1999-06-293913SENATE671701999-06-29The PRESIDENT(Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid) took the chair at 12.30 p.m., and read prayers.Miscellaneous6717671712:30:006717Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I declare that the following bills are urgent bills:That bills be considered urgent bills: Diesel and Alternative Fuels Grants Scheme Bill 1999 and Customs and Excise Amendment (Diesel Fuel Rebate Scheme) Bill 1999; Export Market Development Grants Legislation Amendment Bill 1999; Taxation Laws Amendment (Demutualisation of Non-insurance Mutual Entities) Bill 1999; Health Insurance Amendment (Professional Services Review) Bill 1999; Criminal Code Amendment (Slavery and Sexual Servitude) Bill 1999; Copyright Amendment (Computer Programs) Bill 1999; Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 6) 1999; Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 4) 1999; Taxation Laws Amendment (CPI Indexation) Bill 1999; Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1999; Protection of Movable Cultural Heritage Amendment Bill 1999; Aviation Fuel Revenues (Special Appropriation) Amendment Bill 1999 and two related bills; Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1999; and Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill 1999-2000 and two related bills.I move:That these bills be considered urgent bills.671712:31:006717Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—Pursuant to contingent notice, I move:That so much of standing order 142 be suspended as would prevent debate taking place on the motion.I have moved this motion because here we have the government and, I presume, the Democrats moving a guillotine on a dozen pieces of important legislation so that it can be rammed through the Senate in the next 12 hours of debate. At the head of the list is the Diesel and Alternative Fuels Grants Scheme Bill 1999 and an attendant bill which will have massive ramifications for this country and its environment. These Democrat-government bills deserve enormous scrutiny. They cannot get that scrutiny with the Democrats and the government using the guillotine. It involves a series of broken promises by the Democrats as they have sidled up to the government to sign away on the GST and at the same time provided through this mechanism a multi-billion-dollar gift to the mega-wealthy in this country, in particular to the mining industry and the big transport corporations. It does not pass my notice that these are prospective future donors to the Democrats, and it has not passed the notice of at least one Democrat senator that that is the case.8U4LEESSenator Lees—Really?QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—Yes, really, Senator Lees. It is no wonder that Senator Lees interjects: she is the guillotiner on this occasion. More importantly, this is a total abrogation of the government's responsibility and the Democrats' committed policy to both the urban environment and the general environment of Australia, right from the tall forests of Tasmania through to downtown Sydney, Melbourne and every other city in Australia where there will be manifestly adverse results on public health through the emission of noxious pollutants and a great increase in the global warming problem through increased greenhouse gases. No doubt we will have a debate about that in the limited time available. If they stay in the chamber, I will be asking the Democrats a number of questions about their broken promises, in particular about the impact of this legislation on the environment of this country.This is a huge issue for politics in this country. It is an extraordinary sell-out of the interests of the Democrats, who once stood for equity. One minister—Senator Parer, I think—summed this up as a $2 billion plus advantage to the mining industry and one assessor has said that it is going to lead to profit increases for that sector of over seven per cent. That will not be through productivity increases or harder work. There may be other reasons for increasing or decreasing profitability. What is happening here is that the Democrats are handing billions of dollars per annum to these big corporations to sheet through as profit for their already wealthy shareholders. This is a gift that no other Australian will get. What the rest of Australia will get from the Democrats and the government is taxes on food and on a whole range of other necessary items. That is what this is about. That is why this guillotine is being used: to truncate debate. The Democrats should be ashamed of the devaluation of their own name through the use of this guillotine process to ram this legislation through the Senate.12:36:006718Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—The opposition will not be supporting the suspension motion that is before the chair. Obviously we have had a number of guillotine motions moved. At no stage has the opposition taken the approach of moving the use of a contingent notice of motion. I certainly accept that it is available for any senator to do so. Let me also make clear that, while we do not want to suspend standing orders and have an open-ended procedural debate, which would take valuable time from the matters of substance before the chair, we certainly will not be supporting the allotment of time motion. And consistent with the position we took earlier in the last sitting fortnight, we will not be supporting the guillotine.I think it is worth while to remind the Senate about what has occurred procedurally over the last few sitting days. We had a particularly deceitful guillotine motion agreed between the government and the Australian Democrats on the Telstra bill.8U4LEESSenator Lees—We did not agree anything. That is absolute nonsense.5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—I apologise. It was not voted for by the Australian Democrats but, as I have made quite clear before, they were able to use their numbers in the Senate to ensure that guillotine was not put in place. You had a lot of clout, Senator Lees, as I have indicated before, particularly over the GST bill, but of course you decided not to use it. You did not use the political influence that you had on that particular occasion. We had a situation, and I think it was deceitful and treacherous, where the government negotiated an arrangement with the opposition in relation to extra sitting hours. Then the guillotine motion came in and Senator Lees and the Australian Democrats tried to use the cover of not voting for the guillotine motion but, at the same time, not using their political influence to ensure that guillotine did not go through. This is prior to the vote on the GST bill.Then you had of course the guillotine on the environment bill and that was an absolute outrage and disgrace, with 900 amendments before the chair and literally just a couple of hours to debate it. That is something where the Democrats lined up lock, stock and barrel with the government. It was probably one of the greatest procedural outrages that we have ever seen in the Senate and a complete sell out of the sort of position that the Democrats had previously taken in relation to these sorts of debates. The Democrats joined with the government and ensured that there was virtually no debate at all on the environment legislation, with a huge number of amendments before the chair—900 in all, with more than 500 sponsored by the government. That was an outrage and a disgrace that Senator Lees perpetrated on all those who have an interest in those issues. I believe that not only was proper process in this chamber sold down the river but so were the conservation groups, industry, the states and others who had an interest.Of course, we had a guillotine for the tax bills. In my view, that was a more reasonable proposition because clearly there had been a lot of debate around that issue. I accept that there was an effort to try to ensure that there was a reasonable amount of time for debate. Some parts of the package of bills obviously deserved more debate than they got, and some less, but an attempt was made to ensure that we had a more fulsome debate than we saw on the environment bill. So it has been a very patchy record indeed in relation to the guillotine motion and I am sorry to say that the Australian Democrats have sold out in relation to these matters over the past few days.The opposition will not support the urgency motion, consistent with the position that we have taken. We will also not be supporting the guillotine motion because we believe that the appropriation bills, in particular—although we accept that there are time constraints—are worthy of very considerable examination by this chamber.12:41:006719Lees, Sen MegSenator LEES8U4SAAD00—Again, I think the comments from both the opposition and Senator Brown must be responded to, as we look at putting in place the measures by which we will ensure that we deal with the legislation that is urgent before us. If I could firstly respond to Senator Faulkner. We have never at any stage supported a further sale of Telstra. We did not support the guillotine or any of the processes in this chamber to speed up that passage.UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—You did not stand up to it either.8U4Lees, Sen MegSenator LEES—It is not up to us, Senator, to dictate to government what their program should be. Yes we can, whenever possible, use our influence on government, but in this particular case, as the government had the support from elsewhere, they were not even interested in talking to us, to be perfectly frank, so unfortunately we have seen a further sell off. That is nothing whatsoever to do with the Democrats and we remain opposed and will continue to be opposed.As we get into this debate on diesel and particularly looking at the bills that are before us, I again find Senator Brown's comments quite extraordinary and, as usual, very negative. The bill on diesel that we are about to deal with does not have any adverse impact on the environment. We will be debating this later on and I do not think it is my place in this debate now to go to the fine details of one of the bills that will be before us. But I do have to answer a couple of the comments from Senator Brown.This is not, in his words, `a multi-billion dollar gift to some industry lobby group'; this is reducing the actual amount of subsidy to fossil fuels. If you look at the government's claims, I think, as Senator Allison will explain later, they have in fact got their own figures wrong and the modelling that was released recently shows that. What we have actually turned that around to is an additional impost of over $290 million on fossil fuels. I ask Senator Brown to start looking at the facts for a change and not to continue to rely on modelling by someone who has not bothered to look at all the details. As we get on, I think senators will see why it is important that we get this bill in place for rural and regional Australia. Actually reducing emissions and getting standards to the point where Australia will have some improvements on where we are now—not just improvements on the government bill—is extremely important.Reducing emissions of greenhouse gases and particulate emissions is what this legislation is about and we should be dealing with it today. We cannot just keep putting it off until some senators find it more comfortable to bury it somewhere in the government's program. It is extremely important that we do look at this bill as part of the tax package because after all it was as part of that package that the government presented it to us. It is the government's agenda that we are dealing with. But we are actually very pleased with both the results we had on the environment bill and what we will see put in place today.I say to senators, `Why the fuss?' We know that we are going to be putting in place a guillotine. I say to those senators who are keen to deal with the diesel bill, in particular—and I see that there is a very long list of people wanting to speak on the second reading and there is plenty of time for all those people to speak—we really should put this motion aside and get on with the business that is before us.12:45:006719Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I am obviously going to speak to the procedural motion—that is, that we should suspend standing orders to allow the government to impose this guillotine with the agreement of the Democrats. Later on when we get to the substantive motion we will be talking about whether the bills are urgent, but this is just crazy. Senator Lees has just said, `We can't just keep putting it off and putting it off. Why all the fuss?' We are dealing with bills which have not even gone through the Scrutiny of Bills Committee. We are dealing with bills that do have specific problems. I will be dealing specifically with those problems later when we are talking about the substantive motion. We are also dealing with a bill that has a clause in it that says that it should not be imposed until the other emission standards have been legislated. The indications are that that will not be for at least 12 months.We are dealing with a bill that does not conform to the cut-off motion, we are dealing with bills which have not gone through the proper scrutiny process and we are dealing with bills that have not had the chance to be properly looked at in the committees, and yet we are being asked to suspend standing orders so a guillotine can be imposed because we cannot keep `putting it off and putting it off', according to Senator Lees.This is madness. It is a total abuse of the democratic process within this place. To me it is abuse of the spirit of the standing orders and the processes by which not only we but also the community get to see these bills. Why should the Greens (WA) or any other party support the standing orders to suspend and to gag this debate? In effect that is what it is. It is a ridiculous process. It is a means of preventing scrutiny. It is not just a means of putting on a bill that is urgent. As I say, we will talk about the urgency in a bit more detail when we reach the substantive debate, but quite frankly it is ludicrous to suggest that this motion has to be put now and in this way.12:47:006720Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAYUI4VICALP00—I will be brief, Madam President. The first notable thing about the guillotines we have seen in the last week which is quite different from those in July of the previous year is that the guillotine resolutions them selves have not been gagged. I think that is a substantial advance in the attitude of the government because it does allow some debate. It also means that, on the two occasions we get in these debates to move a contingent notice of motion taking half an hour each, we have not once availed ourselves of that. Traditionally the argument so far has gone not so much to the urgency but to the time allotment.Let me deal with urgency first of all. I think it would be churlish to say that, given the rest of the tax package that has gone through, the diesel bills do not fit that category. Certainly, the appropriation bills are urgent. We would like them considered by 30 June. It is interesting that six weeks ago I was involved in a discussion where I said that the government would leave the appropriation bills right until the end and then come to us and say that they have to be pumped through. You did not have to be a genius to work out that that is exactly what they would do. As we had no debate on the budget—or the budget papers, effectively after the Thursday night—this is one of the greatest curtailments ever of the appropriation bills, and I think it should be recognised. The government, however, have recognised that and extended their original proposal by an hour. That in itself is helpful.As for the urgency of most of these bills, the urgency is dictated by a previous guillotine. These are all listed for Thursday lunchtime, which does not indicate great urgency. A previous guillotine absorbed the Thursday lunchtime and now they all have to be put through. I have not been through them individually to find out where the substance in these may be that affects various individual senators around the chamber, but if they were listed and we agreed to them being listed for a Thursday lunchtime I do not think that we can argue they should not have been dealt with in this guillotine motion.As we have said on a number of occasions in the last few weeks, we do not necessarily oppose the concept of a guillotine. What becomes critical is whether people can have their say at the time that it is imposed. That has been granted, at least. The second thing is to look at the hours. Senator Faulkner was right to do the review in which he basically conceded that an almost ample amount of time was allowed in the tax debate. When you look back on it we could have easily put a couple more hours into the first bill and taken a couple of hours off the later bills. You would have had to have been pretty much on top of all the legislation to have seen that, and I do not think anyone could have exercised that judgment at the time. In terms of the tax bills, we gave a commitment early in the piece to have the tax bills dealt with by 30 June and indicated that we would be opposing them. At least that has been met and that will be met with these diesel bills.The tragedy for this chamber, frankly, was dealing with the environment bills. To have 400 new amendments come down at 4 o'clock one day and to vote the whole bill through by about 4 or 5 o'clock the next day was an absolute travesty of debate in this chamber. It just made this chamber a rubber stamp, which has been rare over the years, even in a guillotine situation. It made it virtually impossible for the shadow minister or anyone else to read, absorb and analyse those particular amendments. I hope it is not repeated in the future.The other point has often been made in this chamber. You always look to track records on guillotines. We have never stood on our record on guillotines. Why should we? We have supported them in the past and, in supporting them in the past, we had to nominate all those in opposition that had previously supported them. It becomes a bit like PNG payback, doesn't it? At least we never moralised on the subject, unlike a party of seven others here who, when some of those guillotine motions came up, made a variety of enunciations about the rights of senators and democracy—all of which, at the first opportunity, went down the drain.Finally, let me put this on the record: why did the Democrats agree to gag the environment bill? Because they did not want it out there for public discussion. The numbers are there to put it through in August, even more so than now. They did not want the pressure. They could not stand it any longer. They just thought, `Let's vote for the guillotine and end the pressure.'We do not intend to support Senator Brown's resolution. It will be an open-ended debate; it will go on forever. All those comments should be made in a very brief debate around the motion for the actual allotment of time. We will not be supporting that particular motion but, on the other hand, we are not absolutely critical of every aspect of it. Some parts of it are acceptable. We would like as much time as possible on the appropriation bills. Question put: That the motion (Senator Brown's ) be agreed to.12:56:00The Senate divided. (The President—Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid)2Brown, B. Margetts, D. *63Allison, L. Alston, R. K. R.Bartlett, A. J. J. Bishop, T. M.Bourne, V. Brownhill, D. G. C.Calvert, P. H. *Campbell, G.Campbell, I. G. 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. Evans, C. V.Faulkner, J. P. Ferguson, A. B.Ferris, J. Forshaw, M. G.Gibbs, B. Gibson, B. F.Heffernan, W. Herron, J.Hill, R. M. Hogg, J.Kemp, R. Knowles, S. C.Lees, M. H. Lightfoot, P. R.Lundy, K. Macdonald, I.Macdonald, S. MacGibbon, D. J.Mackay, S. McGauran, J. J. J.McKiernan, J. P. Minchin, N. H.Murphy, S. M. Murray, A.O'Brien, K. W. K. O'Chee, W. G.Parer, W. R. Patterson, K. C. L.Quirke, J. A. Ray, R. F.Reid, M. E. Reynolds, M.Schacht, C. C. Sherry, N.Stott Despoja, N. Synon, K. M.Tierney, J. Troeth, J.Vanstone, A. E. Watson, J. O. W.West, S. M.Question so resolved in the negative.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—The question now is that the motion to declare certain bills urgent, moved by Senator Campbell, be agreed to.Question resolved in the affirmative.6722Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell) proposed:That the time allotted for the consideration of the remaining stages of the bills be as follows:(1)Diesel and Alternative Fuels Grants Scheme Bill 1999 and related bill remaining stages : commencing immediately on Tuesday, 29 June 1999, until 2 pm, from 3.30 pm to 6.30 pm, and from 7.30 pm to 8.30 pm(2)Messages from the House of Representatives in respect of any bills which have been declared urgentcommencing immediately after conclusion of consideration of the Diesel and Alternative Fuels Grants Scheme Bill 1999 and related bill, 15 minutes for each message or group of messages reported(3)Export Market Development Grants Legislation Amendment Bill 1999Taxation Laws Amendment (Demutualisation of Non-insurance Mutual Entities) Bill 1999Health Insurance Amendment (Professional Services Review) Bill 1999 remaining stages : commencing immediately after conclusion of messages from the House of Representatives or, if no messages are reported, the Diesel and Alternative Fuels Grants Scheme Bill 1999 and related bill, until 10 pm on Tuesday, 29 June 1999 Criminal Code Amendment (Slavery and Sexual Servitude) Bill 1999Copyright Amendment (Computer Programs) Bill 1999Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 6) 1999Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 4) 1999Taxation Laws Amendment (CPI Indexation) Bill 1999Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1999Protection of Movable Cultural Heritage Amendment Bill 1999Aviation Fuel Revenues (Special Appropriation) Amendment Bill 1999 and 2 related bills(4)Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1999 remaining stages: commencing immediately after conclusion of consideration of the Export Market Development Grants Legislation Amendment Bill 1999 and 12 other bills, until 11 pm (5)Messages from the House of Representatives in respect of any bills which have been declared urgentcommencing immediately after conclusion of consideration of Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1999, 15 minutes for each message or group of messages reported(6)Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill 1999-2000 and 2 related bills remaining stages : from 10.45 am on Wednesday, 30 June 1999, until 1.50 pm(7)Messages from the House of Representatives in respect of any bills which have been declared urgentcommencing immediately after taking note of answers on Wednesday, 30 June 1999, 15 minutes for each message or group of messages reported13:01:006723Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—In speaking to the procedural motion, I indicated that I wished to speak a little bit more about the actual time allocation and the reasons for doing so. We have been given a list in relation to so-called non-controversial bills. We knew that it was a very large and, I always believed, unrealistic list. Over a period of time, a number of people have dropped everything at times to have a look at these bills. They have been talked to and talked at by various ministers in relation to the particular bills that the government said were going to be on the list for last Thursday. How urgent did the government think those bills were last Thursday? What time did they allocate to them? They actually took them off the program—and Senator Ray has alluded to that.The government chose to take those bills off the lunchtime program for Thursday. Not only that, it chose to take the lunchtime away. We have been left with the situation on a number of days since then, I believe unfairly, where the staff in this place were not able to get proper breaks or proper meals. I do not think that was taken into consideration when those original guillotines were put in.We had a situation where, as Senator Faulkner has pointed out, not only were we pushed into an agreement about different times to allow extra debate on the bills that were on the program—which seemed totally unrealistic at the time—but also, the Senate having just come to that agreement, we then found that lunchtimes, dinnertimes and any break times went by the bye. That was for my staff, for the staff in this place and for the people who provide the services that we need. Let us face it, what must it be like for people, even those here in this chamber, who are supposed to be awake, rested, on their toes and keeping us supplied with the information that we need, if they are given no breaks during the day, or if they have to survive with minimal staff because some people are trying to fit a meal break in somewhere?The issues of staff breaks and so on were not debated in the meetings of the leaders and whips. They just went like that—snap! Basically, we have a situation where the lunchtime bills which the government gave up last Thursday are now so urgent that they have to be put through. They were so-called non-controversial bills and now they are being rammed through as urgent. I believe most indications are that there might be some time constraints—and some were because the government wanted them—but there are still a heap of problems associated with bills like the Diesel and Alternative Fuels Grants Scheme Bill 1999 which simply have not been properly scrutinised.There is certainly a problem with whether or not there is any certainty at all with the commencement provisions. How can any government and how can the Democrats support the notion that a bill has to be rammed through right now at the end of a session without scrutiny when there is no certainty about the commencement provisions at all? These are certainly some of the weirdest commencement provisions that our office has seen as they depend on other things that are not certain themselves. We have a situation where the government cannot even tell us when the bills are due to commence. The government says, `Nevertheless, we have talked about them so much'—that is, we have not talked about them at all—`and we would just like to shove them through just in case you get a chance to look at them and scrutinise them in the meantime.'There is some concern and some doubt over the constitutionality of this under section 92 of the Constitution. That issue has been raised since the in-principle so-called signing of the agreement. A range of anomalies are associated with the diesel bill, with arbitrary weights and definitions, and many of these have been raised by community groups and local governments. We believe that the extent of environmental destruction embodied in this bill, despite the protestations of Senator Lees, will cause greater environmental harm than we have now.That has been clearly demonstrated by the statements of Dr Clive Hamilton, who has had to be very brave of late, I must say, to even speak up because, after previously having the confidence of the Australian Democrats, he is now being attacked for speaking out on the things that he believes are important. Groups such as Greenpeace, the ACF and others are also making strong statements about these bills. If the strategy of the Australian Democrats is to shoot the messenger, who is going to be left standing as credible advisers to the Australian Democrats on issues like pollution and the environment? Or will a decent amount of time pass and then somehow or other the Australian Democrats will try to make up with the groups that they have treated so badly during this process?We believed that after the initial advice regarding the commencement provisions, the Scrutiny of Bills Committee would do its job and raise serious concerns with the minister and ask for a `please explain', but it will not even get a chance to report before we debate the bills. What kind of open process is that? We have a committee in the parliament whose job is to see the problems of bills—the structural and constitutional problems of bills—and it is not going to be given a chance to report to this parliament. So we might well be rushing ahead, dropping everything and shoving through diesel fuel bills without being able to see what the report is from the Scrutiny of Bills Committee. What sense does that make?I have mentioned that the commencement provisions make the diesel concessions dependent on appropriations to certain environmental programs. We believe that, although there is some general statement in this direction, there is nothing that requires the government to make those appropriations and to set standards to be reached. So it might be that this bill never takes effect. I will repeat that: we have a situation where, as far as we can read from this bill, this bill may never take effect.We believe that this unusual commencement provision would have been picked up by the Scrutiny of Bills Committee, and I imagine it would have liked to have seen that the commencement provisions were certain rather than left in the air. The committee has the responsibility, as the elected holder of legislative power, to determine whether the laws we make come into force and how they come into force. We believe that the kind of commencement provision in the diesel fuel bills is in fact in conflict with the spirit of the Office of Parliamentary Counsel's drafting instruction No. 2 of 1989. That says that the commencement clause `should be repealed if the events that trigger the commencement' do not occur.So we have a situation where there are no guarantees that those events will occur, we know that there have been changes after deals have been made and we know that there is nothing that we can see in the bill that would require them to actually occur, other than some line on a piece of paper that may or may not be adhered to. This is not good enough for the process within this parliament, it is not good enough for scrutiny and it is not good enough for the way that staff and other people in this parliament have been treated. I strongly oppose the allocation of time motion that the government has moved.13:10:006724Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I support Senator Margetts completely. The Greens are going to totally oppose the first bill on this list, which has the massive, multi-billion-dollar hand-out to the big corporations through the diesel rebate system that the Democrats have now signed up to. I must draw to your attention that there are now enough government and Democrats speakers on that bill to ensure that we do not get a committee stage. Senator Lees gets up and says we will be able to debate this; we will not. The Democrats are going to cut out analysis of this bill. There are going to be second reading debate speeches and there will be precious little time left, if any—in fact, it appears there will be none. If each of the speakers on the second reading takes their time, we will get no time to look at amendments. We will get no time to analyse the way in which this legislation increases the gap between the haves and the have-nots in this country and the way in which it gives $3 billion a year to the big mining, logging and other corporations while ordinary people get the GST on their takeaway foods.Senator Lees interjected on me a bit earlier and asked who among the Democrats was looking at how there might well be some interest taken in what the Democrats are doing. Let me quote here:Commenting on the Democrats' annoyance at the corporate donations imbalance, Senator Murray said, `They pour money into the major parties and give zip to us because they do not see us as significant.'Now that the GST and the diesel fuel rebate, with its munificence to those big corporations, are afoot, we will no doubt have the Democrats thinking that they are in the big league. This allocation of time is totally inadequate, given a multi-billion-dollar matter like this, for the Senate to debate this matter and to represent the interests of people all over the country. Last week, as Senator Faulkner said, the Democrats guillotined the most backward piece of environmental legislation in half a century in this parliament. This week they are guillotining this piece of legislation with its massive impacts on the environment and with a huge hand-out, particularly to the mining corporations, without even enough time for a committee. That is the level to which the Democrats have descended.13:12:006725Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—As I indicated, the opposition will not be supporting this allotment of time motion. I think everyone understands in these debates that the more time you eat up on the allotment of time debate, the less opportunity there is, in fact, to debate the substantive legislation before the chamber. Long speeches can be a little self-defeating in these sorts of debates when there is a proposal for a guillotine at 8.30 in the evening. I want to make absolutely clear that we have probably one of the more reasonable guillotine motions before the chamber at the moment when you compare it with what we have had over the past couple of weeks.It is worth remembering what the chamber has faced in recent days. On Monday last week, we had a situation where the further privatisation of Telstra legislation was before the chamber and, with the contrivance of the Democrats, a guillotine was imposed to ensure that particular bill was dealt with this session as quickly as possible before the numbers in the Senate changed on 1 July. That ensured a further sell down of Telstra. The responsibility for that is fairly and squarely in the court of the Australian Democrats because the Australian Democrats absolutely refused to use any political leverage on the government at all.That guillotine motion, which technically but very transparently the Australian Democrats opposed, was passed before the GST package was dealt with. Everyone knows that the Australian Democrats had an awful lot of leverage over the Prime Minister. They did not appear to have the capacity to use it, but they had an enormous amount of political influence they were either unwilling or unable to use. That is what happened on Monday after the government, in a very deceitful and treacherous way, sought agreement from around the chamber on extension of sitting hours but did not bring other parties—no doubt, they brought the Democrats—into the picture.Senator Bartlett is shaking his head. If they did not bring you into the picture, Senator Bartlett, you should have done something about it. But you did nothing—absolutely nothing. That is the problem. Either you are the world's worst political operator and you were duped and conned by the government, or you are in the fix. You cannot have it both ways. That is the problem. If you were not apprised of this, perhaps you can explain your actions to the Senate and to the Australian people, because you are wholly and solely responsible for a further sell down of Telstra.AW5CARRSenator Carr—You have made a very good point.5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—Thank you, Senator Carr—you will get on! I want to move to another guillotine motion, in relation to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Bill 1999 . This time the Democrats voted with the government for the guillotine motion, which meant that we had a committee stage, under guillotine on 23 June 1999, of five hours and 11 minutes. This was perhaps the most important legislation in relation to environmental protection that we have seen in this parliament for many years, and it was perhaps the most important in relation to the watering down of the capacity of the Commonwealth government to protect Australia's environment. The environment package had more than 900 amendments—it had more than 500 government and Democrat sponsored amendments—and was dealt with in five hours and 11 minutes. There was no involvement of, or exposure to, those who have an interest in this issue from whatever side of the debate they come from.We know the Australian Democrats deliberately and clinically made a decision to count the Australian Conservation Foundation, the Wilderness Society and Greenpeace out of the debate. That was their decision; and when you make these decisions, you have to live with them. That was the decision that the Australian Democrats made. Not only were those groups counted out but so was everyone with an interest in the environment. It does not matter from what perspective—whether you are a member of a conservation group, whether you are just an interested Australian, whether you happen to be a state government or whether you happen to be from industry—the government and the Australian Democrats have achieved what I thought was the unachievable: they have got the backs up of not only the conservation constituency but indus try as well. That is the achievement. Secret deals have been done by the Democrats and the government, and no-one is let into the secret at all. There is no transparency, there is no capacity for scrutiny of the government by other senators if you do not happen to be a member of the Australian Democrats or the government. Forget about the rights of others to ensure there is proper legislative scrutiny—that is all forgotten and swept under the carpet. Many thousands of Australians and important interest groups have been clearly kept out of the debate and have not been allowed to express a view at all. They are not able to see the arrangements that the government and the Democrats have come to on such an important piece of legislation.We had the same guillotine motion on the tax bills. That was in a sense more reasonable; I think most people would accept that. There had been a long committee debate, and the bills had received a lot of parliamentary examination and scrutiny. The guillotine motion, as it worked in relation to the GST package, was probably reasonable in some of its elements and turned out to be totally inadequate in others. We had a situation in relation to the GST package where a great deal more parliamentary scrutiny by the Senate would have been appropriate for some bills and some key aspects of the debate; others, it turned out, were adequate. At least we were not faced with a situation of the guillotine being dropped in having just put in the arrangements for extending sitting hours in the Senate, which, as I have said in relation to Telstra, was a particularly deceitful way of progressing.Today we move to a new allotment of time resolution, a new guillotine. This is one that in some of its elements seems to be reasonable enough. I do accept the arguments that are put forward in relation to part (3) of the guillotine allotment of time motion, which applies to a range of bills that I think most parties and senators would agree could have been dealt with non-controversially. Because a previous guillotine motion had taken up the time for non-controversial legislation, some of this legislation, unless it came before the chamber in this form, would not be able to be dealt with.Time will tell whether the amount of time provided in this allotment of time resolution is adequate or not. It is hard to make a judgment now, but I think any reasonable person would accept that at least it had been previously promoted that this package of bills was non-controversial legislation. I am concerned about taking too much time on the allotment of time motion because it means that we will have less time for the substantive debate on the Diesel and Alternative Fuels Grants Scheme Bill 1999 , and that is important legislation.The opposition has many points it wants to make in that substantive debate, particularly about ensuring we have maximum opportunity to deal with the appropriation bills. I acknowledge that the government has increased the amount of time that was originally provided in the first draft allotment of time motion. I suppose it goes to show—and perhaps the Manager of Government Business in the Senate will acknowledge—that the more consultative the government is on these things the better these sorts of processes work. We have indicated that, while we oppose the allotment of time motion, we do want to get on with the substantive debate before the chamber. (Time expired)13:22:006727Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—I need to respond to a few of the comments made by other people in speaking to this motion which sets out a time frame for a number of pieces of legislation. Firstly, I want to respond to some of the comments to do with previous decisions of the Senate in relation to other allotment of time motions and resolutions in the last week or so.We have the continued misrepresentation that somehow or other the Democrats are responsible for enabling the Telstra legislation to come on to a vote. I do not know what more a party can do than vote against something coming on for a vote. Despite the fact that the Democrats are moving into a stronger position in this chamber in a couple of days time, as it stands now, if the government can get the agreement of two Independents, it can get anything it wants through this chamber regardless of our position. That is obviously what happened in relation to the Telstra legislation. To suggest that somehow or other the Democrats are responsible for that is clearly a bit of an absurd misrepresentation. The Democrats outlined our position on that allotment of time motion and the broader legislation at the time, and there is not really much point in revisiting that debate now.On the environment legislation, as I said at the time, personally I would have been very keen to spend more time highlighting the significant achievements and benefits that the Democrats have gained and to highlight the fact that the Democrats have now managed to ensure that there is an increased amount of power for the federal government over the environment and a range of issues that the federal government and the federal environment minister can now act on in environmental issues. That is a point that obviously has not got through to a lot of environment organisations. If there had been more time to better highlight that, it would have been nice. But, as was indicated by Senator Faulkner in his comments, a number of groups, including industry, are quite upset about what the Democrats achieved in that area, which perhaps gives some indication why it was important to ensure that the legislation was passed whilst the opportunity was there.It also gives the lie to the fairly fatuous cheap shots from Senator Brown that somehow or other the Democrats are selling out our principles because we are seeking to get more financial support and be more focused in getting donations from throughout the Australian community. I certainly do not hide the fact. He quoted Senator Murray, and I am quite happy to back up Senator Murray's comments. The Democrats get far fewer donations than the larger parties, and I am very keen to reverse that particular situation. All people in the Australian community know what the Democrats' policies and principles are. They know that we will stand up for those principles and that we will act in accordance with those. We are quite up-front about what we hope to achieve. We would seek support—financial or otherwise—from any source that is willing to help us to imple ment our policies and objectives. That is, as I understood it, what political parties are meant to be about, and it is certainly what the Democrats aim to do.We are about demonstrating not only that we will be true and consistent to our policies and our principles but also that we have the power—an increased amount of power—in the new Senate to seek to implement those policies and principles and we have the willingness to use that power. I am certainly not going to hide that. I certainly will not stand in the way of getting extra support from any organisation that wants to assist us in providing funds for us to exercise our power to implement Democrat policies; it sounds good to me. I do not see why Senator Brown seems to think that this is some big conspiracy. I am quite happy to be up-front about that, in case anyone seems to think that it is something we need to hide.In terms of the allocation of time available for debate, we have four hours plus time before question time today to look at the diesel legislation. I think the more time that we have on that legislation the better to highlight again the falsehoods and misinformation that continue to be spread and that Senator Brown has continued to highlight. The more opportunity we can get to put to rest and to try to counter some of that misinformation obviously the better from the point of view of the Democrats. But of course we do actually need to get the legislation passed, along with these other pieces of legislation, so we have had to balance that out in coming to an allocation of time.We will certainly be using that time to highlight the facts on this issue. My colleagues will be outlining the fact, as the modelling released yesterday indicates, that the revised package will result in a reduction of greenhouse gas particulate emissions below what they would otherwise have been, and that the Australian Greenhouse Office's estimate on greenhouse suggests that the original ANTS package would have increased emissions by nearly two million tonnes but that the Democrats' changes reduce this by 5½ million tonnes to a net reduction overall of 3.6 million tonnes, using the most conser vative methodology available. The independent referee for that report, Dr David James, says that the 5.5 million figure is likely to be a significant underestimate of the gains. The Democrats will certainly be keen to put facts like those on the record through the debate on the diesel legislation.The other 17 bills that are to be considered—which Senator Brown called important and crucial legislation, and I am sure he will be able to tell us what they are all about as I am sure he has fully studied them—are all matters that were considered to be non-controversial by all parties last week. Presumably, all parties would not have agreed to them being non-controversial unless they knew what was in them and believed that it was not inappropriate to enable them to be passed in a lunchtime session. These are all bills for which there was indicated unanimous support, or that no-one in the chamber is wanting to oppose. So they are ones that the Senate is able to deal with in a responsible fashion, and ensure that, in its role as a legislative body, as much legislation as possible is able to be got through.About three hours is available for the debate on the appropriation bills, and I think that will prove to be adequate to consider that legislation, which obviously needs to be passed before the Senate rises at the end of 30 June. It is—as I acknowledge opposition speakers have conceded—a fairly reasonable allocation of time for these various bills, based on a reasonable assessment of the amount of time that is likely to be available.Probably one of the other most important aspects of this allotment of time from the Democrats' point of view is not just that the legislation is there and the ability to provide adequate scrutiny of the legislation in accordance with its degree of controversy or importance but also what is not listed there. As part of ensuring that these bills are dealt with, the Democrats have been able to guarantee, through our willingness to exercise our power where we have had the opportunity and the numbers to do so, that the Regional Forests Agreement legislation is not going to be considered this session. It will be considered next session, and that is something the Democrats have delivered on.Senator Brown interjecting—DT6Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETT—Despite all the rhetoric from Senator Brown and others that, somehow or other, the Democrats have sold out on forests and that agreeing to the environment bill guillotine meant that the forests bill would come on—once again, they have been proven wrong. The Democrats have delivered by ensuring that the RFA bill will not come up until the next session.AW5CARRSenator Carr—You need more time to surrender.DT6Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETT—Which means, of course, that the ALP, whose new-found concern for the environment was demonstrated so admirably last week—and we are very pleased to see the ALP concerned about the environment now—will have two months to look at that legislation and will have two months to be aware of the impact that it will have on Australia's native forests. To all the conservation organisations around the country who have expressed concern about the RFA bill and the need to put it off until the next session, we can certainly say that the Democrats have delivered on that. I certainly say to them and to the broader community, who do have such concerns for our native forests: make sure that you hold Labor honest to their new-found concerns for the environment and ensure that, when Labor do come back here in two months time, when that bill comes on, they act in accordance with their rhetoric over the last week and join with the Democrats in trying to prevent—QD4BROWNSenator Brown—You passed it last week. Don't back out on it now.DT6Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETT—Senator Brown says that we passed it last week. We are talking about a bill that will be dealt with next session; he is still trying to pretend that we have somehow or other enabled it to pass. The Democrats have ensured that it will not be able to pass without the support of the ALP, and I look forward to the ALP joining the Democrats in the next session in stopping this threat to our native forests. Similarly, the Democrats have ensured that the VSU legisla tion will not come on for debate in this chamber. So those student unions are now in a position where they know that that legislation will not pass unless we get a backdown from the ALP on that one, which I think we would be reasonably confident will not happen—AW5CARRSenator Carr—Oh, come on! You're the sometime experts.DT6Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETT—I acknowledge the horror from Senator Carr as an indication that that is not going to happen. I think that is something that the Democrats and student unions around the country will be pleased about—that the Democrats achievement here in ensuring that the VSU bill does not come on will now guarantee that that legislation will not pass, and I welcome the Labor Party's expression of support for the Democrats' position in that regard. (Time expired)Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills6729r861Billsr8626729Debate resumed from 28 June, on motion by Senator Ian CampbellThat these bills be now read a second time.13:33:006729Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I present the Bureau of Transport Economics report entitled Analysis of the impact of the proposed taxation changes on transport fuel use and the alternative fuel market .13:33:006729Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—This is the Diesel and Alternative Fuels Grants Scheme Bill 1999 . It is a bill that fits into the package of GST bills because it deals with diesel fuel subsidies. It is a bill that was rushed quickly through the House of Representatives last week as a matter of urgency, with insufficient opportunity to debate and analyse the content of the bill in the lower house. Proof of that assertion is found by the fact that, today, the government is proposing to amend it.Last week it was urgent and pure and could not be changed; this week they have found a fault and want to make an amendment. That is just one piece of evidence among many that this is hastily thought out legislation over a hotchpotch, patched up compromise between the government and the Australian Democrats. I want to mark the spot with this piece of legislation, as I did with some others yesterday—there will be errors in the implementation of it, unforeseen consequences that will come back to this chamber. Legislation is being sprung on us here without proper consideration and, when it is implemented, it will be the Australian community that suffers and the remedy will have to be found back here legislatively. But the fault for that suffering, and this is the spot I want to mark, will belong entirely to the government and the Australian Democrats because of their refusal to allow proper scrutiny—witness the guillotine motion that has just now been carried.This bill represents a trade-off between two mutually antagonistic positions. It also represents a betrayal of the government's own electoral mandate, which they continue to assert ought to be superimposed on the Senate, but that is another story and it is one for them to explain to their own supporters. Why did they sell out on what they promised to do? That is a question for the Liberal Party.The two mutually antagonistic positions that this bill tries to deal with are the claims by the government, with the support of its coalition partner, the National Party, that the best deal they can give to the bush and the regions is by reducing the cost of diesel fuel for both on-farm and vehicle use in the country. One of the big selling points about why a GST is good for the bush revolved entirely around the reduction in diesel fuel costs for farmers. That was the selling point. In fact, the Leader of the National Party, Mr Fischer, and his deputy, Mr Anderson, both promised to resign if they did not deliver in full the $3½ billion worth of savings that the government calculated would be the cost savings in fuel expenses to people in rural Australia. They have not delivered that; I see no resignations coming through. They most emphatically have not delivered that. In terms of the GST package, that was what the government proposed.Of course, that brought an uproar from, among others, the Australian Democrats because this meant that, by reducing the cost of diesel fuel, you would encourage greater use of diesel fuel and, because this is a heavily polluting fuel, you would encourage greater pollution. That is supported by a lot of other evidence that we received before the Senate inquiry into the GST legislation—that is, that respiratory problems as well as greenhouse problems for Australia were being affected.The Democrats would have you believe that, while this still encourages the greater use of fuel—diesel fuel in particular—even with all those problems they complained about, the fact that they have added in some subsidies for alternative fuels somehow makes it right. The Democrats will say that this is a fair compromise because the main areas of pollution are cities and they are keeping the subsidies out of the cities. By putting those two mutually antagonistic propositions together—using more fuel at cheaper prices, and using less fuel and causing less pollution by trying to quarantine where that fuel is used—they have got the worst of both worlds. They have got not a win-win situation but a total lose-lose situation for both points of view.This is a silly bill, it is a patchwork bill, and it is a bill that sells out both the National Party and the Democrats—and I do not need to go very far to find evidence about that. What does the President of the Australian Conservation Foundation, Mr Peter Garrett—a distinguished and well-known Australian whom the Democrats have been hitherto fond of quoting in this chamber—think about this compromise? Bearing in mind he is speaking not for his pop group Midnight Oil but as President of the Australian Conservation Foundation, he described this bill as a `dirty deal done dirt cheap'. Those are the words of Peter Garrett. As a consequence, he got one in his ear from Senator Lees on the basis that somehow or other the ACF, one of the foun dation organisations of the environment movement in Australia, is not trustworthy, cannot be confided in and leaks. Here we have an example of criticism from an environmental watchdog that has no axe to grind as far as this tax package is concerned; it is only arguing for the protection of the environment and about the compromise on the GST, and for their pains they get attacked by the Australian Democrats because the criticism is unwelcome.And what do we get from the National Party? There have been murmurs throughout the bush that the National Party, by compromising as they have on this legislation, have sold out the real interests of rural Australia. That anxiety is expressed by the unusually large number of National Party senators who are going to speak in this debate in order to protect their rears and to try to persuade rural Australians that they have done the right thing when, as this is a compromise, they have watered down their position and it is not a win-win position; they have lost out for parts of the bush.When the Australian Democrats, leading into the last election, put to the people what their position would be on this issue, they attached the memorable phrase that this was `not negotiable'. And what have we seen as a consequence? They negotiated on it. And did they keep to the levels that they had promised? No, they did not. They sold them down, and they said they had to do this to get an outcome. The Australian Democrats were in the prime position of bargaining, if ever any political party has been in such a prime position. This is, front and centre, an environmental matter—something that the Democrats have built their reputation on standing up for. When the Prime Minister said he would not agree, they only had to say in response, `Then we won't pass the GST,' and the Prime Minister would have had nowhere to go. The fact that they backed down and blinked when they saw the whites of his eyes shows that they are not only not good negotiators but they are prepared to compromise their electoral mandate when it suits political opportunity and in order to achieve a transitory period in the glare of television cameras, somehow resolving the issue of the GST.What this debate this week and last has shown is that there is now an indelible entry on the record of Australian political history: we are going to get a GST, and we are going to get a GST by courtesy of the Australian Democrats. That is an albatross they will wear around their necks because the voters will not forget them. And we are going to get a GST by courtesy of this compromise, which, as I said, sells out the interests of both the National Party and the Australian Democrats.Let me go to some substantive matters. One of the reasons we were concerned about the level of pollution in metropolitan Australia and elsewhere created by an excessive use of diesel fuels was because of evidence given before the Senate committee into the GST by, among others, the Australian Medical Association. This organisation is not in any way a frivolous body. It is an organisation with which, from time to time, I have had disagreement, but it is a substantial body which speaks on behalf of doctors in Australia. The President of the AMA gave evidence about the high levels of pollution already in our capital cities—which will not be reduced by this legislation; in fact it will be increased. Dr David Brand said this to our inquiry:Medical evidence is mounting on the dangers of fine particles in diesel exhausts. I am particularly concerned by the evidence that these fine particles may lead to the premature deaths of 1,000 Australians every year. My medical colleagues have linked these particles to increased risk of lung cancer and a variety of respiratory disorders. The Government should take heed of these medical indicators and take steps to reduce, not increase the use of diesel in our cities.WP6LIGHTFOOTSenator Lightfoot—Do you want to ban leaded fuel?RF4Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOK—No. I am saying that—just as you, Senator Lightfoot, would have defended the cigarette industry when the early medical evidence was that cigarettes cause lung cancer—we have here the president of an eminent medical body saying that excessive burning of these fuels in built-up areas of Australia causes the deaths of 1,000 Australians a year. People might want to say that is not true, but they had better deal with it on the scientific facts, because that is where the AMA is coming from. And it is these interests that have been sold out by this legislation.The other thing in this legislation that ought to be pointed to before I go to some of its more complicating elements is that there is a reference here to emission standards. The sensible course would have been to agree on emissions standards, and the Australian Labor Party would have been prepared to be party to a deal that encoded proper emission standards rather than to not go to emission standards but look at targets. The targets that are being looked at are, of course, European ones.Anyone in the automobile industry knows that the benchmark targets for fuel emissions in the world are in California and that the Californian fuel emission standards are the highest around. If you want to sell a car in the United States, you had better build one that conforms with the Californian standards. I believe we are undershooting the best level of standards and that we could have gone to a higher level of test here, which would have not only helped our manufacturing export industry but also helped the environment in this nation. So let us deal with that matter as well.Finally, there are a number of complications in this legislation that are best brought out by going to the explanatory memorandum. In the explanatory memorandum, which explains the meaning of this bill, they try to grapple with the patched-up compromise that has been reached here. I will quote from the explanatory memorandum. See if you can understand this:The grant—which is a fund that the government will now pay out to users of these fuels—will be available for all on road use of these fuels in vehicles with a gross vehicle mass of 20 tonnes or more.The grant will be available for on road use of these fuels in vehicles with a gross vehicle mass of 4.5 tonnes to 20 tonnes used for transporting goods or passengers. However, for vehicles under 20 tonnes, the grant is not available for sole use of the relevant fuels in the following metropolitan areas:. Newcastle-Sydney-Wollongong; . Melbourne-Geelong;. Sunshine Coast-Brisbane-Gold Coast;. Perth;. Adelaide; and. Canberra.So you get it if you are using these fuels in a vehicle with a gross vehicle mass of 20 tonnes or more. Depending on where you use the vehicle, you will get it in a vehicle of from 4.5 tonnes to 20 tonnes but you will not get it in the metropolitan area for under 20 tonnes, and you will be self-regulating.Just pause for a minute and think about the practical administrative steps necessary to enforce that piece of legislation. If you drive a vehicle out of the metropolitan area, as soon as you cross the border of the metropolitan area into country Australia you are suddenly eligible, if your vehicle is of 4.5 tonnes or more, for this benefit. If you drive back into the metropolitan area, you are suddenly not eligible.You have to regulate the bookkeeping yourself and tell the truth to the tax office—as we know everyone does. So why wouldn't you claim that a substantial part of your journey was outside the metropolitan area, in order to attract the benefits of this legislation? Who could prove that it was not, if you made that assertion? It is self-regulating. When you think about that, why wouldn't you claim some sort of benefit, whether you were using your vehicle in or outside the metropolitan area? After all, how do you define easily the limits of the metropolitan area, given the urban sprawl that is dominating the eastern coast of Australia and parts of Western Australia as well?This is an administrative nightmare and an open invitation to tax evasion. This is an open invitation to pass a cheque book to owner-drivers who want to exploit the system. Because it is self-regulatory, we will have to take their word for it. Who ever asked the Australian taxpayer, `You pay your taxes, and we will give them away in this way'? This is the most porous, easily exploitable system of handing out money that there has ever been. This is a confection of the government and the Australian Democrats.Accountability in public expenditure is an important issue for governments in this country. But what do we have? A lack of accountability enshrined in legislation that we are guillotining through today with an inability to actually go through it properly in the considered detail that is necessary to point out the further issues that are a problem here. They are some of the reasons.Under this legislation, if you are driving a truck from Melbourne to Geelong, that is deemed to be the metropolitan area of Australia and so you do not get the benefit of this legislation. If you make a detour out of that corridor and go into rural Australia, then you do get some benefit from this legislation. If you are driving from almost any other point in country Australia, you get the benefit of the legislation but not as soon as you enter the metropolitan area, which is also deemed to be Newcastle-Sydney-Wollongong and the Sunshine Coast-Brisbane-Gold Coast—all of those things not being defined clearly, so that you actually know where you are—so you either get the benefit or you do not get the benefit. As I say, this is a dog's breakfast.I want to move an amendment to the second reading of this legislation, which I will now turn to. The amendment that I propose to move begins:That all words after `That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:—10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Hogg)—Senator Cook, that is not the second reading amendment that I have.RF4Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOK—Sorry. It has been re-crafted. I wish to quote not the lead-in text but the actual words of the amendment I propose to move to the second reading of this legislation.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Are we on sheet 1461?RF4Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOK—We are indeed. I move:At the end of the motion, add "but the Senate:(a) condemns the Government for proposing arrangements which will: (i) impose a compliance nightmare on Australian transport operators; (ii) breach Australia's international greenhouse gas reduction obligations; (iii) worsen air quality in Australian cities; (iv) be wide open to abuse; (v) increase the cost of using public transport; (vi) retard the development of Australian solar industries and energy efficient technology; and(b) recommends that the Government introduce clean diesel fuel programs, and tighter vehicle emission standards, such as those operating in the United States and the European Community to improve the air quality and hence living conditions of Australians living in urban areas".I want to conclude my participation in this debate by going back to the original premise. There are two mutually antagonistic ideas: cheaper fuel, higher consumption, more pollution on the one side; lower consumption, more subsidies out of the public purse on the other. And there is a contention that in the first case we add to economic efficiency, which is undoubtedly true, but without considering the social dimension and other hidden economic costs of that efficiency, and in the second case that we are actually consuming less and protecting the environment and the health of Australians.When we vote on this legislation, I think a great deal of weight should be placed on what the Australian Medical Association has said. Any Australian who considered the debate on cigarettes and lung cancer will recall that in the early days medical prophets who argued that cigarettes contribute to lung cancer and the early death of smokers were rubbished by vested interests and told that they were prophets of doom who had no scientific basis for what they said. What is being put to us now by the medical profession is that the same impact can be had on human health by excessive fuel emissions. Their words should be taken—(Time expired)13:54:006733MacGibbon, Sen DavidSenator MacGIBBONYH4QLDLP10—At the outset of this debate, I declare an interest in the bill as a primary producer and user of distillate. Unfortunately, in the months ahead I will be burning a lot more distillate than I have been burning up until the present. I support the Diesel and Alternative Fuels Grants Scheme Bill 1999 . I think it is a great step forward. Distillate is very import ant to rural Australia. Senator Cook would not realise it, but many properties carry no petrol on the premises at all. They hold only diesoline because all their equipment—tractors, trucks—use that as their fuel source. Also, Australia is the only country I can think of, off the top of my head, where distillate is either the same price as petrol or sold at a higher price. Most countries market dieseline at a lower price than petrol.I want to talk about one of the practical elements in relation to this bill. Firstly, I would like to address the basic principle that Senator Cook was labouring so heavily through his speech. His basic proposition was that cheaper fuel leads to more consumption and therefore more pollution.Senator Brownhill interjecting—YH4MacGibbon, Sen DavidSenator MacGIBBON—As Senator Brownhill interjected, that is a totally incorrect assumption. We are talking about the commercial use of fuel here. No-one sits on a tractor and drives it around a property to look at the scenery. They do it because they are hauling a plough or digging a hole with a bucket—something like that. Similarly, they do not drive trucks around the place unless they have a load of cattle or feed on board, or produce which they are taking somewhere.Farming is a commercial business, not a pleasure business. So the consumption of fuel will not increase in any way at all. All that will happen is that the profitability of rural enterprises will become marginally better because one of their inputs will be a little bit cheaper. If that is the only criticism of any substance in Senator Cook's speech—it was hard to find anything else of any substance in it—then he really ought to be supporting the bill.One of the other arguments he ran was the health argument, basing it on a claim by the AMA some weeks ago that we should oppose the bill because there would be a lot of dangerous carcinogens out in the air as a consequence of this increased consumption. Probably all hydrocarbon fuels contain carcinogens. I am not dogmatic on that point because I have not surveyed the whole range of hydrocarbon fuels. Certainly petrol contains carcinogens. It is probably also true that those carcinogens are in molecular form and are therefore invisible—they are not visible as smoke.I welcome the fact that the bill looks at the emission control standards for diesel engines. One of my concerns is the state of the maintenance of so many diesel trucks in Australia. One of the characteristics of a very large number of Australian diesel trucks is their exhaust signature. In plain language, I am talking about the huge clouds of black exhaust smoke which come out, particularly when the truck is under load. This exhaust cloud consists of carbon particles and incompletely combusted fuel, and sometimes even raw fuel droplets. You can argue as to whether or not the visible sign of that exhaust signature is a carcinogen. Certainly, the particulate matter acts as a respiratory irritant and is a general degrading element in the community. The point must be made that a properly tuned and maintained diesel engine has no visible exhaust signature at all.If you ask most people in the community how they pick a diesel from a petrol engine, their immediate reply would be, `We pick it by the black exhaust smoke that's coming out of it.' That is a consequence of a badly maintained engine. The black exhaust smoke comes from dirty fuel injectors and from worn engines, and some operators open up the fuel rack on the fuel pump so that they get more fuel into the engine to get greater power because often they overload trucks. It is a well known fact that many commercial vehicles are operating up to twice the designed all-up weight for their load.Senator Cook talked about emission standards in California, which I think are very interesting. Next time honourable senators are in California, I invite them to go to Los Angeles, get out on the freeways and have a look at the trucks going along. You will not see any exhaust signature at all on a Californian vehicle. You will see heat waves shimmering out of the exhaust pipe when they pull up at the stop signs. You can see them carrying heavy loads at high speeds, going up inclines and hills and you will not see any trace at all of signature.Debate interrupted.Questions Without Notice673567356735Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT4J4SAALP00—My question is to Senator Kemp, the Assistant Treasurer. I refer to the Treasurer's promise made in parliament last Wednesday that `the states will keep arrangements providing for rebates on cellar door and mail order sales for wineries of up to $300,000.' Did the Treasurer go on to claim that he understood that `South Australia has already indicated that it will'? Is it not a fact that the South Australian Treasurer, Mr Lucas, stated in the South Australian parliament only an hour or so later that he was `not aware of any agreement that had been entered into by the states to maintain arrangements for the exemption'? Can the minister now confirm that the Treasurer was relying on a submission from the Winemakers Federation of Australia to the Senate when he made his misleading claims in parliament? Isn't this hopeless shambles just another example of the policy making on the run which has characterised the government's chronic adhockery in its negotiations with the Democrats? What guarantees has the federal government received from the states that the tax exemption will be continued? (Time expired)6735Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—Let me make it quite clear that the only hopeless shambles that we have seen in this Senate chamber is the Australian Labor Party. The Labor Party were defeated profoundly last night. They have fought against tax reform for 15 years and last night the Senate decided to move ahead with tax reform. So, Senator Schacht, the only shambles in this place is the Labor Party. The strategy of the leaders of the Labor Party was to avoid any major policy change and just go for the politics of sleaze and the big lie. That is what the Labor Party approach was.4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—Madam President, I raise a point of order on relevance. I asked a question about the arrangements with the South Australian government. The minister has not yet got anywhere near to answering it. We would just like to know: have you reached agreement with the South Australian government on the $300,000 exemption?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Kemp, I draw your attention to the question asked by Senator Schacht.WW4Senator KEMP—Thank you, Madam President. I was referring to the point in the question about shambles. It was not me who raised the issue of shambles, it was Senator Schacht. I was pointing out that if he wants to raise the issue of shambles, the biggest shambles in this parliament is the Australian Labor Party, their leadership and their utter failure of strategy. It is no wonder at all that we are already seeing discussions in the press about the security of the tenure of leadership of Mr Beazley. I might say that I would not be surprised if we saw discussions about—4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—Madam President, I take a point of order. This is the second time that I draw your attention to relevance. The minister has not got anywhere near answering the question regarding whether there is an agreement with South Australia on a $300,000 exemption for wineries, which is a very important question for South Australia.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Part of the problem of course is that there was comment within the question. I think Senator Kemp knows what the question is, but he is also dealing with the comment. However, I draw your attention to the question, Senator Kemp.WW4Senator KEMP—Thank you, Madam President. You are quite right: if a question is worded in that manner, I have the right to answer the question in a way which deals with the matters that you have raised. Regrettably, you blundered again. You raised the issue of shambles and that opened the whole area to a discussion about the performance of the Labor Party. In relation to the issue that Senator Schacht raised regarding a comment made by the Treasurer, I will check with him and inform the Senate in due course.6735Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT4J4SAALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Minister, when you are checking with the Treasurer, would you ask him: is it true that the 29 per cent wine equalisation tax plus the GST will increase the wine industry's tax impost by 12 per cent, or $147 million, and make Australia the most highly taxed wine producing country in the world?6736Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—Let me make it clear that the WET tax means that, after the abolition of the wholesale sales tax and its replacement with the GST, prices will be equalised to avoid dramatic and dislocating price falls. The government has consulted industry and taken advice from it in formulating the WET tax. Senator Schacht has asked me to raise matters with the Treasurer, and I will do so.67366736Lightfoot, Sen PhillipSenator LIGHTFOOTWP6WALP10—My question, which is addressed to the Assistant Treasurer, follows on from the historic passing of the new tax system yesterday in this chamber. Will the minister advise the Senate what benefits will flow to Australians from the passing of the tax package?6736Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—I thank Senator Lightfoot for his question. Senator Lightfoot, along with every senator on this side of the chamber, has been very strongly supportive of tax reform. As I indicated in my earlier remarks today, yesterday was a very historic day as the goods and services tax bills and related bills passed through this chamber and went to the other place. I think it is widely recognised that the Australian public voted for tax reform and the Australian public have got tax reform. I think the group in the community that are hopelessly exposed now are the Labor Party, as the Labor Party have nowhere to go. The Labor Party have no policies on tax reform. Their only policy was to oppose, oppose and oppose. What we will see in the coming weeks will be the public asking the Labor Party where they stand on tax reform. The public will ask whether they will restore the wholesale sales tax of which they are so beloved. The fact of the matter is that, if they want to restore the wholesale sales tax, all they have to do is repeal the bills which have gone through the parliament and bring in a new bill to restore the wholesale sales tax.I am pleased to say that on 1 July 2000, the government will be able to deliver the largest income tax cuts in Australian history with the introduction of a new tax system. Small business people, factory workers, teachers, shop owners and tradespeople all deserve, and will now get, a major income tax cut. Along with the restructure of the tax system, the new tax system will provide very generous benefits to Australians, including massive cuts in income tax totalling some $12 billion. In fact, a typical Australian family may well receive in the order of $40 to $50 a week in tax cuts as a result of this package that passed through the Senate last night. There will be massive tax cuts and massive help to Australian families. In the package there is additional assistance available to families worth some $2.5 billion and, of course, there are real rises in pensions and benefits. It is one of the astonishing features of the debate—and history will record this—that the Labor Party opposed massive cuts in taxation. The Labor Party opposed a massive rise in assistance to families. The Labor Party opposed real rises in pensions and benefits.This is about the fourth time in the last decade and a half to two decades that either the Labor Party or the coalition has tried to achieve this type of tax reform. The good news is that on 1 July 2000 it will become a reality and we can consign Australia's current outdated and ramshackle system to the pages of Australian history. This reform had to pass many obstacles before it passed the Senate, but the major obstacle was the Australian Labor Party which, for reasons best known to itself, decided to set its face against tax reform. Now the Australian public want to know what the Labor Party does stand for, what the Labor Party will do in the area of tax reform. It has only had four years to work out a solution to this problem and we are all waiting to hear it.6736Lightfoot, Sen PhillipSenator LIGHTFOOTWP6WALP10—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Can the minister advise what obstacles the tax reform package has had to overcome?6736Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—I think the biggest obstacle, as I indicated, was the Australian Labor Party. It is quite amazing that the Labor Party simply has not been able to work out a clear position on tax reform, except to oppose changes which were originally developed by the government and then negotiated with the Democrats. The Labor Party's only position has been to oppose tax reform. I have always said that the hardest question that anyone can ask in this parliament is: what does the Labor Party stand for? No-one knows the answer to the question. I do not know the answer to the question and the Labor Party does not know the answer to that question.67376737Crossin, Sen TrishSenator CROSSIN7Y6NTALP00—My question is to Senator Hill, the Minister for the Environment and Heritage. Minister, is it true that to date traditional owner opposition to the construction of a road for the transportation of ore from the Jabiluka mine to the Ranger mill has prevented ERA's preferred option of milling at Ranger from going ahead? Since clause 387(2)(b) of the Howard-Lees environment legislation allows the transportation of anything—no matter how dangerous—through Kakadu, doesn't this make traditional owner consent irrelevant? By agreeing to this clause, haven't the Democrats made a nonsense of their claimed opposition to the Ranger mill alternative?6737Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—It is a novel argument which I will have a look at afterwards. It certainly was not the intention but, if the senator is suggesting that it has that effect, we will look at it and see what flows therefrom. The point is that traditional owners have resisted the milling of ore taken from Jabiluka mine at the existing Ranger site. That is a matter of great regret. Everyone acknowledges that it would be better to process the ore from Jabiluka in the existing plant. I would have thought that was obvious not only to indigenous Australians but to all Australians. The advantages are, obviously, that you do not need to build a new plant out at the Jabiluka site and you do not need a road for that purpose between the two sites. Unfortunately, approval has not been given for the milling at Ranger to date.4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—Are you the minister for destroying the environment?BH4Senator HILL—You miss the point, Senator Schacht. The point I am making is that if consent was given for milling at Ranger, you would achieve a better environmental outcome. Ranger was the mine that the Labor Party oversaw for 13 years while in government. A large open-cut uranium mine already existed which apparently was not a threat to the environment at all. The current debate is whether a small, new, underground mine a few kilometres away is fundamentally different. Of course it is not fundamentally different. How could Labor say for 13 years—even you would have trouble answering this, Senator Schacht—that Ranger was not a threat to the environment and then, all of a sudden, Jabiluka is a fundamental threat—Jabiluka, with a footprint of just over one square kilometre, is a threat to a national park of 20,000 square kilometres? That is how illogical the Labor argument is on this matter. It is true that consents have not been given. Consents will need to be given by traditional owners in order to process at Ranger. Without those consents that processing cannot take place.6737Crossin, Sen TrishSenator CROSSIN7Y6NTALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Was it the case that such matters as transportation of ore previously had to be approved through express provision in the Kakadu plan of management, thus giving the Kakadu board a power of veto? Since the Howard-Lees deal proceeded without consultation with stakeholders, whose rights have now been taken away, isn't the Director of the Jawoyn Association, Mr Robert Lee, correct when he says that his people feel like jacky-jackys?6737Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—The rights of nobody have been taken away. Some of us actually believe in representative democracy and that this parliament has the power to pass laws and that they apply to all Australians. Some of us think that a period of 2½ years of consultation is sufficient. Some of us think that 11 months within a parliamentary inquiry is adequate—considered for 11 months by this parliament in its committees of inquiry. Some people think that that is a good basis for making law in this country. That is what true democracy is all about and nobody has been disenfranchised.67376737Knowles, Sen SusanSenator KNOWLESTH4WALP10—My question is to the Minister for Family and Community Services, Senator Newman. Minister, will you advise the Senate as to what the government has done to improve the integrity and the fairness of the social security system? Could the minister also advise the Senate as to what changes are due to come into effect as of 1 July, and include any crackdowns that are going to occur which will provide further funds for increased payments to those in real need?6738Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—I thank Senator Knowles for the question. As chairman of the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee she has a continuing and in-depth interest in these subjects. It is important for the Senate to acknowledge and to recognise that there are a wide range of initiatives, in my portfolio area in particular, starting from 1 July. For example, 14,000 carers of adult relatives who previously were not eligible for assistance will now be able to receive a carer allowance because of a liberalisation of the entitlement. That will cost the Australian taxpayer $92 million over the next four years. It is obviously something which needs to be done for those carers.Carer allowance and carer payment will be able to be claimed for up to 63 days when the child or the care recipient is in hospital, as well as for up to 63 days when that person is in respite care, as is presently the case. So there is another 63 days if the person being cared for has to go to hospital. It is obviously a practical and a necessary measure. Foster carers, who I think are the salt of the earth in this country, are going to be able to receive a health care card which gives them access to the cheaper pharmaceuticals and other concessions for the child which they currently have not been able to access. Also, there will no longer be a 12-month waiting period for single foster carers to access the parenting payment.There are going to be more flexible arrangements for non-custodial parents when making payments outside the Child Support Agency and they will be able to be considered as part of their child support liabilities. I am thinking there about things like school fees, medical expenses, et cetera. There will be $9 million going to community organisations to provide support networks for men in their family relationships and $6 million to community organisations to provide marriage and relationship education.There will be new trial funding arrangements for disability employment assistance. And, for example, Age Pension News is now going to be distributed to those self-funded retirees who are eligible for the Commonwealth seniors health card. We expect that, over time, up to 220,000 additional older Australians will be eligible both for the Commonwealth seniors health card and for the Age Pension News.Senator Knowles spoke about compliance measures. Twenty Centrelink offices are going to be located in Australian tax offices to help stop fraud and increase compliance. That is where some of the money will be able to be accessed to do these very necessary things for people in need. There will be data matching of Centrelink records with state and territory superannuation administration authorities, with the Australian Stock Exchange and the Registrar-General's offices—Births, Deaths and Marriages—so that we can identify customers who may not have provided the correct information about their children, their superannuation or their shareholdings.We are expanding the mutual obligation scheme to people aged 25 to 34 who have been unemployed for 12 months. That is going to include Work for the Dole, literacy and numeracy skills and the other list of measures as previously announced. It is interesting that the Labor spokesman Martin Ferguson now supports the Work for the Dole scheme. It is quite fascinating. He has finally given recognition that the scheme works and that it leads to real jobs for young Australians. He tries to make a suggestion or two about what else we could do for young people. He fails to acknowledge that the youth allowance is exactly filling the gap that he says needs filling. Youth allowance is allowing young people to be in part-time work and improving their skills at the same time as getting youth allowance. That is an important recognition of the reality of young people's lives. This government stands for good policy development and the vacuum on the other side is deafening. (Time expired)6738Knowles, Sen SusanSenator KNOWLESTH4WALP10—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. My further question to the minister is the all important question about income streams for retirees. I understand that there are further changes to be made in that area. Could the minister please explain to the Senate what those changes will be?RF4COOKSenator Cook—Madam President, I raise a point of order. That is a question asking the government to make a statement about government policy, which is expressly forbidden under the standing orders. You should rule it out of order.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—A statement of government intention is permissible.6739Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—In looking forward to the coming year, as I have been doing in my answer, it is pretty important to also recognise what has been done in the past year.TH4KNOWLESSenator Knowles—Senator Cook should be interested in retirement income.BE4Senator NEWMAN—Senator Cook might be interested in retirement income if we could only encourage him to be brave and step outside. It is interesting that only yesterday the chairman of the Australian Retirement Income Streams Association, Mr Kieren Dell, pointed out that retirees are being encouraged to move away from lump sums and into income streams through a sensible and positive policy approach developed by the federal government. There is recognition that good policy development is continuously coming from this government and the absence of it from the opposition is a matter of great sadness to the Australian people because an alternative government they are not and never will be until they too start focusing on policy development. It will be the measure by which they are judged. (Time expired)67396739Reynolds, Sen MargaretSenator REYNOLDSXI4QLDALP00—I address my question to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage. Does the minister recall Senator Lees's statement last week that Kakadu would now `look much like a piece of Swiss cheese, with no less than 23 active mining leases'? Is it true that clause 359(3) of the Howard-Lees environment bill allows the minister to renew such leases without either environmental assessment or the consent of traditional owners?6739Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—I am surprised that someone from the Labor Party would have the nerve to ask that question. The leases have returned to be leases because of a mistake of the Australian Labor Party in government. The ALP sought to incorporate the leases within the park but forgot to pay just terms compensation. The matter was taken to the court and it was found that what the Labor Party did was invalid, regrettably. I would have thought, Senator Reynolds, that you might have acknowledged your participation in the cause of the problem.Having received the problem from the Labor Party, we have to address it. As I have said in this chamber, it is our intention to reincorporate the leases within the park but to do it in a constitutional way. That means that we have got to meet the responsibility of just terms, and we have been seeking to assess what those just terms would mean in the case of those leases. As I said the other day—obviously the honourable senator missed the debate—it is a complex issue, because the judgment, which you may or may not have read, actually did not make clear which were the leases to which it applied, and considerable work has had to be done since then to determine the leases. Then considerable work has got to be done to try and assess what their value is. That work, as I indicated, is ongoing, and when we have answers on that we will be able to complete the process of reincorporation of the leases within the park. I would have thought that would be something that Senator Reynolds would applaud and I would think that she would congratulate the government for correcting the error that the Labor Party made.6739Reynolds, Sen MargaretSenator REYNOLDSXI4QLDALP00—I think it is a little early for congratulations, Minister. I ask a supplementary question, Madam President. Isn't it true that clause 359(6), which purports to protect Kakadu National Park, is of no effect with respect to these 23 leases since the High Court in the Newcrest case determined that the national park did not cover the 23 leases? Isn't this confirmed by the advice from the Australian Government Solicitor, which confirms that the leases, including Ranger 44 on the flood plain west of Jabiluka, are active and could be exploited?6740Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—I know that this failed to get a run the other day and it is probably thought to be worth giving it another go, but, regrettably, the Labor Party created the problem that we are seeking to fix. I do not know how many times I need say it but I will repeat it again: we will correct Labor's error by reincorporating the leases within the park and meeting our responsibility under the terms of the Australian Constitution. That will reassure Australians that the park will not suffer as a result of Labor's error. I do not know how many times I need to say it. If I were in the Australian Labor Party, I would be a touch too embarrassed to raise that matter in here.67406740Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Is the minister aware of a statement of opposition from 32 eminent Australians and the Democrats to the government's proposed so-called voluntary student unionism legislation? Has the minister read today's Canberra Times editorial, which highlights the absurdity of the legislation in treating student unions as trade unions? Does the minister believe that student unions are trade unions? Finally, given the widespread and diverse opposition to the legislation from the community and the higher education sector, why is the minister persisting with this legislation?6740Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—Answering the last part of Senator Stott Despoja's question first, it is quite easy to explain why we are persisting with this. It is a matter of policy, and one which we have stood by for some years. It deals with the basic concept of voluntary association, one which you will find like a thread running through Liberal philosophy. That is why we are supporting it. We are supporting it on the basis that students should not be compelled to join any association, that they should be free to do so. I am aware of the article yesterday. I am also aware of false reports that we are shelving this legislation. Far from it. In fact, I think the Prime Minister was on Triple J today saying that we would stand by this legislation and that he could not understand those people who did not agree with the principle of voluntary association. I found a lot of support for the principle of voluntary association. NUS has described itself as a union, and to use that term `union' is not inappropriate. We are talking about a form of compulsory unionism where students do not get a choice. What we are saying to the students of Australia and the people of Australia is that we are a government that stands for freedom.4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—What about the Law Society? You can't practise without membership.FX5MURPHYSenator Murphy—What about rugby union?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senators on my left are being disruptive and disorderly, and are behaving in breach of the standing orders.9X5Senator ELLISON—As I said, this cannot be likened to something like local government or the provision of student services. NUS has described its primary goal as the provision of union services to students across Australia. What we are talking about here is compelling students to join an association—no fee, no degree. That is the underlying problem with this concept, because it is compelling students to join an association that they do not wish to join.In Western Australia, we have voluntary student unionism. We have seen there that student services do not decline. I would say to those people who signed that advertisement yesterday, `Go back and have a look at Western Australia and the student services that are being provided to students.' I would also asked them to bear in mind that what we are about is voluntary association. I am sure that once those people understood what this policy means, they would be withdrawing their stance on this issue.6740Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. I would like to know if the minister considers student unions trade unions. Does the minister agree with Minister Kemp's description of supporters of student organisations—that is, that they are union lap-dogs? Would he dare describe in that way His Eminence Cardinal Clancy, Ms Janet Holmes a Court or Mr John Platten? In light of the support of a cardinal, two bishops, a rugby player—Joe Roff—on this petition, will the minister—Government senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! There are far too many interjections. I draw senators' attention to the standing orders and the requirements of them.3I6Senator STOTT DESPOJA—In light of the support of a cardinal, two bishops and a rugby player, will the minister be taking action to outlaw communion, rugby union and marital union?6741Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—You only have to look at the NUS, who describe themselves as a union. They have said it themselves. They have described themselves as a union. Madam President, you do not have to go any further than that. Senator Stott Despoja would like to see students across Australia compulsorily pay an up-front fee in excess of $300. That is what this is all about. Once again, I say for the record that we are about voluntary association—and that is not just in the sphere of student unionism, it is across the board. We are a party of voluntary association and freedom of choice. Those are the basic tenets of our belief and that is what we went to the people of Australia with last year in October, and those are the tenets and principles upon which we won.67416741Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW656NSWALP00—My question is to Senator Herron, representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Can the minister advise the Senate what effect the collapse of the negotiations between the government and that highly respected trade union the AMA about new payments for general practitioners will have on the budget for the Department of Health and Aged Care? Will the payment to GPs in the 1999 budget for coordinated care planning, multidisciplinary case conferencing, voluntary assessments for over-75s, and reten tion payments for rural GPs still proceed without the agreement with GPs being signed?6741Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—I thank Senator Forshaw for the question. Being a Fellow of the Australian Medical Association, I should state my interest in this—and I am proud member. It is not a union. It is a voluntary association. We do not have to belong.Honourable senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! I have already drawn the Senate's attention to the requirements of the standing orders and I ask that senators behave in accordance with them.VW4Senator HERRON—In Australia, 26,000 doctors voluntarily put in their fees to be part of that. Of 40,000 doctors, 26,000 proudly belong to the Australian Medical Association. They are not coerced—not like all those people on the other side who have to be members of unions and members of the Labor Party to be in the Senate. They have no choice. They warm the benches over there representing nobody but their own unions. They are all representing unions. I am proud to say that there are members of unions on this side.Honourable senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! The behaviour at present is in breach of the standing orders and senators are disregarding the orders of the chair—which is also in breach of the standing orders.VW4Senator HERRON—Madam President, you will have to forgive them because it is near the end of the Senate term and one gets a bit concerned.UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—What's your excuse?VW4Senator HERRON—The same—it is the same, Senator Ray. The government has been negotiating with general practitioners to try to develop a financial agreement which will improve financial certainty for both the profession and the government.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—You've found the brief, have you?VW4Senator HERRON—Senator Faulkner, I have had it all the time. More importantly, it will promote quality care for patients. A draft memorandum of understanding was finalised on 21 May with the Australian Medical Association, the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners, the Rural Doctors Association of Australia and the Australian Divisions of General Practice.Senator Schacht interjecting—VW4Senator HERRON—Senator Schacht probably does not realise that they are all members of the AMA; it just happens that they are in separate divisions. Senator Forshaw may be interested to know that the offer is still on the table. Dr Wooldridge understands that the AMA has its own internal issues at the moment which it is discussing, and he is happy to continue to discuss the issues with general practitioners and general practitioner groups who wish to talk to him. The government is prepared to invest additional money in the Medicare system in return for cooperation from general practitioners in increasing the quality of services and the cost effectiveness of expenditure.A memorandum of understanding would give us the framework inside which we could modernise the Medicare schedule and deliver better quality care to patients—something that did not occur during 13 years of Labor Party government when they had no intention to do anything about it and tried to destroy private medical practice. This is designed to increase the quality of care, to cut down six-minute medicine, and to increase the quality of care for patients right throughout Australia.6742Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW656NSWALP00—I thank the honourable senator for his lengthy consultation but he did not actually answer the question, which was directed to whether the payments would still proceed if the agreement was not signed. So I would ask you to take that part of it on notice and respond later, Minister. But I have a supplementary question and that is: how will the $297 million in net cuts to pathology and pharmaceutical expenditure be achieved without the cooperation of the GPs? Isn't it the case that the health budget is now in a shambles as a result of the minister for health's inability to negotiate an agreement?6742Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—Senator Forshaw shows his abysmal lack of understanding of the whole system with that statement. It is not only general practitioners that order pathology tests; Senator Forshaw premised his supplementary question on the assumption that that was so. Senator Forshaw should be aware that half the profession are specialists and order pathology tests recurrently. He does not even understand the question. I think he should redraft his question so that he can get the answer that he is looking for. The reality is that negotiations will continue when the Australian Medical Association sorts out their internal difficulties—as they will. They will sort out their internal difficulties. They are not as rabble-roused and divided as the ALP is at this moment over their own leadership. We keep reading about the disunity in the Labor Party and the factions that are occurring at the moment as to their future. I can assure you that the AMA will sort out their problems. (Time expired)Honourable senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! I think there are some senators who have forgotten the wording of standing order 203 and I suggest that they read it.67426742Macdonald, Sen SandySenator SANDY MACDONALDCX5NSWNP10—My question is to Senator Alston, the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts. Minister, the passage of the tax package demonstrates again that the coalition has a plan and hopes for Australia's future. Will the minister inform the Senate how this historic initiative will benefit Australian consumers and business? Will the minister advise the Senate of the IT&T industry reaction to the package?6742Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—I thank Senator Macdonald for what may well be his last question in this place, at least for the time being. It is a very important question because it goes to the heart of the changes that have just been put through the Senate in both a historic and a heroic manner by Senator Kemp. What it does is ensure that the new tax system will be a huge boost to the IT&T industry and of course, if ever there was a growth sector in Australia—indeed around the world—this has got to be it. So it is critically important that we have significant benefits to Australian consumers and business users of IT&T products.Under Labor's inconsistent raft of wholesale sales taxes, computers, printers, keyboards and other IT&T communications equipment are currently slugged with a tax rate of 22 per cent or higher. Indeed cameras, televisions, videos, projectors and stereos are rated at 32 per cent. Clearly these items will be vastly cheaper under the new tax regime. Of course the GST will replace all of these inconsistent and contradictory rates with a tax rate of 10 per cent. Lower tax rates obviously allow lower prices to consumers and mean improved access to IT&T equipment and consequently a greater ability to access the online environment and all the products and services that it has to offer.It is particularly gratifying that the industry reaction has been very positive. I single out for special mention the Australian Electrical and Electronic Manufacturers Association, who welcomed the package, saying that it would make Australian exports more competitive. Indeed, they also have a view on Labor's general approach to taxation reform. They said at the time:Labor's package is focused on taxing products and leaves services alone. This places a huge burden on the shrinking manufacturing sector—services are a much larger part of the economy.It is therefore very significant indeed that the AEEMA is now to be headed up by Mr Beazley's former chief of staff, Mr David Epstein. Of course not only is Mr Epstein jumping off a sinking ship, but he is joining an organisation that has both endorsed the coalition's specific approach to tax and also of course very heavily bagged Labor's approach to tax. He joins a growing rank of senior ALP figures who once they actually get into the real world have a very different view. So I was amazed this morning to read that Mr Beazley was out there doing a doorstop saying:The Australian agenda needs to be about the security our people need in the next century and how we build the knowledge-based society, because only knowledge-based societies are going to be competitive in the next century. And these tax changes have nothing to do with that. Well, as they say in the industry, he just doesn't get it. These are the tools of the trade that you need to be successful in the information economy, and Mr Beazley is locked in to 22 and 32 per cent rates. If there were one single thing you could do, it would be to reduce the cost of these items. I am astounded that people like Senator Lundy have not been making that point very heavily to the current Leader of the Opposition, because clearly he needs as much help as he can get on a whole range of fronts but particularly if he is going to rabbit on about the knowledge based economy. If he thinks he can get through to the next election with a few nice words on the subject, then he has also got to explain why he is in favour of a much higher rate of payment on the retail prices of many of these items in the IT&T sector. So here is another very good learning opportunity for the Labor Party: go back and look at what is happening in the real world, take notice of all those people like Bob Hogg, Gary Johns and even Mr Della Bosca, who seems to think you ought to be positive for a change, and you might actually come up with some policies that work.67436743Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—My question without notice is to Senator Herron, the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs. Can the minister confirm that the Commonwealth government has delegated the responsibility to coordinate a national response to the Bringing them Home report to the Victorian government? Is it true that this decision was taken in August 1998? Can the minister confirm that there has not been a single meeting of the working group which Victoria was to coordinate? In view of Victoria's lack of interest in fulfilling its delegated responsibility, will the government now do what it should have done in the first place and take over the chair of the working group?6743Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—The coordination of the Bringing them home report is under the control of ATSIC. A lot of work has gone on since the Bringing them home report was brought down. The government has provided ATSIC with $11.25 million over four years to establish a dedicated indigenous family tracing and reunion service, known as the Link-Up service, in each state and the Northern Territory. As a first step, ATSIC was required to commission an independent evaluation of the existing services to identify the most appropriate models, including the resources required in each jurisdiction for new and enhanced services. That evaluation was completed in April this year.In the interim, existing services have been funded at historic levels. Contemporaneously with the evaluation, ATSIC has progressed the government's decision through funding established Link-Up services in New South Wales, Tasmania, Victoria and Queensland to employ additional caseworkers. Provision of specialist family tracing planning and purchase of capital items such as computer hardware and software have also occurred, which will enhance the Link-Up services family tracing efforts. Submissions from organisations wishing to establish dedicated Link-Up services in Western Australia and South Australia have gone out to enhance the services in the Northern Territory also, and they are being developed.Contemporaneously with the evaluation of Link-Up, ATSIC started a number of tasks aimed at implementing the government's decision relating to that national Link-Up network. That included the development of a position paper for ATSIC's negotiations with the states and territories on matters such as state responses to the Bringing them home report and access to records and relevant mainstream and indigenous services. This has involved ascertaining the current and planned situation in each state and territory. I presume that Senator Carr's question was related to the Victorian aspect of that which, as I said, is being linked together by ATSIC in any case.6744Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Is it the case that the Victorian government has been delegated the responsibility to coordinate a national response? I ask the minister to address that question directly. I further ask: is it also true that the Victorian government has yet to even nominate personnel who are to act as consultants to this working group? If it is the case, why is it that the minister and the government are displaying such a lack of interest by allowing this to go on for so long?6744Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—Far from displaying a lack of interest, I have continually monitored this. As I said, ATSIC has been responsible for the conduct of the responses from the states and territories, and I will ask ATSIC to bring me up to date today in response to Senator Carr's question. Personnel is the responsibility of the Victorian section, and I will get back to Senator Carr when I have the names.67446744Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TASIND00—My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and relates to that dreadful action by the Australian government of sending a woman 8½ months pregnant back to certain forced abortion. I ask the minister: precisely what action has been taken to ensure the undertakings given by the Chinese authorities that the woman would not be forcibly sterilised, that all the family planning fines and abortion costs would be waived and that she would be found a job and accommodation for her and her three-year-old daughter? How are these undertakings being monitored? Can the minister provide to the Senate an up-to-date account of how the woman is and whether these monitoring activities are going to continue until that person is safe?6744Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPJustice and Customs10—I thank the senator for his question. I can see by looking at the very limited brief I have on this matter that it does not go specifically to the points you raise, so I propose to give you the information that I have on the understanding that I recognise it does not address specifically the points you raise and that I will raise them with Mr Ruddock and get you an answer as soon as I possibly can on the matters not covered by this information. The brief that I have does raise generally the question of the safety of the woman referred to. It says:The government is satisfied with the arrangements which have been made by the Chinese government for her resettlement in China.It goes on:We are assured that she faces no threat from the Chinese authorities, nor does she have any outstanding debts to the Chinese government.As you know, Senator, an independent inquiry into her removal from Australia is being undertaken by Mr Tony Ayers. Until that has been completed, we will not be offering comments on the matters covered by the terms of reference. I am advised that her application for an Australian visa is under consideration, and I am also advised that she can contact the Australian Consulate in Guangzhou at any time if she so wishes. Our discussion with Chinese authorities on this issue, I am advised, has been very positive. I am further advised that, if Mr Ayers needs to interview her, we will seek to make appropriate arrangements for him to do so. I will refer any further matters in your particular question that have not been answered by that to Mr Ruddock and get an answer for you as soon as I am able to.6745Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TASIND00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. I will not say what my current information is, but it is clearly far more advanced than the minister's. I ask very specifically for the minister to come back into this chamber either today or tomorrow and outline to the chamber which consular officials have seen the woman in the last two weeks. What is the report of her condition at the present moment and the undertakings that were given by the Chinese authorities? In respect of the lady concerned, is the government going to provide a temporary visa for her to come to Australia to give evidence to that inquiry, under other inquiries that are being continued, including that by the Senate Legal and Constitutional References Committee?6745Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPJustice and Customs10—Senator, as I indicated, I understood from the very beginning that the brief I had did not answer all the points that you raised. I indicated that I would get on to Mr Ruddock and get an answer from him as soon as I could, and I will do that. If the Hansard pinks show further questions raised in your supplementary, I will get them answered as well. I have just seen from the back of the prepared brief that the information that I have given you was prepared on 21 June. So it was prepared last week. There may be further information from that point on, and I will get it for you as soon as I can.67456745Gibbs, Sen BrendaSenator GIBBS6L6QLDALP00—My question is to Senator Herron, the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Is the minister aware that, of the 31,800 new health insurance policies taken out in the first quarter of this year, only 2,712 were for full cover? Is the minister concerned that there is a rapidly growing number of people with exclusionary policies with large up-front payments who are taking out the cheapest possible insurance simply to avoid paying the Medicare surcharge?6745Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—Madam President, it is the old ALP question again: force everybody into something—compulsion. We are about freedom of choice. If people want to take out the cover that they so desire, so be it. We are not forcing them to do anything. The Labor Party wants to socialise medicine. That is all it is interested in: socialising medicine and forcing people to take compulsory cover. We have set out a comprehensive and strategic approach to allow people freedom of choice so that we can maintain the balance between the public hospital system and the private hospital system. If people take up-front cover—they might go for cover under which they will accept the first $1,000 of cost of their hospital care—so be it. That is called freedom. The Labor Party would not understand that. It is called freedom of choice. They can take out whichever cover is available.The government has adopted this approach so that it can maintain that balance. All the Labor Party is interested in is a public hospital system with no freedom of choice for Australians to take out whatever cover they desire. If people are taking out that cover, so be it; they are entitled to do that. It is a competitive market. We are moving towards a system where we will have a supplemented private health sector that is fair, affordable, customer friendly and good value for money. It is up to the individual to decide which cover they take out. The introduction of a lifetime health cover scheme, the 30 per cent rebate, the pursuit of reforms to address the gap and the development of coordinated care in the private sector are all part of a cohesive approach to address these objectives. Where is the Labor Party's health policy? Madam President, there is silence from the other side—a policy vacuum. I accused them of trying to socialise health care, and they all shouted in agreement. I asked them what their policy was—silence; dead silence.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Herron, I would point out that to shout back at you would be disorderly.VW4Senator HERRON—It is fairly obvious that what we are doing is part of a comprehensive strategy to maintain that balance between the private and the public hospital systems and give people a choice dependent on their financial resources. We need to encourage young people back into the system because of the community rating principle, which we support, and we will continue to do so. But obviously, with the ageing population, there have to be measures taken to keep that quantum of money going into the private hospital system at a high level; otherwise it goes bust, and it is not our intention for that to occur. If people are exercising their freedom of choice to take out this level of private health insurance, we welcome them in, because the alternative is that they would be totally reliant on the public hospital system, which is already overcrowded and run down by the 13 years that the Labor Party was in power—leaving us with a system that will go further down the drain unless active measures are taken.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—You weren't reading your brief. You've been told not to do that.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Faulkner, you are behaving in a disorderly fashion.6746Gibbs, Sen BrendaSenator GIBBS6L6QLDALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Minister, if the Medicare surcharge artificially boosts the number of people with private health insurance, how will this relieve pressure on the public hospital system, given that these people will still use a public hospital if they get sick because they face a large front-end payment plus all the gap repayments?6746Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—Obviously Senator Gibbs does not know the quantum of money that goes into the hospital system under the government sector. Private hospitals get $295 million out of each Commonwealth budget. Public hospitals, on the other hand, get $5,181 million. So the premise on which that supplementary question is asked is false. The other balance, of course, goes into the repatriation hospitals—$16 million a year. The quantum is $5,181 million compared to $295 million. So to allege that somehow this tiny little change is going to make the public hospital system grind to a halt is false. I suggest that Senator Gibbs go back to the questions committee and get somebody in the Labor Party to spend a little time trying to understand the hospital system of this country. I will nominate Senator Chris Evans. He is obviously on the rise and trying to make a name for himself.67466746Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—My question is to the Minister for Family and Community Services. I refer to the urgent need for accommodation for people with disabilities and the ongoing failure of the federal government to reach agreement with the states on disabilities funding. I ask: does the minister recall her answer to my question back in April in which she said:It is now up to negotiations between the states, the territories and the Commonwealth to work out the degree of that sharing.Again I ask: is the minister seriously pursuing the matter of unmet need? What negotiations have taken place in the last three months on supported accommodation funding?6746Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—The answer to Senator Allison is that of course this government takes this matter of unmet need very seriously, which is why the ministerial council meeting which was held in May, I think, agreed between the governments that there was a shared role and responsibility for all governments to address the need of people with disabilities for accommodation, respite and similar services—need that has been growing for something like two decades. People in the disabilities area have made it very clear that they do not see that it is going to be met overnight. It has taken a long time to develop, and it will take a long time to be addressed. Nevertheless, I have been watching very closely and with interest the state government budgets to see what the state governments are prepared to commit into the future in an area for which, under the Commonwealth-state disability agreement, the major part of the responsibility falls to the states and has done since the disability agreement was negotiated in 1991 and continued in the agreement negotiated by my predecessor, the Hon. Warwick Smith.Some state and territory governments have begun to recognise their responsibilities to share the problem of unmet need, as we agreed at the recent ministers meeting. The ACT government has announced funding of a further $1 million each year for disability services in recognition of the unmet need in that area. The Victorian government has also announced an additional $5 million for community based accommodation, associated day programs and training programs for people with disabilities in the budget they handed down on 4 May. On 6 May the Western Australian budget committed $151.7 million for this coming year, which is similar to the level of funds that was declared under the second Commonwealth-state disability agreement. On 27 May the South Australian government budget announced an additional $3.3 million to ensure that services for people with disabilities are maintained. It has not been announced which portion of this money will be distributed through the Commonwealth-state disability agreement. I do not yet have an analysis of the New South Wales budget in terms of disabilities but, from what I have noticed in the press, I am a bit disappointed that accommodation services are being closed down—it is claimed with a saving of something of the order of $12½ million, which I believe is to go back to the state Treasury. That does not sound very positive.I do expect that states are going to show further commitment to addressing unmet need down the track. The Commonwealth will be making an additional contribution over and above our budget commitment later this year on the basis that the states and territories also make significant contributions. I would say, however, that it is very unfortunate when all governments sign on to a communique that perhaps it is not read more closely by those who would assess what was the outcome of a ministerial council meeting. I am very disappointed that some organisations have in fact assumed that the Commonwealth is standing aside from this process—nothing could be further from the truth. It is easy to frighten people or to whip up thinking that there is no cooperation. I would compare the ministerial council meeting on the unmet need in the Supported Accommodation Assistance Program for homeless people with the ministerial council meeting on people with disabilities. Their cooperation in terms of the homeless I think has been very much warmer and more progressive. I would like to see that sort of relationship in dealing with what has been a serious and endemic problem, as you know yourself, Senator.6747Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. I thank the minister for her answer. She has outlined the budgets of some of the states. I ask, as I did three months ago, what is the federal government's offer to the states in this respect and when will there be agreement? I am glad the minister also referred to the New South Wales incident of the privatisation of 200 group homes for people with intellectual disabilities. Was this discussed at the ministerial council meeting? How does privatisation help meet the unmet needs of people with disabilities in New South Wales? What guarantees are there that the privatisation of group homes will not lead to even greater abuse of people with disabilities in that state?6747Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—As Senator Allison would know, the provision of accommodation services under the Commonwealth-state disability agreement is a matter for the states. The issue of the changes to the arrangements in New South Wales were not discussed, and I am not a party to their activity.BH4HILLSenator Hill—Madam President, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper . Miscellaneous6748674815:04:006748Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—Senator Schacht today asked me a question in relation to a statement that Mr Costello had made. I wish to add to my answer. I refer Senator Schacht to the fact that Mr Costello answered a very similar question to the one he raised in the other place on 24 June. I refer Senator Schacht to that particular answer.674815:05:006748Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—I seek leave to incorporate a further answer to the supplementary question asked by Senator Bartlett of Senator Minchin, representing me, yesterday.Leave granted.The document read as follows—Supplementary QuestionSenator Bartlett asked the Minister, representing the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, Senator Minchin, the following supplementary question on 28 June 1999:Could the Minister outline to the Senate in what ways the options outlined in the directions paper actually meet adequate fauna habitat protection standards? The RFA is supposed to provide comprehensive, adequate and representative reserve system for forest protection. Will the government make available statistics on species and habitat, as well as regional ecosystems and alternative employment options, to ensure that the community assess adequately and accurately that the requirement for adequate protection of the south-east Queensland forests is met?Senator Hill— The answer to the honourable Senator's question is as follows:The Commonwealth remains committed to achieving balanced RFA outcomes in SEQ and recognises the diverse range of conservation values that require protection.During 1997 and 1998, the Commonwealth and Queensland governments conducted a comprehensive assessment of the full range of social, economic, environment and heritage values in the South East Queensland Forest estate, making available the best information ever collected about the region's forests, including about species and habitat. Information on species in South East Queensland is summarised in the Comprehensive Regional Assessment, publicly released on 18 March 1999. Detailed species information collected through the projects outlined in the Comprehensive Regional Assessment have also been publicly available on that date, including on the Commonwealth RFA Internet site www.rfa.gov.au.The knowledge gained through the Comprehensive Regional Assessment, process was integrated to develop the scenarios outlined in the Directions Report `Towards a South-East Queensland Regional Forest Agreement' , released on 14 May 1999. The Directions Report summarises the current economic, social and conservation situation in South East Queensland and, as a basis for public comment, presents a range of indicative scenarios that illustrate strategic issues that arise in developing a possible regional forest agreement.Species information collected as part of the Comprehensive Regional Assessment will be used by governments in the developing of the conservation outcomes for the Regional Forest Agreement.674815:05:006748Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—Secondly, I have some further information to an answer I gave today to Senator Crossin, regarding the road in the Kakadu region. Having looked at the law briefly, it would seem that Senator Crossin is wrong. Clause 387 of the new bill being passed into law at the moment does not prevent the requirement for any traditional owner consent in relation to the milling of ore at Ranger. In addition, clause 387, to which she refers, merely continues in force the following provisions of the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act, in particular subsection 10(1A), subsection 10(1B) and subsection 3A—that is, clause 387 does not change the law or take away any rights. The most relevant of those provisions—that is, corresponding with the NPWC Act—is clause 3A, which was in fact introduced by the ALP in 1987.674815:06:006748Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—I also have some further information in relation to the question from Senator Reynolds. The answer to Senator Reynolds's question is similar, so obviously the questions have been written by the same person. Sena tor Reynolds referred to clause 359(3) and (6). The clauses are equivalent to section 8B in the NPWC Act—in other words, there is no change in the law. Again, section 8B was amended to be in its present form by the ALP in 1987—that is, it merely continued in force.674915:07:006749Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALDYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—Madam President, I seek to make an explanation of an answer I gave yesterday, pursuant to standing order 191.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Is leave granted?YW4Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALD—Leave is not needed under standing order 191.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—I am not sure that 191 is the appropriate standing order. I think, for what you said you wanted to do, you would need leave of the Senate.YW4Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALD—I want to explain a speech that I made yesterday, namely, an answer to a question. It relates to the—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—That relates to a speech, not a personal explanation, I think, Senator.Opposition senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senators on my left will cease shouting.YW4Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALD—Madam President, it relates to a publication, Inside Canberra , which Senator Mackay mentioned yesterday. The author of that magazine has asked me—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator, as I understand it, that was in a question yesterday.YW4Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALD—That is right; it was in my answer, which is a speech.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—It is an answer to a question, which is not the same as a speech, Senator.YW4Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALD—Madam President, I simply want to make a statement about that but, if the Senate does not want me to, Mr Chalmers can thank the Labor Party for it.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Is leave granted for Senator Ian Macdonald to make a statement?BH4HILLSenator Hill—Madam President, I raise a point of order. I do not, obviously, question your ruling. I think Senator Ian Macdonald is adding to his answer of yesterday, which was in relation to a speech.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—That was not what he said.BH4HILLSenator Hill—Therefore, for that he would not seek leave.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Madam President, on the same point of order: it may well be the case that Senator Ian Macdonald wishes to add to an answer, which is in order after question time and for which I do not believe he needs to seek leave, but I would respectfully suggest to you that that is not what he said when he rose to his feet and addressed you—and I think you ruled properly that it was not competent for him to do so. But if he now realises the error of his ways and he wants to do something else, it is not within the capacity of the opposition to stop him, but we do note that this is all eating into time for taking note of answers prior to the guillotine applying at 3.30 p.m.YW4Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALD—Madam President, on the point of order: obviously Senator Faulkner and his team do not listen. I do not want to make an explanation; I do not want to add to an answer yesterday. The answer I gave was fine as far as I was concerned, but someone I mentioned took umbrage at being associated with the Labor Party.Senator Forshaw interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Forshaw, you are out of order on several grounds.YW4Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALD—Someone I mentioned took umbrage at being associated with the Labor Party, and I can well understand that. What I sought to do was to explain further what I said yesterday and to withdraw that, if that were the case. But if the Labor Party do not want me to do it, then I am happy to sit down.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator, if you are not adding to an answer, you would need leave to make a statement.YW4Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALD—Madam President, I do not agree with your ruling but I accept it, and I will seek leave to make a personal statement.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Is leave granted for Senator Ian Macdonald to make a brief statement?Leave granted.YW4Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALD—Yesterday, in answering a question from Senator Mackay, in which she quoted a publication called Inside Canberra , I responded to some interjections by questioning whether Inside Canberra was a Labor Party publication and whether it was written by a fellow traveller. I indicated that I had not read the publication.I subsequently received a letter from Mr Rob Chalmers, the editor of Inside Canberra, who took exception to my comments as recorded in Hansard. A review of the video will show that the statement was not one of fact but was a question asked. Mr Chalmers has indicated that he considered my comment to be extremely damaging to his reputation as an independent political journalist, and therefore to his business, and he sought an immediate retraction and apology from me.If anything I said suggested that Inside Canberra was a Labor Party publication or was written by a fellow traveller, then I do withdraw that imputation and apologise for it. I can well understand why any serious business person would not want to be associated with the Labor Party in any way whatsoever. My inquiry, in response to interjections, was certainly not intended to defame Mr Chalmers or to sully his reputation. I simply indicated that I had never heard of Inside Canberra before and I had never read it, and I had certainly not seen the article in question.Senator Robert Ray interjecting—YW4Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALD—Senator Ray has kindly offered to provide me with a copy of the next newsletter, and I thank him for that. Obviously this is a newsletter that is well read by the Labor Party. I have had my staff find a copy of the edition in question, and I did look at it this morning. The way some of the comments are written, I can understand why people would suggest that the line followed in the newsletter is similar to the Labor Party line, but that does not excuse my saying it is a Labor Party newspaper. If I have offended Mr Chalmers, I do apologise. Certainly no harm was intended to him.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—A statement of that nature did need leave, which was granted.Miscellaneous675015:13:006750Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—Madam President, I seek leave to make a very short statement.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Is leave granted?Leave granted.WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—On Thursday, 24 June, during the committee stage of debate on the ANTS package, I stated correctly that bread or buns with sweet filling or coating would be subject to GST. That is on page 6048 of the transcript. I also noted correctly that bagels with blueberries as an ingredient would be GST free. It has come to my attention that Hansard subsequently records me as saying, `If it has a sweet filling or coating it is going to be GST free.' As I had previously stated to the Senate, breads or buns with a sweet filling or coating will be subject to GST.Miscellaneous6750675015:14:006750Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT4J4SAALP00—I move:That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Assistant Treasurer (Senator Kemp), to a question without notice asked today by Senator Schacht, relating to the goods and services tax and the sale of wine.I note that we have wasted 15 minutes on an extraordinary performance by Senator Ian Macdonald. I have moved this motion to take note because what Senator Kemp has said here today, and also what the Treasurer said last week, is a grave problem for the wine industry in Australia. I come from a state, South Australia, that contains the majority of the wine industry. This is a major problem for South Australia and the future of our wine industry. The introduction of the WET, the wine equalisation tax, will—despite what the Treasurer said last week in the parliament and despite the fact that Senator Kemp had no idea today about the details of it—increase taxation on the wine industry in South Australia and the rest of Australia.The figures given by the Winemakers Federation have apparently not been disputed by the Treasurer or the government. The federation believes that the additional tax on the industry will total $147 million and will have a significant impact on jobs in regional Australia in particular. As South Australian senators would know, in the last decade one of the best developments for South Australia's future prosperity has been the growth of the wine industry. An area such as the Riverland had, 10 years ago, an unemployment rate of about 15 to 17 per cent. I understand that that unemployment rate is now down to six or seven per cent.Most people suggest the reason for that is the general growth of the value-added horticultural industry and, in particular, the wine industry in that area. The same goes for the Clare Valley, Maclaren Vale, the Barossa Valley, Coonawarra and several other new areas that are now growing grapes in South Australia—as they are all around Australia. This is a success story that should be trumpeted from the rooftops of this building and elsewhere, about what a success it is and how the industry, through its own efforts, has grown. But what do we have? The only effort this government makes is to sneak through an increase in taxation that is worth nearly $150 million, under the guise of the wine equalisation tax.When the new tax package was released, the government said:Wine, and beverages consisting primarily of wine, will become subject to a Wine Equalisation Tax to replace the difference between the current 41 per cent wholesale sales tax and the proposed GST. The Wine Equalisation Tax will be levied at such a rate that the price of a four-litre cask of wine need only increase by the estimated general price increase associated with indirect tax reform; ie 1.9 per cent. The concessional tax treatment of cask wine will therefore be preserved.No details were given further than that, and it was not until the wine industry belled the cat on the Treasurer that the Treasurer got up and said, `Oh no; this has all been fixed, as far as wine sales at the door are concerned: I have reached agreement with the Treasurer of South Australia.' Well, the Treasurer of South Australia, Mr Lucas, only two hours later in the parliament of South Australia said that South Australia had not reached any agreement. He refuted it completely.We have now no guarantee that the rebate for the introduction of the WET will be administered and will be allowed for the individual wine growers and vignerons in Australia. Until we know what the answer is, this is going to do irreparable damage to the Australian wine industry, and not only to it but to the tourist industry. I find it astonishing that this government gets up and says all the time that it is about creating jobs and wealth and about getting off the back of industry but that, in this case, through a shambles of a chaotic approach to the management of the introduction of the new tax, it has—either through conspiracy or through not knowing what it is doing—actually harmed the wine industry, particularly the small wine growers and small wineries.We do not have any commitment yet from the states that they will administer the rebate scheme of up to $300,000. All we know is that there will be an increase in taxation of $147 million per year on the wine industry in Australia, an industry that is just reaching $1 billion worth of export sales and is increasing its value to Australia. (Time expired)15:19:006751Ferguson, Sen AlanSenator FERGUSONEP5SALP10—Senator Schacht certainly leads with his jaw. The question I would like to put is this: who is responsible for every cent of tax that is currently paid on wine in Australia? Who is responsible for every cent of tax that is currently paid by winemakers in Australia? The answer is the Labor Party.In 1983 there was no tax on wine at all; and yet the Labor Party in 1984 introduced a 10 per cent tax on it. It is all very well for Senator Schacht to leave the chamber, because in fact he was here for much of the time that the Labor Party chose to tax wine. In 1984 there was no tax on wine. The Labor Party introduced a 10 per cent rate. The wine industry said that it would break them and cause them to go out of business and that it would cost jobs.The response from the Labor Party was to put another 10 per cent tax on wine in 1986 or 1987. Senator Sherry, you came here soon after the time that, not content to have a 10 per cent tax on wine, the Labor Party decided they would have a 20 per cent tax on wine. Of course, the winemakers complained and said that this would put them out of business, cost jobs and stop the fast-growing industry that was currently developing then throughout the 1980s.But the Labor Party was not content with 20 per cent. In 1993 it tried to tax wine at 32 per cent. And what did we hear from the Labor Party? Not a word. We had the winemakers quite rightly saying this was an imposition on the industry and that it would cost jobs. Just because they were a successful industry, an industry that was growing in size and supplying exports, the Labor Party did not listen one iota until they were forced to back down in 1993, and so we got to the stage where, at two per cent per year, we had the tax on wine increasing until there was a wholesale sales tax of 26 per cent.Senator Schacht should not come in here on behalf of the Labor Party and criticise anything that this government is doing in relation to the taxation of wine, because every cent that is currently paid is the responsibility of the Labor Party. The Labor Party felt at the time that the industry could bear that tax and those taxes that were imposed in 1984, and in 1986 or 1987—I cannot remember which year—and then again in 1993 onwards when it increased by two per cent per year.We have taken a responsible attitude. Although there will be a slight increase in the rate of tax, the Labor Party never speaks about the compensation that is being offered through tax cuts to make the increase in wine more affordable to those people in the community who spend more of their disposable income on wine. If you are talking about premium wines, it is those at the high end of the income earning scale, those who will get the largest tax cuts, who will benefit the most, and wine will still be affordable.The Labor Party's argument has holes in it from start to finish. They were never worried about putting tax on wine. The Labor Party thought that the wine industry was a milch cow which they could tax any time they liked. Whenever they wanted to increase taxes, they said, `Tax the wine industry.' Is it any wonder that we are very sceptical when people like Senator Schacht come in here—and I have heard Senator Sherry speak about it at length during the debate—talking about this terrible imposition that is being put on the wine industry, when in fact the Labor Party itself was responsible for every cent of tax that is currently being paid by the wine industry? I am sure the wine industry is aware of that. It is understandable that, at every stage of the proceedings, they are going to do everything they can to try to minimise the amount of tax they are paying into federal revenue.We have had hearings and spent more time in consultation over this particular issue than probably any other aspect of the tax package. When it came to having submissions put before us, probably those in the wine industry have been longest and loudest in their representations to this government. It is a healthy industry. I represent the state of South Australia which produces 50 per cent of Australia's wine. The type of taxation that is on wine—the ad valorem taxation and the imposition of a WET tax—was supported by the Winemakers Federation of Australia, which represents all of the major producers and over some 400 small wineries throughout Australia.The Winemakers Federation supports the framework of proposals that we put before the parliament in the new tax system. It is very cheap of the Labor Party to criticise any changes to the taxation on wine when in fact, as I said earlier, they were responsible for every cent that is being paid at present. (Time expired)15:24:006752Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRYZW4TASALP00—The Labor Party makes no apologies for its wholesale sales tax on wine. It was the Liberal Party and Mr Costello, the Treasurer, who went to the last election saying that the Liberal Party was going to get rid of the wholesale sales tax and replace it with a GST. What did they do with the wine industry? They said that they would not just get rid of the wholesale sales tax and introduce a GST, but they would also introduce a big new tax on the wine industry, in addition to the GST, and that is the tax we are talking about—the WET tax. The impression was given by Treasurer Costello that the new tax and the GST on the wine industry would be revenue neutral.The representative of the Winemakers Federation, Mr Sutton—I do not consider him any great friend of the Labor Party—has said that the new wine equalisation tax and the GST will increase the tax take from the wine industry by $147 million a year or 12 per cent. He said:The government—that is, the Liberal government—is pushing us now into the rarefied position of being the most highly taxed wine growing country in the world.So the criticisms that the Liberal Party makes of our wholesale sales tax sound very hollow in respect of the way they have applied the GST and the new WET tax by slugging an extra $150 million from the wine industry in Australia.The wine industry is now exporting $800 million in value. It is a very significant employer and value adder, particularly in rural and regional Australia, and particularly in areas like South Australia, Western Australia and my own home state of Tasmania which 20 years ago had no wine industry at all. The small wineries have been growing very rapidly and are significant employers in rural and regional areas. Another $147 million in tax on the wine industry, and the way in which the tax applies, will hit small wineries hardest.I am not the only one who is concerned. Senator Ferguson spoke on behalf of the Liberal Party but his colleague Senator Winston Crane, who is chair of the government's agricultural committee, said the wine tax policy `could be better and fairer'. He fired a letter off to the Treasurer, Mr Costello, who responded:According to Treasury analysis, there is about an eight per cent in revenue collected under both the WET tax and the GST as compared to the collection under the current wholesale sales tax.The Treasurer finally owned up in June this year to his own colleague Senator Crane that he had been misleading the Australian people and particularly misleading the Australian wine industry in his claims that they would not be seeking extra revenue from the GST and the new wine tax.But it gets worse. We then had this shoddy little deal between the Democrats and the Treasurer, Mr Costello, with respect to the wine industry. The Treasurer has assured the wine industry, and misled them, by claiming that small wineries will be able to keep a rebate on cellar door and mail order sales for winery sales up to $300,000. He said:. . . ensure that the states will keep arrangements providing for rebates on cellar door and mail order sales for wineries up to $300,000.The Treasurer went on:. . . the states should be in a position to continue those rebate schemes. Indeed, I understand that South Australia has already indicated it will . . . One hour later, his Liberal colleague, the state treasurer of South Australia said, when asked about this:No, it's not true. We have not been consulted, so at this stage we cannot agree to anything.We have had the Treasurer of this country mislead the wine industry, not once but twice, and those dills, the Australian Democrats, fell for it.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills6753r861Billsr8626753Debate resumed.15:29:006753MacGibbon, Sen DavidSenator MacGIBBONYH4QLDLP10—When debate on the Diesel and Alternative Fuels Grants Scheme Bill 1999 was interrupted, I was speaking on the rural elements of the bill and drawing attention to the very dirty exhaust signatures of a lot of diesel engines in Australia. I said that this was a consequence of poor or no maintenance at all which resulted in dirty injectors or badly worn engines. I was leading up to making the point that it is wrong that we have not had exhaust emission legislation covering diesel engines in Australia up to the present time.The great advantage of this bill is that it will provide some standards for the community. For nearly 20 years, under the Australian design rules, petrol engines have been forced to meet tighter emission controls. They are not the tightest in the world today, but they are progressively getting tighter. There has certainly been a great community benefit from that, but there has also been a cost. It has been unfair that purchasers of vehicles with petrol engines have had to pay thousands of dollars towards the cost of both research and development and the implementation of emission control devices to their engines while diesel operators have not had any similar requirement placed upon them.This bill introduces mandatory emission requirements starting in 2002, I think, with these being progressively implemented in subsequent years to different sizes of engines. One of the points that the previous speaker, Senator Cook, made in this debate was that these requirements were not to the Californian standard. I spoke earlier about how, if you drive around California—particularly Los Angeles—you will not see any visible exhaust signature from diesel engines, irrespective of the size of the engine, the load on the vehicle, the speed at which it is travelling and so on.I want to answer Senator Cook's point that we should have introduced Californian standards. The first point to be made is that Australia is moving, wherever possible, towards international standards. With the greatest respect for California, their emission standards are not accepted by the international community. The world is not harmonising with California; it is harmonising with United Nations standards. Those standards are reflected in the current European Union standards, which are the ones that this bill nominates. Those European standards are consistent with best international practice and they will deliver major improvements in emission control, particularly from an environmental point of view. It is also to be borne in mind that, by meeting these stricter standards, the future of road transport or diesel transport is enhanced because, quite simply, in 20 years time we would not be able to operate with the lack of controls that we have at present. Unless the industry moves to a more effective control of emissions, community pressure would be such that they would be banned.The standards mandated in the years ahead will give us very significant improvements. From a manufacturing point of view, it should be pointed out that modern engines are far more reliable in being able to maintain an emission control standard than those in the past, mainly because the fuel control systems in them cannot be readily altered from manufacturer specifications by mechanics or drivers.My concern with the legislation is not along the lines of Senator Cook's concern that it does not conform to Californian specifications, but rather with the slowness with which change will take place. By definition, diesel engines last much longer than petrol engines and, since these standards will apply from 2002 onwards, it will only be a very slow, incremental improvement in emission control standards across the whole of the fleet as new vehicles join it. At a rough guess, it may be 10 or 15 years before we see any appreciable reduction in diesel emissions because of the longevity of diesel transport and the high cost of such transport. The dilution factor from new vehicles will not be apparent for quite a while.My plea is that the government should legislate in the near term for some emission control standards for diesel engines. Obviously, they will have to be at a lower emission control standard than that mandated for in the years ahead because those standards will require some design modification to the engine itself. But even if we tighten up on the standard of maintenance by requiring a clear exhaust signature with no black smoke coming out, I think the community will benefit enormously. I commend the bill to the Senate.15:35:006754Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—These are some of the most important pieces of legislation against both social justice principles and the environmental good of this country that I have seen in my time in the Senate. What is quite extraordinary about this legislation is that, following the support by all seven Democrats of the disastrous environmental legislation of last week, all seven Democrats are now supporting a massive redistribution of wealth and a massive impost on the environment. This legislation gives back the diesel fuel rebate to principally mining, logging and transport corporations.Let me make it clear from the outset that the major beneficiaries of this Democrat-government legislation will be the mining corporations of this country. While the Democrats' GST package will put a GST impost on hot pies, hot chooks and chicken pieces, and a whole range of things that are important to average Australians, it will lift the diesel fuel taxes off the big mining, logging and transport corporations. This involves a massive redistribution of wealth in this country. The Democrats, through the GST package, tax Australians right across the board, but they give the multi-billion dollar breaks, through this legislation, to the big end of town, in particular the big mining corporations.It is no wonder that we had the comments coming out of the meeting that the Democrats had with the bankers, the day before they began negotiations on the GST legislation, that business was feeling more comfortable with the Democrats and, reciprocally, the Democrats could look to getting more support. By this I mean tangible donations support. They will not be getting it from small business; they will not be getting it from low income earners; they will not be getting it from people who are struggling to make ends meet. But the expectation is there, at least from some of the senior Democrats, that they will be getting it from the mining corporations.The cost to the community will be wider than that, because we will have more polluted cities and there will be a boost to the enormous global problem of warming of the planet as carbon dioxide and other global warming gases are increasingly put into our atmosphere. Australia is one of the worst offenders, per head of population, of any community around the world. Just last night the minister who claims to represent the environment, Senator Hill, finally admitted that this package will see greenhouse gas emissions increase by 2.2 per cent—that was on the Four Corners program—compared with the target for Kyoto, which was to restrict the limit to eight per cent. We are only talking about transport in this country. We are not talking about the increasing destruction of forests, which leads to global warming gases being released, and we are not talking about things such as three new coal-fired power stations on the slate for Queensland. In a bid to ameliorate this bill's impact, I foreshadow a second reading amendment, as distributed, which reads:Omit all words after "That", substitute:"further consideration of the bill be an order of the day for the first sitting day after the conditions specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) have been met: (a) determinations to raise motor vehicle emission standards, at least to the levels specified in subclauses 2(2) and 2(4) of the bill, have been made under section 7 of the Motor Vehicle Standards Act 1989 ; and (b) amounts listed in the third column of the table in clause 5 of the bill, for the programs specified in that table, have been appropriated".What that all means is that the passage of the bill be delayed at least until the harder, more environmentally sound, emission standards that are mooted in the bill are in place. What the bill says is that those standards should be in place before the bill has effect. Let us hold off the debate until those emission standards are in place.I want to deal with emission standards because I am sure Senator Lees, who will follow me in this debate, is going to claim big breakthroughs for the Democrats. But the Democrats were dudded. The evidence has surfaced since they did the deal with the government, for those who have not been watching this closely, that the emission standards involved in this legislation were on their way. These emission standards do not put Australia to the forefront of the world: they are a catch-up. They mean that there will be improved emission control on vehicles being sold on the market in Australia which catches up with Europe and the United States. Australia has been 10 years behind. Two years ago, before the Kyoto talks in Japan, the Prime Minister made a commitment to do just that.All the Democrats have is a corroboration of a commitment made to this nation two years ago by the Prime Minister. But, in return, the Democrats have sold out comprehensively on their own commitments to the environment. At the last election, Senator Lees and her six fellow Democrat senators, and the party, promised to exclude petrol and diesel products from the GST and to retain the current excises. So there was going to be no tax cut for business vehicles via the GST rebate. They have dropped that promise and it is very important that we look at the result.Because the Democrats have broken that promise, they are giving the big end of town a petrol and diesel price cut of 7c a litre in effect. That is what the GST rebate will mean. The total will be $2.2 billion per annum going to business, corporate and stock exchange interests around this country. Average Australians will not get this rebate. You can drive your car down to the shop and back but you will not have the Democrat cheque in the mail when you get home rebating the GST on fuel. But if you are a business, you get the GST rebated. The total rebate will be $2.2 billion.8U4LEESSenator Lees—What is the system now? What do you think they can do now?QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—Senator Lees, there is not a GST on this at the moment. You brought in the GST and you brought in the refund for big business. And it is not small pickles. Senator Lees knows that it is $2.2 billion a year. Think what that could do for schools. Think what that could have done for books if, instead of giving the money to these big corporations, the GST had been taken off books, as Senator Lees promised.The Democrats went on to promise to oppose the extension of the 100 per cent rebate of diesel fuel beyond agriculture. That is, they were going to cap the current diesel fuel rebate for mining, logging, et cetera, and redistribute it equally across all other uses. That would have effectively meant an increase in fuel costs for the big mining and logging corporations. That promise is broken in this legislation. Instead they will abolish fuel taxes for mining. They keep logging the same and cut the costs of transport fuel for both by 23c a litre. No wonder the mining lobby is rubbing its hands with glee at this Democrat gift.As Senator Parer was able to tell us all just last year, in this package the coalition is going to give—and now read the Democrats as well—Australia's mining industries more than $2 billion a year. He goes on to give a breakdown of that package—that gift—from the Democrats to their new found big corporate friends. But it has been reported elsewhere that this is going to lead to something like a 7½ per cent increase in profits across the board. What happens here is that the Democrats and government give this massive fuel rebate, which nobody else gets, to the big corporations. They put it in their pockets, it turns up on their profit line and it gets redistributed to the shareholders who, in the main, are the already wealthy people in Australia. It does not go to the people whom the Democrats formerly supported. The Democrats also promised that access to the diesel fuel rebate would be conditional on firms signing up to energy efficiency plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.8U4LEESSenator Lees—We have done that legislatively.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—If Senator Lees can point out where firms need to sign up to energy efficiency plans for greenhouse gas emissions before they get the rebate, I would like her to do it in her submission. She interjects to say that they have done that, but they have not. They broke the promise: it is not there, it is not in this bill and it is not going to be in this bill.The Democrats say, `We have made it tough for logging. We have changed the off-road multi-million-dollar subsidy to these industries. The government had that at $490 million.' Senator Lees and her colleagues announced that they had cut that by 80 per cent. This money is going to a range of industries, but it includes subsidising logging in the bush—in the forests—and the operation of woodchip mills and so on. If they cut it by 80 per cent, it would be way down below $100 million. We know that there is a small fraction of that going to rail but, if you do the sums, in the bill before us you find that the government is still giving $480 million for off-road uses of these industries. The question that we wait for Senator Lees or her colleagues to answer is: how come?One thing we do not have to ask her or her colleagues is: what happens to logging as far as this legislation is concerned? Let me tell you, Deputy President, what the Democrats are doing as far as their time-honoured protection of the forests is concerned. Once again I am gobsmacked by the process here. This legislation of Senator Lees means that every log truck taking our wild forests to the woodchip mill will get on average a $30 Democrat-government subsidy. The Democrats are giving a multi-million-dollar subsidy—$1 a tonne—to the woodchip industry that they have cavilled about these last two decades. It is a massive subsidy for destruction, not just of some overcut forests but of core environmental gems of this country.The tall forests of Tasmania have never seen a chainsaw before. The Styx Valley, which has the tallest forest in the Southern Hemisphere—and Senator Lees is listening to this; she may get up and respond in a minute—will be targeted by the loggers because she signed up to the environment bill last week. Those tall trees will now be carted to the woodchip mills, because that is where 90 per cent of them are going, and then onto the rubbish dumps through the paper mills of Japan. There will be $30 for every log truck that goes through Hobart, Launceston, Deloraine and Devonport or down off the Western Tiers, out of the Tarkine Rainforest or out of the highlands of the north-east of Tasmania or the Tasman Peninsula. Every truck has a Democrat subsidy on it as of now. They are actually fostering the destruction of those forests and, with that, the wildlife that lives in those forests.The same is happening in the great forests of Western Australia that are now under so much pressure. Eighty-nine per cent of West Australians do not want that destruction. They thought last year that they were voting for Democrats who stood with them. But they find in this legislation that the Democrats, along with the government, are actually going to give massive cheques to the very destroyers of those forests.The people of Victoria can know the same for East Gippsland, right up the cordillera of New South Wales and into south-east Queensland. Senator Bartlett was asking a question here yesterday about the impact of the RFAs on the south-east forests of Queensland, but last week he passed legislation helping to seal the fate of those forests, specifically the regional forest agreement's impact on those forests. Today there is no split on this. All seven of them, including Senator Bartlett and Senator Stott Despoja, are going to vote for this subsidy for destruction of Australia's environment. There might be some mirth I hear to my left, but I think the Democrats should take this much more seriously. It is a very grim situation.We know that the Democrats have changed face. They might split on books, but they are united when it comes to this subsidy for the destruction of forests. They might have said at the elections last year that they were the environmental party, but in less than 12 months they have become part of the problem. And they are tying the hands that could actually be empowered to protect this nation's great heirlooms. I have spoken about forests, of course. The same largesse extends even to a subsidy on the transport of yellowcake from Jabiluka to Darwin and from Roxby Downs to Port Adelaide. It is a similar thing with this legislation which the Democrats are guillotining this evening at 8.30 without an opportunity for scrutiny or for debate. I cannot come back and answer what Senator Lees or her colleagues are going to say because they are going to gag me and not allow the proper analysis we should get here. They will live with it, but I will not let them forget what they did last week or what they are doing today, not just to democratic forms here but to Australia's environment.15:55:006758Lees, Sen MegSenator LEES8U4SAAD00—Listening to Senator Brown, one wonders whether he has ever read not just the legislation but in particular all that goes with it by way of explanatory memorandums. As for his incredible assertions that somehow we have benefited the mining industry, we certainly have not. There is no new money here for mining. But in particular I have to comment on his extraordinary statements about forests and his somehow blaming us for the destruction of our old forests. He has had no impact in here, and neither have we, on this issue. When he suggests that in these bills there is any reduction for forestry, I again point him back to the facts. In this bill we have increased the costs for forestry by 8c a litre. It is probably not something that we should point out to the National Party, but there it is, and that is what we have done in this legislation. So for him to stand up here yet again and react to anything we try to do on the environment with his incessant undermining and incessant complaining is appalling. He has never been one to let facts get in the way of some vitriol.His latest attack is based, I suspect, on the explanatory memorandum. In that it says that the Diesel Fuel Rebate Scheme will be expanded by $418 million in 2000-01. He has interpreted this as saying that the Democrats have failed to achieve the reduction in diesel rebates we claimed in the tax package—reducing the $500 million planned offered extension to $100 million. In making this claim, Senator Brown is comparing apples with oranges. If he had bothered to chase the facts, the actual information, he would find that we have achieved very real reductions in the diesel rebate scheme. In the ANTS document on page 101, there are listed not one but two extensions to the diesel rebate scheme: the first is the $490 million extension of the federal off-road rebate scheme, and the second is the $580 million extension of the scheme to replace the states' rebates on state diesel excise that now becomes a federal excise. So in total there was to be a $1,070 million extension of the diesel rebate scheme, half of which replaced the state scheme and half of which was the federal scheme. When the supplementary memorandum says the net cost of the expansion of the scheme is $412 million, that is what is left of that $1,070 million extension—and that is after taking into account the extra $140 million diesel rebate we have won for rail. I assume he opposes that as well.So, Senator Brown, I have to say that basically you are wrong, and wrong yet again. What we have done is to achieve not a $400 million reduction in the diesel rebate scheme; when you put all these figures together and include the states, we have actually achieved a $600 million reduction in the diesel rebate scheme. Senator Brown, I am sorry to say we have actually overachieved, but no doubt that will not be good enough for you either. I think it is a pity that Senator Brown is not gracious enough to accept that a win is a win, even by the party he seems to hate more than he hates either the Labor Party or the Liberal Party, and that is us, the Democrats.To concentrate on the bill before us, I am pleased to be supporting this today as the final piece of the tax package that we discussed and negotiated with the government. As part of this, our first commitment was to reduce regional and rural transport costs. This is the way in which the government proposed to do that. We did have some alternative proposals, but, coming just to what is now before us, we state clearly that we have always recognised the need to reduce the costs for regional Australia. Anyone who has compared the price of goods in Brisbane with that in Cairns, or inAdelaide with that in Alice Springs, or even compared the prices in the cities of Melbourne and Hobart, would see what those additional transport costs add up to. If you have compared the price of fresh tomatoes, lettuce and other salad vegetables in, say, Halls Creek, Bamaga or Hopetoun with that here in Canberra, you would see what people who live in the more remote areas are facing. These things are several times more expensive than in the cities.With average incomes much lower in regional Australia than in the cities, I think it is doubly important that, as policy makers, we look at the social impact and do all we can to reduce the cost of living in rural and remote Australia. Labor also does not seem to acknowledge the need to reduce costs in regional Australia. Indeed, from the comments we have already had on this bill, you could tie that into Labor's loss of regional seats in the last federal election. In fact, only one regional seat was won by the Labor Party, and then it appointed a Brisbane based politician to look after rural interests.As we went into discussions with this government, our second commitment on this legislation was that any tax package we signed off on had to have environmental gains—it had to be environmentally responsible—as well as being socially and economically responsible. I make no apology for my determination, as we set about those tax negotiations, to put our environmental credentials and objectives into this bill and to put them on the same footing as social and economic objectives. As I said at the beginning of this—indeed, at about the time of the election—getting food out and changes to the diesel rebates were two of the major parts of our package, and we have delivered on both of them. These bills incorporate the $760 million worth of diesel rebate reductions that we won in our negotiations.As my colleague Senator Allison will explain later, virtually all the opposition from the opposition is based on very suspect and highly inaccurate modelling. We have turned this package from one which subsidises fossil fuels as an energy source to one which puts an impost, albeit a modest one, on those fossil fuels and increases the taxes. I will not go through all the details, except to say that this is the area in which the modelling by Dr Hamilton falls down so badly. It should not just include the changes to the GST but also the changes to fuel excise and the existing rebate scheme. Senator Brown has completely ignored the fact that business can now get rebates off a whole range of petrol products. Company tax collections should also go into the modelling. Once all of this is taken into account, it will be clear that the Democrats have turned a $135 million annual subsidy for fossil fuels into a $291 million new tax impost. I seek leave to incorporate a table which clearly sets out the details of that statement.Leave granted.The table read as follows—TAXES ON FOSSIL FUELS IN THE NEW TAX SYSTEM Fuel tax changesAmount ANTS claims on fuel excises (2001/02): GST—reduction in petrol excise by 7c to offset GST11290mGST—reduction in diesel excise by 7c to offset GST830mExtension of offroad diesel excise rebate2520mNew land transport rebate1000m TOTAL CLAIMED FUEL EXCISE REDUCTIONS3640m GST fuel effects not accounted for: GST increase in private use of petrol3-929mGST increase in private use of diesel4-100m Income Tax effects not accounted for: Business tax deductions lost due to excise reductions5-393mBusiness tax deductions on new diesel rebates6-547m Excise effects not accounted for: Reduction in diesel rebates for mining and agriculture7-143mIncrease in excises due to inflation8-735mBusiness tax deductions for excise increases9+122m EFFECT OF ANTS ON TAXES ON TRANSPORT FUELS915mLess GST on other carbon-based energy10-760m TOTAL ACTUAL EFFECT OF ANTS ON TAXES ON FUELS155mReduction in offroad diesel rebates11-416mReduction in electricity diesel rebates-66mReduction in Land Transport rebate-294mLess increase in rail diesel rebate+78mLess loss of tax deduction on changes12+251m NET TAX EFFECT AFTER DEMOCRAT CHANGES-291 mLess new environment outlays to reduce fuel usage won by the Democrats-235m TOTAL SHIFT FROM FOSSIL FUEL TO ALTERNATIVES-526m1 A New Tax System p.101. This ensures that there was no increase in the retail price of fuel.2 All costings of original fuel tax concessions in ANTS p.101.3 72% of petrol is for private use (ABS Survey of Motor Vehicle Use cat.9202.0 pp.14,17). Thus 72% of the reduction in the excise to offset the GST will not be refunded to business users.4 Ibid pp.14,17. 12% of diesel is for private use, and the GST will not be refunded on it.5 Fuel excise is tax deductible. Thus the GST input tax credits for business to offset the reduction in petrol and diesel excises are, as an after tax benefit, less the value of the formerly claimed tax deduction on the excises (36% company tax rate).6 Diesel excise is tax deductible. Thus the savings from the new diesel rebates after tax is less the value of the formerly claimed tax deduction on the excise (36% company tax rate).7 With the reduction in diesel excise due to the GST, rebates for agriculture and mining fall by 4-7c. Budget forward estimates suggest this will save $223m, which is then discounted by 36% (company tax rate) which is counted under a separate table entry.8 Excises are indexed to inflation, projected to rise by 2.5% a year (Budget Paper No. 1 p.1-11) plus the 3.1% first year CPI effect of the GST (Treasury correspondence to the Senate Tax Inquiry).9 Assumes 88% of diesel excise and 28% of petrol is tax deductible (36% company tax rate).10 10% GST on electricity from carbon-based fuels (90% power) and on gas and oils (Estimate based on ABS National Accounts 1997-98 (cat. No. 5206) indexed by 5% a year.11 All costings from the Prime Minister's May 28 letter to Senator Lees.12 The net tax from the increase in diesel excise collections from the Democrats will be less the tax deductibility of the excises (36% company tax rate). 8U4Lees, Sen MegSenator LEES—On top of that, we have won an extra $235 million a year for new environmental initiatives to promote the use of renewable energy and alternative fuels for greenhouse gas abatement measures and to lower emissions. I must comment on some remarks made earlier by Senator MacGibbon. We have already done that, Senator MacGibbon. I draw your attention to part 2 of the bill, where we have legislated to ensure that Australia catches up rapidly to the rest of the world. Lots of politicians and, indeed, prime ministers have talked about doing it but we are making sure that that actually happens through this piece of legislation.All these initiatives, plus the commitment to move to the world's best practice emissions standards of Euro 4 by 2006 for diesel, are locked into this bill. They are not just promises anymore; they are not just politicians saying, `What a wonderful idea it is,' and going to Kyoto and agreeing with people that it is the ideal but then never doing anything. They are locked into this bill. This lock-in device was criticised earlier by Senator Margetts when she was discussing the issue of time management. It is necessary because we have to make sure that, before this bill becomes law, we have mechanisms to ensure everything that is necessary is there, including the appropriations for what we need on the environmental side. This bill cannot take effect until new emissions standards and the compliance regime for the grants scheme are enacted into law. They are tied in together.I have repeatedly said that the Democrats would not pass the tax package unless it delivered real environmental gains. I am very pleased to advise the Senate that we have achieved our objective. The modelling on the environmental impact of the tax package released this week by the Australian Greenhouse Office and the Bureau of Transport Economics shows that the revised package will result in a reduction in greenhouse gases and particulate emissions below what they would have been—not just below where the package was taking them, but below where they would have been—had we stayed with the current tax system.The modelling refutes the outdated and deliberately pessimistic assumptions in the Australia Institute's greenhouse modelling and uses more realistic and up-to-date estimates of demand elasticities—that is, the response that people make to changes in petrol prices and also, I must add here, to changes in electricity prices, which is something that a lot of people overlook when they look at the issue of diesel and greenhouse gas emissions. The modelling takes into account the many aspects of our amendments which were ignored in the institute's modelling, including the bland and incorrect assumption by the institute that we would spend the entire $400 million extra for greenhouse programs just on carbon sinks.On that issue, I wish to remind the Senate that the government has committed itself to reaching agreement with the Democrats on how that $400 million of additional greenhouse money is going to be spent. We want reductions in emissions. We want to make maximum use of that money. The Democrats' concern is to use the money specifically to keep those emissions down. The whole process of our sitting down with government and discussing and planning ahead as to how that can be done can now get under way. The Democrats will have direct input into this. The estimates on greenhouse gas emissions by the Australian Greenhouse Office suggest that the original ANTS package would have increased emissions by 1.9 million tonnes. But our changes have reduced this by 5.5 million tonnes—a net reduction of 3.6 million tonnes. This is using the most conservative methodology available from ABARE.Had the more optimistic overseas research been used, the report would have indicated significantly increased reductions—even greater reductions. This was acknowledged by the independent referee for the report—energy economist Dr David James—who said that the figure of 5.5 million tonnes is likely to be a significant underestimation of the gains from this package. On particulates, the Bureau of Transport Economics found that the institute's assumptions were unrealistic and out of date. For example, the Australia Institute assumed that business transport fuel has a high price elasticity—a responsiveness of 0.6 per cent. More recent research and practice estimates fuel elasticity to be 0.1 per cent, and we can only look to recent Australian figures to see why this is.In 1997-98, for example, petrol and diesel prices fell by 1.73 per cent but consumption rose by just 0.25 per cent. That suggests a price responsiveness of only around 0.14 per cent—very close to the Bureau of Transport Economics estimates for this. Over half of the claimed increases in emissions in Dr Hamilton's work, in terms of the particulates model, flow from exaggerated price responsiveness, so there is a very simple answer to the question of why his modelling is so wrong. The main reason why fuel usage is not as responsive to price as it used to be is that there has been an improvement in fuel efficiency and fuel emission standards for new vehicles. This is why the commitment that we have secured in this legislation to move to Euro 4 for diesel by 2006 is so important.QD4BROWNSenator Brown—John Howard gave that commitment two years ago.8U4Lees, Sen MegSenator LEES—The institute dismisses this as unimportant, suggesting—as Senator Brown always likes to do—that we were going to see that anyway. But there was absolutely no legislative commitment from the government to do it; there were simply more comments. The National Road Transport Commission's technical committee was making recommendations in June to move to Euro 3 by 2006 but not any further. At no stage through all of this was Euro 4 mentioned. There was no certainty at all that the government could have talked the states and industry into that; it would have been a long and drawn out process, and by 2006 they probably still would not have resolved their arguments. Now we will be just one year behind Europe—they will be there in 2005.The Euro 4 standard makes a huge difference to particulate emissions, and this is where I respond to Senator Cook, who was earlier quoting the AMA. Can I say to Senator Cook that those quotes related to the original bill, not to what we have now done with this bill. The Euro 4 standard is 95 per cent lower than current standards on these particulate emissions and 80 per cent below Euro 3. Euro 4 carbon emissions will be 71 per cent below current standards and 28 per cent below Euro 3. Euro 4 nitrous oxide emissions are 60 per cent lower than the current standard and 29 per cent lower than Euro 3. I cannot overstate the importance of this Euro 4 commitment. Of the 11.5 gigatonne reduction in particulates by 2015 that is forecast by the BTE, 70 per cent is due to the move to Euro 4.The modelling by the BTE is also consistent with the independent modelling by Professor Peter Dixon commissioned by the Senate committee. This modelling forecast that the tax package would result in a reduction in transport production emissions rather than in the huge increases predicted by the Australia Institute. In short, several pieces of independent modelling now back up what the Democrats have done and what we have actually delivered, and that is a more environmentally friendly tax system—a real and measurable improvement on where we are now.I am pleased to support this bill because it is the mechanism by which we deliver and develop in full the environmental advances in this package. This is why we needed to have this put through this place before the end of this session, because it is very much a part of the tax package. We deliver real gains to rural Australia with a 23 per cent reduction in fuel costs for road transport and a full rebate of the diesel excise for rail. The rail concession is something Labor never delivered in 13 years. It is particularly important as rail is five times more energy efficient than road in delivering freight, and this measure will make rail far more competitive against road.So rural Australia is a big winner from this package. Urban Australia is a big winner because that is where the greatest impact of the clean air policies will be felt, although, obviously for rural towns and cities, having fewer diesel emissions is a gain too and, particularly with the lower particulate levels, the respiratory health of those who are more susceptible—the very young and the very old—will be improved. I conclude by saying the planet as a whole is a winner because Australia will make faster progress towards meeting the Kyoto protocols for lower greenhouse gas emissions.16:11:006762Mackay, Sen SueSenator MACKAY9L6TASALP00—I wish to make a couple of comments with regard to Senator Lees's contribution. First of all, I really do not understand what the reference she made to the loss or gain—or whatever she said—of regional seats by Labor has to do with anything. I am very curious as to why that remark was made. I do not know whether Senator Lees and the Democrats are actually now taking an active part in the coalition's marginal seat campaigning or not, but I thought that was somewhat unnecessary and gratuitous.Here again we have a situation where the government and the Democrats, in particular, are coming into this chamber and saying what Senator Cook, Senator Brown or Senator MacGibbon said was incorrect `because the facts are these'. We do not have access to the facts—that is the difficulty with this legislation. So it is not good enough to come in with information and say, `You're wrong—here is the information,' when we have a situation with the running sheet—I think Senator Brown has already made reference to this—where we have four coalition contributors to this second reading debate and three Democrats senators who are contributors, which will leave—and I think Senator Brown has already made this point—virtually no time for the committee stage of the bill. Yet this is properly the time when senators attempt to elicit precisely the sort of information that Senator Lees is giving us now. That is fine, but we need the committee stage. We need time to deal with this legislation so that we can actually get the information in relation to this.NB5CAMPBELLSenator George Campbell—They don't want proper scrutiny.9L6Mackay, Sen SueSenator MACKAY—I think that is right, Senator Campbell; that is the only conclusion you can come to. I think that is probably a very gracious statement on your part, frankly; I think it is probably substantially worse than their not wanting proper scrutiny. Then we have the Democrats coming in here saying, `Don't worry about it. Look, in relation to the $450 million on greenhouse gas emissions, the government is committed to talking to the Democrats about the expenditure of that.' So what? Is that supposed to make us all feel better? The reality is that the questions on expenditure with regard to greenhouse gas emissions should be asked and answered in the committee stage of this bill—that is the appropriate time—and then of course in estimates. So it is not something that the Democrats should come in here and laud; it is something which should be properly within the purview of parliamentary scrutiny.Senator Lees also made mention of how beneficial this will be for rural and regional Australia. I can tell the Democrats that rural and regional Australia are not going to thank them at all for the deal they did with the government. They will not thank them for the employment consequences, and they will not thank them for the hike in the price of their services. I think that the whole nature of this bill is another example of the slapped together nature of the deal that was done with the Democrats.To reiterate some comments that have already been made by Senator Cook, the bills were introduced into the House of Representatives last Tuesday at 9.30 p.m. and came on for debate at 9.30 a.m. the next day. This allowed the rest of us only 12 hours to examine the consequences of these bills. Today the government wants to move an amendment to these bills. Having given us 12 hours in the other place to respond, it has now decided they need amending. There are going to be a lot more amendments to these bills. As Senator Cook said, we will be continually coming back in here to look at amendments to the legislation because it is very obvious, putting the issues aside, that this piece of public policy has been cobbled together at absolutely the last minute. It definitely reflects the disparity and the dichotomy that Senator Cook referred to earlier.Over the last couple of weeks we have seen a combined attempt to prevent proper scrutiny of any legislation to do with the ANTS package. We have seen the use of the guillotine in an extraordinary manner. I have not been around here long, but I have spoken to senators who have been and who say they cannot quite recall the use of the guillotine with this degree of severity. This bill has been introduced late in the piece with virtually no time for scrutiny in the committee stage—in fact, there is zero time once all the filibusters from the coalition and the Democrats are finished with. Senator Lees has admitted—and the honesty is appreciated—that this is about putting the bill through before 30 June because it is related to the tax package and the deal that was done with the Democrats.Unfortunately we have an incomplete piece of legislation in front of us. The scheme is not due to commence until 1 July 2000 or the date of the commencement of the compliance legislation, whichever is the latter, so what is the rush in relation to this? I appreciate Senator Lees's explanation but I simply cannot understand the leap in logic as to why this has to be done now. It does not have to be done now. We are being asked to pass legislation today and then revisit it in six months time when the government has worked out how it is going to work. This is a fairly absurd piece of logic.Clearly the government is giving effect to the deal that it put together with the Democrats, ensuring that nothing will stop the passage of this legislation by 30 June. Not one person in Australia will be disadvantaged if this legislation does not get passed before 30 June. The existing scheme remains in place and the existing entitlements still apply, so no-one loses out from the deferring of the consideration of these bills until the spring session. We are being asked to vote today without the knowledge of the details of the bill or the workings of the scheme—without the knowledge of how compliance will be monitored or enforced, without full knowledge of what the penalties for failure to comply will be and without seeing the detail of the legislation enacting the alternative energy proposals that Senator Lees was talking about earlier. We are being asked to do this.We have been promised the compliance legislation in spring, so why don't we deal with this legislation when that is on the table? Why don't we deal with it in aggregate when all the information and all the detail is on the table? Why don't we wait until then? That would be an accountable, open and transparent thing to do. That would be something I would have thought the Democrats would be very interested in in terms of openness, scrutiny and parliamentary procedure, given that the Democrats have a long record of drawing this to the attention of both the major parties. They have repeatedly said that the Senate is about open scrutiny and examining detail of legislation, that that is what the estimates process is about and that that is what the committee work is about. So it would be an open and accountable way to deal with this.What is the haste here? I know Senator Lees gave her explanation, but I do invite the other Democrats on the speakers list—I think there are another two—to amplify for the Senate why it has to be rushed through now that the GST legislation has been carried. Why aren't the Democrats prepared to debate these bills responsibly and sensibly in the spring session with the compliance provisions in tandem? Why is there the urgency?Labor are saying that there are potentially major problems with the grants scheme, so let us see the whole package and let us see the compliance measures before we sign up. Let us see if we are right. We might be wrong, but we will never know in relation to this. That is why this issue has to be dealt with now. I do not think we will be wrong, though. I think that there are certainly going to be major difficulties. Let us do what the Senate is here to do: to engage in a proper and open scrutiny of government legislation. We do not have any of the details other than the cursory pieces of information that Senator Lees has just provided for us. Let us have a look at the scant detail that is available in the explanatory memorandum.We know that the grant under the scheme is available to all trucks of 20 tonnes or more. Secondly, the grant will be available to trucks between 4.5 tonnes and 20 tonnes that operate outside metropolitan areas. Some may ask, `What is wrong with that?' On the face of it, one could say, `Well, not much; it seems feasible,' but the devil, as always, is in the detail. I wonder what the owners of trucks between 4.5 tonnes and 20 tonnes will think when the full extent of this legislation mishmash becomes evident, such as what constitutes a journey? What is the definition of a journey? Where does it begin and where does it end? Does it start when you set out first thing in the day? Does it end when the driver arrives back home at the end of the workday? Is a journey each separate leg of a round of deliveries, or are all your deliveries considered one large journey?The intention of the scheme is to target diesel grants to regional areas. The opposition is obviously supportive of something that assists regional areas—we are not averse to assistance to regional Australia—but the problem is that some areas which are quite obviously not metropolitan will miss out on receiving the grants by this definition alone. It is already known that trucks in Tweed Heads will be eligible to receive a grant, but trucks on the Gold Coast will not. Trucks in Seymour will be eligible, but trucks in Werribee will not—and so on and so on. There just seems to be no logical basis at all for this position.So we have here legislation that is ripe for rorting, and this has been widely canvassed. Some unscrupulous transport companies will be tempted in this incredibly competitive market to move their business 500 metres or so down the road, just over the arbitrary border, to qualify for the grants on offer. As far as we can see from the information that we have, there is nothing to prohibit that. Further, we will see an administrative nightmare unfolding. Logs relating to kilometres travelled will have to be kept by drivers, all receipts will have to be supplied and more extensive records will need to be kept relating to routes taken and movements in and out of metropolitan areas.This legislation seems to reveal that, as a driver crosses a city boundary, a grant is payable for that journey no matter how little of the journey is in a regional area or how much is in a metropolitan area. This seems to be—and I think this has been alluded to before—contrary to the Democrats' intention of targeting the grant away from metropolitan areas to reduce air pollution. So there seems to be a bit of an illogical inconsistency there.Turning to the environmental impacts—and my colleague Senator Reynolds will be dealing with this in greater detail—the more we look into the issue, the more we discover that there are major flaws in relation to it. But, having said that, we do not have all the detail. The next Democrat senator may come with more information and illuminate the Senate. That is fine, but the whole point of the Senate process in terms of scrutiny is that we should already have that. The Democrats have agreed to massive taxpayer funded price cuts for diesel—which is one of the dirtiest fuels—in exchange for some very questionable environmental initiatives.The environmental benefits are minor. The so-called tighter standards on emission controls that were presented as a breakthrough have already been developed. Much of what the government and the Democrats have agreed to was already in the pipeline. The moves to phase in tighter standards to clean up dirty diesel engines that were announced as part of the agreement were already agreed to by the Commonwealth, the states and even industry. The Democrats talked about the abolition of the diesel fuel rebate as being a major gain for the environment, yet when questioned in parliament the Minister for Transport and Regional Services stated:. . . the diesel fuel credits will be administered and preserved under the new Energy Credit Scheme when it comes into place.And they have not been abolished. Unless there are other aspects of this deal that are not before the Senate, it does not sound like a terrific deal to Labor.The Department of Transport and Regional Services will be poring over maps of metropolitan and regional Australia trying to ascertain where the arbitrary boundaries will be marked. We are told that the exact boundaries will later be known by way of regulation. So here again we have to wait to see the actual detail in relation to this bill. I tell you what, if I was part of the conurbation in south-east Queensland, I would not be terribly happy. They are going to miss out altogether. So we will have a transport company being treated one way because it happens to fall on one side of an arbitrary boundary and another company being treated another way because it happens to fall within a metropolitan boundary. That is what we are asserting. We do not know whether this is going to happen or not. They are the conclusions that we are drawing from the scant information that we have available to us. We could be wrong. That is why we need more time to have a look at this. That is why this bill should be deferred until the spring session—so that if the Democrats and the government disagree with us we can be proven wrong and so that we can have all the pieces of the legislation and the regulations in front of us so as to make a considered judgment. Basically, I think that the Democrats and the government will be repenting in leisure in relation to this.The latest edition of Inside Canberra—a publication which Senator Ian Macdonald says that he has never heard of—says that the government has sought legal advice on whether this proposed scheme breaches section 92 of the Constitution—freedom of trade and commerce between the states. That is very interesting and I am still waiting for an answer from Senator Ian Macdonald about that. There are some 60,000 petrol-powered trucks over 4.5 tonnes which will get no benefit whatsoever from the reduced diesel excise regardless of whether they operate inside or outside of a metropolitan areas. Some legal authorities are saying that the inequality of treatment of sections of the transport industry could raise questions as to whether there is a potential breach of section 92, and that is something that also has to be clarified. Inside Canberra also reported on whether, under this grants scheme, food and other items in rural and regional areas would in fact become cheaper. According to Inside Canberra, it seems after calculating the figures—again, we would appreciate some more information; this assertion was made by the opposition yesterday—that Australians living in rural and regional Australia can expect to save 0.33 cents in the dollar on food costs; that is, if you buy a basket of groceries for $10, you receive a saving of 3.3c. This saving is predicated on the fact that the transport operators pass on all of their savings in relation to the diesel fuel rebate.Let us have a look at the figures. A typical diesel price in the cities where country bound trucks fill up is 72c per litre. Trucks over 4.5 tonnes operating in regional Australia and all trucks over 20 tonnes will be entitled to a 23c per litre rebate. The assertion is that the price of diesel to these operators will fall by 32 per cent. However, fuel and oil are not the only major factors of total truck operating costs. In fact, the Bureau of Industry Economics indicates that the operating cost components of long haul vehicles are: capital costs, 24 per cent; driver, 31 per cent; fuel and oil, 21 per cent; repairs and maintenance, 17 per cent; and other, seven per cent.Thus, the total operating costs will fall by 32 per cent of 21 per cent, which equates to 6.5 per cent. This saving of 6.5 per cent of total operating costs will equate to a saving of 0.33 cents in the dollar, which is the calculation that Inside Canberra has done. The bottom line is that the diesel fuel credit of 23c a litre will mean a reduction of 0.33 cents in the dollar in the cost of producing food and service sector outputs in rural and regional Australia—not a very good deal at all.This is a substantially different picture from that painted by the minister, Senator Ian Macdonald. Time and time again we have heard Senator Ian Macdonald's obsession about big trucks and how the government's package will make diesel cheaper and, therefore, food will be cheaper for rural and regional Australia. But when questioned yesterday in the Senate, he was unable to provide his government's own modelling for this assertion. He was unable to provide the detail that underpinned that assertion. Instead, what did he choose to do? I appreciate that he was not feeling well—and that is sad; we all get sick here—but, instead of being a bit more gracious about it, he hopped into the people who write Inside Canberra. He called it a Labor Party publication and referred to them as Labor fellow travellers. He was forced to come in here and, in the course of making an apology—what was supposed to be an apology was in contravention of the Senate standing orders—he got stuck into them again. So I do not think they will be terribly happy about that. I can hardly wait for the next edition of Inside Canberra, which just about everybody around here reads. I am stunned and amazed that Senator Ian Macdonald has never heard of it. Instead of providing a judicious apology, I would have thought, given the nature of what is before us, he hopped into the people who actually produce the publication.It is not on for the minister to make unfounded allegations in relation to people who are not in a position to come in here and defend themselves and who are highly respected—and the people who produce this publication are highly respected; it is very widely read everywhere—or hop into them as a way of covering the lack of detail from the government.So, to sum up, what do we have? In terms of the information that we have before us, we have an administrative and paperwork nightmare. That is what we see. If there is any more detail, let us have it; let us have a committee stage so that we can have a talk about it, rather than allowing a whole lot of National Party senators to get up and defend this as an attempt to stave off criticism in the bush in relation to this matter. Let us have a bit of a committee stage. Give us an hour to consider this. It is ridiculous that, at the moment, we have a whole stack of coalition and Democrat senators coming in here and taking up time that should properly be used for scrutiny.16:32:006766Boswell, Sen RonaldSenator BOSWELLYE4QLDNP10—It is indeed good to follow Senator Mackay because I can put away some of her criticisms, and I will do that during the course of my contribution. The Senate today is debating the Diesel and Alternative Fuels Grants Scheme Bill 1999 to establish the Diesel and Alternative Fuels Grants Scheme. It is not something that has not been tried before. It works very successfully for rebating off-road use on farms—for tractors and any other vehicles that are used on farms. It is a matter of putting in a return and within three months—I think less than that; probably 30 days in some cases—you get your money back. So do not try to make it sound like it is impossible to do. It has been done for the last 10 years, it works very successfully and very few people have any problems with it.This will be a grants scheme administered by the Australian Taxation Office in conjunction with the Diesel Fuel Rebate Scheme. The Customs and Excise Amendment (Diesel Fuel Rebate Scheme) Bill 1999 extends the full excise credit to off-road use of diesel and like fuel by rail and marine businesses. Separate ministerial determinations will extend the full rebate to all other existing eligible users and uses, including mining. Administration and compliance arrangements will be included in an administration bill set to be debated during the spring sitting. This legislation gives effect to part of the new tax package, which is a generational leap forward for Australia as a whole and for regional and rural Australia in particular.We are engaging in a thorough overhaul of an archaic, complex and discriminatory tax system. By dispensing with a range of indirect taxes, especially sales tax, the scene is set for a more comprehensive and competitive economy. That means a better business and employment environment and improved trade performance. Rural and regional Australia in particular will benefit from large-scale diesel excise cuts. Road transport costs will be slashed by an estimated $1 billion a year for rural and regional Australia. Rail transport costs will be cut by $160 million a year, because rail will be treated as an off-road use, attracting no excise whatsoever.Diesel excise will be cut by 23c a litre for all heavy vehicles of 20 tonnes and for all vehicles over 4.5 tonnes operating in regional Australia. In addition, there will be an extra $30 million a year to upgrade key freight roads and bridges—another National Party initiative which has been warmly welcomed in regional Australia. All diesel used off road by primary producers remains excise free. Marine users such as ferries and charter boats get the full credit, as well as regional nursing homes, hospitals and aged people's homes. Primary producers also benefit from the abolition of a 22 per cent sales tax on vehicle purchases, tyres and spare parts. This is of particular importance for on-road use, which previously was not primary industry sales tax exempt. Vehicles for off-road use effectively retain their tax exempt status because the 10 per cent GST will be claimed back as an input credit. So they will pay absolutely zero for their farm vehicles.Following the historic agreement over the final shape of this package, I took it out to rural and regional centres in Queensland, and I suggest Senator Forshaw does the same. He will see what a great package this is. The response was one of great support for the package, mingled with relief that the bush had been largely quarantined from changes to planned diesel fuel excise cuts. Many senators are unaware of just how important and beneficial these changes are to rural and regional Australia. If Senator Mackay and Senator Forshaw had been out with me on this trip, they would have seen first hand the difference this package will make to a cross-section of industry in small communities.I have been in the Senate for 16 years, and before that I was a salesman for 20 years. And I can tell you this: I have never had such an easy product to sell, either as a senator or as a salesman of hardware. It was so easy. I just went to the transport operators and businesses where freight is a major component, and I talked to them. Wherever I went—I started off at Toowoomba, then went to Warwick, Goondiwindi, Dalby, Kingaroy, Bundaberg and Rockhampton—I met with a local transport operator, and they were openly talking about having to renegotiate their contracts. Everyone said, `We just cannot accept that our costs are going to be reduced by such an amount that we won't have to renegotiate our contracts with our customers'—because of the huge difference the GST and diesel fuel rebates would make to the cost of their bottom line.Senator Forshaw interjecting—YE4Boswell, Sen RonaldSenator BOSWELL—Senator Forshaw, you have got to go out there and understand.656FORSHAWSenator Forshaw—I do.YE4Boswell, Sen RonaldSenator BOSWELL—You don't. You don't get outside of Sydney.656FORSHAWSenator Forshaw—I was there last week.YE4Boswell, Sen RonaldSenator BOSWELL—I don't know where you went. If you do go out there, Senator Forshaw, I ask you to stop talking to the unionists and talk to the farmers. Tell them that Bos sent you and they will treat you well.Senator Forshaw interjecting—10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Chapman)—Order! Senator Forshaw, the previous speakers from the opposition have been heard in dignity and silence. I suggest the same treatment might be appropriate for the Leader of the National Party.656FORSHAWSenator Forshaw—Mr Acting Deputy President, I raise a point of order. I have been sitting here very quietly listening to Senator Boswell and, on three occasions, he not only referred to me but asked me questions and made comments to me. I feel that I am obliged to respond.YE4Boswell, Sen RonaldSenator BOSWELL—I have been provoking Senator Forshaw, because I feel so passionate about this—but I will resist in future.The rigs that they use to haul goods across the country cost approximately $300,000, and at present they have a 22 per cent sales tax. Under the GST package, the sales tax is abolished and the 10 per cent GST becomes a tax credit. Effectively, the tax rate is going from 22 per cent to zero, making a capital saving of some $60,000 on a single rig. Then you add the trailer on, which costs about another $180,000, and there will be another saving of close to $40,000. So that is a $100,000 cost cut. These haulage companies usually run a fleet of these rigs, so the capital savings will be enormous. This is even before the savings from the abolition of the 22 per cent sales tax on tyres, batteries and spare parts. To that is added the benefit of the reduction in diesel fuel excise. These rigs use up around a litre of diesel per kilometre, or more in some cases. There will be a saving of 23c a litre on fuel excise, which makes a dramatic drop in running costs.Out at Dalby, there are acres and acres of cotton modules waiting to be processed in the cotton gins. Each module, worth around $12,000, has been brought in by huge rigs and will go out in them after they are baled.Transport is a significant cost to all rural producers and downstream processing industries. By helping cut the cost, we give everyone connected with those industries a boost towards greater prosperity. In doing so, we help the primary producers, the carriers, and the mill and gin workers. The manager of the cotton gin at Goondiwindi or Dalby can make a better deal with overseas markets, and our export markets improve—and so does the bottom line for our farmers. This tax package is literally about getting the country moving. Benefits flow back into the local communities, which have a firmer economic base and greater confidence in the future.I was also privileged to visit the Bundaberg ginger beer factory, which produces some marvellous products. Originally a small family-run company, this brewery is now exporting to half a dozen countries and providing jobs and income security to many workers, as well as processing Queensland's ginger and sugar cane products. Twenty per cent of their costs are in transport, whether it is hauling the cardboard cartons, bottles and other inputs up to Bundaberg or whether it is the transport of their finished products to other places in Australia or to overseas countries. A lot goes by rail as well, and they will benefit from the complete abolition of fuel excise on rail.We then went to the Peanut Marketing Board in Kingaroy, which uses products from as far away as Katherine in the Northern Territory. A lot of its costs are tied up in transporting freight.I really urge Senator Forshaw and the other Labor Party senators to think seriously about what they are doing when they vote against these tax measures which go to the lifeblood of workers in regional areas. I also urge Senator Brown, who happens to be in the chamber, to get out more and see how in this one area alone—transport—the tax package is a liberating force for regional Australian industry and workers. The stimulus to morale and confidence which I observed serves to illuminate just how much it is needed.Tasmania badly needs such a boost. The whole state is deemed a regional area and so will qualify for the excise cuts of 23c per litre for all vehicles over 4.5 tonnes. This will be a tremendous cost advantage, translating into job advantages for all Tasmanian workers. Whether it is rural industries, marine, tourism, or even the Bass Strait ferries, they will all gain benefits. I ask: how can Senator Brown stand in the way of progress for Tasmanian families when he asked them for electoral support to get him into this place?In one hit, we deliver cleaner cities and cut costs to regional industry. Tasmanians will wonder what Senator Brown's vision is for his state if he opposes this bill. Does Senator Brown want an island of trees and no people? Does he want an island wilderness and city slums for the unemployed? Edmund Burke said that the one great quality that parliamentarians must have is prudence. I ask Senator Brown: can he tell Tasmanians that he is acting with prudence by opposing measures to encourage employment and prosperity for Tasmanians? How can senators opposite—and Senator Brown in particular—vote against something which is so obviously in the interests of workers in regional Australia? No wonder you are accused of disconnecting from your blue-collar workers. No wonder the blue-collar workers of Australia are not supporting you any further.I would like to quote from an editorial in Queensland Country Life of 3 June. It said:Rural and regional Australia has received arguably its most important shot in the arm since the breaking of the drought.The agreement reached between the Howard government and the Democrats on the cost of diesel is proof positive that with the necessary determination, governments can have a major positive impact on the productive sector.The editorial goes on to describe the diesel excise agreement as `a stunning breakthrough' which will have `a major impact on not only the cost of transporting rural products but also on Australia's overall competitive position.'ZW4SHERRYSenator Sherry—Tasmanians don't believe you.YE4Boswell, Sen RonaldSenator BOSWELL—If they do not believe me, the reason is that you are not telling them the truth, and I accuse you of that. The Queensland Country Life concludes by saying:This is real reform that will have a major and lasting impact on rural and regional Australia.When I go out to these areas in rural Queensland, the whole pattern of how Australia works becomes clear. You see the huge fields of wheat or cotton, and the vast lands for grazing. The raw product is taken to the silos, the gins, the mills or the abattoirs. It then goes on to further markets, such as export or retail, or for further processing and value adding. At each stage there are workers and families depending on the stages both before and after. At each stage, transport is required to glue the whole Australian production line together.Then you go into the towns themselves and see the local rural agents, the independent grocers, the department stores and the family-run pubs and motels. They all know the prices, costs and seasonal prospects of the commodities which their town and custom depend on. They have to know. They recognise that they are part of many interlocking threads, all playing a part in keeping this country moving.It is only the Labor Party and a couple of the Independents who cannot see the interdependency between the workers and the price of diesel. Only Labor cannot see that the clothes store in Dalby needs to buy a big enough order from a manufacturer in order to get any stock at all, and that that depends on whether the price of cotton is high enough over costs to keep the workers on at the mill and coming in to buy clothes.We cannot do anything about the price of cotton on world markets. But we can do something about our costs. We can try to get them down. This GST package removes $4.5 billion from our exports, reduces the bottom line to our exporters and makes them more competitive. That guarantees workers jobs in abattoirs and cotton mills.That is the vision that the Labor Party is so desperately seeking. The people out there in Australia recognise that you are wallowing in indecision. You have no momentum and you are not presenting an alternative government to Australia. So I suggest that you develop your policies quickly. Do not wait for your conference in two years time, because the voters are not going to wait for you.That is what this package is about. That is what it delivers. Labor failed to see how native title rights to negotiate could stymie the jobs needed by some Aborigines for them to carve out a life of dignity and responsibility. So too is Labor blind to the benefits of a GST for jobs in rural and regional Australia.16:48:006770Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—I begin by responding to a few of the remarks made by Senator Mackay. She complains about the urgency of getting the Diesel and Alternative Fuels Grants Scheme Bill 1999 through. I remind senators that this legislation has been around since before the last election and that, at the initiative of the Democrats, the Senate environment committee looked into this aspect of the bill in some great detail and that hearings were held in every state of Australia to do that. Senator Mackay was not involved in that committee, but her colleague Senator Bolkus was.I understand that, at the time of organising those committees, the ALP were reluctant to support the idea, saying, `What's this got to do with the environment?' So the ALP need to look to themselves to ask the question as to how involved they have been in this whole issue. The ALP refused to support our amendments, saying that they would not have any themselves and would not support any that we put up. Clearly, the ALP did not even bother to read those amendments. If they had, they would have understood something of what would be in the finally agreed set of amendments that we have before us.Senator Mackay talks about transparency: well, there is certainly a lack of transparency in knowing exactly what the ALP stands for in respect of this. We certainly were not privy to that at the original time that this legislation came into the committee. Senator Mackay complains that she does not have the details on things such as the $400 million over three years for greenhouse gas abatement programs. We do not have the details; that is true. I speak for my colleagues in saying that we are very interested in working with government to make sure that that $400 million is spent in the best and most effective way to achieve greenhouse gas reductions.I am sure that, if Senator Mackay wants to be involved in that, the minister would be only too willing to ask her to do that and to take on board suggestions that were made. I will not make that same suggestion to Senator Brown, because he does not ever appear to be interested in talking to get a better outcome or to in any way be cooperative with any other party, including the Democrats.Senator Mackay also talks about the fact that all of the regulations are not there. I have not been in this place whilst the ALP has been in government but I will be interested to look up the degree to which the ALP put on the table legislation that was complete in all respects. I would be very surprised if that were the case. She also complains about deals, about the fact that the Australian Democrats have done a deal with this government. Senator Brown says this on and on, as well. That would suggest that the ALP never reached agreement on amendments—which we all know to be absolute nonsense. There is no reason why that should not happen in this place. We started on this process with amendments which we tried to put to the floor but, as I have said already, the ALP is not interested in that, either.I am pleased to support Diesel and Alternative Fuels Grants Scheme Bill 1999 , not because, as alleged by the Greens, it reduces taxes on diesel and carbon based fuels, but for exactly the opposite reason—because it increases them. Let me repeat that. The new tax system, as amended by the Democrats, will increase the taxes on fossil fuels, making a very significant contribution to meeting our commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions under the Kyoto protocols.In addition, the Democrats have won major concessions for the environment, including $1.3 billion over four years to promote renewable energy, cleaner fuels and greenhouse gas abatement measures and, importantly, bringing motor vehicle emissions standards up to world best practice. This bill will ensure that that package is delivered in full. This package of bills does not just implement the $760 million of diesel rebates won by the Democrats; it makes the operation of the grants to land transport operators conditional on the Democrats gains being implemented in full. The bill in front of us cannot become operative until the appropriations for the $1.3 billion environment package are delivered in full. The Euro 3 and Euro 4 tough new fuel emission standards must be delivered in full, and a compliance scheme for this grants program must be enshrined in legislation.Today we deliver a much needed boost to regional Australia and regional transport, and we set up the levers for the greatest advance on improving air quality and reducing greenhouse gas emissions yet delivered by this parliament. I remind the Australian Labor Party that vehicle standards in this country are now five years behind Europe, thanks to a lack of interest in this question by previous governments. The Democrats said that we would not support tax reform unless it produced a positive outcome for the environment, one that was better than the current situation.Along with GST-free food, Senator Lees made it clear that reducing urban air pollution, particularly diesel particulates, was the other big issue. The problem which the Green senators, the Australia Institute and, unfortunately, the Australian Conservation Foundation—who are acting on the advice of the Australia Institute—have is that they all displayed a fundamental misunderstanding about how the tax system operates. This misunderstanding is most obvious in the advice that the Australia Institute's Clive Hamilton provided to the ACF, which then formed the basis of the ACF's rejection of our work.Page 2 of that report displays that lack of understanding of the tax system, where the Australia Institute says, `In net terms, the revised GST package will see an extra $7.8 billion over three years spent on polluting activities.' That was their so-called expert advice to the ACF. It is patently untrue. Dr Hamilton might be an expert on the environment and energy, but clearly as a tax economist he does not make the muster. In fact, the revised package will increase taxes on polluting activities and fossil fuels by around $570 million over three years. It is truly scandalous: Australia's premier conservation body has publicly wedded itself to an $8.5 billion funding error by relying on the erroneous advice of the Australia Institute.Let me go through how the Australia Institute made an $8.4 billion error in their so-called expert advice to the ACF—advice which has severely dented the credibility of the ACF for relying on it—by looking at the figures in a single year. Take 2001-02. The original ANTS document released by the government claims there that will be a $3.6 billion reduction in fuel taxes in 2001-02. The Australia Institute, which has so stridently attacked the Democrats for daring to use government modelling, accepts these figures without question as the net effect of the tax package. The largest part of that is the $2.1 billion reduction in diesel and petrol excises due to a 7c reduction in the rate, to offset the GST. Business can then be claim back the GST as a full input tax credit, with the Australia Institute claiming the entire $2.1 billion is a business tax reduction. And how wrong they are.Firstly, petrol and diesel excises are tax deductible. So businesses lose a $393 million tax deduction overlooked completely by the Australia Institute. Secondly, 72 per cent of petrol and 12 per cent of diesel is for private use, so no credit is available. That is another $1,029 million overlooked by the eagle-eyed Dr Hamilton at the Australia Institute. Thirdly, the diesel rebates for mining and agriculture will be reduced by a corresponding amount of 4c to 7c as the excise is reduced because of the GST- a $143 million saving.Fourthly, excises are indexed to inflation, which Treasury estimates will rise by 3.1 per cent above the trend rate in 2000-01. That is another $600 million of taxes left out of the Australia Institute's spreadsheet. Senator Brown keeps claiming that the woodchippers will be advantaged by this bill. What he fails to notice is that the Democrats woodchipping clause denies an extra 8c a litre to forestry operations. The forests are finally distinguished from agriculture. Off-road use of diesel for forestry will be capped at 35c which is what they get now.Add that all up and the government's claim of a $2.1 billion a year tax break for business fuel accepted as gospel by the so-called tax experts at the Australia Institute disappears like a mirage to have no net tax effect. As we said time and time again, it was the diesel rebates that were the real problem. There the government claimed $1.5 billion of new diesel rebates. Cancelled tax deductions reduce this by $547 million, also ignored by the Australia Institute. In total, the reduction in fuel taxes in 2001-02 in the original tax package turn out to be not $3.6 billion as alleged by the Australia Institute, and repeated by the Greens, but $915 million. Then there is the GST impost on electricity, 90 per cent of which is largely generated from burning fossil fuels. That is another $760 million tax on polluting activity left out by the Australia Institute, which brings the total net tax effect on polluting activities in the tax package down to $155 million. Then enter the Democrats. We won a further $694 million reduction in diesel rebates, offset by a $78 million subsidy to rail transport and $246 million of cancelled tax deductions.So we come to the grand total. The effect of the revised tax package on fossil fuels will be an extra impost of $167 million. We have turned a $155 million new subsidy to fossil fuels into a $291 million impost. On top of that, we have won $235 million in 2001-02 and subsequent years of funding for new programs to promote renewable energy, fuel efficiency, alternative fuels and greenhouse gas abatement.How did the Australia Institute get it so wrong? How could it advise the ACF that the revised tax package would result in a $7.8 billion net increase over three years in fossil fuel subsidies, when anyone with a rudimentary understanding of the tax system—which obviously Senator Brown does not have because he still believes this—would have understood the interactions between excises, rebates, GST and company tax systems.Senator Brown interjecting—1M6Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON—Senator Brown, you should listen to this because you obviously do not understand.Senator Brown interjecting—10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Hogg)—Order! Senator Brown, you have had your opportunity to speak.QD4BROWNSenator Brown—I am just saying how cowardly this is.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator Brown, that is not the issue before the chair. Senator Allison has the call and is entitled to be listened to, as you were listened to when you gave your speech during the second reading debate. I would advise you to listen to Senator Allison.1M6Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON—We have forced the government to agree to Euro 4—to world best practice in fuel emissions by 2006. The Australia Institute, in its expert advice to the ACF, dismisses these standards, arguing that:these tighter standards were due to be introduced anyway and cannot be attributed to the ANTS negotiations.The experts have again advised the ACF incorrectly. True, the Motor Vehicle Environment Committee of the National Road Transport Committee was due to release a discussion paper to industry in June recommending new emission standards by 2006 which included Euro 3 for petrol-fired and diesel vehicles. Their recommendation did not go as far as Euro 4. There was no certainty anyway that Euro 3 would be accepted. No doubt there were numerous recommendations to the Australian Labor Party over time, when they were in government, to tighten emission standards but, as I said earlier, we are left today with standards which are four to five years behind Europe and the US.Would Australian manufacturers, suppliers and oil refiners willingly agree to new standards requiring hundreds of millions of dollars of new investment for compliance? Where would the political will come from to impose such standards? The adoption of Euro 3 was not a foregone conclusion. There was every likelihood that this report would end up gathering as much dust on Dr Hamilton's shelves as have so many other good government reports. The NRTC was not considering Euro 4 for diesel. Dr Hamilton, in his recommendations to the ACF two weeks ago, did not make any mention of Euro 4. Yet, as part of our negotiations, we have locked in Euro 4 as the standard for new diesel vehicles by 2006, just one year behind the European Union. The Australia Institute is just plain wrong when it says that the NRTC recommended Euro 4, because it did not.The importance of Euro 4 as a standard should not be understated. The National Road Transport Commission estimates that Euro 4 involves a reduction in particulate emissions of 95 per cent against current standards, that is, 80 per cent less than Euro 3; carbon emissions that are 71 per cent lower than current standards, that is, 28 per cent lower than Euro 3; and nitrous oxide emissions that are 60 per cent lower than current standards, that is, 29 per cent lower than Euro 3. Senator Lees has said more about the impact of Euro 4 on particulate pollution. Suffice to say, it is enormous and the failure to recognise that huge significance is yet another failing of the Australia Institute in its expert advice. Indeed, the Bureau of Transport Economics basically demolishes the modelling by the Australia Institute for its unrealistic assumptions and inputs. The Australia Institute of course responded to the BTE modelling by saying that:Manipulation of numbers to get the desired result only brings serious modelling analysis into disrepute. It shows a contempt for the truth.The Australia Institute stands condemned by its own exacting standard as bringing itself into disrepute. Its advice to the ACF and its public statements are erroneous and, based on such basic fundamental flaws as I have outlined, this cannot be regarded as a serious modelling, but rather as a manipulation of numbers to get the desired result. The ACF has been snowed by the Australia Institute. That is a great tragedy because I believe that had the ACF been properly apprised of the full tax impact of this package, it would realise that the Democrats have turned the tax package from a net loss for the environment into a huge win.I am pleased to support this bill. It is a good deal for regional Australia in terms of lowering transport costs, particularly for rail transport, and for urban Australia in terms of improving air quality and reducing respiratory diseases exacerbated by diesel particulate emissions. I remind honourable senators that Australia has one of the highest incidences of asthma in the world. One in every five Australian children under 12 has asthma. For those children and the environment, I very proudly commend this bill to the Senate.17:06:006773O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TASALP00—At the outset I respond to a couple of comments that have been made in this debate and in particular to comments made by Senator Bartlett, responding to Senator Cook's comment at the commencement of this debate. Those comments revealed the gambit that the Australian Democrats were playing in relation to the packages of legislation that have been before this chamber over the last five days. We recall that the Democrats were party to and supportive of a guillotine on the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Bill, various GST bills and now these bills. We note that they were vehement in their claims that they did not support a guillotine on the GST bills and I did not understand them to be strongly supporting the guillotine which is currently in place.QD4BROWNSenator Brown—Mr Acting Deputy President, there are only two government members and no Democrats in the chamber to hear Senator O'Brien's delivery. I draw your attention to the state of the house. (Quorum formed)8O6O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN—I thank government members for restoring the quorum. Senator Brown obviously has not achieved his effect because he did not obtain the attendance of any of the Democrats to further this debate, although I am sure that the Democrats will be keen to participate in it. After all, they have given effect to the guillotine which has required the completion of this debate as well as previous debates.Senators will recall that the requirement under the previous guillotine on the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Bill was that we complete debate and deal with a bill which was the subject of 511 government amendments, a significant number of Democrat amendments, a significant number of minor amendments and over 300 opposition amendments. That bill was amended by the passage of all 511 of the government amendments, with the support of the Democrats. The insistence of the Democrats was that that bill be out of the way and dealt with within one day. Similarly, there was a curtailment of the debate on the GST bills. They were dealt with and were out of the way by last night, with the exception of these two bills which were introduced into the House of Representatives only last week and for which we have five hours for debate.In what I took to be an apparent challenge to the ALP, Senator Bartlett said, `Let us see what the ALP's credentials are on the environment when we deal with the RFA legislation.' That is the Democrats' planned get-out with the environment movement in relation to their actions on the previous bills. They have significantly offended the major environmental groups in this country with their support of the government amended environment protection and biodiversity bills—I stress that there were 511 amendments—without adequate consultation with the major environment groups in this country. Now they are supporting, as well as the GST bills in general, the bills before the chamber which have a significant environmental impact.But what are the Democrats going to do in the next session of parliament? They are going to say that they are supporting the environment because they will not support the RFA legislation, or at least that is my interpretation. In other words, their get-out is to say, `Our environment credentials are intact because we have not supported the RFA legislation.' They know they are secure in that regard because the opposition has announced that we will be moving amendments to the bill, but we will be supporting the legislation and seeking to make it better.The cat has been belled. The Democrats are going to use the RFA legislation as their shield against the views of the significant environment movement in this country—not the World Wide Fund for Nature or Humane Society International. I do not mean to say that they are not organisations of some significance but, considered against the Australian Conservation Foundation, Greenpeace or even the Wilderness Society, they are not organisations with an environment public profile of the same stature in this country. The Democrats are going to seek to rebuild their environment credentials on a piece of legislation which, in fact, has more to do with the issue of forestry, including the protection of significant parts of the Australian natural forest, as well as a plan to provide for sustainable forestry operations in part of the Australian natural forest.In dealing with this particular legislation, we have to take a look at the government, and I want to focus on a part of the coalition government in this aspect of my presentation. What we see here is another case of the National Party being dudded yet again. Senator Cook dealt in part with this matter earlier today when he pointed out that not only the Leader of the National Party, Mr Tim Fischer, but also the Deputy Leader, Mr John Anderson, promised that, if the originally promised $3½ billion in reduced fuel costs did not eventuate in the total tax package, they would resign. They held out to the National Party constituency in rural and regional Australia that they were going to be hairy chested, that they were going to stand up for their constituency, that they had a commitment to $3½ billion in reduced fuel costs and that if they did not get it they were going to resign.Senator Boswell was here earlier and I was expecting him to stand up and justify the National Party's position in relation to that matter. His leader and his deputy leader in the other place, and indeed the leaders of his parliamentary party generally, had made a commitment to their constituency that they would walk out of the coalition if they did not get the promised $3½ billion in reduced fuel costs. The fact that they have fallen $2 billion per annum short of fulfilling that commitment did not warrant one line in Senator Boswell's speech.I suppose you come to accept that when you look at the recent history of the National Party. We had a National Party minister, Mr Anderson, who went to cabinet with a proposal on the wool stockpile and was overrun by the Liberal Party members of cabinet. He walked away—he did not resign—humiliated within the cabinet and within his constituency. He walked away and copped it. The National Party said nothing and then fell back to the second line of trenches, defended the freeze of the stockpile and said, `It's time to move on.' You have to see what the National Party are about in this. They will cop whatever this government tells them to cop. When they are told to jump, they will simply say, `How high?' No matter how hairy chested they are in their constituency in rural and regional Australia—perhaps I should say their putative constituency—they will, when it comes down to tintacks, cop what is dished out to them. Whatever scraps are laid on the table, the National Party will take them, because at the end of the day it is obviously more important to hold those spots at the cabinet table and to remain in the coalition than to stand up for what you promised and for what you are supposedly committed to.I was not surprised that Senator Boswell did not take Mr Anderson to task publicly. After all, he is looking at the future leadership of the National Party, not in his own right—I would not want to say something that would subject my speech to ridicule—but in terms of the future contest which is likely to emerge between Mr Anderson and Mr Vaile. Notwithstanding Mr Fischer's comments about his proposed longevity in the position, there has been a lot of media speculation about him leaving the bush and leaving the leadership of the National Party. The question of who would fill it is a matter of great discussion within the National Party. When Mr Anderson makes a promise on this legislation which he does not keep then I suppose it is only natural that Senator Boswell, who is backing his future candidacy, would not take him to task publicly on the breaking of that promise.Notwithstanding anything that Senator Boswell has said, perhaps he ought to go back and look at the promises that were made to rural and regional Australia and look at the outcome of the package—the agreement between Mr Howard and Mr Costello on the one hand and Senator Lees and the Democrats on the other—because it is pretty clear that, in the final analysis, the National Party did not get a look-in on the outcome.There has been some comment and debate about the issue of Euro 2, about the National Road Transport Commission's support of the current package and about the advancement of meeting Euro 3 in 2002-03 rather than meeting Euro 2. I have seen a table of the changes which were proposed in relation to diesel vehicles under the original National Road Transport Commission's findings prior to the government-Democrat deal. As I understand the package, it was proposed that, for all vehicles except medium and heavy goods vehicles—that is, trucks—Euro 2 would be achieved in 2002-03. The proposal for medium and heavy trucks was Euro 3 or US98. I understand it is proposed that all vehicles will go to the Euro 4 standard in 2006-07.I was more interested in the comments in the letter dated 4 June which Mr Hicks, the Chairman of the National Road Transport Commission, sent to Mr John Anderson, the Minister for Transport and Regional Services. A passage from that letter reads:I note that the environmental proposals outlined in the Tax Package will accelerate the availability of low sulphur fuel, and as a consequence provide for the acceleration of vehicle emission standards . . . I did have an opportunity to speak to some officers of the national road transport group—the Australian Transport Forum, they designate themselves—in relation to the issue of low sulfur fuel. I was given to understand that at present low sulfur fuel capacity exists in one of the major refineries in this country, and there are others who say that it is possible for them to rather speedily upgrade so that they can very significantly reduce the sulfur content in the diesel fuel which they manufacture. Another of the refineries is saying that it would be a really long-term project for the refinery to be upgraded to provide low sulfur diesel fuel.The real consequence was suggested to be that there will be significant pressures on Australian refineries to provide low sulfur fuel in any case, because the alternative suppliers would be refineries in Singapore, where there is sufficient capacity, with the large capacity that is available in Singapore, to provide enough low sulfur diesel fuel to meet the entire needs of the Australian economy for diesel fuel, and in a very short time. The consequences of a move to a lower Euro standard, if there were not a movement in the refining capacity for low sulfur diesel fuel, would be the importation of significant amounts of diesel fuel from Singapore or perhaps from other places. I am going on the advice I have been given at this stage by industry representatives.I really have to wonder what steps have been taken in this hastily cobbled together deal to ensure that we do not end up with the unintended consequence of our needing to import a significant amount of diesel fuel into this country while refinery capacity is attended to. If that is the case, we are going to see a further blow-out in our balance of payments figures. The government when in opposition used to run around the country with what they described as a debt truck. They seem to have parked it in a hangar somewhere, locked the door and thrown away the key, because the debt seems to be getting bigger and bigger. If we are forced to import billions of dollars worth of diesel fuel on top of our existing balance of payments problems, this unintended consequence will in some ways, I suspect, remove the benefits which the government is trumpeting for this part of the package, because the effect of that will no doubt ultimately lead to a rise in interest rates, and there is no doubt that operators in the road transport industry will pay those interest rates on their high cost haulage equipment. That is a minor digression from the discussion on the legislation which is before the chair. In light of the matters that have been put to me, there is a consequence, the details of which I thought were worth sharing with the chamber.In terms of the compliance costs of this legislation, I must say I was somewhat amused at some of the suggestions that we would be able to monitor by global positioning satellite the movement of trucks for which the reduced diesel fuel excise rate is claimed. I understand there is a proposal for a pilot scheme to operate in my state of Tasmania. I think that has probably got more to do with how you levy registration charges or operating charges against the trucking industry than with monitoring the use of diesel fuel in terms of compliance with this legislation. I wonder what work has been done to assess the costs of installation of equipment and of monitoring and policing by global positioning satellite all of the trucks for which the low rate of diesel fuel excise is claimed. If that is not the case, is there a proposal to set up not roadblocks but some monitoring system at the point where trucks cross the boundary line between the areas in which the lower excise is available and those in which it is not to be used? Is there intended to be some sort of honour system that applies? That would make this system quite ridiculous in terms of assessing what the real cost implication for the economy would be. In total, what we have is a system which in terms of compliance costs and policing is a great unknown. We have five hours to debate this legislation in the chamber—(Time expired)17:28:006776Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT4J4SAALP00—I rise to speak on these bills, the Diesel and Alternative Fuels Grants Scheme Bill 1999 and an associated bill, which deal with the proposals for the diesel fuel rebates as negotiated in the deal done between the government and the Democrats. I choose to speak in this debate because from 1993 to 1995 I was the minister for Customs in Australia, and at that stage Customs administered the Diesel Fuel Rebate Scheme, so I think I can speak with some knowledge of the difficulties of the existing Diesel Fuel Rebate Scheme. The proposals in this legislation make any difficulties that we had with the Diesel Fuel Rebate Scheme in the past look minuscule by comparison. I want to draw the attention of the Senate, and in particular the government, to the various National Audit Office reports on the Diesel Fuel Rebate Scheme that have been tabled in this place. As I understand it, the last one tabled was at the end of 1995. That was Audit Report No. 20 of 1995-96.First of all, this report said that the May 1991 audit report on the scheme listed six major external and internal reviews which had examined or commented on the Diesel Fuel Rebate Scheme since its introduction in 1982. Every one of these reports, independently done, had recommended time and again that the policy intent of the Diesel Fuel Rebate Scheme could not be guaranteed. This report again emphasises the difficulties of the scheme. In fact, in the key findings it says:The objectives of the scheme remain unclear. This impedes any assessment of how effective the annual expenditure of $1.25 billion is in achieving the government's policy aims. As stated in the previous audit report, the scheme itself has not been subject to a comprehensive program evaluation.When I was minister and attempted to make what I considered were very modest changes to tighten up the compliance arrangements, the coalition went berserk here, in committees and publicly, claiming that we were taking the diesel fuel rebate eligibility away from genuine farmers and people carrying out primary industry. At the time, we had cases where people running golf clubs were claiming that growing grass on a golf course was a horticultural activity and therefore the diesel used ought to be eligible under the Diesel Fuel Rebate Scheme.Well-known accounting firms were sending out letters to groups in the community saying, `If we get you the Diesel Fuel Rebate Scheme, we can have it backdated several years to the mid-1980s and, if we get it, you give us 25 per cent and you can keep the other 75 per cent.' That was basically the deal, and they were then going off to the AAT. We had to put retrospective legislation in in one case to stop what would have been a major loss to the taxpayer. That was under the existing scheme.After I read this legislation, I realised that this government is about to embark on a scheme that will be the most rorted scheme ever brought into this country. Hundreds of millions of dollars will go and will not be able to be traced because of the broad policy description of this document. In the old Diesel Fuel Rebate Scheme, you had to use the diesel off road for specific purposes connected to agriculture, fisheries or forestry. Even that created some debate, but in this draft legislation the description of where you get the biggest concession is defined as `metropolitan areas' on page 7 of the bill.The metropolitan areas are: Newcastle-Sydney-Wollongong, Melbourne-Geelong, Sunshine Coast-Brisbane-Gold Coast, Perth, Adelaide and Canberra. They are all described as metropolitan areas. It says that at a later stage a map will appear in regulations showing where the line is drawn. If it is Newcastle, you might be lucky to have Maitland in or out. That is a decision that will deliver a major advantage or disadvantage to someone. None of this information is in here. And then what happens? If Maitland is not defined as being in the Newcastle-Sydney-Wollongong metropolitan area, or Raymond Terrace is not included in it, a trucking company there gets the full benefit. How are you going to monitor the truck driving into Newcastle as being in a metropolitan area?There was a vague description in the second reading speech about diaries. Surely they are not that naive in the government. The transport department knows about the problems of drivers using two or three diaries to get around the limits, in that they are not supposed to drive more than a set number of hours. Does anyone believe that when people see what the concession is—if they are in the non-metropolitan area—they are not going to use different diaries? Of course that is going to happen.There is nothing in this bill that I am aware of that says how many people from the Taxation Office are going to administer this scheme and ensure compliance. In all these reports, Customs used to get a rap over the knuckles for not putting in enough people to check compliance. It was self-assessment because there were not enough Customs officers in Australia or in the Southern Hemisphere to check every tank for diesel or every truck, off road or on road. At the time, I heard some pretty amazing new ideas about how you could introduce new compliance arrangements. One suggested to me informally was that the diesel sold for off-road use would be a different colour—blue, purple, red or some other colour. I said, `That is fine, but when they put it in the tank, how do you know?' They said, `We'll have inspectors going around pulling trucks over and taking a sample from their tank, then holding it up in a glass jar. If it is the wrong colour—bingo, they're fined.'I asked them, `Do you think Australians are going to put up with customs officers running around like a neo-Gestapo pulling trucks over and checking their tanks for diesel? That will last about 10 minutes politically before there is outrage—quite rightly—about it.' I suggested that they would have to do better than that. Senator Kerry O'Brien has just mentioned new technology. In the end, I believe the government will try to implement this technology if it is going to make the scheme in any way viable and if it is able to check that people are driving where they say they are driving. They will have to demand that there be a sensor on the top of every truck that will be checked by geostationary positioning satellite. We already have the technology that Jeff Kennett has introduced for his trans-urban freeways in Melbourne where you drive through and the thing goes click and reads your number plate, or the car has a sensor. The technology is available.I think that will have to happen if you are going to make the scheme work—every truck should have a sensor on it so that it can be checked. If this is not 1984 coming 15 years late, I do not know what is. Will Australians accept that a government bureaucracy will put a sensor on every truck which will be connected by satellite back to headquarters, where they will be able to trace every kilometre that you drive and check whether you were in Maitland, Raymond Terrace or New castle? That is the only way that this ill-begotten scheme can be made to work.When I went to the estimates hearings, I actually asked some of my old colleagues in the Customs department how they thought it would work. They took a dive under the desk. They said, `Senator, this has now gone to the tax office; we've got nothing to do with it—it's not ours,' and they never looked more relieved in all their lives that they did not have to answer questions on how this dreadful scheme would work or how it could work. It is going to be wide open to the most enormous abuse. I suggest hundreds of millions of dollars a year will be wasted. They will be used and claimed for purposes that are not listed in the bill, because you have no way to monitor it; it will basically be left to diaries and self-assessment.I draw the attention of the minister or the parliamentary secretary at the table and, more particularly, of the officers representing the tax office—I presume they are there at the moment—and the people who are going to try and run the scheme—I presume they are the ones running the Diesel Fuel Rebate Scheme that was transferred to the ATO from Customs—to the following. You are going to have a great old career in the Public Service because every couple of years you will get a document, like this one from the audit office, tabled in the parliament saying you have mismanaged the scheme—you have not been able to convince the audit office that every cent being claimed has been legitimately claimed and is in order in this document.If you want a good career in the Public Service, I advise you now: transfer out of the diesel scheme in the tax office because you will be made the bunnies for a scheme that is unable to be managed and unable to be transparent as to where the money goes. I want to draw this to the attention of the officers in particular because you are the ones I feel sorry for: you are the ones who have been lumbered with this. Just go to this report of 1995-96 and look at the descriptions of eligibility criteria, self-assessment, rebate rates and scheme sanctions. For example, it said Customs had `virtually discontinued' the imposition of administrative penalties and prosecutions for detected abuses of the scheme. Customs had given up trying to prove abuse.Maybe I missed them, but I have not seen the compliance arrangements. What are the penalties if someone is found driving a 20-tonne truck from Maitland into the city? I do not know what the penalties are but they are going to have to be draconian to scare people off from abusing the scheme. Of course what will happen is that the first time some poor truckie ends up in court being charged by the tax office for driving down the wrong road, using the wrong diesel and claiming for the wrong diesel, there will be a sympathetic case in the media that he should be let off as this is a bureaucratic nightmare. So the good old staff in the ATO are on an absolute hiding to nothing. I bet that in the first five years of this scheme there is not one prosecution for non-compliance—but not because there will be 100 per cent compliance; there will be 20 or 30 per cent non-compliance on this, because it is wide open to abuse.The government have used the guillotine with the Democrats to stop us examining this properly. Why haven't they introduced the more detailed legislation? Why haven't we had a more detailed description of the metropolitan areas where, under the scheme, you do not get the rebate or you get it only if you have a certain size of truck? I presume it happens now, although it might not: you are going to have to demand that the trucks that are going to be driven around have the tonnage limits written on the side, so someone can make a guess as to whether or not they should be there using the diesel rebate. I bet in the first five or 10 years there is no challenge and no-one is charged with abuse for driving in the wrong area and claiming the rebate.I bet within the first three years—as I said—another audit office report will turn up, saying, `It is extraordinary. We estimate that you have not been able to test the compliance arrangements; you have not been able to find out whether the policy objectives are being met,' and it will say the tax office has given up trying to prosecute. The tax office will say, `But how can we? We don't have satellite sensors or coloured fuel; we have voluntary diaries being kept'—we all know there will be several different diaries being kept—`and we don't have the staff in even the fringe areas of the metropolitan areas to manage and check that people are sticking to it.'You might well argue—and this is something that the Democrats gave way on, which I find unbelievable—that the way it is written, in many ways you can actually drive a heavy truck from a rural area through a metropolitan area and out again and still claim the rebate. So what was the great achievement of the Democrats? Nothing. There will be pollution all over the place in the city. This is what will happen: if you are a truckie with a 20-tonne truck and you are living at Maitland, you will actually be advertising in Sydney or in that area to get business because you will have a cheaper rate than someone based in Sydney. So there will be more of a demand for heavy trucks to go into the Sydney area than there is now because of the economic advantage. For the Democrats, who have put up with this, to say that they have achieved a great improvement for the environment is the most naive comment of all in this debate. They cannot monitor it, and I suppose in a few years they might have to admit their error because certainly other groups in the community will be pointing out to them that they have been sold an absolute pup on this.When I first heard of this proposal I thought the government and the Democrats would not be that stupid in view of all the evidence we have had about the abuse of the current Diesel Fuel Rebate Scheme, which was at least more definable than this one. I thought they would not put this up. They would not try and draw lines on a map between metropolitan and non-metropolitan areas. I said to myself: no, they would not try that; there must be someone in the tax office who has enough brains to tell them this will not work, or there must be at least one person in the coalition with enough pragmatic experience to say, `This won't work.' But when the legislation turned up here a few days ago, I got a copy of the bill and I read it and this list, and I thought it was absolutely astonishing that the administration was going to be so lax and that there would be no compliance arrangements.Of course, you might say that the old Country Party sitting over there in the corner have had a great victory: they have got the cheaper fuel in the bush and some of those trucks will be used to compete against the city and to undercut the rates. They do not care about the problems of environmental pollution in the city from diesel exhaust, et cetera. To them it is not an issue. That is why it is even more amazing that the Democrats, who have made a gigantic gesture of principle that this is a major issue, had the government on toast on this issue but caved in completely.I feel sorry for some of the Democrat senators who clearly have been dragged to the party kicking and screaming to support this. Already a number of Democrat senators have voted against their leader on issues of the GST. I hope there are again some who, when this comes to a vote, will also have the conscience to vote against this scheme, because, firstly, it will not achieve the objectives of reducing pollution in the city but will encourage it; secondly, it will be the most rorted and ramped scheme ever introduced into this parliament; and, thirdly, in some near future time, the politicians responsible for introducing it will have to eat crow in this place as they try to explain the rorting and the ramping and try to deny future Audit Office reports about how this scheme that is taking the place of the Diesel Fuel Rebate Scheme has come to pass.The government is going to change the name from the Diesel Fuel Rebate Scheme to some new fancy name, but I notice the Diesel Fuel Rebate Scheme is still operating. The Democrats have made comments in the past about wanting to tighten up that scheme—to reduce it—and that it was an unnecessary subsidy. That has all gone. They gave way again.I will watch this scheme with interest as they come back with legislation to implement it. I look forward to seeing the subsequent amendments. About every six to nine months not only will we get new regulations tabled but there will have to be amendments coming into this place. I noticed one of the amend ments circulated by the government today. It says:(1) Clause 2, page 2, (lines 14 to 18), omit subparagraph (i), substitute: (i) Regulation 83 of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, relating to uniform provisions concerning the approval of vehicles with regard to the emission of pollutants according to engine fuel requirements, incorporating all amendments up to and including the 04 Series of Amendments;They are putting into legislation a standard written for the European parliament or the United Nations. What happens when they change the standard? The government will have to come back here with an amending bill. What? Every year? It is bananas. This is why it is so rushed and chaotic. When I read that, I thought it must be a mistake—at least it would be a regulation, a disallowable instrument, which is easier to change. But no. I checked and it is actually in the bill. If the bill was wrong, if you go to page 2 of the bill, lines 14 to 18, the regulation says 83/03. (Time expired)17:48:006780McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURANWH4VICNP10—As the Senate well knows, we are discussing the Diesel and Alternative Fuels Grants Scheme Bill 1999 and the Customs and Excise Amendment (Diesel Fuel Rebate Scheme) Bill 1999 . To pick up on some things the previous speakers have said, Senator O'Brien said in his speech that the National Party has had a great loss, and Senator Schacht said in his speech that the National Party has had a great victory. We have had a great victory—I agree with Senator Schacht—but I think it is more symbolic of an opposition that does not know a good policy from a bad policy.Senator Schacht interjecting—WH4McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURAN—Senator Schacht interrupts. He was heading on his way out, but he stopped to interrupt. I have never known someone to hang himself as quickly as Senator Schacht. He tells us he was the minister for the diesel fuel rebate back in the previous government, which is correct. He then proceeded to quote from an auditor's report in his time of ministry saying that all the rorting had been undertaken in his time of ministry. There has not been a report of that nature condemning the scheme in our term of government. So talk about hanging yourself! The worst years of the Diesel Fuel Rebate Scheme were in Senator Schacht's time when he had charge of this.Then he tells us we are now heading towards an impossibly complicated system. The trouble with the Labor Party being in opposition is this: given their poor record, there is basically nothing they can say and no argument they can put up that we cannot counter. For example, they tell us that we are now going to have a complicated system. Our tax reform package as a whole is a more simplified system. What could be more complicated than what the previous government left us, and not just the wholesale sales tax system? They rushed in the capital gains tax with no compensation, and they rushed in the fringe benefits tax with no compensation. Under the previous government, I believe, the tax act doubled in size. Tell me that absurd sections like this are not more complicated than the Diesel Fuel Rebate Scheme, Senator Schacht! A tax expert would tell you that section 160ZGGGGP relates to the fringe benefits tax. It reads:A car is a predecessor of a second car if a third car is a predecessor of a second car and the first-mentioned car is a predecessor of the third car (including a case where the first-mentioned car is a predecessor of the third car by another application or applications of this paragraph).You grafted all those new pieces of legislation onto the tax act and you got absurdities like this. This is what we are attempting to untangle. We are not introducing a perfect system, but it is a better system and it is a more simplified system; and we will not be getting the audit reports of our ministers that you got when you were in charge of the scheme. I have never seen someone walk in and hang themselves so quickly as Senator Schacht.Then poor old Senator O'Brien tells us that the National Party have sold out their constituency, that we are a party without a constituency. You are the party without a constituency. You are the ones who are muddled and floating around looking for a constituency, according to Martin Ferguson. He wants you to return to your original constituency—your blue-collar workers. I would recommend you do that, too. We have grabbed some old Labor seats off you. The seat of Leichhardt was a Labor seat and Jackie Kelly's seat was a Labor seat. These were once your blue-ribbon seats, and you cannot win them back. You have not won those seats back after two elections. You should listen to Martin Ferguson. One way that you can win the blue-collar workers back—besides integrity of office—is of course through income tax cuts, and that is what we are delivering. I was reading in the newspaper only yesterday that the Australian average weekly earner, at around the $700 mark, is number three in the world and one of the highest in the OECD when it comes to paying direct and indirect tax.You should try to put down a policy if you have an alternative, instead of coming in here and seeking to abolish the scheme. That is what you always wanted to do as minister, Senator Schacht. You sought to abolish the scheme. But you are a party without a constituency. You are not going to listen to Martin Ferguson because your future leader, Mr Crean, says that you should not lose touch with the chardonnay set—the ivory tower professors at universities. He believes that you should stay in constant contact with them, that they have been of benefit to the party and that they bring intellectual rigour to the party. So do not come in here and tell us that the National Party has lost its constituency. You are a total muddle when it comes to your own constituency.The fact is that the Diesel Fuel Rebate Scheme, along with the other benefits for rural and regional areas of the tax package, is one of the greatest benefits to hit rural and regional Australia, and the National Party and the coalition are proud to stand by it and make it work. We are willing to make it work. The regulations that set down the principles and the parameters will be following this bill. Instead of coming in here and wishing to abolish in toto the Diesel Fuel Rebate Scheme and not even putting up an alternative to it, you should be supporting this scheme. But that of course is too much to ask, because you have fought this government's tax package every inch of the way—the tax package that will go through tonight. It will be an historic moment.It is the most significant tax reform since Federation. I believe, from listening to the House of Representatives this afternoon, that it was way back when Billy Snedden was Treasurer under Prime Minister McMahon—over 25 years ago—that the GST and tax reform was first discussed in, I think, the Asprey report or something of that nature. I do not have a clear recollection of it, but that is when this country first started discussing tax reform, and we have finally arrived. I would hate to do business that way, but I guess that is democracy and politics. But tonight we are going to reach the end of that very long road, and the bill we have before us is very much part of the incentive that we seek to give rural and regional Australia in introducing a whole tax package.You always fail to discuss the tax package. That is what you run away from. By the way, you also run away from the fact that you are supporters of the wholesale sales tax. You run away from discussing the government's whole package. You come into the parliament during question time and during second reading speeches picking at individual issues, like books, the wineries and local government. We are quite capable of answering each one, but you refuse to look at the broader vision.Senator Sherry interjecting—WH4McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURAN—You refuse to look at the broader vision, Senator Sherry. You must have been watching me on television. You cannot resist a good interjection, can you, Senator Sherry, even though your career is now secure. I am happy to see that your career is now secure, having won preselection. But you went quiet there for a while when you thought your preselection was well and truly in trouble. Now you have it secure, you come in here with a whole lot of confidence, and I can see you wanting to move straight up to the frontbench. That is why you have been performing so well in this tax debate. Any chance you can get, you have jumped up; so has Senator George Campbell. There have been a few shine-out examples during this debate of those opposite trying to make a name for themselves. You are going to make a new run for the frontbench, and I can see Senator George Campbell joining you.We know there are conditions on this scheme, and we know it is not our original scheme, but we are still backing this scheme as a huge benefit—some $3 billion of benefit—to the rural and regional areas, primarily through the transport industry.ZW4SHERRYSenator Sherry—Can you guarantee that prices will go down in the bush?WH4McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURAN—Are you asking about petrol and diesel?ZW4SHERRYSenator Sherry—No, that prices on food and goods will go down. You can't guarantee it.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Hogg)—Order! Senator Sherry! Senator McGauran, address your remarks to the chair, thank you.ZW4SHERRYSenator Sherry—Come on, guarantee it.WH4McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURAN—I am being prevented from guaranteeing it, Senator Sherry—10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator Sherry, order! Senator McGauran, address your remarks to the chair.WH4McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURAN—Mr Acting Deputy President, I will respect that. Suffice to say—ZW4SHERRYSenator Sherry—You won't answer.WH4McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURAN—I will. I am about to answer it.ZW4SHERRYSenator Sherry—Come on, will prices go down?WH4McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURAN—It is impossible to carry on a logical debate. You have reached the desperate stage because at around 9.30 tonight we will make history when tax reform will be introduced in this country, and you are thrashing around and struggling. You are seeing the curtain come down. Once this major debate is off the agenda, you know you have nothing else to talk about. It has sustained you for the last three or more years. This has been a big enough debate to get a niche market in, to carry on a debate and to pump up question time. When this is off the agenda after 30 June—after tonight—what are you going to do then? You are going to be exposed under the light for having no alternative policies and nothing to talk about. This has been pretty good to run on. We know only too well how difficult it is to introduce tax reform into this country. The politics of it, gee, aren't that good, but we have done it. We have achieved it. We have taken leadership.Opposition senators interjecting—WH4McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURAN—What is so funny about that? We lost an election in 1993 on the issue, but we believed in it, we kept going and tonight we are about to make history on it. You are going to be exposed after this, and that is for sure.What you fail to understand is that this major reform—the tax reform package in which the Diesel Fuel Rebate Scheme is encapsulated—is not just one reform. Each reform is interlocked, and you fail to understand that. This week we had the sale of the extra 16 per cent of Telstra to take it up to 49.9 per cent. That is interlocked with our tax policy. Here comes Senator George Campbell; there is one very ambitious man. Senator Campbell, do not think I have not noticed that you have blossomed over this particular debate. I think you are headed for the frontbench. I think there have been a few stragglers on this debate.NB5CAMPBELLSenator George Campbell—I have just come in to listen to you. I have just come in to listen to the debate on the bill.WH4McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURAN—I am giving you a compliment.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Hogg)—Senator McGauran, address your remarks to the chair and forget about the interjections on my left.WH4McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURAN—The point I am trying to make, Mr Acting Deputy President, is that this has been one very big fortnight for rural and regional Australia. We have sold the extra bit of Telstra—funds will go not only to the reduction of debt but also to the social bonus of up to $1 billion for rural and regional Australia. We have this Diesel Fuel Rebate Scheme to be introduced, which will bring billions of dollars of benefit to rural and regional Australia—none less than the trans port industry. I would have thought those opposite would have appreciated that. More than that, the abolition of the wholesale sales tax brings to our exporters a saving of $4.8 billion. And who are our exporters? Rural and regional Australia, predominantly. They will be the major beneficiaries of this.So at last we have a circuit-breaker in government. It has taken us some four years plus; that is how long it took to wind back the mess we were left with. The circuit-breaker for rural and regional Australia is that they have low interest rates—that was the first priority. We did that with a budget surplus which you attempted to prevent in every possible way. Then we have the lower inflation rate—one follows the other of course. We have introduced a new tax package, which is going to benefit rural and regional Australia in the export industry area and in the costs area. At last, rural and regional Australia have their circuit-breaker.We know that commodity prices are not high, and there is not much we can do about that, except to keep sending Tim Fischer overseas to do his bilaterals and to open up new markets for us. That is somewhat out of our control. We can work at that but, in reality, down on the farm and down in the small businesses in the small towns, after four years, we have produced the circuit-breaker for them in our budget surplus, in our low interest rates, in our debt reduction, in our low inflation rate and, of course, in one of the killers for the rural and regional areas—the terms of trade and the costs they must operate under. There is no better example; this will reduce costs in those particular areas.ZW4SHERRYSenator Sherry—Can you guarantee that? Can you guarantee that prices will go down in the bush?WH4McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURAN—I guarantee it. I will guarantee that costs will be reduced because of all those interlocking reforms. Do you understand that, Senator Sherry?ZW4SHERRYSenator Sherry—I do.WH4McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURAN—Of course, the real flow-on effect, having put all these reforms in place, is that the government can start to reduce unemployment, probably the main economic and social concern that the country has. For the family, for those in public life, unemployment is the most serious problem. We have eaten away at it. From a high of 8.5 per cent when we came to office it has come down to seven per cent. We want to do better, but you cannot do better unless you introduce reforms into the economy and unlock the economy, and no less than in the area of industrial relations, where major reforms have had to be introduced to free up the marketplace and to make employment easier.656FORSHAWSenator Forshaw—Bash the workers again; sack the workers.WH4McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURAN—I have been advised not to take any notice of you, but the first thing about `bash the workers', that old union argument, is that you supported Laurie Brereton's unfair dismissal laws.656FORSHAWSenator Forshaw—What about the management of BHP? They lost $3.2 billion.WH4McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURAN—I will not be distracted to that ridiculous extent, except to ask: can you please get up here and tell us what your policies are? Can you at least do that, and I promise not to be—10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! Senator McGauran, address your remarks through the chair, please.WH4McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURAN—Through you, Mr Acting Deputy President, I was talking about the reforms in industrial relations. That interjection suggested that the unfair dismissal laws, which we reformed with great difficulty, should not have been. They say they should still be in place—one of the great deterrents. What of youth wages? You have got the umpire's report now. How many times did you stand up here and tell us, `Wait for the Industrial Relations Commission's report on youth wages'? Well, you have got it now, and where are you going to stand? Are you going to condemn hundreds of thousands of young people to unemployment, or are you going to support the government's change with regard to youth wages?ZW4SHERRYSenator Sherry—The commission will determine it.WH4McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURAN—The commission has determined; it has handed down its report. On top of youth wages, are you going to condemn your union workers to high income tax rates? Are you? We have $12 billion—you cannot answer that. Why do I ask these questions knowing I will never get an answer? There is always a dumb silence across the chamber when you ask these questions. I know the answers. Here comes Senator O'Brien, the man who reckons he has got a constituency to appeal to.ZW4SHERRYSenator Sherry—Do you want us all in here, do you?WH4McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURAN—No. Mr Acting Deputy President, the matter we have before us, as we come to the dying days when we finally vote on this package, is the diesel fuel rebate. It is interlocked with all the other reforms with regard to this tax package, and none less than the abolition of the institutional taxes. Farmers are forever putting money into their accounts. They run off overdrafts and they take money out—they use bank accounts more than anyone. We are abolishing some five institutional taxes over time: the debits tax, the financial institutions tax and five different stamp duties. That is very important to the cost structures of farmers and to the rural and regional areas. Not just the farmers; all those who live out there. There are over one million people in a state of some four million, or even less, who live in country Victoria, and we are abolishing those sorts of overheads for them.656FORSHAWSenator Forshaw—Why did they all vote Labor? Why did they vote against two National Party senators at the last election?WH4McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURAN—Why is the New South Wales Labor Party so stupid as to think they can set up a country New South Wales Labor Party? Can you believe the absurdity of that? You barely hold a seat out there, and you have cruelled the country areas, and you want to set up a country New South Wales division. You will be knocked out of the water. If you did, why would you be against the Telstra sale and all the social benefits it brings, and why would you stand on a policy against any diesel fuel rebate?The point is that this, along with other interlocking reforms, will bring a great deal of advantage to rural and regional Australia. The National Party are proud to be part of this historic day. The National Party are proud to have involved themselves up to their necks in the negotiations and debate of this matter. We have been in and out of the Prime Minister's office, we have laid down our area, and we have been happy to give on it. We are not so intransigent that we will not give to cut a deal with the Democrats. We knew that that was the only way to get the best part of this bill through, and we got some 85 per cent of this bill through. So don't tell me. I have stood in this place when you have dealt with the minor parties to get your bills through—none less than that absurd Native Title Bill that we had to wind back. You have done the deals and we have had to do the deals. Of course the major parties reluctantly come to the party. We would all love to have a majority here, but when you can get 85 per cent of a bill, where the debate has been going on for 25 years—(Time expired)10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Chapman)—Order! Before I call Senator Bartlett—Senator Forshaw, Senator Sherry and Senator Mackay, your interjections have reached the stage of being disorderly. I ask you to maintain the decorum of the chamber, please.18:09:006785Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—As all senators would be aware, these two bills before us tonight, the Diesel and Alternative Fuels Grants Scheme Bill 1999 and the Customs and Excise Amendment (Diesel Fuel Rebate Scheme) Bill 1999 , are the result of lengthy negotiations between the Democrats and the government, and they represent a significant but very necessary departure from the government's original proposal, which essentially involved a reduction in excise on diesel used on-road from 43c per litre to 18c per litre. That proposal and its dire consequences are discussed at length in the Senate Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts References Committee report on the GST. Among other things, that committee found that the proposal would deliver higher levels of pollution and waste and act to discourage the growth of more sustainable practices. It is because of findings such as these that the Democrats saw it as essential to address those sorts of findings.In negotiations with the government, the Democrats have been successful in paring back these benefits so that they are now limited to trucks with a mass of 20 tonnes or more and to vehicles of between 4½ and 20 tonnes when used in regional and rural areas and in transportation between those areas and metropolitan areas. In brief terms, the Diesel and Alternative Fuels Grants Scheme Bill proposes the provision of a grant equivalent to the amount needed to reduce the effect of diesel excise to 20c per litre. The grant will be available for persons purchasing fuel for vehicles with a mass of 20 tonnes or more for journeys on public roads, and the grant will also be available for purchases of fuel for vehicles with a mass of 4½ to 20 tonnes where the journey takes place outside a metropolitan area or between a metropolitan area and a non-metropolitan area.Of significant concern to the Democrats was the government's original proposal to substantially reduce the current disparity in prices between diesel and cleaner alternatives like liquid petroleum gas and compressed natural gas. The environment committee found that the price differentials would narrow substantially to the point where a significant part of that industry would collapse, thereby exacerbating the negative environmental consequences. The Australian Democrats believe it would be environmentally negative to pass any scheme which would reduce the attractiveness to business of converting to cleaner fuels, and I am certainly pleased that the Democrats have been able to ensure that that will not occur.The Diesel and Alternative Fuels Grants Scheme Bill will result in the maintenance of the price relativities that currently exist between diesel and those cleaner fuels. The rates of grant for the different types of fuel will be prescribed by regulation, and it is my understanding that Department of the Environment and Heritage is currently investigating the levels at which the rates will be set. I notify the Senate and particularly Senator Hill that the Democrats will be scrutinising those rates when they are released, with a view to ensuring that the attractiveness of non-diesel fuels is maintained.The environment committee also heard that the government's proposal would result in a significant increase in road transport at the expense of rail. It was suggested that there would be a 10 per cent shift in interstate freight transport from rail to road. The committee also found that the proposal would result in the cessation of some interstate rail services, increase heavy vehicle traffic, increase the potential for truck related crashes, increase fuel usage and greenhouse gas emissions, and increase road congestion. The Democrats focused on those findings in examining the issues that needed to be addressed before we as a party were able to support this measure which is contained within these bills.Diesel use in rail transport is at least three times more efficient than in road transport, and to date the Diesel Fuel Rebate Scheme has not been available to the rail industry, so one of the most efficient users of diesel has been burdened with the full rate of excise, with no rebate. This is completely contrary to a logic which suggests that efficient fuel usage should be encouraged and inefficient fuel usage should be subjected to higher rates of taxation.The Democrats were successful in negotiating the application of the Diesel Fuel Rebate Scheme to rail for the first time, and that is something that I am pleased the parliamentary wing of the party has been able to achieve, because it certainly gives significant assistance to rail. The Democrats believe that rail is an area of transport that has been neglected for a long period of time, and this provides an opportunity to turn that around. This does of course mean an extra amount of public funds going to a rebate, which could be seen as a subsidy for fuels, but obviously if it is a subsidy for fuels it is provided to a more efficient fuel using operation. There are environmental benefits in doing that rather than not assisting that more environmentally efficient operation and leaving it at a competitive disadvantage to road transport.The commencement of this bill is contingent upon the occurrence of a number of events. The first is the commencement of the administration and compliance regime for the scheme, and I will refer to that again shortly. The second is the making of a determination in relation to certain emission standards, particularly to the implementation of standards colloquially know as Euro 2, 3 and 4.At present, diesel that is used in Australia contains 1,300 parts per million of sulfur. By the start of 2006 it will be mandatory that diesel produced or used in Australia contain no more than 50 parts per million of sulfur—that is, one twenty-sixth of the present content. By the time we reach the end of the implementation of these emission standards we will have reduced particulate emissions by 95 per cent against the current standards, carbon emissions by 71 per cent and nitrous oxide emissions by 60 per cent. Those are certainly changes that are not going to be coming in until 2006 at the latest. Obviously, that means it is a long-term thing but, certainly, in terms of environmental issues long-term vision is one thing that is incredibly important.The third event upon which the commencement of this bill is contingent is the appropriation of just under $900 million over four years to fund seven different environmental programs. One of the programs for which funding is appropriated is a subsidy program for the conversion of buses and other commercial vehicles to compressed natural gas and liquid petroleum gas. The program provides funding for a 50 per cent rebate for conversions to CNG and LPG for buses and other commercial vehicles. It is estimated that the program will encourage the conversion of 800 buses and up to 4,000 commercial vehicles per year over the first four years.As can be seen from the bill, $95 million is to be spent on conversions over the budgeted four-year period. The Australian Democrats see that conversion program as complementing the alternative fuel grants. In the first place, business is encouraged to convert vehicles to LPG and CNG through the provision of the 50 per cent rebate. In the second place, the attractiveness of using those fuels is maintained by continuing the price differential that currently exists.I would like to also draw senators' attention to clause 4 of the first bill, which is a clause setting out the intention which underlies the bill. That intention is that this scheme and the diesel fuel rebate scheme will remain in place only until 30 June 2002, at which time it will be replaced by an energy grants credit scheme, the purpose of which will be to provide active encouragement to use cleaner fuels. The development and refinement of that scheme will be something that the Democrats will be putting a lot of focus on in the intervening period, and we will certainly encourage involvement from other people with a commitment similar to the Democrats' in ensuring maximum environmental outcomes in that area.I would like to speak briefly in relation to the compliance regime for this scheme, which was the focus of a lot of Senator Schacht's comments earlier on in this debate. The bill sets out the basis of entitlements. As I mentioned, the commencement of this bill is contingent on commencement of the compliance and administration bill. The regime that the bill implements will be the subject of extensive discussions between the Democrats and the government.Significantly and importantly, we will be seeking substantial input from the Australian National Audit Office, an organisation that Senator Schacht referred to in his contribution. That office undertook a performance audit of the Diesel Fuel Rebate Scheme in 1995-96 and found that the scheme was not being effectively managed. Of particular concern was the inadequate requirement in relation to substantiation of claims. The Democrats will certainly be seeking to avoid those sorts of problems.The goal of the Democrats will be to achieve a compliance regime which, to the greatest extent possible, balances the need to minimise abuse of the scheme against the need to avoid the imposition of substantial compliance costs, particularly on small business. The Democrats recognise that transport costs form a substantial part of the costs of living and doing business in rural and regional Australia, and we believe that this properly targeted fuel grants scheme has the potential to bring down the costs of living and doing business in remote parts whilst preventing significant environmental consequences—and that is the focus of the Democrats' efforts in relation to these bills.Certainly, giving extra assistance to regional and rural areas and trying to reverse the centralisation of employment and population in Australia's cities is a long-term objective of the Democrats and one that in itself potentially has positive environmental outcomes in terms of reducing the stresses on some of our cities that are already overloaded. Those sorts of things are obviously fairly difficult to measure, but the difficulty of measuring such things should not be used as an excuse for not recognising the significance and value of trying to achieve such an outcome.I guess there have been a lot of different claims in relation to the potential impacts of this legislation. We have had some information tabled yesterday and today with modelling and assessments of what it will mean in terms of reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and reductions in particulate emissions, over against what the original tax package would have meant and over against the existing system. Certainly, I am quite willing to listen to any body or organisation that is willing to put forward arguments as to the impacts of various changes. It is clear that the issue that the Democrats have focused on in relation to this legislation has been to address the concerns that were expressed at the original Senate committee inquiry.Some of the concerns that have been expressed—a bit similar to the environment bill, actually—have been based on people still focusing their concerns on the original legislation. I suppose it is not surprising that Senator Brown is about at that stage, because he is probably only just getting up to speed with what the committee inquiry dealt with—QD4BROWNSenator Brown—You are calling for debate on this bill, but you are gagging us one hour from now.DT6Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETT—Given that Senator Brown did not turn up to any of the Senate committee hearings, it is probably not surprising that he is only just getting up to speed with some of the issues that were raised there and the issues that have been addressed following that. The Senate committee report identified the areas that needed addressing and, following that report, those were the areas that the Democrats addressed their attention to—which is usually the way the Senate committee process works.The extent of Senator Brown's fury in relation to some of these measures has been a bit perplexing. We have had quite frequent repetitions of some fairly extreme statements by him over recent days in relation to a number of issues. I have addressed those previously in some of the other speeches I have given on other issues in this place over the last couple of days. But it is still, I guess, a little perplexing.As I have said previously in relation to this issue, it seems to me that Senator Brown has been in politics too long and is solely focusing on things too much in relation to what he perceives as political advantage. As Senator Lees has said in this place and elsewhere, Senator Brown's activities in the Senate have not achieved the saving of a single tree. I concur with that. It is widely acknowledged, as I have acknowledged myself in this place a number of times, that Senator Brown, in his previous life before being a politician in this place, did obviously do a lot for the environment. Unfortunately, he is not able to continue to do that. That is unfortunate. Certainly we would hope that others who are still focused on environmental outcomes will continue to work with the Democrats to achieve those outcomes.It may be that what is driving Senator Brown is that he has now been a politician for some 18 years. Perhaps he is looking at the potential reality that will strike him at the next election. The obvious best prospect for him to retain his own seat would have been a double dissolution election. Perhaps his real rage is coming from the fact that a double dissolution opportunity has now been lost to him. In relation to seeing what has happened to some of his Green colleagues in this place—QD4BROWNSenator Brown—Do you want a debate, Senator Bartlett?DT6Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETT—I would have sworn this is called a second reading debate.QD4BROWNSenator Brown—No, at the committee stages we will question you on this, but are you going to gag or aren't you?10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Chapman)—Order! Senator Brown!DT6Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETT—The Democrats have done a lot of work in recent times in relation to addressing our organisational inadequacies in Western Australia and as a consequence of that have managed to rebuild our representation here. Perhaps Senator Brown is also aware that the Democrats have performed similar activities in Tasmania to rebuild our division there. Perhaps he can see that after 1 July he will be the sole Green in this place and that the Democrats' numbers are increasing. His best opportunity for survival—a double dissolution election—has now receded into the distance. Perhaps that is the explanation for the degree of his fury over this issue and his inability to debate the issues in relation to the facts of the matter, beyond just chanting the same extreme and inaccurate statements.For those within the broader community who are still interested in calling things as they see it, based on the facts as they assess them, this is obviously an area where there are differing assessments about potential effects. To some extent, some of those cannot be fully measured. As I indicated, a number of measures are still to be put in place. The Democrats will continue to work on those measures to ensure that they are implemented in the best possible way. I am quite willing and indeed keen to continue to hear input from anybody who is willing to assess the potential options and potential ways forward.Once again, I indicate support for the benefits that the Democrats have managed to achieve in this area. Those benefits should not be underestimated. Certainly I believe that some of the extra benefits that we have been able to lock in, particularly in the long term—and long term is what it is all about in environmental issues—will lead to significant benefits for the environment. As with the environment legislation, I concede that those issues still have some work to be done on them. This is not the end of the task for the Democrats in ensuring environmental improvement, whether it is in this area or any other area of activity. There are mechanisms in place for doing more in this area. That is something that we will be continuing to do.18:27:006789Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—It is well known how this legislation evolved. It resulted from the Democrat-government GST deal, which will have disastrous impacts on the environment. It embodies the deal on the environmental aspects of the Diesel and Alternative Fuels Grants Scheme Bill 1999 . I will outline how that deal has often fallen drastically short of a positive environmental outcome.I could not put it better than Ian Higgins, the CEO of Greenpeace, who said, `Neither the government or the Democrats can continue the charade that this is an environmentally positive outcome.' The deal behind this legislation is evident in the exceptionally long, unusual and unwieldy commencement provisions which try to make the commencement of the bill contingent upon motor vehicle emissions and appropriations. The bottom line is that these bills hand out massive new corporate welfare and widespread environmental disaster.This bill wraps up the total spending on fuel subsidies to $8.728 billion in over three years. It means an increase in air pollution to the tune of five per cent dirtier than it would have been without the deal, an increase in greenhouse gases to the tune of an extra three million tonnes by 2010, an increase in the energy and resource intensity of the Australian economy, an increase in congestion and noise, and an increase in impacts associated with unsustainable mining, forestry and agricultural practices. It also means severe health impacts and related social costs associated with increases in air pollution and increased use of road transport, including lung cancer, other respiratory diseases such as asthma, coughing, bronchitis and phlegm, premature deaths and increased morbidity and mortality.This legislation also means that the recycled oil industry will be drastically undermined with increased amounts of the volume of waste oil to be disposed of. It represents a missed opportunity to seriously move towards the greater use of gaseous fuels, renewable energies and recycling techniques for oil that are sustainable and environmentally friendly, that assist in reaching international emission reduction commitments, that reduce Australian's dependence on rapidly declining imported fuels and that assist our balance of payments.Sitting suspended from 6.30 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.DX5Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTS—Before the suspension of the sitting for dinner I was talking about the missed opportunity to move towards the prospect of greater use of gaseous fuels, renewable energies and recycling techniques for oil. I refer to the loss or potential loss of the sunrise industries of the new millennium that will potentially provide significant export opportunities and jobs for Australia. We are looking to the future, but we have turned back to the past. The reality is that the deal embodied in these bills is inconsistent with international obligations and recommendations, including the International Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Kyoto Protocol, as well as the International Energy Agency's recommendations to increase, not decrease, fuel prices.These bills also mean that a brick wall has been put up against the world's best practice ecological tax reform, including carbon taxes, tax incentives for low polluting and energy efficient technologies, and increased prices for energy and fuel. Once again, Ian Higgins from Greenpeace has said that:In the international arena of tax reform this package is a dud. Other developed countries are increasing taxes on polluters yet this deal hands out almost $8 billion to polluters over 3 years.At this stage, I would like to foreshadow my second reading amendment which notes many of the disasters flowing from the bill. The amendment looks at the increased spending on fuel subsidies, the increase in energy in resource intensity and the severe health impacts. It calls on the government to follow the recommendations of the International Energy Agency and decrease fuel subsidies in Australia, and it opposes the bill.All of this monumental disaster is countered with a mere $937 million in so-called countervailing measures and a commitment to improve motor vehicle emission standards. With respect to the motor vehicle emission standards, it would appear that, whether or not this massive fuel subsidy proceeded, these were already being seriously considered by the National Road Transport Commission. With respect to the $937 million in countervailing measures, this goes to supporting clean industries like gas, solar, greenhouse measures, oil recycling, green power, emission testing and remote power renewable energy. While these measures are positive at first glance, their impact is massively diminished in the context of the massive fuel subsidies. In addition, it seems that these measures were dependent on the Democrats passing the EPBC bill, which was a shocking piece of environmental legislation. The government has given the Democrats a few crumbs and taken the cake. In effect, those industries will be going faster, but the outcomes in terms of environmental quality will be going backwards.In addition, there are no explicit details about the program and where the money will be spent. For instance, according to the Prime Minister's letter to Senator Lees, the $100 million allocated to the new greenhouse program is to be devoted to developing options which will have maximum carbon reduction or sink enhancement capacity. As Greenpeace and ACF note, these mechanisms will not be considered or approved until 2002 by the Climate Change Convention parties and they do not deal with the core greenhouse problem of reducing emissions from fossil fuel combustion. In fact, having been at the Kyoto Climate Change Conference, these mechanisms were considered to be highly controversial as a means of measuring the progress made by various nations. This was an issue where Australia was being looked at with some concern.Further, the Australia Institute and industry have noted that the grants for photovoltaic installation are totally inadequate. They provide funding for about 700 systems in 2000-01, 1,000 in 2001-02 and 1,600 in 2002- 03. Whoopy-do! This will be insufficient for increased demand in the future. According to the Australia Institute, a better estimate is 4,000 in 2002-03.Another important point is there is no guarantee that the appropriations outlined in the bill will actually be spent. I have seen many times over the years during budget processes where departments have underspent on their appropriations to make it easier to hide cuts in the future. What will this mean for the commencement of the bill?Before I go into the details of the bills, I would like to look at some of the process issues behind them. This is one of the worst examples of bad processes in a bill. It epitomises what not to do in the carriage of a bill. The government's original consultation on the environment was, in effect, zilch. Environment Australia was not even consulted. The government continually claimed that there was no environmental impact of the ANTS package at all, despite the absence of consultation. The in-principle deal, so-called, was done on 28 May 1999. There was no general or transparent consultation except with a few select advisers that the Democrats hand-picked. Indeed, their main environmental adviser, Dr Clive Hamilton of the Australia Institute, walked away from the closed consultative process leaving the Democrats with basically no independent environmental advice.Last night on Four Corners, Senator Andrew Murray, one of the key negotiators, explicitly recognised that the Democrats were struggling to deal with the failure to model the environmental impacts of their deal once Dr Hamilton had walked out. They struggled to get accurate modelling details and yet, in the meantime, they have been busy badmouthing and criticising Dr Hamilton for his interpretation. Moreover, government modelling on the greenhouse and air pollution impacts of diesel fuel credits was only given to the Democrats behind closed doors. Even in estimates, Environment Australia and the Minister for the Environment and Heritage refused to talk about or give the Senate these documents to make a proper assessment.Suddenly, just a few hours ago, after the beginning of the second reading debate, the modelling was released. So basically, once again, we have had no time to properly assess it. The bills were eventually tabled in the House of Representatives on Wednesday 23 June 1999, less than one week before the Senate was forced to debate it. The explanatory memoranda are still not available on the Net. They are not generally available to the public. Naturally, in this situation, the bill required exemption from the cut-off, that is, the mechanism by which the Senate requires the community to have proper access to the process of debate. This is an important reason.Yesterday, in order to inject some proper consultation and transparency into the process, the Greens sought to refer the Diesel and Alternative Fuels Grants Scheme Bill 1999 and the Customs and Excise Amendment (Diesel Fuel Rebate Scheme) Bill 1999 to the Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts Legislation Committee. The Democrats and the government together voted against a motion in order to jam this bill through by 30 June. This is particularly disappointing and hypocritical of the Democrats. The Democrats pushed for the committee inquiry into the ANTS package while the government stonewalled, claiming there was no need for such an inquiry. The Democrats, to their credit, got the inquiry up and it was a valuable tool in consultation. Now we have a totally new bill before us that deals significantly differently with a whole range of environmental considerations, yet the Democrats have taken on the stonewalling tactics of the government.The Democrats constantly refer bills to committees when there are even minor doubts as they have always stood up for proper process and consultation. Yet the `dirty deal', as Peter Garrett has described it, has meant that they have had to ignore the wide range of problems that have already been identified with the diesel bills, including problems with certainty of commencement provisions; constitutionality under section 92, which is an issue raised since the `in principle' signing of the deal; the range of anomalies associated with arbitrary weights and definitions, raised by many community groups and local governments—for instance on gas; and the extent of environmental destruction that the measures in this bill will cause, which have been condemned by experts such as Dr Clive Hamilton of the Australia Institute and peak environment groups such as Greenpeace and the ACF. The Democrats have also had to ignore their principles to the proper functioning of parliament and the proper process, which they have usually stood up for in the past.The appalling process is reason enough to vote against the bill. However, I would now like to move on to issues relating to the detail—firstly, the commencement provisions. We have received initial advice regarding the commencement provisions casting serious concerns over them. It is a highly unusual commencement provision. The commencement of this bill is contingent on appropriations to certain environmental programs and certain motor vehicle emission standards being reached. This dependency is likely to fall foul of the criteria used by the Scrutiny of Bills Committee to ensure commencement provisions are certain. The comments on concerns when commencement is by proclamation, rather than a specified date, are instructive. The source is the Scrutiny of Bills Committee report The work of the committee during the 37th parliament,chapter 5, on inappropriate delegations of legislation. I quote:The committee is wary about legislation that provides that it is to commence on a date to be proclaimed rather than specified within its own terms.The committee takes the view that Parliament as the elected holder of Federal legislative power has the responsibility to determine when the laws it makes are to come into force.This kind of commencement provision is in conflict with the spirit of the Office of Parliamentary Counsel drafting instruction No. 2 of 1989 which says that commencement clauses should be repealed if the events that trigger the commencement do not occur. In this bill there is no provision for what should happen to the bill if the appropriations do not happen or the motor vehicle emission standards are not reached. In addition, there is no explan ation in the explanatory memorandum as to why there is deviation from rules laid down in the OPC drafting instruction. We expect the Scrutiny of Bills Committee to raise serious concerns with the minister and ask a `please explain'. But the committee will not even get a chance to report because we are now debating the bills.The Democrats have tried to keep new cheap diesel—a price cut of 23c, down from 43c to 20c—out of the cities so air pollution could be minimised and benefits targeted to rural and regional Australia. The mechanism used to do this was to make cheap diesel only available for trucks over 20 tonnes in the metro areas and available for small or medium trucks over 4.5 tonnes outside metro areas. This mechanism is fraught with loopholes and problems. The ACF have said:The new Bill confirms ACF's worst fears because the Bill allows several loopholes for smaller diesel trucks to get cheap diesel for city driving and it is clearly open to massive rorting.Effectively, the scope given to small and medium trucks means that the 20-tonne threshold is worthless. The explanatory memorandum that we have and the public does not have explains that a medium sized 4.5 tonne truck will be able to claim 23c a litre for every litre it uses in journeys outside the metro areas; journeys from a point inside a metro area to a point outside a metro area; journeys from a point outside a metro area; and journeys from a metro area to another metro area. There is not even a definition of what amounts to a metropolitan area. These will be decided by regulation.There is no explanation of how this is to be monitored and who the metro police will be. The bill does not contain any compliance or penalty provisions at all. They are apparently being put in a separate bill. So we are being asked to pass a bill that is missing fundamental definitions and compliance provisions. We are being asked to trust the government and the Democrats who have displayed contemptuous behaviour to the Senate and to the community processes.The Western Australian Municipal Association has raised a number of concerns about the anomalies in the bill. It noted that a wide range of council responsibilities involve the use of registered vehicles above the 4.5 tonnes threshold in off-road situations. WAMA notes that many of these uses relate to the council's environmental responsibilities, including parks and gardens, beach protection, drainage, bushfires and so on. So while the mining and forestry industry are getting concessions galore for their off-road vehicles, local governments are left hanging.These bills cement in place environmental degradation and the massive boost to corporate welfare via fuel subsidies, because they are the people who will get the most benefit. The Greens will be voting strongly against this bill at the second reading stage. I commend my second reading amendment to the Senate when it is moved. It notes that this bill will wreak environmental havoc and impact on health and it calls on the government to decrease fuel subsidies in accordance with the International Energy Agency.19:44:006792Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW656NSWALP00—I rise to speak on the Diesel and Alternative Fuels Grants Scheme Bill 1999 and the Customs and Excise Amendment (Diesel Fuel Rebate Scheme) Bill 1999 , which are before the Senate at the moment. I am indebted to my Senate coalition colleague Senator Crane, who agreed to swap the order in which we speak on this debate. It was convenient for both of us to do that at this time. I realise that, by taking up that option, I am left in a position where Senator Crane may come back and try to attack some of the arguments that I have put forward. However, I am sure that he will be persuaded, once he has listened to the arguments that I will put and having listened to those that have already been put by opposition senators today, that these bills are not in the interests of the Australian public. I am sure also that he will be persuaded that they are not in the interests of the people living in rural and regional Australia, in particular those involved in the farming community. That is a group that Senator Crane has a particular involvement with and seeks to speak on behalf of in this chamber on many occasions.Senator Crane is, of course, a Liberal, but he has colleagues in the National Party. This legislation represents one more example of the abrogation by the National Party of their responsibility to their traditional constituency. It continues a pattern of betrayal of the farming community that we have seen since this government came to office in 1996. We have heard speakers in this debate this afternoon and this evening, such as Senator Boswell, try to justify their support for this legislation by claiming that the changes to the Diesel Fuel Rebate Scheme contained within this legislation and in the broader ANTS package are of benefit to rural Australia. Senator Boswell, in an earlier contribution when I was in the chamber, was obviously worried because he referred specifically to me on a couple of occasions and asked why it was that the Labor Party were not listening to the views of rural Australia?I have news for Senator Boswell: as I pointed out in my interjections on that occasion, we are listening to the views of rural Australia. We are listening very clearly, and what we are hearing is that rural Australia is deserting the National Party in droves. What is the reason for that? There are two reasons, I believe. Firstly, unlike in their former glory days, the National Party today do not speak for the small farmers of this nation. Equally, the National Farmers Federation do not speak for the small farmers of this nation. It is no coincidence that the National Party's support for the GST, their support for the sale of Telstra and their support for an abandonment of environmental controls by the Commonwealth has led to a situation where their traditional constituency is deserting them. You only have to look at the results of the New South Wales election in March this year to see the evidence of that.As Premier Bob Carr said when he launched Country Labor at the country conference of the Australian Labor Party in Goulburn on the weekend, you can now travel from Sydney to the South Australian or Victorian border via Broken Hill and you do not have to spend any longer than about 20 minutes in coalition territory. That is the extent of the National Party's representation today. Why is that happening? This is the second reason: it is happening because the National Party have allowed the Liberal Party in the coalition to take the running and to make the decisions for them. In their pursuit of economic rationalism to the nth degree they have deserted the small businesses and the farmers in rural Australia. That is why people left them in droves and voted for Labor candidates in seats right across rural and regional New South Wales in the last state election.That is why good senators like Senator Sandy Macdonald will not be here after 30 June this year: it is because the people in the bush have deserted the National Party. They got onto the One Nation bandwagon because they believe that the National Party have sold out and that they no longer listen to the interests of the small businesses and the farmers in this state. I believe that is a shame for not only the democratic traditions of this country but also the future of democratic political parties in this nation. But that is the decision they have made.It is seen in no more a stark example than in their support for the GST and particularly for these bills. This is not National Party philosophy; this is Liberal Party philosophy. The ANTS package and these diesel fuel rebate bills are about delivering the benefits to the wealthy and big business at the expense of ordinary taxpayers right across the Australian community and particularly at the expense of farmers and small businesses in rural and regional Australia. This legislation was introduced in the most undue haste in the House of Representatives. It was rammed through with very little, if any, detail provided on the administrative arrangements that will be implemented. We are told that the arrangements are still to be worked out between the government and the Democrats and that that will take place over the next six months.How could the National Party sign up to such a deal? How could they allow the Democrats and the Liberals to sell out their constituency to that degree? It has been admitted by the government that small business and farmers in this country—small family farms are still the overwhelming majority of farms in the broadacre industries—will be faced with huge compliance cost increases and a plethora of paperwork that they do not currently have to face. These difficulties will come in respect of the GST itself and the complications we have all heard identified in the debate on those bills as a result of the deal between the government and the Democrats. They will also come on top of the difficulties already involved in the current Diesel Fuel Rebate Scheme. Those administrative difficulties have been identified in a report of the Auditor-General, Audit Report No. 20 of 1995-96. What we have here is a substantial increase in the complexity of the operations of diesel fuel rebate schemes.Moreover, this deal involves a sell-out and a broken promise by the government, particularly by the representatives of the National Party, including the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Fischer. It is a pity that when Senator Boswell made his comments here this afternoon, as passionate a defender of the interests of small business and farmers in rural Australia as he is, he did not really take up the fight with Tim Fischer, the Deputy Prime Minister, or with the Deputy Leader of the National Party, John Anderson. They were the ones who promised faithfully that they would resign if they did not achieve $3.5 billion worth of savings for rural and regional communities as a result of this package. It has been demonstrated quite clearly that they have not achieved that.VW4HERRONSenator Herron—Mr Acting Deputy President, I raise a point of order. This has no relevance to the matter under discussion.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Hogg)—I do not think there is a point of order there, Senator Herron.656Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW—You might try to waste my time, Minister, but it is particularly relevant because it was the Leader of the National Party, Mr Fischer, and the Deputy Leader, Mr Anderson, who made the promise that the implementation of the package, and particularly the changes to the Diesel Fuel Rebate Scheme, would result in savings of that magnitude. Mr Fischer pledged that in Wagga Wagga on 18 September in the election campaign, when referring to the tax package. He stated that there would be reduced fuel costs of the order of $3.5 billion. Are you listening, Senator Herron? You obviously were not listening then. Mr Fischer must have forgotten what he said then. He said, `I will guarantee that I will resign as party leader and walk out of the government if we do not deliver that $3.5 billion.'VW4HERRONSenator Herron—Mr Acting Deputy President, I again raise a point of order. I would like Senator Forshaw to table the document he is quoting from. He is asserting that the Deputy Prime Minister made a particular statement. I would ask him to table the document that he is quoting from.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—On the point of order, he can do so if he wishes to, as I am advised, but there is no need to unless he desires to.656Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW—It is obvious that the minister is concerned at and embarrassed by this massive backdown by his coalition colleagues, and he is embarrassed by the way in which the Liberal Party has stood over the National Party in order for them to break that promise. But I want to move on, because there is a whole range of issues to raise in respect of this legislation. I note that many of those have already been raised by my fellow senators from the opposition.These increased compliance costs associated with this legislation come on top of all the other increases in compliance costs associated with the package. They come on top of the government's own assessment of an increase in inflation of some 2.5 per cent, although reputable economic forecasts suggest it will be higher than that. This will have the greatest impact on rural and regional Australia, because in those areas the cost of goods to farmers, who are consumers as well, is greater than it is in the city. I will come back to the position of petrol in a moment. As I said, this represents a major broken promise by the coalition government, particularly by the National Party. Of course, we have come to expect that. We have seen situations where we were promised that, for example, the changes in tariff protection in the sugar industry would flow through to the consumers, but it has not happened.I want to look specifically at this legislation. I note that my colleague Senator Mackay, the shadow minister, has referred to the article that appeared in Inside Canberra recently. This is most embarrassing for the government, because it sets out in some detail how, when you do all the calculations for the changes to the diesel fuel rebate, you find that it produces very little, if any, benefit of substance to farmers particularly. As that article notes, the rebate involves some 23c per litre on the price of diesel fuel. That is a reduction, if it is passed on, of some 32 per cent. However, as fuel and oil represent only 21 per cent of total operating costs, we are in fact looking at a reduction of 32 per cent of 21 per cent, or 6.5 per cent, of overall costs.That estimate was not made up by the Australian Labor Party. It was not made up by the editor of Inside Canberra, which Senator Macdonald slagged off by implying that it was a Labor Party publication. Those calculations are based upon a report of the Bureau of Industry Economics. That report makes it very clear that the savings will be substantially less than the government claims. Then there are all the other parts of the package. For instance, farmers do not use just diesel fuel; they also use a lot of petrol in running their vehicles, particularly vehicles for their personal use. It has been pointed out that, with changes to petrol pricing as a result of this package, people in the bush will be paying more, proportionally, than people in metropolitan Australia. They will be doing that because, whilst the 7c per litre excise will come off the price of a litre of petrol, the 10 per cent GST will be put on the price of a litre of petrol.As everybody knows, in Sydney or in Melbourne, where there is heavy discounting, the consumers—the families in those cities—have the benefit of lower prices, but that does not occur in Wagga Wagga or in other parts of rural and regional New South Wales. They pay much higher prices per litre—substantially higher. I have travelled by car from Sydney to other parts of New South Wales and I have seen the price of petrol jump by from 15c to 20c per litre during a day's drive. When a 10 per cent GST is applied to the higher prices in country areas, they will be paying even higher prices than the price paid by their fellow Australians in the city.Where are the members of the National Party on this issue? They are not defending the interests of farmers and their families. They seem to think that it is all bound up in the diesel fuel rebate. The problem is that, for the members of the National Party, the diesel fuel rebate has become some sort of icon. They think that if they can get changes to that scheme, everything else will be fine and they will have done their job. They have not done their job. In fact, a snow job has been done by the Liberal Party and the Democrats. I try to visit the rural and regional areas of New South Wales, the state that I represent—and I visit them quite regularly, notwithstanding Senator Boswell's earlier comments—and in those areas, and throughout the rest of rural and regional Australia, people will be complaining strongly when they have to bear the full impact of this package and this legislation.Even if you accepted for the moment that the changes in the Diesel Fuel Rebate Scheme would provide some benefit to farmers because of the reduction in the costs associated with fuel, what is around the corner? In addition to the other increases that will apply to them through increased food prices through the GST, what are we looking at? We are looking at the Ralph report and the proposal to remove the allowance for accelerated depreciation.That is what rural people are concerned and upset about. The National Farmers Federation has acknowledged that. Farmers, people in the meat industry and people in other industries that I visited two weeks ago in northern New South Wales with shadow minister Gavan O'Connor told us that, as did the wheat growers in Tamworth and Narrabri. Whatever minuscule benefit there might be for them from a change in the diesel fuel rebate, it will be wiped out if the accelerated depreciation allowance is done away with. It is about time that the National Party members—or what is left of them, as I understand that they will be lucky to have the numbers to form a party in this Senate after tomorrow—started to listen to their constituency. People like Senator Boswell should start to listen to the people he represents and tell the Liberals in this coalition government that the rot has to stop— farmers and people living in rural and regional Australia deserve a far better deal from this government than they are getting under this package.VW4HERRONSenator Herron—Mr Acting Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. Standing order 168 (2) says:A document quoted by a senator not a minister may be ordered to be laid on the table.I took exception to Senator Forshaw quoting from something which he purported was directly attributable to the Deputy Prime Minister. Because I do not wish to delay the considerations of the Senate, I will not pursue this, but I think that if Senator Forshaw has a document that he is quoting from he is obliged to table that document so that the veracity of the document can be explored.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—The advice from the Clerk is that Senator Forshaw is not obliged to table the document unless the Senate orders him to do so. I have ruled on the point of order.656FORSHAWSenator Forshaw—Could I take a point of order, Mr Acting Deputy President?10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Yes.656FORSHAWSenator Forshaw—Before Senator Herron continues with this spurious point of order and request, I draw his attention to page 5602 of the Hansard of the House of Representatives of 23 June 1999. You will see there the quote I am referring to and, as we all know, the Hansard of the House of Representatives—and, indeed, of the Senate—is a most accurate record.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—There was no point of order in what you raised, Senator Forshaw.656FORSHAWSenator Forshaw—On a further point of order, Mr Acting Deputy President, can I ask for some guidance from you? Is a member of the Senate obliged to table Hansard ? I would have thought it was available to all members of parliament.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—There is no point of order there.VW4HERRONSenator Herron—On a further point of order, Mr Acting Deputy President: I am not questioning the veracity of the Hansard ; I am questioning the veracity of the interpretation.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—There is no point of order, Senator Herron; you know that.20:08:006796Crane, Sen WinstonSenator CRANEUW4WALP10—I rise too to speak on the Diesel and Alternative Fuels Grants Scheme Bill 1999 and the associated bill that are before us.Honourable senators interjecting—UW4Crane, Sen WinstonSenator CRANE—Mr Acting Deputy President, could I just ask you for some calm.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Hogg)—You are right, Senator Crane. You keep going in spite of the interference from your side and from the other side on my left.UW4Crane, Sen WinstonSenator CRANE—Well, my right ear is better than my left.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—We will not get into the politics of your ears, Senator Crane. If you could deliver us your second reading debate speech, we would be most appreciative.UW4Crane, Sen WinstonSenator CRANE—I would be delighted to; thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President. In talking to this legislation, I note Senator Forshaw's gratuitous comments. Before he spoke, I, in a very agreeable mood, agreed to swap over because he had things he wanted to do after he spoke and I had things I wanted to do prior to speaking, so it was not designed to enable me to attack Senator Forshaw. Nonetheless, there are some points that I must pick up on from his contribution here tonight. The first one is that his contribution was a rather consistent attack on our colleagues from the National Party who form part of the government in coalition with us. Let me just say that, as far as I am concerned—in government and where we sit today—an attack on my colleagues in the coalition government is an attack on me. I think some of the things that were said here today were really quite off the beam.At the beginning I must declare an interest in this because I am a partner in a farming partnership—Seacrest and Wyena Partnership, trading as A.W., J.R. and P.A. Crane. I put that on the public record at this point in my speech. The second comment I want to make is that there is a truism—and I think this is very appropriate and something, through you, Mr Acting Deputy President, that Senator Brown should take account of in some of his environmental comments—that without a strong economy you will never effectively support the environment or deal with the environment issues, particularly when it comes to the farming and mining sectors. If they are going to play their part—and they are increasingly playing their part today in terms of what is happening through Landcare and the rehabilitation of mining sites et cetera—they need to be strong financially to carry out the particular aspects of that. To have a situation which is encouraged consistently—and we heard Senator Margetts at estimates the other day on the costing structures of our industries—QD4BROWNSenator Brown—Mr Acting Deputy President—UW4Crane, Sen WinstonSenator CRANE—What's your problem, Bob?QD4BROWNSenator Brown—I will tell the senator in the chair my problem.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Resume your seat, Senator Crane.QD4BROWNSenator Brown—Mr Acting Deputy President, my problem is that 20 minutes from now the Democrats are going to guillotine this debate and I think they should be in here to listen to Senator Crane's contribution. I think that is only fair. There is not one of them in here. I draw your attention to the state of the Senate. (Quorum formed)UW4Crane, Sen WinstonSenator CRANE—I will repeat what I was saying: it is a truism that without a strong economy you will never effectively support the environment. It is rather interesting that Senator Brown should call a quorum and nominate the Democrats; I am rather interested to know why he did not call a quorum to get Senator Margetts down here. She is notable by her absence, particularly in view of what she had to say at estimates with regard to the diesel fuel rebate and trying to put a shackle around industry in this country. That would be a shackle particularly around the industries that are rebuilding the environment in this country, including the forestry industry—as you well know, Senator Brown—and the fishing industry, which has put an enormous amount of restriction on its operations to guarantee stock and to rebuild stock in the fishing areas it is going into. That is being done by the fishing industry in consultation with the various authorities; it is not something that is being forced down from on top. Of course, if it were being forced down from on top, we all know it would not work.In dealing with this aspect, one thing that needs to be recognised—and those on the other side of the chamber do not seem to be able to recognise it—is that this legislation is a small part of a total package of tax reform. People often stand up here and say, `Well, it's only this percentage of that,' or, `It's only that percentage of that.' When you add it all up and put it all together in terms of our export industries, which I am particularly interested in, there is in the order of $4½ billion of savings to those industries.The impact of those savings will be to put us on the same playing field—the same tax situation—as our competitors in the rest of the world: the US, Canada, Brazil, Asia and Europe. We will be on the same playing field they are on, and in that sense it is going to provide Australian producers with enormous capacity to penetrate additional markets around the world. People forget the importance of this aspect in a strong economy, which enables us to employ people and to do all those things you need to do to keep our standard of living in a satisfactory state.Diesel is the main source of energy for industry in remote areas of Australia, whether we like it or not. Petrol is important, but it falls into insignificance in comparison with diesel. Diesel is the only effective fuel that the farmers, the miners, the fishers, the forest industries and the tourist industries have to carry out their economic tasks. Hopefully, we will see further developments in fuel, and I support all those aspects very strongly, but the reality is that, even with the excise out, we are still one of the highest priced fuel economies in the world. Our prices are higher than in Canada, Chile, the US and Europe. When you add all these things together, and even though 2c or 3c a litre is the margin, we are still higher. We are not giving some bonanza that other people in the rest of the world enjoy, and that needs to be understood.Senator Forshaw made some comments about petrol and tried to run the line that, somehow or other, under this package the rural sector would be disadvantaged. The relativities in fuel pricing between diesel and petrol will not change. What will change is that the excise component will come down, and when diesel is used for business purposes it will be cheaper by the amount of GST because that will be claimed back as a cost of production. People need to understand that. So, even with the petrol component, the rural sector will be better off. It will be saved significant costs.When Senator Forshaw cited figures on diesel, he forgot to add on the wholesale sales tax. He forgot to add on the cascading impact of that through the system. The impact that will have on the cost of transport will be a significant saving to people in rural and remote areas.The significant part about this is that, regardless of where you live—whether it be Geraldton or Bunbury in Western Australia—the further you live from the metropolitan centre the greater the real savings will be and the greater the benefits and the greater the capacity of those individuals within that industry not only to compete but to gain additional export market penetration; and that is where the Australian cake will grow. I find it very difficult to understand why people on the other side of this chamber cannot come to that conclusion.I will run through a few of the points which I think are incredibly important with regard to the cost structure. The first is an issue I have pursued for many, many years: for the first time, as a result of this package, excise will no longer apply to rail. That, for my state of Western Australia, represents something like a $20 million to $25 million saving to Westrail and significant additional savings to the mining industry up in the northern parts of Western Australia. At this time, when commodity prices and exploration in the mining industry are falling at a very rapid rate, any savings in the cost of doing business will ensure that industries will be in a much better state to come through that and to be in a sound position as the world economies pick up again—and pick up they will. I believe that pick-up in demand is not that far away.In addition to that, it means that our iron ore industry will be in a much more effective position to compete with countries such as Brazil which are now very efficient and credible competitors in the iron ore stakes. One of the reasons we need to get the cost of doing business down is so we can reinvigorate exploration. The figures for exploration in Western Australia from June 1997 to March 1999 have more than halved, from $211.6 million to $101.2 million. That is a very significant drop indeed and, unless we have a competitive economy, that free fall, I believe, will continue.I would now like to move to the marine industry. All shipping will now be able to pass significant savings on to consumers. This means that tourist boats and the like will be able to compete at international standards. As it so happens, I live very close to a place called Jerdacuttup, which is very close to Esperance. The tourism industry there is starting to boom. The charter boat industry, which sails boats around the islands, is really starting to grow, and these arrangements will see the tourism component of the economy grow even faster.Recently I was in Esperance, a town of approximately 13,000 people, and I counted 17 charter buses. You can see these places bursting with the opportunities that are coming forth, and in our state, which has basically been devoid of much tourism, tourism is starting to grow. One of the particular reasons for this is the enormous reduction in costs that we are bringing about through our tax reform package.There is another aspect that I must mention about Esperance in terms of this debate, and it is one of the things that I will certainly continue to pursue in this place as far as getting equity is concerned; that is, the excise on light crude oil. It is an issue that we raised before the election and we made a commitment with respect to it. Unfortunately, it appears to have been a casualty of the deal with the Democrats, but it is an issue that we must deal with. I have a letter here from the President of the Shire of Esperance with regard to light crude oil. To put it in a nutshell, he writes about the impact of that decision on remote area towns which have no access whatsoever to any source of power other than through generation. On the situation with light crude he says that the cost of excise is an additional $3.5 million per annum, and it is not a cost that others in the community have to pay to get their power. We must deal with this issue when we come back here.But I will continue what I have to say about the savings. The cost of carrying on trains stock, iron ore or any form of mineral—magnesite, for example, which is another production down in my area—will be reduced significantly. If that is combined, as I have already said, with the other parts of the tax package, particularly the removal of the wholesale sales tax, there will be a significant benefit to those particular industries. There is also a benefit with respect to the morale of those people. They are fully aware that they have to compete internationally. They are fully aware that, for years and years, government policy in this country has disadvantaged them or impeded their ability to perform at maximum efficiency. This gives them a light at the end of the tunnel. It gives so many people a light at the end of the tunnel.People who come in here and talk about how this package is going to disadvantage people in rural and remote areas have not done their sums; they cannot add up. The reality is that the cost savings are just so great and the benefits that will flow through so beneficial that they just cannot wait until that magical day when this comes to fruition and they get the benefits from it. I see Senator Mackay smiling. Let me tell Senator Mackay that those who live in rural Tasmania will benefit just the same. So will those boats travelling between Tasmania and the mainland, and let us not forget that.There is something in this package for everyone, even Tasmanians. I think that is very important. It is not a state package, even though my state is a significant beneficiary in the reduction in the cost of exports. I have already mentioned the $4.5 billion. It is not difficult to work out that the cost of doing business in Western Australia will fall by very close to, if not over, $2 billion. But it will fall in all the other states. It will fall according to their production patterns and what they do in those particular states. It will also be very beneficial, I believe, to the further development of light manufacturing industry in this country, and we will continue to see that grow.I think that this package in total—even though there are changes to the original package as far as diesel is concerned—will bring enormous rewards and benefits to those people whom I am lucky enough and privileged enough to represent in this place.20:27:006799Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEYSF4VICALP00—In the couple of minutes that we have left, I want to make some comments, particularly with respect to the second reading speech. In the second reading speech much was said in favour of the Diesel and Alternative Fuels Grants Scheme Bill 1999 . But together with that defence, as it were, of the bill, there is some interesting stuff that I want to mention—and I think should be mentioned—at this point in time. On page 8 of the second reading speech it says:Madam President, there has also been some acrimonious debate over the carbon dioxide and related Greenhouse gas emissions, with the suggestion that greenhouse gas emissions will increase as a result of this package.This is a significant thing, Mr Acting Deputy President. The second reading speech continues:We need to get this issue straight. Greenhouse gas emissions are a serious matter; one which the government intends to address seriously. But expecting the tax package to solve such an issue is nonsense.And it goes on to talk about the Kyoto convention target. I want to point out that the second reading speech itself quite clearly points out that gas emission is a problem in the context of the Kyoto convention target, but says that this tax package cannot solve that issue. It seems inconsistent for the government and the Democrats to get up here and talk about the compromise that has been made in respect of diesel fuel—in so far as that is taxed and in so far as that is treated—and to say how well this has been advanced, and then to say in the context of the second reading speech how it is impossible for the tax package to cure this. No doubt the minister would say, if he had the opportunity, that it goes towards helping.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Hogg)—Order! It being 8.30 p.m., the guillotine applies. The question is that the second reading amendment moved by—QD4BROWNSenator Brown—Mr Acting Deputy President, I raise a point of order. The guillotine is about to be applied by the Democrats and the government, but there is not a member of the Democrats in the place. I draw your attention to the lack of a quorum. They cannot even make that at this vital stage of their cutting off the debate.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—I am in the process of putting the second reading amendment.QD4BROWNSenator Brown—I just wanted to make the point.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—There is no point of order. The question is that the second reading amendment moved by Senator Cook be agreed to.Question resolved in the negative.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator Brown, I understand that there is a second reading amendment standing in your name and one in Senator Margetts's name.20:31:006800Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—Yes. I foreshadowed an amendment in my name and I seek leave to have it considered.Leave granted.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—I move:Omit all words after "That", substitute:"further consideration of the bill be an order of the day for the first sitting day after the conditions specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) have been met: (a) determinations to raise motor vehicle emission standards, at least to the levels specified in subclauses 2(2) and 2(4) of the bill, have been made under section 7 of the Motor Vehicle Standards Act 1989 ; and (b) amounts listed in the third column of the table in clause 5 of the bill, for the programs specified in that table, have been appropriated".This second reading amendment would delay the bill until Mr Howard's promised emission standards are met.Question put:That the amendment (Senator Brown's ) be agreed to.20:36:00The Senate divided. (The President—Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid)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. Evans, C. V.Faulkner, J. P. Forshaw, M. G.Gibbs, B. Hogg, J.Mackay, S. Margetts, D.McKiernan, J. P. Murphy, S. M.O'Brien, K. W. K. *Quirke, J. A.Ray, R. F. Reynolds, M.Sherry, N. West, S. M.41Abetz, E. Allison, L.Alston, R. K. R. Bartlett, A. J. J.Boswell, R. L. D. Bourne, V.Brownhill, D. G. C. Calvert, P. H.Campbell, I. G. Chapman, H. G. P.Coonan, H. Crane, W.Eggleston, A. Ellison, C.Ferguson, A. B. Ferris, J.Gibson, B. F. Harradine, B.Heffernan, W. Herron, J.Hill, R. M. Kemp, R.Knowles, S. C. Lees, M. H.Lightfoot, P. R. Macdonald, I.Macdonald, S. McGauran, J. J. J.Murray, A. Newman, J. M.O'Chee, W. G. *Parer, W. R.Patterson, K. C. L. Reid, M. E.Stott Despoja, N. Synon, K. M.Tambling, G. E. J. Tierney, J.Troeth, J. Watson, J. O. W.Woodley, J.Bolkus, N. Vanstone, A. E.Hutchins, S. Payne, M. A.Lundy, K. Minchin, N. H.Schacht, C. C. MacGibbon, D. J.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the negative.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Margetts, do you wish to move your amendment by leave?20:39:006801Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I would, Madam President, but I have a very strong feeling that there is not the support to oppose the bill that I would certainly like to see. So I would be happy—instead of calling a division, and to save the Senate time—if the various parties would, by leave, indicate how they are likely to vote.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Is leave granted for Senator Margetts to move her amendment?Leave granted.DX5Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTS—I move:Omit all words after "That", substitute "the Senate:(a) notes that this bill would increase the total spending on fuel subsidies to $8.728 billion over 3 years resulting in: (i) an increase in air pollution of at least 5% more than under present arrangements; (ii) an increase in greenhouse gases to the tune of an extra 3 million tonnes by 2010; (iii) an increase in the energy and resource intensity of the Australian economy; (iv) an increase in congestion and noise; (v) an increase in impacts associated with unsustainable mining, forestry and agricultural practices; and (vi) severe health impacts (and related social costs) associated with increases in air pollution and increased use of road transport, including: (a) lung cancer; (b) other respiratory diseases such as asthma and bronchitis; (c) premature deaths; and (d) increased morbidity and mortality; and (b) calls on the Government to follow recommendations of the International Energy Agency and DECREASE fuel subsidies in Australia; and(c) opposes the bill".10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—I put the question that Senator Margetts's amendment be agreed to.Question resolved in the negative.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Two votes were recorded in favour and should be noted: Senator Margetts and Senator Brown. I now put the question that the following government committee amendment be agreed to:(1) Clause 2, page 2, (lines 14 to 18), omit subparagraph (i), substitute: (i) Regulation 83 of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, relating to uniform provisions concerning the approval of vehicles with regard to the emission of pollutants according to engine fuel requirements, incorporating all amendments up to and including the 04 Series of Amendments;20:40:006801Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—Could I table a brief supplementary explanatory memorandum for the one amendment of the government at the committee stage?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—You may. As a minister you are entitled to table that document. I put the question that the government committee amendment be agreed to.Question resolved in the affirmative.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Is there a Greens committee amendment? Senator Brown, are you seeking leave to move your amendment?20:40:006801Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—Yes, there are two, and I seek leave to move them both.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Is leave granted for Senator Brown to move both Greens committee amendments?Leave granted.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—There are two to each bill, as I understand it. Is that the situation?QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—No, there is one to each bill. The first amendment is to the Customs and Excise Amendment (Diesel Fuel Rebate Scheme) Bill 1999 and would remove the subsidy to logging native forests and clearing natural vegetation. I move:(1) Schedule 1, page 4 (after line 32), after item 8, insert:8A Subsection 164(7)Insert: clearing , in relation to native vegetation, means: (a) lopping native vegetation; or (b) destroying native vegetation; or (c) removing native vegetation.8B Subsection 164(7) (at the end of the definition of forestry )Add:but does not include: (g) forestry operations in native forests; or (h) clearing of native vegetation.8C Subsection 164(7)Insert: forestry operations means any of the following done for commercial purposes: (a) the planting of trees; or (b) the managing of trees before they are harvested; or (c) the harvesting of forest products;and includes any relating land clearing, land preparation and regeneration (including burning) and transport operations(2) Schedule 1, page 5 (after line 2), after item 9, insert:9A Subsection 164(7)Insert: native forest means forest dominated by tree species that are indigenous to the locality in which the forest occurs.9B Subsection 164(7)Insert: native vegetation means vegetation indigenous to the land in question.Amendments not agreed to.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—You have asked for your names to be recorded, Senator Margetts and Senator Brown, as supporting that amendment.20:42:006802Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—by leave—My amendment to the Diesel and Alternative Fuels Grants Scheme Bill 1999 would remove the average $30 subsidy to every log truck taking our wild forests to the woodchip mills. I move:(1) Clause 5, page 7 (after line 5), after the definition of metropolitan area , insert: native forest means forest dominated by tree species that are indigenous to the locality in which the forest occurs.(2) Page 10 (after line 1), after clause 10, insert:10A No entitlement for transportation of native forest productsDespite sections 9 and 10, you are not entitled to a fuel grant for the use of diesel fuel or alternative fuel if the enterprise you are carrying on, in operating your vehicle on a public road in Australia, involves the transportation of logs or woodchips derived from native forests.Question put:That the amendments (Senator Brown's ) be agreed to.20:46:00The Senate divided. (The President—Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid)2Brown, B. Margetts, D.*61Abetz, E. Allison, L.Alston, R. K. R. 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. Cook, P. F. S.Coonan, H. Cooney, B.Crane, W. Crossin, P. M.Crowley, R. A. Denman, K. J.Eggleston, A. Evans, C. V.Ferguson, A. B. Ferris, J.Forshaw, M. G. Gibbs, B.Gibson, B. F. Harradine, B.Heffernan, W. Herron, J.Hill, R. M. Hogg, J.Kemp, R. Knowles, S. C.Lees, M. H. Lightfoot, P. R.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. Quirke, J. A.Ray, R. F. Reid, M. E.Sherry, N. Stott Despoja, N.Synon, K. M. Tambling, G. E. J.Tierney, J. Troeth, J.Watson, J. O. W. West, S. M.Woodley, J.Question so resolved in the negative.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—The question now is that the bills be passed with amendment.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills read a third time.Notices68036803RF4COOKSenator Cook—by leave—to move, on the next day of sitting:That the following matters be referred to the Review of Business Taxation for inquiry and report by 30 July 1999, in line with one of the review's key objectives of `providing a secure source of revenue':(a) the extent of the erosion of the `pay as you earn' (PAYE) tax base due to the growth in dependent contracting arrangements, including the use of company structures to receive payments for personal services, and the annual cost to revenue from such arrangements;(b) the impact of proposals in the Government's `A New Tax System' package, particularly those contained in A New Tax System (Australian Business Number) Bill 1998 and the proposed new withholding tax arrangements, on the erosion of the PAYE tax base through the growth of dependent contracting arrangements;(c) the equity implications for businesses and their employees subject to the PAYE tax system compared to those operating through and with dependent contracting arrangements; and(d) measures to halt the erosion of the PAYE tax base caused by the growth of artificial dependent contracting arrangements.UNKNOWNSenator Ian CampbellSenator Ian Campbell—by leave—to move, on the next day of sitting:That the amendments to standing orders 76(1) and 67, adopted as temporary orders on 29 April 1999 and relating to the giving of notices of motion and the postponement of business, continue to have effect till 31 December 1999.Bills6803r7386803Debate resumed from 27 May, on motion by Senator Ian Campbell:That this bill be now read a second time.upon which Senator Cook had moved by way of amendment:At the end of the motion, add: "but that the Senate is of the opinion that:(a) in view of Australia's record current account deficit (over $28 billion in 1998) and record trade deficit (over $10 billion in 1998), there is an urgent need to increase exports;(b) the Government's 1997 imposition of an annual funding limit at the same time as the introduction of more red tape for small exporters has had the effects of: (i) reducing funding for exporters under the EMDG scheme from $213 million to $147 million—a fall of 31 per cent; and (ii) cutting the total number of EMDG grant recipients from 3,553 to 2,933—a fall of 17 per cent; and (iii) slashing the number of jobs created by the EMDG scheme from 77,000 to 59,533—a fall of 22 per cent.(c) the Asian economic crisis has increased ongoing costs for small exporters in maintaining a crucial foothold in Asia, while imposing new costs as they search for other markets to replace lost sales;(d) the Government should remove the $150 million annual funding limit applying to the Export Market Development Grants scheme".20:52:006803Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I would like to speak about some of the ethical, social and environmental issues associated with Export Market Development Grant Scheme. There are a number of reasons why it is useful to gather information and ensure that it is transparent. Obviously basic issues of public accountability and program evaluation come to mind, but there are ethical, social and environmental issues related to where we are exporting: that is, are we exporting to countries such as Burma which are suppressing human rights?There are also issues as to what we are exporting: that is, are we exporting arms or other lethal goods to countries, and is that what we want to encourage? Previously I stated that there is a need for the inclusion of other criteria relating to the environmental and social impact of both production and products used for assistance under this scheme. There is also the issue of equity and the subsidisation of undesirable goods and habits.This has largely been ignored, unfortunately. There should be an assurance of a code of practice or an examination of the environmental and social implications of exports and activities by exporting companies. A minimum case is that of taxpayers, through the government, actively supporting those companies and exports through the EMDG Scheme or some other scheme.On several occasions, including in October 1997, I asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence: what were the top 200 defence export approvals by value in the 1996-97 financial year; which companies, which countries and the nature of the equipment? The names of the exporters were in fact not released because the government claimed the information to be commercial-in-confidence in nature. I find that a bit extraordinary, but it included $20 million of radar equipment to Pakistan. Recently we have been dealing with the issue of ongoing problems between Pakistan and India—you can only wonder about those kinds of issues.I made statements in 1995 in relation to the Export Market Development Grants Scheme where I hoped the government would consider improving the assessment and performance nature of the criteria used in that assessment. In August 1994, I looked at the lack of performance measures combined with Austrade's minimal annual reporting of its largest budget item. I think we have made the case for the need for greater transparency, but I do not believe it is currently provided in the way the bill operates. I gather there is ongoing support for the bill, but I am hoping that we will get a better performance in relation to those issues.20:55:006804Brownhill, Sen DavidSenator BROWNHILLRD4NSWNP10—I seek leave to incorporate my speech in Hansard . In so doing, I thank Senator Cook, Senator Margetts, Senator Stott Despoja, Senator Harradine and Senator Colston and others who helped to make this bill non-contentious and get through it quickly.Leave granted.The speech read as follows—It is with great pleasure that I speak on the Export Market Development Grants Legislation Amendment Bill 1999.I think this is a fantastic program that assists business, especially small businesses to get into exporting their product throughout the world.It has been the principal export assistance program of both sides of Government for 25 years now.A good demonstration of the effectiveness of the scheme was that 70% of the winners and finalists of the 1998 Australian export Award winners and finalists were EMDG recipients.In the year 1997/98 2,933 business received grants.Approximately 70 per cent of grants went to small enterprise219 additional businesses were able to access the scheme and receive grants due to the lowering of the entry threshold from $30,000 to $20,000.Highest recorded export to grants ratio of 35:1; andRecipients generated almost $5 billion in exports. $150 million created $5 billion.When I was Parliamentary Secretary for Trade, I conducted 30 regional trade roundtables. The EMDG's came up at every one of those roundtables.All of the participants at the roundtables were very positive about this scheme—but like everything there are anomalies—and that is why we will conduct a review of the export market development grants scheme which will be finalised by June 2000.Maybe after this review—instead of the current client satisfaction of 84% we will have a client satisfaction rate of 98%.The participants at the trade roundtables were vibrant, innovative, impressive people who were out there trying to have a go.Do you know I expected to go to those roundtables and be blasted that the Government hasn't done this, or hasn't done that? You know what? I wasn't. Because these small business exporters don't sit back waiting for someone else to do it for them—they are getting out and having a go and doing a good job.That is why the EMDG scheme is so successful—It helps small business get a foot in the door once its there it is up to the business to stay in.I want to thank my fellow Senators who have been so cooperative in getting this Amendment Bill through.I have always believed that Trade should be bipartisan—we all want to see our small business grow and prosper and it is through exporting they can do that.More exports mean more jobs and a better standard of living for all Australians.20:56:006805Troeth, Sen JudithSenator TROETHGX5VICLP10—I would like to thank all senators for their contributions to this debate. As all speakers have acknowledged, the EMDG Scheme has been a vital ingredient in developing a strong and vibrant export culture for Australia over 25 years. It has been instrumental in the globalisation of Australian business. Two years ago, this government reconfirmed its commitment to the EMDG Scheme and implemented a series of changes to focus it more strongly on small and medium exporters to increase its accessibility and to simplify it. These changes are working. The export impact of the scheme has increased and recipients currently generate over $35 worth of exports for every dollar of grant paid.It is being delivered effectively with over 98 per cent of applications processed within the year last year and applicants receiving their grants quicker than ever before. I can assure senators that the government will meet certain commitments in terms of the future of the scheme. We will instigate a thorough review of the scheme to be completed before 30 June 2000 and that review will address issues relating to the continuity of the scheme, the public disclosure of information and areas for future improvement in the targeting and administration of the scheme. The government also undertakes to table annually a full list of grant recipients together with statistical information on export trends to specific markets.Before concluding, I would like to respond briefly to comments made by Senator Cook and Senator Margetts. As a result of changes made in 1997, the EMDG Scheme is now more tightly focused on encouraging and assisting small to medium exporters to embark on export. Those changes did remove a number of large and already capable exporters from the scheme. While this meant that the exports and jobs that these companies generated and that may have been previously attributable to their export market development grants were no longer reported in EMDG statistics, it does not follow that those exports and jobs no longer exist. The government's changes were designed to deliver effective assistance more equitably to those who most need it, namely small and medium sized companies that are developing new export markets. The scheme is meeting this objective.In response to Senator Margetts' comments, Austrade has made significant improvements to its reporting on EMDG since the Australian National Audit Office report in 1994 that I think she is referring to. Austrade's annual report now contains comprehensive information on how the scheme is administered and there are several publications released by Austrade annually giving information on the scheme. In its follow-up audit in 1996, the ANAO considered that Austrade had adequately addressed the issue of public reporting. In addition, the Export Market Development Grants Legislation Amendment Bill 1999 will further extend the amount of information that is disclosed publicly. As I noted earlier, this issue will also be considered as part of the review to be conducted next year. I commend the bill to the Senate.Amendment not agreed to.Original question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.6805The bill.21:00:006805Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—On behalf of the Australian Democrats, I move:(1) Schedule 1, page 8 (after line 17), after item 26, insert:26A After section 106 Insert:106A Review of the scheme (1) Not later than 1 January 2000, the Minister must cause Austrade to conduct a review of the export market development grants scheme for the purpose of making recommendations about the continuation of the scheme for an indefinite period. (2) In conducting the review, Austrade must call for submissions from the public and may conduct public hearings. (3) Austrade must complete the review and provide a written report to the Minister not later than 30 June 2000. (4) The Minister must cause a copy of the report to be laid before each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days after receiving it.I foreshadowed this amendment when I gave my speech during the second reading debate. It provides for a review of the EMDG and I spoke to that during the second reading stage.21:00:006806Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—We will support this amendment. If I heard the parliamentary secretary correctly in her reply to the second reading debate, she actually indicated what this amendment reflects. I do not think there is any difference between the terms of this amendment and what the government has undertaken to do. I notice that the parliamentary secretary has nodded in the affirmative and I accept that as an assurance. On that basis, we will support the amendment.Amendment agreed to.Bill, as amended, agreed to.Bill reported with amendment; report adopted.6806Bill (on motion by Senator Troeth) read a third time.Bills6806r7496806Debate resumed from 21 June, on motion by Senator Ellison:That this bill be now read a second time.21:02:006806Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—Demutualisation occurs when an organisation which is effectively owned by its members—called a mutual organisation—becomes a public company. Invariably, the members of the mutual organisation relinquish their interest in the organisation in exchange for shares in the new public company. Ordinarily, the disposal of a membership interest in a mutual organisation would be subject to the capital gains tax provisions when the disposal occurs. These amendments specifically provide that the disposal of a membership interest in mutual organisation is not subject to capital gains tax when it occurs as a part of a demutualisation arrangement. A condition of the concession is that there must be broad continuity of ownership between the members of the mutual organisation and the persons to whom shares are issued in the demutualised entity.In this context, I would just like to remind the minister of a very similar problem to the one being remedied here which arises in the area of corporate takeovers. When one company takes over another and the consideration offered to shareholders in the target company is shares in the offeror company, the shareholders in the target company suffer precisely the same problem as shareholders would have been suffering in the demutualised entity without these amendments—that is, by accepting the new shares in exchange for their shares in the target company, they are disposing of an interest and are consequently subject to capital gains tax.The passing of this bill means that members in a mutual organisation will now be dealt with differently from shareholders in a company in regard to the matter of disposing of an interest and that being subject to capital gains tax. This fact bears heavily on the shareholder's decision as to whether they should accept the takeover offer. It is not appropriate that the taxation system should have such a distorting effect on corporate takeover activity. This issue is referred to in the Joint Committee of Corporations and Securities report on the Corporate Law Economic Reform Program Bill 1998 and I hope that this is an issue now under consideration by the government for amendment and change. Having said that, the Australian Democrats support the bill.21:05:006807Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—The opposition will support this bill.21:05:006807Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—I thank the participants in the debate. The bill introduces a framework for the capital gains tax treatment of particular transactions associated with the demutualisation of mutual non-insurance organisation where the demutualisation occurs under one of three specified methods and where broad continuity of beneficial ownership is maintained. These provisions are necessary to deal with anomalies that otherwise would arise from the application of capital gains tax provisions to a demutualisation, including the possibility of double taxation.The main features of the framework are, firstly, a member who disposes of a membership interest in a mutual non-insurance organisation in the course of a demutualisation will not be subject to capital gains tax on the disposal. Secondly, the issue of shares in the new organisation will not give rise to a taxable capital gain at the time of issue. Thirdly, the amount paid for the acquisition of shares in the new entity will be determined according to when the original membership interest was acquired. Fourthly, there will be specific provisions establishing the amount paid for shares in cases such as merges or takeovers. Lastly, franking credit surpluses of demutualised entities will be retained. These measures were foreshadowed in the 1997-98 budget and announced in the 1998-99 budget. The government consulted with interested parties in the preparation of these measures and I commend this bill to the Senate.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.Bills6807r8336807Debate resumed from 28 June, on motion by Senator Ian Campbell:That this bill be now read a second time.21:09:006807Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I wish to contribute to the debate, but I am very aware of the limitations on time tonight. I seek leave to incorporate my second reading contribution to the Health Insurance Amendment (Professional Services Review) Bill 1999 in Hansard .10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Bartlett)—Is leave granted?6E4TAMBLINGSenator Tambling—Normally the courtesy would be extended with copies being made available in advance. However, on this occasion I will accept the request.Leave granted.DX5Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTS—I thank the Senate.The speech read as follows—The Bill before the Senate today is the Health Insurance Amendment (Professional Services Review) Bill 1999.The thrust of the Bill is to implement recommendations from the Report of the Review Committee of the Professional Services Review Scheme. It seeks to create a regime for peer review of medical practitioners and to deal with over-servicing and other inappropriate practices.I have some specific comments to make on the bill, but I would also like to address some broader issues in the health and health insurance areas.Firstly a comment on the government's general strategy of subsidy of the private health insurance industry.There is an article in the current issue of Australian Medicine—the newsletter of the Australian Medical Association—which argues as I have done, that the current private health insurance rebate government initiative will probably fail. The final paragraph of that article explains quite clearly the position of the AMA—and probably that of the government—that the only way to rescue Private Health Insurance is to change public perception that there is always going to be a public system to fall back on. The only way to change this perception is for the government to get taxpayers to lose faith in the public system.Is this then the reason for current government strategy of transferring large amounts of tax payers' money to the private health funds which will result in further downgrading of the Public System and increasing the size of queues/ waiting lists?There are several myths propagated in order to undermine Medicare. These myths need to be constantly refuted.The first is that there is an "explosion in health costs under Medicare" or "Medicare is unsustainable financially in its present form".The government's own figures indicate that Australia's health services expenditure has been stable at 8.5% of GDP for 3 years and its real rate of growth (2.9%) was significantly lower than for any year since 1991/1992. That is significantly lower than in the private system.By chance, in last Wednesday's Sydney Morning Herald there is an article by Ross Gittins—"Politicians keep lid on Viagra too"—which very clearly makes the point that Medicare , and the public system in general, keeps the lid on costs.Why then, is Mr Howard giving $6 billion of taxpayers money over the next 4 years to privatise the health system?And in whose interest?The second myth to be debunked is that by transferring taxpayers' funds to the private health insurance system this will "take the pressure off Medicare".Apart from the fact that this confuses private health insurance with the private health system, the opposite is true. More pressure is being put on the Public system, a) because the government cannot successfully afford to fund both systems, and b) because the majority of private insured patients are using the public system anyway, and without declaring their private status.This is reported to be sixty three per cent of privately insured patients in Victoria and in NSW 16% of patients were charged for admission to Public Hospitals. This has dropped to 14.9% this year.Even in the unlikely event that millions of Australians suddenly decided to take up private health insurance the federal/state agreements ensure that allocations to the public system will decrease proportionally to any increase in private health membership. To turn now to the provisions of the current Bill:In setting up a system for peer review, the bill overall is quite reasonable and it has broad support from the medical profession. Such support tends usually tends to ring alarm bells for me, but in this instance I think the industry is right.One of the strengths of Medicare and the Public System is that it is accountable. This Bill reinforces the accountability of the system. It is generally agreed that the system needs to be more enforceable, however there could be some controversy about setting an absolute figure of 80 patients per day on more than 20 days per year as the trigger for investigation of over servicing.Whilst agreeing that GPs seeing 80 to 100, or even more, patients a day is hardly likely to be compatible with quality health care, there may be some concern about the setting of arbitrary figures i.e is 79 patients a day a reasonable figure but 80 is not.Will this figure discriminate against some minority groups/ ethnic communities or remote geographical areas and/or some specialities with a shortage of specialists?I will return to the issue of doctors in remote and rural Australia in a moment.There does seem to be some hypocrisy in setting patient number limits—which is de facto aiming for better quality care—when the government continues to:1) squeeze the bulk billing rebate to an all time low—thus attacking the bulk billing doctors and their patients ie those in the less salubrious areas of our capital cities,2) perpetuate the fee-for-service system which encourages fast throughput of patients by entrepreneurial GPsSome of us will recall that Dr Wooldridge backed down from his excellent initiative to salary all the young doctors during their 2 General Practice training years because of pressure from the College of GPs just before the last election.While it is good to see the Government dealing with some of the issues in the health area, there is one serious problem area which needs a good deal more work. I acknowledge that progress is being made here too, but much more remains to be done.The problem area—and I think the Government would agree with me that this is the biggest problem area in the health portfolio—is in the area of rural health.The difficulties for rural Australia in getting access to medical services are well known to Senators. While I have some comments to make on the general impact of the shortage of doctors in rural areas, the issue I wish to bring to attention today is the way in which the operation of the Medicare Rebate acts to disadvantage people in country areas.This is an issue raised with me in the first instance by a constituent in a relatively isolated area of the south of Western Australia—Ravensthorpe, which is some 200 km from Esperance and 300 km from Albany. On investigation I've found that the concerns expressed by this constituent are concerns shared by many country people and by the various medical organisations with an interest in the issue.The issue is this: In the city, when we go to the doctor, we pay the bill and, usually, l we get a rebate from Medicare of $21.30 for a standard consultation. In the country, where there is much less choice of a doctor, it is much more likely that the rebate for the same consultation would be only $17.85.How does this situation come about?It goes back to the provision of Medicare Provider Numbers to various classes of medical practitioners.Certain items in the Medicare Benefits Schedule are only available to "general practitioners". These are the vocationally registered medical practitioners and fellows of the Royal Australasian College of General Practice.Other medical practitioners are restricted to a separate group of items when billing their patients. These items have a lower Schedule Fee and consequently a lower Medicare rebate.The ratio of vocationally registered GPs to other medical practitioners ranges from 3 to 1 in metropolitan areas to about 2 to 3 in some remote areas. Clearly, if this leads to different rebates, it is rural and remote Australians who will be discriminated against.Among this group of other medical practitioners there are a number of overseas trained doctors on temporary visas working in what are called "declared areas of need".They may be given a temporary Medicare Provider Number, but they do not have access to vocational registration. This means that the patients they see cannot access the higher level of rebate through Medicare.Now it may or may not affect the fee that they charge. In the case of the Ravensthorpe example, the up front fee is $36 for a standard consultation. Now the complaint is not with the fee, local residents are thankful that they have a doctor. The complaint is with the rebate—$17.85 instead of $20.30. Why are people in Ravensthorpe—or any number of other similar towns throughout Australia disadvantaged in this way? It is not their fault that it is difficult to attract medical practitioners. They pay the same Medicare levy as the rest of us, why shouldn't they be eligible for the same rebate? Now, the intention of the split system of rebates is to reward those medical practitioners who do extra training to qualify as general practitioners in addition to meeting a range of other criteria. But it doesn't do that. The fee charged by general and other practitioners may be the same—only the rebate is different. Only if doctors bulk bill, or charge the schedule fee, do they earn less without being vocationally registered. And this again is another disincentive to overseas trained doctors filling positions in areas of need in rural Australia.Being paid less than vocationally registered doctors when they bulk bill means that they are unlikely to bulk bill non-concession patients. This again disadvantages country people. In the city it is still possible to find the occasional doctor who will bulk bill for any patient. It is much more rare in country areas.All of this would not be so much of a worry if it wasn't for the sorry state of health of people in country areas. Even excluding the appalling health statistics for Aboriginal people, the health of people in rural areas is below average for the whole of the community. Accident rates are higher and suicide (especially youth suicide) rates are a national scandal.In this context, anything which adds a further disincentive for people in country areas to attend the doctor, is a matter of concern. Anything which puts another hurdle in the way of doctors moving to country areas is also a matter of concern. What is being done about this?Well, we have seen some welcome changes in recent months. There is the extension of vocational registration to young solo doctors working in remote areas and also to temporary resident doctors in similar locations with appropriate qualifications.In WA moves to recruit suitably trained and qualified overseas trained GPs to work in the bush for a minimum of five years, is a useful stop-gap measure to alleviate the worst of the problem.The introduction in the recent budget of retention payments for general practitioners in rural and remote areas is also welcome. One of the most significant and welcome new items in the Health budget is the fly-in fly-out female general practitioner scheme which has significant potential to meet the needs of rural women.The goals of the Australian Health Ministers in the 1999 publication Healthy Horizons: A Framework for Improving the Health of Rural, Regional and Remote Australia are a welcome contribution to the debate and it will be interesting to see if resources are allocated to meeting those goals.But there is something else that needs to be done. The limit imposed on the number of doctors who can be vocationally registered must be lifted. The argument that there are too many doctors is no excuse. In WA the shortage of doctors is not restricted to country areas. In Perth we have the ridiculous situation in which the State Health Minister has declared areas of need in the Intensive Care Units of the major teaching hospitals.Contrary to the view of the federal government, the only way to address the problem in the long term is to increase the numbers of doctors being trained and being qualified as general practitioners.In this context I would like to raise the issue of a second graduate medical school in WA. Were there to be such a graduate school, with a focus in rural medicine, we could start to address the disadvantages faced by country people in WA.Research on what attracts doctors to rural practice includes exposure to rural medicine as a medical student and exposure during vocational and early hospital training to rural practice, especially rural general practice. The lack of training in the special skills required of rural doctors is a big disincentive.We also need to increase the number of training positions allocated to this state by the Royal Australasian College of General Practitioners (the number has been reduced from 65 to 43 in the last two years, which is totally inadequate—we need 30-35 new doctors in rural WA alone each year!)We must be able to continue to access doctors for rural areas and for the much needed locum support which the WA Centre for Rural and Remote Medicine has organised in WA. The locum program relieves hard working rural doctors so that they can have a holiday and not burn out, and stay in rural areas longer. It is very successful and appreciated.To return to the Provider Numbers issue. I have been told—though it makes very little sense—that there is a constitutional reason the problem of non-vocationally registered doctors in country areas can not be resolved by the apparently simple method of allocating the Provider Numbers to doctors by region (the so-called Geographic Provider Numbers). It somehow becomes "civil conscription" of doctors and therefore unconstitutional.Leaving aside the constitutional argument, though, perhaps there is another solution. Maybe what we need to do is recognise the special skills required of rural doctors and accord them an enhanced status in much the same way as general practitioners have recently been recognised.Only this time we will make the training and qualification available to the rural doctors where they are and provide generous "grandfather" clauses to allow existing rural doctors (including those in areas of need who do not have full access to the Medicare Benefits Schedule) to qualify as rural practitioners. That way we might be able to address the training needs of rural doctors, and the institutionalised discrimination against country people regarding Medicare rebates, at the same time.Speaking of discrimination, I'd like to conclude by quoting Dr Col Owen in the 7 May 1999 edition of Australian Doctor. Dr Owen is a past President of the Royal College of General Practice and a prominent rural GP. He was inaugural President of the Rural Doctors Association of Australia.He says of the vocational registration, "As well as being professionally divisive, politically disastrous and legally embrangled, we can add that vocational registration has been and is discriminatory. It discriminates against those doctors doing the toughest jobs in the toughest areas at the toughest times—and their patients."I hope that I have given some food for thought on these issues and raised a few points which National Party Senators can pursue in the Coalition Party Room. You are, after all, the ones who claim to be looking after the interests of rural Australia.While you are there in the Party Room you might like to enlighten your liberal colleague, Senator Eggleston who, in a letter to a rural constituent on this matter, indicated that the problem was that "young doctors tend to marry city girls who are reluctant to go into country areas and move away from their friends and families."You might like to tell him that the majority of students entering medical school are now women, and of those graduating in recent years the figures are close to 50%. Any policy to attract doctors to rural areas must take account of what this gender shift means. It has nothing to do with young doctors marrying city girls!21:09:006810Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—I thought I would outline the position of the opposition in relation to the legislation in the important second reading debate. I can do it quickly. We support the legislation.21:10:006810Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4NTCLP10—I thank senators for their contributions to this debate, particularly Senator Faulkner. I pass on my thanks to all parties for their continued support of the Professional Services Review Scheme. The Professional Services Review Scheme has been established to protect Medicare. Medicare is the central part of the Australian health system and we need to protect it from fraud and abuse. The Minister for Health and Aged Care, Dr Michael Wooldridge, outlined the major tenets of this legislation in the second reading speech in the House of Representatives on 2 June this year. I am pleased to note that the government and the profession have been working well together to improve the PSR. The bill will result in a stronger PSR and a stronger Medicare system.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.Bills68116811Debate resumed from 24 March, on motion by Senator Ian Macdonald:That this bill be now read a second time.21:12:006811Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEYSF4VICALP00—The Criminal Code Amendment (Slavery and Sexual Servitude) Bill does very much what its title says it does. It makes it a crime for people to participate in the activity of slavery—in other words, imposing slavery on other people—and to impose sexual servitude on other people, and it is quite descriptive. It is interesting to look at schedule 2 of the bill because it appeals the acts that up until now made slavery illegal in Australia. They are all imperial acts. Slavery was legal in England in the last century. Fortunately, things have developed where it is now a very bad offence. Australia now has its own laws in respect of both slavery and sexual servitude. The penalties provided for in the bill are very severe. The sentences themselves are important, but it is more important to ensure that slavery and sexual servitude are detected if they occur.Time is short and Senator Margetts wants to move amendments to the bill. As I understand those amendments, they seek to make it an offence, punishable in Australia, for anybody to engage in slavery anywhere around the world—in other words, that Australian courts will have jurisdiction over acts of slavery no matter where they are committed. That concept seems a good one, but the amendments have come to us very late in the day. I have spoken to Senator Margetts about this. The opposition cannot support the amendments because it has not had a proper look at them. When we think of the severity of the sentences—up to 17 years or 25 years, depending on what the offences are—we as an opposition would want to be absolutely sure that everything was in place before we agreed to legislation being passed.Given the severity of the sentence and given the gross nature of the crime, anybody who is convicted of that should be convicted only if his or her guilt is absolutely established. There has not been sufficient opportunity to have a look at the amendments from Senator Margetts. Nevertheless, I commend Senator Margetts not only for this particular initiative but also for all the initiatives she has had while in this place. She has manifested the great human values that we all admire. Had we had these amendments earlier and been able to look at them, then perhaps something could have been achieved tonight. As I say, given the severity of the penalties and the nature of the crimes, nobody should be convicted of them unless the process is absolutely assured and we clearly understand what that process is.21:15:006811Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—I seek leave to incorporate my speech on the second reading debate. I think I have the permission of the opposition; I am just waiting on Senator O'Chee.21:16:006811Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—I have only just been given a copy of Senator Stott Despoja's speech. It would have been a courtesy to have given me time to look at it properly before she spoke. While I am not going to stand in the way of her tabling the speech—5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—She does not want to table it; she wants to incorporate it.BE4Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMAN—Yes, to incorporate it. Thank you, Senator Faulkner, I am so grateful for your assistance. The problem is that, as I scanned the speech very quickly, I found some of the facts in it very questionable, and it is certainly inflammatory. It is not the sort of speech one would normally expect a senator to ask to be incorporated at the last minute. The Labor Party tried that when they were in government. Certainly they did not readily accept it. I am prepared to accept it because of the time constraints on people, but I suggest to Senator Stott Despoja that, if she wants to do this again, she give proper time to do it and that she recognise that the debate on matters that are supposedly non-contentious is not the time for disputation, if you like.21:17:006812Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—by leave—In response to the minister, I suggested I incorporate the speech as a courtesy. If the Senate would prefer me to read it out, I would be more than willing to do so. It was a matter of courtesy, and I did not expect that my speech would be given a mark out of 10.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—On the issue of leave being granted, can I indicate—10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Bartlett)—Are you seeking leave to make a statement?5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—On the issue of granting leave, yes.BE4NEWMANSenator Newman—It has been granted.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—I am sorry, the opposition also has to grant leave, just in case you are not aware of that. We can refuse leave if we want to.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Is leave granted for Senator Faulkner to make a comment in relation to this matter? There being no objection, leave is granted.21:18:006812Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—I thank the Senate. I do think that on this occasion we ought to note that Senator Stott Despoja did, in the interests of trying to progress the debate on the second reading as quickly as possible, seek leave to incorporate a speech which otherwise she may well have delivered. Given the time constraints, the opposition does accept that there was very little opportunity for Senator Stott Despoja on this occasion to take any course of action other than to provide a copy of her speech at the time the question is before the Senate. While over the last few weeks I have been critical of Senator Stott Despoja and some of the other Australian Democrats—and quite rightly—on this occasion Senator Stott Despoja is trying to assist the Senate, and I consider the minister's behaviour to be typically churlish and inappropriate.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—I take it from those statements that leave is being granted for Senator Stott Despoja's speech to be incorporated? There being no objection, leave is granted.The speech read as follows—This bill is supported by the Australian Democrats along with the agreed set of amendments to be moved by both the Government, ALP and WA Greens.The purpose of this Bill is to create criminal offences of slavery and sexual servitude and to provide penalties as well as repealing a number of old imperial acts currently in force in Australia as they relate to the crime of slavery.Remarkably, before the enactment of this Bill—the law prohibiting slavery in Australia is represented by Slave Trade Act 1824 an imperial Act, and even more remarkably, no Australian Parliament has ever enacted laws which criminalise slavery.The Australian Law Reform Commission noted in 1990 that:The fact that this area of substantive Australian criminal law is regulated by 19th century imperial enactments itself demonstrates the need for change. While the application of those amendments in Australia is less obscure than in the case of piracy, their language is archaic and a number of their provisions relate to circumstances and institutions that have either changed or long since fallen into disuse. More importantly, the appropriate punishments for the offences they create are now uncertain. Australia's international obligations require the trade in slaves to be an offence. Accordingly, these complex Imperial Acts with their certain punishments should be replaced with modern concise Australian offences.I would like to add the Australian Democrats' support to those sentiments expressed in the law reform commission report.However, I would like to add the following comments:Slavery is but one, albeit one, of the more extreme varieties of racial discrimination. To our credit, as a nation, Australia outlawed all forms of racial discrimination in 1975 when the Parliament enacted the Racial Discrimination Act which states as it intention (quoting from the preamble):Whereas the convention entitled the "International Convention on the Elimination of All forms of Racial Discrimination" —and the convention is attached.It says (in part):Reaffirming that discrimination between human beings on the grounds of race, colour or ethnic origin is an obstacle to friendly and peaceful relations between nations and is capable of disturbing peace and security among peoples and the harmony of persons living side by side even within one and the same State.Well, this chamber should never forget that the former National Party Premier of Queensland, Mr Bjelke Petersen, fought that Act of Parliament `tooth and nail'—all the way to the High Court of Australia. In the now famous case of Koowarta v Bjelke Petersen , the High Court by a narrow margin in 1975 thankfully found in favour of the validity of that legislation.However, only last year—this Senate (and I distinguish between this Senate and the Senate from July 1) voted during the Wik debate to effectively exempt the Commonwealth from the operation of the Racial Discrimination Act as it applied to Native Title. Then, as I recall, it was euphemistically referred to as a `sticking point'. The Australian Democrats continue to find the rejection of that amendment as a remarkably regressive position to take in a modern democratic nation, like Australia. The very fact that the Committee formed for the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination has questioned Australia's conduct in this regard is evidence enough that in fact—the strong position of the Australian Democrats (and indeed the WA Greens) over three Senate Wik debates—was in fact the right and just one.I remain continually dismayed that the Attorney-General remains belligerent in the face of international condemnation and would like to put on the record once again that the Australian Democrats remain intractably opposed to the Government's position in this regard.Despite the existence of those imperial acts we are now updating, slavery did exist against the Kanack and Aboriginal populations who worked farms and Cane and other crops in Far North Queensland and other places in this country. I mention this point because it is despite those Imperial Acts, (And I am not aware of any prosecutions under those Acts—even though slavery has existed within this land).This Bill deals specifically with slavery and sexual servitude but is worth noting that it is racial discrimination that forms the basis of the mental element that can lead to the commission of slavery offences. Slavery in that context, is but one element, however, so heinous—of racial discrimination.I am pleased to support (on behalf of the Australian Democrats) this bill in so far as it comprises a move in the right direction by the Government away from the one that they took a year ago.Of course this Bill also has another matter that it deals with and that is Sexual Slavery. While supportive of the Government's position on this, the Democrats would like to note a word of caution regarding assumptions that can and are made about people who are voluntarily or involuntarily involved in the sex industry. While the intention of this Bill is clear on this matter in its aim to stem a trade that involves recruiting persons from one country and relocating them to another in servile or slave-like conditions, for little or no reward (if it can ever be called that). As the Government has identified, young women are the primary target of such an illicit trade and the fact that this legislation has been listed as non-controversial, does in certain measure acknowledge the multi-partisan cross party concern that exists around the chamber. There still remains I believe—substantive work to be carried out in the area of Migration law and how that affects those people who are being coerced into sexual servitude and have the threat of deportation or forced removal back to impoverished countries—as a coercive tool used to continue to enslave them. This is a matter I urge the Government to look more closely at.It should be noted that this Bill forms a part of the extensive reforms that have been undertaken in formulating a model criminal code for Australia. Just a couple of weeks ago, the Bill prohibiting the bribery of foreign officials passed the Senate as the first legislation (I believe) to make up the code. This Bill which will make up an important part of the model criminal code and as I have previously stated is supported by the Democrats in that regard.21:19:006813Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I am going to put the cat amongst the pigeons too. I have been in situations where there has been tight timing before. I did not impose the guillotine. I was going to offer to incorporate my speech—that is something which is often asked of us when we are short of time. I do not know whether I should offer to incorporate the speech or just read it out. Perhaps while I speak about the nature of the amendments I wish to move in the committee stage of the debate, the minister may like to look at my four pages of not too copious notes. Perhaps the attendant could pass my speech to the minister. This is ridiculous. I am asking the minister to look at my notes and she is having an argument with another senator.Because these amendments were negotiated as part of non-controversial business, supposedly for Thursday, we asked the government some weeks ago whether we could look at some amendments because of some concerns that had been expressed by community groups. As far as I am aware, we did circulate these amendments on 26 May, so theoretically there have been amendments around on these issues for a month. I do apologise if they have not been received. We were under the impression that they had been received. We were also under the impression that the government, because they wanted to get these bills through, had told us that they had talked to the opposition and dealt with these issues. It was not our intention to treat anybody in this way, and I do apologise. It was given to us that this information was passed on to the opposition and that the opposition were comfortable with it. I do apologise.There are two issues. Our amendments will include an offence of recklessness in entering into a commercial transaction involving a slave or exercising control or direction over or providing finance for any commercial transaction involving a slave. Previously under this bill it was possible to prosecute only if the offence was committed intentionally. This stops those people who can perhaps almost close their eyes, who have got a fair chance that they know their money is being used to fund sexual slavery, and this would indicate that, if you are investing your money and it involves the damage that is being done to the lives of people involved in sexual slavery, then you ought to know what is happening with your money, and turning a blind eye to it is not good enough.The other issue is in relation to Australian citizens. It is similar to some other actions that have been taken on criminal actions in Australia. It raises the legitimate point as to whether it is appropriate to criminalise conduct involving sexual servitude where there is no territorial nexus with Australia but the perpetrator is an Australian citizen or an Australian resident. So, if an Australian citizen or resident is involved in sexual slavery overseas, the bill gives jurisdiction for action to be taken.We think these are reasonable measures. As I say, I do apologise for any problems that have occurred in relation to the opposition not having time to properly consider this, but I do urge support from the Senate. I seek leave to incorporate my second reading contribution.Leave granted.The speech read as follows—IntroductionThere are two Bill before the Senate today—Criminal Code Amendment (Slavery and Sexual Servitude) Bill 1999 and the Criminal Code Amendment (Bribery of Foreign Officials) 1999. The Greens (WA) are very supportive of the intention behind both of these Bills and will be supporting their passage. Today I would like to focus my comments on the Slavery and Sexual Servitude Bill. This Bill fills a gap in the Criminal Code by amending the Criminal Code Act 1995 to insert offences relating to slavery and sexual servitude.Government ConsultationAt the outset, I would like to commend the Government for taking action to attempt to clamp down on the atrocious acts of slavery and sexual servitude. I would also like to commend Senator Vanstone and her staff on the constructive and consultative manner in which they have tried address the concerns that the Greens had about certain deficiencies in the Bill.The Government has agreed to two amendments that will:(a) firstly, ensure that the offence of slavery adequately covers all the aspects of slave trade; and(b) secondly, ensure that the courts will have complete jurisdiction to be able to take action to clamp down on slavery and sexual servitude.I will elaborate on these during the committee stage of the Bill, however I would like to comment that this collaboration has significantly improved the Bill and provided a better template for the States.Indeed, the Government itself strengthened the Bill between its original introduction in 1998 and it's reintroduction into this Parliament. Recklessness was added as a fault element to sexual servitude offences, penalties were increased, the definitions of slavery offences and sexual servitude offences were altered, a jurisdictional requirement was added and there is provision for aggravated offences. The Greens (WA) regard these changes as positive and the changes appear to reflect changes recommended in Model Criminal Code Officers Committee November 1998 Report which was produced following a consultative process.As a result of these changes and the amendments that I will move in committee stage, the Bill is a stronger instrument that can be used by Australia for the protection of human rights.Reasons for the BillAs mentioned, this Bill creates offences of slavery and sexual servitude and provides penalties for them. This Bill also repeals a number of old and outdated Imperial Acts currently in force in Australia relating to slavery.There are two main reasons for this Bill.Modernise the Law in AustraliaFirst, the Bill modernises the law relating to slavery. The Greens believe that it is high time that the laws that govern slavery were updated so that they are relevant in the modern context. The Australian Law Reform Commission recommended in 1990—nearly a decade ago—that the current law in Australia on slavery and the slave trade be replaced by statutory offences. Currently, slavery is governed by four 19th century imperial acts which are full of antiquated language and relate to outdated circumstances and institutions. We are glad to see that this Government has finally acted on these recommendations.Protection of Human RightsSecondly, the Bill is a tool to address the growing and lucrative international trade in people for the purposes of sexual exploitation. This is a disgusting and abusive trade that dramatically undermines basis human rights. It is also an important gender issue as young women are largely the victims of this abhorrent trade but children are also victims in increasing numbers.The Government has recognised that the problem of the international trade in people for sexual exploitation is a significant one for Australia. In the Attorney General's Second Reading Speech, he pointed out that the Federal Police have reported information of fourteen possible cases in this country. He also noted that the NCA has reported that it is aware of 8 possible cases over the period from December 1992 to November 1996. The Attorney noted that those cases involved 25 women, one of whom was allegedly a 13 year old girl brought to this country from Thailand to work as a prostitute to repay her father's debt. The Attorney General, in his second reading speech outlines comprehensively the immense poverty, deprivation and abuses that the victims are subject to—so I won't cover the same ground.This Bill is important as it helps to fulfil Australia's international obligations in the protection of human rights. Australia is a party to a number of international conventions that outlaw the slave trade. The most important of these are the International Convention to Suppress the Slave Trade and Slavery, its 1953 Protocol and the 1956 Supplementary Convention on the Abolition of Slavery, the Slave Trade and Institutions and Practices Similar to Slavery.Australia's international obligations under general human rights instruments are also relevant. These include the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women and the International Convention on the Rights of the Child.Outstanding Issues of ConcernHow Victims are treatedWhen you look at Australia's human rights obligations holistically, this impacts on the issues that offences such as sexual servitude and slavery raise.If we are serious about addressing human rights abuses that relate to sexual servitude and slavery—we need to seriously address the issue of how the victims of these crimes are treated. We cannot just punish the perpetrators. The Greens (WA) would like to see commitment to addressing the issue and the Government assures us that this is in train. Currently, victims are treated as either criminals or deportees, which is an unsatisfactory situation. In line with the "The Fourth World Conference of Women: Platform for Action—Australia's Implementation Report of April 1997", the Greens (WA) would like to see resources allocated to provide comprehensive programs designed to heal and rehabilitate into society victims of trafficking including job training, legal assistance and confidential health care and take measures to co-operate with non governmental organisations to provide for the social, medical and psychological care of the victim.Another option is to assist NGO's in developing countries to provide education programs to warn potential victims of the dangers and assistance to re-establish if victims are sent home.This is also consistent with the United Nations' General Assembly's 1993 Declaration on the Elimination of Violence Against Women (DEVAW) which provides that as well as developing mechanisms to punish perpetrators of violence, States should ensure that women subjected to violence are provided with just and effective remedies for the harm that they have suffered and ensure that women subjected to violence have specialised assistance to promote their safety and rehabilitation. Broader Human Rights—Trade LinksThe Greens have always been active campaigners for the recognition and protection of human rights in Australia and internationally. This Bill is a positive step towards the protection of human rights and the prevention of their abuse. However it is important to remember the underlying conditions that enable unscrupulous profiteers to target and take advantage of young women and children—mainly from Third World and Developing Countries. Poverty is a huge factor. Poverty in developing and third world countries has many causes but it is important to recognise the contribution that `free trade' makes to a `race to the bottom' and the poverty cycles in many third world and developing countries. It is important to realise the imbalance in the `teeth' that are associated with international trade rules and the weaknesses associated with implementing and enforcing human right treaties. It is also important to recognise the disastrous impact of debt and the often counter productive role that the IMF and the World Bank have often played. In this context a positive step that the Australian Government could make would be to get behind the Jubilee 2000 campaign to forgive this debt.ConclusionSo while the Government could be doing more in the international arena for the promotion and protection of human rights—the Greens are supportive of this initiative and thus are supportive of the Bills as amended in committee stage.21:23:006816Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—I would like to thank senators for their consideration of this bill, the Criminal Code Amendment (Slavery and Sexual Servitude) Bill 1999 , and their valuable contribution to the debate. The fact that senators have agreed to deal with this bill on a non-contentious basis and during a period when this chamber's program is so full is a measure of the importance which senators place on it.Senator Margetts is correct in saying that the Greens (WA) amendments were provided to the opposition by the government, and it was understood that they were accepted by the opposition. I would particularly like to thank Senator Margetts for the amendments she is moving. There are a number of precedents for the application of Commonwealth law to Australian citizens, residents and bodies corporate who act entirely outside Aus tralia, including the Crimes (Child Sex Tourism) Amendment Act 1994. While this approach should not be adopted as a matter of routine, it is appropriate for serious crimes which attract international concern. The sexual servitude and deceptive recruiting offences fall into this category, and accordingly the government agrees with the proposed amendments. The government accepts that there is merit in including the additional offences Senator Margetts has proposed, particularly in view of the similarities with clause 270.6(2) of the bill, which makes it an offence to conduct a business knowing or reckless as to whether the business involves the sexual servitude of another.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.6816The bill.Amendments (by Senator Margetts)—by leave—proposed:(1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (line 20) to page 4 (line 7), omit subsections 270.3(1), (2) and (3), substitute: (1) A person who, whether within or outside Australia, intentionally: (a) possesses a slave or exercises over a slave any of the other powers attaching to the right of ownership; or (b) engages in slave trading; or (c) enters into any commercial transaction involving a slave; or (d) exercises control or direction over, or provides finance for: (i) any act of slave trading; or (ii) any commercial transaction involving a slave; is guilty of an offence. Penalty: Imprisonment for 25 years (1A) A person who: (a) whether within or outside Australia: (i) enters into any commercial transaction involving a slave; or (ii) exercises control or direction over, or provides finance for, any commercial transaction involving a slave; or (iii) exercises control or direction over, or provides finance for, any act of slave trading; and (b) is reckless as to whether the transaction or act involves a slave, slavery or slave trading; is guilty of an offence. Penalty: Imprisonment for 17 years. (2) In this section: slave trading includes: (a) the capture, transport or disposal of a person with the intention of reducing the person to slavery; or (b) the purchase or sale of a slave. (3) A person who engages in any conduct with the intention of securing the release of a person from slavery is not guilty of an offence against this section.(2) Schedule 1, item 1, page 4 (after line 29), before paragraph 270.5(a), insert: (aa) all of the following subparagraphs apply: (i) the person is an Australian citizen, a resident of Australia, a body corporate incorporated by or under a law of the Commonwealth or of a State or Territory or any other body corporate that carries on its activities principally in Australia; and (ii) the conduct constituting the offence is engaged in outside Australia; and (iii) the sexual services to which the alleged offence relates are provided, or to be provided, outside Australia; or(3) Schedule 1, item 1, page 7 (line 3), after "Division", insert "(other than an offence to which paragraph 270.5(aa) applies)".(4) Schedule 1, item 1, page 7 (after line 14), at the end of paragraph (b), add: ; or (iv) any other body corporate that carries on its activities principally in Australia.21:26:006817Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—I have had an opportunity to speak briefly to the responsible shadow minister for the opposition, Mr Kerr, who has indicated that these particular amendments have not been provided to the opposition. As a result, we have not had an opportunity to closely examine what the impact might be. I must say that Senator Margetts appears to have propounded a strong case in support of the amendments and she may well be right that they are amendments which do significantly enhance and improve the legislation that we have before the chamber. Unfortunately, the opposition finds itself in a situation in this debate where we are unable to come to that conclusion, with literally only a minute or two to examine all the implications of the amendments that are before the chair. As a result, we will not be supporting those amendments, though I accept, as I have indicated, that they may well be ones which on closer examination the opposition would be keen to embrace. Without the opportunity being provided to us to examine them in any detail at all, and without any time to examine the amendments or their implications, I do not believe that the opposition can agree to them.21:27:006817Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—I want to put on the record that the advice I have received from officials is that at the end of May these amendments were provided to the shadow minister, Mr Duncan Kerr. If the opposition are not efficient enough to get their own house in order then it is a great pity that they come to this debate some weeks later unprepared for the amendments which have been moved in proper form by Senator Margetts. But that is a matter for the record, as I am advised. It is a great shame.21:28:006817Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—I have made this clear, but the minister at the table does not appear to be able to understand it, so let me reiterate the situation. The amendments were not provided to the opposition, as I have been informed. I am afraid that Senator Newman has already been responsible for a foul-up in this debate when she did not allow senators to progress the debate as quickly as possible and insisted on silly procedures when everyone in the chamber, all 76 senators, with the exception of Senator Newman, was trying to ensure that the Senate completes its work on the legislation before us quickly and sensibly. Given that sort of contribution, where Senator Newman finds herself so clearly out of her depth, let me reiterate that the information that she has provided is not accurate. As I understand it and have been informed, she has misled the committee, but that is not new for Senator Newman—that is her modus operandi.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Do not reflect on another senator, please, Senator.5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—I am not reflecting on another senator; I am merely indicating that this appears to be the way that Senator Newman as a minister in this government goes about her business. That is not going to be accepted by the opposition and I am not going to let Senator Newman's inaccurate statements go uncorrected.Let the record be absolutely clear that the opposition have not had a capacity to judge these amendments on their merits. Because of that, I acknowledge that they may actually improve the bill. We are not doubting that for one moment, but we have not had the time or the opportunity to look at them in any detail and, because of that, we will not be supporting them. However, I acknowledge that there is support around the chamber. Unlike the minister, we will not be engaging in delaying tactics and calling divisions on these particular amendments.Amendments agreed to.Bill, as amended, agreed to.Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.6818Bill (on motion by Senator Newman) read a third time.Bills6818s2156818Debate resumed from 21 April, on motion by Senator Ian Campbell:That this bill be now read a second time.21:31:006818Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—I will not take up the Senate's time. Suffice to say that the Australian Democrats support the Copyright Amendment (Computer Programs) Bill 1999 , which allows for the decompilation of computer programs. As I have not circulated a speech, I will not seek leave to incorporate it, although it would have been quite laudatory of the government. We commend this bill to the Senate.21:32:006818Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—As Senator Stott Despoja is the only speaker on the Copyright Amendment (Computer Programs) Bill 1999 , I thank her for her contribution and I commend the bill to the Senate.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.Bills6818r7966818Debate resumed from 21 June, on motion by Senator Ellison:That this bill be now read a second time.21:34:006818Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—The Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 6) 1999 deals with two issues that I would like to address. The first is the provision for amortisation of expenditure on spectrum licences. The Democrats support that measure. We believe that it results in spectrum licences being treated consistently with any other capital asset purchased by a business, such as machinery, plant and motor vehicles. Amortisation will need to take place over the full term of the licence.The second issue I wish to raise relates to the correction of the error in the social security legislation. My understanding is—and the minister should correct me if I am wrong—that when the youth allowance and the new Austudy were introduced it was intended that, if a person earned income in addition to the benefit, the benefit and the income would be aggregated and the person would pay tax on that total. The person would then receive a rebate on the tax paid on the benefit as if the benefit were the only income earned.An error in the legislation has resulted in the benefit simply not being included in assessable income. Clearly, a person will pay less tax if their benefit is simply excluded from their assessable income than if it is included and they are rebated the tax on that component. The government says in its bill that it is correcting an error. I ask the minister—and she may want to respond to this in the committee stage—whether she can assure me that it was the original intention to include the income and rebate the tax that was paid on the benefit.If this was an error and the original policy intention was as the government has stated, then obviously we should express concern that an error of this nature could occur. It has been drawn to my attention confidentially that the error could have cost the government in the order of $50 million. Without being too harsh, the government would need to re-examine its processes if, notwithstanding the vast resources and personnel at its disposal, that error was able to occur. Having said that, the Australian Democrats record that they support the bill.21:36:006819Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—I take it that there are no other speakers on the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 6) 1999 . In responding to Senator Murray, I am advised that he is correct that there was an error in the drafting, but he was not correct in that I am advised that a costing was made of the implications of the error.I would like to summarise the merits of the bill. It contains provisions for the tax treatment of domestic spectrum licences. It will allow a deduction for expenditure incurred in acquiring a spectrum licence, amortised over the effective life of the licence. In addition, the bill will ensure that Australia is able to assert its taxing rights over income from the use of spectrum where the spectrum licence is owned by a non-resident and to include payments for the use of spectrum licences in the definition of `royalty' under the income tax law.Secondly, the bill will make a number of technical corrections to the tax law arising from the Tax Law Improvement Project. There will also be technical corrections in relation to the introduction of youth allowance and Austudy payments. Thirdly, the bill will enable the calculation of the provisional tax uplift factor using the new single measure of gross domestic product as part of the change in the presentation of the national accounts published by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. I commend the bill to the Senate.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.Bills6819r7446819Debate resumed from 21 June, on motion by Senator Ellison:That this bill be now read a second time.21:39:006819Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—I do not think I have anything to add to the debate that has already taken place. I commend the bill to the Senate.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.Bills6819r7486819Debate resumed from 21 June, on motion by Senator Ellison:That this bill be now read a second time.21:40:006819Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—This bill will ensure that taxpayers are not disadvantaged by a reduction in thresholds or rebate amounts where the level of the threshold or rebate is currently indexed annually in line with movements in the consumer price index. Without this bill recent falls in the consumer price index would lead to falls in the various thresholds and rebates. These thresholds and rebates are found in the fringe benefits tax law, the income tax law, the sales tax law and certain dependant rebates. The opportunity has also been taken to make two minor technical corrections to fringe benefits law. I commend the bill to the Senate.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.Bills6820r7516820Debate resumed from 21 June, on motion by Senator Ellison:That this bill be now read a second time.21:42:006820Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—This bill makes a number of miscellaneous amendments to superannuation legislation, including tightening arrangements relating to early release of moneys held in a superannuation holding accounts reserve consistent in a manner with arrangements already applying to superannuation funds and retirement savings accounts. It is closing a loophole which allows certain distributions of trust income to superannuation funds made under non-arms-length arrangements to be taxed at the concessional rate of 15 per cent and continuing a form of superannuation guarantee exemption for senior foreign executives. I commend the bill to the Senate.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.Bills6820r8316820Consideration resumed from 28 June, on motion by Senator Ian Campbell:That this bill be now read a second time.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.Bills6820r816Billsr820Billsr8216820Consideration resumed from 21 June, on motion by Senator Ellison:That these bills be now read a second time.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills read a second time, and passed through their remaining stages without amendment or debate.Bills6820r698Billsr701Billsr663Billsr8006820Messages received from the House of Representatives acquainting the Senate that the House has made the requested amendments in the bills.6820Motion (by Senator Kemp) proposed:That the bills be now read a third time.21:49:006820Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—I am sorry I am out of breath, but my understanding was that this message was going to be received by the chamber at 10 p.m, and it is a few minutes before the hour.I wish to oppose the motion that the bills be read a third time. On the voting pattern we have seen over the last week, this motion is likely to succeed. In opposing it, I take the opportunity to speak on the third reading to mark the unhappiness the opposition feel about the passage of this legislation. The Prime Minister has declared today, Tuesday, 29 June, as a historic day. It is not historic for the reasons that he has declared; it is a day of shame for Australia, and it is a day on which we have a sad and a bad outcome for our economy. It is the day on which the GST has landed in Australia. If this motion is carried, as I suspect it will be, we will have a GST. It is not a triumph, and it is not a tax for a new millennium. It is not a new tax at all; it is an old tax, and it is a tax for an old millennium. At the very time when many in Europe are calling for the rolling back of this tax, Australia, at the beginning of the new century, is beginning to adopt one.I want to acknowledge a number of things that have happened on the road to this date, which began at least eight months ago in terms of this chamber and over a year and a half ago in terms of the journey of the GST. The GST started out as an announcement by the Prime Minister that we were going to engage in a great tax adventure. It has been a great tax misadventure. About eight months ago we started to consider a Senate inquiry. I have to say the Senate inquiry has served this chamber well and has revealed the shameful deceit that the government entered into when it published the ANTS package prior to the election, seeking a mandate for the GST.The Senate inquiry revealed a number of things—too many for me to itemise now. But what it showed clearly was that, for the first time, many of the propositions that the government had advanced unchallenged to the Australian community were flawed or were wrong and that many of the assumptions that the Liberal-National coalition had based its views on had not been properly modelled. When the work was done, flaws in those assumptions became obvious. It became clear that the 1.9 per cent inflation effect was not the inflation effect at all. It was a qualified inflation effect. It was an inflation effect for the second year, not the first year, and it was qualified by the considering out of the equation household purchases and cigarette smoking. So it was an inflation effect that did not reflect the true purchasing pattern of the Australian community.We learnt as well that the so-called export benefits of this legislation were not as the government claimed, because in evidence to the inquiry Treasury contended that the exchange rate will of course correct to offset those alleged benefits and that, for many of our industries most dependent on the exchange rate—industries where international supply is overhanging demand, particularly the minerals industry and the agriculture industry—an upward movement in the exchange rate will damage their prospects even further. It is therefore a clear assertion that the government has misled the Australian community about the export effects—that, in fact, the export effects are not there.We learnt that the so-called benefits that older Australians, particularly pensioners, would receive from the government would erode with time and that they were exposed. We learnt as well that there were a group of Australians who were not associated with the tax system—those in the welfare system—in the sense that the government alleged and that they would be affected. We learnt as well that the distribution of the tax cuts favoured the wealthy and hurt the poor. And we learnt a range of other things which showed the fundamental inequity of the tax system.I think that the Senate has to acknowledge the role played by that inquiry. The role in that inquiry played by Labor was to expose the hypocrisy of the government's position and to highlight the truth of the matter. We were concerned to bring out the facts and have a genuine public scrutiny of this legislation—to challenge the smug assertions that were delivered to the Australian community laced with electoral hyperbole to persuade people that this tax system should be embraced. It played a significant role.I want to acknowledge as well the role played by Senator Harradine who, as it was said, uncharacteristically—but with great conscientiousness on this occasion—attended most, if not all, of the hearings and participated as a member of that committee. His speech several Fridays ago in which he said that he could not support this legislation—in his words, `I cannot'—was one of the most significant speeches made in my period in this Senate and a speech, as I said at the time, of great moral courage. Senator Harradine had been a senator who, I think it is fair to say, had examined every avenue in which you could compensate fairly for this GST. He came to the fundamental conclusion that you cannot compensate for it, and therefore the conclusion that a moral person must make when confronted with the facts: you cannot support it because it is unfair to Australians who are unable to fend for themselves.I want to acknowledge—but not in the same way—the role played by the Australian Democrats. I believe, and I have said in this debate, that they repudiated elements that were non-negotiable in their electoral platform by engaging in accepting an outcome and voting for it, as they have done over the last several weeks. That is a matter for their conscience. It is not a matter for Labor's conscience, and it is not a situation in which I revel that the Australian Democrats have exposed themselves to allegations of insincerity that must obviously flow. But I note for the record that they have had a challenge to their leadership, that their ranks are divided and that there is widespread disquiet in their electoral community about their actions and, as a co-author with the government of this legislation, they will bear the electoral consequences of that. They will argue that they have improved the package, and there will be some truth to that argument. The trouble is that they have not improved it sufficiently and the basic injustices of this package remain. They remain slightly dented, but they remain as strong injustices that will be encoded into the Australian taxation system permanently.The truth about a GST is that the amount of the tax always rises and the compensation to offset the damage done to low and middle income earners always falls. They are the two ironclad truths of a GST wherever it has been implemented in the world, and there is nothing in this package to say that the Australian experience will be different. Therefore, it is for those who propose this tax and for those who support it and enable its passage to answer eventually as to why it is that they want to visit on Australia a tax of this nature.It will be said that Labor supported the wholesale sales tax and we supported a system that involves the wholesale sales tax. That is true. Had we had the opportunity following the election, we would have of course modified the Australian tax system and made it better.WW4KEMPSenator Kemp—You only had 13 years.RF4Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOK—I take the interjection. We were and, as a matter of historic record, are a party of significant tax reform. Let me start at the beginning. In 1983 we inherited a tax system which many of the economic commentators said was a shambles and in which the payment of tax was a voluntary commitment for those wealthy enough to do so. We wiped out the bottom-of-the-harbour schemes that we inherited from this government. We introduced a national tax summit in 1985. We made major reforms to the tax system, and we are committed to continuing to do so. Had we been elected, we would have continued to do that. But we were not elected, so we were not able to continue.We stand for tax reform without a GST and we stand for it solidly. During our period in office, we lowered the top marginal rate that we inherited from the Fraser government. The Fraser government's view of a reasonable tax system—a government in which the now leader of the coalition government was the Treasurer—was one in which the top marginal rate was 60 per cent. I say to the government: if you want to make the jibe about us, you will have to answer the jibe about you.The GST is nothing more than an alternative means of collecting tax. It is not a panacea for the Australian economy, as has been claimed by the government and now the Australian Democrats. The GST will not create a single job. The GST will not add to economic growth. The GST will not make our exports more competitive. The GST will add to inflation over and above the government's projections. The GST will see hot chooks taxed but cold chooks untaxed. This is claimed to be an example of our new, modern, efficient and competitive tax system—a system where a tax liability is now determined on the basis of a thermometer test. This is our new, modern tax system for a new century, and it is derisory.The GST will force charities to cut back services to the poor as they divert resources to becoming tax collectors for Lees, Howard and Costello. The GST will be a nightmare on main street for 1.6 million Australian businesses as they struggle to comply with the GST disaster. Any stimulus from the tax package will come from the $12 billion worth of tax cuts, not from the GST. The GST taxes the necessities of life, in many cases for the first time. The GST treats the cost of raising children as an expense to the community as opposed to an investment in this nation's future prosperity. The tax cuts awarded to bribe people into supporting this package are skewed towards the wealthy at the expense of the poor. It is obvious that, for the Democrats, it was more important in the end to do the deal than to stick by principle. There is a provision in that deal that rewards millionaire high-rollers in Australia, who will get a tax break by courtesy of their casinos, rather than compensating adequately—or providing protection by imposing no GST—pensioners, families, the unemployed, self-funded retirees and low income earners. This will be the yardstick by which the Democrats' commitment to the underprivileged will be measured—tax breaks for millionaire high-rollers but nothing else for the rest of the community.The government will boast, probably tomorrow—it has already begun tonight—as to where there will be tax cuts for Australians. We challenge those views because we believe that not all of those tax cuts will be passed on in full at the time and that the savings will not, therefore, be pocketed by those who are the consumers; they will be diverted to those who are the profit takers. But while they are lauding what are supposedly the price reduc tions of some goods in the Australian community, we must remember that this is a tax on everything, and many services for the first time will be taxed. A family outing to the football or to the rugby will be taxed. Taking children to McDonald's will be taxed for the first time. School uniforms, shoes, books, bus fares, outings, camps, user fees and computer software will be taxed. Car maintenance will be taxed for the first time. For the first time, we will be paying a tax on our car insurance. Housing insurance will be taxed. There will be a tax on haircuts. Legal fees for divorces, wills and conveyancing—any legal fee—will be taxed. Accounting fees will be taxed, and when people seek the assistance of an accountant for their tax returns, that will be taxed. Electrical and plumbing work, carpentry and housing in general will be taxed. Funerals will be taxed. Having your lawn mowed and having your house painted will be taxed. Taking the wife and kids on a holiday will be taxed. Books, shamefully, will be taxed. Public transport will be taxed. The airfares of tourists who come to Australia will not be taxed but the airfares of domestic tourists will be taxed.The list of what will be taxed for the first time is long. The so-called compensation for this tax will not be adequate to meet the needs over time. At the end of the day, the inescapable arithmetical truth about this tax is that it is a flat tax payable by everyone, irrespective of their income. The government has offered tax bribes as a momentary inducement for people to accept it, but they are bribes that will erode over time and leave the nation worse off. This is not a tax for a new millennium; this is a shameful day in the history of Australian taxation. This is not reform. This is tax deform. We will oppose the third reading of this legislation.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Crowley)—The question is that the bills be read a third time.A division having been called and the bells having been rung—RF4COOKSenator Cook—Madam President, my understanding is that this is the GST bill in respect of which the message from the House is that the House has accepted our amendment to the main GST bill. There is some question being raised with me that this is not the main GST bill and it was not put first, as it would have been had it been put in order. I just want to clarify: is it in fact the main GST bill or not? If it is the compensation bill, we will vote for the compensation but we will vote against the GST.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—It is the transition bill. I will read them out: A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax Transition) Bill 1998, A New Tax System (Compensation Measures Legislation Amendment) Bill 1998, A New Tax System (Bonuses for Older Australians) Bill 1998, and A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Bill 1999.RF4COOKSenator Cook—Madam President, we will vote for all those bills mentioned after the transition bill, but we will vote against the transition bill.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—I shall put the question that the A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax Transition) Bill 1998 be now read a third time.22:09:00The Senate divided. (The President—Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid)39Abetz, E. Allison, L.Alston, R. K. R. Bartlett, A. J. J.Boswell, R. L. D. Bourne, V.Brownhill, D. G. C. Calvert, P. H.Campbell, I. G. Chapman, H. G. P.Eggleston, A. Ellison, C.Ferguson, A. B. Ferris, J.Gibson, B. F. Heffernan, W.Herron, J. Hill, R. M.Kemp, R. Knowles, S. C.Lees, M. H. Lightfoot, P. R.Macdonald, I. Macdonald, S.MacGibbon, D. J. McGauran, J. J. J.*Minchin, N. H. Murray, A.Newman, J. M. O'Chee, W. G.Parer, W. R. Patterson, K. C. L.Reid, M. E. Stott Despoja, N.Synon, K. M. Tierney, J.Troeth, J. Watson, J. O. W.Woodley, J.27Bishop, 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.Evans, C. V. Forshaw, M. G.Gibbs, B. Harradine, B.Hogg, J. Mackay, S.Margetts, D. McKiernan, J. P.Murphy, S. M. O'Brien, K. W. K.Quirke, J. A.* Ray, R. F.Reynolds, M. Sherry, N.West, S. M.Coonan, H. Lundy, K.Crane, W. Schacht, C. C.Payne, M. A.Hutchins, S.Tambling, G. E. J. Faulkner, J. P.Vanstone, A. E. Bolkus, N.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—The question now is that the remaining three bills be now read a third time.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills read a third time.Bills6824Messages received from the House of Representatives agreeing to the amendments made by the Senate to the following bills:A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Bill 1998A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax Administration) Bill 1998A New Tax System (Personal Income Tax Cuts) Bill 1998A New Tax System (Aged Care Compensation Measures Legislation Amendment) Bill 1998A New Tax System (Indirect Tax Administration) Bill 1999A New Tax System (Family Assistance) (Administration) Bill 1999RF4COOKSenator Cook—Madam President, can I ask that the first bill mentioned in that message be put separately.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—They are not being put at all. They have been dealt with, and the House is merely reporting that it has agreed to the amendments and the bills have been read a third time in this chamber.Bills6825r6956825Debate resumed from 19 April, on motion by Senator Vanstone:That this bill be now read a second time.22:16:006825Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—Madam President, I table a supplementary explanatory memorandum relating to the government amendments to be moved to the bill. The supplementary explanatory memorandum was circulated in the chamber on 29 June 1999.22:16:006825Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I would like to speak to the second reading of the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1999 , and the reason is that it was one of those bills that was put forward as a non-controversial bill, and the Greens (WA) certainly do not believe it is a non-controversial bill. I think it will be one of those bills where perhaps the government might say to us, `Everybody thinks it is okay except for you,' and it might be prophetic for us to say that there are issues which the vast majority of people in the community of Australia would feel very concerned about. I know that—Honourable senators interjecting—10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Crowley)—Order, colleagues! Senator Margetts deserves a hearing.DX5Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTS—Thank you. You will be pleased to know that I will not be speaking for my full time, but I would like to put some issues on the table. Because of the guillotine, the time for debate of this bill is small. There are huge and significant policy changes in this bill relating to changing Australia to a regional financial centre, and we have less than one hour to put the issues on the record. I, of course, will not take all that time, but I would like to think that there will be other people who will be participating in this debate. I would like to think that this bill will not go through without a peep from other parties in this chamber.Especially in the context of the last week we have gone through, with no less than three guillotines in the last sitting days, as a part of Australia as a regional finance centre this bill dramatically expands the number of entities that can be considered offshore banking units, OBUs, and the range of concessions that they receive. I do not always listen to talkback radio in any detail but, listening to the community within Australia, I do not think they would necessarily be putting their hand up to give further tax concessions to banks and those involved in speculative transactions, the big players of the market generally, while they are watching concessions from other industries and, in fact, watching where there is no industry policy in other industries.The explanatory memorandum says in respect of schedule 1 that offshore banking unit concessions will be expanded to extend the range of entities eligible to register as offshore banking units, provide a tax exemption for income and capital gains of overseas charitable institutions managed by an OBU—which is interesting because we have just put more tax on charitable institutions and more problems associated with that as a result of the GST. It will extend the range of eligible OBU activities to include custodial services, trading in Australian dollars where the other party in the transaction is an offshore person, trading in gold bullion with offshore persons in any currency, trading in gold bullion with any person other than in Australian dollars, trading in base metals and palladium bullion with offshore persons in any currency, other trading activities apart from currency trading in Australian dollars with offshore persons, eligible contract activities in Australian dollars with offshore persons, and hedging in Australian dollars with related offshore persons.This relates to the transfer of money and often can be associated with speculative trading. The thing which is not necessarily—Honourable senators interjecting—10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order, colleagues! Senator Bishop, I would like to caution a gentle hush.DX5Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTS—Thank you. This is not necessarily associated with the mass creation of jobs. There are people involved with consultancies, but in fact we are talking about the transfers of large amounts of money—not necessarily commensurate with the number of jobs that are provided. The explanatory memorandum says that it removes `the current anti-avoidance measure which prevents Australia being used as a conduit to channel loans to other countries'. That means Australia obviously will be used more to channel loans as a conduit to other countries. Is this what we want? I will return to this later.It reduces the capital gains tax liability where non-residents dispose of interests in offshore banking unit investment trusts and provides a foreign tax credit for foreign tax paid by Australian resident offshore banking units, regardless of whether a double taxation agreement applies—so we could be losing out on revenue. It removes the requirement that offshore banking units maintain separate nostro and vostro accounts for OBU transactions, and reduces the rate of offshore banking unit withholding penalty tax for breaches of the IWT concession from 300 per cent to 75 per cent.Without necessarily going into the full details of that, I would like to indicate that these concessions may well be involved in significant financial subsidy for some of these transactions. Some of these extensions of concessions might be reasonable and may be justifiable, but there are two major points we should make.The government is putting through significant concessions for offshore banking units—in effect, corporate welfare—while so many groups in the community and industry groups are fighting tooth and nail to get the most measly concessions and have obviously lost that in relation to the GST package. For instance, charities are having to pay GST and there are major compliance costs. In fact, charities are losing some of the tax advantages in relation to FBT and reporting requirements. Of course, Senator Kemp will get up and say, `No, charities are exempt in a lot of aspects,' but we know there will be significant compliance costs and that there are other areas where they will not be exempt.Concerning education and health institutions and practitioners, we know the tax treatment is making it more expensive and more difficult to access choice in respect of education and health institutions. In addition, the GST discriminates between different health practitioners. Another example is local government where many essential community services will be subject to GST and local governments will have a compliance nightmare in working out what is in and what is out.The policy we are dealing with tonight makes assumptions that, if Australia is the next Hong Kong or Singapore, we will gain a great many benefits. This is similar to the blind faith that free trade will bring all of us economic growth, prosperity and happiness—I just saw another pink flier. There was basically no proper cost benefit impact analysis when we signed up to GATT and the World Trade Organisation.This is a similar situation. When we look at the benefits and the detriment of handing out concessions to business, we have to look at the opportunity costs: that is, what are we losing in doing this? Would it not be better to be encouraging other industries such as tourism, which got the bad end of the GST deal, despite it being an industry that can improve our current account and foreign debt deficit by improving our balance of trade? It also employs a huge number of people and will be damaged considerably by the introduction of the ANTS package.A note from Minister Hockey's office indicates that the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1998 will help turn the tide of our current account and foreign debt deficits by improving our balance of trade, allowing for low interest rates. I would say that that is very hopeful. He says, `Similarly, the interest withholding tax initiative is designed to develop a corporate bond market that essentially does not really exist in Australia.' I would like to see what the benefits of that would be. He says, `Promotion of the benefits for Australia, instead of Singapore or Hong Kong, is to be undertaken by the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation.' There is nothing to say what the assumed benefits are, except that, if we get investment and if we pay people a concession, somehow or other the benefits will flow—the trickle down effect.To get back to the other industries that have been badly affected in the last few days, tourism lobby groups have predicted huge impacts on the tourist industry from the introduction of the GST, including the loss of around 59,000 full- and part-time jobs. I would like to know whether or not we are looking at anything like that number of jobs, as associated with this handout to international corporate finance.The huge impact on employment in the tourist industry was also backed up by modelling done by Professor Dixon for the Senate committee. While the estimates were not quite as large, it was estimated in the central simulation that there would be job losses to the order of 4.3 per cent or around 19,880 jobs. It is an immense contrast and, like so many other bills that have been shoved through the Senate during this sitting period, deserves significantly more consideration.We would have many concerns about aspects of this bill and the very concept of making Australia a conduit for financial transactions without having done proper studies. We will not be moving amendments in light of the time for preparation and acknowledging the numbers on the floor tonight. But this is a major policy change. I am sure, given the kinds of decisions that have been made over the last few days, that the community would be worried not only that the government was going along with this but that the opposition thought that this was a whizzbang idea as well. In the future, I think this might jump up and bite both the government and the opposition in relation to its actual impacts.22:26:006827Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY3L6VICALP00—I seek leave to incorporate my speech.Leave granted.The speech read as follows—Very briefly, I want to say that I am glad for the financial sector, as well as for Mr Joe Hockey, that this Bill will be passing the Senate today.As a roving ambassador for the financial sector, Mr Hockey will now have something meaningful and positive to say to the international community about recent Government initiatives to make Australia a key financial centre in the Asia-Pacific region.Contrary to previous claims by the Government, the opposition has little to do in delaying this Bill. The fact that it is being considered today as non-controversial proves this point.Rather, better management by the Government might have seen this Bill considered and passed by the Senate much sooner.The proposals to improve the Offshore Banking Unit and Interest Withholding Tax regimes will help promote Australia as a financial centre.In particular, the extension of the OBU concessional rate to the activities of funds managers and life insurance companies, and to activities such as hedging and trading of Australian dollar denominated instruments with other offshore persons are welcomed.The broadening of exemptions to IWT available under Section 128 is also a positive move. As part of the revised exemptions companies will be able to issue debentures and can make interest payments in either Australia or offshore, thus allowing companies to offer bearer debentures simultaneously to investors in Australia and overseas.No doubt, industry will express disappointment that the IWT will remain applicable on Government bonds.I recall that Mr Hockey was open to reconsidering this arrangement, but was very quickly shot-down by the Treasurer. That was fair enough, I guess, due to the potentially significant loss in revenue if sovereign bonds were exempted. Treasury was quoted in the press as estimating a figure "north of $100 million".The so-called thin capitalisation measure may prove to be a precursor to further thin capitalisation recommendations from the Ralph Business Tax Review.The proposal on thin capitalisation will allow an Australian subsidiary of a foreign bank to raise 128F IWT exempt funds and on-lend those funds to the branch of the foreign bank operating in Australia without reducing the subsidiary's ability to claim tax deductions for interest paid on loans from foreign related parties.It is disappointing that the gains from these initiatives are to be clawed back by the input taxing under the GST of financial services from 1 July 2000.I am sure that Mr Hockey will not be talking about the effects of the GST on the financial sector when he makes his roadshow overseas.He will not be mentioning that the GST input taxing of financial services would lead to complexity and distortions. In addition, I expect that he will not be mentioning the fact that certain taxes that the GST is supposed to have eliminated will remain beyond 2000.The financial institutions duty on deposits will remain until 2002 and the bank account debits tax on withdrawals will not be abolished until 2005.There are also measures to counter tax avoidance activities with regard to franking credits and inter-corporate dividend rebate. These measures are supported by the Labor Party.The Labor Party also supports the amendment to the retrospective element of the proposal relating to distributions to beneficiaries and partners that are equivalent to interests.22:28:006828Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—I would like to respond to the comments made in this debate. One of the major measures in the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1998 is aimed at making Australia a more attractive regional financial centre and honours the Prime Minister's commitment in his `Investing for Growth' statement made in December 1997. The franking credit trading measures, which complement other legislation the government has passed in the last year, will protect the revenue base. The bill also sets out the choice of depreciation methods for entities that become taxable and introduces an anti-avoidance rule for commercial debt forgiveness.I foreshadow that I will be moving some amendments to the franking credit trading measures on behalf of the government. The measures were circulated some time ago. I commend the bill to the Senate.DX5MARGETTSSenator Margetts—They were circulated about five minutes ago.WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—I have received advice that they were tabled last week.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Crowley)—For the Senate's information, I have been advised that the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1998 amendments just mentioned by the minister were tabled on 22 June at 12.15 p.m.DX5MARGETTSSenator Margetts—I was given them by the attendant in the Senate only five minutes ago.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—I am advised that they were circulated, Senator Margetts. Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.6828The bill.22:30:006828Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—On behalf of the government, I will be moving amendments to the franking credit trading measures in schedules 4 and 7 of the bill. I seek leave to move the amendments together.Leave granted.WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—I move:(1) Schedule 4, item 8, page 90 (line 33) to page 91 (line 9), omit subsection (10), substitute:Deltas of positions to be taken not to have changed in certain circumstances(10) If: (a) a taxpayer acquires shares or interests in shares; and (b) on the day of the acquisition, or on a later day, the taxpayer enters into or has positions in relation to any of the shares or interests;then, so long as the taxpayer continues to hold the shares or interests, continues to have those positions and does not enter into any further positions in relation to the shares or interests: (c) in calculating the delta of a position held by the taxpayer in relation to the shares or interests: (i) for the purposes of this Division other than paragraphs 106APHO(1)(b) and 160APHP(1)(b); or (ii) for the purposes of either of those paragraphs in its application to a related payment under an arrangement entered into before the commencement of this subsection, other than an arrangement that has been varied, renewed or replaced after that commencement;those positions are taken to continue to have the deltas that they had on the later of the following days: (iii) the day on which the shares or interests were acquired; (iv) a day on which any of the positions was entered into; or (d) in calculating the delta of a position held by the taxpayer in relation to the shares or interests for the purposes of paragraph 160APHO(1)(b) or 160APHP(1)(b) in its application to a related payment under an arrangement: (i) entered into after the commencement of this subsection (including an arrangement that renewed or replaced an arrangement entered into before that commencement); or (ii) entered into before that commencement that was varied after that commencement;those positions are taken to continue to have the deltas that they had on the latest of the following days: (iii) the day on which the shares or interests were acquired by the taxpayer; (iv) a day on which any of the positions that the taxpayer has in relation to the shares or interests was entered into; (v) if the secondary qualification period in relation to the taxpayer in relation to the shares or interests is the second, or a subsequent, qualification period since the shares or interests were acquired by the taxpayer—the first day of the secondary qualification period.(2) Schedule 4, item 25, page 124 (line 34) to page 125 (line 4), omit subitem (9), substitute:(9) A reference in a provision inserted in the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 by this Schedule to a related payment in respect of a dividend or distribution: (a) is a reference to a related payment under an arrangement entered into after 7.30 pm by legal time in the Australian Capital Territory on 13 May 1997, whether or not the shares or interests in shares in respect of which the dividend was paid or the distribution was made were acquired by the taxpayer before or after that time; but (b) does not include a reference to a related payment made under a contract for the sale of derivatives known as Share Price Index Futures that was made before 2 July 1998.(3) Schedule 7, item 2, page 185 (lines 23 to 26), omit subparagraph (c)(i), substitute: (i) in respect of an interest in the trust or partnership that was created before the commencing time and either was acquired on or after 2 July 1998 or was created or acquired for a term that was extended at or after the commencing time; or (ia) in respect of an interest in the trust or partnership that was created at or after the commencing time; or Amendment 1 makes a correction to the rule for determining a taxpayer's position in relation to shares for purpose of the related payments rule to ensure that it gives an appropriate and consistent outcome. The related payments rule requires taxpayers who are under an obligation to make a related payment with respect to a dividend to hold shares at risk for at least 45 days to be eligible for franking credits. Amendment 1 will amend the new subsection 160APHJ(10) in item 8 of schedule 4 so that the positions held by a taxpayer will be recalculated for each dividend period. This change will take effect from the day the bill receives royal assent.Amendment 2 will amend subitem 25(9) in schedule 4 so that the related payments rule will not apply to a related payment under an arrangement for the sale of the derivatives, known as share price index futures, entered into before 2 July 1998 when draft legislation for the measure was introduced into the parliament. Apart from this exception, the related payments rule will continue to apply to related payments in respect of a dividend or distribution under an arrangement entered into after 7.30 p.m. on 13 May 1997 when the measure was announced. This amendment addresses an issue raised by the Senate Scrutiny of Bills Committee regarding the application of the related payments rule.In amendment 3, the new section 45ZA in item 2 to schedule 7 will deny franking credit benefits to the intercorporate dividend rebate for distributions attributable to dividends to beneficiaries and partners that are equivalent to interest on a loan. Amendment 3 will amend a new paragraph 45ZA(l)(c) so that the changes to section 45Z will not apply to distributions attributable to an interest in a trust or partnership acquired before 2 July 1998 when the draft legislation for the measure was introduced into the parliament. New section 45ZA will apply to distributions attributable to interests in trusts or partnerships acquired on or after 2 July 1998 and to distributions attributable to interests in trusts or partnerships created or extended after 7.30 p.m. on 13 May 1997 when the measure was announced. The amendment gives effect to a recommendation of the Senate Economics Legislation Committee. The changes made in amendments 1 to 3 will have a negligible effect on compliance costs.Amendments agreed to.Bill, as amended, agreed to.Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.6830Bill (on motion by Senator Kemp) read a third time.22:34:006830Senate adjourned at 10.34 p.m.Answers to Questions on Notice6831The following answers to questions were circulated:6831(Question No. 708)7086831Bourne, Sen VickiSenator BourneTW4NSWAD00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, upon notice, on 28 April 1999:With reference to the refugee situation on the border of Burma and Thailand:(1) What assistance is provided to refugees and asylum seekers in Thailand by the Australian Embassy in Bangkok.(2) What assistance is provided to refugees and asylum seekers in Burma by the Australian Embassy in Rangoon.(3) (a) What is the Australian Government's official position in relation to Burmese refugees and asylum seekers at the Thai border; and (b) what does the embassy do in instances where a refugee or asylum seeker does not have the correct paper work, including identity papers, passports, etc., required for their processing as a refugee or asylum seeker.(4) What is the process for the granting of a visa to a Burmese visitor, refugee or asylum seeker by the Australian Government in both Rangoon and Bangkok.(5) Does the Government have a quota for Burmese refugees and asylum seekers.(6) (a) What is the Government's position in relation to the granting of visas to members of the State Peace and Development Council (SPDC), previously the State Law and Order Restoration Council (SLORC); and (b) has the Australian Government ever granted visas to members of SPDC or members of their families, or any members previously of the SLORC or their families; if so, to whom was a visa granted.(7) Can details be provided of travel movements of members of SPDC and their families into and out of Australia over the past 5 years.6831Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator Vanstone7E4SALPJustice and Customs10—The Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) Refugees and asylum seekers in Thailand who apply for inclusion in Australia's Humanitarian Program have their application individually considered on its merits at the Australian Embassy in Bangkok. The Australian Embassy in Bangkok continually monitors the situation of displaced persons in the border camps.(2) For the past several years the Australian Embassy in Rangoon has not been able to grant any visas under the Burmese in Burma Special Assistance Category (SAC) because in 1995 the Burmese authorities decided not to allow these visa holders to exit Burma. The Australian Embassy in Rangoon continually monitors the human rights situation in Burma.(3) (a) UNHCR does not seek third country resettlement for persons in the border camps at this time. The Australian Government has accepted UNHCR's assessment of the situation. We are therefore not currently resettling people from border camps. (b) Verification of identity is an important step in granting a visa and allowing entry to Australia. In the case of Humanitarian Program applicants the Australian Embassy does all within its power to assist applicants, even if they do not have all their personal documentation.(4) The process is the same at Australian visa offices throughout the world—receipt of application, verification of identity, consideration case by case against the regulatory requirements, grant of visa if all requirements are met.(5) Australia's offshore Humanitarian Program is a planned program with global and regional allocations within a framework of a notional annual planning figure of 10,000 offshore visas. The priority regions are the former Yugoslavia, the Middle East and Africa. Bangkok has an allocation of 100 places for the Burmese in Thailand SAC in the 1998-99 program year.(6) (a) If an applicant satisfies the Minister that all the relevant legislative criteria for a particular visa as set out in the Migration Act 1958 and Migration Regulations 1994 are met, then the applicant is granted a visa. The visa would, therefore, be refused if the applicant is assessed to be a risk to Australian national security, or if the applicant's presence in Australia would prejudice relations between Australia and a foreign country.(b) All applicants to visit Australia are considered on a case by case basis. Individual movements are recorded by name, passport details, visa details and date on the Department's movement data base. It is therefore not possible to provide travel details into and out of Australia without specific names of individuals to check the movement data base against.(7) Please see response to (6)(b) above.6832(Question No. 719)7196832Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, on notice, on 6 May 1999:(1) On how many occasions did the department pay for dinners or functions, both in restaurants and elsewhere, attended by the Minister, not including those paid for and approved by the Ceremonial and Hospitality Unit of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, from 11 March 1996 to 30 March 1999.(2) In each instance: (a) when did the dinner or function take place; (b) what was the purpose; (c) who were the attendees; (d) what was the cost; and (e) what was the venue.6832Alston, Sen RichardSenator AlstonLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—The Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) 16(2)(a) 3 April 1996;(b) IR Taskforce meeting;(c) Minister Reith, 3 members of Minister Reith's staff, 4 DIR staff, 3 from IR Taskforce and 15 others;(d) $332.00;(e) Level 11, 70 Phillip St, Sydney—Commonwealth Parliamentary Offices(a) 8 August 1996(b) Negotiations with Australian Democrats on IR legislation(c) Minister Reith and Australian Democrats(d) $39.00(e) Parliament House(a) 9, 12, 16, 17, 19, 25 September 1996 and 8, 9, 10, 15 October 1996(b) Meetings to discuss IR legislation(c) Minister Reith, members of Minister Reith's staff, DIR staff and Australian Democrats(d) $594.25 (e) Parliament House(a) 26 September 1996(b) Negotiations with Australian Democrats on IR legislation(c) Minister Reith, 2 members of Minister Reith's staff, 2 DIR staff and Australian Democrats(d) $32.00(e) Level 11, 70 Phillip St, Sydney—Commonwealth Parliamentary Offices(a) 11 October 1996(b) Briefing journalists on Workplace Reform(c) Minister Reith, member of Minister Reith's staff and journalists(d) $1576.10(e) Lynchs Restaurant, South Yarra, Melbourne(a) 20 November 1996(b) Meeting to discuss passage of WROLA Bill(c) Minister Reith and DIR staff(d) $480.00(e) DIR premises Jolimont Centre, Canberra(a) 18 December 1996(b) Discussion on establishment of Office of the Employment Advocate(c) Minister Reith, a member of Minister Reith's staff and the Employment Advocate(d) $157.00(e) Empress of China Restaurant, Melbourne(a) 14 June 1997(b) COIL Meeting(c) Minister Reith, a member of Minister Reith's staff, ACTU and ACCI representatives(d) $125.00(e) 4 Treasury Place, Melbourne(a) 23 June 1997(b) Meeting with APS Unions on Public Service Act(c) Minister Reith, members of Minister Reith's staff, DWRSB staff, PSMPC staff and APS Union representatives(d) $88.65(e) Parliament House(a) 18 September 1997(b) Meeting on waterfront reform(c) Minister Reith, Minister Sharp, Dr Hawke, Dr Rosalky and members of Minister Reith's staff(d) $80.00(e) 4 Treasury Place, Melbourne(a) 18 December 1997 (b) Meeting with union officials on waterfront reform(c) Minister Reith, DWRSB staff and union officials(d) $31.20(e) 4 Treasury Place, Melbourne(a) 4 February 1998(b) Meeting with departmental staff(c) Minister Reith and DWRSB staff(d) $69.00(e) 4 Treasury Place, Melbourne(a) 5 November 1998(b) Meeting with senior departmental officers(c) Minister Reith, Minister Abbott and senior departmental officers(d) $153.30(e) 4 Treasury Place, Melbourne(a) 11 December 1998(b) Meeting of Small Business Consultative Committee(c) Minister Reith and members of the Small Business Consultative Committee(d) $48.75(e) Parliament House(a) 18 March 1999(b) Discussion with senior businessmen of national organisations(c) Minister Reith and senior businessmen(d) $64.80(e) Lucios Italian Restaurant Paddington, Sydney(a) 19 March 1999(b) Discussion with senior businessmen of national organisations(c) Minister Reith and senior businessmen(d) $230.00(e) MG Garages in Surrey Hills, SydneyBy way of comparison included below are details of official hospitality paid by the department for expenditure incurred by the previous Minister for Industrial Relations, The Hon Laurie Brereton MP from 24 March 1993 to 11 March 1996.(a) 8 August 1994(b) Official lunch(c) Mr Brereton and others(d) $78.80(e) Henry's Brasserie and Wine Bar, Adelaide(a) 21 February 1995(b) Meeting with Deputy President AIRC(c) Mr Brereton and Mr Ross (d) $80.90(e) Brono's Restaurant, Darlinghurst, Sydney(a) 6 March 1995(b) Dinner(c) Mr Brereton and others(d) $920.00(d) Flower Drum Restaurant, Market Lane, Melbourne(a) 10 June 1995(b) Overseas visit by Mr Brereton(c) Mr Brereton and senior US Government officials(d) $61.30(e) Broome St Bar—New York(a) 11 June 1995(b) Overseas visit by Mr Brereton(c) Mr Brereton and senior US Government officials(d) $173.79(e) Bombay Club—Washington(a) 14 June 1995(b) Overseas visit by Mr Brereton(c) Mr Brereton and senior US Government officials(d) $404.01(e) IL Cantinori—New York(a) 15 June 1995(b) Overseas visit by Mr Brereton(c) Mr Brereton and senior US Government officials(d) $46.72(e) Time Caf—New York(a) 16 June 1995(b) Overseas visit by Mr Brereton(c) Mr Brereton and senior US Government officials(d) $353.05(e) Bouley Restaurant—New York(a) 17 August 1995(b) Meeting of Labor IR Ministers and Shadow Ministers(c) Mr Brereton, Labor IR Ministers and Shadow Ministers(d) $384.20(e) Level 11, 70 Phillip St, Sydney—Commonwealth Parliamentary Offices(a) 27 September 1995(b) Dinner (c) Mr Brereton and others(d) $390.00(e) Ottomans, Manuka, Canberra(a) 29 October 1995(b) Dinner(c) Mr Brereton and others(d) $900.00(e) Flower Drum Restaurant, Market Lane, Melbourne6834(Question No. 982)9826834O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 12 May 1999:(1) When was the Higher Education Equity Merit Scholarship scheme introduced.(2) (a) How much money has been appropriated each year.(b) What has been the actual level of expenditure for the scheme since its introduction.(3) (a) How many Tasmanian students have applied for assistance through this scheme since it was introduced.(b) How many of these applications have been successful.6834Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator Ellison9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—The Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) The Merit-based Equity Scholarship scheme was introduced in 1997.(2) (a) In the 1996 Higher Education Budget Statement, the cost of the scholarships was estimated at $36.38 million over four years (1996/97 to 1999/00) with an annual commitment of $16.13 million from 1999. No money was actually appropriated as the cost of the scholarships to the Commonwealth is in the form of revenue forgone.(b) The estimated expenditure for the scheme has been: 1997—$4.226 million; 1998—$8.594 million; 1999—$13.096 million; Total—$25.916 million.(3) (a) The number of Tasmanian students who have applied for the scholarships since the introduction of the scheme was as follows: 1997—58; 1998—121; 1999—225; Total—404.(b) The allocation of scholarships to students in Tasmania (Equivalent Full-time Student Units) was as follows. Note that these allocations are cumulative, for example, 1998 allocations include allocations for recipients continuing from 1997. 1997—20; 1998—46; 1999—68.The allocation of new scholarships in Tasmania was, therefore, as follows: 1997—20; 1998—26; 1999—22.6834(Question No. 984)9846834Brown, Sen BobSenator BrownQD4TASAG00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 18 May 1999:With reference to the Australian Government's decision to back China against international resolutions condemning China's human rights record: what public record has been made of Australia's bilateral talks on human rights since 1997; if there is no public record, why not.6834Hill, Sen RobertSenator HillBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:I assume that the honourable Senator's question refers to a draft resolution on the human rights situation in China which was proposed by the United States at this year's meeting of the Commission on Human Rights (CHR). This resolution did not go to a vote as China successfully moved a "no action" motion. As an observer at CHR, Australia did not vote on the motion. Like the EU and most other Western States, Australia did not agree to co-sponsor the draft resolution because it had become apparent over a seven year period that the process of confrontation with China over such resolutions was counter-productive. The Government's assessment is that, over time, bilateral dialogue is the more effective means of achieving results.The Joint Statement made at the conclusion of the first meeting of the Australia China human rights dialogue in August 1997 and the Joint Program of Action agreed at the second meeting in August 1998 are both on the public record. Officials gave background briefings to the media at the conclusion of the two sets of talks. I also issued media statements after both meetings and spoke to the press on 10 August 1998. About forty non-government organisations with a particular interest in human rights were given more extensive briefings by senior officers of my Department following the two meetings.6834(Question No. 986)9866834O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, 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.6835Hill, Sen RobertSenator HillBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—The Prime Minister has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:No. (1)-(6) N/A.6835(Question No. 1004)10046835O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister for Veterans' 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.6835Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NewmanBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—The Minister for Veterans' Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:Mr Geoffrey Robertson QC has not been engaged as a consultant by me, or my Department, since March 1996.6835(Question No. 1009)10096835O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister for Family and Community Services, upon notice, on 21 May 1999:(1) Is an unemployed parent with children from a former relationship, who is not in receipt of child support but is in a relationship with a working partner, entitled to any assistance from Centrelink.(2) If a person in this situation has entitlements: (a) what assistance is available; and (b) are there any special process conditions applicable.(3) If there are no entitlements, why not.(4) Are the unemployed person and the children considered dependants for the purposes of Centrelink assistance.6835Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NewmanBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:(1) Yes. An unemployed parent who is the primary carer of a child under 16, would be eligible for Parenting Payment, Family Allowance and possibly Family Tax Payment, subject to income and assets tests and other eligibility requirements.(2) (a) The maximum rate of Parenting Payment is currently $293.80 per fortnight (pf). The level of payment is affected by the private income of the person (if any), the income of the working partner, and the combined assets of the couple. A Basic Rate of Parenting Payment of $66 pf is payable regardless of the working partner's income and assets, but this payment is affected by personal income.The maximum rate of Family Allowance is currently $99.00 pf for each child aged under 13 and $128.80 pf for each child aged 13-15. The level of payment is affected by the combined income and assets of the couple and any child support received. Family Allowance is not payable if the couple's yearly income is over $66,725 (two children) or combined assets are over $608,500. Rent Assistance, an add-on to Family Allowance, may also be payable to the person if the family is renting privately.Family Tax Payment may be paid to low income families who receive more than the minimum rate of Family Allowance. Higher income families may receive equivalent assistance through the tax system.The current rate of Family Tax Payment is $7.70 pf per child, plus an additional $19.24 pf if there is a child under 5 years and one of the couple has private income less than $176.43 pf. (b) Apart from the income and assets tests there are other tests on whether assistance is payable. These vary depending on the type of payment. There is a specific requirement that the parent of the children must take action to obtain child support from the non-custodial parent to receive more than the minimum rate of Family Allowance. In some circumstances people are exempt from this requirement.(3) See answer to (2).(4) The concept of adult dependants is generally not a feature of income support under the Social Security Act. An unemployed person with children who is in a relationship with a working partner can apply for Parenting Payment in their own right.Children are considered dependants for the purposes of payments such as Parenting Payment, Family Payment, Family Tax Payment and Rent Assistance.