle for the sake of a few minutes but that we continue the debate. It is going to delay matters only a little. We should not move on to another bill. This is quite complicated material. I put it to the committee that we sensibly continue this debate until the bells are fixed and then proceed.11:04:006464Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—by leave—I notice that intensive consultations are currently occurring, Senator Brown, and it may be of assistance that others who wish to put a view perhaps join the consultations. Frankly, any extension of debate on this bill would just squeeze the other bills and then there would be arguments there. Senator Ian Campbell has put two options. The first one, which is before the chamber at the moment, is that the whips record the vote. If that is unacceptable, the other option from Senator Campbell is that we now move on to the next bill and that debate take place. Then, when the bells are ready, we can vote on this bill. I think we should just wait until we see whether we can get agreement.11:05:006464Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—by leave—I will propose that we move to consideration of the next bill, which is the New Tax System (Goods and Services Transition) Bill. We will review the situation in one hour at the latest and we will undertake that all of the divisions that have been sought by the Leader of the Opposition and the Greens senators at this stage will be called. I have already given this commitment. We hope that the bells will be operating in a short time. I think it is sensible that, as soon as practical after the bells are back in operation, we recommence those divisions. We would not interrupt a senator speaking, or we might do that very politely. If the bells take up to an hour to fix, we will then convene a meeting in an hour's time to discuss proposals.11:07:006464Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—by leave—I think the procedure that the Manager of Government Business has outlined is a sensible one. I had a quick talk with Senator Campbell and Senator Hill. In what are probably very unusual, if not unprecedented, circumstances we have to be a bit creative about the way we handle this. The opposition's imperative—and I hope it is shared by other senators in the chamber—is that these divisions on crucial issues are essential. We need these divisions to take place and if at all possible they ought to be done in the normal manner.I think it will best facilitate the work of the committee if we proceed in the way that we have agreed and that Senator Campbell has now outlined to the Senate. If there is going to be a difficulty with the bells into the longer term, the sensible approach is for all of us to have a bit of a chat about how we might deal with progressing the work of the committee at that time. But my hope would be that within an hour or so we can fix this up and work through the difficulty. Senator Hill will be pleased to see this is the one piece of mismanagement I am not going to blame the government for. Even I would not come at that.BH4HILLSenator Hill—Well, I am surprised.5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—That is unless you have gone out and pulled the fuse out of the bells yourself. I want an assurance you have not been out there with a screwdriver or something.BH4HILLSenator Hill—I would want to fix them.5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—But in these circumstances, Madam Chair, I think we ought to progress in this way.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—I have had some advice that there is uncertainty as to how long it is going to take to get the bells fixed. Is it the wish of the committee that we now proceed to the A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax Transition) Bill 1998 ? Senator Margetts, are you indicating it is not your wish to do that or are you seeking leave?DX5MARGETTSSenator Margetts—I am just trying to seek leave to suggest that is the running sheet we do not have.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—Before you move any further on that, can I just make the comment that that bill has no running sheet for amendments because there are only government amendments. I think there are three bundles of government amendments for that bill only, so that is why there is no running sheet. Is it the wish of the committee that we proceed along those lines? There being no objection, it is so ordered.A NEW TAX SYSTEM (GOODS AND SERVICES TAX TRANSITION) BILL 199810000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—Before we proceed any further, I will just make one of these statements from the chair. There are three government requests to this bill. The first appears to impose a tax where it was not imposed before and so falls within the first paragraph of section 53 of the Constitution. The other two appear to reduce sales tax as a part of the phase-down operation and therefore there is no reason for them to be requests. They will be treated as amendments. So one will be treated as a request and two will be treated as amendments. Is it the wish of the committee that the bill be taken as a whole? There being no objection, it is so ordered. The question is that the bill stand as printed.11:10:006465Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—My question is actually about procedure. If an honourable senator were to draw attention to the state of the house—I am not doing that now, but if they were to—how does the chamber stand in that situation?10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—I am advised there is no solution to that problem. We would have to wait until the bells were fixed. Before we proceed, I understand that the technicians would like to test the bells by ringing them. That does not mean there is any quorum being called or any division being called. If they ring, it will be a test. That is just to alert people.11:12:006465Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—If any honourable senator is minded to call quorums—and I do not think that people would do that, but if there were any concern as to that—I would be happy to ensure that at least there was a quorum made up of coalition senators. But I would have thought that there would be agreement by everybody not to call quorums in these circumstances.11:12:006465Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—I hope there would be an agreement not to call a quorum but I note that the government and the Democrats have been filibustering, despite the guillotine, and I did not exclude from the considerations the possibility that you would use the standing orders to continue to do so.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—On a point of order: Madam Chair, I draw your attention to the state of the bells.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—The state of the bells! Thank you, Senator Faulkner, there is no point of order.3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—Could I seek clarification from the chair. Have we moved on to the next bill?10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—We have now moved on to the next bill, which is the A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax Transition) Bill 1998 , and the question is that the bill stand as printed.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—I rise on a point of order. I have just had a phone call from the Premier of Western Australia: he has a set of bells he wants to sell us.3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—Madam Chair, I am trying to clarify this. We were voting on some amendments and presumably we are not moving off the bill.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—The voting on those is deferred. We are now on the next. I am told there is about to be a test undertaken of the bells.3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—Shall I keep talking while it is happening?10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—Yes, keep talking.RF4COOKSenator Cook—For whom the bell tolls, Madam Chair.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—Thank you, Senator Cook.3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—Before we had that problem, I was just about to start speaking on a number of issues. I was just about to move to the question of the transparency and the GST.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—We have gone to the next bill.3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—I know that but I am just suggesting that is an agreement which—H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—The Leader of the Opposition just agreed to that.A NEW TAX SYSTEM (GOODS AND SERVICES TAX) BILL 199810000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—I understand the bells are now working and it would be appropriate to return to conducting votes on the A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Bill 1998 . The first question before the chair is that Greens (WA) amendments 4 and 5 on sheet 1424 and 1 to 3 on sheet 1424 be agreed to.11:20:00The committee divided. (The Chairman—Senator S. M. West)28Bartlett, A. J. J. Bishop, T. M.Brown, B. Campbell, G.Carr, K. Collins, J. M. A.Conroy, S. Cook, P. F. S.Cooney, B. Crossin, P. M.Denman, K. J. Evans, C. V.Faulkner, J. P. Forshaw, M. G.Gibbs, B. Harradine, B.Lundy, K. Mackay, S.Margetts, D. McKiernan, J. P.Murphy, S. M. O'Brien, K. W. K.Quirke, J. A. *Ray, R. F.Schacht, C. C. Sherry, N.Stott Despoja, N. West, S. M.32Alston, R. K. R. Boswell, R. L. D.Brownhill, D. G. C. Calvert, P. H. *Campbell, I. G. Chapman, H. G. P.Coonan, H. Crane, W.Eggleston, A. Ellison, C.Ferguson, A. B. Ferris, J.Heffernan, W. Herron, J.Hill, R. M. Kemp, R.Lightfoot, P. R. Macdonald, I.Macdonald, S. MacGibbon, D. J.McGauran, J. J. J. Newman, J. M.O'Chee, W. G. Parer, W. R.Patterson, K. C. L. Payne, M. A.Reid, M. E. Synon, K. M.Tambling, G. E. J. Tierney, J.Troeth, J. Vanstone, A. E.Bolkus, N. Knowles, S. C.Crowley, R. A. Minchin, N. H.Hogg, J. Watson, J. O. W.Hutchins, S. Gibson, B. F.Reynolds, M. Abetz, E.* denotes tellerIn division—QD4BROWNSenator Brown—Madam Chair, I am a patron, member and director of a number of charitable and non-government organisations and therefore declare an interest in this and some other matters on which we will be voting today.3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—I am a director of a non-profit organisation.FY5DENMANSenator Denman—I am too.DT6BARTLETTSenator Bartlett—I similarly declare an interest as an office bearer.4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—I declare an interest as a director of a non-profit organisation.TH4KNOWLESSenator Knowles—I declare an interest as a director of a non-profit organisation.3I6STOTT DESPOJASenator Stott Despoja—I have to declare an interest as a patron and an office bearer in a number of non-profit organisations.7G6LUNDYSenator Lundy—I would like to declare an interest as a director of a non-profit organisation.6E4TAMBLINGSenator Tambling—In accordance with my declaration of interests to the Senate, I have an interest in a number of non-profit organisations.2M6COONANSenator Coonan—I have an interest in a non-profit organisation as a director.EU4O'CHEESenator O'Chee—Madam Chairman, as those who have read my declaration of interests would be aware, I am a patron and member of numerous non-profit organisations.5L6FERRISSenator Ferris—As has been noted in my declaration of interests, I am the chair of a non-profit organisation.UW4CRANESenator Crane—Likewise.FX5MURPHYSenator Murphy—Ditto.FF4CHAPMANSenator Chapman—Likewise, I am an office bearer of one or more non-profit organisations.VI4REIDSenator Reid—I have an interest in, membership of and patronage of similar organisations.5F4CALVERTSenator Calvert—I am a director of a couple of non-profit organisations.LI4PATTERSONSenator Patterson—I am a member of, and have an association with, a number of non-profit organisations.RF4COOKSenator Cook—I am a member of a non-profit organisation and a patron of another.YH4MacGIBBONSenator MacGibbon—I am associated with a non-profit organisation.ZW4SHERRYSenator Sherry—I am a patron and office bearer of a number of non-profit organisations.M56PAYNESenator Payne—I am a member and patron of several non-profit organisations.9L6MACKAYSenator Mackay—Ditto.YE4BOSWELLSenator Boswell—I am associated with a number of non-profit organisations.4L6EGGLESTONSenator Eggleston—Likewise.2L6BISHOPSenator Mark Bishop—I also declare an interest, being associated with a non-profit organisation.FQ6SYNONSenator Synon—I am a member and patron of a non-profit organisation.6H4HARRADINESenator Harradine—I make a like declaration.LD4ALSTONSenator Alston—Similarly.KI4PARERSenator Parer—I am associated with a non-profit organisation.YW4MACDONALDSenator Ian Macdonald—Likewise—and this shows the absolute stupidity of this!AX5EVANSSenator Chris Evans—I am a member of, and financial contributor, to a number of non-profit organisations.7E4VANSTONESenator Vanstone—Likewise, Madam Chair, and I want to endorse Senator Macdonald's remarks. All of these interests are in our declarations. This is a big waste of time.1I4McKIERNANSenator McKiernan—I am a patron of a number of non-profit organisations.9X5ELLISONSenator Ellison—I am associated with some non-profit organisations.DX5MARGETTSSenator Margetts—Madam Chair, I am a member of several non-profit organisations.SF4COONEYSenator Cooney—Similarly.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Likewise.6L6GIBBSSenator Gibbs—I am a member of a non-profit organisation.EP5FERGUSONSenator Ferguson—I make a similar declaration and I do not believe I do have a conflict of interest.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—I also am a member of a non-profit organisation.BE4NEWMANSenator Newman—So am I—and I think it is an absolute nonsense declaring that.656FORSHAWSenator Forshaw—Same here.Question so resolved in the negative. (Amendments to be put)(3) Clause 9-39, page 17 (after table item 4), insert: 4A Gambling Division 126(66) Clause 126-10, page 193 (lines 9 to 13), omit the definition of total monetary prizes , substitute: total monetary prizes is the sum of: (a) the *monetary prizes you are liable to pay, during the tax period, on the outcome of gambling events (whether or not any of those gambling events, or the *gambling supplies to which the monetary prizes relate, take place during the tax period); and (b) any amounts of *money you are liable to pay, during the tax period, under agreements between you and *recipients of your gambling supplies, to repay to them a proportion of their losses relating to those supplies (whether or not the supplies take place during the tax period).(68) Page 194 (after line 22), after clause 126-30, insert:126-32 Repayments of gambling losses are not consideration (1) A payment of money is not the provision of *consideration to the extent that the payment: (a) is made by a supplier of *gambling supplies to a *recipient of gambling supplies that the supplier makes; and (b) is made, under an agreement between them, to repay to the recipient a proportion of his or her losses relating to those supplies. (2) This section has effect despite section 9-15 (which is about what is consideration).10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—Order! The question before the chair is that the A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Bill 1998 stand as printed. There are three sets of government amendments. The time for this particular part of the guillotine having expired, I am now obliged to put the government amendments as a block, but there has been an indication from Senator Faulkner that he would request some of them being put in separate blocks or independently. Senator Faulkner has foreshadowed that he wishes government amendments 366 and 368 on sheet FA210 and amendments 79 to 82 and 93 and 104 on sheet FA210 to be taken separately to the remaining block of government amendments.3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—Madam Chairman, on a point of clarification: are we putting the highroller casino amendment separately?10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—Senator Conroy, there is no point of order. I know what numbers have been requested to be put separately.RF4COOKSenator Cook—I have a question of clarification. I thought you did not mention amendment 3 on sheet FA210. I thought you just said amendments 66 and 68.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—No, I said 366.RF4COOKSenator Cook—It is 3, 66 and 68.10000Cook, Sen PeterThe CHAIRMAN—I am sorry, I have misunderstood. That is why I am seeking people to clarify for me now what ones they want.QD4BROWNSenator Brown—I have given the government and the opposition a list of amendments of the Greens (WA) and the Australian Greens.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—Senator, can I dispose of the government ones first? I do not need them foreshadowed at this stage. I will get confused, as will everybody else. If I can deal with the government amendments and get them out of the way, we can then move to the rest that you may wish to seek leave to deal with.QD4BROWNSenator Brown—Madam Chair, on a point of order: I am expecting that we are following this procedure with the agreement of the opposition and the government that the Greens amendments will be like treated.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—A list is now being circulated of the guillotine questions and the questions which will be put separately in different groups.QD4BROWNSenator Brown—That list has now been amended to satisfy my concerns. I thank you for that.RF4COOKSenator Cook—There is some question as to whether these are the right amendments, but I think the answer is now being gesticulated. For ease of understanding, these are the high-roller amendments, aren't they?10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—I am going to put these amendments as they are listed. If we get to an area where there is uncertainty, please pull me up. 3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—Can I clarify that 3, 66, 68 are being put together and they are the high-roller amendments?Honourable senators interjecting—10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—Order!11:31:006469Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—We were asked in a sensible, sound, unemotional voice by the Leader of the Opposition this morning about a series of propositions to break up the amendments. We have had very constructive discussions with the advisers in the opposition box. Senator Bob Brown has sought to put a series of those—and we agreed with that proposition. We have very clearly agreed to the Australian Labor Party's request. I would suggest that, if we want to continue with a constructive procedure, then all of us need to do that. If we want to play high jinks and high school games, we can go down that path as well. But the coalition has given very clear undertakings as to the procedures and everyone, it seems, other than Senator Conroy, is absolutely clear about the procedures.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—The question is that government amendments Nos 3, 66 and 68 on sheet FA210 be agreed to.A division having been called and the bells being rung—QD4BROWNSenator Brown—I raise a point of order, Madam Chairman. I notice that a number of Democrat senators are missing from the chamber. Can I be assured that the bells are working?Honourable senators interjecting—10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—Senator Brown, there is no point of order.11:37:00The committee divided. (The Chairman—Senator S. M. West)31Alston, R. K. R. Boswell, R. L. D.Brownhill, D. G. C. Calvert, P. H. *Campbell, I. G. Chapman, H. G. P.Coonan, H. Crane, W.Eggleston, A. Ellison, C.Ferguson, A. B. Ferris, J.Heffernan, W. Herron, J.Hill, R. M. Kemp, R.Lightfoot, P. R. Macdonald, I.MacGibbon, D. J. McGauran, J. J. J.Newman, J. M. O'Chee, W. G.Parer, W. R. Patterson, K. C. L.Payne, M. A.Reid, M. E.Synon, K. M. Tambling, G. E. J.Tierney, J. Troeth, J.Vanstone, A. E.28Bartlett, A. J. J. Bishop, T. M.Brown, B. Campbell, G.Carr, K. Collins, J. M. A.Conroy, S. Cook, P. F. S.Cooney, B. Crossin, P. M.Denman, K. J. Evans, C. V.Faulkner, J. P. Forshaw, M. G.Gibbs, B. Harradine, B.Lundy, K. Mackay, S.Margetts, D. McKiernan, J. P.Murphy, S. M. O'Brien, K. W. K.Quirke, J. A. *Ray, R. F.Schacht, C. C. Sherry, N.Stott Despoja, N. West, S. M.Abetz, E. Reynolds, M.Gibson, B. F. Hutchins, S.Knowles, S. C. Bolkus, N.Minchin, N. H. Crowley, R. A.Watson, J. O. W. Hogg, J.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative. (Amendments to be put)(79) Clause 165-1, page 225 (line 12) to page 226 (line 6), omit the clause, substitute:165-1 What this Division is aboutThe object of this Division is to deter schemes to give entities benefits by reducing GST, increasing refunds or altering the timing of payment of GST or refunds.If the dominant purpose or principal effect of a scheme is to give an entity such a benefit, the Commissioner may negate the benefit an entity gets from the scheme by declaring how much GST or refund would have been payable, and when it would have been payable, apart from the scheme. This Division is aimed at artificial or contrived schemes. It is not, for example, intended to apply to:. an exporter electing to have monthly tax periods in order to bring forward the entitlement to input tax credits; or. a supplier of child care applying to register under the Childcare Rebate Act 1993 (registration would make the supplies of child care GST-free); or. a supplier choosing under section 9-25 of the A New Tax System (Wine Equalisation Tax) Act 1999 to use the average wholesale price method for working out the taxable value of retail sales of grape wine; or. a bank having its car fleet serviced earlier than usual, and before 1 July 2000, so that the servicing does not, at least(80) Clause 165-5, page 226 (after line 12), after paragraph (1)(a), insert: (aa) the GST benefit is not attributable to the making, by any entity, of a choice, election, application or agreement that is expressly provided for by the *GST law, the *wine tax law or the*luxury car tax law; and(93) Clause 195-1, page 265 (after line 21), after the definition of long-term lease , insert: luxury car tax law has the meaning given in section 27-1 of the A New Tax System (Luxury Car Tax) Act 1999 .(104) Clause 195-1, page 276 (after line 21), after the definition of value , insert: wine tax law has the meaning given in section 33-1 of the A New Tax System (Wine Equalisation Tax) Act 1999 .10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—Order! I am seeking some clarification because there may be an omission or an incorrect grouping within the next batch of amendments.RF4COOKSenator Cook—The opposition is supporting amendments 79 and 80, but 81 is being opposed and 82 is being amended.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—What are you doing with 93 and 104?RF4COOKSenator Cook—They are being supported. For ease of time, 79, 80 and 93 and 104 can all go together.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—That is what I was just working up to. I take it that it is the wish of the Committee.RF4COOKSenator Cook—Madam Chair, can I put on the record that if the five Democrats who were missing had voted for the last proposition it would have been carried?10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—Order! Senator Cook, you are stretching the friendship. The question is that government amendments 79 and 80, and 93 and 104 on sheet FA210 be agreed to.Question resolved in the affirmative.(Amendment to be put)(81) Clause 165-5, page 226 (line 20), omit "a principal effect", substitute "the principal effect".10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—We now move to government amendment 81.6H4HARRADINESenator Harradine—Are we to deal with opposition amendment to amendment 82 on sheet 1454?10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—We have not come to it. We are dealing with amendment 81 first of all. The question is that government amendment 81 on sheet FA210 be agreed to.QD4BROWNSenator Brown—Could the committee at least be informed of the matter that this amendment amends or could the amendment be read out?10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—No. It clearly has been given to you on the running sheet. The question is that government amendment 81 on FA210 be agreed to.11:48:00The committee divided. (The Chairman—Senator S. M. West)39Allison, L. Alston, R. K. R.Bartlett, A. J. J. Boswell, R. L. D.Bourne, V. Brownhill, D. G. C.Calvert, P. H.* Campbell, I. G.Chapman, H. G. P. Coonan, H.Crane, W. Eggleston, A.Ellison, C. Ferguson, A. B.Ferris, J. Heffernan, W.Herron, J. Hill, R. M.Kemp, R. Lees, M. H.Lightfoot, P. R. Macdonald, I.Macdonald, S. MacGibbon, D. J.McGauran, J. J. J. Murray, A.Newman, J. M. O'Chee, W. G.Parer, W. R. Patterson, K. C. L.Payne, M. A.Reid, M. E.Stott Despoja, N. Synon, K. M.Tambling, G. E. J. Tierney, J.Troeth, J. Vanstone, A. E.Woodley, J.26Bishop, T. M. Brown, B.Campbell, G. Carr, K.Collins, J. M. A. Conroy, S.Cook, P. F. S. Cooney, B.Crossin, P. M. Crowley, R. A.Denman, K. J. Faulkner, J. P.Gibbs, B. Harradine, B.Hogg, J. Lundy, K.Mackay, S. Margetts, D.McKiernan, J. P. Murphy, S. M.O'Brien, K. W. K.* Ray, R. F.Reynolds, M. Schacht, C. C.Sherry, N. West, S. M.Abetz, E. Hutchins, S.Gibson, B. F. Bolkus, N.Knowles, S. C. Quirke, J. A.Minchin, N. H. Evans, C. V.Watson, J. O. W. Forshaw, M. G.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative.(Amendments to be put)(82) Clause 165-5, page 226 (after line 22), at the end of subclause (1), add: ; and (c) the scheme: (i) is a scheme that has been or is entered into on or after 2 December 1998; or (ii) is a scheme that has been or is carried out or commenced on or after that day (other than a scheme that was entered into before that day).(Oppostition amendment to Government amendment 82)Subparagraph 165-5(1)(c)(i), omit "2 December 1998", substitute "13 August 1998".10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—The question is that opposition amendment No. 1 on sheet 1452 to government amendment No. 82 be agreed to.11:55:00The committee divided. (The Chairman—Senator S. M. West)26Bishop, T. M. Brown, B.Campbell, G. Carr, K.Collins, J. M. A. Conroy, S.Cook, P. F. S. Cooney, B.Crossin, P. M. Crowley, R. A.Denman, K. J. Faulkner, J. P.Gibbs, B. Harradine, B.Hogg, J. Lundy, K.Mackay, S. Margetts, D.McKiernan, J. P. Murphy, S. M.O'Brien, K. W. K.* Ray, R. F.Reynolds, M. Schacht, C. C.Sherry, N. West, S. M.40Allison, L. Alston, R. K. R.Bartlett, A. J. J. Boswell, R. L. D.Bourne, V. Brownhill, D. G. C.Calvert, P. H.* Campbell, I. G.Chapman, H. G. P. Colston, M. A.Coonan, H. Crane, W.Eggleston, A. Ellison, C.Ferguson, A. B. Ferris, J.Heffernan, W. Herron, J.Hill, R. M. Kemp, R.Lees, M. H. Lightfoot, P. R.Macdonald, I. Macdonald, S.MacGibbon, D. J. McGauran, J. J. J.Murray, A. Newman, J. M.O'Chee, W. G. Parer, W. R.Patterson, K. C. L. Payne, M. A.Reid, M. E. Stott Despoja, N.Synon, K. M. Tambling, G. E. J.Tierney, J. Troeth, J.Vanstone, A. E. Woodley, J.Bolkus, N. Gibson, B. F.Evans, C. V. Minchin, N. H.Forshaw, M. G. Watson, J. O. W.Hutchins, S. Abetz, E.Quirke, J. A. Knowles, S. C.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the negative.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—The question now is that government amendment No. 82 be agreed to.Question resolved in the affirmative.(Amendments to be put)(53) Page 111 (after line 5), after clause 48-45, insert:48-47 Who is entitled to diesel fuel credits (1) If a *member of a *GST group acquires or imports *diesel or like fuel: (a) the *representative member is entitled to any *diesel fuel credit for the acquisition or importation; and (b) the member making the acquisition or importation is not entitled to any diesel fuel credit for the acquisition or importation (unless the member is the representative member). (2) This section has effect despite section 123-10 (which is about how diesel fuel credits arise).(54) Page 117 (after line 21), after clause 51-35, insert:51-37 Who is entitled to diesel fuel credits (1) If the *joint venture operator of a *GST joint venture acquires or imports *diesel or like fuel, on behalf of another *participant in the joint venture, in the course of activities for which the joint venture was entered into: (a) the *joint venture operator is entitled to any *diesel fuel credit for the acquisition or importation; and (b) the other participant is not entitled to any diesel fuel credit for the acquisition or importation. (2) This section has effect despite section 123-10 (which is about how diesel fuel credits arise).10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—The next question is that government amendments Nos 53 and 54 be agreed to. Do you wish to put those, Minister?BH4HILLSenator Hill—I would like to go on to the next one.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—It is so ordered. The next question is that division 123 of the bill stand as printed.Question resolved in the negative.(Amendments to be put)Sheet FA210(2) Clause 9-30, page 17 (lines 8 to 15), omit subclause (1) (including the note), substitute:Supply of things used solely in connection with making supplies that are input taxed but not financial supplies (4) A supply is taken to be a supply that is *input taxed if it is a supply of anything that you have used solely in connection with your supplies that are input taxed but are not *financial supplies.(5) Clause 11-99, page 24 (after table item 8), insert:8AReimbursement of employees etc.Division 111(7) Clause 17-99, page 32 (after table item 9), insert:9AInsuranceDivision 78(8) Clause 17-99, page 33 (table item 15, 2nd column), omit "or imported to make supplies", substitute ", imported or applied to make financial supplies".(19) Clause 29-39, page 61 (after table item 10), insert:10AReimbursement of employees etc.Division 111(20) Clause 29-39, page 61 (table item 13, 2nd column), omit "or imported to make supplies", substitute ", imported or applied to make financial supplies".(21) Clause 31-99, page 68 (after table item 3), insert:3AInsuranceDivision 78(22) Clause 33-99, page 72 (after table item 4), insert:4AInsuranceDivision 78(23) Clause 37-1, page 76 (after table item 23), insert: 23AReimbursement of employees etc.Division 111(24) Clause 37-1, page 76 (table item 32, 2nd column), omit "or imported to make supplies", substitute ", imported or applied to make financial supplies".(57) Clause 69-10, page 144 (after line 16), after paragraph (1)(a), insert: (aa) you are not, for the purposes of the A New Tax System (Luxury Car Tax) Act 1999 , entitled to quote an *ABN in relation to the supply to which the creditable acquisition relates, or in relation to the importation, as the case requires; and(58) Division 75, page 148 (line 2) to page 150 (line 25), omit the Division, substitute:Division 75—Sale of freehold interests etc.75-1 What this Division is aboutThis Division allows you to use a margin scheme to bring within the GST system your taxable supplies of freehold interests in land, of stratum units and of long-term leases.75-5 Choosing to apply the margin scheme (1) If you make a *taxable supply of *real property by: (a) selling a freehold interest in land; or (b) selling a *stratum unit; or (c) granting or selling a *long-term lease; you may choose to apply the *margin scheme in working out the amount of GST on the supply. (2) However, you cannot choose to apply the *margin scheme if you acquired the freehold interest, *stratum unit or *long-term lease through a *taxable supply on which the GST was worked out without applying the margin scheme.75-10 The amount of GST on taxable supplies (1) If a *taxable supply of *real property is under the *margin scheme, the amount of GST on the supply is 1/11 of the *margin for the supply. (2) The margin for the supply is the amount by which the *consideration for the supply exceeds the consideration for your acquisition of the interest, unit or lease in question. (3) However, if: (a) the circumstances specified in an item in the second column of the table in this subsection apply to the supply; and (b) a valuation of the freehold interest, *stratum unit or *long-term lease, as at the day specified in the corresponding item in the third column of the table, has been made that complies with any requirements determined in writing by the Commissioner for making valuations for the purposes of this Division; the margin for the supply is the amount by which the *consideration for the supply exceeds that valuation of the interest, unit or lease.Use of valuations to work out margins ItemWhen valuations may be usedDays when valuations are to be made1The supplier acquired the interest, unit or lease before 1 July 2000, and items 2, 3 and 4 do not apply.1 July 20002The supplier acquired the interest, unit or lease before 1 July 2000, but does not become *registered or *required to be registered until after 1 July 2000.The date of effect of your registration, or the day on which you applied for registration (if it is earlier)3The supplier is *registered or *required to be registered and has held the interest, unit or lease since before 1 July 2000, and there were improvements on the land or premises in question as at 1 July 2000.1 July 2000 4The supplier is the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory and has held the interest, unit or lease since before 1 July 2000, and there were no improvements on the land or premises in question as at 1 July 2000.The day on which the *taxable supply takes place (4) This section has effect despite section 9-70 (which is about the amount of GST on taxable supplies).75-15 Subdivided land For the purposes of section 75-10, if the freehold interest, *stratum unit or *long-term lease you supply relates only to part of land or premises that you acquired, the *consideration for your acquisition of that part is the corresponding proportion of the consideration for the land or premises that you acquired.75-20 Supplies under a margin scheme do not give rise to creditable acquisitions (1) An acquisition of a freehold interest in land, a *stratum unit or a *long-term lease is not a *creditable acquisition if the supply of the interest, unit or lease was a *taxable supply under the *margin scheme. (2) This section has effect despite section 11-5 (which is about what is a creditable acquisition).75-25 Adjustments relating to bad debts (1) If: (a) you have an *adjustment under Division 21 relating to a supply that you made that is a *taxable supply of *real property under the *margin scheme; and (b) the amount of the adjustment would (apart from this section) exceed 1/11 of the *margin for the supply; the amount of the adjustment is 1/11 of the margin for the supply. (2) This section has effect despite sections 21-5 and 21-10 (which are about adjustments for writing off and recovering suppliers' bad debts).(59) Division 78, page 151 (line 2) to page 152 (line 25), omit the Division, substitute:Division 78—Insurance78-1 What this Division is about Settlements of claims under insurance policies in most cases entitle insurers to input tax credits. Entities that are insured can be liable for GST on the settlement, but third parties paid under the settlement are not liable for GST.Table of Subdivisions 78-A Insurers 78-B Insured entities 78-C Third parties 78-D Insured entities that are not registered etc.Subdivision 78-A—Insurers78-5 Creditable acquisitions relating to settlements of insurance claims (1) If, in settlement of a claim under an *insurance policy, an insurer: (a) makes a payment of *money; or (b) makes a supply; or (c) makes both a payment of money and a supply; the payment or supply is treated as *consideration for an acquisition made by the insurer. (2) The acquisition is a creditable acquisition if: (a) the insurer settles the claim for a *creditable purpose; and (b) the insurer is *registered, or *required to be registered. (3) However, this section only applies if the supply of the *insurance policy by the insurer was a *taxable supply. (4) An insurance policy is a policy of insurance (or of reinsurance) against loss, damage, injury or risk of any kind, whether under a contract or a law. However, it does not include such a policy to the extent that it does not relate to insurance (or reinsurance) against loss, damage, injury or risk of any kind. (5) This section has effect despite section 11-5 (which is about what is a creditable acquisition). 78-10 Amount of input tax credits relating to settlements of insurance claims (1) The amount of the input tax credit for a *creditable acquisition to which section 78-5 applies is an amount equal to 1/11 of: (a) all payments of *money made in settlement of the claim in question; plus (b) the market value of all supplies, made in settlement of the claim, that are not *taxable supplies; minus (c) any payments of an excess under the *insurance policy in question. (2) However, the amount of the input tax credit is reduced by the extent (if any) to which the settlement relates to one or more *non-creditable insurance events. (3) An event is a non-creditable insurance event if the supply of an *insurance policy would not be a *taxable supply if it were only an insurance policy against loss, damage, injury or risk that relates to that event happening. (4) This section has effect despite section 11-25 (which is about the amount of input tax credits for creditable acquisitions).78-15 Acquisitions of goods by insurers in the course of settling claims (1) An acquisition of *goods is not a *creditable acquisition if: (a) it is solely an acquisition made by an insurer for the purpose of supplying the goods in the course of settling a claim under an *insurance policy; and (b) the supply of the insurance policy by the insurer was not a *taxable supply. (2) This section has effect despite section 11-5 (which is about what is a creditable acquisition).Subdivision 78-B—Insured entities78-30 Taxable supplies relating to settlements of insurance claims (1) If, in settlement of a claim under an *insurance policy, an insurer: (a) makes a payment of *money; or (b) makes a supply; or (c) makes both a payment of money and a supply; the payment or supply is treated as *consideration for a supply made by the entity insured under the insurance policy, whether or not the payment or supply is made to that entity. (2) The supply made by the entity insured under the insurance policy is a taxable supply if the entity was entitled to an input tax credit for the premium it paid relating to the period during which the event giving rise to the claim happened. (3) It does not matter whether the entity is *registered, or *required to be registered, at the time of the settlement or at the time of the payment or supply by the insurer. Note: Subdivision 78-D deals with how GST applies to the taxable supply if the insured entity is not registered, or required to be registered. (4) However, the supply to the entity insured is not a *taxable supply to the extent (if any) that the *consideration for the supply is a taxable supply. (5) This section has effect despite section 9-5 (which is about what are taxable supplies) and section 9-15 (which is about consideration).78-35 Payments of excess under insurance policies are not consideration for supplies (1) The making of any payment by an entity is not treated as *consideration for a supply, to the entity or any other entity, to the extent that the payment is the payment of an excess under an *insurance policy. (2) This section has effect despite section 9-15 (which is about consideration).78-40 Effect of payments of excess under insurance policies on amounts of GST (1) If, in settlement of a claim under an *insurance policy: (a) the entity insured under the insurance policy makes a *taxable supply under subsection 78-30(2); and (b) the entity makes a payment of an excess under the policy; the value of the taxable supply is reduced by an amount equal to 10/11 of the amount of the excess. (2) This section has effect despite section 9-75 (which is about the value of taxable supplies).78-45 Supplies of goods to insurers in the course of settling claims (1) A supply of goods is not a *taxable supply if it is solely a supply made under an *insurance policy to an insurer in the course of settling a claim under the policy. (2) In working out the value of a *taxable supply that is partly a supply of goods made under an *insurance policy to an insurer in the course of settling a claim under the policy, disregard the *consideration to the extent that it relates to the supply of those goods. (3) This section has effect despite section 9-5 (which is about what are taxable supplies) and section 9-75 (which is about the value of taxable supplies).78-50 Settlements of claims relating to non-creditable insurance events (1) Despite section 78-30, a supply by an insured entity under subsection 78-30(1) is not a *taxable supply to the extent (if any) that it relates to a settlement that relates to one or more *non-creditable insurance events. (2) This section has effect despite section 9-5 (which is about what are taxable supplies).Subdivision 78-C—Third parties78-65 Payments etc. to third parties by insurers (1) The making of any payment by an insurer to an entity is not treated as *consideration for a supply to the insurer by the entity, to the extent that the payment is made in settlement of a claim under an *insurance policy under which the entity is not insured. (2) The making of any supply by an insurer to an entity: (a) is not to be treated as a *taxable supply by the insurer; and (b) is not to be treated as *consideration for a supply to the insurer by the entity, or any other entity; to the extent that the supply is made in settlement of a claim under an *insurance policy under which the entity is not insured. (3) This section has effect despite section 9-5 (which is about what are taxable supplies) and section 9-15 (which is about consideration).78-70 Payments etc. to third parties by insured entities (1) The making of any payment by an entity to another entity is not to be treated as *consideration for a supply to the entity by that other entity, to the extent that: (a) the payment is to discharge a liability of the entity to that other entity; and (b) the payment is covered by a settlement of a claim under an *insurance policy under which the entity was insured against that liability. (2) The making of any supply by an entity to another entity: (a) is not to be treated as a *taxable supply by the entity; and (b) is not to be treated as *consideration for a supply to the entity by that other, or any other, entity; to the extent that: (c) the supply is to discharge a liability of the entity to that other entity; and (d) the supply is covered by a settlement of a claim under an *insurance policy under which the entity was insured against that liability. (3) This section has effect despite section 9-5 (which is about what are taxable supplies) and section 9-15 (which is about consideration).Subdivision 78-D—Insured entities that are not registered etc.78-80 Net amounts (1) If an entity insured under an *insurance policy is not *registered or *required to be registered, it does not have a *net amount under Part 2-4 merely because it makes a *taxable supply under section 78-30. (2) This section does not prevent an *adjustment arising that relates to such a supply, but the entity cannot have a *decreasing adjustment unless it is *registered or *required to be registered. (3) This section has effect despite Division 17 (which is about net amounts and adjustments).78-85 GST returns (1) If, during a month: (a) an entity makes any *taxable supplies under section 78-30; or (b) an entity has any *increasing adjustments that arise in relation to any such supplies (whether made in that month or a previous month); and the entity is not *registered or *required to be registered during that month, it must give to the Commissioner a *GST return, within 21 days after the end of the month, relating to those supplies it made in that month and those adjustments. (2) The *GST return need not state a *net amount. (3) This section has effect despite sections 31-5, 31-10 and 31-15 (which are about giving GST returns).78-90 Payments of GST (1) If an entity is not *registered or *required to be registered during a particular month, it must pay: (a) amounts of GST on *taxable supplies under section 78-30 that it makes during that month; and (b) amounts of *increasing adjustments that it has that arise, during that month, in relation to supplies that are *taxable supplies under section 78-30; within 21 days after the end of the month, and at the place and in the manner specified by the Commissioner. (2) This section has effect despite Division 33 (which is about payments of GST).(60) Page 159 (after line 11), at the end of Division 87, add:87-25 Suppliers may choose not to apply this Division (1) This Division does not apply to a supply of *commercial accommodation if the supplier chooses not to apply this Division to any supplies of commercial accommodation that the supplier makes. (2) The choice applies to all supplies of *commercial accommodation that the supplier makes after the choice is made and before the choice is revoked. (3) However, the supplier: (a) cannot revoke the choice within 12 months after the day on which the supplier made the choice; and (b) cannot make a further choice within 12 months after the day on which the supplier revoked a previous choice.(61) Page 175 (after line 24), after Division 108, insert:Division 111—Reimbursement of employees etc.111-1 What this Division is aboutYou may be entitled to input tax credits for reimbursing employees, agents, officers or partners for expenses they incur in connection with the carrying on of your enterprise.111-5 Creditable acquisitions relating to reimbursements (1) If: (a) you reimburse an employee, other *PAYE earner or agent for an expense he or she incurs that is related directly to his or her activities as your employee, PAYE earner or agent; or (b) you are a *company and you reimburse an *officer for an expense he or she incurs that is related directly to his or her activities as your officer; or (c) you are a *partnership and you reimburse a partner for an expense he or she incurs that is related directly to his or her activities as a partner in the partnership; the reimbursement is treated as *consideration for an acquisition that you make from the employee, PAYE earner, agent, officer or partner. (2) The fact that the supply to you is not a *taxable supply does not stop the acquisition being a *creditable acquisition. (3) However, the acquisition: (a) is not a *creditable acquisition to the extent (if any) that the employee, *PAYE earner, agent, *officer or partner is entitled to an input tax credit for acquiring the thing acquired in incurring the expense; and (b) is not a creditable acquisition unless the supply of the thing acquired, by the employee, PAYE earner, agent, officer or partner in incurring the expense, was a taxable supply. (4) This section has effect despite section 11-5 (which is about what is a creditable acquisition).111-10 Amounts of input tax credits relating to reimbursements (1) The amount of the input tax credit for a *creditable acquisition the *consideration for which is a reimbursement to which section 111-5 applies is an amount equal to 1/11 of the amount of the reimbursement. (2) However, if: (a) the incurring of the expense by the employee, *PAYE earner, agent, *officer or partner is only in part related directly to his or her activities as your employee, PAYE earner or agent or officer, or as a partner in the *partnership, as the case requires; and (b) the reimbursement does not constitute: (i) a fringe benefit within the meaning of the Fringe Benefits Tax Assessment Act 1986 ; or (ii) a benefit that, but for paragraph (g) of the definition of fringe benefit in subsection 136(1) of that Act, would be a fringe benefit within the meaning of that Act; the amount of the input tax credit under subsection (1) is reduced by an extent equivalent to the extent to which the incurring of the expense is not related directly to those activities. (3) This section has effect despite section 11-25 (which is about the amount of input tax credits for creditable acquisitions).111-15 Tax invoices relating to reimbursements For the purposes of subsection 29-10(3), you are taken to hold a *tax invoice for a *creditable acquisition the *consideration for which is a reimbursement to which section 111-5 applies if you hold a tax invoice for the *taxable supply referred to in subsection 111-5(3).(69) Page 197 (after line 8), at the end of Subdivision 129-A, add:129-10 Adjustments do not arise under this Division for acquisitions and importations below a certain value (1) Despite section 129-5, an adjustment cannot arise under this Division for an acquisition or importation that *relates to business finance, unless the acquisition or importation had a *GST exclusive value of more than $10,000. (2) Despite section 129-5, an adjustment cannot arise under this Division for an acquisition or importation that does not *relate to business finance, unless the acquisition or importation had a *GST exclusive value of more than $1,000. (3) An acquisition or importation relates to business finance if, at the time of the acquisition or importation, it: (a) related solely or partly to making *financial supplies; and (b) was not solely or partly of a private or domestic nature.(70) Page 197, clause 129-20 (line 25), omit "However", substitute "Despite subsection (1), for an acquisition or importation that *relates to business finance".(71) Clause 129-20, page 198 (after line 6), at the end of the clause, add: (3) Despite subsection (1), for an acquisition or importation that does not *relate to business finance: (a) if the *GST exclusive value of the acquisition or importation is $5,000 or less—only the first 2 such tax periods are adjustment periods ; or (b) if the GST exclusive value of the acquisition or importation is more than $5,000 but less than $500,000—only the first 5 such tax periods are adjustment periods ; or (c) if the GST exclusive value of the acquisition or importation is $500,000 or more—only the first 10 such tax periods are adjustment periods . However, the Commissioner may, having regard to record keeping requirements for the purposes of income tax, determine in writing that a fewer number of tax periods are adjustment periods for a particular class of acquisitions or importations that do not *relate to business finance.(72) Clause 129-25, page 198 (lines 9 to 12), omit paragraph (1)(a), substitute: (a) you dispose of a thing acquired or imported (other than in circumstances giving rise to a *decreasing adjustment under Division 132); or(73) Clause 129-25, page 198 (lines 21 to 23), omit paragraph (2)(b), substitute: (b) the disposal takes place in circumstances giving rise to a *decreasing adjustment under Division 132;(75) Division 132, page 204 (line 2) to page 206 (line 16), omit the Division, substitute:Division 132—Supplies of things acquired, imported or applied to make financial supplies132-1 What this Division is about You may have a decreasing adjustment if you make a supply of something that you earlier acquired or imported, or subsequently applied, to make financial supplies.132-5 Decreasing adjustments for supplies of things acquired, imported or applied to make financial supplies (1) You have a *decreasing adjustment under this Division if: (a) you make a *taxable supply of a thing (or a supply of a thing that would have been a taxable supply had it not been *GST-free under Subdivision 38-H); and (b) the supply is a supply by way of sale; and (c) your acquisition or importation of the thing related solely or partly to making *financial supplies, or you subsequently *applied the thing solely or partly to making financial supplies. (2) The amount of the *decreasing adjustment is as follows: 1—11 x Price x ( 1 - Adjusted input tax credit Full input tax credit )where: adjusted input tax credit is: (a) the amount of any input tax credit that was attributable to a tax period in respect of the acquisition or importation; minus (b) the sum of any *increasing adjustments, under Subdivision 19-C or Division 129, that were previously attributable to a tax period in respect of the acquisition or importation; plus (c) the sum of any *decreasing adjustments, under Subdivision 19-C or Division 129, that were previously attributable to a tax period in respect of the acquisition or importation. full input tax credit is the amount of the input tax credit to which you would have been entitled for acquiring or importing the thing for the purpose of your *enterprise if: (a) the acquisition or importation had been solely for a *creditable purpose; and (b) in the case where the supply to you was a *taxable supply only because of section 72-5 or 84-5—the supply had been a *taxable supply under section 9-5. price is the *price of the *taxable supply. (3) However, if the amount worked out under subsection (2) is greater than the difference between the full input tax credit and the adjusted input tax credit, the amount of the *decreasing adjustment is an amount equal to that difference. (4) In working out the adjusted input tax credit, the acquisition, importation or *application in question is treated as having been for a *creditable purpose except to the extent that the acquisition, importation or application relates to the making of *financial supplies.132-10 Attribution of adjustments under this Division (1) A *decreasing adjustment under this Division is attributable to: (a) the same tax period as the *taxable supply to which it relates; or (b) if it relates to a supply that is not a taxable supply—the tax period to which the supply would be attributable if it were a taxable supply. (2) This section has effect despite section 29-20 (which is about attributing your adjustments).(76) Clause 135-5, page 207 (line 10), after "going concern", insert ", or a supply that is *GST-free under section 38-480".(77) Clause 135-10, page 208 (line 2), after "going concern", insert ", or a supply that is *GST-free under section 38-480".(78) Clause 135-10, page 208 (line 18), after "going concern", insert ", or a supply that is *GST-free under section 38-480".(83) Clause 177-1, page 236 (after line 20), after subclause (3), insert: (3A) If the Commonwealth or a *Commonwealth entity is notionally liable to pay GST for a supply made to another entity (other than the Commonwealth or a *Commonwealth entity), the *GST law applies in relation to the other entity as if: (a) the supply were a *taxable supply to that entity; and (b) the amount of GST for which the Commonwealth or a *Commonwealth entity is notionally liable for the supply is treated as the amount of GST payable for the supply.(84) Page 236 (after line 26), after clause 177-1, insert:177-3 Acquisitions from State or Territory bodies where GST liability is notionalIf: (a) an *Australian government agency, other than the Commonwealth or a *Commonwealth entity, makes a supply to another entity; and (b) the agency is not liable for GST on the supply, but an amount relating to the agency's notional liability for GST on the supply is included in the *consideration for the supply ; the *GST law applies in relation to the other entity as if: (c) the supply were a *taxable supply to that entity; and (d) the amount of GST for which the agency is notionally liable on the supply is the amount of GST payable on the supply. (85) Clause 195-1, page 250 (lines 19 and 20), omit the definition of actual input tax credit amount .(86) Clause 195-1, page 250 (lines 21 and 22), omit the definition of adjusted input tax credit amount .(87) Clause 195-1, page 255 (line 7), after "sections", insert "78-30, 78-35, 78-65, 78-70,".(88) Clause 195-1, page 255 (line 16), at the end of the definition of creditable acquisition , add "and subsection 78-5(2)".(89) Clause 195-1, page 255 (line 17), omit "78-10", substitute "78-15".(90) Clause 195-1, page 255 (line 18), omit "and 93-5", substitute ", 93-5 and 111-5".(91) Clause 195-1, page 259 (lines 5 and 6), omit the definition of excluded insurance transaction .(92) Clause 195-1, page 264 (line 10), omit "78-5(3)", substitute "78-5(4)".(94) Clause 195-1, page 265 (lines 22 and 23), omit "*potential residential land", substitute "*real property".(95) Clause 195-1, page 265 (line 24), omit "*potential residential land", substitute "*real property".(96) Clause 195-1, page 267 (after line 14), after the definition of new residential premises , insert: non-creditable insurance event has the meaning given by subsection 78-10(3).(97) Clause 195-1, page 267 (after line 27), after the definition of non-taxable importation , insert: officer , except in section 38-510, has the meaning given by the Corporations Law.(98) Clause 195-1, page 272 (after line 2), after the definition of registration turnover threshold , insert: relates to business finance has the meaning given by subsection 129-10(3).(99) Clause 195-1, page 274 (after line 10), after the definition of State law , insert: stratum unit has the meaning given by subsection 124-190(3) of the *TAA 1997.(101) Clause 195-1, page 275 (line 1), after "9-5,", insert "78-30,".(102) Clause 195-1, page 275 (line 3), omit "78-10", substitute "78-45, 78-50, 78-65, 78-70,".(103) Clause 195-1, page 276 (line 16), omit "78-15", substitute "78-40, 78-45".EF 238(9) Page 104 (after line 22), at the end of Division 40, add:Subdivision 40-E—School tuckshops and canteens40-130 School tuckshops and canteens (1) A supply of *food is input taxed if: (a) the supply is made by a non-profit body through a shop operating on the grounds of a *school that supplies *primary courses or *secondary courses; and (b) the non-profit body chooses to have all its supplies of food through the shop treated as input taxed. (2) However, the non-profit body: (a) cannot make a choice under paragraph (1)(b) if any supplies are made through the shop that are not supplies of *food; and (b) cannot revoke the choice within 12 months after the day on which the non-profit body made the choice; and (c) cannot make a further choice within 12 months after the day on which the non-profit body revoked a previous choice. (3) This section does not apply to a supply of *food by a*school to boarding students of the school as part of their board.(10) Page 144 (after line 24), after Division 69, insert:Division 70—Financial supplies (reduced credit acquisitions)70-1 What this Division is about In some cases, acquisitions relating to financial supplies can attract a reduced input tax credit, even though no input tax credit could arise under the basic rules.70-5 Acquisitions that attract the reduced credit (1) The regulations may provide that acquisitions of a specified kind that relate to making *financial supplies can give rise to an entitlement to a reduced input tax credit. These are reduced credit acquisitions . (2) For each kind of *reduced credit acquisition specified, the regulations must specify a percentage to which the input tax credit is reduced.70-10 Extended meaning of creditable purpose (1) The fact that a *reduced credit acquisition relates to making *financial supplies does not stop it being for a *creditable purpose, to the extent that it relates to making financial supplies. (2) The fact that you *apply a *reduced credit acquisition in making *financial supplies does not stop it being applied for a *creditable purpose, to the extent that it relates to making financial supplies. (3) This section has effect despite sections 11-15 and 129-50 (which are about the meaning of creditable purpose).70-15 How much are the reduced input tax credits? (1) The amount of an input tax credit for a *creditable acquisition of a *reduced credit acquisition is an amount equal to the GST payable on the supply of the acquisition multiplied by the percentage specified under subsection 70-5(2) for acquisitions of that kind. (2) However, the amount of such an input tax credit is further reduced if the acquisition is only *partly creditable. (3) This section has effect despite section 11-25 (which is about the amount of input tax credits).70-20 Extent of creditable purpose (1) If: (a) a *reduced credit acquisition is a *creditable acquisition; and (b) it is not wholly for a *creditable purpose because of this Division; it is *partly creditable. (2) The extent to which the acquisition is acquired or applied for a *creditable purpose is worked out using the following formula:Extent of creditable purpose+[Extent of division 70 creditable purposesxPercentage credit reduction] where: extent of creditable purpose is the extent to which the purpose for which you applied or acquired the acquisition was a *creditable purpose otherwise than because of this Division, expressed as a percentage. extent of Division 70 creditable purpose is the extent to which the purpose for which you applied or acquired the acquisition was a *creditable purpose because of this Division, expressed as a percentage. percentage credit reduction is the reduced input tax credit percentage prescribed for the purposes of subsection 70-5(2) for an acquisition of that kind. Note: This section affects sections 11-30 and 129-40. It is used even if the reduced credit acquisition is used wholly in carrying on your enterprise (unless the acquisition was wholly for a creditable purpose because of this Division, then section 70-15 applies). Example 1: You make a reduced credit acquisition of $110,000, wholly for the purposes of carrying on your enterprise, partly for the purpose of making financial supplies (40%) and partly for the purpose of making taxable supplies (60%). Assume the percentage credit reduction to be 50%. The extent to which you make the acquisition for a creditable purpose is: 60% + [40% x 50%] = 80% Applying section 11-30, your input tax credit is $8,000 (assuming you were liable for all the consideration). Example 2: You subsequently apply the acquisition partly in making financial supplies (40%), partly in making taxable supplies (40%) and partly for private use (20%). The extent to which you made the acquisition for a creditable purpose is: 40% + [40% x 50%] = 60% Applying Division 129, your input tax credit is reduced to $6,000, giving you an increasing adjustment of $2,000.70-25 Sale of reduced credit acquisitions (Division 132) (1) If: (a) you supply a *reduced credit acquisition in circumstances to which Division 132 applies; and (b) you made the acquisition for a *creditable purpose because of this Division, or you applied the acquisition for a *creditable purpose because of this Division; this section applies for the purposes of Division 132. (2) In working out the full input tax credit in subsection 132-5(2), the reference to a *creditable purpose in paragraph (a) of the definition of full input tax credit is to be read as a reference to a *creditable purpose otherwise than because of Division 70. (3) In working out the adjusted input tax credit in subsection 132-5(2), the extent of the *creditable purpose because of subsection 132-5(4) is increased by the following extent:Extent of Division 70 creditable purposexPercentage credit reductionwhere: extent of Division 70 creditable purpose has the same meaning as in section 70-20. percentage credit reduction has the same meaning as in section 70-20.(13) Clause 195-1, page 257 (after line 18), after paragraph (g) of the definition of education course , insert: (ga) a *first aid or life saving course; orEF239(1) Clause 11-99, page 24 (after table item 2), insert:2AFinancial supplies (reduced credit acquisitions)Division 70(2) Clause 17-99, page 32 (table item 5), omit the table item.(3) Clause 29-39, page 61 (table item 9), omit the table item.(4) Clause 37-1, page 75 (table item 11), omit the table item.(5) Clause 37-1, page 75 (after table item 11), insert:11AFinancial supplies (reduced credit acquisitions)Division 70(15) Clause 195-1, page 255 (lines 19 and 20), omit the definition of creditable diesel fuel consumption .(16) Clause 195-1, page 256 (after line 2), at the end of the definition of creditable purpose , add: Note: This meaning is affected by section 70-10.(17) Clause 195-1, page 256 (table item 5 in the definition of decreasing adjustment ), omit the table item.(18) Clause 195-1, page 257 (line 4), omit the definition of diesel fuel .(19) Clause 195-1, page 257 (line 5), omit the definition of diesel fuel credit .(20) Clause 195-1, page 257 (lines 6 to 8), omit the definition of diesel or like fuel .(21) Clause 195-1, page 259 (after line 24), after the definition of financial year , insert: first aid or life saving course means a course of study or instruction that: (a) principally involves training individuals in first aid, resuscitation or other similar life saving skills; and (b) is provided by a non-profit body that is: (i) registered (or otherwise approved) by a State or Territory authority that has responsibility for registering (or otherwise approving) bodies that provide such courses; or (ii) approved to provide such courses by a State or Territory body that has responsibility for approving the provision of such courses.(23) Clause 195-1, page 260 (lines 20 to 27), omit the definition of gross vehicle weight .(24) Clause 195-1, page 263 (table item 5 in the definition of increasing adjustments ), omit the table item.(25) Clause 195-1, page 266 (lines 14 and 15), omit the definition of minerals . (26) Clause 195-1, page 266 (line 16), omit the definition of mining operations .(27) Clause 195-1, page 268 (line 10), omit "section 11-30", substitute "sections 11-30 and 70-20".(29) Clause 195-1, page 270 (lines 6 to 8), omit the definition of process of beneficiation ceases .(30) Clause 195-1, page 271 (after line 21), after the definition of recognised tax adviser , insert: reduced credit acquisition has the meaning given by subsection 70-5(1).(31) Clause 195-1, page 276 (lines 1 and 2), omit the definition of transport vehicle .(32) Clause 195-1, page 276 (lines 3 and 4), omit the definition of transport for beneficiation of minerals or ores .EF241(1) Clause 1-2, page 2 (after line 8), at the end of the clause, add: (2) However, if, before the day on which this Act would (but for this subsection) commence under subsection (1), there have not been appropriated, for the purposes of the programs referred to in the second column of an item in the table: (a) in respect of the financial year starting on 1 July 2000—the amount referred to in the third column of that item; and (b) in respect of the financial year starting on 1 July 2001—the amount referred to in the fourth column of that item; and (c) in respect of the financial year starting on 1 July 2002—the amount referred to in the fifth column of that item; and (d) in respect of the financial year starting on 1 July 2003—the amount referred to in the sixth column of that item; this Act commences on, and tax is not payable under the *GST law until, the day on which the last of those amounts to be appropriated for those purposes has been appropriated under an Act.Amounts to be appropriated ProgramFinancial years2000/012001/022002/032003/04($ million)($ million)($ million)($ million)1Book industry assistance plan606060602Supported Accommodation Assistance Program15151515Total7575757510000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—I shall now proceed to the final grouping of government amendments which are on sheet FA210. They are amendments Nos 2, 5, 7, 8, 19 to 24, 32 to 52, 55, 57 to 61, 69 to 73, 75, 76 to 78, 83 to 92, 94 to 99, 101 to 103.11:59:006483Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I seek leave to ask that government amendments Nos 32 to 52 and 55 be taken separately, as I wish to vote differently on that matter.Leave granted.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—The next amendments are on sheet EF238: government amendments Nos 9, 10 and 13; on sheet EF239, amendments Nos 1 to 5, 15 to 21, 23 to 27 and 29 to 32; and on sheet EF241, government amendment No. 1. I shall put all of those amendments, with the exception of the ones that are being excluded for Senator Margetts. The question is that they be agreed to.Question resolved in the affirmative.(Amendments to be put)(32) Heading to Subdivision 38-M, page 96 (line 21), omit the heading, substitute:Subdivision 38-M—Farm land(33) Page 97 (after line 14), at the end of Subdivision 38-M, add:38-480 Farm land supplied for farmingA supply of land is GST-free if: (a) the supplier has *carried on a *farming business on the land for at least the period of 5 years preceding the supply; and (b) the *recipient of the supply intends to carry on a farming business on the land.(34) Clause 40-35, page 103 (lines 5 to 15), omit the clause, substitute:40-35 Residential rent (1) A supply of premises that is by way of lease, hire or licence (including a renewal or extension of a lease, hire or licence) is input taxed if: (a) the supply is of *residential premises (other than *commercial residential premises); or (b) the supply is of *commercial accommodation and Division 87 (which is about long-term accommodation in commercial premises) would apply to the supply but for a choice made by the supplier under section 87-25. (2) However: (a) the supply is input taxed only to the extent that the premises are to be used predominantly for residential accommodation; and (b) the supply is not input taxed under this section if the lease, hire or licence, or the renewal or extension of a lease, hire or licence, is a *long-term lease.(35) Clause 48-5, page 108 (line 20), omit "*companies", substitute "entities".(36) Clause 48-5, page 108 (line 22), omit "companies", substitute "entities".(37) Clause 48-5, page 109 (line 1), omit "companies", substitute "entities".(38) Clause 48-5, page 109 (line 3), omit "companies", substitute "entities".(39) Clause 48-5, page 109 (after line 4), after paragraph (1)(c), insert: ; and (d) the entity so nominated is an *Australian resident.(40) Clause 48-5, page 109 (line 5), omit "companies", substitute "entities".(41) Clause 48-5, page 109 (lines 6 and 7), omit subclause (2), substitute: (2) If the application for approval includes 2 or more *companies, the application need not include all the companies of the *90% owned group to which the 2 or more companies belong.(42) Clause 48-10, page 109 (line 12), omit "A *company", substitute "An entity".(43) Clause 48-10, page 109 (line 13), omit "company", substitute "entity".(44) Clause 48-10, page 109 (lines 14 and 15), omit paragraph (1)(a), substitute: (a) is: (i) a *company; or (ii) is a *partnership or trust that satisfies the requirements specified in the regulations; and (ab) is, if the entity is a company, a company of the same *90% owned group as all the other members of the GST group or proposed GST group that are also companies; and(45) Clause 48-10, page 109 (line 17), omit paragraph (1)(c).(46) Clause 48-10, page 109 (line 23), omit "company", substitute "entity".(47) Clause 48-10, page 109 (line 26), omit "company", substitute "entity".(48) Clause 48-40, page 110 (line 9), omit "a *company", substitute "an entity".(49) Clause 48-40, page 110 (line 11), after "supply", insert "(unless it is a taxable supply because of Division 84 (which is about offshore supplies other than goods or real property))".(50) Clause 48-45, page 110 (after line 27), after subclause (1), insert: (1A) In deciding, for the purposes of subsection (1), whether an acquisition or importation by a *member of a *GST group is a *creditable acquisition or *creditable importation, the acquisition or importation is treated as being solely or partly for a *creditable purpose if, and only if, it would be so treated if: (a) the GST group were treated as a single entity; and (b) the GST group were not treated as a number of entities corresponding to the members of the GST group.(51) Clause 48-45, page 111 (line 1), omit "a *company", substitute "an entity".(52) Clause 48-45, page 111 (line 4), after "despite", insert "sections 11-5 and 15-5 (which are about what are creditable acquisitions and creditable importations), and".(55) Page 134 (after line 11), at the end of Division 57, add: 57-50 Non-residents that belong to GST groupsThis Division does not apply in relation to a *non-resident that is a *member of a *GST group.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—I shall now proceed to putting government amendments Nos 32 to 52 and 55 on sheet FA210. The question is that those amendments be agreed to.12:01:00The committee divided. (The Chairman—Senator S. M. West)60Allison, L. Alston, R. K. R.Bartlett, A. J. J. Bishop, T. M.Boswell, R. L. D. Bourne, V.Brownhill, D. G. C. Calvert, P. H.*Campbell, G. Campbell, I. G.Carr, K. Chapman, H. G. P.Collins, J. M. A. Conroy, S.Cook, P. F. S. Coonan, H.Cooney, B. Crossin, P. M.Crowley, R. A. Denman, K. J.Eggleston, A. Faulkner, J. P.Ferguson, A. B. Gibbs, B.Harradine, B. Heffernan, W.Herron, J. Hill, R. M.Hogg, J. Kemp, R.Lees, M. H. Lightfoot, P. R.Lundy, K. Macdonald, I.Macdonald, S. MacGibbon, D. J.Mackay, S. McGauran, J. J. J.McKiernan, J. P. Murphy, S. M.Murray, A. Newman, J. M.O'Brien, K. W. K. O'Chee, W. G.Parer, W. R. Patterson, K. C. L.Payne, M. A.Ray, R. F.Reid, M. E. Reynolds, M.Schacht, C. C. Sherry, N.Stott Despoja, N. Synon, K. M.Tambling, G. E. J. Tierney, J.Troeth, J. Vanstone, A. E.West, S. M. Woodley, J.3Brown, B. Colston, M. A.Margetts, D.*Question so resolved in the affirmative.(Amendment to be put)(1) Page 50 (after line 21), after Part 2-5, insert:Part 2-5A—Consumer information Division 26—Obligation to provide consumer information26-1 Information to be provided on receipts When a *business provides a consumer with a receipt or docket in respect of a *taxable supply, the receipt or docket must separately identify: (a) the price of the goods or service, excluding the GST component; and (b) the amount of the GST component; and (c) the total price of the goods or service, including the GST component.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—The next question is that opposition amendment No. 1 on sheet 1327 be agreed to.12:07:00The committee divided. (The Chairman—Senator S. M. West)26Bishop, T. M. Brown, B.Campbell, G. Carr, K.Collins, J. M. A. Conroy, S.Cook, P. F. S. Cooney, B.Crossin, P. M. Crowley, R. A.Denman, K. J. Faulkner, J. P.Gibbs, B. Harradine, B.Hogg, J. Lundy, K.Mackay, S. Margetts, D.McKiernan, J. P. Murphy, S. M.O'Brien, K. W. K.* Ray, R. F.Reynolds, M. Schacht, C. C.Sherry, N. West, S. M.38Allison, L. Alston, R. K. R.Boswell, R. L. D. Bourne, V.Brownhill, D. G. C. Calvert, P. H.*Campbell, I. G. Chapman, H. G. P.Colston, M. A. Coonan, H.Crane, W. Eggleston, A.Ellison, C. Ferguson, A. B.Ferris, J. Heffernan, W.Herron, J. Hill, R. M.Kemp, R. Lees, M. H.Lightfoot, P. R. Macdonald, I.Macdonald, S. MacGibbon, D. J.McGauran, J. J. J. Murray, A.Newman, J. M. O'Chee, W. G.Parer, W. R. Patterson, K. C. L.Payne, M. A.Reid, M. E.Synon, K. M. Tambling, G. E. J.Tierney, J. Troeth, J.Vanstone, A. E. Woodley, J.Bolkus, N. Abetz, E.Evans, C. V. Watson, J. O. W.Forshaw, M. G. Minchin, N. H.Hutchins, S. Gibson, B. F.Quirke, J. A. Knowles, S. C.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the negative.(Amendments to be put)(1) Clause 38-85, page 84 (line 18), at the end of the clause, add: ; or (c) a supply of membership of a student organisation.(2) Clause 38-100, page 85 (line 15), omit paragraph (b).10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—The next question is that opposition amendments 1 and 2 on sheet 1452 be agreed to.12:11:00The committee divided. (The Chairman—Senator S. M. West)28Bartlett, A. J. J. Bishop, T. M.Brown, B. Campbell, G.Carr, K. Collins, J. M. A.Conroy, S. Cook, P. F. S.Cooney, B. Crossin, P. M.Crowley, R. A. Denman, K. J.Faulkner, J. P. Gibbs, B.Harradine, B. Hogg, J.Lundy, K. Mackay, S.Margetts, D. McKiernan, J. P.Murray, A. O'Brien, K. W. K.*Ray, R. F. Reynolds, M.Schacht, C. C. Sherry, N.Stott Despoja, N.West, S. M.33Alston, R. K. R. Boswell, R. L. D.Brownhill, D. G. C. Calvert, P. H.*Campbell, I. G. Chapman, H. G. P.Colston, M. A. Coonan, H.Crane, W. Eggleston, A.Ellison, C. Ferguson, A. B.Ferris, J. Heffernan, W.Herron, J. Hill, R. M.Kemp, R. Lightfoot, P. R.Macdonald, I. Macdonald, S.MacGibbon, D. J. McGauran, J. J. J.Newman, J. M. O'Chee, W. G.Parer, W. R. Patterson, K. C. L.Payne, M. A.Reid, M. E.Synon, K. M. Tambling, G. E. J.Tierney, J. Troeth, J.Vanstone, A. E.Bolkus, N. Abetz, E.Evans, C. V. Minchin, N. H.Forshaw, M. G. Watson, J. O. W.Hutchins, S. Gibson, B. F.Quirke, J. A. Knowles, S. C.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the negative.(Amendments to be put)1315(1) Division 38, page 77 (after line 20), at the end of the table of Subdivisions, add: 38-O Environmentally-friendly supplies(R4) Page 99 (after line 7), at the end of Division 38, add:Subdivision 38-O—Environmentally-friendly supplies38-511 Environmentally-friendly supplies The third column of this table sets out supplies that are GST-free :Environmentally-friendly suppliesItemTopicThese supplies are GST-free . . . 1Renewable energya supply of equipment relating to renewable energy, including: (a) a supply of goods of a kind ordinarily used for collecting, absorbing or concentrating the sun's rays for the purpose of using them as a source of energy for heating, lighting and other purposes, including solar lighting equipment, domestic solar hot water equipment and photovoltaic panels; or (b) a supply of goods of a kind ordinarily used for collecting and concentrating wind for the purpose of using it as a source of energy for heating, lighting and other purposes; or (c) a supply of goods of a kind ordinarily used to facilitate the operation of goods covered by paragraphs (a) or (b).2Energy conservation and greenhouse gas reductiona supply of: (a) electricity generated from renewable energy sources; or (b) low energy halogen or compact fluorescent light bulbs; or (c) thermal insulation, including double-glazing; or (d) low energy electrical appliances; or (e) services relating to energy audits and home energy ratings; or (f) goods of a kind ordinarily used by a person to convert an internal combustion engine so that the engine (or the unit of which it forms part) can operate on natural gas or liquefied petroleum gas, where those goods: (i) are essential to the conversion; and (ii) are to form an integral part of the converted engine (or the unit of which it forms part); or (iii) are to be connected to the converted engine, whether directly or indirectly; or (g) fuel for use in internal combustion engines, which have a demonstrated ability to produce lower levels of emissions than fuel ordinarily marketed for use in such engines; or (h) services relating to the installation, maintenance or repair of equipment covered by item 1 or paragraphs (c), (d) and (f) of item 2.3Water conservationa supply of: (a) rainwater tanks for domestic use; or (b) electrical appliances of a type listed by Standards Australia as having a "AAA" water efficiency rating. 4Waste management and recyclinga supply of: (a) re-useable or refillable packaging; or (b) packaging and other products consisting of 100% recycled material. 5Air pollutiona supply of: (a) public transport; or (b) services by public authorities to facilitate the use of bicycles as a mode of transport, including:(i) cycle paths;(ii) maps and educational material for cyclists;(iii) bicycle storage facilities for commuters.1382(1) Amendment (1), at the end of subclause 9-15(3), add:; and (d) a payment made by an *Australian government agency to a community organisation is not the provision of consideration.1423(1) Division 38, page 77 (after line 20), at the end of the Table of Subdivisions, add: 38-R Public transport(4) Page 99 (after line 7), at the end of Division 38, add:Subdivision 38-R—Public transport38-530 Public transport A supply is GST-free if it is a supply of a *public transport service.(6) Clause 195-1, page 270 (after line 17), after the definition of projected annual turnover , insert: public transport service means a service for the carriage of persons for *consideration, other than a service: (a) using an aircraft; or (b) involving the supply of taxi travel.1425(1) Clause 195-1, page 254 (after line 4) after the definition of commercial accommodation , insert: commercial activity means a supply of goods or services, or a class of goods or services, in respect of which the Commissioner has made a determination under subsection 63A(1) of the Taxation Administration Act 1953 .1427(1) Division 38, page 77 (after line 20), at the end of the table of Subdivisions, add: 38-P Local government(2) Division 38, page 77 (after line 20), at the end of the table of Subdivisions, add: 38-Q Tourism(3) Page 99 (after line 7), at the end of Division 38, add:Subdivision 38-P—Local government38-520 Local government A supply is GST-free if it is a supply of *local government services.(4) Page 99 (after line 7), at the end of Division 38, add:Subdivision 38-Q—Inbound tourism packages38-525 Inbound tourism package A supply of an *inbound tourism package is GST-free .(5) Clause 195-1, page 263 (after line 5), after the definition of importation of goods into Australia , insert: inbound tourism package means a package of goods and services purchased and paid for outside Australia by a *non-resident in association with the purchase of a return international fare, including any of the following: (a) domestic airfares, seafares (including for ferry services in relation to Tasmania), bus and rail fares and rental car hire charges; (b) transfers between port of entry and tourist accommodation; (c) tourist accommodation; (d) tickets or fares for tours, attractions or events; (e) travel insurance; (f) conference or convention fees; (g) breakfasts and other meals; (h) vocational and other forms of education not otherwise GST-free; but not including pre-purchased vouchers for shopping, gambling or taxi services.(6) Clause 195-1, page 265 (after line 6), after the definition of live-stock , insert: local government services means a service: (a) by a local governing body established by or under a State or Territory law; and (b) that involves the collection of fees or charges in respect of: (i) the regulation or licensing of advertising, air pollution, animals, boarding houses, building inspection, building regulation, cemeteries, crematoria, eating places, fairs and amusements, incinerators, sewerage, water pollution, zoning, planning or other core local government activities; or (ii) access to community services other than a *commercial activity including aerodromes, housing, caravan or camping grounds, cemeteries, morgues, community halls, dump incinerators, festivals, home help or nursing, household garbage, immunisation, libraries, mapping, meals on wheels, museums, art galleries, parking meters, parks and gardens, preservation of historic places, public transport, recycling, refuges, school holiday programs, senior citizens centres, swimming pools, tourist information and similar activities providing a service open to the public on a general basis.1428(1) Division 38, page 77 (after line 20), at the end of the Table of Subdivisions, add: 38-O Books(2) Page 99 (after line 7), at the end of Division 38, add: Subdivision 38-O—Books38-515 Books A supply of *books is GST-free .(3) Clause 195-1, page 253 (after line 5), after the definition of batch repair process , insert: book means a publication that is in book form but does not include the following: (a) a periodical publication, except for a periodical publication that is published by a professional association or *education institution; or (b) advertising matter, a catalogue or price list; or (c) a program (including a schedule, syllabus or guide) or souvenir of an entertainment, amusement, exhibition, competition or sporting event; or (d) an account book or book of receipts, cheques, deposit slips, bank withdrawal forms, tickets, dockets, labels or order forms; or (e) stationery items in book form including: (i) a book of sheets of blotting paper or for sketching, drawing, colouring or painting (but not including a children's book containing printed illustrations for copying or colouring or both); or (ii) a book of sheets (whether or not blank) for writing notes, letters, exercises or accounts or for record purposes; or (iii) a diary; or (f) an album or book of printed matter conveying greetings or sympathy; or (g) a book or report associated with trading or other concerns carried on for the profit of individuals including: (i) a memorandum or articles of association; or (ii) a balance sheet or statement of accounts; or (iii) a prospectus.1433(1) Clause 48-5, page 109 (line 3), before "the application", insert "if the entities are not *eligible non-profit organisations—".(2) Clause 48-10, page 109 (line 23), omit "a non-profit body", substitute "an *eligible non-profit organisation". (3) Clause 48-10, page 109 (line 25), omit "non-profit bodies", substitute "eligible non-profit organisations".(4) Page 109 (after line 27), after subdivision 48-A, insert:Subdivision 48-AA—Special rules for GST groups that are non-profit associations48-11 Special rules for GST groups that are non-profit associations (1) Despite anything in Subdivision 48-B or 48-C, the members of a *non-profit association are not required to nominate one of the members to be the *representative member. (2) Any function which a provision of Subdivision 48-B or 48-C requires to be undertaken by a *representative member for a group may, in the case of the members of a *non-profit association, be undertaken by an individual member on behalf of that member.1447(1) Page 99 (after line 7), at the end of Division 38, add:Subdivision 38-O—Supplies to eligible non-profit organisations38-515 Supplies to eligible non-profit organisations (1) A supply is GST-free if it is supplied to an *eligible non-profit organisation. (2) Upon application by an *eligible non-profit organisation, the Commissioner of Taxation must, unless he or she has reasonable grounds to doubt that the organisation is an eligible non-profit organisation, issue to that organisation a certificate confirming its status as an organisation entitled to receive GST-free supplies. (3) A refusal by the Commissioner of Taxation to issue a certificate under subsection (2) is a *reviewable GST decision. (4) No supplier is liable to account for, or in any way answer for, GST or any penalty in relation thereto, where a supply is made in reliance on a certificate of the kind referred to in subsection (2).10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—We now move to the remaining amendments on the sheets—that is, Greens (WA) and Australian Greens amendments 1 to 3 on sheet 1428; amendments 1 to 6 on sheet 1427, amendments 1 to 6 on sheet 1423; amendment No. 1 on sheet 1447; amendment No. 1 on sheet 1425, amendment No. 1 on sheet 1382; revised amendments 1 and R4 on sheet 1315 revised; and amendments 1 to 4 on sheet 1433.QD4BROWNSenator Brown—I wish to now give you the information that you did not want earlier, Chair. I think we have arranged for the series of Greens amendments to be put separately. The first of those are amendments 1 to 3 on sheet 1428. These are the Green amendments to remove the GST from books.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—The running sheet that I have tells me that the remaining amendments that I have just read out would be moved together, but you are asking that sheet 1428 be taken separately. Can I now clarify about sheet 1427, 1423, 1447 and the rest of those sheets?QD4BROWNSenator Brown—To be taken separately.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—You want the whole lot to be taken separately?QD4BROWNSenator Brown—There are six of them, yes.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—And sheets 1382 and 1315 revised and sheet 1433?QD4BROWNSenator Brown—I suggest that, while we are voting on the books amendment, I supply you with a list of the consequent amendments as we would like them to be put and as we have agreement, as I understand.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—The question is that Greens (WA) and Australian Greens amendments Nos 1 to 3 on sheet 1428 be agreed to.A division having been called and the bells being rung—QD4BROWNSenator Brown—This is the Democrats' own earlier amendment to save the books from the GST. There are six missing from the chamber. Could you give me an assurance that the bells are working?10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—There is no point of order.QD4BROWNSenator Brown—I am sorry, there are five missing. There are now two in the chamber.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—There is no point of order. 12:20:00The committee divided. (The Chairman—Senator S. M. West)29Bartlett, A. J. J.Bishop, T. M.Brown, B. Campbell, G.Carr, K. Collins, J. M. A.Colston, M. A. Conroy, S.Cook, P. F. S. Cooney, B.Crossin, P. M. Crowley, R. A.Denman, K. J. Faulkner, J. P.Gibbs, B. Harradine, B.Hogg, J. Lundy, K.Mackay, S. Margetts, D.McKiernan, J. P. Murphy, S. M.O'Brien, K. W. K.* Ray, R. F.Reynolds, M. Schacht, C. C.Sherry, N. Stott Despoja, N.West, S. M.32Alston, R. K. R. Boswell, R. L. D.Brownhill, D. G. C. Calvert, P. H.*Campbell, I. G. Chapman, H. G. P.Coonan, H. Crane, W.Eggleston, A. Ellison, C.Ferguson, A. B. Ferris, J.Heffernan, W. Herron, J.Hill, R. M. Kemp, R.Lightfoot, P. R. Macdonald, I.Macdonald, S. MacGibbon, D. J.McGauran, J. J. J. Newman, J. M.O'Chee, W. G. Parer, W. R.Patterson, K. C. L. Payne, M. A.Reid, M. E. Synon, K. M.Tambling, G. E. J. Tierney, J.Troeth, J. Vanstone, A. E.Bolkus, N. Abetz, E.Evans, C. V. Minchin, N. H.Forshaw, M. G. Watson, J. O. W.Hutchins, S. Gibson, B. F.Quirke, J. A. Knowles, S. C.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the negative.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—The question is that Greens (WA) and Australian Greens amendments Nos 1, 3 and 6 on sheet 1427 be agreed to.QD4BROWNSenator Brown—Madam President, I rise on a point of order. I point out that these are amendments to save local government from the GST.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—There is no point of order, Senator Brown. The question is that Greens (WA) and Australian Greens amendments Nos 1, 3 and 6 on sheet 1427 be agreed to.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—The question is that Greens (WA) and Australian Greens amendments Nos 1, 3 and 6 on sheet 1427 be agreed to.QD4BROWNSenator Brown—Madam President, I rise on a point of order. I point out that these are amendments to save local government from the GST.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—There is no point of order, Senator Brown. The question is that Greens (WA) and Australian Greens amendments Nos 1, 3 and 6 on sheet 1427 be agreed to.12:24:00The committee divided. (The Chairman—Senator S. M. West)2Brown, B. Margetts, D. *55Alston, R. K. R. Bishop, T. M.Boswell, R. L. D. Brownhill, D. G. C.Calvert, P. H. Campbell, G.Campbell, I. G. 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. Ellison, C.Ferguson, A. B. Ferris, J.Gibbs, B. Harradine, B.Heffernan, W. Herron, J.Hill, R. M. Hogg, J.Kemp, R. Lightfoot, P. R.Lundy, K. Macdonald, I.Macdonald, S. MacGibbon, D. J.Mackay, S. McGauran, J. J. J.McKiernan, J. P. Murphy, S. M.Newman, J. M. O'Brien, K. W. K. *O'Chee, W. G. Parer, W. R.Patterson, K. C. L. Payne, M. A.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.West, S. M.Question so resolved in the negative.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—We now move to Greens (WA) and Australian Greens amendments Nos 1, 4 and 6 on sheet 1423.QD4BROWNSenator Brown—Madam Chair, I raise a point of order. These are the Greens' amendments to take the GST off public transport.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—Senator Brown, I am interested in the numbers. The question is that Greens (WA) and Australian Greens amend ments Nos 1, 4 and 6 on sheet 1423 be agreed to.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—We now move to Greens (WA) and Australian Greens amendments Nos 1, 4 and 6 on sheet 1423.QD4BROWNSenator Brown—Madam Chair, I raise a point of order. These are the Greens' amendments to take the GST off public transport.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—Senator Brown, I am interested in the numbers. The question is that Greens (WA) and Australian Greens amend ments Nos 1, 4 and 6 on sheet 1423 be agreed to.12:31:00The committee divided. (The Chairman—Senator S. M. West)3Bartlett, A. J. J. Brown, B.Margetts, D. *54Alston, R. K. R. Bishop, T. M.Boswell, R. L. D. Brownhill, D. G. C.Calvert, P. H. Campbell, G.Campbell, I. G. 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. Ellison, C.Ferguson, A. B. Ferris, J.Gibbs, B. Harradine, B.Heffernan, W. Herron, J.Hill, R. M. Hogg, J.Kemp, R. Lightfoot, P. R.Lundy, K. Macdonald, I.Macdonald, S. MacGibbon, D. J.Mackay, S. McGauran, J. J. J.McKiernan, J. P. Murphy, S. M.Newman, J. M. O'Brien, K. W. K. *O'Chee, W. G. Parer, W. R.Patterson, K. C. L. Payne, M. A.Reid, M. E. Reynolds, M.Schacht, C. C. Sherry, N.Synon, K. M. Tambling, G. E. J.Tierney, J. Troeth, J.Vanstone, A. E. West, S. M.Question so resolved in the negative.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—We now move to Greens (WA) and Australian Greens amendments Nos 2, 4 and 5 on sheet 1427. The question is that those amendments be agreed to. Are you seeking the call, Senator Brown?QD4BROWNSenator Brown—Yes, Madam Chair. These are the Greens (WA) and the Australian Greens amendments to protect tourism from the GST.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—Senator Brown, there is no point of order.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—We now move to Greens (WA) and Australian Greens amendments Nos 2, 4 and 5 on sheet 1427. The question is that those amendments be agreed to. Are you seeking the call, Senator Brown?QD4BROWNSenator Brown—Yes, Madam Chair. These are the Greens (WA) and the Australian Greens amendments to protect tourism from the GST.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—Senator Brown, there is no point of order.12:36:00The committee divided. (The Chairman—Senator S. M. West)4Bartlett, A. J. J. Brown, B.Harradine, B. Margetts, D. *25Boswell, R. L. D. Campbell, G.Campbell, I. G. Chapman, H. G. P.Collins, J. M. A. Conroy, S.Cook, P. F. S. Cooney, B.Denman, K. J. Ellison, C.Hill, R. M. Kemp, R.Macdonald, S. Mackay, S.McGauran, J. J. J. McKiernan, J. P.Murphy, S. M. Newman, J. M.O'Brien, K. W. K. *Patterson, K. C. L.Reynolds, M. Schacht, C. C.Sherry, N. Troeth, J.West, S. M.Question so resolved in the negative.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—The next question is that Greens (WA) and Australian Greens amendment No. 1 on sheet No. 1447 be agreed to.Question resolved in the negative.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—We will now move to Greens (WA) amendments Nos 1 and R4 on sheet 1315, revised.QD4BROWNSenator Brown—Madam Chairman, I raise a point of order. I would like to have my vote for the last amendment, amendment No. 1 on sheet 1447, which is to take the GST off the input to charities, recorded for the affirmative.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—You have made a statement, so it will be in the Hansard . The question is that Greens (WA) amendments Nos 1 and R4 on sheet 1315, revised, be agreed to.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—The next question is that Greens (WA) and Australian Greens amendment No. 1 on sheet No. 1447 be agreed to.Question resolved in the negative.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—We will now move to Greens (WA) amendments Nos 1 and R4 on sheet 1315, revised.QD4BROWNSenator Brown—Madam Chairman, I raise a point of order. I would like to have my vote for the last amendment, amendment No. 1 on sheet 1447, which is to take the GST off the input to charities, recorded for the affirmative.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—You have made a statement, so it will be in the Hansard . The question is that Greens (WA) amendments Nos 1 and R4 on sheet 1315, revised, be agreed to.12:41:00The committee divided. 0Brown, B. Margetts, D. *0Boswell, R. L. D. Brownhill, D. G. C.Campbell, G. Campbell, I. G.Chapman, H. G. P. Collins, J. M. A.Conroy, S. Cook, P. F. S.Cooney, B. Denman, K. J.Hill, R. M. Kemp, R.Macdonald, S. Mackay, S.McGauran, J. J. J. Murphy, S. M.Newman, J. M. O'Brien, K. W. K. *Patterson, K. C. L. Reynolds, M.Schacht, C. C. Troeth, J.West, S. M.Question so resolved in the negative.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—That concludes consideration of A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Bill 1998 . The question is that the bill, as amended, be agreed to.Bill, as amended, agreed to.A NEW TAX SYSTEM (GOODS AND SERVICES TAX TRANSITION) BILL 1998The bill.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—We will now move to consideration of A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax Transition) Bill 1998 .Senator Cook interjecting—10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—All these bills are cognate; they are taken together.RF4COOKSenator Cook—What about a third reading?10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—At the end. You do not have a third reading when we are in committee. We are not going out of committee. I advise that we are now considering A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax Transition) Bill 1998 . There are two lots of government amendments and one lot of government requests.3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—Madam Chair, can I just clarify that we are still completing this section of the debate by 1.30 p.m?10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—Yes, by 1.30.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—That concludes consideration of A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Bill 1998 . The question is that the bill, as amended, be agreed to.Bill, as amended, agreed to.A NEW TAX SYSTEM (GOODS AND SERVICES TAX TRANSITION) BILL 1998The bill.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—We will now move to consideration of A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax Transition) Bill 1998 .Senator Cook interjecting—10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—All these bills are cognate; they are taken together.RF4COOKSenator Cook—What about a third reading?10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—At the end. You do not have a third reading when we are in committee. We are not going out of committee. I advise that we are now considering A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax Transition) Bill 1998 . There are two lots of government amendments and one lot of government requests.3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—Madam Chair, can I just clarify that we are still completing this section of the debate by 1.30 p.m?10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—Yes, by 1.30.12:44:006493Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—I table an additional further supplementary explanatory memorandum relating to the government amendments and requests for amendments to be moved to the A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax Transition) Bill 1998 . The additional further supplementary explanatory memorandum was circulated in the chamber on 24 June 1999.DX5MARGETTSSenator Margetts—Madam Chair, I seek your indulgence and the indulgence of the chamber. I had an amendment to the motion that the report of the committee be adopted.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—I have not moved that.DX5MARGETTSSenator Margetts—That is all right. I am just checking: when would be the right time to move that?10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—When we get to the completion of all these bills. The question before the chair at the moment is that the bill as printed be agreed to.12:45:006493Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY3L6VICALP00—I rise to oppose the A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax Transition) Bill 1998 . This bill starts to talk about the transitional impact of the GST, and we are close to having the final vote, so transitional impacts over the next 12 months are very important. This covers some of that 12 months. What we are seeing from the government is an attempt to conceal. We have just had a string of votes which saw the transparency of the GST on price tags defeated. Those are the issues about which even Allan Fels from the ACCC said, `I need help with the transitional provisions of this bill; I need to have the prices revealed in the 12 months beforehand.' I am reading from an article in the Herald Sun of Wednesday, 16 June titled `Call to reveal GST to public'. You may think that is a call by the Labor Party, but in actual fact it is a call from Allan Fels. He is making the point that the transitional impact of the GST is very confusing. The article says:Price tags should reveal the amount of GST being paid so shoppers understood the reason for higher charges, prices watchdog Allan Fels said yesterday.Professor Fels said he would be urging all businesses to explain the GST overhaul—and detailed price tags will be one of the best options.That is Allan Fels from the ACCC. He is saying, `How am I going to handle the transitional impact? What do I need this government to give to Australian consumers to enable me to handle the transitional impact?' The article goes on:Shoppers should be able to see instantly the pre-GST price, the amount of GST, and final price, the chairman of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission said.That is Allan Fels. And what did the government do? We have just defeated the amendments for transparency and display. Allan Fels, who has said that this is one of the key things that he needs for the transition period, this 12 months that we have got coming up before it is introduced, needs this. Nobody in this country should forget that, when you cannot see GST listed on the price tag, it was the Democrats who voted against the amendments, the Democrats voted to keep the GST hidden. Professor Fels went on to say:. . . more detail would be useful in the early months on the GST, although the final price must be displayed."We see some merit in stores saying this is our former price, this is our current price, the difference is tax' . . .The ACCC cannot force firms to produce detailed price tags but would be urging them to explain the changes when the new tax hits . . . You have a situation where the ACCC has said, `Here are the guidelines for the transition period. This is what we want you to try to do.' And what has been the response from business? It has been headlines like `GST plan—the anger grows' and business groups describing the ACCC's calls on the transitional effects `unworkable and will cut profit margins':If the profit margin rises on a particular product once the GST is introduced, the ACCC will be alerted to profiteering.And they are complaining:Industry groups are furious that the ACCC's pricing guidelines will add further complexity and costs because of the compromise deals. Small business was already wary about the cost of collecting GST revenues every three months. Adding to business disquiet is the ACCC's insistence that firms work out how the change in tax arrangement affects their business costs through the introduction of tax credits on the GST on any business inputs.But it is the ACCC's ruling on profit margins that has really upset them. What has Tony Aveling from the banks—now there are some fine corporate citizens; banks making billions and billions of dollars worth of profits—said about the ACCC's attempts to monitor the transitional effects? This is what Mr Tony Aveling said:Mr Tony Aveling criticised the consumer watchdog for assuming that price exploitation is occurring whenever net margins rise. To quell some of the concerns in banking and insurance, though, the ACCC has agreed to allow guidelines to be tailored by the industry to suit its needs.And those mugs in the Democrats signed up to this. They said, `We are going to vote for the bill by 30 June and we will leave the ACCC in charge of monitoring with none of the teeth that they need to be able to monitor the transitional effects.' The next 12 months are going to see firms trying to edge their margins up, edge their prices up. So after the GST is introduced you will have a system where the comparison will not look as bad. They will not look like they are profiteering. You have Allan Fels responding to the sorts of criticisms I have just mentioned in this way:The ACCC moved yesterday to soothe business concerns that its GST price monitoring guidelines were are unfair and would force many to cut profit margins saying there was still room for them to be changed.So the ACCC will get to issue its guidelines after the Democrats have agreed to put it into legislation, after the Democrats have said, `Yep, let's do it. We'll make sure they say the ACCC has got the resources.' But the ACCC is backing away. Every time the business groups start complaining, every time they stand up and demand that the ACCC back down, what is happening? Allan Fels says, `We're going to soothe business concerns; there is still room for them to be changed.'That gives me about as much comfort as standing in this chamber believing the Democrats are going to cross the floor and actually give the ACCC some real teeth. How can you sign up to a deal that says you support monitoring and that you support making sure the ACCC has got teeth when the ACCC has not reached its final position and, worse, is saying that it is going to allow industry to actually dictate to it the guidelines. It is going to allow industry to tailor its needs.We want the ACCC to make sure that profiteering does not happen. We know they do not have the resources. The extra money that they have been given is a drop in the ocean. They are not planning on going around the country monitoring prices; their plan is to have consumer complaints. When the ACCC appeared before the Senate estimates committee a couple of weeks ago, I asked them, `Suppose somebody phones up and alerts you to what they believe to be profiteering, what do you do then?' They said, `We go back, look at the business, talk to business and disaggregate their costs, and we have a look to see.' I said to the man who will be in charge of this section in the ACCC, `Let's say that, on day one, I get all these extra cost savings and I lower my price. On day two, I say that I have decided I can increase my margin, that I think there is room for me in the marketplace to put my price up a bit and that I have made a conscious decision to increase my price in this period. What could you do about it?' And he said, `Nothing.' So if you decide that you can increase your price and widen your margin because you believe the market conditions allow it, what does the ACCC say it can do? Absolutely nothing. So when the ACCC comes and knocks on the door, every business in the country simply has to say, `Well, yes, I've put my price up. I've decided the market can bear an increase in my price,' and the commission has nowhere to go.We asked the ACCC what will happen when the Olympics are on. We all know demand is going to increase and market conditions are going to be that there is a huge influx of tourists. We all know what happens around these sorts of events: the prices start to go up. We asked whether the Olympics will be a defence to profiteering. You have a huge increase in demand; how are you going to measure what is an acceptable level of profit during the Olympics? They said, `Well, we accept that that won't be possible.' So ordinary businesses before the Olympics can say, `Well, the market can bear it. I'm putting my prices up,' and what will happen during the Olympics? Everyone knows that the prices will go up. I would not want to be living in Sydney during the Olympics because you are really going to get slugged.The ACCC have admitted on the public record that there are no teeth in this legislation, that they do not have enough people to police it and that they are not even going to try to police the transitional provisions in this bill. That is what they have admitted on the public record, on the front page of the Financial Review. Senator McGauran, if you want to make a contribution, it would be welcome.WH4McGAURANSenator McGauran—I'd like to.3L6Margetts, Sen DeeSenator CONROY—You would be welcome.WH4McGAURANSenator McGauran—Can I?3L6Margetts, Sen DeeSenator CONROY—I will leave you to negotiate that with Senator Kemp.WH4McGAURANSenator McGauran—I'd have to negotiate it.3L6Margetts, Sen DeeSenator CONROY—It will be invaluable.WH4McGAURANSenator McGauran—Oh, come on, get your facts right.3L6Margetts, Sen DeeSenator CONROY—I will defer to you in a moment—you can take up the five minutes that I would have used. Senator Kemp and the government know that the ACCC cannot do the job. They want Allan Fels to do big glossy photos like this one in the Herald Sun Weekend Focus last Saturday, 19 June: `GST policeman Allan Fels will be tough on those who exploit the new tax, because the price must be right for GST.' That is a big article in the Herald Sun , the big daily, so people can feel reassured that Allan Fels is on the job. If you read right to the end, though, you begin to have a few concerns. He says that firms will have to show there is no change in their profit margin per item under one of the key tests, but ACCI industry chief executive Mark Paterson said that very few companies had exact details. `We would see the guidelines as unworkable,' he said bluntly. This is the same Mark Paterson who has championed tax reform—in his guise, the GST—for the last two or three years.Every time the government have needed to trot out one of the most vocal advocates of the GST—and they have trotted him out, day in day out, for the last two years—it has been Mark Paterson. So what does Mark Paterson say? `We would see the guidelines as unwork able.' And who do the government listen to? Are they going to listen to Allan Fels or are they going to listen to Mark Paterson, who pushed them into tax reform—in their words—in the first place? Mark Paterson is one of the key influences on this government. His words are very important to them; they will listen to him. The Democrats understand that Mark Paterson is a key influence, and what have they done? They have let a situation arise where Mark Paterson, after the legislation is passed, can go and sabotage the legislation. He can go into negotiations and force the ACCC, because the ACCC knows the government will never stand up to the Mark Patersons of this world. And here it is: Professor Fels, in the very next paragraph and in response to Mr Paterson, admitted `there was some scope to clarify the guidelines, but remained confident they would be ready on 1 July'.WW4KEMPSenator Kemp—I have a point of order, Mr Temporary Chairman. It is not my intention to restrict debate on this bill—RF4COOKSenator Cook—You've imposed a guillotine—what are you talking about?WW4KEMPSenator Kemp—Within reason, it is not my intention to restrict debate, but Senator Conroy should be aware that what he is saying has nothing to do with the bill before us. We will probably have to listen to all this stuff again on Professor Fels and the ACCC. If you want to speak about what is on the bill, I urge you to do so.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Chapman)—We are dealing with transition provisions, which probably allow some width of comment. But I draw Senator Conroy's attention to the need to remain relevant to the legislation.3L6Margetts, Sen DeeSenator CONROY—I appreciate your ruling, Mr Temporary Chairman, and I draw it to the attention of Senator Kemp, because this bill is about transitional provisions. It may come as a surprise to Minister Kemp and to the government, but the ACCC have a large part to play in monitoring the transitional provisions. That is their job. I know it is a shock—and the minister shakes his head—but they are there to make sure that these provisions are workable. They put on the public record at estimates that they know they cannot. The government want to push Fels out into the limelight—and he is never shy to get out in the limelight—to do glossy little articles like this to try to convince ordinary Australians that he is going to look after their interests. You would have to believe in Santa Claus, the Easter bunny and the tooth fairy if you think Allan Fels is going to be able to look after you when you go down to the local 7-11 or the local supermarket. They have admitted on the public record that they do not have the capacity to do the job. They know that.This government and those Democrats over there have stood by and let this happen. It is an absolute disgrace. I do not know how the Democrats can sleep at night because of what they are doing to consumers and ordinary Australians in this country. We are seeing a gutless cave-in by some senators in this chamber in allowing the government to get away with it. They have just voted to let a high-roller amendment go through. They opposed and went to water on charities. If you are Kerry Packer and a high roller, you get a tax concession in this country, because the Democrats walked out of the chamber and hid. They think they can say, `We didn't vote for the amendment.' But they walked out the door. If they had stayed in, we would have defeated the high-roller amendments. That is what has gone on this morning. It is an absolute disgrace. In the same way that they have given tax cuts to Kerry Packer, Lloyd Williams and Ron Walker, they are setting Allan Fels up as a straw man to defend their interests. They walked out. They have agreed to vote for the transitional provisions today, which they know cannot be monitored or implemented.Senator Stott Despoja interjecting—3L6Margetts, Sen DeeSenator CONROY—You can try to hide behind some of the things you have done, Senator Stott Despoja. You can hide, but you know that Allan Fels cannot do the job on these transitional provisions and you know that it is not possible to monitor the transitional provisions. You will be voting on this transitional bill with them.3I6STOTT DESPOJASenator Stott Despoja—Will I?3L6Margetts, Sen DeeSenator CONROY—We will be hoping that you will not. You can prove me wrong. Bring a few of your colleagues with you. We hope to see you sitting with us.13:01:006497Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—That was a typical Senator Conroy rant and rave, full of personal attacks on people who do not happen to agree with Senator Conroy at this particular point in time. I do not think, Senator, that Professor Fels will even bother to read such a speech from you. I would just like to put on the record, as Senator Conroy was determined to discuss the ACCC—3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—You called a point of order and it was irrelevant.WW4Margetts, Sen DeeSenator KEMP—Let me just indicate for the record that those who think that there is any substance in anything that Senator Conroy says about Professor Allan Fels—RF4COOKSenator Cook—Mr Temporary Chairman, on a point of order: we rarely have such delicious ironies as this one.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Sherry)—What is the point of order, Senator?RF4COOKSenator Cook—The point of order is relevance. A few minutes ago, the minister called a point of order on Senator Conroy because he was talking about the ACCC, and the minister argued to the chair that it was not relevant. The chair drew Senator Conroy's attention to that fact. Now the minister is actually talking about the ACCC. Would you ask the minister to comply with his own standards? I know that is a hard request for this minister, but he could at least stick to his own standards this time.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—There is no point of order.WW4Margetts, Sen DeeSenator KEMP—Thank you, Mr Temporary Chairman. That was an excellent ruling, if I may say so. I do draw the attention of people who may have the misfortune to waste their time reading Senator Conroy's speech that a press release was issued by the ACCC headed `ACCC Policing Business on Prices'. I will just read the first paragraph. It reads:Australian business will not be left to self-police pricing under the proposed new tax system, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission Chairman, Professor Allan Fels, said today."The ACCC will actively and rigorously apply the strong provisions of legislation now before the Senate and monitor price changes in the market to determine if price exploitation is occurring."Senator, whatever you purported to say about the ACCC and their particular views—why don't you read the press release?3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—That is reassuring!WW4Margetts, Sen DeeSenator KEMP—If you want to quote what people think, why don't you actually quote the press release that the ACCC put out on 10 June last? All the transitional provisions before the chamber are to give effect to the government's original policy intent or are consequential on other changes to the legislation.It is my intention, with the leave of the Senate, to move all the government amendments together, but let me just briefly refer to what those amendments are. Clause 1 deletes reference to diesel fuel credits, as these are no longer part of the GST and will be covered by an outlay program. Clauses 2, 3 and 4, on sheet EF237 and amendment 1 on sheet EF240, give effect to the government's intention to tax goods delivered and services performed after 1 July 2000, provided that they are not supplied under an agreement that was entered into prior to 2 December 1998 or royal assent in certain circumstances. These amendments cover rights which effectively deliver goods and services.Amendment 5 on sheet EF237 ensures that a supplier revives an opportunity before a grandfathered agreement is subject to GST. Amendments 6 and 7 ensure that businesses that import second-hand goods are entitled to a credit for any wholesale sales tax that has been paid on stock for resale held on 1 July 2000. Amendment 8 on EF237 provides less stringent registration requirements for acupuncturists, naturopaths and providers of herbal medicine until 1 July 2003. This is a consequential amendment on the amendment that was passed yesterday, one which was strongly supported by the Australian Democrats.Amendments 9 and 10 ensure that input credits are available to insurers in cases where the timing of an event giving rise to a claim is uncertain and could have occurred before or after 1 July 2000. In these situations, the time of the claim being made will be used as the time of the event for GST purposes. Amendment 11 on sheet EF237 allows input credits for insurance premiums if a business notifies the commissioner that they are claiming the credit. This amendment ensures that businesses will be fully aware of their GST obligations for any insurance payout under the GST. We anticipate that most businesses will claim input tax credits and that insurance companies will adjust their policies to ensure that businesses are better off due to industry cost reductions which flow through to their businesses. Amendment 12 on sheet EF237 is a consequential amendment to section 126 of the main GST bill.The further amendments the government intends to move are Nos 13, 14 and 15 on sheet EF237 and Nos 2 and 3 on sheet EF240. These amendments ensure that the 32 per cent wholesale sales tax rate falls to 22 per cent from 21 days after royal assent. Many businesses have requested that the date of the change be certain to allow planning.I commend these amendments to the Senate. They do reflect the consultations that the government has had with industry and others, and I hope that they will receive speedy passage through the chamber. I seek leave to move the government's amendments together.Leave granted.WW4Margetts, Sen DeeSenator KEMP—I move:(1) Clause 7, page 5 (lines 11 to 13), omit subclause (3).(2) Clause 11, page 7 (lines 6 to 10), omit paragraph (1)(a), substitute: (a) you make a supply under an agreement, or an enactment, that provides (expressly or impliedly) that the thing supplied is to be supplied: (i) for a period; or (ii) progressively over a period; whether or not at regular intervals; and(3) Clause 11, page 7 (lines 13 and 14), omit "the services or things are taken to be performed or done", substitute "the supply is taken to be made". (4) Clause 11, page 7 (after line 15), at the end of the clause, add: (3) For the purposes of this section, a supply by way of lease, hire or similar arrangement is taken to be a supply for the period of the lease, hire or arrangement.(5) Clause 12, page 8 (lines 8 to 12), omit the definition of review opportunity , substitute: review opportunity , for an agreement to which this section applies, means an opportunity that arises under the agreement: (a) for the supplier under the agreement (acting either alone or with the agreement of one or more of the other parties to the agreement) to change the consideration directly or indirectly because of the imposition of GST; or (b) for the supplier under the agreement (acting either alone or with the agreement of one or more of the other parties to the agreement) to conduct a general review, renegotiation or alteration of the consideration.(6) Clause 15, page 10 (line 12), at the end of paragraph (2)(a), add "(unless you imported them and nobody was entitled to quote under the Sales Tax Assessment Act 1992 for the importation)".(7) Clause 17, page 11 (after line 29), at the end of the clause, add: (2) This section does not apply to second-hand goods in respect of which you are entitled to a special credit under section 15.(8) Page 13 (after line 25), after clause 19, insert:19A Acupuncture, naturopathy and herbal medicine (1) Paragraph 38-10(1)(b) of the GST Act does not apply in relation to a supply of a service of: (a) acupuncture; or (b) naturopathy; or (c) herbal medicine (including traditional Chinese herbal medicine); if the service is performed before 1 July 2003. (2) However, such a service of acupuncture, naturopathy or herbal medicine performed before 1 July 2003 is not GST-free if the supplier of the service does not meet the requirements (if any) in regulations made for the purposes of this subsection in relation to a supplier of an acupuncture, naturopathy or herbal medicine service, as the case requires. (3) The requirements may relate to one or more of the following: (a) educational qualifications; (b) membership of a professional body; (c) any other qualifications.(9) Clause 20, page 13 (after line 29), after subclause (1), insert: (1A) However, if: (a) the claim relates to an insurance policy covering a period that started before 1 July 2000 and ends after that day; and (b) it cannot be ascertained whether the event giving rise to the claim happened before 1 July 2000; subsection (1) does not apply, and the settlement is not a taxable supply if the claim was made before 1 July 2000.(10) Clause 20, page 14 (after line 3), at the end of the clause, add: (3) However, if: (a) the claim relates to an insurance policy covering a period that started before 1 July 2000 and ends after that day; and (b) it cannot be ascertained whether the event giving rise to the claim happened before 1 July 2000; subsection (2) does not apply, and you are not entitled to an input tax credit for the claim you pay if the claim was made before 1 July 2000.(11) Page 14 (after line 3), after clause 20, insert:20A Input tax credits for insurance premiums You are not entitled to an input tax credit for a premium paid on an insurance policy before 1 July 2003 unless you notify the Commissioner, in the approved form, that you are claiming an input tax credit for payment of the premium.(12) Clause 21, page 14 (lines 9 to 12), omit subclause (2), substitute: (2) In applying section 126-10 of the GST Act to work out your global GST amount, disregard: (a) all monetary prizes you are liable to pay at any time on the outcome of gambling events that happened before 1 July 2000; and (b) all amounts of money you are liable to pay, of a kind referred to in paragraph (b) of the definition of total monetary prizes in subsection 126-10(1), to the extent that they relate to gambling events that happened before 1 July 2000.(13) Schedule 1, item 2, page 16 (table, column 3), after "sale on", insert "the 21st day after".(14) Schedule 1, item 2, page 16 (table, column 6), before "the day", insert "the 21st day after".(15) Schedule 1, item 4, page 16 (line 17), after "on and after", insert "the 21st day after the".(2) Schedule 1, page 16 (after line 12), before item 3, insert:2A At the end of section 15 Add: (3) If goods were, immediately before the 21st day after the day on which the A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Act 1999 received the Royal Assent, covered by any of items 4 to 14 of Schedule 5, those goods are taken not to be covered by any Schedule other than Schedule 4.(3) Schedule 1, item 4, page 16 (line 16), omit "amendment made by item 3 applies", substitute "amendments made by items 2A and 3 apply".Request: That the House of Representatives be requested to make the following amendment:(1) Page 6 (after line 27), after clause 10, insert:10A Supply of rights exercisable on or after 1 July 2000 (1) A supply of a right that has been or is granted on or after 2 December 1998 (other than a supply of a right granted on or after 1 July 2000) is taken to be a supply made on or after 1 July 2000 if, and to the extent that, the right could reasonably be expected to be exercised on or after 1 July 2000. (2) The Commissioner may make a written ruling determining methods for working out the extent to which a right could reasonably be expected to be exercised on or after 1 July 2000 where that extent is not readily ascertainable. (3) This section does not affect the operation of section 12.13:09:006499Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—On behalf of the Aus tralian Labor Party, I indicate the opposition's view to these amendments and to this bill. These amendments improve the bill, but the bill itself is a bad bill and should be rejected. We will support the amendments, but we will be voting against the bill because of its nature. Just a few moments ago we carried all of the amendments that the government and the Australian Democrats have sponsored conjointly to the GST package itself.The bill before the chamber now is the transitional bill, the bill that deals with the phasing in and implementation of the GST. We think this is a terrible day for Australia because now the Australian Senate has endorsed a GST, and the fact that there will be a GST is a certainty unless we can defeat these bills at the final stage of the debate which will come at some time on Monday. I hope that between now and then sufficient light will dawn on the Democrats and others in this chamber to cross the floor, vote with us and stand with most of Australia in opposition to a GST.We are now being required to consider the transitional elements of implementing a GST. Today, if this bill is carried, nightmare on main street commences, because the implementation phase of a GST begins. The nightmare—referred to by the Treasurer, Mr Costello, if we took food out of the GST—continues and will apply, but the nightmare of applying the GST at all will also be a significant problem.A number of industries will be adversely affected at the transitional stage. Last night on the 7.30 Report in a vox pop the reporter went to a number of small business people and asked them how they will manage to distinguish between goods in their stores that are GSTable and goods that are not. One of the moving parts of that report was the reporter asking a storekeeper if she had made provision to purchase the new equipment she will need in order to computerise goods through the checkouts that are GSTable and those that are not, and the storekeeper looking somewhat shocked and surprised that a major outlay on her part will be necessary in order to comply with this government's bill.That is just the tip of the iceberg. Throughout Australia thousands of small business people are concerned about their future and how they will comply with the law once there is a GST. Many more millions of Australians who are consumers are concerned about how they will detect how much the goods should be, given that there is a reduction in wholesale sales tax and an increase in GST, and whether the final price they are being asked to pay is an accurate reflection of the cost cut and the cost increase, so that the net price is true and there is no profit taking by individual storeholders or business people.Part of Senator Conroy's contribution was certainly relevant to the transitional stage, and that is how the price changes will be effectively monitored in the transitional stage to ensure that Australians pay the proper price and there is not an element of inflating prices or using the GST as an excuse to claim a higher price than would otherwise be the case.We received a great deal of evidence on this matter during the Senate inquiry, but you have to start out in the street talking to real people rather than being in the closeted confines of this building talking to academic economists. If you ask real people, `Do you think that there will be an opportunity here for retailers to actually maximise their price and load a bit on?', most people say yes. But, if you ask the academic economists at the Treasury, `On what assumptions is this package predicated?', they say they assume that there will be a 100 per cent pass-through of all price changes and there will be no price taking—that there will be no attempt to use this as a chance to ramp up prices. The basis of all the government's calculations on how well off you will be after a GST—which are, to say the least, fraudulent—is in part the assumption that no-one out there will take a higher price because of the GST. You can laugh at that, but that is the basis of this legislation.We have had given to us a number of clear examples where companies are worse off. Car manufacturers in Australia are concerned that they will suffer a buyers drought and that workers in the car industry will be put out of work. Because of the nature of this bill, production lines will have to be closed down, not completely but to some extent, and there will be hardship visited on people where it otherwise could have been taken care of. They are concerned that because of the reductions in wholesale sales tax there will be a buyers drought while people wait for those reductions to occur and that no-one will buy cars between now and then.Some people might think that is an understandable concern but not a realistic one. All they have to do is point to the economy of Japan. The economy of Japan used to be one of the strongest economies in the world. It is the second biggest economy on the face of the earth. Its economy now is in recession. When did the recession occur? It was triggered last year—this is agreed between economists who study the Japanese economy and the Japanese writers on their own domestic economy—when in Japan they increased the equivalent of the GST from three per cent to five per cent. What happened? People brought forward purchases of goods and services prior to the price increase clicking in. As a result there was a downturn in the Japanese economy, and other factors of demand, domestic and foreign, meant that the Japanese economy, one of the strongest in the world up to that point, moved into recession. It remains in recession now, and the bane of many Japanese politicians is how you get out of it. So let us not think that the introduction of a new rate of tax does not affect consumer behaviour and does not affect the wellbeing of industry.WH4McGAURANSenator McGauran—It can't create a recession in Japan.RF4Margetts, Sen DeeSenator COOK—It was the trigger of the recession in Japan. If you want to contend with that argument, go and talk to any number of Japanese economists who have looked at what is the problem with the Japanese economy. The purchasing drought that the car manufacturers are concerned about is one element of the transitional phase of this bill. The other element concerns fleet lessors, those companies that make major purchases of motor vehicles for fleet purchases. That includes a number of Australian companies which compete against each other in a very tight and highly competitive market. In car hire, Avis and the others all compete against each other in a market where the margins are extremely thin and where the competition is extremely fierce, and they have no scope to take on board the extra costs that the transition phase to a GST will require them by government fiat to do. They will just have to absorb them, when they have got no margins to do so. Their problem is that in purchasing cars in advance, as they have to to provide a stock of vehicles for their rental businesses, the second-hand retail price, when they sell them back into the market and recover part of their initial capital outlay, will be much less than would otherwise have been the case and they will suffer in the normal course of their business a considerable impost while they have to cover the gap and have no scope to do so.Is there any provision to protect those companies? No, there is not. They are greatly concerned about that. In fact, they have advised me and advised the GST inquiry, and I am sure advised the government, that as a consequence they have already loaded into their hire car charges a compensatory price increase because of the GST. We know that the government says there will be stiff penalties applied to those who do that, but these companies are saying, `The only way we can survive is by doing it, and as a consequence we are.' One can forgive them and understand their doing that when there is no compensation for the extra costs they will have to shoulder because of what the government is proposing to do.Let me turn to the policing of the GST. My colleague Senator Conroy had a fair bit to say about the ACCC. In essence, the story comes down to this. There are fines for artificially inflated prices, if you can prove that prices are artificially inflated for this reason and this reason alone. However, if some sharp operator can make a case that it was the Sydney Olympics or wages went up or they had a review of their price structure and changed it for market reasons—that is, if they can create a fog of uncertainty as to the real reason for the price rises—they get out of the net; they are home free. You actually have to prove that it was because of the GST, and if you cannot prove it then there is no case. That is a very difficult hurdle in proof to clear to begin with.If you can clear that hurdle and get a few cases proved, they will face heavy fines. That is right. You would have thought that takes care of this issue. But does it? Of course it does not. You have to be able to police activity that is going on in the marketplace. You have to police every stall, every retailer and every service deliverer in Australia and make sure that the prices they are charging post-GST take account of any price reductions, if there are any, by the abolition of wholesale sales tax and any price increases by the imposition of the GST. It would have made this process a lot easier if retailers were to display on their cards, or at the checkout have at the bottom of the customer's receipt, an amount showing how much tax they paid on that good or that service transaction. That would have been a sensible way of doing it. We put up an amendment to cause that to happen. The government and the Australian Democrats voted it down, for the reason that they do not want people to know how much tax they are paying on these transactions and they do not want consumers to have the ability to understand how they are being duped and ripped off. People will not be in a position to know whether or not the prices charged after the GST is introduced are solely because of changes in the GST or for other reasons.So the argument that consumers are the best guarantee is a fraudulent argument. Consumers will not have the knowledge in most cases to be able to see through the hocus-pocus and understand whether the prices are fair or not. They will not have the knowledge, and the ability to find out has been denied to them by this government and by the Australian Democrats—and that is now a matter of sorry record in this chamber. So, if the consumers do not know, will the ACCC—the watchdog that is supposed to police proper business regulation in this country—know? The answer is it will not. The ACCC will have a feeble budget and an insignificant number of additional staff to do the job. If you look at how many price changes there are on every service deliverer and on every business in Australia, the number of policemen we will have on the block to check to see that people will be doing the right thing will nowhere match the need.So it is a false dawn to say, `Well, the fines are going to be high but we are not going to put anyone in the field to check. We are not going to allow consumers to know because we are not going to show the issues on the consumer receipt so that they can calculate for themselves what the price changes are.' That is why it is a fraudulent proposition and that is why the nightmare on main street begins with this bill. We have tried to change these things; the government has refused to do so.We know from the ACCC, the watchdog that polices this activity, that in fact it is going to spend the additional grant that the government is giving it—to cover the transitional phase—on education. That is a useful idea: `If you have some determined business person who actually wants to use the GST's introduction as an excuse to hike their prices, we will educate them. We will put a few ads on television; they might actually see them. Maybe they will read ads in their trade journal and that will stop them from trying to rip off consumers because of their ability to inflate prices.' Does anyone believe that is going to work and can anyone in this chamber seriously put it to us? Why will the Democrats, who have signed off on consumer protection, now support this in this form? This is the most fraudulent example of how you dupe Australians, how you rip off people on prices and how you let those who do that get away with it: not providing the police, not providing the mechanisms for policing and hiding the real tax on the consumer receipt.13:25:006502Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—In the brief five minutes allotted to me, I will just deal with a couple of the points made by the opposition speakers. I will start with the Japanese analogy to Australia. Japan is one of the 105 countries that have introduced a GST or a VAT, and the comparison is inadequate in the following sense. As Senator Cook well knows from the evidence given to us, when wholesale sales tax is removed in Australia at the various levels of 32 per cent, 22 per cent or 12 per cent in fact many goods will fall in price and part of the transitional arrangements process is to try and even out that effect. As he knows, there are large industries which are concerned with this matter, such as cars, for which there are very material transitional provisions. Others who are concerned are jewellers, video retailers, et cetera.In Japan, as you quite rightly made the point, people advanced their position of purchase. In Australia the danger has been that people will delay their purchase, and these transitional effects always occur whenever any one of those 105 countries embarks on an exercise such as this. You know from your own period in government that, when the fringe benefits tax was outlined and the capital gains tax—which you introduced—was outlined, business and the community were in an uproar about the new systems and the new forms. I am quite sure that, if you look at the fringe benefits tax debate way back then when it happened—and some of you have a longer corporate memory than mine—you will find the same kinds of remarks being made about the potential disaster that was facing us all. It is true that no compliance system will be without holes. It is true that some people will fall between the nets. That happens with the police force, Customs, the coastguard or the Army. You can never make everybody do the right thing.RF4COOKSenator Cook—Only six per cent of Australians pay any fringe benefits tax but 100 per cent of Australians will pay the GST.3M6Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MURRAY—If you want to follow that argument—and I take the interjection, Senator Cook—I will remind you that billions of people and tens of millions of businesses in 105 countries have coped with this. The idea that you and your party seem to have—that Australians are somehow less capable than people in other countries of dealing with this matter—I think is wrong, and I have said that consistently.As for the point about the pricing that will go on in shops and all the outlets which have to do with a GST, there is nothing—and the minister can confirm this—in the legislation to prevent any retailer from showing it in the prices if they wish. There is nothing to prevent a retailer saying there is a 10 per cent GST on this good—nothing. You cannot prevent that.I will point out that, when we are referring to the transitional provisions, we are referring to provisions which will deal with this issue as well as they are capable of being dealt with and in line with foreign precedent. I can see the political advantage for you to beat the issue up in the way you have, but I do not concede that the other countries which have done it have had the problems that you outline and expect for Australia. I think that once this thing has settled down people will understand that to be the fact. Mr Temporary Chairman, I have some notes for some remarks that I was going to put on the actual amendments before us. I would like to ask for leave to incorporate those two pages of notes. They do not refer to the remarks of Senator Cook and Senator Conroy; they refer to the specific amendments the government are putting.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—Is leave granted?13:30:006503Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—In view of the hour, I am being asked whether leave is granted to incorporate further remarks. This is something we asked for in the earlier debate. We were gagged—the government and the Democrats did not allow us to do it. They work on the standard of trying to shut up the critics, but we will not apply the same standard. We will be bigger than that and allow the remarks to be incorporated.Leave granted.The statement read as follows—I just wanted to speak briefly to this transitional bill. The bill deals with a number of important matters. One of those matters is contracts which have a term that spans the implementation date of the goods and services tax—that is 1 July 2000.I am referring to clause 12.The Democrats received a number of submissions in relation to this provision and the arbitrary cut-off date of 1 July 2005 for the non-imposition of a GST on supplies under those contract.We have considered those submissions and believe that the government's rationale for not amending that provision is sound but I note for the benefit of those people who made those submissions that we will be monitoring the operation of that provision to ensure that no unfairness results.We also received a number of submissions and held discussions with the Insurance industry in relation to clauses 11 and 20 and some other concerns that that industry has. We have discussed and considered those issues and we have raised these concerns with the government—we still have some concerns about those issues and we will be monitoring the operation of the transitional provisions in that area also.In this regard I just wanted to refer briefly to the insurance amendments (9)—(11). The basis on which a determination is made as to whether an insurance company will receive an input tax credit for the payment of a claim is whether the event giving rise to the claim occurred prior to the 1 July 2000. To ease the burden of administration amendments to this bill will allow an insurance company to refer to the date of the claim rather than the date of the event in circumstances where the date of the event cannot be ascertained.As a general comment, I would like to say that whilst the Democrats fully support the revised goods and services tax package, we still retain a degree of apprehension in respect of the implementation. These reforms are very far reaching and we believe that the government will need to be vigilant to ensure that no sector is adversely affected. I am not just referring to mainstream compliance issues for retailers, but I am talking about closely monitoring the impact on all Australians, individuals and businesses alike.My own view is that if the government believes that it will pass this transitional bill and it will all be smooth sailing from there with no further intervention—then the government is probably deluding itself. In my view, and I don't have any concrete evidence to support this at the moment, so it is only a prediction but I expect that there will be a good degree of fine tuning the transitional arrangements between now and 1 July 2000. In that vein, I would encourage anyone who has concerns or expectations of being adversely affected to raise those concerns with the government so that they can be resolved one way or another. The conclusion of this debate on the transitional arrangements does not close the book on these or any other issues.One additional issue which I did want to canvass was the practical implementation and changeover on 1 July 2000. That day, I understand, is a Saturday—Saturday is an ordinary trading day for most retail businesses and indeed it is a day on which many retail business conduct substantial trade. I have concern for those retail businesses and burden they may suffer as a result of having to rearrange their prices and reprogram their cash registers and point of sale terminals on the Friday evening preceding 1 July 2000.I don't know what measures we can undertake to ease that burden and I would like to take this opportunity to remind businesses to plan for that changeover day so that the work which must be undertaken, presumably on the Friday before 1 July 2000, does not place an undue burden on the owners and staff of those businesses.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Sherry)—It being 1.30 p.m., the time allotted for this bill has now expired. I put the question that the request for an amendment and the amendments moved by Senator Kemp be agreed to.Question resolved in the affirmative.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—The question is that the bill be agreed to subject to a request.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill, as amended, agreed to, subject to a request.A NEW TAX SYSTEM (COMPENSATION MEASURES LEGISLATION AMENDMENT) BILL 1998The bill.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—The question is that the bill stand as printed.13:31:006504Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—by leave—I move the following 10 government requests, 37 government amendments consequential on requests and three government amendments as in sheet DX204 revised, EA240 revised and DX205 revised:Requests:DX204 revisedThat the House of Representatives be requested to make the following amendments:(1) Schedule 1, page 5 (before line 22), before item 34, insert:33C Section 1064 (after Module B)Insert: Module BA—Pension supplementPension supplement1064-BA1 The amount of a person's pension supplement depends on the person's maximum basic rate. There is a pension supplement amount for each maximum basic rate listed in the table in point 1064-B1.Amount of pension supplement1064-BA2 The amount of a person's pension supplement is worked out by: (a) calculating the amount (the provisional supplement amount ) that is 4% of the person's 1 July 2000 maximum basic rate; and (b) rounding off the provisional supplement amount in accordance with points 1064-BA4 to 1064-BA6.Note: The pension supplement amounts are indexed 6 monthly in line with CPI increases (see sections 1191 to 1194).1064-BA3 A person's 1 July 2000 maximum basic rate is the maximum basic rate that would have been the person's maximum basic rate if the rate had not changed since 1 July 2000.Rounding off of provisional supplement amount1064-BA4 If a provisional supplement amount is a multiple of $2.60, the amount of the pension supplement is the provisional supplement amount.1064-BA5 If a provisional supplement amount is not a multiple of $2.60, the amount of the pension supplement is the provisional supplement amount rounded up or down to the nearest multiple of $2.60.1064-BA6 If a provisional supplement amount is not a multiple of $2.60, but is a multiple of $1.30, the amount of the pension supplement is the provisional supplement amount rounded up to the nearest multiple of $2.60.(2) Schedule 1, page 6 (before line 24), before item 47, insert:46C Section 1065 (after Module B)Insert:Module BA—Pension supplementPension supplement1065-BA1 The amount of a person's pension supplement depends on the person's maximum basic rate. There is a pension supplement amount for each maximum basic rate listed in the table in point 1065-B1.Amount of pension supplement1065-BA2 The amount of a person's pension supplement is worked out by: (a) calculating the amount (the provisional supplement amount ) that is 4% of the person's 1 July 2000 maximum basic rate; and (b) rounding off the provisional supplement amount in accordance with points 1065-BA4 to 1065-BA6.Note: The pension supplement amounts are indexed 6 monthly in line with CPI increases (see sections 1191 to 1194).1065-BA3 A person's 1 July 2000 maximum basic rate is the maximum basic rate that would have been the person's maximum basic rate if the rate had not changed since 1 July 2000.Rounding off of provisional supplement amount1065-BA4 If a provisional supplement amount is a multiple of $2.60, the amount of the pension supplement is the provisional supplement amount.1065-BA5 If a provisional supplement amount is not a multiple of $2.60, the amount of the pension supplement is the provisional supplement amount rounded up or down to the nearest multiple of $2.60.1065-BA6 If a provisional supplement amount is not a multiple of $2.60, but is a multiple of $1.30, the amount of the pension supplement is the provisional supplement amount rounded up to the nearest multiple of $2.60.(3) Schedule 1, page 7 (before line 12), before item 53, insert:52C Section 1066 (after Module B)Insert:Module BA—Pension supplementPension supplement1066-BA1 The amount of a person's pension supplement depends on the person's maximum basic rate.Amount of pension supplement1066-BA2 The amount of a person's pension supplement is worked out by: (a) calculating the amount (the provisional supplement amount ) that is 4% of the person's 1 July 2000 maximum basic rate; and (b) rounding off the provisional supplement amount in accordance with points 1066-BA4 to 1066-BA6. Note: The pension supplement amount is indexed 6 monthly in line with CPI increases (see sections 1191 to 1194).1066-BA3 A person's 1 July 2000 maximum basic rate is the maximum basic rate that would have been the person's maximum basic rate if the rate had not changed since 1 July 2000.Rounding off of provisional supplement amount1066-BA4 If a provisional supplement amount is a multiple of $2.60, the amount of the pension supplement is the provisional supplement amount.1066-BA5 If a provisional supplement amount is not a multiple of $2.60, the amount of the pension supplement is the provisional supplement amount rounded up or down to the nearest multiple of $2.60.1066-BA6 If a provisional supplement amount is not a multiple of $2.60, but is a multiple of $1.30, the amount of the pension supplement is the provisional supplement amount rounded up to the nearest multiple of $2.60.(4) Schedule 1, page 11 (before line 16), before item 103, insert:102C Section 1068A (after Module B)Insert:Module BA—Pension supplementPension supplement1068A-BA1 The amount of a person's pension supplement depends on the person's maximum basic rate.Amount of pension supplement1068A-BA2 The amount of a person's pension supplement is worked out by: (a) calculating the amount (the provisional supplement amount ) that is 4% of the person's 1 July 2000 maximum basic rate; and (b) rounding off the provisional supplement amount in accordance with points 1068A-BA4 to 1068A-BA6.Note: The pension supplement amount is indexed 6 monthly in line with CPI increases (see sections 1191 to 1194).1068A-BA3 A person's 1 July 2000 maximum basic rate is the maximum basic rate that would have been the person's maximum basic rate if the rate had not changed since 1 July 2000.Rounding off of provisional supplement amount1068A-BA4 If a provisional supplement amount is a multiple of $2.60, the amount of the pension supplement is the provisional supplement amount.1068A-BA5 If a provisional supplement amount is not a multiple of $2.60, the amount of the pension supplement is the provisional supplement amount rounded up or down to the nearest multiple of $2.60.1068A-BA6 If a provisional supplement amount is not a multiple of $2.60, but is a multiple of $1.30, the amount of the pension supplement is the provisional supplement amount rounded up to the nearest multiple of $2.60.(5) Schedule 1, page 13, (before line 2), before item 120, insert:119B Subsection 1191(1) (after table item 1)Insert:1A.pension supplement(a) 20 March (b) 20 September(a) 20 December (b) 20 Junehighest June or December quarter before reference quarter (but not earlier than June quarter 1979)$2.60(6) Schedule 1, item 122, page 17 (before line 1), after section 1206GA, insert:1206GAA 1 July 2000 increase in rent assistance amounts (1) This section applies to an amount (the base amount ) of rent assistance that is provided for in a provision listed in column 2 of Table A. Note: Amounts provided for in provisions listed in Table A are amounts as al tered from time to time under Division 2 of this Part (CPI indexation). (2) This Act has effect as if, on 1 July 2000, the base amount were replaced by an amount (the replacement amount ) worked out by: (a) calculating the amount (the provisional replacement amount ) that is 7% greater than the base amount; and (b) rounding off the provisional replacement amount in accordance with section 1206GD, using the rounding base for the base amount (see column 3 of Table A).Table A: Rates Column 1 ItemColumn 2 Provision providing for base amountColumn 3 Rounding base for base amount1point 1064-D5—table—column 4—all amounts5.202point 1066-D4—table—column 25.203point 1066A-EA12—table—column 4—all amounts5.204point 1066A-EB13—table—column 4—all amounts5.205point 1067G-D6—table—column 4—all amounts0.206point 1068-F15—table—column 4—all amounts0.207point 1068A-D3—table—column 35.208point 1068B-F6—table—column 4—all amounts0.209point 1069-E4—table—column 4—all amounts0.20(7) Schedule 2, item 1, page 27 (lines 4 and 5), omit the item, substitute:1 Paragraph 30(1)(b)Repeal the paragraph, substitute: (b) $25 per fortnight; and (c) the supplement amount per fortnight provided for in subsection (1A).1A After subsection 30(1)Insert: (1A) A person's supplement amount is the amount of pension supplement that would be payable to the person under point SCH6-BA2 if the person were receiving a pension at the rate listed in column 3 of item 1 of the table in point SCH6-B1, divided by 26.(8) Schedule 2, page 27 (before line 6), before item 2, insert:1C Subsection 59B(1) (after table item 1)Insert:1A.pension supplement(a) 20 March (b) 20 September(a) December (b) Junehighest June or December quarter before reference quarter (but not earlier than June quarter 1979)$2.60(9) Schedule 2, page 29 (after line 11), after item 18, insert:18A Part 2 of Schedule 6 (after Module B)Insert:Module BA—Pension supplementPension supplementSCH6-BA1 The amount of a person's pension supplement depends on the person's maximum basic rate. There is a pension supplement amount for each maximum basic rate listed in the table in point SCH6-B1.Amount of pension supplementSCH6-BA2 The amount of a person's pension supplement is worked out by: (a) calculating the amount (the provisional supplement amount ) that is 4% of the person's 1 July 2000 maximum basic rate; and (b) rounding off the provisional supplement amount in accordance with points SCH6-BA4 to SCH6-BA6.Note: The pension supplement amounts are indexed 6 monthly in line with CPI increases (see sections 59B to 59E).SCH6-BA3 A person's 1 July 2000 maximum basic rate is the maximum basic rate that would have been the person's maximum basic rate if the rate had not changed since 1 July 2000. Rounding off of provisional supplement amountSCH6-BA4 If a provisional supplement amount is a multiple of $2.60, the amount of the pension supplement is the provisional supplement amount.SCH6-BA5 If a provisional supplement amount is not a multiple of $2.60, the amount of the pension supplement is the provisional supplement amount rounded up or down to the nearest multiple of $2.60.SCH6-BA6 If a provisional supplement amount is not a multiple of $2.60, but is a multiple of $1.30, the amount of the pension supplement is the provisional supplement amount rounded up to the nearest multiple of $2.60.(10) Schedule 2, item 32, page 32 (before line 1), after section 198G, insert:198GA 1 July 2000 increase in rent assistance amounts (1) This section applies to an amount (the base amount ) of rent assistance that is provided for in column 4 of the table in subpoint SCH6-C8(1).Note: Amounts provided for in column 4 of the table in subpoint SCH6-C8 are amounts as altered from time to time under Division 18 of Part IIIB (CPI indexation). (2) This Act has effect as if, on 1 July 2000, the base amount were replaced by an amount (the replacement amount ) worked out by: (a) calculating the amount (the provisional replacement amount ) that is 7% greater than the base amount; and (b) rounding off the provisional replacement amount in accordance with section 198M, using the rounding base of $5.20.Amendments:EA240 revised(1) Schedule 1, page 5 (after line 21), after item 33, insert:33A Point 1064-A1 (method statement, after step 1) Insert:Step 1A. Work out the amount of pension supplement using Module BA below.33B Point 1064-A1 (method statement, step 4) After "1,", insert "1A,".(2) Schedule 1, page 6 (after line 23), after item 46, insert:46A Point 1065-A1 (method statement, after step 2) Insert:Step 2A. Work out the amount of pension supplement using Module BA below.46B Point 1065-A1 (method statement, step 4) After "2", insert ", 2A".(3) Schedule 1, page 7 (after line 11), after item 52, insert:52A Point 1066-A1 (method statement, after step 1) Insert:Step 1A. Work out the amount of pension supplement using Module BA below.52B Point 1066-A1 (method statement, step 4) After "1,", insert "1A,".(4) Schedule 1, page 11 (after line 15), after item 102, insert:102A Point 1068A-A1 (method statement, after step 1) Insert:Step 1A. Work out the amount of pension supplement using Module BA below.102B Point 1068A-A1 (method statement, step 4)After "1,", insert "1A,".(5) Schedule 1, page 13 (after line 1), after item 119, insert:119A Section 1190 (after table item 1) Insert:1AA.Pension supplementpension supplement[Pension Rate Calculator A—point 1064-BA2—all amounts] [Pension Rate Calculator B—point 1065-BA2—all amounts] [Pension Rate Calculator C—point 1066-BA2] [Parenting Payment Rate Calculator—point 1068A-BA2] (6) Schedule 1, item 121, page 13 (line 6), omit "1 July 2000", substitute "19 March 2001".(7) Schedule 1, item 121, page 13 (line 7), after "4%", insert "or 7%".(8) Schedule 1, item 122, page 14 (table item 5), omit the table item.(9) Schedule 1, item 122, page 14 (table item 7), omit the table item.(10) Schedule 1, item 122, page 14 (table item 8), omit the table item.(11) Schedule 1, item 122, page 14 (table item 10), omit the table item.(12) Schedule 1, item 122, page 14 (table item 12), omit the table item.(13) Schedule 1, item 122, page 15 (table items 16 and 17), omit the table items.(14) Schedule 1, item 122, page 15 (table item 25), omit the table item.(15) Schedule 1, item 122, page 16 (table item 31), omit the table item.(16) Schedule 1, item 122, page 16 (table item 32), omit the table item.(17) Schedule 1, item 122, page 16 (table item 34), omit the table item.(18) Schedule 1, item 122, page 17 (table items 38 and 39), omit the table items.(19) Schedule 1, item 122, page 17 (line 1), omit "4% ", substitute "1 July 2000" .(20) Schedule 1, item 122, page 17 (line 2) to page 19 (line 24), omit subsection (1), substitute: (1) If an amount (the affected amoun t ) is: (a) an amount described in the table in section 1206GA or in the table in section 1206GAA that is indexed under Division 2 of this Part; or (b) a maximum basic rate provided for in point 1064-B1, 1065-B1, 1066-B1 or 1068A-B1; or (c) a pension supplement provided for in point 1064-BA2, 1065-BA2, 1066-BA2 or 1068A-BA2; this section applies to modify the way the amount is indexed under Division 2 of this Part for a limited period after 19 March 2001. Method statementStep 1. Work out the current figure for the affected amount on 19 March 2001.Step 2 . Multiply the current figure by 0.02. The result is the provisional overall adjustment amount .Step 3. Round off the provisional overall adjustment amount in accordance with subsections (3) to (5), using: (a) for an affected amount described in the table in section 1206GA or in the table in section 1206GAA—the rounding base set out in that table for that amount; and (b) for a maximum basic rate provided for in point 1064-B1, 1065-B1, 1066-B1 or 1068A-B1—the rounding base of $2.60; and (c) for a pension supplement provided for in point 1064-BA2, 1065-BA2, 1066-BA2 or 1068A-BA2—the rounding base of $0.10. The result is the overall adjustment amount .Step 4 . For the first indexation day for an affected amount that occurs after 19 March 2001, subtract the current figure from the indexed amount (arrived at using the method statement in subsection 1192(2)). The result (which could be zero) is the first indexation increase amount .Step 5 . Compare the overall adjustment amount with the first indexation increase amount. If the overall adjustment amount is equal to or less than the first indexation increase amount, go to step 6. If the overall adjustment amount is greater than the first indexation increase amount, go to step 9. Step 6. Subtract the overall adjustment amount from the indexed amount referred to in step 4.Step 7. If the indexed amount is a pension supplement, round off the result in accordance with subsections (3) to (5) (as if the amount were a provisional overall adjustment amount), using the rounding base of $2.60.Step 8. The result obtained under step 6, or step 7 (as the case requires), is taken to be the indexed amount for the purposes of step 4 of the method statement in subsection 1192(2) and this section has no further application in relation to the affected amount. Note: The indexed amount for the purposes of step 4 of the method statement in subsection 1192(2) may be increased under section 1195 in certain cases.Step 9. The indexed amount for the purposes of step 4 of the method statement in subsection 1192(2) is taken to be equal to the current figure worked out under step 2 of the method statement in subsection 1192(2). Go to step 10. Note: The indexed amount for the purposes of step 4 of the method statement in subsection 1192(2) may be increased under section 1195 in certain cases.Step 10. For the second indexation day for the affected amount that occurs after 19 March 2001, subtract the first indexation increase amount from the overall adjustment amount. The result is the remaining adjustment amount .Step 11. Subtract the current figure from the indexed amount (arrived at using the method statement in subsection 1192(2)). The result (which could be zero) is the second indexation increase amount .Step 12. Compare the remaining adjustment amount with the second indexation increase amount. If the remaining adjustment amount is equal to or less than the second indexation increase amount, go to step 13. If the remaining adjustment amount is greater than the second indexation increase amount, go to step 16.Step 13. Subtract the remaining adjustment amount from the indexed amount.Step 14. If the indexed amount is a pension supplement, round off the result in accordance with subsections (3) to (5) (as if the amount were a provisional overall adjustment amount), using the rounding base of $2.60.Step 15. The result obtained under step 13, or step 14 (as the case requires), is taken to be the indexed amount for the purposes of step 4 of the method statement in subsection 1192(2) and this section has no further application in relation to the affected amount. Note: The indexed amount for the purposes of step 4 of the method statement in subsection 1192(2) may be increased under section 1195 in certain cases.Step 16. The indexed amount for the purposes of step 4 of the method statement in subsection 1192(2) is taken to be equal to the current figure worked out under step 2 of the method statement in subsection 1192(2). Go to step 17. Note: The indexed amount for the purposes of step 4 of the method statement in subsection 1192(2) may be increased under section 1195 in certain cases.Step 17. Repeat the method set out in steps 10 to 16 in relation to the third indexation day and to subsequent indexation days until the remaining adjustment amount is zero.(21) Schedule 1, page 19 (line 26), omit "Step 9", substitute "Step 11".(22) Schedule 2, page 27 (after line 5), after item 1A, insert:1B Section 59A (after table item 1)Insert:2.Pension supplementpension supplement*Rate Calculator—point SCH6-BA2—all amounts](23) Schedule 2, item 3, page 27 (line 10), omit "1 July 2000", substitute "19 March 2001".(24) Schedule 2, item 3, page 27 (line 11), after "4%", insert "or 7%".(25) Schedule 2, page 29 (after line 2), after item 15, insert:15A Subpoint SCH6-A1(2) (method statement, after step 1) Insert:Step 1A. Work out the amount of pension supplement using Module BA below.15B Subpoint SCH6-A1(2) (method statement, step 4) After "1,", insert "1A,".15C Subpoint SCH6-A1(3) (method statement, after step 2) Insert:Step 2A. Work out the amount of pension supplement using Module BA below.15D Subpoint SCH6-A1(3) (method statement, step 4) After "2,", insert "2A,".15E Subpoint SCH6-A1(6) (method statement, after step 1) Insert:Step 1A. Work out the amount of pension supplement using Module BA below.15F Subpoint SCH6-A1(6) (method statement, step 4) After "1,", insert "1A,".(26) Schedule 2, item 32, page 31 (table item 6), omit the table item.(27) Schedule 2, item 32, page 32 (table item 12), omit the table item.(28) Schedule 2, item 32, page 32 (table item 13), omit the table item.(29) Schedule 2, item 32, page 32 (line 1), omit "4% ", substitute "1 July 2000 ".(30) Schedule 2, item 32, page 32 (line 2) to page 34 (line 32), omit subsection (1), substitute: (1) If an amount (the affected amoun t ) is: (a) an amount described in the table in section 198G that is indexed under Division 18 of Part IIIB or under section 198, 198A, 198D or 198F; or (b) the amount described in section 198GA; or (c) a maximum basic rate provided for in point SCH6-B1; or (d) a pension supplement provided for in point SCH6-BA2; or (e) an amount provided for in paragraph 30(1)(a); or (f) a pension supplement provided for in subsection 30(1A); this section applies to modify the way the amount is indexed under that Division or section (as the case may be) for a limited period after 19 March 2001. Method statement Step 1. Work out the current figure for the affected amount on 19 March 2001.Step 2 . Multiply the current figure by 0.02. The result is the provisional overall adjustment amount .Step 3. Round off the provisional overall adjustment amount in accordance with subsections (6) to (8), using: (a) for an affected amount described in the table in section 198G—the rounding base set out in that table for that amount; and (b) for the amount described in section 198GA—the rounding base of $5.20; and (c) for a maximum basic rate provided for in point SCH6-B1—the rounding base of $2.60; and (d) for a pension supplement provided for in point SCH6-BA2—the rounding base of $0.10; and (e) for an amount provided for in paragraph 30(1)(a)—the rounding base of $0.10; and (f) for a pension supplement provided for in subsection 30(1A)—the rounding base of $0.10. The result is the overall adjustment amount .Step 4 . For the first indexation day for an affected amount that occurs after 19 March 2001, subtract the current figure from the indexed amount (arrived at using the method statement in subsection 59C(2)). The result (which could be zero) is the first indexation increase amount .Step 5 . Compare the overall adjustment amount with the first indexation increase amount. If the overall adjustment amount is equal to or less than the first indexation increase amount, go to step 6. If the overall adjustment amount is greater than the first indexation increase amount, go to step 9.Step 6 . Subtract the overall adjustment amount from the indexed amount referred to in step 4. Step 7. If the indexed amount is a pension supplement, round off the result in accordance with subsections (6) to (8) (as if the amount were a provisional overall adjustment amount), using the rounding base of $2.60. Step 8. The result obtained under step 6, or step 7 (as the case requires), is taken to be the indexed amount for the purposes of step 5 of the method statement in subsection 59C(2) and this section has no further application in relation to the affected amount. Note: The indexed amount for the purposes of step 5 of the method statement in subsection 59C(2) may be increased under section 59EA in certain cases. Similarly, if the indexed amount is a rate worked out under section 198, that amount may be increased under subsection 198(6) or (7) in certain cases.Step 9. The indexed amount for the purposes of step 5 of the method statement in subsection 59C(2) is taken to be equal to the current figure worked out under step 2 of the method statement in subsection 59C(2). Go to step 10. Note: The indexed amount for the purposes of step 5 of the method statement in subsection 59C(2) may be increased under section 59EA in certain cases. Similarly, if the indexed amount is a rate worked out under section 198, that amount may be increased under subsection 198(6) or (7) in certain cases.Step 10 . For the second indexation day for the affected amount that occurs after 19 March 2001, subtract the first indexation increase amount from the overall adjustment amount. The result is the remaining adjustment amount .Step 11 . Subtract the current figure from the indexed amount (arrived at using the method statement in subsection 59C(2)). The result (which could be zero) is the second indexation increase amount .Step 12. Compare the remaining adjustment amount with the second indexation increase amount. If the remaining adjustment amount is equal to or less than the second indexation increase amount, go to step 13. If the remaining adjustment amount is greater than the second indexation increase amount, go to step 16.Step 13 . Subtract the remaining adjustment amount from the indexed amount.Step 14. If the indexed amount is a pension supplement, round off the result in accordance with subsections (6) to (8) (as if the amount were a provisional overall adjustment amount), using the rounding base of $2.60. Step 15. The result obtained under step 13, or step 14 (as the case requires), is taken to be the indexed amount for the purposes of step 5 of the method statement in subsection 59C(2) and this section has no further application in relation to the affected amount. Note: The indexed amount for the purposes of step 5 of the method statement in subsection 59C(2) may be increased under section 59EA in certain cases. Similarly, if the indexed amount is a rate worked out under section 198, that amount may be increased under subsection 198(6) or (7) in certain cases.Step 16. The indexed amount for the purposes of step 5 of the method statement in subsection 59C(2) is taken to be equal to the current figure worked out under step 2 of the method statement in subsection 59C(2). Go to step 17. Note: The indexed amount for the purposes of step 5 of the method statement in subsection 59C(2) may be increased under section 59EA in certain cases. Similarly, if the indexed amount is a rate worked out under section 198, that amount may be increased under subsection 198(6) or (7) in certain cases.Step 17. Repeat the method set out in steps 10 to 16 in relation to the third indexation day and to subsequent indexation days until the remaining adjustment amount is zero.(31) Schedule 2, page 35 (line 19), omit "Step 6", substitute "Step 8".(32) Schedule 2, page 35 (line 22), omit "Step 7", substitute "Step 9".(33) Schedule 2, page 35 (line 28), omit "Step 9", substitute "Step 11".(34) Schedule 2, page 35 (line 30), omit "Step 11", substitute "Step 15".(35) Schedule 2, page 35 (line 33), omit "Step 12", substitute "Step 16".(36) Schedule 2, page 36 (line 6), omit "Step 9", substitute "Step 11".(37) Schedule 2, page 36 (line 9), omit "Step 9", substitute "Step 11".DX 205 revised(1) Clause 2, page 1 (line 9), omit "subsection (2)", substitute "subsections (2) and (4)".(2) Clause 2, page 2 (after line 15), at the end of the clause, add: (4) Schedule 4 commences, or is taken to have commenced, immediately after the commencement of Schedule 4 to the A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Act 1999 .(3) Page 41 (after line 11), at the end of the Bill, add:Schedule 4—A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Act 19991 At the end of Schedule 4Add:9 Adjustment of amounts following 7% increase to maximum rent assistance amounts (1) This clause applies to modify the way an amount specified in column 3 of the table in clause 14 of Schedule 1 (the maximum rent assistance amount ) is indexed under Part 2 of this Schedule for a limited period after 19 March 2001.Method statement Step 1. Work out the current figure for the maximum rent assistance amount on 19 March 2001.Step 2 . Multiply the current figure by 0.02. The result is the provisional overall adjustment amount .Step 3. ound off the provisional overall adjustment amount in accordance with subclauses (2) to (4). The result is the overall adjustment amount .Step 4 . For the first indexation day for the maximum rent assistance amount that occurs after 19 March 2001, subtract the current figure for the amount from the indexed amount (arrived at using the method statement in subclause 4(2)). The result (which could be zero) is the first indexation increase amount .Step 5 . Compare the overall adjustment amount with the first indexation increase amount. If the overall adjustment amount is equal to or less than the first indexation increase amount, go to step 6. If the overall adjustment amount is greater than the first indexation increase amount, go to step 7.Step 6 . Subtract the overall adjustment amount from the indexed amount referred to in step 4. The result is taken to be the indexed amount for the purposes of step 4 of the method statement in subclause 4(2) and this clause has no further application in relation to the maximum rent assistance amount.Step 7. The indexed amount for the purposes of step 4 of the method statement in subclause 4(2) is taken to be equal to the current figure worked out under step 2 of that method statement. Go to step 8.Step 8. For the second indexation day for the maximum rent assistance amount that occurs after 19 March 2001, subtract the first indexation increase amount from the overall adjustment amount. The result is the remaining adjustment amount .Step 9 . Subtract the current figure for the maximum rent assistance amount from the indexed amount (arrived at using the method statement in subclause 4(2)). The result (which could be zero) is the second indexation increase amount .Step 10. Compare the remaining adjustment amount with the second indexation increase amount. If the remaining adjustment amount is equal to or less than the second indexation increase amount, go to step 11. If the remaining adjustment amount is greater than the second indexation increase amount, go to step 12.Step 11. Subtract the remaining adjustment amount from the indexed amount. The result is taken to be the indexed amount for the purposes of step 4 of the method statement in subclause 4(2) and this clause has no further application in relation to the maximum rent assistance amount.Step 12. The indexed amount for the purposes of step 4 of the method statement in subclause 4(2) is taken to be equal to the current figure worked out under step 2 of that method statement. Go to step 13.Step 13. Repeat the method set out in steps 8 to 12 in relation to the third indexation day and to subsequent indexation days until the remaining adjustment amount is zero.Rounding of provisional overall adjustment amounts (2) If a provisional overall adjustment amount is a multiple of the rounding base for the maximum rent assistance amount (see column 5 of item 4 of the CPI Indexation Table in subclause 3(1)), the provisional overall adjustment amount is the overall adjustment amount. (3) If a provisional overall adjustment amount is not a multiple of the rounding base, the overall adjustment amount is the provisional overall adjustment amount rounded up or down to the nearest multiple of the rounding base. (4) If a provisional overall adjustment amount is not a multiple of the rounding base, but is a multiple of half the rounding base, the overall adjustment amount is the provisional overall adjustment amount rounded up to the nearest multiple of the rounding base.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—The question is that the amendments be agreed to.BE4Margetts, Sen DeeSenator NEWMAN—I table the explanatory memorandum relating to the government amendments and requests for amendments to be moved. The revised supplementary explanatory memorandum was circulated in the Senate on 25 June 1999.13:32:006514Campbell, Sen GeorgeSenator GEORGE CAMPBELLNB5NSWALP00—The A New Tax System (Compensation Measures Legislation Amendment) Bill 1998 is the part of these bills which really is the centre of the con trick upon low and middle income Australians—this whole proposition in relation to compensation. One of the central reasons why we have opposed the GST has been the fact that the compensation package has been totally inadequate. We have said that from the start concerning the agreement between the Democrats and the government. That position has not changed. In fact, if anything, in the new Democrat GST compensation for ordinary Australians is worse than it was in the original bill. That has been clearly stated, particularly by organisations like ACOSS.Over the past two or three days, we have heard ACOSS's name being bandied about in relation to submissions it put before the Senate inquiry on the GST. Yesterday, Senator Knowles ran a whole lot of arguments and selectively quoted ACOSS's position on the GST. But at the end of the day when this package hit the deck publicly, after being negotiated under the table in secret rooms without any participation of other parties—only the Democrats and the government—what was ACOSS's position? What is the position of most of the organisations which represent the welfare lobby in this country? It is that their membership has been sold out, that the compensation is totally inequitable and that this is an inequitable, unfair tax. It is the people at the bottom of the ladder who will suffer most as a consequence of this package being introduced. In a press release from ACOSS released at 10.15 a.m. on 3 June, under the heading `Tax package will widen inequality and is still not acceptable', ACOSS said:After careful analysis, the Australian Council of Social Service has concluded that the new Government-Democrat tax package is still fundamentally unfair and is unacceptable.. . . . . . . . .The package will therefore widen the gap between rich and poor, and the whole nation will suffer from greater division between the haves and the have-nots.The Senate should not pass this package in its current form.I note that Senator Harradine is in the chamber. I note in particular the comments he made in his `I cannot' speech. He was right to make the point that this issue is not just about compensation for food or taking food out of the package. He was right to make the point that a whole range of other areas will go uncompensated, areas where this GST will have a significant impact on low and middle income earners—such as payment of utilities, transport fees, clothing, and bus and train fares to get to and from work.It will be some time, I suggest, before the real impact of this tax is measured as it hits low and middle income families. In that respect, I assume we will not hear the howls that would be associated with a piece of legislation that has an immediate impact. But the other side of that equation is that those families in our community who can least afford it are going to feel the impact of this tax over a sustained period, despite whatever rhetoric we hear from the Treasurer and the Prime Minister or, more importantly, whatever rhetoric we hear from the Leader of the Democrats—or the acting Leader of the Democrats, I think it is now, or the temporary Leader of the Democrats. I am not too sure what the position is in respect of that party—is it their spokesman on tax matters or Treasury matters or the potential pretender to the throne for the leadership of the Democrats or the deputy leadership of the Democrats? We will probably know the eventual outcome of the issue of the leadership of the Democrats more quickly than ordinary Australians will feel the impact of this legislation on their living standards.On the compensation issue, in the hearings of the GST committee inquiry right across the country we heard from a range of organisations about what impact the GST package would have on them and their organisation. We heard from sporting organisations, welfare bodies, charitable institutions, pensioner organisations, self-funded retirees, more substantial people in the welfare lobby such as ACOSS. The full range of impacts of the GST that would be felt by wide sections of the community were represented. None of those organisations said at any time during that inquiry that the compensation package being put forward by the government was adequate. Since the Democrat GST package was announced and made public, I have seen no evidence from any of the organisations that put submissions to the original inquiry that the current package of compensation is adequate. In fact all of those organisations and all of the comments I have seen with respect to compensation have come down on the side of its total inadequacy.What has emerged from the debate since the Democrat GST package was announced is an absolute confusion by a whole range of groups as to what the ultimate impact of the package is going to be upon them and upon the people they represent within the wider community. I think the most descriptive terms for this were those used by the Leader of the Opposition: that there is no other way you can describe this than as a dog's breakfast of a tax. It will turn out to be a dog's breakfast as it is implemented and proceeds to have an impact across our community. More and more people, as they are impacted by this tax, are going to be sitting around scratching their heads and wondering, `Why did we ever get ourselves in the position of allowing people to put such a tax as this upon the Australian community?' Senator Lees, in conjunction with the government, you are not going to be able to deal with the myriad of complaints that are going to emerge from the community once this tax is out in place. You are not going to be able to deal with them because the complaints will be so extensive, so all- pervasive that people will not accept any assurances you give them.And why would they accept assurances that you give them? You are the one who has fitted them up with this taxation. You stood outside this chamber this morning—UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—On the chicken run.NB5Margetts, Sen DeeSenator GEORGE CAMPBELL—and refused to come into the chamber. You were too frightened to come into the chamber, you and your four quislings, and put your hand up for compensation for the high rollers, compensation for the big end of town, for the people who can afford to sit and gamble a million dollars in Crown Casino. You were not prepared to come in and vote against a tax on books and you have not been prepared to seriously look at the impact on transport and a range of other factors coming out of this tax. One has to say that the only word that could be used to describe your position on those amendments and on the tax overall is `hypocritical'—hypocritical in the extreme.You negotiated a package with that mob over there, yet you did not have the courage to come in and put your hand up for the package. You stood outside, as Senator Ray said, `in the chicken run' while all those more sensitive issues went through this chamber—issues which you knew were going to go through the chamber and which you had negotiated with the government and which you were going to allow through the chamber. You did not have the courage to come in and have yourself photographed voting for them.I have to say to you, Senator Lees, that you will get your compensation. Your compensation package is in the making now. Your compensation package will be delivered to you at the next election. That compensation package will be worked out by the people of Australia, particularly by that section of the community that had some belief in the Democrats and actually believed that you were a party of principle and that you put principle before pragmatism in politics. But you turned that on its head over the past couple of weeks. When the issue of compensation is discussed amongst the community, the one thing that those people in the community are going to be focused on is giving you your compensation for your actions over the past couple of weeks.13:47:006516Lees, Sen MegSenator LEES8U4SAAD00—I would like to begin by saying that I do not think that I have heard for a while such an extraordinary lot of nonsense. I realise that we have been hearing over the past couple of days a lot of criticism—and, okay, we expect that—but when one so misrepresents the truth I do find that I actually have to say something about that. To begin with, the one issue where I think you were close to the situation—not quite there, but close—is that we have an ongoing dispute with ACOSS. I can say categorically that never have they said that the deal we have done is any worse—indeed, they have agreed that it is better—than the government's original tax package.The argument that we are having with them is about two issues. Firstly, it is about the fact that some of the state taxes have stayed. We will have an ongoing debate, no doubt, because they argue that that is regressive and we argue that it is not regressive. We will continue that argument. The second problem we have with them is that, on about page 4 of the document that I think Senator Campbell was just quoting from, we find that they have left a blank space in the section relating to base broadening.Why? Apparently it is because they say that it has not actually all been done, and so they are going to ignore it. That is $7.7 billion, which of course skews the figures and which of course give us quite a different answer. Let us look at what the base broadening is. Abolishing the savings rebate is $2 billion; closing FBT loopholes, $760 million; taxing trusts as companies, $760 million; company tax deferrals, $210 million; improved business tax compliance, $1.43 billion; company tax payment arrangements, $2.6 billion—and all of that they have chosen to simply leave out.This debate with ACOSS is going to go on, but I can say to you that they have congratulated us on a number of measures in the package. The last release I saw was congratulating us for the increase in rent assistance for those who were renting privately. They have congratulated us on the pension and benefits increases and on the money that we have got for the homeless, et cetera.Putting that debate and those discussions aside, because I say that they will go on, I want to go back a little in history. We said very clearly before and during the election that tax reform had to be fair. Once we saw the government's package and analysed it, we said very clearly—as indeed Senator Campbell himself and the Labor Party have said—from the start that this package was unfair. From the start, without looking at what we have done, I do not think it acceptable, Senator Campbell, to simply ignore the changes we have made.No doubt you are going to keep doing that. I realise that there is no point in asking you to actually look at the detail. But let us go through why, now, those on the lowest couple of rungs of the ladder are indeed winners—that is, better off than they are under the current tax system. It does not matter which lot of modelling you look at, adding on to the pensioners the low income earners who are actually out in the work force, that group have gained significantly. It does not matter which lot of modelling you look at from among those modellers that were used by the committee, and I will go into some of the details later.Looking at various modellings, it is not until you get up into the $100,000 plus per week range that you start seeing losers. Obviously, everyone cannot be winners. They are winners up there if they have not been using some of the systems that the government has just closed, but that $7.7 billion comes from somewhere. If we have people up there who have been using fringe benefits tax options or savings bonuses or have been turning themselves into companies, they are going to be losers. Indeed, across the board, when you model the group over $100,000—because so many of those people using the loopholes were up there—there is a couple of dollars per week. By the time you get to over $200,000, you add a few more dollars per week.I acknowledge that that was the government's doing. It was they who closed those loopholes. We have referred several more of the opportunities to maximise the tax take to the business tax package, but the end result is that those at the bottom are a lot better off. I will go through the results from Access Economics and Australia's foremost modellers, Professors Ann Harding and Neil Warren. As I said, they were the ones chosen by all sides on the tax inquiry.It is important to note that Professors Harding and Warren found that essentially all of those households modelled for the committee would be better off. They then looked at a second set of modelling, changing the way in which they allowed for tobacco and housing. Clearly, the professors have given us an A+ for our efforts in making this tax package fairer and making the new tax system fairer than the one that we have at the moment. Modelling by Access Economics published in the Melbourne Age earlier this month shows that, as a result of the Democrats' changes, a single aged pensioner will be $3.30 a week better off. This is not how much the pension is going up. It will go up, as it usually does, in line with male average weekly earnings. It is the additional above that—it is the extra four per cent that we have now locked in.That is a lot more of an increase than the Labor Party ever brought about in 13 years in government in one hit. For an aged pensioner couple, the Access Economics modelling shows that the gain in real terms is over $7 a week, while single unemployed people will be $2.82 a week better off, or more depending on their rent circumstances. The Access Economics findings also highlight that sole parents are clearly the big winners. I will go through the figures. Under their modelling, sole parents with one child are six per cent better off, in other words, over $7 per week. Again, that is after you take the costs associated with the GST into account. That is the net effect.Modelling by Professors Ann Harding and Neil Warren also confirms that pensioners and low income earners will make significant gains from the tax reform package that we are considering today. Their research shows that a single aged pensioner, even after paying for the GST and using their worst case scenario—as I will discuss, they have now put tobacco and housing back into their modelling—gains $2.61 a week. This worst case scenario treats us as though we all smoked when only 25 per cent of Australians do—I wish it were fewer—and as though all of us were suddenly going to buy a new house. That is not likely in the year that the tax system changes. Only 15 to 20 per cent are going to do that.The third thing that they have done is to base this assumption on the fact that there will be a 0.5 per cent increase in the CPI because there will not be any business tax input reduction to improve the value of the dollar. We have gone further and looked at that assumption, and we believe that is unduly pessimistic. Why? Because they are saying that around $9 billion of business taxes are basically not going to be passed on. That simply is not the case when you look through it. If we take out the impact of tobacco and housing, and go back to the style in which they were modelling for the committee during the inquiry, we get the best case scenario. Under the best case scenario, they are now predicting that the amount by which a single aged pensioner will be better off goes up to over $5 a week. An aged pensioner couple will be up to $8.50 a week better off.These findings also predict that students will gain between $2.50 and $3.90 a week, unemployed persons probably up to as much as $4 a week and a disability pensioner between $5.11 and $9.41 a week. Again, under their modelling, sole parents are the big winners, those with one child gaining between $27 and $31 a week, depending on the assumptions that you use. I really do find it extraordinary that the Labor Party can come in here completely ignoring the statistics and modelling that have been in the Age and the Australian. They cannot claim not to have seen these somewhere and they cannot criticise the modellers because they were the ones that were used in the committee.A further finding by Access Economics is that most food prices will fall under the GST, giving us at the end of the day a two per cent reduction in what we buy. Their modelling also shows that the overall price of health and education services will fall. A criticism levelled in here has been that education is going to go up. It is not. It does not matter what modelling you use, education across the board will fall, and I think that is further good news. Whichever way you look at it, low income families, pensioners and low income single people are going to be better off under the changes than they are now.The research from both Access Economics and Professor Harding have left me with little doubt that we have achieved exactly what we set out to do. Our promise in the election campaign was to make this package fairer and greener. We will get onto the green aspects in the next couple days, as we get onto the diesel fuel package. But certainly it is fairer than the current tax system.Just a few other details—I did talk a little bit about this yesterday—looking at why food was so important. Food is the single biggest spending item for pensioners and low income earners. About 24 per cent of their income is spent on food, whereas for people on high income it is around 12 per cent. Because food is largely untaxed now, suddenly taxing it would have a much bigger impact on those who spend more on it. By taking food out the Democrats have eliminated the most regressive aspect of the GST, at a cost of $3.6 billion. That is the estimate for the year 2001-02. This means that for pensioners, for example, the price effect from the GST falls from over three per cent down to 1.9 per cent.With food out, the entire population now faces a similar cost of living change from the GST. As a result, a flat rate compensation can be paid to deliver real term gains. Under the government's original plan, the four per cent compensation eroded over time, something that Senator Harradine was also concerned about and discussed with the government. If we look at the package we now have, we have insisted that the four per cent compensation be paid as a separate payment on top of the increase in either pensions or unemployment benefits. Remember, pensions are tied to male average weekly earnings and they are set at 25 per cent. This effectively puts them permanently at 26 per cent.For those on unemployment benefits, their payment is tied to the consumer price index and this effectively puts it four per cent permanently above the consumer price index. One of the good things is that we have managed to keep the states out of that as far as public housing is concerned. The cost of these pension increases is $800 million a year, year after year, increasing as inflation and male average weekly earnings increase. In achieving this, the Democrats have provided the first real increase for benefits in many cases since the 1970s, certainly the biggest increase since the seventies. There have been a couple since, but nothing as big as this.This independent research by Access Economics and Professor Ann Harding and Neil Warren, I believe, puts beyond absolutely any doubt that the changes that we have achieved will result in real gains. It is a good deal for families and it delivers better economic outcomes for Australia. Indeed, I am very pleased to say that we are proud of leaving pensioners, low income earners and the poor much better off. I think effectively what we have done is to inject some $5 billion of fairness into the package.14:00:006518Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAYUI4VICALP00—May I congratulate Senator Lees on her second reading speech in the committee stage! It did not go to any of the clauses of the bill, any of the concepts; she did not even mention the title of the bill. So I assume that that precedent will give me a bit of latitude as I address these issues. Of course, what Senator Lees has done this afternoon is graciously and kindly allowed us two hours in committee to debate this very important bill. She has taken up one-eighth of the time already. No doubt the Democrats this afternoon will line up to take up more time. That is, they come in here with a compact with the government, they gag the debate and then they come in and absorb the debate. They have a legal right to do that; they do not have a moral right to do that.I suggest that they get back on the chicken run right now and head out the door like they did this morning at 100 miles an hour every time a previous Democrat policy was put in the form of an amendment before this chamber and they were not here to vote against it. Some people have the courage when they reverse to back it up with a vote. All you people on the Democrats side did was make a bolt for the door so there would at least be no record in the Hansard or no photographic record that they were dudding their own membership on previously established views. But, as I say, having guillotined the debate—allowed two hours on this one and an hour on other ones—they come in here and absorb all the time. How generous of them.Part of it of course—not this time—is to ask dorothy dix questions across the chamber to dot i's and cross t's that were not dealt with during the deal negotiations so the minister can read out by rote the standard answers. They are basically saying, `The rest of you have no rights.' I can remember the Democrats objecting to guillotines on principle in the past—something I have never done. They were absolutely opposed to them, screaming that it was undemocratic. But the guillotine is in because they want the agony to stop, they want the criticism to stop and they want the scrutiny to stop. They think it will all go away. `Once you have done the deal on the environment, for heaven's sake vote on it that day, don't let anything interfere with that, don't let any phone calls come in.' We know they have always been a gullible party, and now the latest conspiracy theory is that any opposition coming from the Democrat rank and file has been organised by the Labor Party.AW5CARRSenator Carr—It is very flattering, but untrue.UI4Margetts, Sen DeeSenator ROBERT RAY—It is so flattering, when Senator Carr, Senator Conroy and I find it rather hard to organise our own rank and file, let alone the Democrats' rank and file. The Democrats' rank and file in Victoria is organised out of an office next door to Senator Allison's office. But I will not on this occasion go into the detail of how both offices are cross-funded—that can wait for an estimates committee in the future—but it is fascinating to know the interrelationship between the two. But we have this guillotine. We cannot seriously debate the bill, so you, Minister, can essentially relax. Two hours is not enough to explore the details of such a bill, and at the end of it all the amendments and requests will basically be put in toto and voted down on the numbers. I accept that, but it does not make for political debate that is at all rational.I said the other day that I hate the term `time management'. I do not hate the term `guillotine'. I acknowledge that on occasions they are necessary. If they are properly negotiated—which this last one was not, much to the humiliation of the government later in the day—they can be quite adequate. But here over the next two hours we are going to see the spectre of anything that was left out of the negotiations, anything that was not covered, going across in the old dorothy dixers and the minister reading out the answers—the Democrats off the hook. But, for heaven's sake, finish the debate as soon as you can. This is not a time for scrutiny. This is not a time for debate. This is not a time for the exposure of the Democrats. No wonder they have a leadership challenge coming up. It is like the good old days of Albania: we are going to have a leadership vote with only one candidate. I am at least willing to bet that Senator Lees will not get an Enver Hoxha vote of 99.99 per cent of the vote, because how they vote in the stages of the bill will be taken into account.Senator Lees said in her speech that the price of this will not go up and the price of that will not go up. What was the best way of measuring that? It was to have transparency in the system, to have the GST charge on the docket—with modern technology, not at all an expensive thing to do. If it was, we would not have supported it. You had the chance to show that bananas had gone down or some other food item had gone down or some other food item had gone up, but you refused to support that amendment.8U4LEESSenator Lees—You obviously don't shop very often or you would know the price of things.UI4Margetts, Sen DeeSenator ROBERT RAY—You did support it about two weeks ago. Have you forgotten that? Has amnesia hit?3M6MURRAYSenator Murray—We voted against it.UI4Margetts, Sen DeeSenator ROBERT RAY—Why, Senator Murray, do you not want the truth out there? Why do you not want the public to know what the GST is costing? Because all the public know at this stage is that GST is a core promise and compensation as reflected in this bill is a non-core promise. You can take that to the bank, Senator Murray. It will be a non-core promise, and it will be eroded over the years and be a defacto income redistribution mechanism. One of the great myths about the GST is that it is basically cost neutral, yet constantly the argument theoretically used for it is that it is going to be a growth tax. You cannot have it both ways. This affects the compensation. If it is a growth tax, it will basically affect the set compensation measures. This is how it has been sold to the states: the GST will be your future, you can get rid of all of your indirect taxes and you will have an ever-broadening tax base into the future, even if you leave it at 10 per cent.If that is the case, it means people are paying more taxes. If that is the case, where are the compensation measures in this bill that will match that taxation growth? They are simply not there; it is simply not guaranteed. The reason they are not guaranteed is that the Democrats in the negotiating fell for the hostage syndrome—once you got into the negotiations, you had to get a result, no matter what. I understand those internal dynamics but, in the end, you get a better result if you are good negotiators, if you do not have the Prime Minister playing you like the local trout in the pond, and that is exactly what happened. So out of it we got a very inadequate result.AW5CARRSenator Carr—That's an attack on trout.UI4Margetts, Sen DeeSenator ROBERT RAY—I forgot you are a fisherman, Senator Carr. I will try to think of another fish that would be more appropriate. The end result of all of this has seen the Democrats go back today and vote against their previously held views. They say, `Well, this is all in the art of compromise. We will compromise and will let the high rollers get away with it.' Remember what they said about this four weeks ago? They were hot to trot on the high rollers. Remenber Senator Woodley—Woodley the gagger; the one great principle he had retained was that he was not going to give in to the casinos. What do we now have?1X4WESTSenator West—The chicken walk.UI4Margetts, Sen DeeSenator ROBERT RAY—Thank you, Senator West. Out they go—run out the door, don't get photographed and don't get sprung. We will make sure you get sprung. I wish we did have this network of people that could put pressure on you because I would ring them up, but I do not know any of them. If I did, I would get them to campaign in the leadership ballot but I am sad to say—I do not know about Senator Newman—I do not think I know a Democrat in Victoria. But they do have a senator—one only. It is less likely that Senator Newman would know one because they do not have a Democrat in Tasmania.BE4NEWMANSenator Newman—We have that nice Robert Bell.UI4Margetts, Sen DeeSenator ROBERT RAY—He has left. I mean, you are looking at them losing their deposit—which I know shocks and horrifies the minister at the table, who occasionally drops into Tasmania, I understand—maybe that is why you do not know a Democrat down there. But this is not a matter that I want to pursue because at this stage we are looking at the behaviour of the minor party to my left. They could have negotiated—if they had had the due diligence, the skill, the experience and whatever else—a much better package than they eventually sold out on. But they did not and now they want the agony to end. Now they want a guillotine just to smash all of this through without proper scrutiny and debate.In addition to that, to aid that process, they then intervene in the debate. Having callously negotiated this guillotine, they then come in here and waste the time of the whole Senate. They should do the chicken run. They should disappear and leave it to us. Two hours on this particular bill—you could never get to taws on a bill of this complexity in two hours. All that does is please the Democrats, because the agony is over, and please the government, because they do not have to go through a complex debate in the committee stage of this bill, hence this thing.I know that occasionally some of my colleagues go too far. I really do object to Senator Faulkner describing Senator Lees as Madame Defarge—after all, Madame Defarge was a dreary, dull, colourless, embittered individual driven by an excessive sense of recently acquired power. How could he say that? Really! How could that description possibly fit? I am not going to go through the historical analogies that one could in these circumstances but we now have a position absolutely reflected in the clauses of this bill which will be, long-term, a non-core promise.Senator Lees quotes one set of modellers and other people quote other sets of modellers. I do not know which set of modellers is superior. I just go by this one point that the big selling point for John Howard to the states, including Labor premiers, was that this will be a growth tax. If you want to get up and say it is not going to be a growth tax, that it is going to be revenue neutral into the future, let us know, but that is the way they have sold it to them. If this is a growth tax, where does the growth go? It will not go to welfare. It will not be spent by states giving out compensation, so how do you adequately protect people here? In case anyone thinks I am a hypocrite on this, I opposed option C in 1985, and I opposed the GST.WH4McGAURANSenator McGauran—You are a great visionary.UI4Margetts, Sen DeeSenator ROBERT RAY—I might be right or I might be wrong, Senator, but at least I have been consistent on it. There are varying reasons, and even option C was barely a GST—you might recall, Senator McGauran. It had a lot of different aspects to it compared with a GST tax. But there will be winners and losers in this, and not everyone can be a winner. The real consideration here is: who will be the winners and who will be the losers? There are thousands of yards of modelling that suggest one alternative over another. My instinctive feeling is the losers will be those least able to protect themselves and that, in the end, they will be massively disadvantaged by this whole package of bills and this inadequate compensation bill.Any attempt to expose those weaknesses went down the drain the other day when the Democrats combined with the coalition and unmercifully guillotined through the environment bills and these bills. You get to a point where, with some of these bills, 100 amend ments were put at the one time. With respect to all those criticisms the Democrats used to make about procedure in the House of Representatives—and I have been present on many occasions when they have said, `It is not a house of review, it does not give serious consideration to legislation'—on this particular area, I never want to hear a pompous, unctuous speech from the Democrats again. I do not want to hear them moralising to us as they have in the 18 years that I have been here that they are in some way morally superior. If to the Democrats I am just a grubby, pragmatic apparatchik all I can say is, `Welcome to the club.' The only difference is that I am probably a professional one and you are amateurs.14:14:006521Lees, Sen MegSenator LEES8U4SAAD00—I think we have just heard the best possible reason why we time managed this debate.UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—You guillotined it.8U4Margetts, Sen DeeSenator LEES—Senator Ray comes in here and begs for time to discuss the bill and then abuses us for 15 minutes. Let us look at why the ALP is so upset about us discussing compensation in a tax package. Let us go back in history again. I would like to compare the compensation that we have won in this package with what Labor offered low income earners when it put up sales taxes in 1993. In 1993-94, sales taxes and excises were increased by $3 billion or 0.65 per cent of GDP. In 2000-01, sales taxes and excises will be increased by about the same percentage of GDP—0.65 per cent. In 1993-94, the ALP offered no compensation to social security beneficiaries other than the deferred indexing of pensions and allowances eight months after the tax changes. In 2000-01, as a result of the Democrats' changes, the government will be offering $3 billion of extra compensation in social security payments and $2.5 billion in extra family payments. Indeed, the modelling shows that all major beneficiary groups—those on the bottom two or three rungs of the ladder—will be massively overcompensated.I am sorry to see Senator Ray has left the chamber. He does not seem to want to listen to this. In 1993-94, the Labor Party was using all of the increase in sales taxes to pay for tax cuts. Who did the tax cuts go to? There were no tax cuts below $20,000. The maximum was for those above $50,000 a year. In 2001, all of the extra revenue from the GST effectively goes to social security payments, while two-thirds of the tax cuts are funded by base broadening—the $7.7 billion that we talked about before. Indeed, when you subtract all of the base broadening measures—the trusts, the savings rebate, FBT, crackdowns, business tax compliance, et cetera—these claw back most of the tax cuts for high income earners. Indeed, taxpayers on more than $100,000 a year will, on average, pay more tax under the new tax system than they do now. Labor never, ever managed to deliver tax cuts where two-thirds of them were paid for by base broadening. Not ever. No, their tax cuts were paid for by regressive sales tax increases. I am quite happy defending this deal as far as fairness is concerned. It is much fairer than any tax package Labor delivered in 13 years of government.14:17:006522Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—I am obliged to respond to some of the quite extraordinary statements that Senator Lees has made today. She asserts that this new package is going to produce substantial benefits for low income earners. She asserts that the Labor government was never able to match any of the payments that are going to be made, according to her, under the Meg Lees GST package. She asserts that the compensation package is now adequate. Having denounced it for months upon months, she goes into a private series of discussions with the Prime Minister and comes out converted. We have said before that there is nothing quite so zealous as the recently converted. The new tories are the Democrats. We see before us today a converted Democrat. Quite clearly we have a political party very much on the right of this government.What does ACOSS say? What do the welfare groups in this country say about this new Meg Lees GST—this new package of measures? They ask the simple questions: does it protect and improve the living standards of people on low incomes? Does it strengthen public revenues? Is it fair? Does it maintain and improve community access to essential health, education and social welfare services? They say no. This is ACOSS, the people that you have held up as the great paragons of virtue when it comes to the question of social policy in this country. They say that this package exposes those very persons to a higher risk of future social expenditure cuts. When Senator Lees discusses the question of the last Labor government's commitment to social wage policies, she should look at it in the context of actually what was done.My understanding is quite simple. There was about $96 a week in social wage payments transferred to ordinary working people in this country by the last Labor government. Since this tory government has been in power, we have seen education, child care, health—every possible area of social expenditure—slashed. This package exposes the poor and the needy of this country to the sorts of policies of this tory government. You are working hand-in-glove with this government to expose them for ever more to the ravages of the bean counters of Finance and Treasury—to the social expenditure cuts that inevitably come from governments such as this one.We are going to see community and charity organisations needing more and more, as this government seeks to withdraw from its responsibilities for servicing the people of this country. Those organisations are going to find that they are less able to meet the need to fill the gap resulting from this government's direct policies. This is particularly significant in this particular context today because it is the actions of this group of people at the end of the room—the Democrats—who, in league with this tory government, have sought to gag this parliament, preventing Labor senators in particular from exposing the fundamental inequities of this package.Has this position always been held by the Democrats? Clearly, the answer is no. As I say, there is nothing quite so zealous as those recently converted. For many years, we have been witness to the evangelistic high-mindedness and piety of the Democrats, the rectitude of the Democrats, when they lecture other political organisations of this country, in particular the Labor Party, for not being committed to social justice issues, for not being concerned about the environment and for not being concerned about meeting the needs of ordinary Australians. Now the truth is exposed. This unctuous, pretentious, sanctimonious attitude we have seen for so long has been completely exposed.As a result of the secret deals done behind closed doors, these Democrats are now demonstrating to the world that they are only too happy to accept the crumbs that fall from the rich man's table. That is all you have done. The fundamental questions remain the same. The basic issues remain the same as they were throughout the Senate inquiries, the process of investigation, in which the Democrats did participate until such time as they were duchessed by a conservative government desperate to secure the passage of this fundamentally flawed and inequitable package.What we have of course established, however, is that the normal processes which the Democrats would uphold have been torn aside, have been ripped up. For instance, in only March of this year—she said this on 31 March 1999—Senator Lees told us in a speech to this parliament:. . . that it was sometimes uncomfortable to stand between the Prime Minister, the Treasurer and absolute power, by dint of our position in this chamber.She found out how uncomfortable it was. She found out all right. In the previous year she had told us that this was a `thuggish' government. That is how she described them then. On 4 March 1998, on a matter of public interest with regard to the Howard government's commitment to parliamentary processes—or for what she said at that time was their lack of it—she said that there was a contempt for the parliament by this government. She said that this was a `bullying' Prime Minister. She said that this was a government that had sought to turn their intentions to attempt to pre-empt the decisions of the Senate.Of course, we are seeing just what that has all meant. As far as she is concerned, when it is issues of concern to the Democrats that have not been given a public hearing, there is no time like the present to discuss them. But when the issues are locked up in private session between the government and the Democrats then it is quite all right to pre-empt the decisions of the Senate. She went on to say on that occasion:It is no secret that this thuggish government—and I stress the word thuggish because that is what it is—has set its sights on the independence of the Senate, the body described by the former Auditor-General John Taylor as the last effective brake on executive government.Well, so much for those noble sentiments. She went on to say:This government has shown far greater contempt for this parliament than any government in memory. Democracy and the people of Australia are the losers if this government with its born-to-rule mentality succeeds in avoiding the checks and balances provided by the parliament. Australia will not be served by a parliament that cannot hold the government to account, that does not provide a balanced and fair forum for debate on day-to-day issues, that does not provide a pressure valve for the public to actually have a say to express its views on government proposals that are either plainly wrong or unpopular.It is quite apparent that those are sentiments which are now null and void. It is not a view that she currently holds because she is quite prepared to support the guillotine to prevent an examination of the issues which are quite fundamental to whether or not this is a fair compensation package for what everyone knows to be a very regressive tax which will inevitably hurt the poor, will inevitably hurt people on low incomes and will inevitably work to the disadvantage of people who can least defend themselves.That is why people look to this parliament—that is, to seek redress from the way in which our society works. It is the weak in our society who need this parliament the most. It is the weak in our society who look to politicians who claim to be interested in social justice issues to come into this parliament and put their views, to express their interests and to demonstrate a genuine commitment to equity. But what we have under this new government-Democrat alliance is that these principles will be closed down. There will not be debate. There will not be an opportunity to assess the validity of the claims made by the Leader of the Democrats when it comes to the issue of just how fair this package is.Might I say that this is a proposition that has clearly been assessed by ACOSS with regard to its concern that this package seeks to benefit those who are already wealthy. For instance, it says that the tax cuts are available for taxpayers under this proposal, but the predominant benefit will go to those who enjoy incomes of over $60,000 a year to the tune of some $62 per week, thus widening inequality. The ACOSS analysis, which I have before me, states:What it shows is that this government's ambitions to fund large income tax cuts from those on above average incomes is still not matched by an equally ambitious drive to close income tax loopholes and shelters. As a result, the tax cuts are not funded in an equitable and economically sustainable way.Could there be no clearer indication of this principle that ACOSS has argued here than what we have seen today with regard to the amendments moved by the Labor Party to stop the high rollers in our casinos enjoying the fruits of the largesse of the taxpayer? What did the Democrats do when it came to defending the Ron Walkers of this world? What did they do? As we have all said here today, they have engaged in the chicken walk. It is a bit of a waddle out the door, out the back, because you do not want to be seen for what you are—as apologists for the high rollers at Crown Casino.I am particularly concerned and very disappointed by Senator Allison in this regard. She has been one of the strongest critics of the iniquitous social policies that are inherently involved with the encouragement of the casinos, particularly Crown in Melbourne. We in Victoria are seeing just what sort of a damaging impact that that casino has had. What has she done today? She has, by her actions today, along with her colleagues, walked out that door and allowed that amendment to be defeated and, as a consequence, provided millions and millions of dollars to the very high rollers that she has, up until so recently, complained so bitterly about. In relation to what this has been demonstrated to be, ACOSS says, `On fairness grounds alone, the revised package is unacceptable in its present form.' I think that in this way we can clearly show that ACOSS, on this occasion, is right.However, I will not stick with that proposition. The Democrats have also demonstrated in the past a keen commitment to education. I am very disappointed that their actions in this debate have not reflected that past commitment. For instance, only last year the education minister said that the average family, under this government's proposals, would be some $40 to $50 a week better off. He said that the improvement in their benefits would come in very large measure as a result of the reduction in costs of schooling in particular.Senator Lees says to us today that there has been substantial modelling that demonstrates the correctness of her position. I ask: what modelling? What modelling has been done on the effect of increased prices for average families that will now have to be met as a result of this GST package? What modelling has been undertaken which demonstrates the proposition, whether it is incorrect, that we heard in evidence before the Senate education committee that average families would be in the order of $200 per child worse off under this government's policies? That is the equivalent of 50 per cent of the compensation package. Fifty per cent of the compensation would be eaten up in increased education costs alone—no other measures. You can go through the list if you like.Just think about what that means—increased costs in regard to uniforms, school camps, excursions, sports, textbooks, paper and photocopying, travelling to and from school, school photos, computer disks, materials for assignments, attendance at concerts or other entertainments by the school, elective subjects, general fees, various levies, contributions to PC associations, purchase of fundraising materials. All of these issues, according to the material put before the Senate committee, showed that there would be an increase of some $2,062 per annum in primary school and $3,103 per annum in secondary school for a child who wishes to have the opportunity to participate in an education setting. I am sure Senator Lees will get up and say, `Some of these issues have now been addressed in our negotiations. Some of these concerns have been met as a result of our discussions—our private, secret negotiations with little Johnny Howard.'10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Ferguson)—Order! Senator Carr, when you refer to the Prime Minister you will address him by his correct title.AW5Margetts, Sen DeeSenator CARR—The Prime Minister—10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—Order! Please withdraw what you said and replace it with the correct title.AW5Margetts, Sen DeeSenator CARR—As you wish. The private discussions between this right wing Democrats group, that is now in league with this government, are supposed to clear up whatever concerns we might have, because we will not find it in any of this legislation. If we were given the time to discuss it, we might establish precisely where it is, but on my perusal of this legislation we will not find it here. If there are any matters outstanding, the Prime Minister, in a letter to `Dear Meg' of 27 June, says that the government will write to the Commissioner of Taxation to seek a ruling on the definition of educational services that will be GST free. So we have to rely upon a wish and hope.This is an aspirational package—`We hope it will be all right because you will not find it in this legislation.' I say to you, Senator Lees: that is a very thin basis on which to discuss with your constituency, particularly those in education who have a very deep concern for the detail—they have a very grave interest in the impact of this proposal—the proposition that says, `It might be all right. We will just leave it up to the taxation commissioner to come up with a ruling that we hope in the future will be okay.' (Time expired)14:32:006525Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—When I hear this kind of outburst from Labor—7Y6CROSSINSenator Crossin—You don't like it, do you?3M6Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MURRAY—Who would like being abused?3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—You think that's abuse? You wait—10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Ferguson)—Senator Carr was heard in silence. I think Senator Murray could be accorded the same silence.3M6Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MURRAY—I will take the interjection. Senator Conroy indicated that Senator Carr is capable of much greater abuse. I accept that as a possibility. I must say that it was parliamentary abuse, not the worst kind. I do wonder what its source is. I do know that many Labor members and senators feel very strongly about the GST and are against it; others have a more moderate view and some are supporters of it. But the issue here is that of tactics. I wonder whether one of the reasons for the outrage, especially when you have a master tactician such as Senator Robert Ray come and talk to us, is that of tactics, because if the Labor Party had not taken so very long in the early debate they would have forced Senator Harradine to a decision earlier. We would not have been offered the opportunity to negotiate and this whole business would have been out of the way.The tactic or strategy of the Labor Party, having done the hard yards in the committee process—and Senator Cook and Senator Conroy really did do the hard yards in terms of the select committee, along with Senator Ferguson and, may I say, myself—was not to offer any improvements to the bills, not to support any improvements to the bills but simply to vote against the whole thing. The consequence of that is that we did not have the benefit, which we often do have, of the quality of Labor's researchers and senators providing appropriate amendments and assistance as to where we should go.The other aspect of all this in terms of tactics and strategies has been their emphasis continually on the undesirability of making food GST free and their constant comment—again repeated by Senator Robert Ray, which may not be the view of all Labor senators—on the disadvantages and the unattractiveness of making food GST free. In fact twice, although they have told us very clearly on the record it was for strategic reasons, they have voted to tax food.You cannot stand up and start talking at us about social compensation measures we have won and all the billions and billions of extra dollars that we have changed this package by for pensioners, for allowees and for the homeless, and then say at the same time, `But, by the way, we want to tax food and take away $3.6 billion worth of benefits which go, amongst other things, to low income people.' Twenty-four per cent of all food is consumed by low income people. Here we have the Labor Party accusing us of not providing sufficient improvements and increases on the social security side, and yet they have voted on the record twice for food to be taxed. The consequence of that is extraordinary because it indicates that they are perfectly willing to make a $3.6 billion hole in an advantage which all Australians get which they would not have had if we had not interceded in this.They have also made great play of ACOSS's appraisal and analysis of the package, and I think they are quite right to take the political opportunity that that offers them. However, we should examine exactly what ACOSS has said. ACOSS, in their summary produced on 24 June 1999, said:The modelling of the original and revised tax packages conducted by Professors Warren and Harding shows three things:First, the Government's original package would have left many low income households (especially pensioners) worse off and substantially increased inequality in Australia, notwithstanding the benefits in that package for many low income families with children.This was mainly due to the fact that consumption taxes (including a GST on food) would have been increased by $6 billion to fund unfair tax cuts that offered $86 per week to all tax-payers on $75,000 per annum or more.I should stop there and say that Ray Regan of the accountants association has issued a press release today which actually condemns us for taking away the benefits the rich were going to enjoy. It seems that the game here is to kick the Democrats from whichever side you are on. ACOSS went on and said:Second, the changes introduced by the Democrats significantly improve the bottom line for pensioners and low income families and significantly reduce the benefits of the package for high income earners. This is due to the exemption for basic foods—which Labor have voted to have taxed—and the reduction in tax cuts for those earning more than $60,000 per annum. These changes are a major step in the right direction.Then comes the qualification:However, more detailed analysis of the assumptions underpinning the research suggests that some low income groups (especially unemployed and low full-time wage earners without children) still face the risk of a decline in their living standards in the short term. In this context, the recent decision to increase Rent Assistance for social security recipients by 7% instead of 4% provides a welcome additional buffer of around $1pw for many unemployed singles and couples without children.That is an extra $33 million that the Democrats negotiated this week. They continue:Third, while these changes appear to protect the majority of low-income households from a fall in their living standards in the short term, the revised package is still likely to substantially increase inequality.We have to go to their reasons for saying so. They put their fundamental emphasis on the fact that the bank account debit tax has not been taken out of the package. That is the economic reason for saying so. We believe that the bank account debit tax, whilst it is an indirect tax—and all indirect taxes are regressive, as people in this chamber know, including the wholesale sales tax—is not regressive in the sense that ACOSS are saying it is.Secondly, if you look in the ACOSS package, under income tax base broadening they have left a hole. There are something like $7.7 billion worth of base broadening measures which have not been taken into account by ACOSS which have been announced by the government—that is, abolishing the savings rebate of $2 billion; closing FBT loopholes of $760 million; taxing trusts as companies, $760 million; company tax deferrals, $210 million; improved business tax compliance, $1.43 billion; and company tax payment arrangements, $2.6 billion. The reason they say they cannot take it into account would be the same reason that Labor would advance—that is, it is not yet law. Yes, that is so, it is not yet law, but it is proposed by the ANTS package to make it law.The question is: will that amount be adjusted? It is almost certain, through the process of politics and the Senate, that that $7.7 billion figure will be adjusted in some way. I know that Senator Conroy, for instance, is a strong advocate of trusts being taxed as companies. The fact is that the government has made a clear commitment for taxation in that area. Whether the National Party, in terms of its recent announcements, will adjust that or not we will have to see.We are not foolish in this area. We are aware that there are political pressures to change this. But anyone who thinks that the government will walk away from $7.7 billion worth of base broadening measures completely, or even in a majority way, I think is wrong. If you start to factor those kinds of things back into the package, you see that the package is very advantageous to Australians. The key issue is the bank account debits tax in ACOSS's mind. They say:This is mainly due to the way in which the exemption for basic foods is paid for, by maintaining regressive financial taxes such as Bank Account Debits Tax.You can use regressive, as I said, for any indirect tax. They go on:While the GST is less regressive with basic food exempted, consumption taxes still increase by $5 billion per annum and all tax-payers on more than $60,000 per annum still receive a tax cut of $62 per week.We know they wanted those tax cuts lowered. So did we, but we did not achieve that. Nevertheless, when we come to the next election, Labor is going to have to face up to how Australians will feel—RF4COOKSenator Cook—You're the one who is going to have to face them.3M6Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MURRAY—having been delivered $12 billion of tax cuts and having been delivered all the social security benefits that we have negotiated.RF4COOKSenator Cook—They will still hate the GST.3M6Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MURRAY—They do not in the 105 countries that have it, Senator Cook. Your proposition back to us is that we will be pinned with it, but we have taken the political judgment that we will not. Unless you devel op some kind of better tax policy than that you will go to the next election wanting to tax food, you are going to have a real difficulty.RF4COOKSenator Cook—Hang on! That's a misrepresentation, and you know it!3M6Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MURRAY—I know it is a misrepresentation because I wanted to provoke the answer. The reason I wanted to provoke the answer is the only thing on the record—unless you read Hansard very carefully on a question and answer session that I had with you, Senator Cook, and I had to drag it out of you—is that Labor voted twice to tax food.RF4COOKSenator Cook—That is not the only thing on the record. The thing is we tried to defeat the GST by doing that, and you know that.3M6Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MURRAY—I am sure you will have your turn, Senator Cook.RF4COOKSenator Cook—But you know that, don't you?3M6Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MURRAY—I do know that.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—Order! Senator Cook, you will have an opportunity later.RF4COOKSenator Cook—He has admitted the point, Mr Temporary Chairman.3M6Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MURRAY—I do know that, and let me make it very clear for the record that Senator Cook very clearly said it was a strategic method of voting and that he did not want food taxed. However, I have not seen that produced as a policy position by Labor. That is the point I am making.The point I am trying to make to you is that in this debate I do not know how much of your approach as a party—and I am not imputing motives to individual senators—is driven by your perception of the political damage you can do to us or to the government or the political advantage you can get for yourselves, as opposed to your genuine aversion to the GST.NB5CAMPBELLSenator George Campbell—We have been consistent. We voted against it in 1985, we voted in 1993 and we voted in 1996. How consistent do we have to be?3M6Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MURRAY—If you are to be consistent, my view is you would have a look at the compensation measures which we have delivered and you would say, `The following are good,' and tick them all off.NB5CAMPBELLSenator George Campbell—You have to acknowledge we have been consistent. We have consistently, at every election, opposed it.3M6Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MURRAY—I take the interjection. Labor have consistently opposed it—you have consistently said that. But, if I were dealing with a fair Labor Party, they would say, `These are the social security and compensation mechanisms you have done well with and which we agree with. We agree with you giving $15 million more to the homeless. We agree with you advancing rental assistance by an extra $33 million. We agree with the billions extra you have obtained for social security compensation allowees, but we don't think,' and then add whatever your negatives are. But all we get from Senator Ray or from Senator Carr is a bucketing about politics, about negotiating skills, about sell-out or about where our political offices are—all that irrelevant stuff. Get to the policy point, and the policy point is: what have we delivered and in what respects do you regard it as deficient? That is something we can react to. But the kind of stuff that was delivered by Senator Ray, for all his great talents—and I think they are great talents—is very unhelpful in a debate like this. We have put out clearly the benefits we have delivered, and the government have put out clearly the benefits we have delivered. Your job is to say what you like and then to criticise any deficiencies, not to come here and work away—Senator Cook interjecting—3M6Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MURRAY—Right now we are talking about increases in social security benefits and allowances, homeless allowances and advantages to the poor and the homeless. That is what is in this compensation package, and that is really what you should be—RF4COOKSenator Cook—You don't need compensation if you haven't got a GST.3M6Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MURRAY—And, by the way, I should remind Senator Carr that many, many VATs and GSTs were actually introduced by socialist governments. Supporting one does not make you right wing. (Time expired)14:48:006528Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY3L6VICALP00—I have to respond to some of Senator Murray's comments when he talked about our opposition to the GST. As Senator Murray acknowledged, he and I spent many months travelling the country debating this particular issue, and I would have hoped by the end of the debate that Senator Murray and other Democrats had come to a conclusion that the Labor Party were committed to defeating the GST because we believe it is unfair, because we do not believe you can make it fair and because, as ACOSS have said even about the revised package, at the heart of this GST is a transfer to people who are at the upper end of the scale.You have shaved $1 billion off the tax cuts to the top end of town. That still leaves $6 billion of tax cuts going to the top 20 per cent and $6 billion of tax cuts going to the bottom 80 per cent. You claim that it is a victory and a fairer package. Yes, it is fairer than it was but, as ACOSS have said, it is not fairer than the existing situation.Senator Harradine came to the conclusion that he could not support a tax package that transfers and widens the inequalities in this country. Yes, you can legitimately make the point that this is a fairer package than the original package, but the original package was an outrage. This is simply slightly better than an outrage. That is all you have got.When people criticise you for political negotiating, I think that is a legitimate point to make. You had the whip hand; the Prime Minister had to have an agreement. We have heard about him banging on the table at 4 Treasury Place late at night berating senators—as well as bringing out the chockie bikkies and the fine china—but at some point you have to stand up for your principles. The Democrats have expressed a lot of principle, according to the `new leader of the opposition', as the Bulletin describe her in an article, `The world according to Meg Lees', on 1 June.NB5CAMPBELLSenator George Campbell—We know who the acting leader of the Democrats is.3L6Margetts, Sen DeeSenator CONROY—I will come to that, Senator Campbell, because I want some clarification about where things are at with the caretaker Leader of the Democrats. Hopefully someone in the Democrats might be able to clarify the position for me. The article in the Bulletin says:Lees is about to make a lot of noise about the "silencing of Australia", as she sees it. And as each constituency is silenced or attacked, from the ABC to elderly pensioner groups to the Senate, she intends to speak even more loudly."This government wants a totalitarian regime" . . . She goes on to say:"They want winner-takes-all politics. This is why they get so upset with the Senate—they believe if they can just get the numbers in the Lower House, they have complete right not just to run the country in terms of monetary policy, but to stop all dissent, to actually push aside or eliminate from any public view all those who oppose them or in any way disagree with them. The pure economic rationalists are so wrapped up in their proper set of numbers and complete control of power . . . effectively silencing all their opposition."There are two points I would like to make out of that, and I am glad Senator Lees has returned. She talks about the economic rationalists. The Holy Grail to the economic rationalists is the GST. That is why it is compulsory for members of the European Union to have the GST. It does not matter what political persuasion you are in Europe, if you want to be part of the union you have to have a GST, a VAT.So to play games like arguing, `Well, all these socialist governments'—so-called—`introduced VATs, therefore you don't have to be right wing,' it was set by the conservative German bank in agreement with the conservative French Central Bank that those were the rules of the game. The conservatives set the rules of the game. It did not matter what political persuasion you were, you had to agree. We do not have to be part of the European Union. We do not have to kowtow to the German Central Bank or the French Central Bank or the conservatives who run the French and the German Central Banks.Senator Lees made the point about a totalitarian regime suppressing dissent. What is going on in the Democrats at the moment? What we are seeing is outrageous suppression. According to Democrat members, who are more and more vocally making the case, the party is being run by a bunch of staffers and the senators. Lyn Allison, whom I quoted yesterday, has made it perfectly clear and Senator Lees has made it perfectly clear that they cannot be expected to just respond to the members when they talk.8U4LEESSenator Lees—You should talk! When do your members ever get a vote to decide?3L6Margetts, Sen DeeSenator CONROY—The high moral ground—what is it like to be down with the ordinary folk? To make such a pretence for so many years—`We're special. We listen to our members.' Senator Lees, when are you going to give your deputy leader her staffing allocation back? When are you going to give it back?Senator Lees interjecting—3L6Margetts, Sen DeeSenator CONROY—Oh, she never had it in the first place; that is funny. Then why did she think she had it taken off her, as she said on the Sunday program? When are you going to give that staff position back? Now we have a motion from 100 Democrat members. I think it is an unusual rule, and it is not a rule that I would support being in the Labor Party, but it is a Democrat rule because it symbolises that connection between the party members and the parliamentary party, the accountability of the parliamentary party to the Democrat membership. What have we seen? We have a petition that called for a spill of the leadership. I read in the paper this morning that the Democrats' president has declared there is also a vacancy and a spill of the deputy leadership. I am asking myself, `What's going on?' There has been no petition collected about the deputy leadership, and we have the national president, who has declared—Senator George Campbell interjecting—10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Ferguson)—Order! Senator Conroy, I would remind you that we are debating government amendments and requests. I would ask you to draw your remarks, at least somewhat remotely, to the matter that is before the chair.3L6Margetts, Sen DeeSenator CONROY—Thank you, Mr Temporary Chairman.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—I have given you a fairly wide interpretation, Senator Conroy, but you have gone just a little bit too far.3L6Margetts, Sen DeeSenator CONROY—I appreciate that, but I am hoping that we will get some clarification at some stage today from somebody. I would just like to know who moved the spill on the deputy leader, because it seems to me that the only person who has moved the spill is the national president. The reason this is relevant to the debate, Mr Temporary Chairman—10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—I am listening with bated breath, Senator Conroy.3L6Margetts, Sen DeeSenator CONROY—is that the Democrats held a ballot of their membership about their tax policy and a single and multiple rate GST. The continual purporting that this tax package, these compensation measures, meets with the Democrats policy as balloted is not true. The Democrats over there know it is not true. This is not what was passed by your membership. What was passed by your membership is on the record, and this does not come close. So the Democrat policy on tax and the GST has been exposed.Then you go to the Warren-Harding piece in the Weekend Australian, which is so proudly quoted as proof that this package is fair and that there are no losers. Unfortunately, we now have Senator Lees having to grasp that claim—like the government—that there are no losers under the new, revised package. As John Hewson said, `It's just a Goebbels chant.' It is no more true today than it was when the government started running it around. It is a terrible disappointment to see those involved in the Democrats—the high moral ground politicians, those who are better than all the rest of us because they are just not into grubby politics; they are into principle and policy and those sorts of things—adopting a government tactic of a Goebbels mantra. That is what this is. I will go to some of the raw figures before I get to why it is a Goebbels chant. This is from George Megalogenis's article, which was on the front of the Warren-Harding analysis:Single workers earning up to $35,000 a year, dual-income families on up to $65,000 and pensioner couples with modest private incomes are the forgotten people of John Howard's tax reform.. . . . . . . . .In contrast, upper middle-income earners on $60,000 and single-income families on around $35,000 to $40,000 have replaced higher-income earners as the taxpayers who win the most out of the revised GST.Some of that is good. They have kept or become slightly improved on where they were. But we are still seeing a massive shift of the bulk of the tax cuts up the income scale. What happens to some of the other categories that the Democrats do not want to mention? If you go through the fine print, the detail, of the Warren-Harding analysis:Single workers on $15,000 to $35,000 a year will gain between 94c—no losers, 94c—and $5.22 a week out of the compromise tax package. But those on $50,000 to $90,000 will get between $30.79 and $39.38.I will just repeat that: 94c and $5.22 as compared with $30 and nearly $40. That is what this package does. That is why I oppose it and I am proud to oppose it. I will vote every single time to defeat it. This is a package that delivers to the rich; it does not deliver to the battlers. The article goes on to say:In percentage terms, this reflects a boost to disposable income of 0.3 to 1 per cent for the battlers, compared to 2.9 to 5.1 per cent for the well-off.That is the revised Democrat government package: Warren-Harding. That comes along with the following statistic:On the other hand, a dual-income couple on $45,000 with one child aged between 5 and 12 is only 0.1 per cent (39c) better off, exploding the myth of the family-friendly tax package.That is Mr Megalogenis, who is known to many in this chamber. He has been an avid supporter of the GST. He is not here to try and run the GST down; he has been an avid supporter of the GST. He has exposed your claim that nobody will be worse off.And why is even this not the true story? It is because, as has been debated at length, it relies on assumptions. A couple of the assumptions were mentioned as recently as yesterday—by who else but Ms Harding, on ABC Radio here in Canberra? When asked whether it seemed everybody was better off, Ms Harding said:There are a couple of important assumptions, as always for economists, that underlie the liftout in the Weekend Australian . One is that when we calculate how much extra tax you are going to pay we base it on average expenditure pattern for people like you. So there is always going to be some people who are above the average and some people who are below the average, just because they have different spending habits.So they have averaged the results. These are not real people; they have created averages. When the average gain for one income group is 39c, that means that some people may get 40c and some people may get 38c. What you have got is averages.I know that when the original Warren-Harding analysis was produced for the Senate inquiry, Senator Murray and Senator Lees could not believe that Warren and Harding did not break down the information, in the way that we wanted, that we paid them to produce. And they have done it again. They have not produced figures that are based on real people; they are actually based on averages. Averages can mean that maybe one person on that income is $1 better off and maybe someone else is $1 worse off. There are those terrible words, `worse off'. Warren and Harding have never hidden the fact that an average can disguise losers. Those were Ms Harding's exact words before the Senate inquiry: averages disguise losers.To put out press releases and claim that this revised package shows that there are no losers is a travesty of the truth. You can laugh, Senator Woodley, but you have got to look at yourself in the mirror each morning and sleep at night, because you are supporting a package that disguises the losers with averages. There are losers, and there are losers in vulnerable areas. You set yourself the challenge that you wanted to make people better off. Senator Murray said during the inquiry, `Why don't we have a system that sees the poor better off and people lifted up?' The figures in here are averages. There are losers in this package; not everybody in this package is a winner. But you have got the Goebbels chant down pat now, Senator Lees: no losers, no losers. John Hewson's statement applies as much to you as it applied to the government before the revised package. You can keep pretending, but you are going to have to sleep at night knowing that you have supported a tax package that increases money to the rich and makes other people worse off. (Time expired)15:03:006531Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—This is the filibuster you have when people are mad because they cannot filibuster forever. The people who have made themselves quite irrelevant in national debate generally, and particularly in tax reform, are now wanting to spend hours and hours of Senate time saying nothing much at all about tax reform—it is simply intimidation and abuse of fellow senators. To have odds and sods in the Labor opposition coming in here and trying to while away the time by talking about economic rationalism and talking about democracy in political parties just shows it up for what it is.The only virtue of Senator Conroy's contribution is that it was not delivered at the same level of decibels that we received from most of the other Labor senators. I think most of them have conducted their contributions at a level that is quite in excess of what is needed by the acoustics of the Senate. I heard Senator Crossin make a comment about Senator Carr's contribution. She said that he did not even get into first gear. I think the senators present would probably have a case for doing something about occupational health with the delivery volume that Senator Carr usually addresses us at. I think at least we could ask for his microphone to be turned off, because we can hear him all too well and he certainly does not need the assistance of a microphone. I think he must have spent a lifetime at strike rallies with a megaphone. He certainly does not need amplification in here.The sad thing is that this irrelevant opposition thinks it can try and make a case by shouting and by attempting to intimidate senators. Senator Lees and her colleagues do not deserve the treatment that has been meted out to them here today. People should understand it is not just what has been meted out today—this intimidation has been going on for days. I think it is quite disgraceful and certainly bears no resemblance to the Senate that I entered 13 years ago.4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—Come on! Shirley Walters has gone.BE4Margetts, Sen DeeSenator NEWMAN—You were frightened of Shirley Walters, were you?4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—No, but she was a pest. She drove everybody nuts, including you.BE4Margetts, Sen DeeSenator NEWMAN—She did not try to intimidate the government of the day. She was a very effective senator, but she did not try the intimidation and the bullyboy tactics that some of the senators opposite have been trying on other colleagues in this place. I think it would be really nice for them over the break to have a look in the mirror and see whether this is the sort of image they want to be portraying day after day to the Australian people. They are not only irrelevant but they are seen to be ugly and unnecessary in the political process. There is an awful lot of feedback from viewers who watch the television coverage of the Senate. People are turning off because of the behaviour of Labor senators.To summarise the performance we have seen this afternoon on this important piece of legislation, we have had rhetoric, we have had abuse and intimidation and we have had populism. Australia does not deserve that sort of an opposition; it deserves better. As long as the senators opposite continue to portray the Labor Party in that light, so they will stay in opposition.Senator Lees spoke about Labor's record back in the earlier part of this decade. I want to remind the chamber of the l-a-w tax cuts, the ones that Labor actually put into legislation and said were going to be delivered. They went to an election promising the Australian people that they would give l-a-w tax cuts. What happened? The people did not get the tax cuts. But Labor did more than that. They did not go to that election saying they were going to jack up the wholesale sales tax.Senator Schacht interjecting—10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator McKiernan)—Senator Schacht, I call you to order.BE4Margetts, Sen DeeSenator NEWMAN—Oh no, Labor came back into government after the election, dumped their promised l-a-w tax cuts and hiked up the wholesale sales tax. Was there a cent of compensation or concern for those on low incomes or social security payments then? Not at all, and that is what makes this debate this afternoon so absolutely sick. The track record of the ALP is so bad. They are not interested in tax reform for Australia for the next century but they were certainly into dudding the voters in the 1990s, and shame on them.One of the Labor senators said earlier that there are no real compensation or substantial benefits under the tax package for low income earners. I would point out that not only is there substantial compensation under the bill that we are discussing but there is the very fact that the GST revenue goes to the states, who are the service providers and are the first port of call for the people of Australia. It goes to where the people who are on the lowest incomes need public sector services. Services such as public hospitals, roads, public transport, welfare, aged care in the home, welfare care and policing—these are the things which people on low incomes need, things which currently are starved of funds because the states do not have a growth tax as they will get with a GST.Do not forget that one of the substantial benefits of these tax reforms is the melding together of the tax and social security systems so that poverty traps are diminished. Incentives for people on low incomes, particularly with children, to take up even low paid work are enhanced. That is very much an under-recognised benefit that comes out of this tax reform package. For people on low incomes with kids, I think the reduction from about 85.5 cents in the dollar, lost by a combination of increased taxation and a reduction in family payments, down to about 61 cents in the dollar is a considerable improvement on anything that the ALP were prepared to do for people on low incomes. So, once again, their rhetoric is transparent for what it is.Let me go briefly through the measures that are before us now in the government amendments. These are done by way of increases in payment rates, more generous income and assets test free areas and income test taper rates. These are all very important but of course the ALP wasted its time in this debate; it was not even prepared to look at those to see what they meant for people who were on low incomes. It is very important to raise the assets test free areas, to have more generous income test areas and to have more generous income test taper rates—graduated taper rates. It is true, and I welcome the fact, that after constructive discussions with the Australian Democrats we have decided to make a number of amendments to the bill.I would summarise them in this way. There is the increase in rent assistance of seven per cent. That means that changes are being made to the bill to increase the rate of rent assistance by seven per cent, instead of the current four per cent. To avoid double compensation, CPI increases that occur after 19 March 2001 will be adjusted until the real increase in rent assistance is five per cent. The adjustment of CPI increases for benefits and allowances—all benefits and allowances are increased by four per cent up front. To avoid double compensation and to ensure a two per cent real increase in maximum rates of assistance, the adjustment provisions—as they apply to social security and veterans benefits and allowances—will be modified so that CPI increases are adjusted from the first indexation day after 19 March 2001, and adjustment occurs until the overall increase in benefit and allowance rates is two per cent.There is a four per cent increase in pension rates and the introduction of a new pension supplement. As currently drafted, the bill provides for a four per cent increase in social security and veterans pensions. Under these amendments, instead of including the four per cent increase in the maximum basic rate, a new pension supplement is introduced. The rate of the pension supplement is set at four per cent of the maximum basic rate and after that is subject to CPI indexation in March and September each year. This is consistent with the indexation arrangements for maximum basic rates of pension. By keeping the maximum basic rate and four per cent pension supplement separate, pensioners are assured of a maximum basic rate of pension that is at least 25 per cent of male total average weekly earnings, and the additional pension supplement. The supplement is always in addition to the 25 per cent of MTAWE guarantee and ensures that pensioners receive a two per cent real increase in their pensions over and above whatever is the impact of the GST on prices, and that will be maintained forever.The bill also provides substantial relaxation of the income tests for pensions and allowances. There is a 2.5 per cent increase in the income and assets test free areas for all pensions and allowances and there is a reduction in the pension income test taper from 50 cents to 40 cents in the dollar. The 40 per cent taper will mean that over 50,000 aged people will become newly eligible for the age pension and the associated pensioner concession card. You just wonder how the diatribe that we have been listening to for the last hour and a half could possibly have anything to do with what is actually in this bill, which is beneficial to Australians, which is something which was never done to any degree at all by the previous government when they changed the tax system. They just simply hiked taxes up and gave no compensation.Senator Lees used dollars in her comments about the impact on pensioners of these changes. The advice that I have received is that, taking the rent assistance into account, the net cash gain for a single pensioner renting privately is $8.95 per fortnight or approximately $4.50 a week. The equivalent figure for a pensioner couple is a $15.70 increase per fortnight or approximately $7.85 a week. Compare that with the compensation provided by Labor when they welched on the l-a-w tax cuts and they hiked up the wholesale sales tax without a jot of compensation.I welcome the Democrats' recognition that this is a far fairer tax package than any produced by Labor in 13 years of government. I commend it to the Senate. It is what will be needed by Australia in the century ahead and is very good at protecting those who are most vulnerable, for whom my portfolio has a special interest. I only hope, when this legislation is passed with the support of the Democrats, that over the break the ALP will look seriously at itself.Australia does not deserve an opposition which plays the games you are playing, spending your time in the gutter, not working on policy matters. Being obstructive and intimidatory is not a reputation which any political party should be aiming for. I hope that people like Senator Cook and some of his other former ministers will think about their future in parliament. They are obviously restless and frustrated and can see themselves in opposition for many years. Maybe they should be looking for gainful employment somewhere else. I have heard some of my colleagues suggest some of the occupations that they might well be suited for, but I do not intend to produce them on the public record. Nevertheless, I wish them well in whatever career they chose and think they should be thinking about it very seriously over the break.15:16:006534Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—I wish not to comment on the restlessness or frustration of the opposition but to make a few general points in relation to the A New Tax System (Compensation Measures Legislation Amendment) Bill 1998 . I only half agree with the minister, that is, I believe the compensation measures do make the package fairer than the original package put by the government to the electorate, to the community and to our party for discussion. I commend the efforts of my leader and other senators in negotiating amendments that would improve this package, but I need to put on record my decision not to support the goods and services tax per se and the fact that on a number of occasions today I have exercised my right as an Australian Democrat to vote according to conscience. In some cases, that can mean disagreeing with and differing from the position of some of my colleagues.To take a point made by Senator Conroy, I believe that the Democrats are a better party, that we are a party based on principle. One of our fundamental principles is recognition of that right, indeed encouragement of that right. Where we may differ or disagree, we grant all our elected members of parliament the right to cross the floor or exercise a conscience vote, but we are bound by our constitution to explain to our members why we choose to exercise that right.I am also cognisant of claims and assessments that have been made by various organisations and lobby groups, including ACOSS, as to the fairness or otherwise of this package. I was very much an integral part of the Senate Committee on Employment, Workplace Relations, Small Business and Education. I participated in those committees and I signed off on a report which, among a number of its recommendations, concluded that books should be tax exempt. I was a signatory to that report in my own right as a Democrat and I was the person who signed that report. I put that on record as one of my many reasons earlier today—I do not seek to reflect on a vote of the Senate—for my not supporting a tax on books.All the Democrat senators support tax reform. However, we may differ in our preferred ideas as to how to achieve that. I know all of us support measures that we perceive are sustainable and equitable. I do not see a goods and services tax as a necessary or fundamental component of tax reform, whether it is being proposed by the Labor Party or by the Liberals. Certainly I acknowledge Senator Robert Ray's comments in relation to consistency. In this debate, I seek not only to stand up for what I believe in but also to be consistent. I believe I have been consistent, certainly in all the times I have run for election—in 1993 and in this last campaign—in relation to my views on this issue.One of my main concerns in relation to the bill before us and the ones we have dealt with and are yet to deal with has been the government's narrow focus in this taxation debate. The government has made two central claims throughout the debate. The first is that the current taxation system is broken and needs to be replaced. I believe there are fundamental difficulties with our taxation system, especially in relation to fairness and simplicity, but the system is not entirely broken. It continues to provide revenue which funds the diminishing services of government. However, areas such as health, unemployment benefits and higher education continue to be squeezed under this government. It is my belief that these particular services provide a way out for the most disadvantaged in our society. I certainly agree that a society must be measured by the treatment of its most vulnerable.The second claim is that the bills we have been dealing with, including the transitional provisions and compensation bills, constitute in themselves a complete tax reform package. I am disappointed that the government has not been willing to investigate taxation reform in what I consider a consultative, considered or comprehensive way. I am certainly concerned that business tax reform has been regarded almost as a postscript in this debate. Certainly as employment spokesperson—and this view is echoed by all the Australian Democrats—we are all disappointed that the issue of payroll tax was not dealt with.I do believe that we need taxation reform but I do not believe that the only guiding principle should be the adequacy of the revenue stream. It has been said that tax reform is one of the most important mechanisms of social justice available. With this view in mind, I state my belief that fairness is one of the most important principles which must guide taxation reform overall. I do not believe that this package will make the Australian taxation system fairer. We need to broaden the tax base and we need to bring about a better tax culture.On that point, I suggest that bringing about that culture will not be assisted by a tax on books. No matter what compensation packages we debate, I do not believe that that difficulty of taxing knowledge in the form of books will be alleviated. However, I do commend the work of Senators Lees and Allison in particular in working with the book and publishing industries to negotiate some form of compensation package. However, for me, the principle remains unchanged: a tax on books is a tax on knowledge. This is not simply a symbolic objection. It is also about the deleterious impact that this tax will have on the book industry, on jobs, local authors and Australian publications. Evidence to the Senate committee in which I was a participant demonstrated that this policy would have—H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—On a point of order: I think the honourable senator can make a contribution on this bill, but when you are considering the committee stage of a bill you do need to be addressing the bill that is before the chair. The bill that is being addressed now was voted on between 11 o'clock and 12.40 today. I think there are other honourable senators, including me, who want to make a contribution on this bill. If the senator is to make a contribution in the time remaining in the terms agreed by the Senate, she should be asked to address the matter before the chair at the moment.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator McKiernan)—I have listened to the debate prior to taking over the chair of the committee proceedings. I noticed that the debate had been wide ranging, including during the time I was in the chair controlling matters. However, I ask Senator Stott Despoja if she could make her comments relevant to the bill that is before us.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—I raise a further point of order. I do not know who was in the chair earlier—I know one of them—but I do not accept that because someone has said it has been a wide-ranging debate—3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—Are you dissenting?H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—No, I am raising a point of order.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—Order, Senator Campbell. I have made a ruling—and there is a provision in the standing orders for you to dispute that ruling—but I was referring to my presence in the chair when your colleague Senator Newman was speaking. In fact, she was addressing a bill that had been before the chamber many years ago, not just this morning. So that is the context in which I made the ruling. I have asked Senator Stott Despoja to address the contents of the bill that is before the chamber.3I6Margetts, Sen DeeSenator STOTT DESPOJA—Thank you, Mr Temporary Chairman, and thank you for your ruling. I think that anyone who has been participating in or listening to this debate would note that it has been fairly wide ranging. I have mentioned and did intend to address some of the compensation measures and my perception of their inadequacy but at the same time acknowledge their importance. I also intended to put on the record the rationale for my position. I will note that, although the guillotine was supported by the Australian Democrats and the government and I do not resile from that or pretend that was not the case, I do resent attempts by the Manager of Government Business to do what I perceive as gagging me, considering the fact that his colleagues and opposition senators have strayed much further in their comments during the debate today.I will not delay the Senate any further. I would be happy to incorporate my comments. I think it is very clear and has been made clear by our whip today that Senator Meg Lees is Leader of the Australian Democrats. While a leadership spill petition has been provided, those signatures have not been verified and I am looking into legal advice as to whether or I not my position has been spilled. That is in response to a question put to the chamber earlier today.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—On a point of order, Mr Temporary Chairman: you cannot raise internal party political matters in a debate on a compensation measures bill. You cannot raise these points. I absolutely accept the validity of your ruling in relation to relevance and how it has been handled this afternoon, but the senator who is now speaking has absolutely ignored that ruling, and I ask you to sit her down.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—I do believe Senator Stott Despoja has concluded her remarks. In that sense, there is no need for me to uphold the point of order, which I was going to do.15:26:006536Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—The government wish to speak further in this debate but, because of the gag they have applied to this chamber, there are only three minutes left. If the parliamentary secretary wishes to speak further, can I suggest that he and the Australian Democrats lift the gag so we can participate in this debate properly and fully—and so that you can say what you want to say, Senator Campbell. But while you put a gag on us—H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—It's not a gag; it's a guillotine. You should know that after all these years.RF4Margetts, Sen DeeSenator COOK—It's a gag. The bill before the chair is a bill about compensation for the GST. People might wonder why it is that we have taken the attitude we have. We have taken the attitude to this bill for the simple reason that if you do not have a GST you do not need to compensate for it. All of the measures that the minister is so proudly expounding as measures, supported by the Australian Democrats, are necessary because you are imposing a new 10 per cent GST on everything. That is why compensation is necessary. You will excuse us if we take the view: why would you need to compensate if you did not impose the tax? This government has not shown itself to be altruistic and concerned about the poor or the needy before and, by its own actions—and I exempt some honourable senators from this statement—nor have the Australian Democrats. Up until now, they have based themselves on what ACOSS have said. We had a speech from Senator Murray referring to the ACOSS press release. I remind the Senate of the oath of witnesses: you are supposed to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Senator Murray told the truth as far as some parts of this press statement are concerned but I point out, with the greatest respect, that he did not tell the whole truth. This statement says in its fourth paragraph:The Senate should not pass this package in its current form.Listening to what Senator Murray said you would have thought ACOSS were approving of this package. They are enjoining us to resist it. That and a number of other reasons are why the Labor Party is opposed to it. The St Vincent de Paul Society, who do know something about underprivileged people in Australia because they work with them, day in day out, ask us to oppose this package too. So let us cut this cant that the poor are getting a good deal here. The organisations that represent them do not believe so. They have said so in writing and have asked us to act to prevent these changes.I conclude by acknowledging that on a Friday afternoon you get some very good speeches in this chamber. Three Fridays ago, Senator Harradine stood up and condemned this package. He said, `I cannot' and decided he could not vote for it. We have just had a speech of conscience from Senator Natasha Stott Despoja saying that she will not support this legislation either, despite the fact that it has been worked out by her party. It was a statement of conscience, and I commend her for her moral courage in making it. I would suggest though that if other Democrats in this place have conscience they follow her lead and turn down this proposition that has been put on the table by the Prime Minister and Senator Lees.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—Order! It being 3.30 p.m., the time allocated for consideration of this bill has now expired. I put the question that the amendments and requests for amendments moved by Senator Newman be agreed to.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill, as amended, agreed to, with requests.Progress reported.Notices6537Senator Margetts to move, on the next day of sitting:That the following matter be referred to the Community Affairs References Committee for inquiry and report by the last day of sittings in 1999:The Australian complementary health industry and profession, with particular reference to:(a) the provision of professional training and preferred options for registration of practitioners;(b) the existing regulation of, and preferred options for national standards for regulation in: (i) complementary health care professionals, (ii) complementary health services to consumers, and (iii) complementary health products;(c) the extent to which consumers of complementary health care services: (i) are assured of freedom of choice, including choices between access to orthodox medical and health services and complementary services, and (ii) have, or should have, access to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, Medicare and private health insurance, in respect of complementary medicines and services; and(d) opportunities for co-operation between the providers of orthodox and complementary health care services and medicines.Adjournment653710000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! I propose the question:That the Senate do now adjourn.653715:31:006537McKiernan, Sen JamesSenator McKIERNAN1I4WAALP00—A short while ago my attention was drawn to a press statement issued by Pauline Hanson's One Nation. The press statement proves in the first instance that Ms Hanson is indeed a goose. She heads her press statement `Good for the goose—good for the gander'. I am not making the accusation that Ms Hanson is a goose merely because she misspells my name. I make the accusation to her because of the content of the press statement. She is indicating in the statement that there are a number of members of the Commonwealth parliament who hold dual citizenship and I, misspelt, am one of four named members of the parliament. The other people who were named were Peter Nugent, the Liberal Party member for Aston; Alex Somlyay, the Liberal member for Fairfax; and a Democrat senator for Western Australia, Andrew Murray. It goes on to say:Not only this four, but members of Greek descent, I have been told, because of the constitution of their homeland, cannot legally renounce citizenship . . . In my case, to the best of my memory, this matter was addressed way back in 1987, prior to the federal election, when a gentleman whom I believe to be named Mr Turner, who was a solicitor operating in Sydney—and who later became a Senate candidate, incidentally—got some publicity about the matter of dual nationality and the ability of those holding dual nationality to stand for membership of the Australian parliament. I recall getting my picture on the front page of the Sydney Morning Herald and thinking at that time that I had finally made a mark in public life. I have learned a lot since then.A number of members of the federal parliament at that time sought advice from the Attorney-General's Department and were given advice that perhaps, if we did hold dual nationality, we should take steps to relinquish the nationality of our birth. Certainly, in my case, I did. I believe that probably all did so; I do not know for certain. I know that one particular member at the time invited people like Mr Turner to challenge him in the High Court to show whether he had relinquished his citizenship. That was Mr Graeme Campbell, the former member for Kalgoorlie, who had been born in London. He is no longer a member of parliament. There was no action taken against Mr Campbell then, but a number of us did take measures at that time to relinquish the second nationality.We also had the matter addressed at a later time in 1988, when the nationality of a colleague in this place, Senator Woods, was addressed in the High Court, and Senator Woods lost his seat for the reason that he was not an Australian citizen. But the matter of dual nationality was indeed addressed.It was addressed again in the High Court case in 1992 of Sykes v. Cleary, when the then member for Wills was ruled ineligible to hold office because of another provision of the Constitution and two of the other candidates were ruled to be ineligible to be included in the count-back because of their holding a second nationality and not taking steps to relinquish that nationality.My party, the Australian Labor Party, took all these challenges very seriously. I known that personally, because each time in elections that I have participated in, either as a candidate or as a manager of some other function ary in the election, our attention has always been brought to the fact that this provision exists in the Australian Constitution and that we have to be aware of it at all times. To the best of my knowledge, in all of the campaigns in which I have been involved—and not only at a Commonwealth election but also at a state election and, indeed, in the state of Western Australia, at a local government election—the Australian citizenship provisions of the Constitution do indeed apply and the candidates are consciously aware of them.The fact of the High Court decision of the other day—when Mrs Hill, the senator-elect from Queensland, was ruled out because she was not smart enough to keep up with the public debate on these points—does not give Ms Hanson, goose that she is, the right to issue press statements such as the one she has issued today, `Good for the goose—good for the gander'. She is only proving to herself how out of step she is with public thought. She is also out of step with the laws of this country and the provisions of the parliament.The last Parliamentary Handbook issued covered the time when she was a member of parliament—albeit for a very brief period—and page 304 of that publication mentions overseas born senators and members as at 1 July 1996. This is a fairly profound publication, but it is not, I fear, an accurate publication because it mentions 11 senators who are reputed to have been born overseas but it does not include me. I think my accent from time to time betrays the fact that I was not born in Western Australia.ZS6QUIRKESenator Quirke—It is a New South Wales accent!1I4McKiernan, Sen JamesSenator McKIERNAN—Or in New South Wales, as Senator Quirke intermits. Actually, Senator Quirke, you have a strange accent as well. That is hardly a South Australian accent that I am hearing by way of interjection. I make the point that the 1996 Parliamentary Handbook of the Commonwealth of Australia , 27th edition, would have been issued to Ms Hanson as a member of the parliament. She would have had that in her possession. She would have known the individuals in the House of Representatives who were born in another place and who served with her at that time. I mention Abbott, Baldwin, Barresi, Beddall, Campbell, Charles, Evans, Fahey, Filing—and the list goes on. For the Senate there are 11 names, as I mentioned. She should have been aware of the debates that occurred around this issue. She certainly should have been aware of the requirements for election to office in the Commonwealth of Australia Parliament and she should not have been putting forward persons who were not eligible. She should not have been putting the Australian taxpayer to the expense of defending a High Court decision—UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—She took out citizenship just before the election.1I4McKiernan, Sen JamesSenator McKIERNAN—Senator Ray interjects by saying that Senator-elect Hill took out citizenship just before her election. She was obviously aware of some of the provisions of the Constitution. One would have thought that she would have found out all of the requirements, all of the necessities, to stand for public office, an office of high responsibility, as all of us in this place know. Not only do I resent the fact that she put out a press statement—proving once and for all that she is a goose—but I really resent the fact that she misspelt my name!653915:39:006539Eggleston, Sen AlanSenator EGGLESTON4L6WALP10—Today I would like to make a few observations about the fringe benefits tax and the devastating, if unintended, effects this tax has had on regional areas and on regional development, especially in the north of the country. By the north, I mean the north of Western Australia, the north of Queensland and the Northern Territory. I make these observations partly from my own personal experience of having lived in the Pilbara for 22 years and also from the conclusions drawn about FBT based on my observations of its application to the mining industry, the pastoral industry, local government and small business. I will also draw upon a report on the impact of the fringe benefits tax on the Pilbara region of Western Australia, prepared by BSD Consultants and others for the Pilbara Development Commission—the board of which I was formerly a member.The fringe benefits tax was introduced on 1 July 1986 and was designed to tax the non-monetary sectors of the `remuneration packages' that executives of big companies in places like Sydney and Melbourne received. Such benefits included houses in up-market suburbs, luxury cars, private school fees for children, holiday airfares and so on. Other countries such as the United States, Canada, New Zealand and South Africa also have fringe benefits taxes designed to minimise the distinctions between monetary and non-monetary remuneration for high paid metropolitan based executives or `fat cats', as they are colloquially known.In many of these countries it was recognised that the FBT could have unintended effects in regional areas and specific exemptions were provided so as not to hinder regional development. However, this has not been the case in Australia, and when the FBT was introduced it had an immediate deleterious impact on the towns of the Pilbara region. Until the mid-1980s, the great Pilbara iron ore and salt companies largely ran their operations locally with senior management, administrative and engineering staff on-site in the Pilbara towns where they lived and happily enjoyed the beautiful winter weather and relaxed lifestyle of the north-west. These families were high income earners and contributed to the local economy and community. To meet their personal needs, excellent educational, health and recreational services were provided and subcontractors established a multitude of businesses to service the needs of the mining industry.These developments had a very positive impact on regional development in the Pilbara with modern new towns being established for a population which grew from a few hundred in the early 1960s to around 55,000 by the mid-1970s. Those working directly for the mining industry—subcontractors and in support services for the population in the mining and port towns, such as school teachers, civil servants, employees of local government and so on—had for the most part their living conditions subsidised to compensate for living 1,000 miles north of Perth. For example, housing rentals were subsidised as was the cost of electricity for the airconditioning necessary to alleviate the summer heat. Meals for workers in messes at mines and railway yards and other workplaces were also subsidised and were either cheap or free. Many employees and their families were provided with an annual airfare to the city which was regarded as a necessity for people living in remote areas. While these subsidies were generous, they were necessary both to attract a work force and supporting services to what was then regarded as a very remote area and to ensure that a near average suburban life style was possible in these areas.But when the fringe benefits tax was introduced, all of these subsidies became taxable benefits. The impact on the Pilbara and other remote areas was both swift and devastating. To avoid FBT the big Pilbara mining companies quickly transferred management, and all senior staff not physically involved in the extraction and export of iron ore, to Perth. Many small businesses and subcontractors closed down because the tax on subsidised housing and airconditioning could not be afforded. Small mining operations and pastoralists were similarly affected, as tax was now payable on meals and housing provided to employees such as shearers. I personally witnessed these outcomes, which resulted in a significant loss of population in the mining and port towns of the Pilbara. As I learned when I attended North Australia Development Conferences, these adverse outcomes on regional development occurred across the whole of northern Australia and were directly attributable to the perhaps unintended impact of the fringe benefits tax and the fact that the Australian government had not provided any exemptions to support regional development—as had been done, for example, under the Canadian fringe benefits tax regime.While these adverse impacts were obvious to those who lived in the north and were concerned about regional development, it proved very difficult to make bureaucrats in Canberra, under various governments, understand the seriousness of the negative impact of the FBT, particularly on the mining and pastoral industries, which are both so vital to the Australian economy. The negative impact on regional development has been compounded by the mining industry turning to fly-in fly-out operations as a cost-cutting measure. Fly-in fly-out operations mean that, instead of building a town to service a mine site, a camp is constructed and the work force is flown in and out from the nearest capital city. Were the Pilbara mining industry to be set up today, there would be no new towns built like Newman, Tom Price, Paraburdoo, Pannawonica, Dampier, Karratha or Wickham.These subjective impressions of some of the negative impacts of the FBT on the Pilbara and, by implication, the whole of northern Australia have recently been confirmed by a study jointly undertaken for the Pilbara Development Commission by BSD Consultants, the Centre for Regional Economic Analysis of the University of Tasmania, and McKessor Tieleman and Co., chartered accountants. This report found that:the present system of FBT in Australia has had a significantly negative impact on the development of the Pilbara since the introduction of this tax in 1986. Economic modelling results indicate that without FBT (and assuming an increase in income tax to compensate for FBT) the gross output of the region would have been 3.4% higher than under the existing system, over 670 additional jobs (supporting 1400 residents) would have been created, an additional $14.5 million would have been invested and over $413 million in additional consumption expenditure would have been incurred. This is equivalent of an additional $50,000 for every retail establishment in the region. It is estimated that FBT cost business enterprises the equivalent of four jobs per establishment.In 1997, the Howard government exempted the pastoral industry from FBT on housing. In 1998, remote area housing for the mining industry was also exempted from FBT. However, small business, subcontractors and local government continue to be liable for FBT on benefits paid to employees—with significant adverse affects on their operations and on regional development in general.The thrust of my argument today is that, in the interests of promoting regional development, all industries in remote areas should be exempt from FBT on housing and services associated with housing such as electricity. The iniquitous impact of there not being an across-the-board exemption from FBT on housing for all industries in remote areas can be understood by a simple example. The subsidised housing provided to the employee of a large, wealthy mining company in Port Hedland or Karratha is fringe benefits tax exempt, while the housing provided to the employee of a small contractor to the large mining company is subject to FBT. The impact of this is to create a differential disadvantage for the small contractor, who not only has to bear the expense of providing subsidised housing and airconditioning to his employee but then has to pay tax on those subsidies, while the large mining operator is exempt from such taxes. I seek leave to incorporate the rest of this speech.Leave granted.The speech read as follows:This issue is addressed in the PDC report and I quote "At present non-mining enterprises have difficulty competing with the more wealthy mining companies to attract professional staff. Exempting only the mining companies will widen this disparity and will make it even more difficult for non-mining enterprises to attract and retain professional workers. On equity grounds it is important to at least level the playing field between mining and non-mining companies in the Pilbara". (53-54)Similarly local government has to offer subsidies including housing, electricity, a car and holiday airfares or their equivalent to attract employees to the towns in the North of WA. Local Government pays punitive levels of FBT. When I was Mayor of Port Hedland the Town Council paid $300,000 per year in FBT which could otherwise be used to provide community services or reduce the exceptionally high rates characteristic of towns in the North West.The PDC report of FBT addresses the question of FBT on income tax exempt organisations like Local Government and I quote: " The present FBT regime also treats income tax exempt organisations such as local governments and non profit organisations differently compared with income tax paying entities. The grossing up provision effectively doubles the FBT payable by income tax exempt organisations. Correcting these anomalies would benefit the Pilbara as they would reduce the FBT paid by local government and allow them to improve services and reduce rates. (54)In conclusion, I believe that the impression that the FBT has had a devastating impact on regional development has been confirmed by the PDC study. Further it seems obvious to me that Australia should follow the examples of Canada and other countries and provide exemptions from the FBT to support regional development and that specifically—exemptions from FBT should be provided in remote areas for all industries for housing and air conditioning subsidies and for the provision of other benefits necessary for employment.Finally I cannot overemphasise the importance of regional development.Behind the cities on the coasts of Australia is a vast hinterland from which most of the wealth of Australia is generated.Promoting regional development has long been part of the ethos of Australia and as things stand, the fringe benefits regime is hindering regional development and this must be changed.654115:49:006541Lundy, Sen KateSenator LUNDY7G6ACTALP00—I rise today to talk about the Uriarra settlement, a matter of genuine importance to the people of the ACT for a whole range of reasons. The ACT government is planning to resettle dozens of ACT families who have made a lifestyle choice and chosen to live at Uriarra, which is 30 kilometres from Canberra city. It wants to move these families into urban public housing because, it claims, the cost of providing basic infrastructure—in this case water—is too high. Let me outline the situation with respect to the Uriarra settlement.The forestry settlement was first established in 1928 as a tiny community established around the forestry workers cottages, a machinery depot and a primary school. For 50 years this settlement existed in virtual isolation, accessible by only one poorly maintained road. A sealed road was built only in 1978. By the early 1980s, the decline of the forestry industry meant that the workers cottages were no longer needed, and their management was transferred from ACT Forests to ACT Housing. Over the past two decades, ACT tenants have taken up residence at Uriarra and continued to build a small but thriving community life, with the Uriarra primary school a major part of their village style life.Despite the enormous amount of time, money and resources that community members have put into their village, ACT Housing have decided that the returns are too small and the maintenance costs are too high. Their solution is to stop non-essential maintenance and relocate the residents away from this rural environment. However, in doing so the ACT government refuses to understand or recognise the significant benefits that the entire ACT community can enjoy from the Uriarra settlement. In the first place, Uriarra is already quite self-sufficient, and its residents do more to alleviate the burden of providing government services than do most other communities: they treat their own sewage and water; they do most of their own maintenance; they work with local forest rangers; and they provide facilities and services to a range of quite interesting and innovative tourism events, such as the quite prestigious FAI Rally held in that vicinity.But, most importantly, the Uriarra community has established a bush school where students from Weston Primary School travel out to the community and join Uriarra children in learning about the environment, Aboriginal culture and flora and fauna. This wonderful initiative is fully supported by local rangers because it is one of the best ways to teach young children about how to enjoy our natural environment without damaging it or degrading it. The Uriarra settlement obviously provides a range of benefits for the whole community to enjoy. This is just one example of the benefits that exist.Now the people of that settlement want to establish an independent and secure future for themselves and their families. They are not asking for anything different or special, just the same treatment that every other resident enjoys. They have proposed that their settlement become a rural village based on private home ownership. We already have this village type arrangement in the ACT at Hall and Tharwa. Like Uriarra, these villages have maintained a historical and rural character. The residents recognise that continuing to provide services for public housing at Uriarra is not sustainable. That is why the existing tenants want to have first option to buy the cottages and then have any remaining properties opened to the general market. This approach would be consistent with the ACT government's plan to date, although a highly criticised plan, of selling off public housing stock.They also recognise that there is a limit to the number of families that this settlement can sustain, and so they are proposing that no more than 50 cottages be inhabited. This also means that there would be only minimum investment required to ensure the adequate provision of services such as water, sewerage, power and communications. In return for being provided with the same level of services that the rest of the ACT enjoys, the people of Uriarra have come up with a detailed proposal that they believe will provide many benefits and substantiate their claims of not being a burden on the ACT community. To quote from their proposal, which has been submitted to the ACT government, they plan to develop:. . . a more contributory role for the village within the ACT landscape and economy, focusing on the development of the long-term recreation and tourism potential of the Brindabellas and the north-west of the ACT.In conclusion, we have here in the ACT a proposal to develop a village environment that will financially contribute to the government through the sale of these cottages to the tenants. It will deliver alternative housing options. It will preserve part of the ACT's important heritage for future generations. I believe the ACT government is beholden to remove the blinkers they have been so willing to wear in relation to this issue and explore the possibilities that are contained within the submission prepared by the residents of the Uriarra settlement community.I believe the economic arguments are unsubstantiated at this stage. I have certainly written letters to the appropriate officers both within the ACT government and Actew, the electricity and water corporation servicing this area, asking them for their confirmation and substantiation of the costs that they have put forward to date. So far, I have not received a response. There is no explanation also or an early indication by Minister Stefaniak that in fact there was a great deal of interest and, indeed, sympathy for the plight of the Uriarra settlement. We have had no explanation of what seems to be a backflip with respect to his attitude.There is a point in time when governments must look at the opportunities, not the problems. In this case, rather than homogenise a community and move towards conformity as a mechanism to save money, to put the economic priority first, I think it is reflective of an example of governments having to try to look at what value is added in this proposal. It is not all take from this community. The services they provide back to Canberra and to children through the environmental programs that I have discussed are the sort of initiative that one would contemplate for a government grant. I know that it is exactly the type of initiative where people get together and say, `How can we actually support promoting our wonderful environment here and bring people into contact with it?' So I find it quite disturbing and quite ironic that here we have an initiative, which is in fact in practice, and examples of a very successful program in place, and yet it appears that the ACT government is determined to undermine it for the reasons I have outlined.The principle is one of taking a community's right to live in the lifestyle and manner they choose seriously but, in doing so, it is also recognising many of the benefits that that subsequently returns to the broader community. I have a huge amount of respect for the people of the Uriarra settlement in their diligence and commitment to working out a better future for themselves and their children. I look forward, hopefully, to a more positive response from the ACT government in the future.654315:58:006543Quirke, Sen JohnSenator QUIRKEZS6SAALP00—I do not want to take up too much time in what has been a very busy week, but the press release that Senator McKiernan spoke about earlier needs to have a few other remarks made about it. It is a press release from Pauline Hanson's One Nation called `Good for the goose—good for the gander'. In this she names—and spells the name wrong of at least one person—four persons for whom she says she is collecting enough money to take to the High Court so they cannot sit in this place. Looking at the list, at least in the case of good old Senator McKiernan, he has been here so long that he might not mind a break out of the place anyway. I really do not know what this person is on about.Until I saw Pauline Hanson, I thought the only people who simplistically knew how to run the world either cut your hair or drove you around in a taxi. I now know that they fry fish and chips. I do not want to be too hard on fish and chip shop owners because, when you get to my size, you have obviously been in a few. I have a few mates—who are usually Greek, by the way—who cheer me on in my political life because Greeks tend to be quite interested in politics. I wind up around at my local chippy every so often. My kids enjoy going there. They play the gaming machines. That is the way it goes. When I say `gaming machines', I mean those things you drive and put two bob in. Also I remember when growing up that my mother used the fish and chip shop not to buy fish and chips but for another purpose. The fish and chip shop owner was the local SP bookie as well, so they provided more services than one.I just thought I would educate Pauline Hanson a bit here this afternoon on how you actually get rid of dual citizenship. Through no accident of my own—my father had something to do with it and so did my mother—I was actually born in the United Kingdom. I came out here at the age of 8½—and I have been here ever since. I took out Australian citizenship on 9 May 1974. I found out because somebody put an FOI statement in about me some 12 months ago. I think I and a number of other members of this place were named in this FOI statement. They wanted to know whether I was an Australian citizen. I was quite happy to tell the department that I am proud of the fact that some 24 years ago I had taken out Australian citizenship. I did find it bizarre that I had to swear an oath to the Queen when I did it, but I will fix that problem—or at least do my part—on 6 November this year.Indeed, the whole business seems somewhat strange after the Cleary case and after all the other cases that have gone on that Ms Hill, whom I have never met and for whom I bear no malice, did not understand that there was a process for the renunciation of citizenship. Indeed, as I understand it, the High Court says that you have to take all steps possible to renounce that citizenship. In the case of the United Kingdom that was easy enough: you rang the British High Commission, they sent you a form, you filled it out in duplicate, you signed it before a JP and, at least when I did it, the fee was $126.50. I sent the money by bank cheque. It was receipted, sent back and some time thereafter—I think it took a few months—the British Home Office sent me a piece of paper saying that I would no longer be welcome on those shores, except as an alien, which really did not matter anyway because I had to queue up with the aliens with my Australian passport. So it did not make much difference.That process, as I understand it, for Greeks and Italians is a much more complex one because there is no formal procedure as there is for members who are born in the United Kingdom. I find it rather vindictive that this person, Pauline Hanson, says that she is going to try to do these four people she named in the High Court and presumably she has a fair bit of money—she is certainly awash with public funds, as I understand it, from a few elections around Australia—to do that. So I think you have to take these threats seriously. The other thing is that there are probably people out there who would send money to some person like this to achieve these sorts of goals but to actually drag people of Greek and Italian extraction into the High Court to try to tyrannise them because of an accident of where they were born I find is absolutely abhorrent and is probably one of the good reasons why sensible people would not vote for a crowd like this.I just want to make a couple of other remarks. I remember when I had been here for about four weeks and some friends of mine alerted the press that I may have dual nationality. This has actually happened to me twice in my life. I will not name the persons concerned. One of them rang me afterwards—he wanted help with preselection—and told me that he had spoken to the press only after the press had spoken to me. A reporter rang, having rung all my friends trying to find out where I was born, et cetera. I was curious as to why this reporter had such an interest in my past. I spoke to the reporter and asked, `What are you trying to say?' The reporter said, `You were born overseas. Have you taken all steps to renounce your British citizenship?'Obviously this person was well aware of the process that you have to make every endeavour you can to renounce foreign citizenship. I said, `In fact I do and, you know, I was waiting for this. I have been waiting for this for four weeks. I actually have a file here with a receipt on it for $126.50.' The person said to me, `Could you send me the receipt?' I said, `No. I'm saving it for when we go to court, because if you print it just make sure your lawns are kept neat and trim because I have an interest in your house.' The person said, `How does a person know that you have done this before you nominated for the Senate?' I said, `Well, that's another problem you've got, because the good cabinet of South Australia put me in this place.' She said, `What's the nomination procedure?' I said, `I suppose a nomination is when I physically sign a form saying, "I will accept the nomination of cabinet to the Australian Senate".' Indeed, when I supplied all the other documents saying everyone else was happy with me going to the Senate—not quite everyone but more than 51 per cent—then that probably would be the nomination procedure.The person was then silent at the other end of the phone. She said, `Did you renounce it before then?' I said, `Sadly for you, I did.' I never heard any more about it from this person. Of course I went through this procedure when I was a member of the South Australian parliament. I had my neighbours at that time doorknock to ask if I was a British citizen, which I found bizarre. They can ask my neighbours if I owned a dog, if the dog barked too much or if I watered my lawns or weeded the garden—and I will not tell the Senate one way or the other what sort of a gardener I am. I think most people who know me know what I am—I am dreadful. But, at the end of the day, it seemed to me bizarre.This has gone on long enough. I think to have ignorance like this and threats like this against people who really have no control over where they are born and who have endeavoured to do the right thing by the decisions of the High Court of Australia is—I would suggest at the very least—a waste of the court's time, a waste of public moneys, a waste of donated moneys, and it is probablya tyranny on people who do not necessarily agree with Ms Hanson and her crowd about how this world is run. I will look much more favourably at my hairdresser and my taxi drivers in future because I think they have a lot more sense than this fish and chip shop owner.Senate adjourned at 4.07 p.m.Answers to Questions on Notice6546The following answers to questions were circulated:6546(Question No. 981)9816546O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 12 May 1999:(1) Did the Government give a commitment to retired Australian National employees and spouses to provide them with concessional rail travel.(2) (a)When was this commitment given; and (b) by whom.(3) What has been the total concessional travel available to each retired employee and spouse each year.(4) How many retired employees and their spouses have used this entitlement since 1 November 1997.(5) What was the total cost of the provision of this concessional rail travel since 1 November 1997.(6) Has the Government decided to terminate this arrangement from 31 March 1999; if so, (a) what was the basis of that decision; and (b) who made the decision.6546Macdonald, 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) and (2) At no time did the Government give a commitment to retired Australian National employees and their spouses that it would continue to subsidise their interstate rail travel beyond 31 March 1999.(3) The annual concessional travel that was available to Gold Pass holders, retired employees and their spouses was as follows:Gold Pass Holders* Unlimited intersystem travel, with berths but excluding meals, and one free motorail per year. This provision applied to their spouses when travelling with or without the Gold Pass holder, and to their children, if the child was travelling in lieu of their spouse.Retired Employees* Two first class return journeys, excluding berths and meals, between any two Australian National stations except those located on the Trans Australian and Central Australian Railway for themselves and their partner;* One return journey on either the Trans Australian or Central Australian Railway;* 12 privilege tickets between any two stations on Australian National lines south and east of Coonamia;* A 50% concession on the rail component of intersystem travel for employees with 30 years or more of service.Spouse of Deceased Employee or Deceased Retired Employee* One free journey, excluding berths and meals, between any two Australian National stations per year;* Six privilege tickets per year for concession of 75% off travel on AN lines;* 50% concession on the rail component of intersystem travel where the employee had served 30 years or more.(4) During the period 1 November 1997 to 31 March 1999 239 concessional rail vouchers were issued to retired employees and their spouses, Gold Pass holders and spouses of deceased employees.(5) It is not yet possible to state what the total cost to the taxpayer of providing this subsidy has been for the period 1 November 1997 to 31 March 1999, as the Commonwealth is still receiving and processing payments to Great Southern Railway. Payments made to date for this concession total $85,500, however, this figure does not include the cost of administering the subsidy.(6) Yes;(a) The Government's decision to phase-out concessions for retired Australian National employees was based on legal advice received from the Australian Government Solicitor that Gold Pass holders, retired employees and spouses have no legal entitlement to these concessions.(b) The Minister.6546(Question No. 995)9956546O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 20 May 1999:Has Mr Geoffrey Robertson QC been engaged as a consultant by the Minister or the department since March 1996; if so:(1) (a) What was the nature of the work Mr Robertson undertook; (b) when was he engaged; (c) when was the work completed; (d) what was the nature of the work; and (e) what was the cost of consultancy.(2) Was the contract the subject of a tender process; if not, why not.(3) Did the final cost vary from the contracted price; if so: (a) what was the magnitude of the cost variation; and (b) what was the cause of the variation.(4) Have other consultants been engaged to undertake work associated with the Robertson consultancy; if so: (a) who were those consultants; (b) when were they engaged; (c) when was the work completed; (d) what was the nature of the work undertaken by them; and (e) what was the cost of each consultancy.(5) Did the final cost vary from the contracted price for any of the above consultancies; if so: (a) what was the magnitude of the cost variation; and (b) what was the cause of the variation.(6) Was each contract the subject of a tender process; it not, why not.6547Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NewmanBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:No.6547(Question No. 724)7246547Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator Faulkner5K4NSWALP00 asked the ministers listed below, upon notice, on 11 May 1999:Minister representing the Prime Minister; Minister representing the Minister for Trade; Minister representing the Treasurer; Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Services; Minister for the Environment and Heritage; Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts; Minister representing the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business; Minister for Family and Community Services; Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs; Minister representing the Minister for Defence; Minister representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care; Minister representing the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs; Minister for Industry, Science and Resources; Minister representing the Attorney-General; Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry; Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs; Minister representing the Minister for Veterans' Affairs; and the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs.Question Nos 724-741How many requests for disclosure of information under the Freedom of Information Act has the department, or any agency in the portfolio, received since 3 March 1996.Question Nos 742-759(a) How many requests for disclosure of information under the Freedom of Information Act were received by the department, or any agency in the portfolio, in each month since March 1996; and (b) how many of the requests received in each of those months: (i) have been finalised, or (ii) are yet to be finalised.Question Nos 760-777Of the requests for disclosure of information under the Freedom of Information Act dealt with by the department, or any agency in the portfolio, since 3 March 1996, how many of those requests related to documents held by: (a) the department; (b) another department; (c) a minister's office; or (d) a combination of these.Question Nos 778-795(1) Of the requests for disclosure of information under the Freedom of Information Act dealt with by the department, or any agency in the portfolio, since 3 March 1996, how many of those requests have resulted in: (a) documents being released in full; (b) documents being released in part; and (c) access being denied.(2) Of the cases where exemptions have been claimed for all or part of documents, how many claims have been made against each of the statutory exemptions contained in the Act.Question Nos 796-813(1) Of the requests for disclosure of information under the Freedom of Information Act dealt with at initial decision-maker stage by the department, or any agency in the portfolio, since 3 March 1996, in how many cases: (a) were full charges waived; (b) were charges partially waived; (c) was a charges waiver sought but not granted; or (d) was a charges waiver not sought.(2) Of the cases under (b) or (c) in (1), how many applicants had sought waiver of fees on: (a) financial hardship grounds; (b) public interest grounds; or (c) both grounds.(3) Of the cases under (b) or (c) in (1), how many applicants sought internal review in regard to the decision on charges; and in relation to that review how many applicants were: (a) fully successful; (b) partially successful; or (c) not successful. (4) Of the cases under (3)(b) and (c), how many applicants have received access to the information/documents which were the subject of the application.Question Nos 814-831(1) Of the requests for disclosure of information under the Freedom of Information Act dealt with by the department, or any agency in the portfolio, since 3 March 1996, how many cases have been referred to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) for review of departmental decisions.(2) Of those cases referred to the AAT, how many related to decisions regarding: (a) access; (b) deletions; (c) charges; or (d) other, please specify.(3) What was the result in each of these cases.Question Nos 832-849(1) What are the: (a) formal qualifications; and (b) relevant experience, of each departmental officer who has made initial stage decisions regarding requests under the Freedom of Information Act, since 3 March 1996.(2) What are the: (a) formal qualifications; and (b) relevant experience, of each departmental officer who has made internal review decisions regarding requests under the Freedom of Information Act since, 3 March 1996.Question Nos 850-851 and 853-867(1) How many internal staff development courses has the department, or any agency in the portfolio, conducted since 3 March 1996.(2) What is the cost of internal staff development courses the department, or any agency in the portfolio, has conducted since 3 March 1996.(3) How many staff have attended internal staff development courses the department, or any agency in the portfolio, has conducted since 3 March 1996.(4) (a) How many internal staff development courses conducted by the department, or any agency in the portfolio, since 3 March 1996 have contained training on making decisions under the Freedom of Information Act; and (b) of this number, how many: (i) were specifically focusing on the subject of freedom of information decisions, and (ii) how many dealt with the issue amongst others.(5) What is the total cost of the courses in (4).Question Nos 868-869 and 871-884(1) How many departmental officers have attended external staff development courses since 3 March 1996.(2) What is the total cost of the external staff development courses attended by the officers of the department, or any agency in the portfolio, since 3 March 1996. (3) (a) How many external staff development courses attended by departmental or agency staff since 3 March 1996, have contained training on making decisions under the Freedom of Information Act; and (b) of this number, how many: (i) were specifically focusing on the subject of freedom of information decisions, and (ii) how many dealt with the issue amongst others.(4) Of the courses relevant to (3), which agencies or consultants provided that training.(5) What is the total cost of the courses in (3).Question Nos 886-903Of the requests for disclosure of information under the Freedom of Information Act dealt with by the department, or any agency in the portfolio, since 3 March 1996, how many cases have been referred, or been the subject of a request for advice, to the following agencies regarding the Government's policy on disclosure of information under the Act: (a) the Prime Minister, or his office; (b) the Attorney-General, or his office; (c) any other minister, or his/her office, please specify; (d) the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet; (e) the Attorney-General's Department; or (f) any other department or agency, please specify.Question Nos 904-921(1) Of the requests for disclosure of information under the Freedom of Information Act dealt with by the department, or any agency in the portfolio, since 3 March 1996, how many cases have been dealt with at the initial decision-making stage: (a) within 0-30 days; (b) within 30-45 days; (c) within 45-60 days; (d) within 60-75 days; (e) within 75-90 days; and (f) in more than 90 days.(2) What is the average time taken at the initial decision-making stage to deal with the requests for disclosure of information under the Freedom of Information Act dealt with by the department, or any agency in the portfolio, since 3 March 1996.Question Nos 922-939(1) Of the requests for disclosure of information under the Freedom of Information Act dealt with by the department, or any agency in the portfolio, since 3 March 1996, and on which internal review has been sought, how many cases have been dealt with at the internal review stage: (a) within 0-30 days; (b) within 30-45 days; (c) within 45-60 days; (d) within 60-75 days; (e) within 75-90 days; and (f) in more than 90 days.(2) What is the average time taken at the internal review stage to deal with the requests for disclosure of information under the Freedom of Information Act dealt with by the department, or any agency in the portfolio, since 3 March 1996. Question Nos 940-957(1) Of the requests for disclosure of information under the Freedom of Information Act dealt with by the department, or any agency in the portfolio, since 3 March 1996, how many requests have been made by: (a) a member of the House of Representatives; or (b) a member of the Senate.(2) Of the cases relevant to (a) and (b) in (1), how many requests regarding access were: (i) partially successful; or (ii) refused.(3) Of the cases relevant to (a) and (b) in (1), how many requests regarding charges were: (i) partially successful; or (ii) refused.(4) Of the cases relevant to (2) and (3), how many of the department's or agency's written reasons for decision used, as grounds for refusal under the Act, a reference to members of Parliament having access to parliamentary processes to seek information from departments.(5) Is the department, or any agency in the portfolio, aware of any provision contained in legislation, or departmental guidelines, or practice where the applicant's employment provision can be, or has been, used as grounds for refusing access to documents and/or refusing to waive charges, other than that set out in (4).Question Nos 958-975Of the requests for disclosure of information under the Freedom of Information Act dealt with by the department, or any agency in the portfolio, since 3 March 1996, how many cases have resulted in: (a) third party consultation; or (b) reverse freedom of information action.6549Hill, Sen RobertSenator HillBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—The Prime Minister has provided the following answer, on behalf of those ministers, to the honourable senator's questions:I am advised that the sum of the resources required to answer these questions in their entirety across portfolios would represent an unwarranted diversion of the resources of departments and agencies, particularly those with very high Freedom of Information caseloads. Much of the information sought, however, is available publicly.The Attorney-General tables annual reports on the operation of the Freedom of Information Act, and these contain specific information on:. the numbers of requests received by individual agencies;. the numbers of requests finalised;. whether access has been granted in full or in part;. response times;. amounts of fees and charges collected; . requests for internal review and their results; and. applications to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and their results.If the honourable senator wishes to know details of an agency's performance in particular cases, specific questions will be examined to see if that information can be provided.6549(Question No. 612)6126549Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator Faulkner5K4NSWALP00 asked the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, upon notice, on 23 March 1999:(1) Has the Minister, his office, his Parliamentary Secretary, the Parliamentary Secretary's office, or any senior executive service level officer in his department or any agency in his portfolio, been approached by either Mr Mark Textor, or any other person representing Australasian Research Strategies Pty Ltd regarding to the proposal by Pangea Resources Pty Ltd/British Nuclear Fuels Limited (Pangea/BNFL) to store nuclear waste in Australia; if so, what are the circumstances of the approach.(2) In any direct approach from Pangea/BNFL, or anyone acting on behalf of Pangea/BNFL, regarding this matter has any research or polling material undertaken by Mr Textor, or Australasian Research Strategies, been provided to the Minister, his office, his Parliamentary Secretary, the Parliamentary Secretary's office, or any senior executive service level officer in his department or any agency in his portfolio; if so: (a) what was the nature of the research; and (b) what was the conclusion drawn from the research.6549Hill, Sen RobertSenator HillBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:(1) No. (On the basis of my own knowledge and the advice of others.)(2) Not applicable.6549(Question No. 626)6266549Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BolkusXE4SAALP00 asked the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, upon notice, on 25 March 1999:Has any minister who has held office since 3 March 1996, or member of their staff, had meetings with representatives of Pangea Resources Australia Pty Ltd.6550Hill, Sen RobertSenator HillBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:I refer the honourable senator to the statement to the Senate by Senator Minchin on 24 March 1999 (Hansard pg 3069) relating to meetings between Ministers and representatives of Pangea.I am unable to determine whether there has been a meeting between a ministerial staff member and a representative of Pangea since March 1996. I reaffirm that the government has no intention of considering Pangea's proposal to store high level nuclear waste in Australia.6550(Question No. 710)7106550Brown, Sen BobSenator BrownQD4TASAG00 asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 28 April 1999:With reference to the answer to question on notice No. 623 (Hansard, 11 May 1999, page 4800), in which it was stated that Victoria's ecologically-sustainable forest management systems and processes were accredited as satisfactory on the basis of the `Victorian Statewide Assessment of Ecologically Sustainable Forest Management':(1) Is it correct that this assessment: (a) adopted a `systems' approach rather than seeking to catalogue specific on-ground practices; and (b) analysed the overall management system and the process elements because there are no established performance indicators or benchmarks for ecologically-sustainable forest management.(2) Is it correct that this assessment fails to analyse whether the actual level of logging is consistent with the legislated maximum sustainable yield.(3) Was there any attempt at all to assess the performance of Victoria in providing for ecologically-sustainable forest management.(4) Does the Minister agree that compliance with the law is a fundamental and essential measure of whether a system or process is satisfactory.(5) Why were Victoria's systems and processes for ecologically-sustainable forest management accredited without checking that existing laws had been complied with.6550Hill, Sen RobertSenator HillBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—The Prime Minister has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) (a) Yes.(b) I am advised that appropriate regional indicators were unavailable when the method for assessing ecological sustainable forest management (ESFM) was developed. Since then Commonwealth, State and Territory governments have been working to implement the Montreal Process criteria and indicators. Victoria has agreed to report on a range of indicators including the extent of forest types, the status of forest species at risk, the annual harvest compared to sustainable yield and institutional capacity.(2) I am advised the Statewide assessment of ecologically sustainable forest management included an assessment of the process for calculating and achieving sustainable yield. Both the figures for the legislated sustainable yield and the annual harvest are publicly available.(3) Yes, ESFM was assessed first in East Gippsland and then statewide.(4) I believe that all individuals and organisations should comply with the law. It is a separate matter for the responsible regulatory agencies and the courts to decide whether or not individuals or organisations have broken the law.(5) I am advised that the independent assessment of ESFM showed that the Victorian system has all the major management elements in place. In particular, the assessment found that the legislation and policies generally ensure that all the principles of ESFM are met, that control of forest operations are transparent and accountable and that the Victorian auditing procedures are effective.6550(Question No. 715)7156550Brown, Sen BobSenator BrownQD4TASAG00 asked the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, upon notice, on 3 May 1999:With reference to the greenhouse gas inventory and the national carbon accounting system (NCAS):(1) (a) What is the rationale for the expansion factor of 1.9 times the carbon content of the merchantable wood, used to estimate greenhouse gas emissions from logging native forests; and (b) is the same figure used for plantations.(2) Is the same expansion factor used to calculate sequestration rates for greenhouse gases in regrowth forests and plantations; if not, what factor is used and why.(3) Is the expansion factor for emissions intended to include below-ground carbon in roots and soil, as well as above-ground biomass.(4) (a) What projects are being funded through the NCAS or elsewhere to improve estimates of greenhouse gas emissions from below-ground sources when native forests are logged; and (b) for each project can the following information be provided: (i) the title, (ii) the aim, (iii) the amount allocated, and (iv) the individual or organisation carrying out the work.(5) (a) What projects are being funded through the NCAS or elsewhere to improve estimates of greenhouse gas emissions from above-ground sources (including merchantable wood) when native forests are logged; and (b) for each project can the following information be provided: (i) the title, (ii) the aim, (iii) the amount allocated, and (iv) the individual or organisation carrying out the work.(6) Does the Minister think it likely that the relationship between merchantable timber volume and greenhouse gas emissions is the same for previously unlogged old-growth forests as for plantations; if so, why; if not, does the Minister agree that greenhouse gas emissions relative to merchantable timber volumes are likely to be greater for previously unlogged forests than for plantations.6551Hill, Sen RobertSenator HillBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:(1) The expansion factor of 1.9 from roundwood volume to total above-ground biomass is an Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change1 (IPCC) standard value which has been adopted for both native and plantation forests in Australia for the National Greenhouse Gas Inventory. This expansion factor is drawn from Brown et. al. (1989)2. Although reported for tropical forests, the Guidelines note that ". . . the values are in the range of those reported by the ECE/FAO (1992)3 for temperate forests."The Guidelines also note that countries should try to develop expansion factors applicable to their own forests. Development work in this area is currently being undertaken as a part of the National Carbon Accounting System (NCAS).(2) The same expansion factor (1.9) is used for regrowth in plantations and native forests.(3) The expansion factor is used to calculate above-ground biomass only.(4) Current studies funded by the Australian Greenhouse Office to look at below-ground sources of greenhouse gas emissions when forests are harvested include:Title: Allometrics Equations for the NT, WA and QueenslandAim: To consider biomass allocation within plantsAllocation: $46,000*Organisation: Northern Territory UniversityTitle: Allometric Equations for NSW, SA, Tasmania, ACT and VictoriaAim: To consider biomass allocation within plants Allocation: $35,000*Organisation: CSIROTitle: Root Carbon ContentAim: To analyse the carbon contents of a variety of root materialsAllocation: $13,000Organisation: CSIROTitle: Rate of Decay of Root MaterialAim: To test the IPCC 10 year default for the decay of root materialAllocation: $36,475*Organisation: Australian National University* These projects are also reported under 5.(5) Current studies funded by the NCAS to look at above-ground sources of greenhouse gas emissions when forests are harvested include:Title: Life Cycle of Wood ProductsAim: To review methods for analysing the size and change in the national pool of wood product, mill recovery rates and the life cycle of various product typesAllocation: $45,000Organisation: Jaakko PoyryTitle: Allometrics Equations for the NT, WA and QueenslandAim: To consider biomass allocation within plantsAllocation: $46,000Organisation: Northern Territory UniversityTitle: Allometric Equations for NSW, SA, Tasmania, ACT and VictoriaAim: To consider biomass allocation within plantsAllocation: $35,000Organisation: CSIROTitle: Decay of Coarse LitterAim: To investigate the decay of necromassAllocation: $36,475Organisation: Australian National UniversityTitle: Biomass Estimation MethodsAim: To consider various methods for estimation of standing stock and growth in biomass.Allocation: $111,260Organisation: Australian National UniversityThese are the relevant studies being undertaken by the Australian Greenhouse Office under the NCAS program. These projects draw on preliminary work undertaken by the Bureau of Resource Sciences, CSIRO, state governments and a number of academic and research institutions, and private industry groups.(6) The NCAS program was established by the Government to provide answers to a number of questions regarding land based emissions of greenhouse gases, including whether greenhouse gas emissions from the harvesting of forest vary between different vegetation types. In recognition of the significant gap in the current scientific data and models that underpin the NCAS, the Government has also recently established a CRC for Terrestrial Carbon Accounting.The current NCAS projects will provide agreed methods, to be applied over the next two years under the NCAS program. This work will lead to a significant improvement in the available information base, allowing the level of greenhouse gas emitted by harvest of old-growth forests, plantations and other vegetation types to be differentiated. Any determination of the relative contribution of greenhouse gases from harvesting of old-growth forest as opposed to plantations would be speculative at this stage.Citations(1) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Revised 1996 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories: Reference Manual Chapter 5, Land Use Change and Forestry.(2) Brown, S; Gillespie, AJR; Lugo, AE (1989) Biomass Estimation Methods for Tropical Forests With Applications to Forest Inventory Data Forest Science 35:881-902.(3) ECE/FAO (United Nations Economic Commission for Europe/Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations) (1992) The Forest Resources of the Temperate Zones The United Nations, Geneva, Switzerland.6552(Question No. 716)7166552Brown, Sen BobSenator BrownQD4TASAG00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Trade, upon notice, on 3 May 1999:(1) Has a request been made to the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation (EFIC) by the Ramu nickel/cobalt mine in Madang Province, Papua New Guinea, for assistance.(2) Is EFIC considering offering political and/or commercial risk insurance, loans, subsidies or any other kind of assistance to proponents of the Ramu project.(3) (a) If assistance is under consideration, is an environmental impact statement (EIS) required under the Commonwealth Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act 1974; and (b) will an EIS be carried out before any decision is taken on assistance.(4) (a) Have any environmental or social impact studies been undertaken by EFIC or any other Australian government agency to assess the potential impact of this project; and (b) can copies be provided.(5) Does the Australian Government consider the dumping of mining wastes at sea to be in contravention of the Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping Wastes and Other Matters.6552Hill, Sen RobertSenator HillBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—The Ministers for Trade and Foreign Affairs have provided the following answers to the honourable senator's question:(1) and 2) No formal request for assistance has been received. EFIC has, however, had general discussions with the sponsors and potential financiers of the Ramu project.(3) Should a formal request for assistance be received, EFIC will comply with its obligations under the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act.(4) EFIC has not undertaken an environmental or social impact study in relation to the Ramu project and is not aware of any other Australian government agency having done so.(5) Australia is a Contracting Party to the Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter 1972 (London Convention), as is Papua New Guinea. The Australian Government considers the dumping of mining wastes at sea by vessels of Contracting Parties and vessels within their waters, or loaded in their ports, to be in contravention of the London Convention. Australia has fully implemented its obligations under the London Convention to ban the dumping at sea of wastes and other matter.Under the London Convention "dumping" means:(a) the deliberate disposal at sea of wastes or other matter from vessels, aircraft, platforms or other man-made structures at sea;(b) any deliberate disposal at sea of vessels, aircraft, platforms or other man-made structures at seaThe London Convention does not deal with the wastes delivered to the sea at the end of a pipeline or the dumping at sea of the operational wastes of vessels or aircraft. Nor does it apply in relation to the disposal of wastes or other matter directly arising from, or related to, the exploration, exploitation and associated offshore processing, of seabed mineral resources. 6553(Question No. 722)7226553Allison, Sen LynSenator Allison1M6VICAD00 asked the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources, upon notice, on 12 May 1999:With reference to the media release by the Parliamentary Secretary of 11 March 1999, announcing a Thai delegation visit to investigate Australia's coal and power sector:(1) What Federal Government support was provided for this visit, both monetary and in-kind.(2) What percentage of the total cost of the visit did the Federal Government contribute.(3) Who requested this visit.(4) What was the itinerary for the delegation's visit.(5) Did this itinerary include any gas or renewables industry projects; if no, why not.(6) What other visits of foreign delegations to Australian coal industries have been supported by the Federal Government in the past 3 years.(7) Are there plans during the 1999-2000 budget period for similar visits to be supported.(8) (a) Has there been Federal Government support for any delegation visits of renewables energy industries in Australia; and 8b) can details be provided of these visits and the funding spent on them.6553Minchin, Sen NickSenator MinchinJX4SALPIndustry, Science and Resources10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:(1) The Federal Government did not provide monetary support for the visit. Mr Warren Enstch, my Parliamentary Secretary provided a Statement of Welcome to the journalists. A Departmental officer accompanied the group to provide information on Australia's largest export industry. The Department also helped in organising some meetings.(2) The Federal Government did not contribute financial resources to the visit.(3) Union Power Development Company Limited located in Thailand.(4) Itinerary for Thai JournalistsWednesday 10 MarchArrival at Sydney TG993—Accommodation: Wentworth HotelThursday 11 March9am Depart Hotel for Central Coast11.30am Arrive at Beachcomber Resort Hotel for Lunch1pm Arrive at Eraring PowerstationPresentation and Inspection 5.30pm Depart Eraring Powerstation7.30pm Dinner at Cerestial (Chinese)Friday 12 March7.45am Depart Hotel8.30am Arrive at CSIRO for presentation10.30am Depart CSIRO for Hunter Valley1pm Arrive at Bulga Opencut Office for presentation and lunch2—4pm Mine Inspection7pm Dinner at Blue Angel (Sea food)Saturday 13 MarchSightseeingSunday 14 MarchDepart Sydney for Thailand(5) No—it was not appropriate.(6) My Department provided financial support including airfare, accommodation, ground transport and hospitality for the following delegations:* Thai environmental journalists, March 1997* Mr Viravat Chlayon, Governor, Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand, Aug 1998* Representatives from Shanghai Fuel Corporation, July 1998* Mayor of Ningbo, June 1996* Mr BP Baishya, Indian Minister for Mines and Steel, October 1996* Dr SM Bhutta, Engineering Adviser, Pakistan Ministry of Water and Power, Feb 1997* Mr E Arrieta, Venezuelan Minister for Energy and Mines, December 1997* Mr ND Gupta, Chief Engineer, Indian Council of Power Utilities, August 1998Delegates Sponsored by DPIE to UNDP/PACE-E Seminars on Coal Utilisation Environmental Management:* Mr A F T Fernandez, Manager of Port, Coal and Environmental Matters, Central Thermoelectrica Tocopilla SA (CTT), Sept 1996* Mr HG Vasquez, Regional Coordinator of Energy, Comision Federal de Electricidad, Mexico, Sept 1996* Mr AM Lohrman, Shift Supervisor, Ventanas Power Station, Chile, Nov 1996* Mr Liu Jun Feng, Engineer, East China Electric Power Test Research Institute, PR China, Nov 1996* Mr Yang Li Bing, Electric Engineer, East China Power Group Corp, PR China, July 1996 * Mr Liu Gang, Engineer, Shanghai Wai Gao Qiao Power Plant, PR China, July 1996* Mr RG Silva, Chief-Coal Ash Handling Dept, Central Termoelectrica Carbon II, Comision Federal de Electricidad, Mexico, July 1996* Mr MAR Escamilla, Maintenance Superintendent, CT Rio Escondido, Comision Federal de Electricidad, Mexico, July 1996* Mr Miguel Castaneda Perez, Advisor In Coal Matters to Energy Director, Comision Federal de Electricidad, Mexico, September 1996* Mr RO David, Dept Manager B, Thermal Power Plant Dept, National Power Corporation, Philippines, May 1997* Mr B Bragado, Principal Engineer A, Masinloc Thermal Power Project, Philippines, May 1997* Mr Tong Hui Yuan, Director, Production Technology Division, Zhe Jiang Bei Lun Power Plant, PR China, Sept 1997* Mr Y Mingliang, Engineer, Zheijiang Provincial Electric Power Test Research Institute, PR China, Sept 1997* Mr L Ramos, Manager, Fuels Division, Resource Planning Dept, National Power Corporation, Philippines, February 1997* Mr Khun Chamlong Uchukomol, Vice President, Mining Business, Electricty generating Authority of Thailand, February 1997My Department provided in-kind support for the following visits:* Madam Lei Xiangqin and representatives from China Coal Research Institute, June 1998* Thai environmental regulators, June 1998* Taiwan delegation to the Australian Coal Association Conference, May 1996* Philippine delegation of coal import regulators, March 1996* East China Electric Power Administration, July 1996* Shenhua Group Corporation, September 1996(7) There are no specific plans as part of the 1999-2000 budget period for similar visits. However, consideration will be given to supporting visits on a case by case basis in line with policy and program objectives for my portfolio.(8) Yes. Details include:EU-Australia Photovoltaics Workshop, December 1997, hosted by ANU in conjunction with the annual conference of the Australia and New Zealand Solar Energy Society. My Department provided a grant of $10,000 to the ANU to stage the event. Representatives of some 15 leading European photovoltaic manufacturers and research agencies attended the workshop.A $30,000 grant by my Department to the CRC for Renewable Energy to stage a bilateral workshop with Japan's New Energy Development Organisation in February 1999, "Australia-Japan Workshop on Renewable Energy, Fuel Cells and Solar Cells".6554(Question No. 1002)10026554O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, upon notice, on 20 May 1999:Has Mr Geoffrey Robertson QC been engaged as a consultant by the Minister or the Department since March 1996; if so:(1) (a) What was the nature of the work Mr Robertson undertook; (b) when was he engaged; (c) when was the work completed; (d) what was the nature of the work; and (e) what was the cost of the consultancy.(2) Was the contract the subject of a tender process; if not, why not.(3) Did the final cost vary from the contracted price; if so; (a) what was the magnitude of the cost variation; and (b) what was the cause of the variation.(4) Have other consultants been engaged to undertake work associated with the Robertson consultancy; if so: (a) who were those consultants; (b) when were they engaged; (c) when was the work completed; (d) what was the nature of the work undertaken by them; and (e) what was the cost of each consultancy.(5) Did the final cost vary from the contracted price for any of the above consultancies; if so: (a) what was the magnitude of the cost variation; and (b) what was the cause of the variation.(6) Was each contract the subject of a tender process; if not, why not.6554Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator Vanstone7E4SALPJustice and Customs10—The Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1)—(6) The Department has no records of either the Minister or the Department having engaged Mr Geoffrey Robertson QC as a consultant since March 1996. 6555(Question No. 1013)10136555Hogg, Sen JohnSenator Hogg7L6QLDALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 27 May 1999:(1) Did soldiers who enlisted in the Australian Army as apprentices (electronic tradesmen) in intakes number 46, 47, 48 and 49 receive, at the conclusion of their training, the same qualifications as soldiers who enlisted as adult trainees during the same period of time.(2) Were those soldiers who enlisted under the apprentice scheme given the option of transferring to the adult trainee scheme, given that the course of training and instruction in each scheme was identical; if not, why not.(3) Did the soldiers who enlisted as apprentices in those intakes receive adjustment to their `Return of Service Obligation' as a result of the abbreviated training undertaken during their course; if so, how was that adjustment calculated.(4) Is the Minister aware that a number of complaints have been made by soldiers who enlisted in those intakes, arising out of the changes to training and the fact that the soldiers did not receive `trade' qualifications at the conclusion of their training; if so, (a) has the Minister taken steps to address these complaints; and (b) what steps have been taken.(5) Is the Minister aware that 21 of the soldiers who enlisted in those intakes have commenced legal proceedings against the Commonwealth in the Supreme Court of Queensland, claiming for unpaid wages, damages for breach of employment contract or damages for misrepresentation; if so, what steps, if any, has the Minister taken to attempt to resolve the matter by mediation or other consultation.6555Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NewmanBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—The Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) Yes.(2) The soldiers who enlisted under the apprentice scheme were not given the option of transferring to the adult trainee scheme. Soldiers under 17 years of age were enlisted into the Army as apprentice trainees and were awarded adult trainee status once they reached the age of 17 years in accordance with Army policy guidelines, as detailed in Army Office Staff Instruction 30/94.(3) Yes. The calculation of the Return of Service Obligations was based on the time taken for each trainee to achieve the base trade qualification in their chosen Employment Category Number.(4) A number of soldiers enlisted as apprentices have written to the Minister, over a number of years, in relation to the qualifications received from their training and the Return of Service Obligation incurred as a result of that training. Each case has been investigated and considered on its merits.(5) Bell Miller Solicitors, of Brisbane, who are representing 23 soldiers from the 46th, 47th and 48th intakes of the Electronic Tradesman Apprenticeship, wrote to the Minister for Defence in February 1999 in relation to a claim for loss of wages and requesting the recalculation of their Return of Service Obligations. A reply was forwarded to Bell Miller Solicitors on 9 April 1999 in response to the issues raised. As a result of a further letter from the Solicitors on 19 April 1999, they were advised to contact the Soldier Career Management Agency for further discussion on this matter.