1999-12-093914SENATE1154501999-12-09The PRESIDENT(Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid) took the chair at 9.30 a.m., and read prayers.1154510001CLERK ASSISTANTThe Clerk—Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows:1154514DT6Bartlett Sen AndrewTo the Honourable President and Members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled.The Petition of the undersigned call on the Federal Parliament to ensure that the current regulations relating to food content are retained by the Australian New Zealand Food Authority and that adequate food labelling is introduced which allows the Australian community to make a real choice when it comes to the purchase and consumption of food.Your Petitioners ask that the Senate support legislation which will ensure that all processed food products sold in Australia be fully labelled. This labelling must include:all additivespercentage of ingredientsnutritional informationcountry of originfood derived from genetically engineered organismsSenator BartlettDT6Senator Bartlett(from 14 citizens)115451243FF4Chapman Sen GrantTo the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled.The Petition of the undersigned draws to the attention of the Senate their concern regarding the potential economic and social damage arising from the development of Internet and Interactive home gambling.Your petitioners therefore ask the Senate to initiate legislation to ban Internet/Interactive home gambling by amending relevant legislation including the Telecommunications Act 1997, the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 and the Banking Act 1959 to make it illegal for; Interactive and Internet content providers to make available any gambling products, including games of skill, using telecommunications Service providers to transmit such gambling products by telecommunications Consumers to engage in gambling through these services and Financial institutions to facilitate payment for this form of gambling.And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.Senator ChapmanFF4Senator Chapman(from 1,243 citizens)1154520384LMcLucas Sen JanThe government plans to increase and enforce penalties including jail for women who don't send their kids to see dads who are violent and abusive.The government plans to bring in pre-nuptial agreements. This presumes that marriages are commercial contracts and that women and men equal governing powers!With drastic Legal Aid cuts in the last three years (by up to half) women won't be able to ask the Court to change pre-nup agreements or to defend themselves against bigger penalties for breaking Court orders—even if they have done so to keep kids safe!We, the undersigned citizens of Australia, respectfully urge the Senate to think of the safety of women and children and block this regressive legislation.Senator McLucas84LSenator McLucas(from 203 citizens)Petitions received.Notices1154511545Senator Stott Despoja to move, on the next day of sitting:That the Senate—(a) notes that the Chair of the British review of higher education, Sir Ron Dearing, has expressed concern at the number of Australian universities running at a loss;(b) supports Sir Ron Dearing's concerns;(c) urges the Federal Government to maintain an appropriately and adequately financed higher education sector which ensures high quality teaching, research and management in a diverse range of institutions; and(d) condemns the Federal Government's funding cuts to university operating grants.1154509:31:0011545Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I withdraw government business notice of motion No. 1 standing in my name for today, relating to the 1999-2000 additional estimates hearings. At the request of respective senators I also withdraw general business notices of motion as set out in the list circulated in the chamber.The list read as follows—General business notices of motion Nos. 4, 13, 17, 24, 47, 51, 78, 87, 90, 95, 97, 113, 122, 135, 145, 150, 152, 156, 163, 164, 173, 202, 206, 210, 217, 230, 232, 243, 260, 273, 276, 284, 290, 304, 328, 333, 334, 343, 344, 347 and 362.Bills11546r962Billsr847Billsr969Billsr942Billsr96511546Bills received from the House of Representatives.09:31:0011546Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I indicate to the Senate that those bills which have just been announced by the President are being introduced together. After debate on the motion for the second reading has been adjourned, I will be moving a motion to have the bills listed separately on the Notice Paper . I move:That these bills may proceed without formalities, may be taken together and be now read a first time.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills read a first time.1154609:32:0011546Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I table a revised explanatory memorandum relating to the National Crime Authority Amendment Bill 1999 , Broadcasting Services Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1999 and the Broadcasting Services Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1999 and move:That these bills be now read a second time.I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard .Leave granted.The speeches read as follows—NATIONAL CRIME AUTHORITY AMENDMENT BILL 1999This bill amends the National Crime Authority Act 1984 and includes amendments made by the House of Representatives to the bill as introduced.The National Crime Authority is a national crime body with Commonwealth and State functions. The Authority was established as the only law enforcement agency in Australia whose investigations would not be limited by jurisdictional boundaries and its existence reflects the seriousness with which the Commonwealth and States view organised crime. The Authority is not confined to only investigating breaches of Commonwealth law. It is truly a national body with powers to investigate organised crime offences against Commonwealth and State laws.The States confer powers, duties and functions on the National Crime Authority in relation to a variety of State investigative laws such as controlled operations and electronic surveillance. These laws are the essential intelligence gathering tools used by law enforcement agencies in the States and by the Authority.This amendment makes clear that the States can confer such powers, duties and functions on the Authority. Those powers may extend to the investigation of any relevant criminal activity, provided the Commonwealth has legislated to confer powers of the same kind.I commend the bill to the Senate.BROADCASTING SERVICES AMENDMENT BILL (No. 1) 1999The Broadcasting Services Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1999 proposes amendments to the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 to:. improve opportunities for the live television coverage of designated events and series by introducing an `anti-hoarding' regime for free-to-air broadcasters;. protect regional broadcasters from "look alike" metropolitan free-to-air programming on regional pay TV services; . allow the ABA to approve broadcaster transmissions beyond the originating licence area to address black spot reception problems; and. increase the time allowed for sponsorship announcements on community broadcasting services from four to five minutes per hour.The anti-hoarding and regional protection provisions, together with retransmission provisions, were originally introduced in the Broadcasting Services Amendment Bill 1998 last year, before lapsing with the calling of the last Federal election.This bill introduces refinements to the anti-hoarding and regional protection measures, which reflect the Senate Legislation Committee process, further consultations with the industry and the opposition parties, and resultant amendments agreed by the Government in the House of Representatives.The proposed anti-hoarding scheme in Schedule 1 of the bill consists of a `must offer' obligation to be imposed on free-to-air broadcasters and their regular program suppliers who have live broadcast rights to designated events or series, but who do not intend to facilitate live television coverage of these events. Free-to-air commercial broadcasters in this situation will have to offer, normally at least 30 days before the commencement of an event, the unused rights to the ABC and SBS for a nominal charge. The ABC and SBS will have to offer such rights to each other in similar circumstances.Under the current provisions of the Broadcasting Services Act, free-to-air broadcasters are given priority access to the purchase of broadcasting rights to a wide range of major sporting events set out in the anti-siphoning list. However, there is nothing in the legislation to actively encourage free-to-air broadcasters to exercise the rights they have acquired. Broadcasters may delay coverage, or televise only a small proportion of an event.The current provision for the Minister to remove events from the anti-siphoning list is unlikely to be effective in situations where a broadcaster decides, at short notice, not to fully televise an event. Such a situation occurred in 1997 when the Nine Network decided not to show the first session of play in the test matches of the Ashes cricket series in England, to the disappointment of many cricket supporters.The operation of the proposed anti-hoarding amendments will be confined to events and series designated by the Minister. It is envisaged that the Ministerial designation power will be used only in limited circumstances—for example, where there is a widespread public expectation, based on past practice, of the full live televising of an event. The designation of events and series will be made in the form of a disallowable instrument.However, the Minister will be empowered to allow, on an event by event basis, the delayed televising of designated events in Australia's Western and Central time zones on the grounds of, for example, viewer convenience. This provision responds to difficulties sometimes faced by viewers in these time zones.In a situation where, for example, a day-night cricket match is being played in the Eastern states, the Minister will be able to allow a delayed telecast of that game in the Western and Central time zones by no more than the time difference with the Eastern states. Any such decision by the Minister will also be made in the form of a disallowable instrument.Schedule 1 also provides for a review of the effectiveness of the anti-hoarding provisions to be conducted within two years of their commencement. A report on the outcome of this review will be tabled in the Parliament.Schedule 2 of the bill introduces measures to support the integrity of the licence areas of regional television broadcasters. The Government considers that it is very important to retain television services in regional areas, which incorporate programming relevant to local events and interests, including local news and weather.Accordingly, it is proposed to restrict the importation by regional pay TV services of prime time programming from metropolitan commercial television services. Schedule 2 requires pay TV operators to take all reasonable steps to ensure that their services in regional areas do not include three or more consecutive programs identical to three or more consecutive prime time programs on metropolitan commercial television services, without the approval of the Australian Broadcasting Authority.As introduced in the House of Representatives, Schedule 3 of the bill provided for a new retransmission regime, based on broadcaster consent. The regime would have fulfilled a previous Coalition election promise to give broadcasters control over their own signal, consistent with the general approach adopted by the Copyright Convergence Group (CCG) in its 1994 report Highways to Change: Copyright in the New Communications Environment . An anomaly in the current retransmission rules allows pay TV operators to retransmit free-to-air broadcasting services without consent or compensation.However, despite the fact that the CCG was established by the former Labor Government, the Opposition has proposed an arbitration regime, in lieu of the broadcaster consent model. The Democrats have also indicated support for the arbitration regime.It has not been possible for the free-to-air broadcasters and pay TV operators to reach agreement in the short term on arbitration arrangements, or any alternative retransmission model. Further consultations will clearly be required with the industry and the opposition parties to resolve outstanding issues.Accordingly, the Government agreed to amend the bill in the House of Representatives to remove the retransmission provisions in Schedule 3, to permit the other non-contentious elements of the bill to be progressed, and to facilitate further consultations on a new retransmission regime. It is in the mutual interests of the free-to-air and pay TV sectors to reach agreement on new retransmission proposals in the near future, rather than the Parliament being forced to impose a new regime on the industry.Removal of the retransmission provisions means that the existing retransmission rules in section 212 of the Broadcasting Services Act continue to apply. These rules allow retransmissions without the agreement or compensation of broadcasters.However, Schedule 3 provides that provisions in the associated Copyright Amendment (Digital Agenda) Bill 1999—which require payment of equitable remuneration to underlying rights holders for the retransmission of copyright material contained in broadcasting services—will still have effect on commencement of that bill.Very importantly, provision has been retained in Schedule 3 to allow the Australian Broadcasting Authority to approve out of area broadcaster transmissions—including by satellite—to overcome black spot reception problems, or in exceptional circumstances, such as natural disasters. These provisions will support the black spot program under the Government's $120 million Television Fund, which will provide significant benefits in many regional areas.Finally, Schedule 4 of the bill gives effect to the Government's election commitment to increase the community broadcasting sponsorship limit from four to five minutes per hour. This will assist the viability of individual stations, and bring the community sector into line with similar limits imposed on the SBS.The amendments in this bill are expected to have no significant impact on Commonwealth expenditure or revenue. I commend the bill to the Senate.BROADCASTING SERVICES AMENDMENT BILL (NO. 3) 1999The Broadcasting Services Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1999 seeks to amend the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 to make the Australian content licence condition for subscription television broadcasting licensees enforceable; and to limit the scope of international agreements that apply to the functions of the Australian Broadcasting Authority (ABA). Firstly, the bill gives effect to the outcomes of the Ministerial review of Australian content on subscription television broadcasting services conducted in 1997. The review identified that the existing Australian content licence condition is unenforceable because it does not take into account the operating practices of the subscription television industry. In view of the high level of non-compliance with the existing requirement over successive years, the Government has decided that legislative amendments are necessary to make the licence condition enforceable so that the intended policy outcomes are achieved.The Government recognises the important role of television drama in developing and reflecting a sense of Australian identity, character and cultural diversity. The aim of the licence condition is to require the subscription television industry to contribute to the production of Australian drama programming for the cultural benefit of Australian audiences. The licence condition will also promote the further development of the highly acclaimed Australian drama production industry, providing further employment opportunities and new Australian product available for export. The amendments will also ensure that the licence condition complies with Australia's obligations under the Protocol on Trade in Services to the Closer Economic Relations Agreement with New Zealand, by treating services provided by New Zealand personnel to the production of drama programs no less favourably than services provided by Australians.The Government will closely monitor the operation of the enforcement measures contained in the bill to ensure that they are effective in delivering the intended policy objectives. A review of Australian and New Zealand content on subscription television broadcasting services will be conducted by 31 March 2003. This review will, amongst other things, provide an opportunity to assess the effectiveness of the enforcement measures contained in this bill. The Government expects the subscription television broadcasting sector to comply with the spirit as well as the letter of the new enforcement arrangements over the next three years leading up to the review.The Government recognises the importance of the documentary genre in developing and reflecting a sense of Australian identity, character and cultural diversity, and believes that the extension of the requirement to documentary channels warrants further consideration. The Government is also aware of some industry concerns in relation to the treatment of development expenses under the bill. Therefore, the Government will be asking the Australian Broadcasting Authority (ABA) to consider both of these issues and report back to the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts within twelve months. Secondly, the bill will limit the scope of international agreements that apply to the functions of the ABA, following the decision of the High Court of Australia in Project Blue Sky v the ABA. The High Court held that the Australian Content Standard for commercial free-to-air television was unlawfully made because it was not consistent with the CER Services Protocol, as required by section 160(d) of the Broadcasting Services Act. Section 160(d) provides that the ABA is to exercise its functions in a manner consistent with Australia's international obligations. This bill will amend section 160(d) to limit its scope to the CER Services Protocol with New Zealand. By doing so it will protect the level of Australian content on free-to-air television so that foreign access to local content quotas under the section will be explicitly confined to New Zealand. The amendment will accommodate the CER Services Protocol and retain the special position of New Zealand, while making it clear that there are no flow-ons under the amended section to other treaties. It will also assist the ABA in the exercise of its regulatory responsibilities.FARM HOUSEHOLD SUPPORT AMENDMENT BILL 1999The proposed amendments to the Farm Household Support Act 1992 repeal the current 30 November 1999 closing date for Farm Family Restart Scheme (FFRS) re-establishment grants.The Government intends to extend the current deadline by 7 months to 30 June 2000. The new deadline will be contained in the instrument which establishes the Restart Re-establishment Grant Scheme under section 52A of the Farm Household Support Act 1992.The FFRS is the Government's key program for delivering improved welfare support to the farm sector. The FFRS is available to low income farm families who cannot borrow further against their assets and wish to consider their future in the farm sector. Assistance through the FFRS is flexible and can be tailored to meet the needs of each farm family. FFRS provides income support for up to one year and professional advice to meet individual needs, such as financial, legal or career advice. The FFRS re-establishment grant of up to $45,000 is also available to assist those farmers who take the decision to leave agriculture.Over 2,900 farm families have received income support under FFRS since the scheme commenced in December 1997 and over 240 re-establishment grants have been paid.Extending the FFRS re-establishment grants will assist farmers in severe financial difficulties to assess their future in agriculture and, if necessary, leave the industry with dignity.APPROPRIATION (EAST TIMOR) BILL 1999-2000It is with pleasure that I introduce the Appropriation (East Timor) Bill 1999-2000. This bill makes provision for special appropriations to the Department of Defence and the Australian Agency for International Development (AusAID) in relation to operations in the East Timor region.In the bill, the Parliament is asked to appropriate monies from the consolidated revenue fund to meet these necessary additional expenditures. The monies are additional to the appropriations made in Appropriation Acts (Nos 1 and 2) 1999-2000 last Budget, and the additional appropriations proposed in the Appropriation Bills (Nos 3 and 4) 1999-2000 to be tabled in this session.In order that the Department of Defence and AusAID can operate, financially uninhibited, in fulfilling the Government's commitment to the East Timor region, it is necessary that they have timely access to the supplementary funding. For this reason, the appropriations are sought outside the additional estimates process, and introduction and passage of the East Timor Bill in this session is being sought.The appropriations in the East Timor Bill total $920.0 million.$860.0 million is provided for the Department of Defence for the deployment and peace enforcement in East Timor, new investments that may be needed to augment the capability of the forces in East Timor and an increase in overall ADF numbers so that the deployment can be sustained and acceptable levels of overall readiness maintained.- Of this total amount some $845.0 relates to operational expenses and net capital investment of the department, and $15m to fund the capital user charge. The latter amount is an internal transaction to Government and so does not impact on the overall budget bottom line.$60.0 million is provided for AusAID to fund Australia's contribution to the humanitarian and reconstruction needs of East Timor and to support the establishment and operations of the United Nations Transitional Administration in East Timor (UNTAET).I commend the bill to the Senate.Debate (on motion by Senator O'Brien) adjourned.Ordered that the resumption of the debate be made an order of the day for a later hour.Ordered that these bills be listed on the Notice Paper as separate orders of the day.Bills11550r92911550Bill received from the House of Representatives.Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell) agreed to:That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.Bill read a first time.1155009:34:0011550Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I table a revised explanatory memorandum relating to the bill and move:That this bill be now read a second time.I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard .Leave granted.The speech read as follows—This is a bill to give Australia a modern crimes at sea scheme.The increasing incidence of people smuggling in the last year has highlighted the importance of having an effective legal regime to govern the seas around Australia's coastline. This bill complements the important measures that the Government has announced in the coastal surveillance context.The new crimes at sea scheme will be simpler to understand and apply, and will result in more effective law enforcement.The bill implements a new national, uniform, co-operative scheme to apply Australian criminal law offshore. The scheme was developed by the Special Committee of Solicitors-General and has been endorsed by the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General.The existing crimes at sea scheme under Commonwealth, State and Northern Territory legislation is seriously flawed. In many situations, it is a complicated and confusing task to identify the law that applies in connection with a suspected offence. This creates difficulties for law enforcement and prosecution authorities and could mean that an offender escapes conviction because of a technical error. Under the current scheme, the criminal law applicable to a vessel is determined by reference to whether it is registered in Australia or overseas, and if registered in Australia, to the State or Territory in which it is registered and whether it is engaged in an interstate or intrastate voyage.This mishmash of rules is not only difficult to understand and apply, it can also give rise to an overlapping application of laws, adding to the confusion. The uncertainty relates not only to determining which body of law applies but also to determining who is responsible for enforcing those laws and which set of procedural rules apply to their enforcement.Even when the applicable law is clear under the existing scheme, the results are not always sound. For example, the scheme contemplates the possibility that investigators from one State would be obliged to operate according to the investigatory laws of another State.That is why the Special Committee of Solicitors-General devised a clearer and simpler scheme, which has been approved by the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General and has Australasian Police Ministers' Council support.Under the new co-operative scheme the States and the Northern Territory have agreed to enact uniform crimes at sea acts that will apply their criminal laws in their respective offshore adjacent areas out to 12 nautical miles. The Commonwealth bill will, in turn, apply the criminal law of each jurisdiction, as Commonwealth law, to the respective offshore adjacent area of each State and the Northern Territory from 12 to 200 nautical miles or the outer limit of the continental shelf, whichever is the greater.The adjacent area of each jurisdiction is defined in Part 6 of Schedule 1 of the bill.For ease of reference, a map showing the adjacent area of each State and other legally significant boundaries has been incorporated with the bill. The scheme will not apply to Commonwealth, State and Northern Territory laws excluded by regulation from the ambit of the scheme. This is to cater for currently operating schemes applying in the offshore zone relating to subjects such as fisheries.Under the new scheme the authority that is investigating an offence will do so in accordance with its own procedures. For example, Victorian police investigating an offence which under the scheme is an offence under New South Wales law will investigate according to Victorian investigative procedures. When a State offence and a Commonwealth offence are being investigated simultaneously the investigating authority will, as at present, follow the procedural requirements which are the more stringent. Prosecutions under the new scheme will be conducted on a similar basis. Commonwealth proceedings will be run according to the law of the Commonwealth. State and Northern Territory proceedings will be run according to the law of the jurisdiction in which the proceedings started. In the example I have just given the New South Wales offence would be tried in a Victorian court according to Victorian procedural law.Under the new scheme, a single body of law will apply in the adjacent area of each jurisdiction, regardless of whether a vessel is `connected' with another jurisdiction or is on an interstate or intrastate voyage or is an Australian or foreign vessel. These archaic and unnecessary distinctions will simply have no place in the scheme.Greater simplicity is a central aim of the scheme, so that crimes do not go unpunished because of legal technicalities. The bill will eliminate the situation in which determining which body of law applies depends upon facts unrelated to the offence itself—such as the State with which a vessel is connected. It will also put an end to the situation where the applicable law depends upon facts which may be particularly difficult to establish—like the vessel's intended destination before an event occurs.The new scheme will also be more effective because all jurisdictions will enter into an Intergovernmental Agreement to enforce the criminal law under the scheme. These agreements will also enable the Commonwealth to confer powers, duties and functions on State and Northern Territory authorities under the new Commonwealth act.The agreement has been endorsed by both the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General and the Australasian Police Ministers' Council.A significant feature of the agreement is that the States and the Northern Territory will have primary responsibility for investigating and prosecuting crimes committed in their respective adjacent areas. However, where practicable, the jurisdictions will provide assistance to one another in the investigation of offences arising under the scheme. The agreement will also provide that where more than one jurisdiction is empowered to prosecute they should consult to determine the jurisdiction most convenient for prosecution.The agreement will provide that the Commonwealth also has the primary enforcement responsibility for criminal conduct on or from a Defence Force ship when it is outside the limits of a State or the Northern Territory.As well as the uniform provisions that I have outlined, the Commonwealth bill also applies the Jervis Bay Territory's criminal law to certain criminal acts committed outside the new scheme's coverage area. Jervis Bay Territory law will apply on Australian ships, to Australian citizens on foreign ships who are not members of the crew and on a foreign ship that first lands in Australia after an offence is committed.In these cases, the procedural rules for investigating and prosecuting offences will be the same as those applying to any other offence under Commonwealth law.Proposed Part 4, which regulated the enforcement of criminal laws in Area A of what was known as the Australia-Indonesia Zone of Co-operation in the Timor Gap, was omitted from the bill in the House of Representatives. In light of recent developments in relation to East Timor, Part 4 no longer reflected the current position in relation to the Timor Gap. New provisions are being developed to deal with criminal law enforcement in the Timor Gap to take into account the changed circumstances.The new crimes at sea scheme will not affect the substantive criminal and procedural laws that currently apply in the 12 nautical mile territorial seas of the external Territories. The criminal law of Norfolk Island, for example, will apply in the territorial seas around the island and Western Australian criminal law will apply in the territorial seas around the Christmas and Cocos (Keeling) Islands.Finally, the Commonwealth, State and Northern Territory bills all provide that the Commonwealth Attorney-General's written consent must be obtained before a prosecution can proceed in cases in which the alleged offence also falls within a foreign country's jurisdiction. This requirement is necessary to promote compliance with Australia's international obligations. Before granting approval the Commonwealth Attorney-General must take into account any views expressed by the country concerned. The absence of consent, however, will not prevent preliminary steps such as arrest, charges being laid, or extradition proceedings beginning.In accordance with the agreement reached by the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General, New South Wales, South Australia and Tasmania have enacted the uniform State model bills required for the new regime. After the Commonwealth and the remaining jurisdictions have done the same, the new scheme will be uniformly proclaimed by all the jurisdictions.The new scheme is, as I said in my introduction, simpler to understand and easier to apply, making it more effective and convenient for law enforcement. Although policing offences at sea will still present operational and logistical challenges, this scheme will give Australian authorities the legislative basis they need to enforce the criminal law off Australia's coastline. Ordered that further consideration of the second reading of this bill be adjourned till the first day of the 2000 autumn sittings in accordance with standing order 111.Bills11552r91211552Message received from the House of Representatives returning the Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Amendment Bill 1999, acquainting the Senate that the House has agreed to amendments Nos 1, 3 and 5 made by the Senate; disagreed to amendments Nos 2, 4, 6 and 7 made by the Senate; and requesting the reconsideration of the amendments disagreed to by the House and the concurrence of the Senate in the amendments made by the House in place of amendments Nos 4 and 6.Ordered that consideration of the message in committee of the whole proceed forthwith.Schedule of the amendments to which the House of Representatives has disagreed—(2) Schedule 1, item 8, page 4 (line 21), after "contribute to", insert ", and promote,".(4) Schedule 1, item 15, page 5 (after line 26), before subsection 8(1), insert: (1A) Before developing a workplace program, a relevant employer must: (a) confer responsibility for the development and implementation of the program (including a continuous review of the program) on a person or persons having sufficient authority and status within the management of the relevant employer to enable the person or persons properly to develop and implement the program; and (b) consult with each trade union having members affected by the proposal for the development and implementation of the program; and (c) consult with employees of the relevant employer, particularly employees who are women.(6) Schedule 1, item 21, page 8 (line 20), at the end of subsection (1), add:; but only if the relevant employer has complied with those requirements for a period of not less than 3 consecutive reporting periods, including a period of 3 reporting periods beginning before the commencement of this section.(7) Schedule 1, page 11 (after line 9), at the end of the Schedule, add:Part 3—Amendment of the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 28 Paragraph 3(b)Omit "or potential pregnancy", substitute ", potential pregnancy or breastfeeding".29 Subsection 4(1) (after paragraph (b) of the definition of Commonwealth employee )Insert: (ba) holds a judicial office;30 Subsection 4(1) (at the end of the definition of Commonwealth employee )Add: ; and includes a senator or member of the House of Representatives.31 Subsection 4(1) (at the end of the definition of employment )Add: and (d) unpaid or voluntary work, including under a scheme established under a law of the Commonwealth.32 Subsection 4(1)Insert: judicial office means: (a) an office of Justice of the High Court; or (b) an office of judge of a court created by the Parliament or of a court of a Territory.33 After section 7Insert:7AA Discrimination on the ground of breastfeeding (1) For the purposes of this Act, a person (the discriminator ) discriminates against a woman (the aggrieved woman ) on the ground that the aggrieved woman is breastfeeding her child if, because the aggrieved woman is breastfeeding her child, the discriminator treats the aggrieved woman less favourably than, in circumstances that are the same or are not materially different, the discriminator treats or would treat someone who is not breastfeeding her child. (2) For the purposes of this Act, a person (the discriminator ) discriminates against a woman (the aggrieved woman ) on the ground that the aggrieved woman is breastfeeding the child if the discrimination imposes, or proposes to impose, a condition, requirement or practice that has, or is likely to have, the effect of disadvantaging women who are also breastfeeding their children. (3) This section has effect subject to sections 7B and 7D.34 Subsection 10(2)Omit "or potential pregnancy", substitute ", potential pregnancy or breastfeeding".35 Subsection 11(2)Omit "or potential pregnancy", substitute ", potential pregnancy or breastfeeding".36 Subsection 13(1)Repeal the subsection.37 Subsection 14(1)After "potential pregnancy", insert "or because the person is breastfeeding her child".38 Subsection 14(2)After "potential pregnancy", insert "or because the employee is breastfeeding her child".39 Subsection 15(1)After "potential pregnancy", insert "or because the person is breastfeeding her child".40 Subsection 15(2)After "potential pregnancy", insert "or because the commission agent is breastfeeding her child".41 Section 16After "potential pregnancy", insert "or because the contract worker is breastfeeding her child".42 Subsections 17(1) and (2)After "potential pregnancy" (wherever occurring), insert "or because the person is breastfeeding her child".43 Subsection 17(3)After "potential pregnancy", insert "or because the partner is breastfeeding her child".44 Section 18After "potential pregnancy", insert "or because the person is breastfeeding her child".45 Subsection 19(1)After "potential pregnancy", insert "or because the person is breastfeeding her child".46 Subsection 19(2)After "potential pregnancy", insert "or because the member is breastfeeding her child".47 Section 20After "potential pregnancy", insert "or because the person is breastfeeding her child". 48 Subsection 21(1)After "potential pregnancy", insert "or because the person is breastfeeding her child".49 Subsection 21(2)After "potential pregnancy", insert "or because the student is breastfeeding her child".50 Subsection 22(1)After "potential pregnancy", insert "or because that other person is breastfeeding her child".51 Subsections 23(1) and (2)After "potential pregnancy" (wherever occurring), insert "or because that other person is breastfeeding her child".52 Subsection 24(1)After "potential pregnancy", insert "or because that other person is breastfeeding her child".53 Subsection 25(1)After "potential pregnancy", insert "or because the person is breastfeeding her child".54 Subsection 25(2)After "potential pregnancy", insert "or because the member is breastfeeding her child".55 Section 26After "potential pregnancy", insert "or because that other person is breastfeeding her child".56 Subsection 27(1)After "potential pregnancy", insert "or because that other person is breastfeeding her child".57 Subsection 27(1)Omit "or potentially pregnant", substitute ", potentially pregnant or breastfeeding".58 After subsection 27(2)Insert: (2A) To avoid doubt, it is unlawful for a person to ask another person a question (whether orally or in writing) in connection with the employment or potential employment of that other person, which might reasonably be understood as intended to elicit information about that person's intentions in relation to pregnancy or in relation to meeting that person's family commitments.59 At the end of subsection 27(2)Add: ; but it is unlawful to discriminate in a recruitment process on the basis of that information.60 After section 27Insert: 27A Pregnancy equity standards (1) The Minister may formulate standards, to be known as pregnancy equity standards, in relation to the employment of women who are pregnant or potentially pregnant. (2) Pregnancy equity standards formulated in accordance with this section are to be laid before each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the pregnancy equity standards are formulated and take effect only as provided by the following provisions of this section. (3) If: (a) notice of a motion to amend the pregnancy equity standards is given in either House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days after the pregnancy equity standards have been laid before that House; and (b) the pregnancy equity standards, whether or not as amended, are subsequently approved by that House; and (c) the other House approves the pregnancy equity standards in the form approved by the first-mentioned House; the pregnancy equity standards take effect in the form so approved from the day on which that other House approves the pregnancy equity standards in that form. (4) If no notice of a motion to amend the pregnancy equity standards is given in the House of Representatives or the Senate within 15 sitting days of the particular House after the pregnancy equity standards have been laid before that House, the pregnancy equity standards take effect from the day immediately after that 15th sitting day or, where that day differs in respect of each House, the later of those days.27B Unlawful to contravene pregnancy equity standards It is unlawful for a person to contravene a pregnancy equity standard.27C Division 4 not to apply to pregnancy equity standards Division 4 does not apply in relation to a pregnancy equity standard.27D This Part not to apply if person acts in accordance with pregnancy equity standards If a person acts in accordance with a pregnancy equity standard this Part does not apply to the person's act. 61 Subsections 38(1) and (2)Omit ", marital status or pregnancy" (wherever occurring), substitute "or marital status".62 Subsection 38(3)Omit "or pregnancy".63 At the end of section 38Add: (4) In this section, a reference to a person's sex or marital status does not include a reference to pregnancy or potential pregnancy.64 Section 39After "pregnancy", insert "or because the person is breastfeeding her child".Part 4—Amendment of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 65 At the end of subsection 46P(2)Add:; or (d) if the complaint is about an advertisement in connection with an arrangement under paragraph 14(1)(a) of the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 —by any person.66 After paragraph 46PO4(d)Insert: (da) where the unlawful discrimination relates to pregnancy or potential pregnancy—an order requiring a respondent to pay to an applicant exemplary or punitive damages;67 After subsection 46PW(6)Insert: (6A) The Sex Discrimination Commissioner may refer an award to the Australian Industrial Relations Commission without a complaint having been lodged with the Commission if the Sex Discrimination Commissioner is of the opinion that the award is discriminatory.68 Section 48Omit "or potential pregnancy" (wherever occurring), substitute "potential pregnancy or breastfeeding".House of Representatives statement of reasons for disagreement with certain proposed amendments—Senate Amendment Number 2This amendment amends the definition of an `equal opportunity for women in the workplace program' so that a program will be required to be designed to ensure that employers not only contribute to, but also promote, the achievement of equal opportunity for women.This amendment is unnecessary, for the following reasons. The provision in the bill requiring programs to `contribute to' the achievement of equal opportunity is broad enough to encompass both substantive measures and promotional activities. Indeed, the achievement of equal employment opportunity would, in most cases, require employers to take promotional activities of some kind. `Promotion' in the broader context is provided for in the proposed principal objects of the Act, which will include that the Act promote the principle that employment for women should be dealt with on the basis of merit and that the Act promote the elimination of discrimination and the provision of equal opportunity for women. Accordingly, the House of Representatives does not accept this amendment.Senate Amendment Number 7This amendment introduces a range of amendments to the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 and the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 . These amendments form a package intended to implement a number of recommendations of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission's National Pregnancy and Work Inquiry Report, Pregnant and Productive .Discrimination against pregnant or potentially pregnant employees is a matter of great concern. The Attorney-General asked the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission to undertake the National Pregnancy and Work Inquiry. The report from that Inquiry, Pregnant and Productive, is a comprehensive document setting out a large number of recommendations. Many of these recommendations are complex; all require careful and coordinated consideration.The amendments proposed by this Senate amendment should be considered together with the other recommendations of the report. The Government is in the process of considering the report and formulating a response which will deal comprehensively with the recommendations made. Accordingly, the House of Representatives does not accept this amendment.House of Representatives amendments made in place of Senate amendments 4 and 6—(1) Schedule 1, item 15, page 5 (after line 26), before subsection (1), insert: (1A) Before developing a workplace program, a relevant employer must: (a) confer responsibility for the development and implementation of the program (including continuous review of the program) on a person or persons having sufficient authority and status within the management of the relevant employer to enable the person or persons properly to develop and implement the program; and (b) consult with employees (or their nominated representatives) of the relevant employer, particularly employees who are women. [Section 8—matters preliminary to development of workplace program](2) Schedule 1, item 21, page 8 (line 20), omit paragraph (1)(b), substitute: (b) on its own initiative;but only if the relevant employer has complied with those requirements for a period of not less than 3 consecutive reporting years, including a period of 3 reporting years beginning before the commencement of this section. [Section 13C—waiver limited]Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell) proposed:That the committee does not insist on its amendments Nos 2 and 7 to which the House of Representatives has disagreed.09:35:0011555Mackay, Sen SueSenator MACKAY9L6TASALP00—I understand that an agreement has been reached with the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, Mr Reith, and the shadow minister, Ms Macklin, in relation to the Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Amendment Bill 1999 . The opposition was very disappointed in the level of cooperation we evidenced in this matter and to see what can only be described as a tawdry press release from Minister Reith in relation to the arrangement that was reached with the Labor Party. We know how desperate Minister Reith was to get this through. We know that he was intent on trying to torpedo the Labor Party amendments. However, kicking and screaming, he was dragged to a position whereby he agreed to the Labor Party amendments. So we have a substantial retention of the original provisions in the Labor Party bill which was put in place when the Labor Party was in government.Just to give the chamber some idea as to the level this minister will stoop to when he actually gets an agreement—this may be a salutary lesson for the Democrats as to how mean-spirited he can be once an agreement has been reached, never mind when there is dissent in relation to an agreement—I will read into the Hansard the press release he issued. Essentially, he attempted to portray this arrangement as a humiliating backdown for Labor. He indicated that Kim Beazley has been exposed as being opportunistic and rhetorical and that his own shadow minister, who brokered these amendments, has `overthrown' him. He went on to say:Two weeks ago, Labor was attempting to hijack the government's positive agenda—what a joke!—for women by opportunistically attaching amendments to the Sex Discrimination Act dealing with the Pregnant and Productive report.He then went on to accuse the opposition of grandstanding in relation to the Pregnant and Productive report. And what do we have now? We have a churlish response by Minister Reith to an in-good-faith arrangement with Labor in relation to the Equal Opportunity Act. We have an agreement which we—and I signal this to the government on behalf of the shadow minister—intend to keep the government to, that in relation to the recommendations of the Pregnant and Productive report, Minister Reith has agreed that they will be considered very early next year. As the government knows, we have amendments drafted and we have the Democrats' support in relation to that. I doubt whether the Democrats will resile from their position on our amendments on enacting the Pregnant and Productive report on this issue, because to resile from that would mean, essentially, that we continue the situation whereby women who are pregnant or potentially pregnant continue to be discriminated against in this country. So I doubt whether that will happen.As far as the opposition is concerned, Minister Reith is on notice. If this is not dealt with expeditiously, if this matter is not dealt with in a way that comes to a practical outcome, we will be back here and will be moving our amendments again, I suspect with Democrat support and obviously with the support of minor party senators. I just wanted to make the point because it is really illustrative of the nature of this minister, when an agreement is struck, that we get the political rhetoric yet again. I venture to suggest that this is why he will never get anywhere in his continually failing attempts to turf Peter Costello as the heir apparent.We all know what the majority of the government members think of Minister Reith. We all know that he is not popular among the majority of his colleagues. We all know his propensity for crash through or crash tactics, usually emanating in the crash part rather than the crash through part. We all know that he is ideologically opposed to what has been brokered by the Labor Party as a good deal for women in terms of the Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Amendment Bill 1999 and we know that he has no interest whatsoever in discrimination against pregnant and potentially pregnant women.I say to the government that the opposition says this is a very serious matter, particularly at a time when this country is looking at the issue of underpopulation. We need to ensure that women feel secure when they choose to become pregnant, we need to ensure they are not discriminated against when they choose to become pregnant and we need to ensure that the recommendations of the report are enacted in legislation. We will be back here if they are not. We have our amendments drafted. We are confident that we will get the assent of the Senate and we will be determining the time line. If it is not expeditious, we will bring it back on ourselves. That is the warning we give to the government.We do not want this report, Pregnant and Productive, sitting on the shelves in Peter Reith's office for years and years with nothing being done in relation to it. I say to the government, `Get your act together, make sure you are speedy and, for goodness sake, make sure you get rid of that absolute idiot, Peter Reith, that absolutely incompetent minister, Peter Reith.'10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—Order! Withdraw please, Senator.9L6Mackay, Sen SueSenator MACKAY—I withdraw—absolutely churlish minister, Peter Reith. When you broker a deal, you get some spurious, pathetic press release which really does indicate what kind of a minister he is. You on the other side of the chamber—10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—Please address the chair too.9L6Mackay, Sen SueSenator MACKAY—The government senators know very well what he is like. We on this side of the chamber know very well what he is like. Government members could do themselves a favour and get rid of him because he is no good for the government. He does you a great deal of harm. I would also like to signal that when the election comes up—whenever the Prime Minister determines it will be—women feeling secure in being pregnant and potentially pregnant will be an election issue. If this government still has not acted on this, then we will ensure that the attitude of this minister is propagated widely in the community.09:42:0011557Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TASIND00—During the debate on the Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Amendment Bill 1999 , I raised the issue of breastfeeding. Senator Ian Campbell provided me with a response that had been prepared by Mr Reith. I have looked at that. I believe Senator Ian Campbell tabled the document at the time. I notice that in the schedule that is before us now there is included potential pregnancy or breastfeeding and I think that is a very important issue to be included. I thank the chamber.Like the previous speaker, I too will be very interested in what might come before us in the form of the disallowable instrument that is mentioned in the amendments currently before us. It is important for us to be scrutinising very carefully those pregnancy equity standards. As I say, like Senator Mackay, I will be very interested to see what the government has in mind and will be keeping this under review—as I am sure the whole of the parliament will. I acknowledge the readiness of Senator Ian Campbell to take up that other matter.09:44:0011557Mackay, Sen SueSenator MACKAY9L6TASALP00—I will make some closing comments. I am glad that Senator Harradine raised that issue in relation to potential pregnancy or breastfeeding. I would like to advise Senator Harradine that I am informed that Minister Reith was in fact the most trenchant in opposing that particular proposition. In fact, it was the one that Labor was most insistent on. We got Minister Reith to a situation whereby he had to cave in in relation to that in particular. I just want to put that on the record. It is not by any good grace of the minister involved; it is because of the nature of the numbers in this place. Perhaps had Senator Campbell undertaken the negotiations they may have gone more expeditiously. I just want to indicate that that was something that we pursued assiduously and, in terms of the humiliating backdown and cave-in that Minister Reith had to wear on this bill, that that was a key point in relation to it.Question resolved in the affirmative.Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell) agreed to:That the committee does not insist on its amendments Nos 4 and 6 to which the House of Representatives has disagreed and agrees to the amendments made by the House of Representatives in place of those amendments.Resolution reported; report adopted.Business1155711557Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell) agreed to:That the following government business orders of the day be considered from 12.45 p.m. till not later than 2.00 p.m. today:Appropriation (East Timor) Bill 1999-2000Farm Household Support Amendment Bill 1999Broadcasting Services Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1999Broadcasting Services Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1999No. 3— Textile, Clothing and Footwear Strategic Investment Program Bill 1999Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1999No. 4— Tradex Scheme Bill 1999 [No. 2]Tradex Duty Imposition (Customs) Bill 1999Tradex Duty Imposition (Excise) Bill 1999Tradex Duty Imposition (General) Bill 1999Customs Tariff Amendment (Tradex) Bill 1999 [No. 2] Notices1155811558Items of business were postponed as follows:General business notice of motion no. 340 standing in the name of Senator Allison for today, proposing an order for the production of Commonwealth-State agreements, postponed till 16 February 2000.Committees115581155811558Motion (by Senator Bolkus) agreed to:That the following matters be referred to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Native Title and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land Fund for inquiry and report by the end of the second sitting week in April 2000:(a) whether the finding of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) that the Native Title Amendment Act 1998 is inconsistent with Australia's international legal obligations, in particular, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, is sustainable on the weight of informed opinion;(b) what amendments are required to the Act, and what processes of consultation must be followed in effecting those amendments, to ensure that Australia's international obligations are complied with; and(c) whether dialogue with the CERD on the Act would assist in establishing a better-informed basis for amendment to the Act.Miscellaneous1155811558Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell) agreed to:That paragraph (4) of the order of the Senate of 30 November 1999 relating to estimates hearings be varied to add `Mid-year economic and fiscal outlook 1999-2000 (tabled 30 November 1999 )'.Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell) agreed to:That the order of the Senate of 30 November 1999 relating to estimates hearings be varied to provide that, in respect of the 1999-2000 additional estimates, the committee groupings for the hearings be modified as follows: Group A Omit: `Legal and Constitutional' Substitute: `Economics'.Group B Omit: `Economics' Substitute: `Legal and Constitutional'.Business1155811558Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell) agreed to:That on Thursday, 9 December 1999:(a) consideration of general business, and consideration of committee reports and government responses under standing order 62(1) not be proceeded with;(b) the routine of business from the time at which general business would otherwise commence shall be government business only; and(c) divisions may take place after 6 pm.Committees115581155811558Motion (by Senator Calvert, at the request of Senator Tierney) agreed to:That the time for the presentation of the report of the Employment, Workplace Relations, Small Business and Education References Committee on the effectiveness of education and training programs for indigenous Australians be extended to 9 March 2000.Miscellaneous1155809:51:0011558Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—I ask that general business notice of motion No. 403 standing in my name for today be taken as a formal motion.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Is there any objection to this motion being taken as formal?YE4BOSWELLSenator Boswell—Yes.1155809:51:0011558Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—Pursuant to contingent notice, I move:That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent Senator Lees moving a motion relating to the conduct of the business of the Senate, namely a motion to give precedence to general business notice of motion No. 403.09:51:0011559Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TASIND00—This notice was given yesterday. We are on the last day of the sittings. The motion was given that there be laid on the table no later than 4 p.m. on 6 March 2000 details of all legislative changes that would be required to ensure the recognition and equal treatment of same sex couples under all Commonwealth superannuation and taxation legislation.Let me make this very clear to this chamber and to anyone who might be listening to the debate, because anyone who gets up and speaks on this is reviled by persons who do not understand the history of involvement of a number of us in antidiscrimination measures. A number of people with homosexual tendencies would be able to testify about what I have done in regard to their actions against discrimination in the work force. I defy anybody to suggest that I have acted in any way in a discriminatory manner against the people concerned. Indeed, a number of people would come before any inquiry to indicate some of the work I have done in this particular area.But that is not what we are dealing with here; we are dealing with a proposition that was put forward yesterday for the government, presumably, to have laid on the table no later than 4 p.m. on 6 March certain details of all legislative changes that would be required to ensure the recognition and equal treatment of same sex couples under Commonwealth superannuation and taxation legislation. I put this to you, Madam President, and particularly to the opposition: what is meant by `equal treatment'? Is this proposing that the government accept that same sex relationships have the same status as marriage? Is that what is being said? Is that what is being indicated in this measure?We are going to have to face this situation very clearly, and I want to know this from the proposer and the supporters of the motion: is the phrase `equal treatment of same sex couples' based on the proposition that homosexual relationships should receive the approval of the government and the parliament of Australia as being of the same status as marriage? That is the nub of it. I would like an answer to that question from those who are promoting this proposition.09:55:0011559Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I support this motion, of course. I have a male partner, so I have an interest in the matter, but I am not speaking on my behalf here; I am speaking on behalf of commonsense. We are an egalitarian society which is moving towards the elimination of discrimination against people in our society. What we have just heard from Senator Harradine will lay down a marker of discrimination. I would ask him to say where he draws the line at discrimination against same sex couples. I do not believe that that line should be drawn.That is not the matter at hand here; the matter at hand is a request for the `production of details of legislative changes required to ensure recognition of equal treatment of same sex couples'. Why is that motion before the chamber? It is here because we have been dealing with superannuation legislation time and time again in this place this year, yet the discrimination against same sex couples remains, so that the benefits of superannuation are not transferred to a partner in a same sex relationship anywhere in this country under Commonwealth legislation, and that is wrong. It causes harm and material detriment, and it is discriminatory.For years this chamber has seen moves to end such discrimination, which is real, financial and unfair, and it always falters when we get to the point of doing something real about it. There is going to be argument here that this not being the right procedure. There is always an argument as to why we cannot proceed. The simple fact is that this motion says to the government: please put before the chamber when we return next year the direction which should be taken to end the discrimination. If there is a different form of words, then I will support them. If there is not a different form of words I will support this form of words. But I am not going to be part of a subterfuge which knocks this item out of carriage because behind it is ongoing discrimination. That is what is really at the heart of this matter, and it is time it was stopped; it is time it was finished.The fact is that we ought to have an all-encompassing piece of legislation before us which ends discrimination right throughout the statutes at Commonwealth level. There are thousands of people who are manifestly being discriminated against in real terms by the legislation that we fail to change time and time again. It is time that was finished. Here is a move to say to the government: give us the prescription that you think is the best one to get rid of the discrimination in superannuation and other matters.It goes much wider than that, of course—it includes discrimination in state laws, in the law relating to wills and testaments and in the ability of hospitals to stop same sex partners visiting their partners even if they want to, and this is all under the law. It is time this discrimination was finished, and surely there is nothing wrong with asking the government to come up with a formula.I suspect this motion will not succeed here today, and I think that is a pretty awful way for this matter to be left hanging at the end of this parliamentary year. We should do better than that. If there are people who are going to vote against this but say that the intent is right, the formula is wrong, then they should come up with a better formula. Just don't leave nothing, which has been the situation for the last however many years.10:00:0011560Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—Let me say that I think that is a very reasonable challenge that Senator Brown places before the chamber on an issue like this. But let us be clear. I think Senator Brown, as is often the case with such suspension motions, did deal with the substantive issue that Senator Bartlett's motion addresses. Let me make this general point: Senator Bartlett's return to order, if you like, or order of the Senate goes to the creation of a document. The government is being asked to create a document and lay that document on the table. I think senators in the chamber would know that the opposition consistently has had concerns about that sort of approach for an order for the production of documents. There are two different categories of document here, and it is important that a distinction be made. One is a document that exists and can be laid on the table. The other is a document which does not exist, needs to be created, and then can be laid on the table.I must admit that I think there is a way through here that is sensible. Senator Bartlett, as the Democrat spokesman, has had discussions with me addressing the substantive issues that this motion goes to. It is an issue on which the opposition have indicated to Senator Bartlett—I have indicated this, as has the shadow Attorney, Mr McClelland—that we are very happy to progress some of the concerns that Senator Bartlett has. It just seems to me that, given the fact that this particular order for production of documents directly reflects a second reading amendment moved to legislation in this place yesterday, a sensible course of action in these circumstances would be for Senator Bartlett to place a question on notice very much in the terms that this order for production of documents is in. That is a proper mechanism to use in this circumstance to create an answer and a response.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—It is a research project.5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—Members of parliament are entitled to ask questions of executive government and receive this sort of information. The question here is whether it is proper for the Senate to order this or for Senator Bartlett to use other mechanisms, in the circumstances that we are in on the last sitting day of the year—and a debate on the substantive issue that is dealt with might well have some very significant implications for the program. I think there is a course of action that can be pursued here by Senator Bartlett which will have the same effect.Although I have indicated that the opposition have concerns about this general approach of returns to order for the creation of documents, if push comes to shove we will vote for this. But we would much prefer this to be progressed in another way and, with the constraints that we are operating under at the moment, we do not think that a suspension of standing orders is warranted. What I do think is warranted, and I would commend this course of action to Senator Bartlett, is to place a question on notice in the same terms for the government to undertake the activity that would be required to respond to a question on notice. It is a similar time frame to the one that Senator Bartlett has proposed.If there are any weaknesses in the process, and there ought not be—Senator Bartlett and all senators will have, in response to a question on notice, the substantive issue addressed that he wants to have addressed—then I think it might be appropriate for Senator Bartlett to bring it back to the chamber. What we are being asked here is to suspend standing orders. In these circumstances I do not think that is warranted, but I think there is another course of action which means that Senator Bartlett can in fact receive the information he wants and the Senate's program will not be delayed unnecessarily. I would commend that course of action to Senator Bartlett in the circumstances. I do impress upon the Senate this general issue that we have in relation to orders for the production of documents in the case where it requires the creation of the document.10:06:0011561Boswell, Sen RonaldSenator BOSWELLYE4QLDNP10—I listened carefully yesterday to Senator Bartlett when he tried to hook up a similar resolution to this to the SLAB No. 4 that was being dealt with yesterday. I was alarmed at it then. Of course, he withdrew that, and this is the fall-back position. I would like to say to the Senate that I stood up and opposed the formalisation of this resolution that went before the Senate today. I did it for a number of reasons. If this resolution were carried, it would immediately send a signal to all Australians that the Senate allows a single interest group to dictate the legislative agenda.Yesterday Senator Bartlett indicated disappointment with the lack of progress on his private member's bill in trying to achieve similar things. I will tell you that Senator Bartlett's private member's bill is going nowhere: it does not have the support of the overall population of Australia—that is what it is about. We come here to represent the various interest groups of Australia and overwhelmingly people do not support this type of legislation. Senator Bartlett said yesterday that people are getting tired of waiting. Well, I ask Senator Bartlett if he is getting tired of giving people their choice—that is democracy. If you cannot get a private member's bill up because there is so much opposition to it, that is the voice of the people coming through this parliament saying we do not want a bar of this type of legislation.If we pass this motion today, it will send a message to all Australians—young and old—that mainstream society sees no essential difference between a homosexual and a heterosexual lifestyle, that society not only condones it but is indifferent to the bonds which make the typical family the fundamental unit of society. While we in the National Party do not persecute those who freely enter into a minority lifestyle, we do not want to promote it to our children as an equally valid or acceptable way of life. Last week we saw the senator from Western Australia come up with a similar type of proposal and it seems that the Democrats are hell bent on trying to promote this type of lifestyle through the Senate.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—That is outrageous, Bos.YE4Boswell, Sen RonaldSenator BOSWELL—Well, Senator Faulkner, we did see last week—and you have to accept this—the senator from Western Australia, Senator Greig, promoting that homosexual partners, or gay partners, list their assets for—5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—And that is what the national Senate decided quite rightly should happen.YE4Boswell, Sen RonaldSenator BOSWELL—The Senate decided that but I am telling you that was the first attack. A week later we see the next attack. But I want to say this: the constituents that my party represents do not want to see this parliament, this Senate, used as a vehicle or a platform to get these issues up and the parliament used to actually condone or accept this particular lifestyle. We do not persecute this type of lifestyle—it is freely entered into.QD4BROWNSenator Brown—You do.YE4Boswell, Sen RonaldSenator BOSWELL—No, we do not.QD4BROWNSenator Brown—You do.YE4Boswell, Sen RonaldSenator BOSWELL—We do not. It seems to have become an obsession with the Democrats that this parliament be used to promote or condone or accept this type of lifestyle.Honourable senators interjecting—YE4Boswell, Sen RonaldSenator BOSWELL—Let me tell you this: every time you do it and every time you use this parliament to promote or get this type of lifestyle on the agenda, it will be opposed strongly by the National Party, and we will continue to oppose it. You had the first shot last week and you followed it up with a second shot this week.QD4BROWNSenator Brown—Discriminators!YE4Boswell, Sen RonaldSenator BOSWELL—We are not discriminators, Senator Brown. You have a particular lifestyle—I have never condemned it and I never will condemn it; that is your choice.QD4BROWNSenator Brown—There is nothing to condemn.YE4Boswell, Sen RonaldSenator BOSWELL—But it is not the choice of the people that we represent. So I just want to give notice to the Senate that anytime—(Time expired)10:11:0011562Greig, Sen BrianSenator GREIG86XWAAD00—At issue here is whether or not gay and lesbian people ought to be treated as equal citizens in this country. We have a superannuation regime in this country which I support but which is compulsory. That means that all lesbian and gay citizens are required to subscribe to it under most circumstances. But in doing so we are being asked to subscribe to a system that then deliberately and specifically discriminates against us. At the end of a day it is our money. We are forced to pay superannuation into a fund, as are most people in these circumstances, but if we should die we are denied the opportunity to leave our superannuation to our partners or vice-versa. That is appalling. That is apartheid.In terms of a person's sexuality, I want to make the point repeatedly that for the vast majority of people, including me, our sexuality is not a choice, and in that regard homo phobia, as it is being exhibited in the Senate today, is as morally repugnant as racism or anti-Semitism. This is no different to denying superannuation rights to someone perhaps in a multiracial relationship; it is simply a different relationship.Senator Boswell argues that his constituents are not in support of that. I do not deny that. But it appals me, given the youth suicide rates in rural and regional Australia and the empirical evidence from within Australia and overseas that shows that more than one third of youth suicide rates in this country are directly related to young people and their sexuality—that is, their anxiety or the discrimination or the persecution because of their sexuality—that those people who represent the bush, such as Senator Boswell, do not take a leading role in not advocating homophobia. It is not enough for Senator Boswell to stand up in here and say that he does not persecute gay and lesbian people while at the same time saying that our rights and our relationships do not exist. It is appalling.Australia is behind Canada, South Africa and New Zealand in terms of dealing with human rights for lesbian and gay citizens. I also make the point that recently New South Wales passed partnership recognition for gay and lesbian citizens in that state, and I applaud it. The Queensland government is on the brink of doing it, the Tasmanian government is currently investigating it and has said that it will do it, and I know that the West Australian Labor Party has indicated that it will do it if it wins government at the next election. So we have critical mass here with most states and territories. As for the ACT, the territory we are now in: as you well know, Madam President, it already has partnership recognition laws for gay and lesbian citizens in this place. The sky has not fallen in as a result.Senator Boswell argues that the Senate is not the place in which to push this issue. If the parliament is not the place to push issues, where is the place? This is the precise forum where we need debate—sensible, reasoned, intelligent debate—on all issues, including this one. I would also make the point that, in my 10 years as an advocate and an activist with Australia's gay and lesbian community, I have never met one lesbian or gay person who wants gay marriage. In fact, my experience is that the vast majority of gay and lesbian citizens do not support the notion of marriage as it currently stands because they see it as a very heterosexual and outdated institution that should be modified and not copied.To that extent, what lesbian and gay citizens have only ever been asking for is some form of partnership recognition, not marriage. Senator Harradine suggests that, if we support the notion of same sex couples in a regulatory way, that is putting same sex couples on the same platform as those who are married. I do not believe it is and I do not believe that gay and lesbian people are asking for that.When we are calling for the recognition of our relationships, what we are asking for is the right to superannuation on the basis that it is our money. It is the right to be able to enter a hospital to see our partner if they are sick or injured. It is the right to have access to property settlement in wills and estates. It is about having coronial rights in terms of deceased bodies, body parts and whatnot. I know people who have suffered from this. I know people who have been in long-term same sex relationships where one partner has died and the superannuation has not been forthcoming. The financial penalty on the surviving partner is appalling. But it is more appalling for the children who so often exist with same sex relationships.There is nothing remarkable or outrageous or absurd about what is being proposed here. Lesbian and gay citizens are simply asking to be treated equally within legislation, including superannuation legislation, and equally within financial regulation. There was a particular case of Mr Greg Brown in Melbourne some years ago. He and his partner had been together for some seven years. When his partner died, he was not entitled to receive the superannuation that they had accumulated. (Time expired)10:16:0011563Harris, Sen LenSenator HARRIS8HCQldIND00—I rise to indicate that I will oppose the motion. Through you, Madam President, I would like to bring to the attention of the chamber that every morning when we start each parliamentary day we ask for the blessing of almighty God on this chamber and the deliberations of it. Very clearly it states, in God's word, that marriage is an institution that is for the sanctity and the succour of children. It is very clear to anybody that a same sex couple cannot naturally attain that.The institution is not outdated, as Senator Greig has said. It is clearly as appropriate today as it was when it was instigated. I do not believe that in our modern society couples are excluded from being with any person who is in a hospital. As I said before, I am yet to see how a same sex couple, whether it be homosexual or lesbian, can naturally conceive a child. I do not deny that there are children who are under the parentage of same sex couples.I would like to very clearly place on the record that Pauline Hanson's One Nation is absolutely opposed to any moves to have homosexuality or lesbianism placed on the same level as the institution of marriage. Maybe one reason—and I only proffer this as a possibility—that there are certain members of this chamber whom I have not, in the short period that I have been here, seen present for prayers in this chamber is that God's word clearly says to us that the acts of lesbianism and homosexuality are an abomination.10:19:0011563Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—I spoke on this issue at some length yesterday with regard to the superannuation legislation Senator Boswell referred to, so I will not go on today at length. The intent of moving this motion was simply to address an issue that often arises when amendments are moved in relation to superannuation legislation, for example, to remove discrimination against same sex couples. Any amendments made would be piecemeal and leave anomalies, et cetera, so it was simply an attempt to ensure that, from the government's perspective, all material was available about what overall changes would need to be made to remove discrimination in superannuation legislation and taxation legislation.This motion was not asking the government to adopt a policy in favour of that; it was simply an attempt to ensure the information was provided. As Senator Greig outlined, changes along those lines have been made in most state parliaments and the sky has not fallen in. The institution of marriage has not been abolished. Indeed, the world has gone on much as before except that a significant proportion of the community who were discriminated against financially and legally are not now. That is all that this issue is about.In some ways I guess it is not surprising, but it is always very disappointing to hear the types of comments that have come from some speakers in the last half an hour in terms of the degree of fear and misunderstanding that still exists in the community. I would ask those senators, genuinely, to consider the basic issue that lies at the heart of this which, as Senator Greig said, is simply equal treatment for people. The degree of antagonism and the degree of discrimination against gay, lesbian and bisexual people is as unsupportable an action as that of racism, which is roundly condemned in the community.I believe the community is supportive of equal treatment. That has been shown by the general support for changes that have been made by state governments, including supposedly conservative states like Tasmania and Queensland. I find it a great shame that the federal parliament and the Senate are lagging behind community views in that regard. Certainly the Democrats will continue to try and ensure that we get positive outcomes so that that level of discrimination ceases to occur and ceases to exist in federal legislation.Question resolved in the negative.QD4BROWNSenator Brown—Could you please record my positive vote for that motion?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Certainly, Senator.Committees11564115641156410:23:0011564Quirke, Sen JohnSenator QUIRKEZS6SAALP00—On behalf of Senator Murphy, I seek leave to incorporate a brief statement relating to general business notice of motion No. 399 in Hansard .Leave granted.The statement read as follows—Inquiry into the operations of the Australian Taxation OfficeThe inquiry into the Australian Taxation Office was originally referred to the Committee on 20 August 1998. This inquiry was considerably delayed by the 1998 election and by other Parliamentary business.The Committee re-advertised the inquiry in the national press earlier this year and wrote to all who had previously made submissions. The Committee recommenced its public hearing program on 14 September 1999 and since then has conducted seven hearings. These hearings are in addition to the single hearing with the ATO that the Committee conducted prior to the electionWitnesses have been drawn from a relatively broad cross section of the community and included current and former ATO employees, private individuals, investment and financial advisory firms, the Taxation Institute of Australia, unions, both the current and former Special Taxation Advisers to the Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman and officers of the Australian Taxation Office.The Committee received a range of evidence that raised a number of concerns about the operation of the ATO, some of which will require further investigation, with some matters being referred to the Auditor-General.Other concerns that have been raised will, on the face of it, be addressed through measures contained in the new tax system and in particular, those in the Ralph business tax reforms.Accordingly, the Committee intends to conclude this inquiry early in the new year However, before finalising its report, the committee will conduct a further public hearing with the Australian Tax Office to give the Tax Commissioner the opportunity to respond to the issues raised by other witnesses. There are also a number of matters about which Committee members wish to seek further information from the ATO before finalising conclusions and recommendations.The Committee has agreed to conduct a public hearing with the ATO early in February and expects to present its final report on 17 February, as foreshadowed in the notice of motion given yesterday.ZS6Quirke, Sen JohnSenator QUIRKE—At the request of Senator Murphy, I move:That the time for the presentation of the report of the Economics References Committee on the operation of the Australian Taxation Office be extended to 17 February 2000.Question resolved in the affirmative.115651156510:24:0011565Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—I move:That the provisions of the Northern Prawn Fishery Amendment Management Plan 1999 (No. NPF 02), made under the Fisheries Management Act 1991 and tabled in the Senate on 24 November 1999, be referred to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 7 March 2000, with particular reference to:(a) the impact of the plan on the environmental sustainability of the Northern Prawn Fishery and overall fishing effort; and(b) the likely impact on the viability of existing prawn trawler operators and whether the plan will favour larger commercial operators.I will speak briefly to this, as I understand that there is a wish for the debate on it to be adjourned until a later hour of the day. By way of introduction, the issue is to refer to the Rural and Regional Affairs Legislation Committee a management plan for the Northern Prawn Fishery, which not surprisingly covers the northern part of Australia, from the tip of Cape York, west across the Northern Territory and over to Western Australia. Concerns have been expressed about that management plan. The Democrats have put a protective notice of a motion for disallowance of that management plan for 15 sitting days time. The aim of this is to provide the Senate with an opportunity to examine in more detail the issues contained within the management plan so that we can make an informed judgment.The aim of the protective disallowance notice is to allow the Senate to more properly examine the issues involved in the management plan and some of the concerns that have been expressed, as well as the views of the AFMA and of those parts of the industry that support the plan, to ensure that an informed decision is made by the Senate whichever way it chooses to go in relation to the management plan. That is the intent of referring that matter to the Senate committee. The aim is to have that decided today so that the committee can have that over the intervening period when the parliament is not sitting and can call for public input, et cetera, during the break. I understand that the issue is still being considered by other parties, so I am happy at this stage for the debate to be adjourned until later in the day.Debate (on motion by Senator Calvert) adjourned.Bills11565r89011565Consideration resumed from 8 December.(Quorum formed)10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Calvert)—The committee is considering Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 8) 1999 and the Australian Greens' amendments Nos. 1, 6 and 11 moved by Senator Brown. The question is that the amendments be agreed to.10:29:0011565Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I put the case for these amendments yesterday, and I hope that the committee will be wise enough to adopt them. I see the government shaking its head, but there is good sense in these particular amendments being taken up. They go towards fostering a better regime to ensure that people who donate land of significance to the environment, including rare and endangered species, have that donation made tax deductible. As I said yesterday, the government has done a good thing in introducing this legislation and making it the core direction of policy. This amendment absolutely improves it.Amendments not agreed to.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—We now move to opposition amendments 4 and 5, which I understand are to be considered together.10:30:0011565Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—I would like to move opposition amendment No. 1 on sheet 1681, which may well supersede what you have just announced. Mr Temporary Chairman. I seek your advice.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—You can move that amendment.5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—I move:(1) Schedule 5, page 26 (after line 20), after item 16, insert:16A After Subdivision 30-F Insert:Subdivision 30-FA—Restrictions on prescribed private fundsGuide to Subdivision 30-FA30-310 What this Subdivision is aboutThis Subdivision prevents certain private funds from being, or continuing to be, *prescribed private funds.Table of sectionsOperative provisions 30-312 Restrictions on prescribed private funds[This is the end of the Guide.]Operative provisions30-312 Restrictions on prescribed private funds (1) A private fund which makes, or has ever made, a gift or contribution or provides, or has ever provided, a benefit of any other kind (including a loan) to ) to a political party that is registered under Part XI of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 , or an associated entity within the meaning of that Act, is incapable of being a *prescribed private fund. (2) If a *prescribed private fund makes a gift or contribution or provides a benefit of any other kind (including a loan) to ) to a political party that is registered under Part XI of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 , or an associated entity within the meaning of that Act, the fund ceases to be a *prescribed private fund by force of this subsection and is deemed never to have been a *prescribed private fund.16B Subsection 30-315(2) (after table item 88) Insert:88A Prescribed private funds section 30-312 Let me speak briefly to this amendment. This was a matter that was canvassed last night in the committee. Let me outline to the committee why the opposition moved this amendment.You will recall, Mr Temporary Chairman, that the issue has arisen in relation to a charitable trust being able to receive a tax deductible gift or donation from either a private individual or from a corporation. I did raise the concern very clearly in the Senate last night that there are some organisations like the Greenfields Foundation which are self-confessed charitable trusts. In fact, I made it clear that the trustees of the Greenfields Foundation—namely Anthony J. Bandle, for the trustees—wrote to the Australian Electoral Commissioner on 15 January 1998. Let me quote Mr Bandle directly, in relation to the Greenfields Foundation:The Foundation is a Trust Fund, established for charitable purposes, administered by the Trustees.It goes on:Under the terms of the Trust Deed, establishing the Foundation, the Trustees hold the capital and income of the Trust Fund upon trust for such charitable institution or institutions and for such charitable purposes generally as they from time to time in their absolute and uncontrolled discretion determine.You will recall, Mr Temporary Chairman, that the minister at the table, the Assistant Treasurer, refused leave to allow that particular letter to be tabled. I did raise this issue. I think it is of massive concern that an entity like the Greenfields Foundation—which is effectively a funding arm of the Liberal Party—can masquerade as a charitable trust.Sure, we know there have been some donations to charities from the Greenfields Foundation, but the problem is that well in excess of $4½ million has been loaned by the Greenfields Foundation to the Liberal Party. As a so-called charitable trust, they might have given $80,000 in donations to registered charities, but their real operation is about supporting the activities of the Liberal Party. Of course, what the Liberal Party is really on about is trying to ensure that those responsible for providing moneys to the Greenfields Foundation are not disclosed. It is a mechanism established for the sole purpose of exploiting a loophole in the Commonwealth Electoral Act—a breach of the intent and spirit of the act in relation to our disclosure laws. That is the problem we have.What I sought from the Assistant Treasurer yesterday was a categorical commitment that the Greenfields Foundation would not be a prescribed fund for the purposes of the act. In other words, I wanted to be assured that the Greenfields Foundation—this shonky operation that has been established by the Liberal Party—would not be able to receive gifts or donations from individuals or corporate entities with those individuals and corporate entities being able to have those gifts and donations treated as tax deductible.Also, an associated issue goes to the disclosure of those gifts and donations, but that is a matter for the electoral legislation, on which the Labor Party has worked tirelessly—I acknowledge with the support of the minor parties and Independents in the Senate—to try to ensure that this loophole in the act that has been exploited by the Liberal Party through the Greenfields Foundation is closed.Yesterday I sought a commitment from the Assistant Treasurer that the Greenfields Foundation would not be a prescribed fund for the purposes of the act. Senator Kemp was not willing to give that particular assurance, so the debate went on. I then pointed out that prescribed funds would not include a fund that is declared in writing by the Treasurer not to be a prescribed fund, so the Treasurer can take this action himself. I asked for a commitment from the Assistant Treasurer that the Treasurer would declare in writing that the Greenfields Foundation not be a prescribed fund. The Assistant Treasurer would not give that commitment.So then I attempted to ask if the government would be willing to separately make a regulation for the Greenfields Foundation so that, if needed, that regulation could be disallowed by the Senate. We know that a number of prescribed private funds will be prescribed in the income tax assessment regulations. That is fine—everyone expects that to happen—but in this case we did not want the Greenfields Foundation actually lumped in with a whole lot of worthy charitable trusts, as opposed to shonky charitable trusts like the Greenfields Foundation. So I asked for that assurance from the Assistant Treasurer, Senator Kemp, and that assurance was not forthcoming.The only conclusion a reasonable person can come to in this circumstance is that there is a conspiracy here on the part of the government to try to ensure that the Greenfields Foundation is a prescribed private fund for the purposes of the act. The government wants to see this bill go through in the form it is before the chamber so that individuals or corporations can donate moneys to the Greenfields Foundation, receive tax deductibility for those donations to the Greenfields Foundation and not have them disclosed in accordance with the spirit of the Commonwealth Electoral Act. That is the issue.The Assistant Treasurer refused all the reasonable suggestions and approaches that I made in this chamber yesterday. I am a very reasonable person, as you know, Mr Temporary Chairman, and we make these sorts of suggestions to the Assistant Treasurer—not across the legislation; we know that—to try to help him out. At least three suggestions were made and either not understood—RF4COOKSenator Cook—All of them polite.5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—All of them polite, but not understood by the Assistant Treasurer. Unfortunately, he was either unwilling or unable to give the Senate the sorts of assurances that it required in relation to this matter. I am very concerned that we have another rort on our hands here from the government in relation to the Greenfields Foundation. So there is no alternative but to move an amendment in the form that I have moved, which makes clear that a private fund which makes, or has ever made, a gift or contribution or provides, or has ever provided, a benefit of any other kind, including a loan, to a political party that is registered under the Electoral Act or an associated entity within the meaning of that act is incapable of being a prescribed fund.I think this is the only responsible course of action for the committee in this circumstance where the minister who is responsible for handling this legislation in this committee is either unwilling or unable to give the Senate and the Australian people the sorts of assurances that are perfectly reasonable when it comes to the integrity of our electoral processes. We do not want to see a situation where, under the cover of the philanthropy provisions of the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 8) 1999 , the government tries to sleaze and sneak in a device whereby a shonky outfit like the Greenfields Foundation can have donors, either private or corporate, receive tax deductibility for gifts or donations to a so-called charitable trust when the charitable trust, in the case of the Greenfields Foundation, is just an electoral funding front for the Liberal Party of Australia. That is the problem, and it is my intention to close off that option here in the committee stage today with the amendment that I have moved.As I said, we have offered the minister many alternative approaches, but the minister appeared to be unable to grasp the detail of the issue. I commend any interested member of the public—and there may not be many who are interested in this particular issue—who wants to have a look at the level of competence of government ministers in the Howard government to read last night's Senate Hansard of the committee stage of this debate. Have a look at what Senator Kemp, on behalf of the government, was saying. To be fair to Senator Kemp, he is probably the worst or the second worst minister in what is a very ordinary government, so we should not set too high a standard for him, but just have a look at the sort of information that was provided by Senator Kemp in this debate. Have a look at his answers to reasonable questions asked by not only me on behalf of the opposition but also other senators in the chamber. It was a rather tragic performance, I think you would agree, Mr Temporary Chairman. I commend the Senate Hansard to anyone who would like to see how it ought not be done. That is why I have had to move to fill the breach here where Senator Kemp is simply either unwilling or unable to give the Senate and the Australian people the sorts of assurances they are entitled to.10:44:0011568Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—I will be brief. I do not want to waste the time of the Senate anymore. Senator Faulkner has already wasted the probably 1½ to two hours of the Senate on a total nonsense. Later this evening Labor senators will probably wonder why they are being detained. The answer is that their leader proceeded to waste hours of this Senate on an absolutely total nonsense, which I will be explaining to the Senate.My second point is that I suppose we can all make political points across the chamber about levels of competence and who is good and who is bad. I put on the record that the truth of the matter is we do not regard as an insult what comes from Senator Faulkner because we do not care what he says. Senator Faulkner as minister for the environment was the first Labor minister to lose the environment vote and he earned the contempt of his colleagues for the incompetence with which he ran that portfolio. We all remember with great affection, as the truckies and workers surrounded Parliament House, Senator Faulkner being removed by the Prime Minister from being in charge of forests because of his hopeless, pathetic performance.Senator Faulkner has stood up in this debate and suggested rorts by the Liberal Party here and there. Let me just indicate to the gallery that Senator Faulkner comes from the New South Wales Labor Party, the party of former Senator Richardson, the party of Mr Knight of SOCOG fame. This is a political party that has finessed rorting to the greatest extent possible. I would say it is a badge of shame to say that you belong to the New South Wales Labor Party. The New South Wales Labor Party is the synonym for political rorting. We only have to see the way Senator Faulkner's best mate, Mr Knight, is running SOCOG. Senator Faulkner never complained once about the performance of Mr Knight. And Senator Faulkner gets up here and attempts to lecture the Liberal Party. It is an absolute joke.Let me not get into these personal comments, because the one thing I do not like to do is to make personal comments about people.Senator Cook interjecting—WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—As Senator Cook knows, I am famed for my restraint on these matters. I always avoid trying to get down into the gutter with Senator Faulkner because I cannot go sufficiently low. As I have said before, Senator Faulkner is the limbo champion of the Senate. No-one can go lower than Senator Faulkner. That is the one prize that Senator Faulkner has. We have seen an example today of just how low Senator Faulkner can go.I do not contend Senator Faulkner is thick. Let us be generous to Senator Faulkner. It is not a great party he belongs to. It is not a party replete with talent, and the dross occasionally does rise to the top, I guess. In this case, Senator Faulkner has done that. I do not say that he is thick. What I say about Senator Faulkner is this: that he is nasty and malicious and a vicious person because he has created a scenario which is a complete nonsense.Senator Faulkner interjecting—WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—Don't get sensitive, Senator Faulkner. I sat here and listened quietly while you sort of went up hill and down dale and marched up to the top of the hill and marched down again. You just learn to take it a bit. If you give a bit in life, you have to learn to take a bit. He has wasted the time of the Senate hugely, all on a complete nonsense.I will take the risk of repeating myself, because Senator Faulkner may take a little bit of time to learn. Obviously, quoting from the EM was a bit too complicated for Senator Faulkner. Item 6 of schedule 5 will provide that a fund can only be a prescribed private fund if it is established solely for the purpose of providing money to a fund or institution that is listed under subsection 30B. I shall repeat that for Senator Faulkner, because he is a bit slow. It will provide that a fund can only be a prescribed private fund if it is established solely for the purpose of providing money to a fund or institution that is listed under 30B.Senator Faulkner, when you go to section 30B—you have got your advisers and I actually think you have got quite bright advisers; they are not as bright as mine but they are fairly bright—you will see the general categories like public hospitals, public benevolent institutions and public museums. You will also see specifically listed such meritorious institutions as the Girl Guides, the Scouts, the RSPCA and the Australian Conservation Foundation—all very worthy bodies.Senator Faulkner, can I get this through to you so that we can see what a nonsense you have been creating? If a fund is established to provide funds to any non-listed institution, such as a political party, it cannot be a prescribed fund. Has that got through to you, finally? Senator Faulkner, we have wasted hours of this Senate. A fund that does not provide funds to those listed under 30B cannot be a prescribed private fund. So the whole construct that Senator Faulkner has created—the paranoia which covers this bloke because he thinks that the Liberal Party acts like the Labor Party—is a total nonsense.Let us go a bit further. Let us, for example, say hypothetically that the government attempted to bring in a regulation on a prescribed private fund which Senator Faulkner did not agree with. The truth of the matter is that it could be disallowed by this Senate. The whole thing is a complete nonsense. I urge the Senate to put this matter to rest and to reject the amendment moved by Senator Faulkner so we can move on and do some serious business. Question put: That the amendment (Senator Faulkner's ) be agreed to.10:55:00The committee divided. 0Allison, L. Bartlett, A. J. J.Bishop, T. M. Bourne, V.Brown, B. Carr, K.Collins, J. M. A. Conroy, S.Cook, P. F. S. Cooney, B.Crossin, P. M. Crowley, R. A.Denman, K. J. Faulkner, J. P.Forshaw, M. G. Gibbs, B.Greig, B. A. Harradine, B.Hogg, J. Hutchins, S. P.Lees, M. H. Ludwig, J. W.Lundy, K. McKiernan, J. P.McLucas, J. E. Murphy, S. M.Murray, A. O'Brien, K. W. K.Quirke, J. A. *Ridgeway, A. D.Schacht, C. C. Sherry, N.Stott Despoja, N. West, S. M.Woodley, J.0Alston, R. K. R. Boswell, R. L. D.Brownhill, D. G. C. Calvert, P. H.Campbell, I. G. Chapman, H. G. P.Coonan, H. *Crane, W.Eggleston, A. Ellison, C.Ferguson, A. B. Ferris, J.Gibson, B. F. Harris, L.Herron, J. Hill, R. M.Kemp, R. Knowles, S. C.Lightfoot, P. R. Macdonald, I.Mason, B. J. McGauran, J. J. J.Minchin, N. H. Parer, W. R.Payne, M. A.Reid, M. E.Tambling, G. E. J. Tchen, T.Tierney, J. Watson, J. O. W.Bolkus, N. Troeth, J.Campbell, G. Heffernan, W.Evans, C. V. Newman, J. M.Mackay, S. Patterson, K. C. L.Ray, R. F. Abetz, E.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative.Amendment (by Senator Faulkner) proposed:(2) Schedule 5, item 24, page 28 (line 14), at the end of the definition of prescribed private fund , add "or a fund to which Subdivision 30-FA applies".10:59:0011570Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—To speed the journey of the Senate, I will indicate that the government does not support this amendment. Perhaps we could have some indication from the other parties as to how they will vote.10:59:0011570Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—Can I get an indication of what is actually before the Chair? Is this opposition amendments Nos 4 and 5?10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Chapman)—This is amendment 2 on sheet 1681 moved by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate. It follows on from the one we just dealt with.DT6Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETT—As I understand it, it is consequential to the one we have just passed, which the Democrats supported. We also support this amendment. I apologise for not putting this on the record when the previous amendment was being discussed. The reasons for the Democrats voting for this one as well as the last one are the same.I do not particularly want to get into the argument between Labor and Liberal about whether there is a deliberate rort here. I think it would do the government good, apart from anything else, to remove all doubt about it potentially being a rort because then they would not keep getting clobbered over the head about it. The Democrats believe that it is best to ensure that there is no doubt about this provision being able to be used as a backdoor way of adding to political slush funds. For that reason, without passing judgment on whether or not that was the intent of the government with the way with their bill is structured, we believe that on the arguments put to the chamber it is best to remove any doubt or indeed any perception that that could be possible.Amendment agreed to.11:01:0011570Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—by leave—I move:(4) Schedule 5, item 14, page 24 (line 21), omit "$1500 ", substitute "$100 ".(5) Schedule 5, item 14, page 24 (line 23), omit "$1500", substitute "$100".These amendments propose to restrict the proposed level of tax deductibility for gifts of property to political parties. The bill wants to allow a deduction of $1,500 to donors of property worth more than $5,000 to political parties. This is nothing more than an attempt by the Liberal Party to subsidise their wealthy benefactors through taxpayers' money. Amendments (4) and (5) on sheet 1557 seek to restrict the proposed $1,500 limit to the current cash donations limit of $100. People are free to make whatever political donations they like, but the taxpayers should not have to subsidise that donation process. A nominal amount of $100 is tax deductible for individuals. This means that people of ordinary financial means are able to get the same taxpayer subsidy rather than the wealthy being effectively able to get a lot more, which will happen if the government gets its way in the current bill. I commend to the Senate opposition amendments Nos 4 and 5.11:02:0011571Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—The amount of $1,500 merely brings these provisions into line with the yet to be enacted political donations bill. If the political donations bill is not enacted, the provision in the bill now before us will have no effect.11:02:0011571Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—The amendments that have been moved by the ALP seek, I suppose, to produce consistency with what currently exists in legislation for tax deductibility for donations to political parties which is limited to $100. This amendment will bring that into line with what currently exists. Given that the legislation the government has put forward but has not brought on for debate yet to increase that existing limit from $100 to $1,500 has not been determined by the Senate, we think it would be more appropriate from the government's point of view to make an amendment to lift $100 up to $1,500 in this area at the same time as it does with the other one, rather than try to put in $1,500 for donations of property and then move to lift the level of tax deductibility for direct donations up to $1,500. The Senate has not expressed a view on that and may not support it, in which case we would have a clear inconsistency. I know this item in the bill does not come into operation until that other bill is passed, but it would leave a messy anomaly in the tax law which we could do without. It would be much better to have a consistent $100 limit across the board. Then, if the Senate does want to change it in the future for donations of cash to $1,500 or $500 or $200 or $105 or whatever, then that change can be made across the board at that time. So for those reasons the Democrats believe this is a sensible amendment to ensure consistency in the level of allowable deductions to political parties, whether it is cash donations or donations of property. That would be consistent across the board in the legislation at $100 until such time as the parliament might choose to change it. So we will support these opposition amendments.Amendments agreed to.11:05:0011571Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—by leave—Amendments Nos 13 to 15 essentially followed early amendments which were lost, so I withdraw them. I move Greens amendments Nos 16 to 19:(16) Schedule 5, item 16, page 25 (line 5), omit "cultural ".(17) Schedule 5, item 16, page 25 (line 10), omit "cultural".(18) Schedule 5, item 16, page 25 (line 3) to page 26 (line 20), omit "Arts Secretary" or "*Arts Secretary" (wherever occurring), substitute "Commissioner".(19) Schedule 5, item 16, page 25 (line 20), omit "item 4 or 5 of", substitute "an item in".These amendments extend the ability to spread a tax deduction over five years when a citizen donates land to one of the allowable institutions for the perpetual protection of that land and its environmental amenity in the interests of the public and the nation. The legislation we have allows a five-year spread of tax deductibility if it is a cultural donation. The same should apply to donations of land. There is obviously the ability for somebody, for example, to donate a block of land which could be worth half a million dollars and with a one-off deductibility have a much smaller deduction than if they were to spread it over five years. That is clearly why the provision is there for cultural donations. If you donate a painting worth half a million dollars you will be able to, roughly speaking, take $100,000 off your taxable income each year for five years to gain a bigger tax advantage. The same should apply to land. I could put a strong argument to say that there is an even better case for land, environment and wildlife, donated to protect them forever, to get this tax advantage. That is what the amendments do.11:08:0011572Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—I have received technical advice overnight that, consequential to the Democrat amendment that was passed yesterday, a couple of amendments contained in these Green amendments should be passed as well; that is, Green amendments Nos 16 and 17. I may need to seek that those two amendments be put separately. I will double check that advice in the meantime. Speaking to the overall block of amendments, the principle that Senator Brown puts forward is one that the Democrats are supportive of.11:09:0011572Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—That has confused me because I was going to seek from Senator Bartlett a clarification on this point and, for that matter, a comment from Senator Brown, too. My understanding of Senator Brown's amendments that are now before us is that, for all intents and purposes, these amendments were covered by the Bartlett amendments carried by this chamber yesterday. If that is the case, I do not see any purpose in persisting with the amendments. Senator Bartlett has now indicated, as I understand his intervention, that maybe the amendments he moved yesterday did not fully cover the point and that elements of Senator Brown's amendments need to be carried. Those elements from the explanation appear to be provisions 16 and 17. I need some clarification from the Democrats and the Greens on whether there is agreement on that point in order to be able to respond.It may be that the government has some light to shed on the matter. It may be that Senator Kemp nodding his head suggests that the government does not have any light to shed on the matter. I observe that there seem to be consultations in the chamber which may produce an answer. I can stand here and talk about it, but I think that, unless one or the other of the proponents of these amendments has an explanation, there is no point in my just wasting the time of the chamber.11:11:0011572Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—The government will be opposing those amendments. We had this debate earlier on. We opposed the earlier amendments and we will be opposing these.11:11:0011572Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—Senator Brown has moved four amendments here—Green amendments (16) to (19). It might be easiest if we vote on those and then I will clarify precisely which extra bits need to be moved. If necessary, I will move those before the end of the bill, if that is all right.11:11:0011572Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—I do not follow the explanation fully. I know it is tedious, but could it be explained again? Is Senator Bartlett suggesting that amendments (16) to (19) are consistent with what he sought to be carried yesterday and are required to be carried now in order to give better meaning to the amendments adopted yesterday? As we progress through the sheet, will Senator Bartlett indicate where he thinks supplementary or additional amendments should be made and where he thinks supplementary or additional amendments are redundant? I just need this for guidance, so that I know what I am being called upon to respond to.11:12:0011572Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—The first two of the amendments out of the four that Senator Brown has moved delete the word `cultural'. I understand this is necessary because we adopted the amendment yesterday which extends it to some grants of land and conservation covenants. So it extends it beyond cultural and we need to remove the word `cultural'. Those are also on the Democrats' circulated amendments which have been in the chamber for a couple of days—Democrat amendments (13) and (14). I could move those separately. My advice is that the other two amendments that omit `Arts Secretary' and substitute `Commissioner' are not consequential and are a separate matter. So they do not need to be adopted.In terms of consistency with what we passed yesterday, my advice is that it would be appropriate to pass the two amendments which just omit the word `cultural' because it has been extended to more than cultural gifts in that section, but the following two amendments, which were circulated as Democrat amendments as well as Green amendments, do not need to be passed to be consequential.11:14:0011573Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—Yes, that is the case. If you look at page 25 of the bill you will see `Subdivision 30-DB—Spreading cultural gift deductions over up to 5 years income'. With this amendment, it would read simply `Spreading gift deductions over up to 5 years income'. It is logical. Let us not stop at cultural; land is involved here as well. That is the point of this.11:15:0011573Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—To expedite proceedings, I am now in receipt of advice from my advisers about these amendments. The Labor Party will be voting with the Democrats and not with the Greens.11:15:0011573Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—These are the Greens' amendments. They are similar to the Democrat amendments, so I think the Democrats and the Greens are voting the same way on (16) and (17).11:15:0011573Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—Just so that we are clear, the Democrats are supporting the Greens on the same amendments, but we can move them as they have been moved, vote on them and then I could put forward the two that are required, if that is all right.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Lightfoot)—So do I understand you to say, Senator Bartlett, that you want (16) to (19) put together?11:16:0011573Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—We could put all these together as a vote and then we could move separately the specific ones that are required after that.11:16:0011573Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—The committee is dealing with Green amendments (16) and (17). I think we should vote on them and then move on.11:16:0011573Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—We are opposing this. This is a very messy process, unfortu nately. We oppose the extension for the reasons we have stated, and they are very cogent reasons. I have to say that this is a very messy way to end the debate with people not sure whose amendments are what, whether they support each other, whether the amendments are all the same, and whether they have the same effect. I do not think this is the way to conduct legislation in this chamber. The government can solve this problem very easily: we will oppose them.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Lightfoot)—It seems to be the wish of the committee that amendments moved by Senator Brown, (16) to (19), no longer be divided. I propose then to put the question that the amendments moved by Senator Brown, (16) to (19), be agreed to.11:17:0011573Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—We had agreed that Nos 16 and 17 be put, then presumably Nos 18 and 19 be put, and I suggest we stick with that course of action.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—You appear, Senator Brown, to be the only senator requesting that those amendments be divided.11:17:0011573Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—They are my amendments, so I suggest we take that course of action.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—We will divide them on the request of Senator Brown. The question now is that amendments moved by Senator Brown, Nos 16 to 17, be agreed to.Question resolved in the affirmative.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—I now put the question that amendments moved by Senator Brown, Nos 18 to 19, be agreed to.Question resolved in the negative.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—Senator Brown, is it your wish to put the question on your amendment No. 22 which is to oppose schedule 5, item 23?11:19:0011573Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—That is right. I oppose that schedule.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—I put the question that schedule 5, item 23, stand as printed.Question resolved in the affirmative.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—We now move to schedule 5, item 22, amendment No. 21 on sheet 1668.11:20:0011574Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—This is for a capital gains tax exemption. In the circumstances I withdraw that amendment.Bill, as amended, agreed to.Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.11574Bill (on motion by Senator Kemp) read a third time.Bills11574r866Billsr908Billsr927Billsr95011574Debate resumed from 6 December, on motion by Senator Ian Campbell:That these bills be now read a second time.11:22:0011574Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—Before I turn to my substantive remarks on A New Tax System (Pay As You Go) Bill 1999 and related bills, let me point out to the Senate that the opposition protests that legislation as important and as vital as this is held back to so late in the proceedings that it may not be possible—and, in my submission, is not possible—for the Senate to conduct a proper and thoroughgoing scrutiny of these bills. We now have several bills put together. As a concession to the opposition, the government has provided additional speaking time so that we can address a comprehensive set of legislative changes in the one substantial speech in the second reading debate. But it is the nature of the comprehensive set of legislative changes that we object to. They are being thrust on the Senate against the expectation that the Senate will rise for the Christmas recess this evening. Important legislation that requires consideration and informed debate in this chamber is, to use the old soldiers' trick, held back and then delivered at the last against a deadline of the Senate rising so that there cannot be proper and thoroughgoing analysis and debate.It is not as if the government did not know about this. The government spent most of this week and previous weeks of this pre-Christmas sitting fiddling around with the program and marking time and not dealing with legislation according to its importance, but dealing with legislation in order to fill the gap available in order to have these bills ambushed on us at the last dying gasp of this year's sitting. My threshold point is that it is outrageous that we should be held to a deadline on tax legislation of such complexity as this and be expected to debate it in the time available before we rise this evening.There are 454 amendments for one of these bills— A New Tax System (Indirect Tax and Consequential Amendments) Bill 1999 . In the time available it is not possible to give them the due weight and scrutiny that this chamber ought to give them. These are amendments to the government's own GST legislation, which was foisted on Australians by the joint pact between the government parties and the Australian Democrats earlier this year. In the rush to legislate they got it grievously wrong and there are now 454 amendments to that pack of legislation that they want to remediate at the last minute prior to Christmas just before this Senate rises.That is not good enough for Australians out there having to contend with trying to grasp and understand what the GST is all about. It is not good enough for Australian business, particularly small businesses which the government affects an interest in and which are taking contradictory advice from accounting companies as to what they must do to get their books right before the GST descends on them on 1 July next year. Just when they think they understand it prior to Christmas, 454 new amendments come along and they have to go out and try to understand it all again. It is not right from the point of view of ordinary Australians knowing what the law is supposed to be and being able to plan their income lives accordingly. We all know that ignorance is no defence before the law, but when you keep changing the law with this degree of complexity and with this rapidity—and constantly—it is a reasonable cop for ordinary citizens in this country to say, `We didn't know.' How could they be expected to know when even the government does not know?Before I commence my substantive remarks on this legislation I want to make the point that we object to the timetabling of this legislation so late in the sitting as to prevent the Senate giving due and full consideration of all of the details. The Labor Party are going to support most of these amendments, and we are going to move some of our own. We hope we can have a substantive debate on them. If we are told that the Senate has to rise and we have to terminate the debate and speed it up, we will not be impressed. Already the government has made overtures to us as to whether we would agree to impose a guillotine on ourselves in order to complete the business. We are not going to agree to a guillotine; this is tax legislation. If there is ever a case for other legislation to be guillotined, there is no case for tax legislation to be guillotined. Tax legislation is about what the government taxes the community, and tax legislation therefore imposes on corporations and citizens and business transactions a penalty that has to be paid to the government. That is a serious thing and requires full and proper consideration, as I have said.With those remarks, and under protest, let me turn to the substantive remarks that I wish to make in particular to A New Tax System (Indirect Tax and Consequential Amendments) Bill 1999 . With these bills before us today, we have a continuation of the nightmare on main street—just like the movie Nightmare on Elm Street and the five sequels, the last one titled, interestingly enough, Freddie's dead: the final nightmare. I wish the same could be said for the continuing nightmare known as the Howard-Lees GST but, unfortunately, this package of bills continues the nightmare and no doubt will be part of a continuing number of sequels as the government and the Democrats continue to amend what was presented to us as their perfect, simple, efficient and easy to understand GST package.Who can forget the commercials leading into the last election, from which the government now claims a mandate for the GST? This was going to be a simple tax; this was going to be an efficient tax; this was going to be a fair tax. `We have spent time developing this tax and we have got it right.' The lie to all of those inducements for people to vote for the coalition and endorse a GST before the last election is now revealed with these bills containing, as I have said, 454 amendments. Unfortunately, this is what those bills do. In the first instance, the A New Tax System (Indirect Tax and Consequential Amendments) Bill 1999 introduces another 454 amendments to the perfect tax package, the one we were told ad nauseam required no further amendments because it was perfect. We had the rhetoric that everyone would be a winner, that there would be no losers. Just like Freddie Kruger in the Nightmare on Elm Street movie and its sequels, this GST package has returned and continues to return time and time again to continue the nightmare, all thanks to the GST.I still have ringing in my ears Senator Lees's famous words which she uttered upon agreeing to the GST. Those words were:We got more from this government in 13 hours of negotiations then we did in 13 years from Labor.I would now say to Senator Lees: given this great package you negotiated, this parliament looks like spending another 13 years clearing up your and the government's GST nightmare. Well done, Senator Lees. I hope the tea and biscuits with the Prime Minister were worth it, because the Australian public and Australian small business will be paying the cost of the Democrat-government botched negotiations for the rest of their lives.These 454 amendments add to the 302 amendments the parliament has already had to deal with—a total of 756 amendments to the GST package in all. And the bill itself is not yet even operational. But that is not the end of it. In a horror scenario, the Australian Financial Review reported on 25 October that another 1,000 amendments were expected on top of the 454 amendments we are dealing with today. That means that before 1 July 2000 the original perfect, simple and easy to understand GST package will have a total of about 1,756 amendments made to it after it was carried in its allegedly pristine condition. This must indeed be a record for a bill that as yet has not taken effect.What is also alarming is that the Democrat architect of the GST package, Senator Murray, who is in the chamber, and I acknowledge him, was quoted as saying he would not be surprised to see another two volumes of amendments to the bill. If he was talking volumes by reference to the existing tax act, this could run into several thousand pages of further amendments. One must remember that a selling point of the GST, one that the government pounded into the minds of Australian voters, was that this was a simple tax. Simplicity was a selling point. If this is what the Howard-Lees definition of simplicity is, let us hope they do not get into anything too complicated. And remember that, in relation to the education campaign that the government is funding from the taxpayers' purse to instruct business and the community about their obligations under this tax, the goalposts keep changing. The education effort must alter every time there is an amendment, because the law has changed. There is more and more taxpayers' money used up in explaining what the latest changes are and there are more and more obligations imposed on small business to alter their arrangements. There is more and more confusion in the general community about what they are up for and inability to plan household budgets because ordinary taxpayers are faced with a continuing stream of amendments from the government. This is indeed a nightmare scenario for small business already struggling to cope with the obligations of tax law, and it is imposed on them by the Howard-Lees GST.Senator Murray has not been a lone voice on the subject. Mr Alan Smolak of the GST specialist firm The Gang of Four was also reported as saying that thousands of changes to the legislation might not be that far off the mark. He also said:If you look at the amendment bills that are coming down, they are nearly the same size as the original legislation.He went on:There are stacks of issues out there that are unanswerable, and that should not be the case given that Australia is the last country of any jurisdictions to introduce a GST.Just on the size of the package, to give some sense of the proportion of it, my colleague in the other place the member for Rankin, Mr Emerson, had an official weighing of the amendments. So far, the Howard GST package and amendments come to a total weight of 4.6 kilograms, and it is growing—not bad for only five months work. Not even the Income Tax Assessment Act, originally passed in 1936 and amended for over 60 years, weighs as much as that.We have also seen in recent weeks the growing chorus of despondency, in particular from small business and business in general, about the havoc and mayhem the continual amendment of the Howard-Lees GST package is wreaking on their capacity to be GST ready by 1 July. Added to this is the growing failure of the government, through its Australian Taxation Office education campaign, to be able to explain to business how the GST will in fact work. This is not the fault of the tax office. I believe they are trying to do their best. But how can they explain a package that continues to change, like shifting sand? As I have said, we have 454 amendments today and the possibility of another 1,000 before 1 July 2000. Even Mr Jordan, the chairman of the government's GST Advisory Committee, has said that in the first weeks of seminars the Australian Taxation Office have been unable to answer questions about how the actual GST will operate—questions put to them by the business community, expecting the tax office to know what the legislation means and how it will function.Furthermore, Mr Rick Matthews, the Deputy Commissioner for the GST, said the seminars were `pitched at delivering basic awareness'. Given the government's botching of the package, as evidenced by the bills before us today, is it any wonder that the Australian Taxation Office can only provide basic awareness? No doubt anything that involves detailed awareness and detailed explanation will be amended.Even with these comments, let us see what a member of the government thinks of the government's own education campaign. Mr David Hawker, a senior Liberal backbencher, was quoted in the Herald Sun newspaper on 13 October as saying that the GST seminar in his electorate of Wannon had been `a joke with officers unable to answer basic questions'. I must say that personally I think it is a bit unfair of Mr Hawker to be blaming the Australian Taxation Office. They are the messenger here and they are doing their best with what is a dog's breakfast of a tax. Shooting the messenger is not the answer; dealing with the message is the answer. That is the government's responsibility. If Mr Hawker wants to blame anyone, he need look no further than the Treasurer, the Prime Minister or Senator Lees. Maybe he should invite one of them into his electorate of Wannon and have that person explain to his constituents how the new, efficient, simple, easy to understand—one has to be ironic here—Howard-Lees GST will work.It is also of concern that reports are starting to appear of a shortage of Australian Taxation Office technical staff who can advise on the Howard-Lees GST and draw up the necessary rulings that businesses require to make the GST operational. The Australian Financial Review reported on 26 October that senior tax office executives had privately admitted to industry groups that they were behind schedule on the release of GST rulings because of the shortage of technical staff. How are businesses meant to comply with the Howard-Lees GST by 1 July 2000 when the government continually moves the goal posts and then denies the Australian Taxation Office adequate resources with which to do its job? Staff cuts to government services is one thing but, when you do not have the personnel to explain technicalities and to make rulings on areas of doubt so that there is clear guidance, then what you have is total confusion in the business community, and the false economy of cutting back staffing positions is thus revealed as a danger to business balance sheets.This is symptomatic of the government's general incompetence on issues of major public policy. The list is endless: the GST deal, described by the Treasurer himself as a nightmare on main street; the handling of East Timor; the sacking of the Defence secretary by Minister Moore; the leaking of sensitive budget information by Dr Wooldridge—or his office—to his medical mates so that they could rip off the Medicare system through the MRI scam affair; Senator Newman's failed attempt to punish those who cannot work due to a disability by trying to force them back to work when they cannot; and let us not forget Dr Kemp's proposal to try to introduce $100,000 university degrees. Every major policy issue that this government has touched has turned into a disaster, and here we are today once again being asked to clean up one them, one of the centrepieces of government policy: the Howard-Lees GST.Let us look at some of the issues these bills address. Firstly, the government is seeking to introduce some rules for small businesses in order to minimise the administrative nightmare they will face. There will be a special regime for small retailers selling both GST free and GSTable items under the simplified accounting measures. Under the proposal, a small business can elect to be covered by the system which applies a percentage figure to the total sales figure. In theory, this nominated figure should be reflective of the average proportion of sales that will be subject to the Howard-Lees GST and therefore the business should not need to separately account for each GST sale. Can I interrupt my remarks, Mr Acting Deputy President, to say that I understood there was an agreement between the parties in this chamber that I would have extended speaking time, given the number of bills rolled together. I see that the clock light is on and I just do not want to be sat down.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Hogg)—I was not in the chair, but that is the understanding.RF4Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOK—I seek leave to speak for another 20 minutes.Leave granted.3M6MURRAYSenator Murray—Given the comment by Senator Cook, on the same issue I was given the same leave through the chair—just so you understand.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Thank you, Senator Murray, that is noted.RF4Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOK—Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President, and I have no objection to my colleague from the Australian Democrats having extended speaking time. I have said—and will continue to say—a few things about him and he may wish to have the ability to reply.I was explaining some of the measures in these bills and I will go on with the explanation. As with the whole Howard-Lees GST package, problems still emerge with the approach that has been outlined in these amendments. The proposed system only applies to dealings between the retailer and the Australian Taxation Office. It does not affect the law regarding whether or not a particular item is taxable or non-taxable. All pricing of items will still have to be done on the correct basis and GSTable and non-GSTable items will have to be identified.While this may be helpful, it still leaves consumers in the dark because they will not know what goods are GSTable and what goods are not. As part of the dirty deal done between the Democrats and the government, we had the Treasurer, who railed against hidden taxes, conspiring with the Democrats, who preach openness, transparency and accountability, to ensure that Australian consumers will never know how much GST they are in fact paying. They did not want the GST printed separately on receipts, as is international practice, because it would be a permanent reminder of the Democrats selling out there constituency, an issue I will come back to later.When the GST bills were before us, I moved in this chamber, so that Australians would know how much GST they were paying and what the real price of a good or service was, that on the ticket advertising the price there would appear an amount saying what the tax was, an amount saying what the actual price was and a total amount. It is a matter of enduring shame that that amendment was defeated by the government and the Democrats. Now Australians will see only a total price and not the price that they are required to pay in tax added to the real price of the good or service.Moving on to some other anomalies, I note that there are two specific ones with regard to the GST treatment of food and beverages. Firstly, still water will be GST free, irrespective of the packaging in which it is sold. Under the current legislation, bottled still water is GST free, but if the same brand of water is in a cask it gets hit with a hidden GST. This was one of the great outcomes that Senator Lees negotiated in 13 hours of talks with the Prime Minister—GST-free bottled water but GSTable cask water. Well done. That is a fine example of your negotiating prowess, which I am sure future Democrat leaders will look to for guidance and inspiration. Given that Senator Lees's leadership is currently the subject of a Democrat membership ballot, we may have a new Democrat leader sooner than we think. I have no doubt that Senator Murray, for instance, is savouring the prospect of becoming the new Democrat leader. I wish him well in his endeavours.The second anomaly that I will address deals with milk. Unprocessed cows milk will be subject to the GST, although processed milk will be GST free. This will put milk processors in a cash flow negative position in the same way that meat processors will be. Dairy farmers will not be penalised in a cash flow sense. However, this means that unprocessed cows milk will be taxable while other unprocessed animal milks, such as goats milk, will be GST free. This is just another glaring example of this nightmare on main street and the myriad of different GST rules which will apply to milk, depending on whether it is processed or unprocessed, cows milk or goats milk. Once again, well done to the Democrats and the government. It is quite clearly a victory for simplicity on that issue!There are literally hundreds of other issues dealt with in this bill and I look forward to Senator Kemp's succinct and timely explanation of each one of them in the committee stages of the bill. I hope he does provide an explanation. It is essential to the transparency process and to the processes of this Senate that an explanation be recorded in Hansard as to why the amendments are being made.I remind the Senate again that at the beginning of my address I protested, on behalf of the Australian Labor Party, that this complex and detailed bill containing over 454 amendments was being brought on just before the Senate shuts down for summer and just before the beginning of the Christmas recess. The placing of this bill as the last bill before we close is meant to stifle debate. One of the ways the government can overcome my objection on that is for the Assistant Treasurer, who is the minister in charge of this legislation, to make an explanation as to the purpose of these amendments so that it is in Hansard and thus on the record and available.I would like to move on to three amendments that Labor will be moving to this bill. These amendments are not new and were moved by Labor in the main GST debate. But, due to the government and Democrats combining to ensure that Labor could not debate these amendments in full, it is appropriate that they should be revisited and that Labor's position and that of the Democrats and the government in particular be put on the public record. The first amendment deals with transparency, the second is known as the infamous high-roller amendment and the third deals with anti-avoidance.The first amendment is a very simple but important amendment. It would require all goods sold for which a receipt is provided to have disclosed separately on that receipt the amount of the GST that the consumer is actually paying. When this amendment was put the last time, it was voted down with the full support of the Australian Democrats. This party of openness, transparency and accountability ensured that the Australian public would never know how much of the $30 billion of hidden taxes they were paying.The words of Senator Woodley in rejecting this amendment now ring in my ears. He described it as a political stunt. The term `political stunt' is not something that you could apply to this amendment. This amendment is about empowering Australians to know what their tax bill is. If the amount of the GST is not shown on the price tag and there is just one figure, how will Australians know what the real price of the good is and whether the tax has been calculated accurately? `No taxation without representation' was the slogan of the American Revolution. The Boston Tea Party gave rise to it.This is not quite in the same category, but taxation without the taxed individual knowing exactly the amount of tax is unfair. Citizens and consumers have a right to know how much tax they pay. Ordinary Australians who receive their wages or salaries know what the gross amount is, what the amount deducted for tax is and what the net wage or salary is. It is on their income slips. That is correct, fair and proper. They should know how much tax they pay. But under a GST, when you go to the supermarket or you go for a haircut or you consume some other service, you will not know.All the opposition are saying is that, while we oppose this tax, we recognise that it is now going to be imposed. At the very least, rather than hide the amount, show the amount. Be honest, be open, be transparent. We will be moving an amendment to provide for that. This amendment has become even more important as there is a much broader range of GST exemptions, and the public surely has a right to know which goods are GSTable and which ones are not. How can any ordinary Australian be expected to know, given the complexity of the changes, what is GSTable and what is not? If it is on the price tag, you then know whether you are correctly paying the tax or not, and you will know what the tax applies to or what it does not. It is the view of the Australian Labor Party that that knowledge should be given to consumers.From the position the Democrats took in the last debate, it appears that they do not share that view. They are obviously quite happy for consumers to be ripped off and exploited because they will never know how much of the Howard-Lees GST they are paying unless they have read all of the 4.6 kilograms in weight of amendments. The growth of the new, simplified, efficient and easy to understand GST system is such that we now have 454 amendments before us today.Having said that, I now want to turn to the opposition's second amendment, the debate on which produced one of the most shameless and cowardly performances in this chamber I have seen and an attempt by one Democrats senator to subsequently rewrite their role in what is known as the infamous Crown Casino high-roller amendment. Under the government's original and intended proposal, Crown Casino high rollers and Liberal mates such as Lloyd Williams and Ron Walker would not get any special treatment under the GST legislation. But we then had the secret Crown Casino submission to the GST committee which sought just that: special treatment for millionaire high rollers and Liberal mates.Isn't it interesting to compare this with the Prime Minister's stance on the application of the GST to premium Olympic tickets? On his decision to now apply the GST to Olympic `tickets for the rich', the Prime Minister said the following in the Sydney Morning Herald, on 16 November this year:But you are talking about $50 million and you are talking about perceptions of fairness about the application of the GST.So he is saying that it is fair to apply the GST to premium Olympic tickets, which he had never proposed to do, but it is unfair to apply the GST to casino high rollers—and these are people who gamble at the level of three-quarters of a million dollars and above per throw—even though it was his original proposal to do just that. This is because under Mr Howard's original proposal, where a casino decided to reimburse losses sustained by high rollers, such a repayment would be GSTable—an entirely fair and appropriate measure which ensured that wealthy gamblers paid the GST. This was Mr Howard's position until the secret submission from the bagman of the Liberal Party, Ron Walker, came along—the same individual who paid off the Liberal Party's $4 million debt to the NAB—seeking a GST tax break for his millionaire high-roller mates.We would expect this from the government—rewarding their mates—but the last group of people who we would expect to put millionaire high rollers and mates of the Liberal Party before the concerns of charities, the poor and the underprivileged are the Australian Democrats. But they did, and they voted for it. In what was one of the most shameless and cowardly acts the Senate has witnessed, five Australian Democrats—Senators Lees, Murray, Bourne, Allison and Woodley—when asked to take a stand on principle, did the exact opposite. Rather, they did the chicken walk straight out of the Senate doors, thus ensuring that millionaire high rollers, along with their Liberal mates, got a multimillion dollar GST tax break. By absenting themselves from the Senate chamber in the full knowledge that the government would then have the numbers and by not voting, they ensured that the amendment would be carried.The only Democrats who took a principled stand on this issue were Senators Bartlett and Stott Despoja, who joined the opposition to try to vote down this outrageous proposal. We also now see how the Democrats deal with those who try to take a stand on principle. Rather than adulation and respect for their decision, the knives are out, led by Senator Lees's senior advisers, John Schumann and Stephen Swift. If anybody doubts this, look at the recent press. On 23 October in the Canberra Times, under the headline `Democrats knives out over GST deal', it was reported that the politics of revenge was at work in the party, whereby senators seen as disloyal over the GST deal had been targeted for punishment. The source is quoted as saying:There was a hope that people could forget about things, but that hasn't happened yet . . . I don't want to overstate it, but there is a view that considerable punishment should be meted out to people who are disloyal.The article goes further to quote from Mr John Cherry, who said:There are some hard feelings on both sides. The GST deal was still the great unmentionable in the party room.The article gets better, claiming that Stephen Swift is said to be strongly opposed to Senators Bartlett and Stott Despoja. We know why Mr Swift is opposed to Senator Stott Despoja—that is, because she beat him to become Senator Coulter's replacement in the Democrats preselection. At least in that case we know that naked ambition is alive and well. Why Mr Swift is similarly opposed to Senator Bartlett is not known. Maybe Senator Bartlett's principled stand against the GST tax breaks for millionaire high rollers upset Mr Swift's and Senator Lees's notion of fairness and equity that they believe millionaire casino high rollers deserve. What needs to be answered is why these comments were allowed to be made at all. The answer must be that they were sanctioned at some senior level in the party in an effort to undermine Senators Bartlett and Stott Despoja. How else would such comments ever be authorised, unless the leader gave approval in some form to do so?I would now like to turn my attention to Senator Allison who, in recent times, has tried to rewrite history with regard to the role she played in ensuring the multimillion dollar handout to casino high rollers. Senator Allison has deliberately and wilfully sought to mislead the Senate on her voting record.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Hogg)—Senator, I do not think you can say that. You need to withdraw.RF4Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOK—I withdraw. Senator Allison has misled the Senate on her voting record with regard to the Crown Casino amendment. Let me share with the Senate an exchange which took place in the chamber between Senator Conroy and Senator Allison on 23 September. Senator Conroy said:But I particularly find it galling for Senator Allison especially to stand up here and criticise Steve Bracks about his position on gambling, because Senator Allison is an individual who gave $10 million to Jamie Packer. This is an individual who improved the bottom line of Crown Casino when she walked out of the chamber to allow passage of some of the worst amendments you will ever see. They were called the GST high-roller amendments. When the five chicken Democrats walked out, they gave the government the numbers to pass the high-roller amendments, and that put $10 million in Jamie Packer's pockets.Senator Allison's reply was:Mr Acting Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. Senator Conroy is misrepresenting my position. I did not walk out of the chamber; I did vote on that occasion.Unfortunately for Senator Allison, this is not the outright truth, and is a very poor attempt to revise the history on the part of Senator Allison, when the Senate Hansard and the Journals of the Senate show otherwise. In particular I refer the Senate to the Senate Hansard of 25 June, page 6461 onwards and to points made by me, Senator Conroy and Senator Brown.If we look at page 1248 of the Journals of the Senate, which recorded the vote, Senator Allison's name does not—I stress, does not—appear as either for or against the amendment or paired for the amendment. In other words, Senator Allison did not vote and she did leave the chamber. I think her remarks, therefore, are misleading. One can only assume that it would be embarrassing for this information to get out.In conclusion, we have 454 amendments to deal with in the number one bill, and I look forward to Senator Kemp's explanation of each and every one of those amendments in the committee stage of the bill. In the absence of such explanations, I fear the committee stage of the bill could indeed be a time consuming and lengthy process. So I ask Senator Kemp not to disappoint us. A New Tax System (Tax Administration) Bill 1999 and A New Tax System (Pay As You Go) Bill 1999 are significant in their own right. They deserve to be fully debated separately. However, because of the government's mismanagement of its program, we are forced to debate these important measures in conjunction with the other GST amendment bills. There are many issues dealt with in these bills. I will confine my remarks to some of the more important provisions in the legislation; namely, the pay as you go proposals, the business activity statement and the provisions dealing with charities.The pay as you go provisions are supposed to simplify the administration of a business taxpayer's obligations both for withholding amounts which are taken out of payments made by a taxpayer and for remittance of payments. These proposals are not opposed in principle by Labor, but we do note the vast unnecessary complexity being introduced here by the government. As the shadow Assistant Treasurer stated in his contribution to the debate in the other place, contained within this proposal for a simpler new PAYG system piece of legislation—(Time expired)12:03:0011582Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—I must say, Senator Cook, I always enjoy a debate with you present, but that was not one of your finest contributions and I was sorry to see you descend to the level you did in the latter half of your contribution. I advise that I will be making extended remarks through the chair, and I thank the Senate for that consideration. It may not reach the full 40 minutes.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—The clock has been set for that, Senator.3M6Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY—I am just pre-warning the speaker who has to follow me to be aware that I may not reach the full 40 minutes. I just think that is a courtesy.We are dealing with four bills that establish the pay as you go business tax arrangements and which deal with a long list—some 200 pages—of amendments to the GST and indirect tax legislation. The Democrats are very strong supporters of the pay as you go tax system, which replaces 11 existing payments and reporting systems, including the harshness of the old provisional tax system. The Democrats started campaigning in 1994 against the provisional tax system for small business. That was when the provisional tax system of the then Labor government was assuming every year that small business incomes were rising by eight per cent a year and taxing them on that basis when the inflation rate was actually around one to two per cent a year. That ruse by the Labor Party was costing small business around $200 million to $300 million a year.The Democrats moved in 1994 and 1995 to have the uplift factor reduced, but the coalition did not then support us. Finally, after the change of government in 1996, the coalition government reduced the uplift factor by several percentage points. But, even still, the assumption was there that all businesses have a common business experience that incomes rise with economic growth.Senators may not remember that the pay as you go tax system was in fact a recommendation of the Senate inquiry into small business taxation set up by the Democrats in 1995. The proposition was very simple: small business should pay tax on the basis of their income as they earn it—a simple proposition, but one that was too complicated for the Keating government to grasp. We are pleased to lend our support to the establishment of the pay as you go tax scheme for small business. The introduction of the GST and the calculation of turnover implicit in that have made the pay as you go system a possible and practical reform.I note that these bills also increase the threshold for which small business can access the cash accounting rules for GST from $½ million to $1 million. The Democrats, among others, made representations to the Treasurer on this basis and we therefore welcome this significant concession which will mean, on government figures, that 95 per cent of small business will have access to the simplified payments associated with cash accounting. This is another significant improvement which will reduce the compliance costs. These bills indeed contain dozens of provisions that reduce the compliance costs for various categories of businesses and fix problems that have now been identified.The Labor Party has tried to make a meal of the fact that there are so many amendments before us, as if the wholesale sales tax never needed changing. Frankly, I would have been surprised if there had not been numerous changes to the ANTS bills. Any practical person—and there are not many of those in the Labor Party—would have known that once the government had managed to get their three dozen plus bills through—which was the essence of their package, the backbone of their legislation—they would then have had the time and opportunity to correct errors and improve what is by any standard a very comprehensive undertaking.Not only do I welcome these amendment and implementation bills, but I look forward to further amendment bills. Senator Cook has tried to expose that as a weakness. In my view it is a strength—a mature and responsible government will evaluate its legislation on a continuous basis and improve it. I hope they do bring forward further amendments. No complex undertaking of this magnitude will ever be free of the need for improvement, particularly as experience increases the detailed understanding of the ANTS package.It may well be true that more than 105 countries all have a VAT or GST system, and it is also true that those countries have to amend and improve their legislation continually. Despite the fact that Australia has examined many of those systems overseas, it nevertheless has to learn its own lessons and come to its own conclusions, so I welcome these amendments and I look forward to further amendments. I think the Labor Party's focusing on the number of amendments is quite frankly pathetic in view of their own history with the wholesale sales tax, the obvious practicalities and the need for further amendment to improve the legislation.The Democrats particularly welcome the provisions creating simplified accounting measures for retailers who sell a mixture of taxable and tax free supplies, such as pharmacies and food retailers. These amendments will give the commissioner the ability to make a determination for a retailer on how much of their turnover is taxable and how much is not. This scheme will significantly reduce compliance costs for smaller retailers.The Democrats always recognised that zero rating food would mean that grocery stores would face compliance cost increases. The government had estimated the total compliance costs of introducing the ANTS package over the whole economy at $1.9 billion. We estimated that zero rating basic food would add $40 million in compliance costs. The principal accounting body estimated a higher figure of $100 million. Even that highest estimation added a total additional compliance cost of only a little more than two per cent. What did we get in return? We got a substantial $3.6 billion annual reduction in food prices—a massive contribution to the equity of the ANTS package. Labor condemned us for that; their preferred position was to tax food. They try to get us all to forget that fact, but several times in the ANTS debate they voted on division to tax food. It is recorded. So to save between $40 million to $100 million in compliance costs, they would rather tax basic foods and put a $3.6 billion impost on the people.When Labor say that if they win government they will roll back the GST, what do they mean? Do they mean they will tax basic food? They are on the record as having wanted that. I can just see their next election campaign. It will go something like this, `We hate the GST, but we're going to keep it. Forever.' They will also say, `We love the battlers, but we're going to tax basic food.' That is going to be a really believable election campaign! It is going to be real fun watching you persuade people on that one.In Senator Lees's statement to the Press Club in April, we suggested that the government should look at adopting the simplified retail scheme that the UK tax commissioner has in place to reduce compliance costs. We are pleased that they have done so, and that this has now occurred. I might point out that, where a retailer such as a butcher or a greengrocer is exclusively selling GST free goods, their compliance costs will be much lower than if they had taxable sales.A major report on compliance costs by Professor Cedric Sandford for the UK VAT authorities showed that traders who are zero rated had compliance costs 35 per cent lower than those of taxable suppliers. That, combined with the improved retail schemes, will go some considerable way to containing the administrative cost of making basic food GST free. These bills also allow for the immediate write-off for GST related expenditure for small and medium enterprises with a turnover of not more than $10 million. This measure, which will cost around $175 million next year, is on top of the $500 million GST start-up and compliance cost assistance already agreed. In my reports and my public statements I have been critical of the $500 million as being too little. Therefore, the Democrats support this added expenditure and are pleased that the government has decided to make it.My Senate report in May recommended increasing the pool for compensation by $200 million—so I am about $25 million shy on my figure—and with a priority for upgrading software and hardware. Immediate write-offs are an appropriate way of achieving this. I would note that my Senate report also called for special concession to the not-for-profit sector. Some of these have been achieved, but there is more we continue to lobby for. My colleague Senator Woodley will deal with that issue later in this debate.The Democrats will continue to closely monitor compliance costs for small business. We believe that the generous threshold for cash accounting, combined with the access to retail schemes, combined with replacing provisional tax with pay as you go and combined with a simplified tax system included in the business tax package will leave small business with a tax system that will ultimately prove to be very much better than the current one.In making those remarks, I should indicate that the Labor Party are in a real bind because the package is an integrated one. The ANTS package integrates with the Ralph package. How do you support part of the package and not the other part? It just does not fit together well. That particular fact has been commented on by senior journalists who regard the inconsistency of the Labor situation as an indication that they are in this for politics and not for policy. All Labor are concerned about is trying to win government, not about what is good policy and appropriate tax policy for this country.The government should be commended for its courage in undertaking the difficult task of major tax reform and in particular the difficult task of delivering a much more effective tax system for small business. It is a job that Labor baulked at doing and was not prepared to do. For that, Labor should be condemned. It was not that they did not have the advice as to how to do it. They lacked the political will, the political courage and the political ability to get it done. They are a party that are obsessed with factions and power and not with strong policy and strong attention to really difficult policy issues. I cite, for in stance, their abject failure to consider any meaningful changes to negative gearing or any other measure of the sort. They backed off in 1985 and they are still licking their wounds 14 years later.Tax reform was and is absolutely essential if our tax system is to deliver the revenue needed to fund future services. Tax reform on this scale guarantees revenue in a manner future governments will be eternally grateful for, Labor included. It is the tax reform they squibbed. And if Labor get into government, I would like to see the day that they consider even for a moment the withdrawal of the GST system. I would like to see that day come. It will not come. Because of that, we know that they are in here for politics not for policy. This is just about trying to win government.Let me briefly recap on the task we were faced with—the tax reform task left undone by Labor. The wholesale sales tax system was collecting taxes off a declining tax base. Treasury figures showed that by 2002 the indirect tax system would be collecting $2.8 billion less than it did in 1995. Access Economics forecast that that gap would rise by 2008 to $7 billion or more. Between 1986 and 1993, a similar decline in indirect tax collections led Labor to ramp up the WST rates from 20 and 30 per cent to 22 and 32 per cent—around $3 billion of extra indirect taxes. At least that was marginally better than Labor's approach from 1983 to 1993, which was to fill the gaping holes in revenue by cutting back grants to the states who, in turn, starved the services that battlers used in the states. We date the problems in the states being able to meet the needs of their citizens from that Labor policy at the Commonwealth level. The Labor Party at the Commonwealth level have caused the major problems we have experienced in the states and their finances.From 1983 to 1995, states grants fell from 31.4 per cent of federal outlays to just 23.5 per cent, a drop of around $11 billion in funding. Every cracked and broken down school, every hospital bed that has not been put in, every bad road, every poor service provided has its origin in that Labor policy. It is a factor which is not well understood in the community, but you should stand condemned for it. The federal Labor government relied more and more on bracket creep and the income tax system to fund surviving services and privatisation to plug spending holes. That policy of starving the states forced you, a socialist party, to sell Commonwealth assets and utilities. Why? It was not because you were attached to it for policy reasons, as the Liberal Party are. Why did you sell them? It was because you could not manage your money and because you did not have any idea about how to work out the tax system. It is an absolutely atrocious record. You sold icons which should still be in public sector hands and which, in our view, should still be retained. You did so because you could not manage the books, you could not run the finances.After the tax reforms of 1986, which were courageous and Labor should be complimented for getting some of those under way, Labor did little to combat tax avoidance, allowing trusts, use of corporate structures, salary packaging, negative gearing and other tax loopholes to run rampant. By 2000, bracket creep alone will have added around $8 billion to income tax revenues. Bringing tax rates back to 1993 rates would have required an $8 billion run-down of the surplus.That brings us to the GST. The GST is a strong growth tax because, unlike the wholesale sales tax, it picks up the services sector which provides around three-quarters of the growth in the economy. I have never understood those who say it is okay to have an indirect tax on goods—on manufacturing—but not on services. Right at the heart of this is an inability of Labor to understand the basics. If you did not believe in indirect taxes at all, that would be a legitimate policy position. But you do believe in indirect taxes. All indirect taxes are regressive, so the GST is regressive. But so is the WST. The nature of a flat, indirect tax is that it is regressive. Why would you think it is okay to hurt goods and manufacturing with an indirect tax but not to apply the tax on services? At the heart of this is an inconsistency—a lack of tax understanding. Why did you take that approach? It is not because you are mugs, not because you are stupid. Labor take that approach because of politics. They think it is better politics to be opposed to the GST. There is very little about policy.All of that new GST revenue will go to the states, who Labor starved, allowing the abolition of general purpose grants to the states and giving the states access to a more reliable growth tax. That is why every one of the states, especially the state Labor governments, are delighted with the GST. They have all fallen over themselves to sign up on it. Surely, if a principled Labor government in the states really did not believe in this tax, they would have turned it aside and said, `We refuse to sign.' The Commonwealth government could not have forced them. The Commonwealth government would have been obliged to go a different route. But they did not. Every single one of them said, `Wow! This is just the best policy. Thank goodness you are doing it.' You know it and I know it. It is because the states have to manage the money and the GST is going to be supported by them. If Labor ever get into government, you watch the states put the squeeze on you not to adjust it. You watch what they do. When we come to discuss the high rollers amendment later, I will have a bit of fun with you about the states and the Labor governments on that, too.The GST abolishes the estimated $7 billion of embedded indirect taxes on Australian business, which adds around three per cent to the cost of Australian exports and to the cost of Australian goods competing against imports. On the income tax side, there will be $12 billion of tax cuts offset by around $7 billion of base broadening measures. One of those base broadening measures is the $2½ billion of brought forward company tax payments by progressively moving company tax to a pay-as-you-go basis offset by the $1.4 billion largely one-off cost of the abolition of provisional tax.Once the base broadening measures are taken into account, people earning more than $100,000 per year on average will, on average, pay more tax than they do now. That is not well understood or well known. Once we see all these measures come through, it is our belief that this government will have created a higher real, effective taxation of people earning above $100,000. Eventually, the statistics will show whether our judgment is right or wrong. It is a very interesting outcome. It is a more equitable outcome, in our view, of all these changes. It is probably not one that the coalition will loudly proclaim—or perhaps it will. But that is our view of it.At the bottom end of the scale, the amendments won by the Democrats will leave social security beneficiaries considerably better off. This has been confirmed by the independent research by Professor Ann Harding of NATSEM, which was commissioned and published by the Australian newspaper. Labor senators might remember that NATSEM provided the costing of Labor's tax policy at the last election, so I assume it has some credibility with them.NATSEM's modelling of the GST impact found that social security beneficiaries would do very well out of the social security changes negotiated by the Democrats. Age pensioners were particular winners. Labor will also recall that social security beneficiaries were to be denied the benefits of Labor's tax credit because they were only to apply to earned income. I can understand the anger that Labor felt about the Democrats' achievements on the GST. The Democrats won increases for social security beneficiaries that Labor never wanted and which a future Labor government will now have to honour.Why did Labor not want them? Because they did not have the tax revenue system which could have paid for it. The coalition has created a revenue stream which allows them to pay for greatly enhanced benefits which formerly could not be paid and which under the Labor plan could never be paid. That is the outcome. If you want to pay people, you have to earn the revenue. That is a very simple, practical outcome.I have a list here of the NATSEM modelling of the GST impact. Even on the worst case benefit, the lowest that any category would see as an improvement in a week would be $2.61 and $2.47. The best case is far higher. I have very detailed appendices of 13 different sorts of calculations done by Professor Harding. They cover all the way from single persons to double income couples. There are massive increases in their real standards. Why? Because it is a total tax system. It guarantees the revenue stream and the mix of tax policies which allow people to be better off. That is why we support it. That is why somebody with my beliefs and philosophy supports it.It is important to recap all of that history, the very real and very good case for tax reform. Labor, in seeking to attack this bill, are just carrying on an attack on the GST. They are denying that there was a problem with our present tax system. They are denying the ability of the country to develop sufficient revenue to meet its needs and to improve the living standards of Australians. It is denying that it needed to be fixed. They really are the King Canutes of tax. Years later, there will be cartoons of the King Canutes of tax out there trying to push back reality. Practical people know that what has been done had to be done. I am not saying that it is perfect. I said earlier that I welcome and look forward to many amendments for any inadequacies that are discovered. But, overall, the intent and the concept is right.Labor is trying to deny social security beneficiaries a real and significant increase in living standards. They are trying to deny Australian manufacturers the ability to compete on export markets or against importers on a fair playing field. They are trying to deny a decent funding base for the states for the funding of future health, education and welfare services. In short, Labor's bleating in this debate—they will carry on because they do—shows more about its paucity of policy ideas than about the failings of the new tax system. It shows that their own concern is politics, not policy.When people discover how Labor have tried to exploit their natural fears of major tax change, they will despise you for it. You take a tremendous political risk in beating up the natural fears that people have. When people discover the reality, when they are actually into the system, they will look unkindly upon you for it. You are making people unnecessarily stressed and anxious.It was always inevitable that the GST system would be amended and modified as we went. Labor should know that. When it was in government, they would bring forward an average of eight to 10 major tax amending bills each year. Did anyone say they were doing the wrong thing? Maybe they did now and again. I think it is perfectly appropriate to try to improve a system.There should be no surprise about the 200 pages, including all these amendments, in these bills on the GST. Indeed, that there are so many amendments shows that the government is listening to concerns and responding to them, despite the pressure on Labor to maximise the potential mischief by there not being amendments. They would, frankly, prefer the GST system to be as harsh and inflexible as possible.These bills are littered with lots of new concessions for various categories of taxpayers. GST-free first aid and life saving courses, for example, which were made GST free by the Democrats for not-for-profit providers, will now also be made GST free if provided for for-profit companies as well. GST-free treatment for charities is extended for the supported accommodation community housing sector to cover services provided at up to 75 per cent, rather than 50 per cent, of direct cost or market value.The health GST-free definition is expanded to include HIV detection tests and medicines and drugs provided by health professionals other than doctors, provided it is authorised by state law. The treatment of the sale of second-hand goods is dealt with, allowing immediate claims of input tax credits for goods with a value of less than $300 and other concessions. There is a new concession, which I think is a major one, for not-for-profit sub-entities, and which Senator Woodley will expand on later. There is further clarification of the impact of the GST on insurance products reducing compliance costs, particularly in respect of settlements. The amendments also expressly exclude state stamp duties from the calculation of the GST. We hope that the states would replicate that intention.Listening to Labor over these last few weeks and months on the GST, they strike me as being like an army shooting off all its ammunition at practice. What is Labor going to do when the election comes around? By then consumers would have settled into the reality of the GST and the new tax package, businesses would have settled into the reality of the GST and the new integrated tax system, and the not-for-profits would have established what the reality of the GST and the new integrated tax system is. Their fear will go and will be replaced by reality. Strong opponents of the GST will remain strong opponents. There are strong opponents of income tax in the system. An ordinary person would have to be a mug to actually enjoy paying tax because it lessens your disposable income. There will always be strong opponents of the GST. But the fear will go because the reality will replace it.My father-in-law has a wonderful saying. He says it is the pending tray which gives you the ulcers. It is the expectation of something which you are not sure of and which will come. What Labor has to remember is that of the over 105 countries that have a GST it is passe, it is gone, it is not an issue. In only one country was there significant governmental problems after the introduction of a GST. So Labor hangs all its election hopes on a one per cent chance. Everywhere else it is a perfectly normal part of everyday life. It is part of the tax system. Citizens do not march in the streets, they do not comment on it—from Denmark to New Zealand.Senator Cook is widely travelled. Senator Cook, has anybody come up to you and said: `Goodness, we hate this tax system. We wish we didn't have a GST or VAT'? I am sure they do! I am sure that everywhere you go you are stopped all the time and told: `Keep up your principled stand. We know that Labor is doing the right thing. We wish that all of our citizens, billions of people, did not have a GST or VAT'! They do not do so, because they know that it is a sensible indirect tax system which contributes to the revenue which provides them with the services they need. That is what is going to happen. I make those remarks not to try to be smart but because I wonder what Labor are going to do when they get to the election. By then it will be in. This fear campaign will have dissipated. It will be replaced by the reality of what it is.I now move to some of the very personal, sharp and nasty and, I hope, out of character remarks made by Senator Cook about Democrat senators and the internal party workings of the Democrats and the repetition of some excesses of journalism we have seen about this matter. Strangely enough, Senator Cook has paid us an absolute compliment, as has the Labor Party, throughout these debates and campaigns. The Labor Party is starting to show fear—and I am surprised you would show it, Senator Cook, from my own knowledge of you. They are afraid of the Democrats. How extraordinary. Why would a major party be afraid of a minor party? The reason is as follows.When our former leader Cheryl Kernot, a senator at that time, was poached by the Labor Party I advised the party room, where people were assembled after the somewhat startling event, not to be concerned because we were the target, not her. She was a good catch by all means, a high profile figure, a very capable person. But we were the target. Why were we the target? We were the target because the Labor Party is the only party in this country which is still capable of governing on its own. However, if its vote falls to a critical level it cannot govern on its own without a coalition partner. It does not have one and it is not going to get one. Therefore, it has to attack the Democrats as strongly as it attacks the Liberals to keep up its own vote. That is what lies behind its attack upon us. Its attack on us is designed to try to keep the Democrats' vote low.What is more, the Labor Party are absolutely up to their necks in internal interference in Democrat affairs. They are the masters of branch stacking—you cannot believe they would leave their branch stacking just to their own party—and there are branch stacking attempts on the Democrats. What is more, it is on the record in court transcripts that the Labor Party have funded our opponents' efforts to disrupt our party. A party of branch stackers and bully boys, who at their worst specialise in beating up their opponents—as we know, the latest example was in WA—are not going to flinch from the sort of behaviour that involves attacking the Democrats from whatever strategic basis they regard as right.So when I hear you, Senator Cook, exposing all these attacks and trying to foment discontent and unhappiness in the Democrat ranks, I thank you because you have paid me the ultimate compliment. You have paid me the compliment of saying that you are afraid of us. As a political party you are afraid of the Democrats because you think that if we carry on in this way, with strong attention to policy and with a courageous commitment to doing the right thing, your vote will go down. And if your vote goes down, you do not get into government.It is just so obvious and transparent. That is the real issue that concerns you. Otherwise, why else would you be funding our opponents? Why else would you be branch stacking the Democrats? Why else would you be trying to put division into the Democrats? You might think you would upset me or get me uptight. There is nothing worse in politics than being ignored and I am glad you are not ignoring me. So thank you very much.Having digressed in response to Senator Cook's remarks, I want to conclude by saying that there was a quote in the BRW which summarised this tax package fairly well. It said:While the demand for goods and services will clearly be affected by price changes, the tax package also contains $12 billion of personal income tax cuts and $6.6 billion of compensation family package payments which will substantially boost household disposable incomes, more than offsetting a one-off rise in consumer prices. The net impact on the economy will be a $5.6 billion fiscal stimulus or one per cent of GDP, which is expected to significantly lift household spending from July 2000.That is the message. This integrated tax package—both the Ralph business tax reforms and the ANTS package reforms—provides major personal income tax cuts, major compensation family tax package benefits, a fiscal stimulus to the economy and in turn provides a guaranteed revenue stream for the future and proper funding of the states and generally will deliver a far better fiscal taxation and social and environmental income than we would otherwise have enjoyed. That does not mean it is perfect. Of course, it is not perfect. How can it be perfect? It is impossible to design a system which is perfect. We hope that the government will continue to have the courage to listen carefully to people who have problems and to resolve those problems with future amendments.12:40:0011589Knowles, Sen SusanSenator KNOWLESTH4WALP10—Dealing with the new tax system is an interesting exercise. I remember the fear campaign that was run in the UK many years ago when an indirect tax system was going to be introduced over there. There was much publicity the night before the introduction and everyone raced out to buy their fish and chips because it was the last time they were ever going to be able to afford them. And what happened? Within a matter of days people decided that it was not actually all that bad and that the price impact still allowed them to go and buy fish and chips. The only line that has not been drawn by the Labor Party at the moment is that people will not be able to afford hundreds and thousands, or something like that. It is getting to the absurd stage now and coming from the opposition, just for the sake of opposition, I think is pretty breathtaking.It is even more breathtaking from the point of view that they will not give a commitment that, if returned to government, they will abolish it, that they will wind it back. If they are that opposed to it, why have they not given such a commitment? Because fundamentally they agree that it is desirable for the country. Their attack now on the Australian Democrats, because the Australian Democrats can see reason and logic as to a new tax system, is also pretty breathtaking. For them to start calling another party hypocritical and everything else is just inappropriate.The fact of the matter is that this parliament, by whatever means—and on this occasion it happens to be the Australian Democrats—has seen that there is a need for a very outdated tax system to be revised; and that is precisely what has been done. But no, we have an irrelevant opposition who have no policies—and I am not just talking about policies on taxation; I am talking about policies right across the board—and who simply are opposing everything for the sake of opposing. I cannot understand that. With every single solitary Senate inquiry that is undertaken there is a minority report. With every single solitary reference inquiry there is a report from the opposition. There is not one thing that we can find of substance that they will agree with, and with this tax system it is exactly the same.It is almost understandable why the Labor Party is disagreeing with the pay as you go element of the tax system as well because there are so few people on that side of the chamber who have ever had to run a business, who have ever had to pay the bills at the end of the day, who have ever had to pay the salaries before they pay themselves, and who have ever had to pay for workers compensation and all of those things before they draw money from that business themselves, let alone comply with a very complex business tax system. Most of us on this side have had to endure that and therefore understand the complexities that have been in place for so long. That is why, taking just one issue, the pay as it goes system to be instituted under the new tax system is desirable.As Senator Murray said, if this whole system is so bad, why have even Labor state governments signed onto it? The states know that they have difficulty in raising revenue now and they also know that this new tax system is the only way for them to go. Everyone will recognise that the wholesale sales tax system has been an unfair burden right across the board. That has to be changed. We cannot just keep hold of that system forever. When I return to my comments this afternoon, I want to come to the issue of motor vehicles, because the Labor Party want to retain a much higher tax on motor vehicles instead of a lower indirect tax. Not only that, they want to retain the indirect input taxes.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Ferguson)—Order! It being 12.45 p.m., debate on this bill is interrupted.Bills11590r96511590Consideration resumed.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.Bills11590r94211590Debate resumed.12:47:0011590Bishop, Sen MarkSenator MARK BISHOP2L6WAALP00—The opposition does not oppose the Farm Household Support Amendment Bill 1999 . The bill amends the Farm Household Support Act 1992 to remove the deadline of 13 November 1999 for the receipt of applications for restart re-establishment grants under the Farm Family Restart Scheme, FFRS. In future, deadlines will be set by means of an instrument under section 52A of the act. The government has announced that the deadline for applications will be extended by seven months to 30 June 2000. It should be noted that this was in fact the position under the Labor government's original legislation back in 1992 before it was amended by the Howard government in 1997 as part of its Agriculture—Advancing Australia package.The FFRS is an important scheme as it provides income assistance to very low income farmers for up to 12 months and access to professional financial counselling advice when contemplating future prospects in the industry. It also provides for grants of up to $45,000 to low income farmers upon the sale of the farm when they decide to leave the agricultural sector.The need for this extension of the deadline and therefore these amendments to the act has arisen because of a lower take-up rate than expected. When the scheme was announced in December 1997, then Minister Anderson was quite vocal about the scheme and how successful it would be. However, only 240 re-establishment grants have been paid since that time. Unfortunately, the eligibility require ments of the scheme mean that it is not accessible to many farmers who are in financial difficulties. Farmers' organisations have stated that the assets test for the scheme is too restrictive and is therefore a disincentive to prospective applicants.It is also unfortunate that the government has been too slow in conducting a review of the scheme. We understand that the appointment of a consultant to undertake that review is only now occurring even though the commitment to a review was made in 1998. Given the low take-up which was evident some time ago, the review should have been initiated much earlier. Whilst we have to be critical of the government on these issues, I have mentioned we do not oppose the bill because it will extend the time of the scheme's operation and therefore may assist some farmers who could access the scheme over the next seven months. Also, as I have stated earlier, the amendments reintroduce those parts of Labor's original legislation which provide for the operation of the scheme to be administered under section 52A of the act. As I said earlier, the opposition does not oppose this legislation.12:50:0011590Troeth, Sen JudithSenator TROETHGX5VICLP10—I thank Senator Bishop for his remarks. The Farm Household Support Amendment Bill 1999 does extend the deadline for applications to allow the support for farming families to continue. The re-establishment grant under this legislation is worth up to $45,000 to farmers who decide to sell their farm and can do so within 12 months of applying for support. Farmers are able to hold assets up to $90,000 and still receive the maximum grant and, as well, I point out that the Commonwealth also provides up to $3,000 for farmers to obtain professional advice on their farm business. If the decision to leave the farm is made, this support can also cover advice on the options for off-farm employment. The cost of extending the deadlines for applications is estimated to be $5.1 million. The government does recognise that it is always a difficult decision to leave the land and professional advice helps farmers identify the best course for them and their families.Senator Bishop pointed out the number of farmers who have actually taken this grant up, and I would point out that some 283 farmers to the end of October have benefited from re-establishment grants. But it is also important to point out that another 1,000 farmers have used the income support payments available during the program to assist them through a difficult period. So it is not only those farmers who decide to leave the land; it is those farmers who use those income support payments while they decide what they are going to do.Farmers are not required to sell their property to receive this payment, and farmers who have received the income support payments are able to apply for the re-establishment grant before their 12-month period expires. So 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.Bills11591r84711591Debate resumed.12:53:0011591Bishop, Sen MarkSenator MARK BISHOP2L6WAALP00—I wish to outline the comments of the opposition in respect of the Broadcasting Services Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1999 . The bill was introduced into the last parliament, lapsed because of the 1998 election and has been reintroduced substantially in the same form as was the case prior to the 1998 election. The bill was referred to the appropriate Senate legislation committee for examination and public hearing. The Senate committee report contains a majority government report and minority reports by both opposition and Australian Democrats senators. As indicated in the House on Tuesday this week, the government wishes to ensure passage of this bill in a relatively speedy fashion and accordingly gave relatively short notice to the opposition.In the House, amendments were circulated by both the government and the opposition, and I am advised that all amendments were agreed and passed without opposition. Accordingly, the bill before the Senate at the moment is one agreed between the opposition and the government and, subject to a few brief remarks, the opposition will not oppose passage of this bill.When the bill was introduced into the House it dealt with three discrete areas of policy: firstly, anti-hoarding provisions; secondly, broadcasting by pay TV into regional free-to-air areas; and, thirdly, retransmission by pay TV or subscription TV of free-toair channel broadcasts. The issue in the retransmission debate goes to the underlying rights of copyright holders and what regime, if any, should be put in place to allow payment of appropriate consideration to those copyright holders.Currently, the effect of the Broadcasting Services Act and a Federal Court decision is that such retransmission occurs as of right without payment of fee. The debate around this issue concerns whether the market should determine a price and, in the absence of market determination, whether commercial resolution by arbitration is appropriate and, if so, which tribunal should be vested with that authority. Government amendments in the House had the effect of deleting the retransmission provision from the bill. It is my understanding that the House will revisit these issues in the Copyright Amendment (Digital Agenda) Bill 1999 , which was the subject of a report tabled by the appropriate House committee on Monday this week. Accordingly, that debate can be put off until next year when it can be considered in a broader context.Turning now to the anti-hoarding provisions of the bill, these support the current anti-syphoning provisions in the act introduced by the previous Labor government some years ago. The anti-syphoning provisions are simple: they ensure that classic sports events continue to be shown on free-to-air TV and are not sent to or remain in the domain of pay TV. The anti-hoarding provisions in this bill complement the current act by ensuring that a commercial free-to-air operator who has the rights to broadcast live a particular sporting event—and those events are listed under the anti-syphoning regime—cannot hoard those rights. This means that you cannot obtain the rights and refuse to transmit a particular event without encountering the provisions of the anti-hoarding regime in this bill.If a broadcaster has those rights, the broadcaster is obliged to show the events live. If the broadcaster chooses not to show the events live, the anti-hoarding provisions in the bill come into play. The effect of the anti-hoarding provision in the bill is that, if a commercial TV free-to-air operator has the live to air rights for a particular sporting event or series of events which are in the list of events contained in the anti-syphoning regime and the operator proposes not to show that event live, the free-to-air broadcaster is required to offer that event to the national broadcasters for a nominal fee of $1. If either the ABC or SBS fail to accept the offer, then by default the operator has the right to allow the event to be broadcast by the pay TV industry.Amendments circulated by the opposition in the House reflected a minority report of opposition senators that there should be timely consideration of this process. I am advised that the government accepted those amendments in the House and they are now part of the bill under consideration at the moment. The effect of those amendments is that, at least 30 days prior to the commencement of an event or series of events covered by the anti-syphoning and anti-hoarding provisions, a free-to-air commercial broadcaster must make a decision as to whether it proposes to broadcast the event or events live. If the answer is in the negative, then not less than 30 days prior to the event or events it must make the offer to a national broadcaster and the national broadcaster has seven days within which to make a decision as to whether they will transmit the event live. That time mechanism will allow the pay TV industry or the relevant subscription TV provider the opportunity to publicise its intention to broadcast a particular event live. Again, I understand the government had no difficulty with those amendments and accepted the relevant amendments in the House.The second area of the bill I wish to discuss is the provision to ensure that regional free-toair markets are not disturbed by retransmission by a subscription TV operator of a metropolitan broadcaster. A pay TV provider or a member of the subscription TV industry may well seek to broadcast, by way of retransmission, free-to-air channels from a metropolitan area into a regional market. The bill proposes restrictions to be placed on that retransmission so as to ensure a metropolitan free-to-air channel rebroadcast or retransmission by a pay TV channel does not disturb the sanctity of the regional television market. The issue is of concern for the fairly obvious reason of capital investment in regional markets and the ability of those regional TV markets to attract adequate advertising revenue to fund their operating costs.It also has implications for a range of issues more properly discussed under the heading of regional policy. As we said in the House, the opposition support the notion of the protection of a regional free-to-air TV market in the face of the retransmission of a metropolitan TV market via a subscription TV provider.In the House, the government circulated amendments relating to the anti-syphoning provisions of the act. Those amendments were required to address the issue of different time zones across Australia. Put simply, 2 p.m. here is 11 a.m. in Western Australia. This has implications for the broadcasting of live TV events. The government circulated amendments which had the effect of compartmentalising a western and southern time zone which consists of Western Australia, South Australia, the Northern Territory and Broken Hill.A cricket example is appropriate to explain the problems faced by TV broadcasters of live sporting events. A game commences in Sydney at 2 p.m. and finishes at 10 p.m. In Western Australia, the same game commences at 11 a.m. and concludes at 7 p.m. The issue for broadcasters is whether you have real-time live telecasts or delayed time live telecasts. As was said in the House, there are respectable arguments for both options, and consumers and broadcasters alike have different views on this issue. Some people will listen to the football or cricket live on the radio and enjoy it and know the results in real time. Others are content to wait and watch the football or cricket in a delayed time broadcast. People in Western Australia and South Australia have had these options for many years and preference for either option is essentially a subjective matter.Government amendments, which were accepted by the opposition in the House, effectively confirm current practice that if there is a cricket match commencing in Sydney at 2 p.m. and concluding at 10 p.m. Sydney time then it is shown in Western Australia commencing at 2 p.m. Western Australian time and concluding at 10 p.m. Western Australian time. It is shown as if it were live but with a three-hour time difference, including daylight saving time.The situation is somewhat similar in the winter season depending on where an AFL game may be played. If the West Coast Eagles are playing in Melbourne on a Friday night there will be a delayed broadcast to enable fans to get home and watch the game some hours after the actual event. On Saturdays and Sundays when the Eagles or Dockers play away from Perth, there tends to be a real-time broadcast of the actual match.The opposition expresses no objections to the course proposed by the government. It seems to suit the programming interests of the free-to-air television industry and also the interests of consumers. As I said earlier, the opposition commented in the House that this was a matter much influenced by subjective considerations and accordingly proposed to the government that a review process of this issue be conducted after two or three years. The government indicated that there is no necessity to confine the review to the western-southern time zone issues and accordingly the bill contains an agreed provision for a general review. The opposition indicates its support for this position.In conclusion, I state that the opposition supports the bill as presented with the amendments agreed to in the House. We support the anti-hoarding regime as a complement to the anti-syphoning regime. We support the notion of the protection of a regional free-to-air TV market in the face of the retransmission of a metropolitan TV market via a subscription TV provider. We acknowledge the reasons for the effective withdrawal of the retransmission provisions in the House.13:03:0011593Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSONLI4VICLP10—I thank Senator Bishop for his contribution and honourable senators from all sides for their support for the provisions contained in the Broadcasting Services Amendment Bill and commend the bill to the chamber.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.Bills11593r96911593Debate resumed.13:05:0011593Bishop, Sen MarkSenator MARK BISHOP2L6WAALP00—The Broadcasting Services Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1999 was under discussion in the House on Tuesday evening of this week and was passed in that place in the form we have today in the chamber. When it was originally introduced into the House, it addressed three issues: schedule 1 addressed pay TV content requirements, schedule 2 addressed international obligations, and schedule 3 addressed international broadcasting services and appropriate licensing of same. In the House the opposition supported schedule 1, pay TV content requirements, and schedule 2, international obligations, subject to a second reading amendment, proposed by the shadow minister for the arts, relating to Labor's opposition to the Blue Sky decision and our intention to overturn it if possible whilst indicating that Labor was consenting to schedule 2 because of the priority of getting an Australian content principle in place. It is my understanding that that amendment was defeated in the House. We will move the same amendment in this chamber.Schedule 3, international broadcasting services, as introduced into the House, raised serious issues of communication policy and foreign policy. In particular, some of the powers proposed to be vested in the office of the Minister for Foreign Affairs raise serious issues as to the consequences of transmission of particular product out of Australia. The opposition was of the view that these issues needed mature consideration and not simply urgent passage in the last two or three days of the 1999 sitting period. The government took those comments on board and in the House withdrew schedule 3. The opposition will consider schedule 3 in a new bill in substantive terms in an orderly fashion when it is introduced again next year.I will turn now to the two outstanding schedules. Looking at schedule 1, pay TV content requirements, the opposition makes six points. Firstly, the bill will amend the Broadcasting Services Act to make the existing Australian content requirement for pay TV enforceable on the same basis as for free-to-air television in respect of drama. At present, a voluntary system applies. The Australian Broadcasting Authority has reported that pay TV channel providers are failing to achieve the voluntary level of Australian new content. If the bill is passed, each pay TV drama service will be required to spend at least 10 per cent of its annual program expenditure on new eligible drama programs. The Australian based channel providers, as well as licensees, will be required to report annually to the ABA on their expenditure figures with sanctions for failing to provide compliance information.Secondly, the scheme is proposed to be operating on a financial year basis, commencing 1 July 2000. Thirdly, the bill allows for a grace period of 12 months for licensees to arrange for a shortfall in expenditure by channel providers to be made up in the following year. Fourthly, the bill recognises the jurisdictional difficulties in obtaining expenditure information from overseas based channels by providing that the measure of program expenditure in respect of an overseas based—that is, pass-through—channel is the full payment by a licensee for the right to screen that channel in Australia.Fifthly, the bill accords national treatment to New Zealand programs, consistent with the approach adopted in the Australian content standard for free-to-air commercial television. Sixthly, the pay TV industry supports the bill. More importantly, both the Screen Producers Association of Australia and the subscription TV organisation, ASTRA, have requested that Labor support rapid passage of the bill this year to allow implementation of the legislation as soon as possible. Accordingly, the opposition will support schedule 1, pay TV content requirements.I turn now to schedule 2, international obligations. This schedule has the effect of dealing in a narrow way with the implications of the High Court decision in the Blue Sky case. The effect of the High Court decision in the Blue Sky case was to say that, as a consequence of an international agreement between Australia and New Zealand, New Zealand content had to be treated as Australian content for the purpose of the ABA local content rules.Schedule 2 does the following: firstly, the bill will amend section 160(d) of the Broadcasting Services Act by limiting the international obligations to which the ABA must have regard in exercising its functions to the CER services protocol with New Zealand; secondly, this amendment will ensure that access to the ABA's local content quotas for commercial television by TV programs from other countries is explicitly confined to New Zealand; and, thirdly, the amendment confines the impact of the High Court's Blue Sky decision to New Zealand, closing off the possibility of flow-ons to other treaties, and maintains the cultural policy objectives of content regulation.Labor's position has been to reverse the effect of this decision upon returning to office. Since the Blue Sky decision, it has been the view of the opposition that the appropriate public policy view for Australia was to seek, consistent with international obligations and domestic law, to overturn the Blue Sky decision as far as New Zealand content is concerned.The opposition's second reading amendment indicates that, while the opposition supports early passage of BSA Bill (No. 3), it will give enforceable statutory effect to the current voluntary requirement on levels of Australian content for subscription TV on drama orientated channels and established through the provisions in schedule 2 of the bill the principle of an Australian content standard. This is the opposition's commitment to the highest possible local content standards for both freeto-air and subscription television.The opposition regard this as a matter of urgency. We restate our position that the subscription television industry and the Australian broadcast content industry should agree on similarly enforceable decisions for documentary channels. The provisions of the second reading amendment, which I will formally move later, reflect the strong attachment that the opposition have to the notion that Australian local content production for broadcasting matters is a very important part of our cultural character and cultural diversity.In summary, I indicate our support for schedules 1 and 2 in the bill. I move the opposition's second reading amendment:At the end of the motion, add "but, whilst supporting the early passage of the bill because it will give statutory effect to requirements for higher levels of Australian content in drama programs, the Senate:(a) notes that even though the impact of the High Court's decision concerning Australian content in the "Blue Sky" case will be limited to the Australia New Zealand CER agreement, the implications of the decision remain of great concern and demand further action in the interests of the Australian industry; and(b) calls on the Government to introduce measures to ensure higher levels of Australian content in other program areas, including documentary programs".The amendment essentially addresses two issues: firstly, the implications arising from the Blue Sky case; and, secondly, higher levels of Australian content. The Blue Sky issue arose out of negotiations between Australia and New Zealand in the CER agreement. The records show that the discussions at that time focused on areas of material trade—fixed objects and the like, production and the goods—and what services would be excluded. At no time did either negotiating party agree to the proposition that cultural industries would or should be caught up in the CER arrangement. It was an entirely unintended consequence not raised in the negotiations, not agreed in the negotiations and not part of any subsequent diplomatic or parliamentary exchange.Consequently, there is no reason not to go back to the New Zealand government and settle the issue which is central to both countries. Clearly, it is as much a matter of concern to those involved in the content production industries in New Zealand as it is to content production industries in Australia. The opposition maintains its position of attempting to fix that problem through the parliamentary process and government to government negotiations.Why do we have Australian content rules? There are two reasons: firstly, there is an industry development argument; and, secondly, there is a cultural values argument. We have those rules to provide Australians with material which is written, produced, directed and acted by Australians. That material is seen through our TV channels every day of the week. Constant Australian production of TV and film material content allows Australian viewers to have access through TV—the dominant purveyor of culture in Australia—to Australian views, values and attitudes as they emerge and change over time. Australian content production and TV screening is a piece of instant history which reflects the growth, dynamics and change in our society.There is nothing wrong, nothing good or nothing bad about New Zealand culture or the culture of the United States, the United Kingdom or any other country in the world. All of those cultures have value and are of interest. We have ready access to many elements of those cultures on a regular basis. But, in the final analysis, New Zealand culture is not the culture of this country. The two countries have not chosen to form one nation. They have not even chosen to federate. The CER is a free trade agreement in goods and services between Australia and New Zealand. It was freely entered into and ratified by the parliaments of both countries and is standing the test of time in terms of its purpose and intent. Interestingly, the CER does not extend to culture, and we should not allow a later decision of the High Court to override the intent of parliament without some form of mature consideration of that issue. If the government is content to allow the rationale of the Blue Sky decision to become de facto policy, let it say so. It is not the position of the opposition.Paragraph 1 of the amendment simply urges the government to pursue negotiations with the New Zealand government to address this issue. Similarly, paragraph 2 calls on the government to introduce measures to ensure that there are higher levels of Australian content in other program areas, including the documentary program area. In the House, Mr Kerr made the following points. In the years 1995-96 and 1996-97, expenditure on local Australian drama was 7.1 per cent, being 5.2 per cent of total expenditure. The voluntary agreement of 10 per cent simply was not achieved. This legislation now makes the 10 per cent mandatory. This is better, and the opposition supports it on the basis that it is an improvement on the current regime.However, the opposition believes that there is still considerable scope for improvement in the future. The opposition urges the extension of the 10 per cent content rule from drama to documentary production, particularly for documentary orientated subscription TV channels. This is an area in which, over time, Australia has developed strengths and a form of comparative advantage. The extension of the 10 per cent local content rule to the production of documentaries would result in ongoing development of local content in the production industry.13:16:0011596Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSONLI4VICLP10—I thank honourable senators, including Senator Bishop, for their contributions. The Broadcasting Services Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1999 seeks to amend the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 to make the Australian content licence conditions for subscription television broadcasting licensees enforceable; to limit the scope of international agreements that apply to the functions of the Australian Broadcasting Authority, the ABA; and to establish a new broadcasting licence regime for international broadcasting services transmitted from Australia.There has been a little bit of scurrying around the chamber because this is a debate on a non-controversial bill and we were not anticipating this amendment that the Labor Party are moving, although it was moved in the lower house. It just would have helped a little if we had known about it. Also, the Democrats have been caught on the hop, and I do not know what they are going to do. With a non-controversial bill, if we do have an amendment, we usually know whether or not it will be agreed to.The government, in response to the amendment, does not resile from its commitment to CER. Amending section 160D clearly confines the impact of the High Court's decision to New Zealand. The government is aware of the production industry's concerns and will be closely monitoring the impact of the decision. Amendment of 160D recognises Australia's special relationship with New Zealand, striking an appropriate balance between our cultural and trade policy objectives. The Broadcasting Services Act 1992 was introduced by the previous Labor government, and the then communications minister, Senator Bob Collins, wrote to the ABA in December 1992 asking that the ABA move quickly to amend its local content standard to include New Zealand programs.With regard to documentaries, the minister has indicated that he will be asking the ABA, as a matter of priority, to consider the need to extend the requirement to documentary channels and report back to him within 12 months. This is consistent with the recent report by the Australian Film Commission and the Film Finance Corporation on the state of the film industry. That report recommended that the issue of extending the pay TV requirement to documentary channels be reviewed next year. The government acknowledged the importance of the documentary sector during the ministerial review in 1997, and the government's announcement of a formal review of the requirement was intended to provide an opportunity to consider extending the requirement to documentary channels when the industry had developed. I indicate that the government will not be supporting the amendment. I have also been advised that the Democrats will not be supporting the amendment either.13:19:0011597Ridgeway, Sen AdenSenator RIDGEWAY8G6NSWAD00—by leave—On behalf of the Australian Democrats, we have been caught a little off guard and have not had the opportunity to consider the late amendment. Without having considered the merit of the issue, on the rule of thumb, I do not think we could support it, unless there were reasons to do so.Amendment not agreed to.Original question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.Bills11597r719Billsr72111597Debate resumed from 19 April and 25 March, on motions by Senator Kemp and Senator Ian Campbell:That these bills be now read a second time.13:21:0011597Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY3L6VICALP00—The Textile, Clothing and Footwear Strategic Investment Program Bill 1999 and the associated Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1999 mark a further stage in a decade of review and policy responses with regard to the textile, clothing and footwear industry—an industry that has undergone a large amount of sometimes painful change. We will not be opposing these bills because, as Simon Crean said when this package was finally announced by the government back in September 1997, `The government has finally accepted Labor's plan.'You might recall that Labor campaigned for this series of measures over the strenuous resistance of the government. Although we will not be opposing these bills, it should not be thought that Labor do not have some serious reservations about them; we do, and I will detail them later. What we have decided, however, is that this is a package which is necessary and for which the TCF industry has had to wait far too long. It is time for the parliament to pass this legislation and give the industry some certainty so that it can get on with business and continue to generate more jobs.As I noted before, the legislation before us is to implement the package of measures the government announced in September 1997 in response to the Industry Commission's report into the textiles, clothing and footwear industries. This package included a freeze on tariffs at their 1 July 2000 level until 1 January 2005, at which time tariffs will be generally reduced to five per cent.There was also an investment program to encourage TCF companies to become more internationally competitive and to better exploit Australia's natural advantage in raw materials, such as wool and cotton. The government also committed itself to conducting a review of these policy arrangements in 2005 to take account of Australia's APEC commitments and progress on market access.It is important to note, however, that there is no provision for this review to take place before the legislated tariff reductions take effect. This is a bizarre bit of policy. We are to have a review, but before the review we will determine the outcome. This seems to be an increasing habit of the government. The government adopted exactly the same process in relation to the automotive package which the Senate dealt with some time ago. We made the same criticism. We sought to amend the bills to ensure a review before the tariff was reduced. But, unfortunately, the government opposed us.In our view, it is overwhelmingly logical to have the review before the final tariff decision is made. The reason is that there remain significant questions about market access developments, particularly in our region and with regard to APEC. It is unequivocally in our interests for APEC member economies to meet their commitments with regard to trade liberalisation and market access. The review will help determine whether the environment has sufficiently progressed for Australia's TCF industry to respond appropriately.I might be wrong here, but the government says that is what the review is about. The review is to look at progress on market access. If that is not related to whether we are going to cut our tariffs, why was it part of the package? The review should occur before the final tariff decision is made. That it does not, is a fundamental flaw in this bill. At least everyone in the TCF industry—the small business, and the workers—now know that the only way they will get a review of the TCF sector, including of market access in our region, before tariffs are further cut, is to support a Labor government at the next election.The second element of the bills which we have serious reservations about is their form. The Textile, Clothing and Footwear Strategic Investment Program Bill operates by requiring the minister to formulate a TCF strategic investment scheme. This is a scheme for the making of grants in connection with the design for manufacturing and for the manufacturing in Australia of eligible TCF products. This scheme is a disallowable instrument.I believe that this proposition is extraordinary. The scheme will not be set up by legislation. Rather, the legislation will give the minister the power to establish the scheme, subject only to legislated limitations in respect of the size of the funding envelope, the types of the grants and other minor matters. The remainder—such as the size of the envelope for each type of grant, the amount of individual grants, the criteria for receiving grants—is left to the minister's discretion.In addition, should there be problems in formulating the scheme, parliament will not be able to amend or finetune it because it will be in the form of a disallowable instrument. As a disallowable instrument, the parliament will have to either accept it completely or reject it completely. Given that the terms of the scheme are fundamental to the $700 million flowing to the industry, it is going to be almost impossible for the parliament to reject the scheme. It would have to be very seriously flawed for a reaction of that sort to be appropriate. It would need a very fundamental flaw. We certainly hope that nothing like that emerges.Rather, the key issue is: how do we get effective parliamentary scrutiny of a major program worth $700 million over five years? The parliament is being denied the capacity to scrutinise effectively the nature of the scheme because all this legislation does is authorise the minister to establish the scheme. The nature of the scheme will be determined by the minister and emerge as a disallowable instrument. It is so far removed from the normal course of legislation that would introduce a scheme like this that it is virtually impossible to amend this bill because this is only a bill that authorises a scheme. We do not believe this form of legislation is appropriate, and we hope it will not be a precedent for other legislation.The final point I would like to make in relation to these bills concerns the timing of their passage through the parliament. I must say that it is extraordinary that the minister finds himself in a position now of trying to rush this legislation through the Senate just before Christmas. I want to remind everyone that this package was first announced back in September 1997, that there was a final commitment and agreement with the industry in July 1998, that the legislation was then introduced into the House in March 1999 and dealt with then. It has been sitting in the Senate ever since—for nine months.Against this background, the minister then comes along and says at the final gasp that he needs this legislation passed before Christmas and asks us to facilitate this. We will—but not to excuse the minister's appalling management of this legislation; not to get him off the hook. We want everyone to know what a dud he is. We will facilitate this because the industry tells us that it needs certainty now. It tells us how frustrated it has been with the inaction and stumbling by this minister. We will not contribute to this frustration; we will move on. But there should be no doubt—and the industry knows this only too well by now—as to who is responsible for this long drawn out saga.We will not oppose these bills because we want to let the industry get on with it. Moreover, we see this as an important opportunity for industry policy to move on, for trade policy to move on, for us to look at new possibilities and for us to look at issues where public policy can contribute to the industry viability and success in the next century.Issues of public sector research and the related issues of private sector research and development, innovation, venture capital, design, enterprise improvement, education and training, infrastructure—including legal infrastructure—export assistance and investment attraction are all matters to which the public policy debate around industry needs to turn. Once we get a satisfactory conclusion to the debate around these bills and we get development of the schemes which these bills authorise, the debate can move to those matters, including the application of those issues to the TCF industry.13:28:0011599Ridgeway, Sen AdenSenator RIDGEWAY8G6NSWAD00—I do not wish to take up much of the chamber's time in relation to the bills, given that the Democrats agree that they are non-controversial, but I do want to make a number of comments. We are supportive of the provision of assistance to the textile, clothing and footwear industries in the context of tariff reductions and in accordance with our WTO commitments. We understand the reason for the government freezing tariff reductions until 2005. We also understand that this package is intended to improve the competitiveness of those industries in the lead-up to the 2005 tariff reduction in precisely the same way as was intended by the motor vehicle industry assistance program which the chamber dealt with only a month ago.The issue I wish to raise is one of practice rather than one that goes to the substantive merits of the scheme. The bill is framed in such a way as to simply authorise the relevant minister to develop an industry assistance program and implement that program as a regulation. Clearly, that process involves far less parliamentary and, arguably, public scrutiny than if the scheme is in fact embodied in principal rather than subordinate legislation. When the principles of the scheme come before this chamber, we will have the choice of disallowing them or not disallowing them. So we either take it or leave it. The Senate will not be able to play an active role by amending the scheme and we may be forced to accept something which is less than optimal for the sake of ensuring that something is in fact put in place. Nevertheless, it is my understanding that, whilst this practice of legislating has precedence in this place, it is not usual and, for my part, I would have thought that it is a practice which is to be strongly discouraged.The Australian Democrats are nevertheless supportive of the bill. But we would like to make clear to the government that this form of legislation is substandard and our support on this occasion should not be taken as an indication that we would support future legislation which takes the same form. I think that the Senate has to guard against allowing its role or indeed the role of the parliament as a whole being usurped by legislation which delegates substantial policy decisions to ministers through bills like this one. I have consulted with the council on textile, clothing and footwear and they of course have expressed a degree of anxiousness at ensuring that this bill is passed today.As an administrative issue, I would like to ask the minister or perhaps the duty minister whether it is likely that the bill will get back to the House of Representatives today for concurrence with the Senate amendments. The only other comment that I would make is to thank Senator Minchin and his office for the cooperative approach they have taken in managing this piece of legislation. Again, the Australian Democrats say that the bill is non-controversial and, following discussion with the Textile Fashion Industry of Australia, we will be supporting the bill and we will be looking quite closely at the SIP scheme for its adequacy in conjunction with TFIA.13:32:0011599Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSONLI4VICLP10—The Textile, Clothing and Footwear Strategic Investment Program Bill 1999 is an important bill, and I thank the honourable senators for their contribution. In the commit tee stage I will be moving a significant number of amendments and tabling an explanatory memorandum which will clearly outline the objectives of those amendments. I commend the bill to the chamber.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills read a second time.11600TEXTILE, CLOTHING AND FOOTWEAR STRATEGIC INVESTMENT PROGRAM BILL 1999The bill.13:33:0011600Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSONLI4VICLP10—I table a supplementary explanatory memorandum relating to the government amendments and requests for amendments to be moved to the bill. The supplementary explanatory memorandum was circulated in the chamber on 8 December 1999. The changes provide for an ability for loans to be made under the scheme if required, that the scheme be formulated within 14 days of royal assent, and that there be a limitation on grants to be made in respect of design activities in Australia for manufacture offshore. The amendments also relate to access to special grants for eligible activities in respect of the year 1999-2000 pre-program year, the exclusion of special miscellaneous grants from the total cap for grants in respect of TCF value adding, and the capping of total grants payable in accordance with the World Trade Organisation Subsidies Agreement, including special provisions for firms in start-up situations.The amendments also relate to the making of financial compliance requirements under the scheme in line with Australian Corporations Law. They provide for interim payments in arrears as a part payment of a grant. They deal with administrative powers under the scheme to be vested with the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources. They are also associated with enabling the scheme to require participation of particular benchmarking management improvement study as a condition of grant eligibility. That means the scheme may require participation of par ticular benchmarking management improvement study as a condition of grant eligibility. I commend the supplementary explanatory memorandum to the Senate and the amendments. I seek leave to move government amendments Nos 1 to 72 together.Leave granted.LI4Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSON—I move government amendments Nos 1 to 72:(1) Clause 3, page 2 (line 9), after "grants", insert "and/or loans".(2) Clause 3, page 2 (line 12), after "grants paid", insert ", and loans made,".(3) Clause 3, page 3 (line 4), after "years", insert ", and special grants may be made for the 1999-2000 year".(4) Clause 3, page 3 (line 7), omit "must register under the scheme and may be required", substitute "may be required to register under the scheme and".(5) Clause 3, page 3 (line 8), omit "audited".(6) Clause 4, page 3 (after line 15), after the definition of claim , insert: designated industry program means a program or scheme that is: (a) administered by the Commonwealth; and (b) specified in the regulations.(7) Clause 4, page 3 (after line 18), after the definition of grant , insert: importation into Australia has the same meaning as in section 50 of the Customs Act 1901 .(8) Clause 4, page 3 (after line 20), after the definition of income year , insert: loan means a loan under the TCF (SIP) scheme.(9) Clause 4, page 3 (after line 25), after paragraph (a) of the definition of scheme debt , insert: (aa) an amount due and payable by an entity to the Commonwealth under a loan; or(10) Clause 4, page 4 (before line 1), before paragraph (b) of the definition of scheme debt , insert: (ab) an amount that is payable as mentioned in subsection 18B(2) (which deals with advances); or(11) Clause 8, page 5 (line 5), omit "1 July 1999", substitute "the end of the period of 14 days beginning on the day on which this Act receives the Royal Assent,". (12) Clause 8, page 5 (line 6), after "grants", insert "and/or loans".(13) Clause 8, page 5 (line 7), omit "either or both", substitute "any or all".(14) Clause 8, page 5 (lines 10 and 11), omit "or elsewhere".(15) Clause 8, page 5 (after line 15), at the end of the clause, add: (c) the design in Australia, for manufacture outside Australia, of products: (i) that, under the scheme, are taken to be eligible TCF products; and (ii) some or all of which are intended to be sold in Australia; where the importation into Australia of some or all of the products is or will be covered by a designated industry program.(16) Clause 9, page 5 (line 18), after "grants paid", insert ", and loans made,".(17) Clause 9, page 5 (after line 23), at the end of the clause, add: (2) If a loan under the TCF (SIP) scheme is repaid at a particular time, subsection (1) has effect after that time as if the loan had never been made.(18) Heading to Division 2, page 6 (line 2), after "the " insert "grants provisions of the ".(19) Heading to clause 10, page 6 (line 3), after "the " insert "grants provisions of the ".(20) Clause 10, page 6 (line 4), after "scheme", insert ", to the extent to which it deals with grants,".(21) Clause 12, page 7 (lines 15 to 29), omit paragraph (b), substitute: (b) the objective that grants in respect of TCF research and development expenditure may only be made to an entity in respect of amounts that, under the scheme, are taken to be eligible expenditure incurred by the entity during: (i) the entity's 2000-2001 income year; or (ii) the entity's 2001-2002 income year; or (iii) the entity's 2002-2003 income year; or (iv) the entity's 2003-2004 income year; or (v) the entity's 2004-2005 income year; (ba) the objective that: (i) special grants in respect of second-hand TCF plant expenditure; and (ii) special miscellaneous grants in respect of TCF-dependent communities; may only be made to an entity in respect of amounts that, under the scheme, are taken to be eligible expenditure incurred by the entity during: (iii) the entity's 1999-2000 income year; or (iv) the entity's 2000-2001 income year; or (v) the entity's 2001-2002 income year; or (vi) the entity's 2002-2003 income year; or (vii) the entity's 2003-2004 income year; or (viii) the entity's 2004-2005 income year;(22) Clause 12, page 7 (line 31), after "activities", insert "that, under the scheme, are taken to be eligible activities".(23) Clause 13, page 8 (after line 16), after paragraph (a), insert: (aa) the objective that: (i) special grants in respect of second-hand TCF plant expenditure; and (ii) special miscellaneous grants in respect of TCF-dependent communities; must not be made to an entity in respect of amounts that, under the scheme, are taken to be eligible expenditure incurred by the entity during the entity's 1999-2000 income year unless the entity makes a claim for the grant after the end of the entity's 2000-2001 income year;(24) Clause 13, page 9 (line 6), after "activities", insert "that, under the scheme, are taken to be eligible activities".(25) Clause 14, page 9 (line 18), after "activities", insert "that, under the scheme, are taken to be eligible activities".(26) Clause 14, page 10 (line 7), omit "year; and", substitute "year.".(27) Clause 14, page 10 (lines 8 to 12), omit subparagraph (iv).(28) Clause 15, page 10 (line 13) to page 11 (line 16), omit clause 15, substitute:15 Grants cap based on eligible revenue and eligible start-up investment amount (1) This section sets out policy objectives for the TCF (SIP) scheme. Cap based on eligible revenue (2) The first objective is that the total of the following grants that become payable to an entity during a particular income year of the entity (the claim year ): (a) grants in respect of new TCF plant/building expenditure made in respect of amounts that, under the scheme, are taken to be eligible expenditure incurred by the entity otherwise than during a period that, under the scheme, is taken to be an eligible start-up period of the entity; (b) grants in respect of TCF research and development expenditure made in respect of amounts that, under the scheme, are taken to be eligible expenditure incurred by the entity otherwise than during a period that, under the scheme, is taken to be an eligible start-up period of the entity; (c) special grants in respect of second-hand TCF plant expenditure made in respect of amounts that, under the scheme, are taken to be eligible expenditure incurred by the entity otherwise than during a period that, under the scheme, is taken to be an eligible start-up period of the entity; (d) special miscellaneous grants in respect of TCF-dependent communities made in respect of amounts that, under the scheme, are taken to be eligible expenditure incurred by the entity otherwise than during a period that, under the scheme, is taken to be an eligible start-up period of the entity; (e) grants in respect of TCF value-adding made in respect of activities carried on by the entity otherwise than during a period that, under the scheme, is taken to be an eligible start-up period of the entity; must not exceed 5% of the amount that, under the scheme, is taken to be the total eligible revenue derived by the entity, during the income year of the entity preceding the claim year, from sales of products that, under the scheme, are taken to be eligible TCF products.Cap based on eligible start-up investment amount (3) The second objective is that the total of the following grants that become payable to an entity during a particular income year of the entity (the claim year ) and any income years of the entity that are earlier than the claim year: (a) grants in respect of new TCF plant/building expenditure made in respect of amounts that, under the scheme, are taken to be eligible expenditure incurred by the entity during a period that, under the scheme, is taken to be an eligible start-up period of the entity; (b) grants in respect of TCF research and development expenditure made in respect of amounts that, under the scheme, are taken to be eligible expenditure incurred by the entity during a period that, under the scheme, is taken to be an eligible start-up period of the entity; (c) grants in respect of TCF value-adding made in respect of activities carried on by the entity during a period that, under the scheme, is taken to be an eligible start-up period of the entity; must not exceed 15% of the amount that, under the scheme, is taken to be the total of the eligible start-up investment amounts of the entity for each of the income years of the entity that are earlier than the claim year.When grant becomes payable (4) For the purposes of this section, a grant becomes payable to an entity when a determination is made under the scheme that the entity is entitled to be paid the grant.(29) Clause 16, page 12 (line 4), omit "The TCF (SIP) scheme must", substitute "For the purposes of the application of the TCF (SIP) scheme to a type of grant that, under the scheme, is taken to be a registration-linked grant, the scheme may".(30) Clause 16, page 12 (line 22), before "grant", insert "registration-linked".(31) Clause 16, page 12 (line 23), before "grant", insert "registration-linked".(32) Clause 16, page 12 (line 25), before "grant", insert "registration-linked".(33) Heading to Division 4, page 13, line 2, omit "audited ".(34) Heading to clause 18, page 13 (line 10), omit "Audited accounts ", substitute "Accounts ".(35) Clause 18, page 13 (line 11), omit "must provide that an entity", substitute "may provide that an entity ascertained in accordance with the scheme".(36) Clause 18, page 13 (line 13), omit "(if any)". (37) Clause 18, page 13 (after line 14), at the end of the clause, add: (2) The TCF (SIP) scheme may provide that an entity ascertained in accordance with the scheme is not eligible for a grant unless the entity has complied with such requirements as are imposed by the scheme in relation to the submission of unaudited accounts and unaudited financial statements.(38) Page 14 (after line 2), after the heading to Division 5, insert:18A Loans A loan must not be made to an entity after the end of the entity's 2004-2005 income year.(39) Page 14 (before line 3), before clause 19, insert:18B Advances on account of grants (1) The TCF (SIP) scheme may provide for advances on account of grants that may become payable. (2) If: (a) an entity receives an amount by way of an advance on account of a grant that may become payable to the entity; and (b) that amount is greater than the amount of the grant; the entity is liable to pay to the Commonwealth the amount of the excess.(40) Heading to clause 19, page 14 (line 3), after "on the ", insert "Minister or the ".(41) Clause 19, page 14 (before line 4), before subclause (1), insert: (1A) The TCF (SIP) scheme may make provision with respect to a matter by conferring on the Minister a power to make a decision of an administrative character.(42) Clause 19, page 14 (lines 7 to 10), omit subclause (2).(43) Heading to clause 22, page 16 (line 21), at the end of the heading, add "connected with grants ".(44) Clause 22, page 16 (after line 26), at the end of the clause, add: (2) The TCF (SIP) scheme may provide that an entity ascertained in accordance with the scheme is not entitled to request an advance on account of a grant unless another entity ascertained in accordance with the scheme gives a guarantee to the Commonwealth that any scheme debts owed by the first-mentioned entity will be paid. (45) Page 16 (before line 27), before clause 23, insert:22A Guarantees relating to payment of scheme debts connected with loans The TCF (SIP) scheme may provide that an entity ascertained in accordance with the scheme is not entitled to apply for a loan unless another entity ascertained in accordance with the scheme gives a guarantee to the Commonwealth that any scheme debts owed by the first-mentioned entity will be paid.(46) Page 17 (after line 2), after clause 23, insert:23A Participation in accredited benchmarking/management-improvement studies The TCF (SIP) scheme may provide that an entity is not eligible for any of the following grants: (a) grants in respect of new TCF plant/ building expenditure; (b) grants in respect of TCF research and development expenditure; (c) grants in respect of TCF value-adding; unless the entity has complied with such requirements as are imposed by the scheme in relation to participation in a study that, under the scheme, is taken to be: (d) an accredited benchmarking study; or (e) an accredited management-improvement study.(47) Heading to clause 25, page 17 (line 6), after "Grants ", insert "and advances ".(48) Clause 25, page 17 (line 7), after "grants", insert ", and advances on account of grants,".(49) Clause 26, page 17 (line 15), after "claim", insert "made by an entity ascertained in accordance with the scheme".(50) Clause 26, page 17 (after line 16), after paragraph (b), insert: (ba) requiring that a claim made by an entity ascertained in accordance with the scheme be accompanied by an unaudited statement relating to specified activities;(51) Clause 26, page 17 (after line 18), after paragraph (c), insert: (ca) requiring that an application for a loan be accompanied by such a fee as is ascertained in accordance with the scheme;(52) Clause 30, page 18 (lines 20 and 21), omit "on or after 1 July 1999", substitute "after the end of the period of 14 days beginning on the day on which this Act receives the Royal Assent".(53) Heading to clause 34, page 21 (line 4), before "Secretary ", insert "Minister or ".(54) Clause 34, page 21 (line 5), before "Secretary" , insert "Minister or the" .(55) Clause 34, page 21 (line 9), before "Secretary", insert "Minister or the".(56) Clause 34, page 21 (line 12), before "Secretary", insert "Minister or the".(57) Clause 34, page 21 (line 14), before "Secretary", insert "Minister or the".(58) Clause 34, page 21 (line 16), before "Secretary", insert "Minister or the".(59) Clause 34, page 21 (line 19), before "Secretary", insert "Minister or the".(60) Clause 34, page 21 (line 21), before "Secretary", insert "Minister or the".(61) Clause 34, page 21 (line 26), before "Secretary", insert "Minister or the".(62) Clause 37, page 23 (line 2), before "Secretary", insert "Minister or the".(63) Clause 37, page 23 (line 5), before "Secretary", insert "Minister or the".(64) Heading to clause 38, page 23 (line 8), before "Secretary ", insert "Minister or th e".(65) Clause 38, page 23 (line 9), before "Secretary", insert "Minister or the".(66) Clause 38, page 23 (line 13), before "Secretary", insert "Minister or the".(67) Clause 38, page 23 (line 16), before "Secretary", insert "Minister or the".(68) Clause 38, page 23 (line 17), before "Secretary", insert "Minister or the".(69) Page 31 (after line 17), after clause 48, insert:48A Availability of grants To avoid doubt, nothing in this Act implies that grants must be available in respect of a particular income year.(70) Clause 49, page 31 (line 24), after "conferred on", insert "the Minister or".(71) Clause 50, page 32 (line 13), after "scheme,", insert "the Minister or".(72) Clause 50, page 32 (line 20), after "to which", insert "the Minister or".Amendments agreed to.LI4Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSON—I seek leave to move the government's requests for amendments Nos 1 and 2 together.Leave granted.LI4Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSON—I move requests for amendments Nos 1 and 2:(1) Clause 32, page 19 (line 2), after "Grants", insert ", and advances on account of grants,".(2) Clause 32, page 19 (after line 3), at the end of the clause, add: (2) Loans are to be made out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund, which is appropriated accordingly.Requests agreed to.LI4Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSON—During the second reading debate, Senator Ridgeway asked a question about the passage of this bill and I have been advised that it will get to the House of Representatives and back in time.Bill, as amended, agreed to, subject to requests.CUSTOMS TARIFF AMENDMENT BILL (No. 1) 1999The bill.Bill agreed to. Textile, Clothing and Footwear Strategic Investment Program Bill 1999 reported with amendments and requests, Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1999 reported without amendments; report adopted.11604 Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1999 (on motion by Senator Patterson) read a third time.Bills11604r941Billsr938Billsr940Billsr937Billsr84911604Debate resumed from 26 November, on motion by Senator Hill:That these bills be now read a second time. 13:38:0011605Mackay, Sen SueSenator MACKAY9L6TASALP00—I wish to indicate that the opposition supports the legislation.13:39:0011605Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSONLI4VICLP10—Senator Mackay, I wish you could be more succinct. I appreciate your valuable contribution and commend the bills to the chamber.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills read a second time, and passed through their remaining stages without amendment or debate.Sitting suspended from 1.40 p.m. to 2.00 p.m.Questions Without Notice116051160511605Mackay, Sen SueSenator MACKAY9L6TASALP00—My question is directed to Senator Kemp, the Assistant Treasurer.Government senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! That is not an appropriate way to greet a questioner announcing to whom she is addressing a question.9L6Senator MACKAY—Is it true that not-for-profit organisations like the Women's Electoral Lobby will have to pay the GST on membership subscriptions, donor schemes, training programs and publication programs that they now have to completely rely on to raise operating funding, given that WEL has been effectively defunded by this government?11605Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—Let me say in relation to WEL and non-profit bodies that this government is creating a new tax system which will be of benefit to non-profit bodies, will be of benefit to charities, will be of benefit to businesses and will be of benefit to families. This is a great new tax reform that we are bringing in. In relation to the defunding of WEL, that is a question you would have to pass to Senator Newman. Senator Newman and I often do a handball, and I regret to say that after all this time you have asked me a Senator Newman question. Because it is the last day, we hope, of question time and because we like to help Labor senators, I would say in relation to the defunding of WEL that I think Senator Newman has explained that extremely well in this chamber, if I may say so.BE4NEWMANSenator Newman—It would help them to be even more effective.WW4Senator KEMP—Indeed. Senator Newman wants WEL to be even more effective. My understanding is that there have been consultations with Senator Newman's department on this and we wish WEL well.Honourable senators interjecting—WW4Senator KEMP—Thank you for laughing. This is the season of goodwill and that is why we wish WEL well. Madam President, in relation to non-profit bodies, you would be aware that there are levels at which bodies have to register and levels at which they do not have to register. Of course, I know nothing about the overall finances of WEL and whether they would be a body that is registered or whether they would be a body that is not registered. You are looking confused, Senator Mackay.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator, you should direct your remarks to the chair.WW4Senator KEMP—In order to be more specific in relation to the answer, you might tell me whether WEL will make a decision whether to register or not. Senator Faulkner has been passing the line to you. This rather implies that Senator Mackay does not actually know what I am talking about. If you could provide me with the information, Senator Mackay, I will see what I can do to respond.9L6MACKAYSenator Mackay—You should know this.WW4Senator KEMP—I do not know whether WEL is going to be a registered body or not. Do you?11605Mackay, Sen SueSenator MACKAY9L6TASALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. We are very confused. Perhaps you can illuminate it for us, Minister.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Mackay, you should direct your question to the chair, and not across the chamber.9L6Senator MACKAY—Thank you, Madam President. The supplementary question is: is it true that not-for-profit organisations like WEL will now have to pay the GST on membership subscriptions, donor schemes, training programs and publication programs? Could you please answer that?11606Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—I do not think that Senator Mackay has got the point I was making. WEL may be a non-registered body. They may not register for the GST. They may therefore not have the income levels which would require them to be inside the system or not. That is a matter that WEL is going to have to decide. Until you can provide me with that specific information, it is very hard to give a specific response. Will they be registered or not? That is the question.Distinguished Visitors1160610000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! I draw the attention of honourable senators to the presence in the President's Gallery of former New South Wales senator Mr Wheelwright. I welcome you to the Senate on your visit to the national capital.UNKNOWNHonourable senatorsHonourable senators—Hear, hear!Questions Without Notice116061160611606Tierney, Sen JohnSenator TIERNEYO15NSWLP10—My question is to the Assistant Treasurer, Senator Kemp. Will the minister inform the Senate how the coalition government's excellent economic management has helped improve job opportunities for all Australians and how the government's business and personal tax reforms will ensure that Australian families will be even better off by Christmas 2000?11606Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—I thank Senator Tierney for that important question. Before I commence my answer, may I mention that we are very fortunate today to have in the gallery Mr Bernie Finn, the former member for Tullamarine. I welcome seeing him there.It is an important question. As we are preparing for the festive season, I think we can all take a little bit of time at this question time to reflect on what is happening in the economy and how it will impact on Australian families. Today many Australians received an early Christmas present in that the unemployment rate has fallen quite dramatically. I am very pleased to announce to the Senate chamber that the unemployment rate for November is 6.7 per cent. This is the lowest rate for almost a decade. Let me remind Labor senators that this is a very significant fall from the 8.5 per cent unemployment rate that we inherited when we came into office. Indeed, the level of unemployment rose to a record level of 11.2 per cent when Mr Beazley was a very senior member of the Labor ministry.I think that if you were to ask many Australians what a government could really do to assist them, not only at Christmas but in the years ahead, they would say, `Get the economy right.' We have had another confirmation of that today with the very sharp fall in the unemployment rate. Over half a million jobs have been created under the coalition government and this has happened in conjunction with an increase in real wages. It is to the eternal shame of the Labor Party that in quite a number of years real wages actually fell during the 13 years of the Labor government. I think the overall average rise was minuscule.Honourable senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! There are senators conducting a conversation across the chamber. It is not only noisy and disruptive, it is disorderly.WW4Senator KEMP—Thank you, Madam President. This is a government which is getting the fundamentals right, which is delivering real gains to Australians—real gains in the sense of more jobs, real gains in the sense of falling unemployment, real gains in the sense of real rises in wages—and of course this government has presided over a very sharp fall in the level of interest rates that we inherited from the failed Keating government when we came into office.Families have benefited very substantially from the fall in mortgage rates. We have been able to bring the economy through the Asian financial crisis, perhaps the major financial crisis since World War II. That is a great achievement and of course Australians have benefited, and of course next year we will be bringing in even more important gains to Australian families. In fact, if Senator Tierney may be prevailed upon to ask me a supplementary question, I may go through those reforms.11607Tierney, Sen JohnSenator TIERNEYO15NSWLP10—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question of Senator Kemp. Minister, can you tell us how the government's business and personal tax reforms will ensure that Australian families are even better off from Christmas 2001 and beyond?11607Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—Thank you again, Senator Tierney, for that important question. The new business tax system will be very positive for Australian business and of course very positive for all the Australian community, and that includes those millions of shareholding Australians for whom it will provide a substantial reduction in the capital gains tax rate and a lower tax rate for small business. In the year 2000 Australians will be receiving a very early Christmas present when on 1 July we deliver the largest income tax cuts in Australian history—some $12 billion of tax cuts which will translate into benefits for the average family. Many will benefit in the order of $40 to $50 per week. This is a huge achievement and, as I said, it is another important initiative from this government to look forward to. (Time expired)1160711607Lundy, Sen KateSenator LUNDY7G6ACTALP00—My question is to the Assistant Treasurer, Senator Kemp. Is the minister aware of the meaning and intent of the following tax ruling:If the disability service business produces commercial supplies, then those supplies will be subject to GST.Doesn't this clear ruling from the tax office mean that services which provide supported employment to people with disabilities and which produce commercial supplies—such as the packets of lollies sold at Christmas time, ironing services and plants sold in local nurseries—will all carry the Howard-Lees GST liability?11607Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—As our leader, Senator Robert Hill, always says, you know you are in trouble when Senator Lundy asks a question!10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Kemp, that is not the appropriate way to start answering a question.WW4Senator KEMP—Thank you, Madam President. A very important point was made today on the radio which I wish to share with Senator Lundy and the other Labor senators. Mr Hugh Wirth of the RSPCA made a comment about the Labor Party's `scare campaign'—and this is the truth. We are witnessing this from the Labor Party, a party which has no policies, has no intention of developing any policies and is simply determined to get out and scare people who are trying to help the disadvantaged in this community. It is really quite appalling, Senator Lundy, and I am surprised that you would lend yourself—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Kemp, you should not be directing your answer across the chamber.WW4Senator KEMP—As I said—through you, Madam President—I am very surprised that some of the Labor senators are prepared to lend themselves to a scare campaign. The general principle, Senator, is that if they are commercial supplies they will be subject to GST; non-commercial supplies will not be subject to GST.The question is of course whether the examples you have given are commercial supplies or not. They may well be non-commercial supplies. That is a matter for the organisation. If the organisation is unsure, what the organisation would do is check with the tax office. But, Senator, I would want to see whether they were commercial supplies. In fact they may well be non-commercial supplies, and if they are non-commercial supplies they will not be subject to the GST.11607Lundy, Sen KateSenator LUNDY7G6ACTALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Does this mean that the government will now be taking its cut from the money raised by people with disabilities through the operation of the Howard-Lees GST, purely on the grounds that these industries are able to provide viable commercial competition?11608Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—Madam President, the supplementary was written before the answer. I have constantly urged Labor senators to listen very carefully to the answer in case they have a supplementary—and we are always happy to take supplementaries because if we can provide any further help that is what we will seek to do.Senator, you did not deal with the issue of whether the particular supplies that they are making are commercial supplies or non-commercial supplies. Until that can be determined, I suspect many of them may well be non-commercial. That is a matter of fact which would have to be determined by the organisation. If the organisation had any doubts, the organisation would then seek advice from the tax office.1160811608Crane, Sen WinstonSenator CRANEUW4WALP10—Madam President, my question is directed to Senator Alston, the Minister representing the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. Will the minister inform the Senate to what extent today's excellent labour figures—down to 6.7 per cent—are the result of increased flexibility in workplace relations and modernisation of the Australian economy? Is the minister aware of any alternative policy approaches that might jeopardise the improved assistance to workers to balance their work and family commitments under the coalition government?11608Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—They are indeed excellent figures. The figure of 6.7 per cent represents the lowest level since 1990. It is no accident that we have achieved this remarkable result. It is by dint of hard work. It has been in the face of entrenched opposition from those opposite and it has been in recognition of the need to put people first. There are of course a couple of alternative nostrums out there in the marketplace and it is worth just looking at what might happen if you went down some of those paths.On PM the other night, for example, I heard Dr Kim Howells, one of the leaders of the miners strikes back in the 1980s, who was right at the coalface and who understood what was involved in all of those debilitating strikes that turned out to be utterly futile and counterproductive. He is now the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Competition and Consumer Affairs. When he was asked whether he had any advice for Kim Beazley, he said:I will have something very controversial to say now. We were the party that had been dominated very much by the trade unions, by the producers. We fought to overturn all of that. We realise we have to represent everyone in society, not just the producers, and that is a hell of a difference.He was asked: do you think the ALP should break the nexus with the unions as the British Labour Party did? He said:Well the philosophy has to change, really. The philosophy of our Labour government is making sure that consumers, ordinary people, get the best deal, and that means we take on whoever tries to stop them and it doesn't matter who they are.In other words, that is code for saying, `We are prepared to stand up to the unions. We are going to put Australia first. We are going to put consumers first.'That is a very different approach to that of the current Leader of the Opposition, who reported back to head office the other day: he went to the ACTU council meeting to deliver his annual report to shareholders. This is what he had to say:The Labor Party has this commitment to collectivism as a foundation block of its industrial relations platform. The next Labor government will have this commitment as the core of its industrial relations policy.What a quaint socialist term. It might qualify you for honorary life membership of the Fabian Society, but it is impossible to imagine what relevance it has to contemporary Australia.The relevance is that it simply delivers the goods. It is promising a future dividend stream back to those who were the beneficiaries of in excess of $100 million during the lifetime of the last Labor government. It is a tragic capitulation to those who pull the strings. That is not going to be the way to high productivity or high growth. The Blair government has taken the high road. The Beazley Labor opposition wants to take the low road. We all know where it will end. It will end in tears. It will end in consumers rising up and revolting, as they did last time around, because they know that they are coming last and their interests are not being considered at all.As we enter the next millennium, for Labor this last millennium will end not with a bang but with a wimp—the City Tucker Man who, of course, has no policies and who will be desperately hoping that Simon Crean will carve up only one turkey over Christmas. What we really want is for the Labor Party to come back in the new year with a serious commitment to putting Australia first, not simply being determined to hand over massive amounts of money in return for political donations and not being interested in returning to collective bargaining but recognising that productivity matters and that people will benefit if they can take a stake in the enterprise. You went out there and supported the changes to the capital gains tax regime; I bet you go back to the trade union movement and tell them you did not really mean it at all and you appeal that as well.1160911609Hutchins, Sen SteveSenator HUTCHINS84PNSWALP00—Madam President, my question is directed to Senator Newman, the Minister for Family and Community Services. Is the minister aware of the recent statement by Learning Links—an organisation that helps kids with learning disabilities—that, as a result of the GST, `in dollar terms, Learning Links will lose $16,850 next year and in a full year over $33,000. This translates to a loss of 308 hours of therapy and educational counselling as well as the possible cancelling of one of our services'? Does the minister have any response to this important organisation directly equating the loss of therapy and counselling hours, and the closure of services, to the effects of the Howard-Lees GST?LD4ALSTONSenator Alston—Madam President, I raise a point of order. That sounds horribly like a question to do with education. I know the Labor Party is having great trouble working out who to direct its questions to but at the very least it ought to indicate what relevance it has to Senator Newman's responsibilities.10000The PRESIDENT—I thought it was a matter relating to disabilities and I will allow the question.11609Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—Madam President, it is obviously hard to get through to the opposition that my responsibilities in relation to disabilities are disability employment services and disability income support. They are not taxes on disability services and they are not education matters for people with disabilities. They are handled by others.11609Hutchins, Sen SteveSenator HUTCHINS84PNSWALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. I am a bit intrigued by that answer because it is clearly in relation to your portfolio area. Apart from that very strange answer, is the minister unaware that her so-called seminal speech on welfare policy highlights the importance of the interface between the tax and welfare systems?11609Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—Yes, it does. I am glad you have read it.1160911609Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—My question is to the Assistant Treasurer. Is the minister aware that the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal has more than 330 matters waiting to be heard? Isn't it the case that, before the Federal Court judgment in 1997 wound back the tribunal's function, the budget was $2.2 million but then dropped to the current level of $1.6 million? Why was the budget not increased again in June this year when the powers of the tribunal were restored by the High Court? Minister, if your government is really serious about restoring confidence in the superannuation system, when are you going to agree to properly fund the tribunal to clear this backlog?11609Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—Thank you, Senator Allison, for the question on superannuation. The truth of the matter is that there is great confidence in superannuation. We are seeing it in the sense that superannuation is growing at very rapid rates. It is truly one of the growth sectors—1M6ALLISONSenator Allison—I rise on a point of order, Madam President. The Assistant Treasurer has not understood my question. It is about the tribunal, not about superannuation contributions.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—I am sure the minister has time to deal with the question.WW4Senator KEMP—On the point of order, I want to make this clear: it was a discussion on whether I could restore confidence in superannuation. Senator, let me assure you that I will be getting to the nub of your question, but I wanted to deal with the problem of whether or not there was confidence in superannuation. It is because of the remarks that Senator Allison made that I started off my answer in that fashion.As I was saying, by any measure there is great confidence in superannuation. It is one of the great growth sectors in the Australian economy. It does not matter whether you are looking at, as Senator Sherry has said, the SG level, which is showing a great growth rate, or at the voluntary contributions, which from memory are growing at an even faster rate. I think Senator Sherry and I would agree that that is a very good and healthy sign. If you looking at the number of DIY funds which are being established, you would say that a lot of people are showing great confidence in superannuation and believe that the benefits of superannuation, particularly the tax concessions, are important.In relation to the backlog of complaints, I have got a brief from Mr Joe Hockey, who is the minister responsible for this. Let me say to you on this matter that the government is fully committed to ensuring superannuation fund members continue to have access to an efficient and effective alternative dispute resolution mechanism. Let me make it clear that the government is committed to ensuring the tribunal is appropriately staffed and funded to carry out its functions. The government is currently in the process of making additional appointments to the tribunal to ensure that the complaints on hand are dealt with effectively and quickly. Mr Hockey has authorised me to say that the government expects to be in a position to announce additional appointments to the tribunal once the appointment processes are complete.11610Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. The minister has gone some way to answer my question but has not answered the fundamental question of the budget. Will the budget be increased? Can I remind the minister that there has been an increase of 27 per cent in complaints in the five months since the High Court decision, compared with the same period in 1998, and some of these complaints are three to four years old. I understand about new appointments, but the question is: is there the budget to cover the additional work which is required in the tribunal to clear the backlog?11610Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—Senator Allison made the point that there was a backlog created by the Federal Court decision. Senator, let me make it clear that the government is strongly committed to ensuring that the tribunal is appropriately staffed and, let me stress, appropriately resourced to carry out its duties. This is a government which is very committed to the superannuation sector. We believe it is a great thing that it is one of the growth sectors in the Australian economy. We expect and we hope that it will continue to be a great growth sector. We also recognise the importance of the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal.1161011610Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—My question is directed to Senator Newman, the Minister for Family and Community Services. Is the minister aware of the tax ruling concerning vouchers that are provided to poor families to help them buy the necessities of life and to pay bills? It states, `The introduction of the GST may mean that a voucher will purchase less of some items.' In light of this, next year when the minister's department is handing out the Christmas emergency relief grants to community organisations, will this minister be increasing all grants so that vouchers can retain their full value at local shops?11610Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—I am aware of claims to that effect, and I do have a brief somewhere amongst all this paper which I would be delighted to share with the opposition. I have now found what number it is. It happens to be about No. 48 of my briefing notes.Opposition senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! The level of sledging that has been going on in the chamber this week is absolutely unacceptable, and I can assure you that it is not appreciated by people who have been listening to question time.BE4Senator NEWMAN—I am sure that the opposition is really in search of information, and I would not want to hold it back from them. I will get it by the end of question time; I will present it to them then.11611Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. I thought for a moment that the minister had broken her duck, but that was not the case. Surely, Minister, you have got an answer to the core issue, which is: won't you be providing less aid to struggling families at Christmas unless you increase the grants to compensate for the GST? Surely you can give us an answer to that.11611Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—I can point out two things: one is that that tax ruling you quoted from—and I am sure you quoted selectively, because it is your usual practice—said `may'; and, secondly, the vouchers that are used for fresh foods for example—and that is the majority of stuff that people are buying at Christmas—will carry no GST whatsoever, so the voucher would then have full value.1161111611Bourne, Sen VickiSenator BOURNETW4NSWAD00—My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Hill. Has the minister seen reports of the current situation in Ambon, including at least 27 deaths, dozens wounded, houses and churches looted and destroyed and about 3,000 people made homeless? Does the minister have any up-to-date information on Ambon? Is the government raising this issue directly with Indonesia or in any international forums?11611Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—The reports that Senator Bourne was referring to are very recent, so our information does not update them to any extent. But I think it is worth remembering that this is another sad event in an unsatisfactory circumstance that has now been taking place for some time. Since the end of July, as a result of Muslim-Christian clashes, it has been suggested that the death toll could be somewhere between 500 and 1,000 people. The numbers that might have been dispossessed could be anything up to about 50,000. So in terms of calamities of this type around the world, this is a very serious circumstance and one that should be remembered, notwithstanding that our attention has tended to focus on other difficult issues in relation to Indonesia—in particular, Timor.Throughout this period, the Australian government has continued to press both the civil and the defence authorities to bring order to Ambon but to do it in a way that is sensitive to the ethnic and religious difficulties that are being experienced. There is little more that we can do in that sense other than to monitor the situation and to urge that the Indonesian authorities take appropriate action.We can assist, as we have been doing, in the humanitarian efforts. Although the vast part of our resources that we have been dedicating to such objectives have been to other parts of Indonesia and to East Timor, we have nevertheless been contributing support directly to Ambon and to the neighbouring Kai islands. I refer in particular to the sum of $1 million that we contributed towards food, clothing and medical supplies. We are also indirectly supporting humanitarian efforts in Ambon through our support of the International Red Cross and the other international agencies that are trying to assist people in Ambon in these difficult circumstances.I suppose if we were looking for some hope, the best sign of it is the recent reports that President Wahid is about to visit Ambon in an effort to promote peace between the warring Christians and Muslims. He reportedly has said that it is time for a new attempt to be launched to broker peace. I think we can draw from that that not only are the circumstances being recognised by the leadership within Indonesia—again, notwithstanding the fact that they are focused on so many difficult issues at this time—but also they are prepared to take actions to try to bring about a cessation of the violence and a stabilisation in the hope that people can in fact return to their homes and live peacefully and safely. So we continue to monitor, we continue to urge the Indonesian authorities to take appropriate action and we continue our support through humanitarian efforts. No doubt we would like to do more, but there is not a lot more that we can in fact do.1161211612Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—My question is to the Assistant Treasurer, Senator Kemp. By applying the Howard-Lees GST to the commercial and fundraising activities of charities, how much revenue does the government expect to raise?11612Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—As I indicated, there are rules that govern the application of the GST. If it is a commercial supply and the organisation is a registered organisation, it will be subject to GST. In relation to the amount of money, I do not have any figures here that can assist you.AW5CARRSenator Carr—Oh, no figures? How much—you don't know?WW4Senator KEMP—If Senator Cook was concerned about this issue, he could have said that he was seeking some figures and then I may have seen whether it was possible to get those figures for him. But Senator Cook did not do that. I am a little surprised by the question from Senator Cook. In fact, I am very surprised by the question because Senator Cook is a man of unusual courage compared with most of his colleagues. I do not always praise Senator Cook in this chamber, but he is a man of unusual courage compared with most of his colleagues. Senator Cook went on record a number of years ago—VW4HERRONSenator Herron—Not the famous quote!WW4Senator KEMP—No, it is not the famous quote; it is another quote. Senator Cook went on record and said that he wanted to make it clear that the Labor Party is a high taxing party. Senator Cook, most of your colleagues would not be so frank.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Kemp, you have strayed somewhat from the question.WW4Senator KEMP—Madam President, the question was about the revenues which are gained by taxation. I am looking at the question. 5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—If you don't know, sit down.WW4Senator KEMP—Senator Faulkner is lurching from side to side, and it is a bit hard to see who to respond to when I am being distracted by Senator Faulkner. The point I make to you, Senator Cook, is that when you come into this chamber and you ask about taxation, we on this side always remember that you have indicated that your party is a high taxing party. I will respond in a similar way to you. I have a different view of the world, and I am prepared to go on record and say that the Liberal Party and the National Party are parties that believe in lower taxes, not higher taxes.RF4COOKSenator Cook—Madam President, I rise on a point of order. My question was: by applying the Howard-Lees GST to the commercial and fundraising activities of charities, how much revenue does the government expect to raise? That is the question. I would be grateful if the minister could answer it and, if he cannot answer it, take it on notice and tell us he will get back to us with the answer. All the rest of what he is now saying has nothing to do with the question. If you cannot answer it, don't evade it; just admit it.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—I draw your attention to the question, Senator Kemp.WW4Senator KEMP—Madam President, I thought I had answered it, to be quite frank. I said that Senator Cook did not have the courtesy to indicate that he was going to ask an extraordinarily detailed question involving some calculations, and it is not surprising that I have come down to this chamber without that sort of detail that Senator Cook has requested. Senator Cook raised the issue of taxation, and I believe, Madam President, that I am responding in the general area of taxation. Senator Cook was worried about the taxation of commercial supplies, and what I am saying to him is that it is an unusual question to come from Senator Cook—a man who, above all, believes that the Labor Party is a high tax party. I want to go on record and say that the Liberal and National parties believe in lower taxes, not higher taxes.11612Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. I must say that I do not approach this with great expectation of an answer, but I will try. This is questions without notice and Senator Kemp is the Assistant Treasurer and this matter has been in the news for a week. Will the Assistant Treasurer take my question that I have just asked him on notice and give us an answer? Assistant Treasurer, by applying the GST to the commercial and fundraising activities of charities, how much revenue will be raised compared with the amount of government grants made to the same charities?11613Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—Senator Cook wants even more detail. Senator Cook, because you have asked me to take it on notice, of course I will take it on notice. I am not sure whether the information that you are seeking is available—I do not want to raise your hopes—but I will see what information I am able to provide to you.1161311613Tchen, Sen TsebinSenator TCHEN86YVicLP10—My question is to the Special Minister of State, Senator Ellison, representing the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Would the minister advise the Senate of the measures this government has undertaken over the past year to promote apprenticeships in Australia? What have been the results—AW5CARRSenator Carr—Is this part of the Christmas spirit?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! That sort of comment is not relevant to what is going on and it is disorderly.86YSenator TCHEN—What have been the results of these initiatives and how do they compare with the previous government's initiatives? How have these initiatives helped young Australians and people in rural and regional Australia?11613Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—Our initiatives in training have done a great deal for young people in Australia both in the metropolitan areas and in regional Australia. When this government came to power we had to do a great deal about training because it was not in a good state. I am glad that Senator Tchen asked what we have done this year. In June 1999 there were an estimated 244,000 people involved in a contract of training. That is an increase of 26 per cent on last year. In bringing about this result we have done many things. Firstly, we have the flagship of our training programs: New Apprenticeships. This has provided unparalleled choice and opportunity for those young people—Opposition senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Murphy and Senator Faulkner, you are behaving in a disorderly fashion.9X5Senator ELLISON—The opposition might laugh, but there are a lot of people in Australia who are interested in this question because it relates to training, particularly of young Australians. They might want to take note of the new unemployment figure: 6.7 per cent. That is the best figure we have had since June 1990, and part of that is an increase in youth employment. Why? Because of our training programs. We are training young Australians, which is meeting the demand for skills—unlike when we came to power, when there was a shortage of skills. We have been addressing that. We have spent $1.6 billion on VET funding in the last financial year. We have provided $918 million to the states in relation to VET funding, and that has given them certainty in the programs that they have.AW5CARRSenator Carr—So why is the quality falling?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Carr, I have already called you to order several times this question time.9X5Senator ELLISON—I hear Senator Carr. Senator Carr comes from Victoria, where the Labor state government is reneging on the national training program.AW5CARRSenator Carr—Why is quality falling?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Carr, persistently ignoring remarks from the chair is also disorderly and has its own consequences.9X5Senator ELLISON—Madam President, the state Labor government in Victoria is winding back the training program in that state and taking it back years to that inflexible regime which existed before and denying opportunity and choice for employers and those people who are seeking training opportunities.We have also brought about VET in schools. For the first time we are seeing a great uptake of those young students who want to engage in training and also further themselves whilst at school. In fact, we have some 130,000 Australian students in just under 2,000 schools across this country who are taking up the opportunity of engaging in part-time training. We also have 300 sites for our New Apprenticeships scheme. The New Apprenticeships scheme provides centres which provide information not only for employers who want to take on someone for training purposes but also for those people who want to engage in some form of training. This scheme enhances the number of people we have in training and gives information and incentives to employers.While I am on the subject of incentives, I might just point out the $1,000 incentive that we brought in in regional Australia for those employers who are willing to take on someone to meet a specific identified skills shortage. That spells good news for regional Australia. It provides the incentive for employers to take on people who want to engage in training in regional Australia. And we are going to do more. We are going to see that record number of people in training improve and we are going to fix the situation which we found when we took over from the Labor government back in 1996.1161411614McLucas, Sen JanSenator McLUCAS84LQldALP00—My question is to Senator Kemp, the Assistant Treasurer. Can the minister confirm that if the Royal Children's Hospital, for example, receives a $100,000 donation from an individual and then, in appreciation, the hospital names a ward after that individual, that gift then loses its character as a donation and becomes a sponsorship? If so, does that mean that the $100,000 then becomes GSTable sponsorship and the Howard-Lees GST will take a 10 per cent bite out of that $100,000? Why do the coalition government and the Democrats want to punish people for supporting worthwhile causes such as providing hospital services for sick children?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Questions ought not to be hypothetical, but if there is anything in the question that the minister wishes to deal with, I will call Senator Kemp.11614Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—I just want to make it clear that the general principle is that a donation is GST free. If it is in the nature of a sponsorship, it can be subject to GST. That is a matter where the tax office would have to look at the specifics of the matter. If the hospital wishes to raise this issue—4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—Is this your clear answer?WW4Senator KEMP—No, the question is whether—4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—You said it was a clear answer, but it has been nothing but waffle.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Schacht, you would not have heard it: you have been talking all the time.WW4Senator KEMP—If it is a donation, it is GST free. I am not sure whether the senator is saying it is a donation or a sponsorship. That is a matter that would have to be determined. I would suggest that, if the hospital is concerned about it, it is a matter which it should raise with the tax office. Senator, I do not know whether this is a question that the hospital has put to you or whether it is just you going around, joining your colleagues and trying to create scare and fear. Frankly, the Labor Party has got a bit of a serve on the radio for its performance on these issues over the last couple of days.4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—How much did you pay Alan Jones?WW4Senator KEMP—I invite you to read the comments that Mr Wirth made on the radio today about the behaviour of the Labor Party and the way the Labor Party is going around attempting to scare people. The fact of the matter is that we are bringing in a new tax system which we believe will be of great benefit to charities, of great benefit to non-profit bodies and of great benefit to families. As for the specifics, the general view is that donations are GST free. But if you are saying it is not a donation, it is a sponsorship, then in that case it is a different issue. The facts of the matter would have to be determined by the tax office.11615McLucas, Sen JanSenator McLUCAS84LQldALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. I would just like to get this clear: under the new tax regime, does the mere recognition of a person's contribution by naming a hospital ward after them constitute the provision of a right for GST purposes? Can the minister also confirm that, if such a donation is determined to be a sponsorship, the donation is no longer tax deductible? If so, does this not mean that the Howard-Lees GST will act as a distinct disincentive to the private philanthropy so proudly promoted by the Prime Minister?11615Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—The Prime Minister has proudly promoted philanthropy, and he is dead right. In fact, we have just passed some bills through this parliament today which are giving effect, despite the blocking attempts of the Labor Party, to attempts to improve the capacity for philanthropy in this country. That is what we are trying to do. If there is any specific issue that the senator wants the government to examine, we will look closely at it. But the truth of the matter is that a donation is typically made with no strings attached and, in that case, it is not subject to GST. I do not know whether strings are attached to the grant or not; that is a matter which would have to be determined. We believe that the hospitals, along with the other major institutions in this country, will be better off as a result of this tax system.1161511615Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. I refer to the tabling of the Remuneration Tribunal's report on parliamentary salaries this week and to commitments made by the Prime Minister for some time now that parliamentary superannuation will be reviewed once this issue has been dealt with. When will this review begin?11615Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—I will ask the Prime Minister and get a response.11615Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. I refer the minister to the report in 1997 in which the coalition senators said:. . . change to the Parliamentary Contributory Superannuation Scheme is desirable. The scheme is now out of step with superannuation practice in the wider community. There is convincing evidence that it is excessively generous to a small group of retiring parliamentarians.Is the minister aware of the Prime Minister's comment yesterday when he seemed to be suggesting that higher contributions justified a superannuation scheme where the taxpayers pay three to eight times the amount put in by parliamentarians? Is the Prime Minister now backing away from his commitment?11615Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—The Prime Minister never backs away from a commitment. If you ask me, I do not think it is excessively generous. But you have not asked me. I will refer it to the Prime Minister and I promise the honourable senator an answer by the next question time.1161511615Bishop, Sen MarkSenator MARK BISHOP2L6WAALP00—My question is to the Assistant Treasurer, Senator Kemp. Won't everyone who attends charity Christmas concerts this year be hoping and expecting that all of the proceeds from the sale of tickets will be going to organisations like the Salvation Army, St Vincent de Paul, the Smith Family and the East Timor Appeal? Isn't it exactly this kind of charity concert that will be forced to charge GST on tickets at Christmas time next year with the Howard-Lees skimming off of money intended for the charities?WW4Senator KEMP—I thank the senator for the question. It is a very good question. I thank him for mentioning the Salvation Army. I could not believe my luck when he mentioned the Salvation Army. The Salvation Army have made their views extremely well known. Let me just share with him what the Salvation Army is saying. I will quote Mr Pat Daly from the Salvation Army, who appeared on the radio.2L6BISHOPSenator Mark Bishop—Answer the question.WW4Senator KEMP—You do not want to hear it, but you are going to. You asked the question and, my word, you are going to hear it. This is what the Salvation Army said:The Salvation Army is now comfortable with the GST with the compensation that has been provided by the government. We have signed off on it more or less.Mr Pat Daly is from the Salvation Army. The question was about the Salvation Army. You will hear the Salvation Army's views. Mr Pat Daly said this:We believe that the government is providing adequate compensation, that in fact the government is providing funding for ongoing education.The Salvation Army went on to say a number of things. I invite the senator to—AX5EVANSSenator Chris Evans—Madam President, I raise a point of order. Can the minister clarify whether this is the same spokesman who said he had no knowledge of any of the details and was just trying to help out? He said he could not answer any specific questions about the detail. Is that the same Mr Daly?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—There is no point of order.WW4Senator KEMP—Now we have seen it all. The Labor Party senator has been dopey enough to stand up in this chamber and attack the Salvation Army.AX5EVANSSenator Chris Evans—Table it!WW4Senator KEMP—This is a first in this chamber. In the hundred years since Federation, I suggest that not one senator has got up and attacked the Salvation Army. Senator Evans will go down in history.AX5EVANSSenator Chris Evans—Table it!10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Evans, at the end of the answer, you are entitled to ask the minister to table the document from which he has quoted. It is not appropriate to sit there shouting out, `Table it!' all through the answer. There is a time when you may do so.WW4Senator KEMP—This is what Mr Daly said. Frankly, I am very shocked by the senator's comments as, I guess, all of us on this side of the chamber are shocked. If you saw the faces of your colleagues, you would see that they are pretty shocked too. The Salvation Army are doing a wonderful job in this country. They are entitled to be listened to. They may not be running the Labor Party line, but they are entitled to be listened to.We have had Labor senators standing up purporting to speak on behalf of the charities. Let the charities have their say. Again, this is what Mr Daly of the Salvation Army said:We're satisfied that all the issues have been dealt with and that we're not going to be jeopardised in any way, or it's not going to be a negative for us.That is what is the Salvation Army said. Frankly, for a senator to get up in here and attack the Salvation Army is absolutely outrageous. After question time, the senator should stand up and apologise.11616Bishop, Sen MarkSenator MARK BISHOP2L6WAALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Since this is possibly the last Labor supplementary question of the year, we will do it in the Christmas spirit and try to get an intelligent response from the minister. Assuming that 1,000 people attend a Christmas concert at an average price of $10 each, won't the government next year be skimming $990 off the money raised?11616Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—The senator should be aware from the quotations I made that the Salvation Army have said that the tax reform is not going to be a negative for them. Did you understand that? This may well be my last chance to answer this century. Let me conclude my answer by saying that the good news about tax reform—Opposition senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—The level of noise is absolutely unacceptable.WW4Senator KEMP—The good news is that, of the families who will be attending concerts next year, many of them will have received tax cuts in the order of $40 to $50 per week. That is what we offer. That is what the Labor Party opposed. Let me give you some advice: why don't you go away for the break and work out a few policies for yourselves.1161611616Ferris, Sen JeannieSenator FERRIS5L6SALP10—I have a question for Senator Newman, the Minister for Social Security and the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women. To cap off a very strong year of achievements for Australian women, yesterday the government won passage of its equal opportunity for women in the workplace legislation. Can the minister remind the Senate of key Howard government achievements for women during this past 12 months?BH4HILLSenator Hill—A good question.11617Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—It is a good question. Economic security is very important for Australia's women. Australian women are seeing the benefits of economic security coming from sound government economic policy. There are now almost 300,000 more women employed than there were in March 1996 when we came into government. Just think about that: there are more than 300,000 more Australian women employed under the coalition and its policies. The participation rate for working age women reached a record high of 65.8 per cent in September this year.Today's figures show that the female unemployment rate reached another nine-year low of 6.6 per cent. Under Labor, female unemployment in May 1983 was 10.7 per cent. As Senator Ferris mentioned, just yesterday the government won passage of its equal opportunity for women in the workplace amendments. The new legislation implements our commitment to streamlining paperwork and enabling employers to focus on results for women rather than process, as we had under Labor.The government supports the choice of women with young children to participate in work and education by allocating $5.3 billion for child care over the next four years. A low income family with two children in full-time care may receive almost $12,500 in subsidies from the taxpayer for child care. From July 2000, as part of tax reform the new child-care benefit will deliver increased assistance to families and a much simpler system. The $24 million return to work initiative will help parents or carers returning to the work force after taking time out. For the first time couples, upon marriage breakdown, will be able to split their superannuation to best meet the current and the future needs of both parties. That will help to protect the retirement living standards of older women, which were utterly ignored by the previous government.The government has committed a total of $50 million to help prevent domestic violence. In the area of domestic violence we are focusing on preventing the harm done to children by being the witnesses of domestic violence, on the need for perpetrators to take responsibility to end their violence and, very importantly, on strengthening the grassroots and practical efforts to address indigenous family violence. In 1993 OSW undertook a review chaired by Senator Crowley. It criticised the women's grants program as making a minimal contribution to government policy making. Who can forget the grant to design women's surfboards? Some of us have been here long enough to remember the grant for women's surfboards.Opposition senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senators on my left have been shouting persistently throughout this answer. Their behaviour is disorderly. Senators on my left will stop interjecting.BE4Senator NEWMAN—Senator Crowley's review recommended that operational grants of up to $100,000 be provided to national women's organisations. It was never done by Labor, and we have done it this year—$100,000 a year for three women's organisations. We have been the first government to give grants of that size to women's organisations because we want a rigorous, broadly based feedback from women and we want—Opposition senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! I point out to senators on my left that there is an appropriate time to debate the minister's answer, and that is after question time. Three or four of you have been constantly shouting all through the answer and this is not helping those listening to what is being said.BE4Senator NEWMAN—I am not surprised at the male chauvinists opposite shouting me down but I am surprised at women senators shouting me down. This government has been the first to give grants of that size to women's organisations. It is precisely because we do want rigorous and broadly based feedback from women and a strong voice for women that we have done so. We have provided over $1 million to women's organisations this year: $615,000 through OSW for 19 women's organisations and, in addition, over $460,000 by other mainstream departments to women's groups, such as nursing and single mothers, so that women's voices are heard not just in the girls' sandpit of OSW but also in the mainstream departments where they can influence policy. (Time expired)BH4HILLSenator Hill—I think that's enough questions for this century, or even this millennium, because Labor clearly needs a break. Madam President, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper .Miscellaneous116181161815:03:0011618Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—During question time I said that I would get some additional information for senators on the charity food vouchers. I now seek leave to incorporate that information in Hansard .Leave granted.The document read as follows—ISSUE:Press Release from National Tax and Accountants Association claiming that charity food vouchers will be reduced in value with the GSTRESPONSE:The cost of many food and other products will drop with the introduction of the GST.The GST removes the myriad of imbedded taxes and charges that have been added to the opposition's 1934 tax system by successive governments.Reduced prices may be offset to some degree by the GST, where it applies. Of course, many basic food products are not affected by the GST at all.I will ask that this matter be considered further by the Charities Consultative Committee.1161815:04:0011618Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—Last Tuesday Senator Hutchins asked me a question along the following lines:Will the minister now clarify this situation and tell the many Australians who sponsor a child living overseas as to whether or not they will be paying the Howard-Lees GST on the financial support they provide?Senator Hutchins may have been aware that on the same day, and not without coincidence, the Prime Minister, in responding to a question without notice in another place, provided a specific answer to the question. The Prime Minister said:I am advised that because these arrangements are in the nature of donations, they will not in any way be subject to the GST.He went on to say:And, as the Treasurer reminds me, they are income tax deductible as well.1161815:05:0011618Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—I move:That the Senate take note of answers given by ministers to questions without notice asked by opposition senators today.It is very disappointing that again in question time today Senator Kemp quoted from the partial transcript of a radio interview conducted on radio station 2CN by the morning presenter Ms Kathy Van Extel and a spokesperson for the Salvation Army Mr Pat Daley. Beyond a couple of selective quotes from Senator Kemp, with the usual process the government adopts in these things—the lack of transparency, the unwillingness to undergo any level of parliamentary scrutiny—Senator Kemp, when offered the opportunity to table the transcript of the interview that he is so dependent on and on which he bases a very unfair and in fact a contemptible personal attack on Senator Evans, will not front up and table the transcript of the interview. The reason he will not table the transcript of the interview in this instance is that the whole transcript demonstrates the fact that Mr Daley, obviously as a favour to the radio station, has come on board—as no doubt a person who tends to be pretty cooperative would—and agreed to be interviewed by Ms Van Extel on ABC morning radio.I would urge that all honourable senators and any interested member of the public to try to acquire the transcript that Senator Kemp is not willing to table. We have a situation where Mr Daley, as a favour, went on the radio but could he answer any questions when it came to the detail of the GST and its application to charities. Of course he could not, not because he was unwilling to do so. I do not think he wanted to be unhelpful to Ms Van Extel or her listeners. He simply did not know. He went on board only as a favour to all concerned. Ms Van Extel was virtually forced to terminate the interview. I listened to this interview and was a little embarrassed both for interviewer and for interviewee.Why would a government minister come into the chamber in question time and selectively quote a transcript? And why, in that circumstance, would you have a government minister, having selectively quoted a transcript and defended the government's position on the basis of the transcript of that interview, refuse to table the whole transcript? Why? Because the government minister was very embarrassed with what was contained in the full transcript. That is typical of the show that we have from the government in question time.We have the humiliation of Senator Newman simply unable to answer any question in terms of her portfolio responsibilities. She does not now even take a question on notice. She tries to duckshove it to another minister.Some time ago, I made a prediction in relation to Senator Vanstone being sacked from cabinet. I do not make many predictions in the chamber, but I was right about that. I now make my second prediction, that is, that Senator Newman will go, whether she will be demoted or whether she will see that really it is all too hard. I am sure either she will be demoted or sacked from cabinet, or she will just resign her ministerial responsibility. Time is up for Senator Newman; time is up for Senator Kemp.What a humiliating performance from the government to end question time in these sittings of the parliament. All Australians, particularly those who depend on charity, have good reason to be concerned about what we have heard in this place today.15:10:0011619Tchen, Sen TsebinSenator TCHEN86YVicLP10—The people of Australia first heard the concept of a goods and services tax more than 10 years ago from someone whom the Labor Party no longer mentions in public. They no longer remember him except in the context of Indonesia or a livestock industry. However, he was rolled by his own colleagues who could not understand the importance of an up-to-date taxation system for Australia.In 1993, the Liberal Party took up this task and introduced a new system of taxation to the Australian electors. But because of the way politics work, the persons who used to support taxation reform turned around and caused enough damage so that the idea was lost in 1993. However, in 1998, the Liberal-National Party coalition, with courage which is unusual in politics—certainly on the other side of politics—brought the matter back in front of the Australian people and, having thought about this matter over six years, the people of Australia gave the coalition parties the mandate in the 1998 election to bring in a new taxation system for Australia.After the election, the legislation was passed by the Senate after considerable debate and with the support of the Australian Democrats who, although they are not in the habit of recognising majority mandates, on this occasion recognised the benefit of a new taxation system to Australia and had the legislation passed.This occurred last June. Why is it that, after nearly six months, the GST is back on the agenda again as far as the opposition is concerned? For the last two weeks at question time we have heard nothing from Labor Party senators except on GST and on the very minor point of GST and charity. This is a very strange occurrence; most people would not understand it. Perhaps the reason is not all that strange. I refer senators to a report in the Sydney Morning Herald on Wednesday with the heading `Surfer Beazley on wave of optimism'. The opening statement says:The Opposition Leader, Mr Beazley, yesterday painted a picture of Labor riding to office on a policy surfboard creating the GST wave.That explains why suddenly, instead of, as an opposition party should, presenting alternative policies to what the government has come up with, the Labor Party are simply just nitpicking on minor points, particularly on points which cause concerns for the most vulnerable in our communities, the people who provide charity to the less fortunate. Instead of presenting a viable alternative to Australia, all they want to do is simply create enough wave to enable them to surf through the next election. This is not going to work, of course, because they are going to get dumped by the wave.The reality is, looking at opposition senators over the last two weeks during question time, that they were clearly embarrassed by this approach. They are clearly confused by this situation. The Australian public is getting used to the sight of the opposition leader standing in front of the public, with his considerable bulk, oozing with all the sincerity that he can summons. Opposition senators are not as good at this. We can see they are embarrassed by this because they are trying to create a wave, as it were, in a policy vacuum. (Time expired)15:15:0011620Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—I also wish to speak to the motion that the Senate take note of the answers given in question time today because I think this is a very important issue. I think it is important that I respond to what Senator Kemp has said today because on two occasions, yesterday and today, Senator Kemp has purported to quote the Salvation Army in support of his position and the government's decision to tax charities and include them in the GST net.I have no problem with Senator Kemp quoting sources or any other commentary that he thinks are relevant in answering questions if they do in fact support his position. But I challenged him yesterday to table the document he was quoting from. He refused to do that because he was selectively quoting from an interview with a Salvation Army officer on the local ABC radio news station. Like many senators, I heard the interview that morning with that gentleman. As Senator Faulkner quite correctly pointed out, Mr Daley indicated that he had gone on the show to help out the producer of the show and that, while he himself was not directly involved in discussions about the GST, he was happy to represent the Salvation Army position.What transpired during that interview was that that gentleman said the Salvation Army were happy to tick off on the government's propositions, as Senator Kemp I think correctly quoted. But he did not then go on and explain that Mr Daley was unable to answer any questions about the detail, any questions about how the GST might impact on the Salvation Army's operations, or that he was really quite flustered when asked to respond to specific issues—the sorts of issues that we have been raising in the parliament this week, the sorts of issues that the charities raised with the Senate community affairs committee when we inquired into the GST, the sorts of issues that go to the charities' capacity to deliver services to the hungry, to the needy, to the poor in our community. He was not able to assist in answering how they would be impacted upon by the government's proposed changes.Quite frankly, it was not surprising, because no-one can. The Assistant Treasurer in this place cannot help, the Treasurer cannot help, and we understand that the Democrats and the government are still locked in negotiations trying to do some deal at the last minute to respond to the growing public pressure and the real concern that the ability of the charities and the not-for-profit sector to service the poor, the hungry and the needy in our society will be severely reduced by having the GST imposed on them.What I do want to do is put on the record what the Salvation Army have said about the GST. I do not want to selectively quote them, so, with permission, at the end of my remarks I will table the AAP story that details their position. To quote from the AAP story dated Tuesday 7 December at 6.34 p.m.:One of Australia's biggest and most respected charities, the Salvation Army, said today it would sign up to the GST.It made it clear, however, it was not happy at being caught up in the tax net.Lieutenant Colonel John Hodge, who chaired the Salvation Army's internal review of the GST said the organisation was still not happy about being subject to the new tax."I still wonder why we're all in it," he told AAP. "As a member of a church and a non-profit group, we'd be foolish to say complying with the GST won't cost us anything, of course it will.He went on to say:. . . the Salvation Army would not attempt to exclude itself from the GST, because it would then miss out on the benefits such as being able to claim back the GST on goods and services it bought."You do need to register otherwise you lose the tax exemptions," he said.He went on further to say:. . . the Salvos were in a much better position than many other charities because the hierarchical organisation and centralised bookkeeping made it easier to keep track of accounts and ensure GST inputs could be claimed back.There is a further part to the report. I am happy to table the document so we get a full reporting of the Salvation Army's position and so that it is not misused for political purposes by the Assistant Treasurer, Senator Kemp.What is clear is that, like most charities in Australia, the Salvation Army are not at all happy about having the GST imposed upon them. More importantly, they know that it will reduce their ability to provide services to the poor and needy in our community. That is the key issue. Including them in the GST net, the compliance costs and other costs associated mean they will deliver less services. That is the public policy issue we ought to be dealing with. That is what the government has to answer. Services to the poor, the needy and the hungry in our community will be reduced as a result of including charities in the GST net. There is no defence against that accusation because that is a fact. They will deliver less services as a result of having to comply with the GST. All of them are reluctant to be caught in that net. I seek leave to table that document.Leave granted.15:20:0011621Knowles, Sen SusanSenator KNOWLESTH4WALP10—Today we are hearing a further extension of the scare campaign—surprise, surprise, surprise! But isn't it amazing: Senator Faulkner comes in here—the first one to take note of answers—purely and simply to defend his colleague, Senator Evans, who made the most unbelievable and outrageous outburst against the Salvation Army that I have ever heard in my 15 years in the Senate. To think that a senator can come in here and make such a slanderous outburst against the good work that the Salvation Army does is unbelievable.And then, of course, Senator Faulkner continued his habitual sledging of senators, particularly female senators. The sledging that Senator Faulkner undertakes against Senator Newman is pretty jolly breathtaking to watch. Every day we see his attitude toward Senator Newman and Senator Vanstone. Opposition senators really will need to look at their leadership if they continue to completely and utterly sledge senators—and not just Senator Kemp, but particularly female senators.Coming back to the substance of the issue in terms of the Salvation Army in particular and charities in general, Senator Evans has chosen to table an AAP story—big deal!—purporting to give the complete outline of the position of the Salvation Army. Well, big deal! If you want to know what was in the exact transcript of the interview that took place—AX5EVANSSenator Chris Evans—Table it!TH4Knowles, Sen SusanSenator KNOWLES—I'll table it. There you are; you can have it. There is not one single solitary thing in there that is anti the government's position on GST. There you go. I seek leave to table the document.Leave granted.TH4Knowles, Sen SusanSenator KNOWLES—Thank you very much. This is exactly the position that was needed. This whole interview is complimentary to the goods and services tax, the way it is going to be implemented and the fine tunning, and has never been disguised or hidden in any way, shape or form. In fact, there is going to be a consultative group within the ATO, comprised of representatives from the charitable sector, to assist with any GST concerns relating to administration or compliance. The Labor opposition does not want to recognise that. They continually and habitually ignore it. What was said by Mr Pat Daley on 8 December—yesterday—about the implementation of the goods and services tax is precisely what he understood it to be, and he said they were quite pleased with the negotiations that had started. He said:It's like this. The Salvation Army is now comfortable with the goods and services tax, with the compensation that is being provided by the government. We believe that the government is providing adequate compensation . . . that in fact the government is providing funding for ongoing education.But that is not good enough for the Labor Party. They still want to misrepresent the position of the Salvation Army. Worse than that, they want to attack the Salvation Army. Mr Daley also went on to say:We are satisfied that all the issues have been dealt with and that we are not going to be jeopardised in any way . . . it is not going to be a negative for us.He also went on to say:All of this has been blown out of proportion.How true is that? The rest of the interview purely and simply goes through the position as Mr Daley sees it at the moment. I am grateful to the Senate for accepting that. Before I finish I want to refer to two quotes from the RSPCA. They said:The opposition says things that frighten us. They are saying things for the political advantage they may receive.How true is that? They went on to say:I honestly believe that the truth is that the RSPCA will be better off.Yet here we have the opposition every single solitary day this week, last week, every other week and in fact for the last four years saying that things are not so. (Time expired)15:25:0011622Bishop, Sen MarkSenator MARK BISHOP2L6WAALP00—That was a remarkable speech from Senator Knowles. She attempts to play the man, not the ball. Senator Evans simply asked for a document to be tabled that would lay the truth on the table. Until now the government has refused to table that document. Now it is there and we will examine it in due course. The core point in the entire debate as it affects the relevant organisation has been put out already. What do the Salvation Army say in respect of the GST? On 7 December, AAP reports them as saying:It made it clear, however—that is, the Salvation Army—it was not happy at being caught up in the tax net. Lieutenant Colonel John Hodge, who chaired the Salvation Army's internal review of the GST, said the organisation was still not happy about being subject to the new tax."I still wonder why we're all in it," he told AAP. "As a member of a church and a non-profit group, we'd be foolish to say complying with the GST won't cost us anything . . . There are the simple facts. The Salvation Army did not want to be in it. They signed up and they now regret it. The document that Senator Knowles has tabled will in due course confirm that very clear point.During the entire GST debate the opposition made a number of comments concerning the Howard-Lees GST and its effect on charities. We said and still say it was an inequitable, inefficient new tax which is bad for the economy. We said it would unfairly impact on low income earners, single income families, welfare recipients and pension recipients. We said it would impact on the entire community from birth right through until death. We repeatedly asserted—and there was mountains of evidence—administrative inconvenience, a host of anomalies and huge compliance problems for small business.The government and the Australian Democrats tried to avoid criticism of their joint GST package by saying charities and charitable services were to be excluded from the GST, and that charities and welfare organisations, which provide much needed services to the Australian community, were to be exempt from the vicious 10 per cent tax. We now know, as we have demonstrated all this week, that that proposition is patently untrue. The charities and the charitable sector were told by the government that they would be looked after and that they would be exempt from the GST—that has proved to be incorrect. It is now exposed for what it always was—simple deceit.To make matters worse, all this week the government has sought to cover up its own deceit by denying reality. On Tuesday, for example, the Prime Minister denied the whole impact of the Howard-Lees GST on charities. He denied how it was going to work in practice. Mr Howard made three grievous errors. Those errors do not go to issues of technical detail, but issues of substantive policy. Mr Howard denied, firstly, the application of the GST to the commercial operations of charities; secondly, that business sponsorships on charities would not attract the GST; and, thirdly, he claimed that if the activity of a charity was under a certain level it would not be caught up in the GST net. On each of these three counts Mr Howard was wrong in his understanding of the application of the GST to charities.What are the facts? The facts are as was put out in a press release under the name of the Hon. Simon Crean, MP, on 7 December. He said, in response to the Prime Minister's claims:First: `In relation, Mr Speaker, to any commercial activities, then so far as the charity is concerned, there is no application [of the GST]'That is wrong. The Treasurer boasted yesterday about how the GST was going to apply to all commercial activities of charities.Second: The Prime Minister suggested that business sponsorship of charities would not attract the GST.Wrong. They will attract the GST.Third: In a further . . . error, he claimed, `. . . if the activity is under a certain level, then they are not caught in the GST net.'Wrong again. All of the inputs of these charities, such as their rent, electricity, telephone, transport and accounting, attract the GST, and they will not be able to claim it back. This makes the GST the largest embedded tax factor facing the charities sector.To make matters worse, the government is engaged in a change of direction on two major fronts. Firstly, it seeks to encourage large corporations to be more engaged in the philanthropic or charitable sector by endowing worthwhile institutions or contributing to charitable causes. (Time expired)Question resolved in the affirmative.Notices1162311623Senator Harris to move, on the next day of sitting:That the Senate notes that:(a) 10 December 1999 is the 50th anniversary of the use of a system of proportional representation for the election of the Senate;(b) proportional representation delivers seats roughly in proportion to votes received, and is therefore arguably more democratic in nature than a voting system based on single member electorates;(c) proportional representation facilitates the election of minor parties and independents;(d) in the 1998 election the proportion of the first preference vote for minor parties in the House of Representatives was around 20 per cent, and yet only one representative was elected who was not from the major parties;(e) proportional representation ensures that the Senate represents significant groups of electors not able to secure the election of members to the House of Representatives; and(f) considers that this initiative of the Chifley Government continues to result in a Senate that is dedicated to the service of the Australian people.Senator Conroy to move, on the next day of sitting:That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for a Act to remove discrimination against same sex couples in respect of superannuation benefits. Superannuation (Entitlements of same sex couples) Bill 2000 .Senator Conroy to move, on the next day of sitting:That the provisions of the Superannuation (Entitlements of same sex couples) Bill 2000 be referred to the Select Committee on Superannuation and Financial Services for inquiry and report by 10 April 2000.Ministerial Statements116231162315:32:0011623Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I table the ninth annual statement to parliament on Australia's Development Cooperation Program by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, and seek leave to incorporate the statement in Hansard .Leave granted.The statement read as follows—Ninth Annual Statement to Parliament on Australia's Development Cooperation Program, 9 December 1999I am pleased to make the Ninth Annual Statement to Parliament on Australia's development cooperation program. This last year has been one of major challenges and change, particularly in the Asia Pacific region. Australia has been at the forefront of responding to those challenges. We have promoted our national interests, in a way which has strengthened our standing in the region and the world. It has also been a year of great achievements, with the aid program playing a practical and positive role in Australia's contribution to the stability and development of our region.Australian support, including through the aid program, has helped our neighbours emerge from the economic crisis and set out on the path to recovery and sustainable growth.We have helped Indonesia begin its transition to democracy, with substantial assistance for that country's first democratic elections in four decades.Australia has been instrumental in the East Timorese being able to choose their own future—and is now playing a strong part in helping them realise that future.Papua New Guinea—our largest aid partner—has a new Government, which is committed to economic reform. Australia is providing solid backing to its reform efforts. Our aid program in Bougainville continues to underpin the peace process on the province.We have continued to help the island nations of the South Pacific pursue their economic and social reform agendas.Australia responded quickly and effectively to help the Solomon Islands government deal with the impact of the Guadalcanal/Malaita tensions, including through emergency humanitarian and rehabilitation assistance.The Government has ensured that the aid program is well-placed to play its part.We have provided additional funds to the program for East Timor. In September, the Treasurer and I announced an additional contribution of $35 million over three years to the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries Initiative, to help lower the debt burden of the world's poorest nations. We have assisted East Timorese and Kosovar evacuees in Australia. These commitments will increase official development assistance this financial year to over $1.6 billion. Thus at this stage, our ODA/GNP ratio looks set to increase from the previously estimated 0.25 per cent to 0.28 per cent.These increases are substantial. But volume is not the only—or even the most important—measure of the Government's achievement in the development field. More important are the quality and impact of development. This has been a long-standing concern of mine. And the Government has lifted aid quality, as demonstrated by the recent review of Australia's aid program by the Development Assistance Committee of the OECD. This peer review by other donor countries concluded with a press release on 7 December in these terms:"Australia's development cooperation programme has gone through an impressive process of restructuring and renewal since the last peer review in May 1996Continuing reforms and adaptations to aid policies and management have improved the quality and impact of the programme..A strengthened approach to programme planning, implementation, and evaluation are an integral part of (the) focus on quality. These reforms put Australia in the vanguard of DAC members' aid management practices".So it is a very positive report card on Australia's aid program from our peers.GovernanceThe different challenges over the last year have had their own individual natures and circumstances. But in reviewing the year, we see that a common thread is "governance".Governance covers many powerful concepts, including good government, capacity building, transparency and accountability, human rights, and the equitable rule of law. It is about what makes a good society—where citizens and groups voice their interests, mediate their differences and exercise their rights, both in the private sector and in the public domain.Societies in which decisions by Government can be questioned and contested are ones in which good decisions are more likely to be made. The process through which governments are forced to pause, consider alternatives, and then defend their decisions promotes better outcomes.This Government has recognised the critical role of governance in achieving good development outcomes. In my 1997 annual report, Better Aid for a Better Future , I made governance a specific focus for the aid program. Since then, governance has grown to 15 per cent of aid expenditure, or over $220 million in 1998-99. The program targets four main areas to advance good governance: economic and financial management; law and justice; public sector management; and the development of civil society.The importance of governance has been thrown into even sharper relief this year as we look more closely at some of the key developments, starting with the East Asia financial crisis.The East Asia crisisThere are many explanations for the crisis. One explanation which is relevant to all the affected countries is governance—quality of prudential supervision of banks; transparency and accountability of economic decision making, and so on. Governance is also the key to the region's recovery and its sustainable future. For these reasons, Australia has sought to strengthen governance capacities within the region.In last year's statement I referred to the major $50 million package of economic governance assistance for crisis-affected economies. Implementation of the initiative is well underway, with over $40 million of activities now completed or in progress.To support APEC's response to the crisis, Australia commissioned a study on the impacts of the crisis on children and social safety nets. To address some of the issues highlighted in the study, the Prime Minister announced at the APEC leaders meeting in Auckland a three-year, $5 million Social Protection Facility for East Asia .Governance was also a major theme of the major international meeting on aid responses to the Asia Crisis which I convened in Sydney in March this year. The meeting went a long way in shoring up greater international coordination and reinforcing political commitment to address the economic and social impacts of the crisis. Delegates emphasised in particular the importance of strengthening governance frameworks to promote a quick and sustainable recovery.The meeting also endorsed my proposal to establish the Asia Recovery Information Centre. This internet-based information exchange centre is now based at the Asian Development Bank in Manila. It will enhance coordination between donors and regional governments to promote sustained recovery.Fortunately, the past 12 months have seen the economies of East Asia reviving. The five crisis countries—Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Thailand and Korea—are now expected to have average growth rates of almost 3 per cent in 1999 and 4 per cent in 2000. While this is good news, there is no cause for complacency. The situation still remains fragile. There is a risk that the strengthening recovery could reduce the urgency of reform. A continuing emphasis on governance issues is vital.This point was reinforced by His Excellency Anand Panyarachun, former Thai Prime Minister, when he was in Australia last month as a guest of the Centre for Democratic Institutions, which I established 18 months ago. Mr Anand noted Thailand's achievements over the past decade and emphasised the importance of democratic, open, and accountable government in working towards his country's goals.Within East Asia, mention should be made of Indonesia , which in many ways suffered most from the crisis. As I have indicated, our aid program has been helping Indonesia's transition to democracy and its emerging economic recovery. We provided $14.3 million to support the Indonesian elections. We commenced a $70 million, three-year package of capacity building in economic and financial management. We have provided humanitarian assistance to ensure people have food and medicine and to keep children in schools. We look forward to supporting the efforts of the new Indonesian government to achieve a more prosperous and democratic nation.Our leadership role in East Timor speaks for itself. We provided over $20 million to the United Nations Consultation Process on Autonomy. Since the ballot, Australian leadership of INTERFET has helped restore security. Australia has also played a critical role in the international humanitarian response, providing basic shelter, food, and water to the people of East Timor.The challenge of building a new nation is great, including to develop an open, accountable and efficient government and administration, as well as a strong civil society. It will require a major and coordinated effort from the international community. Australia will play a significant role in sharing the burden. Assistance to the East Timorese people, will total at least $75 million this financial year, including the additional $60 million for the aid program I announced on 22 November.Papua New GuineaTurning to another close neighbour, the election of the Morauta Government in Papua New Guinea has provided a new impetus for economic policy reform and improved governance.Australia's aid program is providing support for this reform impetus. On 1 September, I announced that the final payment of budget support to Papua New Guinea, worth some $30 million, would be brought forward. We have provided further technical assistance to the key economic agencies in the PNG Government.In October, the Prime Minister and PNG's Prime Minister, Sir Mekere Morauta, signed a new treaty on development cooperation. The treaty will build on the governance results already being achieved through the aid program. It provides for the establishment of an "Incentive Fund", which will reward excellence and promote contestability among Papua New Guinean Government agencies and community and private organisations. It will support reform efforts that local communities want, which have real impact, and which will last.During the Prime Minister's visit to PNG, he committed $120 million to help retire Papua New Guinea debt and implement structural adjustment programs. While this loan is not aid, it is another demonstration of Australian support for PNG's reform agenda, and in particular PNG's re-engagement with the IMF and World Bank.Australia also continues to support the Bougainville peace process through a program of reconstruction and rehabilitation and logistical support for the continuing peace negotiations. Technical support has also been provided to the Bougainville provincial authorities to strengthen their planning processes.South PacificAs well as PNG, other South Pacific countries remain a strong focus for the aid program. Improving governance is one of the keys to helping the island nations achieve the maximum possible degree of self-reliance. An important tool in recognising and rewarding those Pacific Island countries showing demonstrated commitment to essential economic and public sector management reforms is the Policy and Management Reform initiative. This initiative has been steadily increasing over the last 4 years to its current level of over $14 million; and has funded such diverse projects as a new computerised customs system and a regional media-training project.Community involvementBefore concluding my statement to Parliament today, I want to acknowledge the Australian community's involvement in tackling the challenges facing developing countries in our region. I have been struck by the generosity of the Australian people and their belief in a fair go for all. Community involvement in the aid program has been further extended through the Australian Youth Ambassadors for Development program. The program, now in its second year, has placed 140 young Australians in the region.The Government has also moved to recognise and strengthen the important relationship between the Government and non government organisations in Australia's overseas aid program. A few months ago I issued a policy statement, which provides the framework for a productive working relationship between the government and NGOs.Another initiative involving the community is Destroy A Minefield , which I launched in November. This initiative will assist minefields clearance in Cambodia. Every two dollars raised in the community will be matched by one dollar from the Government.ConclusionWith a year of achievement behind us for Australia in general, and the aid program in particular, we look ahead to building on that success. We can maximise the impact of our aid efforts in reducing poverty and achieving sustainable development if we continue to do three things.First, we need to remain focused on those areas where we have the real capacity to assist. Governance is one of those areas.Second, we need to be alert and responsive to the rapidly changing environment, particularly in our region. No one accurately predicted all the tumultu ous events that occurred in the last few years. The only safe prediction for the future is that the unexpected is likely to happen—and we need to be able to respond quickly.Finally, what really matters is that things actually change for the better. I want to see us play our part in partnership with our neighbours, to help them reduce poverty and achieve sustainable development. That is the test. The way we do that is to continue to make our aid program professional, driven by quality, and focused on real impact.That way we will make a difference.15:33:0011626Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—I move:That the Senate take note of the document.I am pleased to have this opportunity to respond to the Foreign Minister's annual statement on Australia's overseas aid program. There is, I have to say, an increasing element of casual routine to these end of year statements. Nevertheless, it is very worth while today to reaffirm Labor's bipartisan support for Australia's overseas aid program.This has been, as the minister observes, a big year for foreign aid. I think everyone would agree with that as a statement. I would like to make a few points about our international development assistance, especially the implications of our large and growing effort in East Timor. On 22 November the minister announced that Australia would contribute an additional $A60 million this year to assist East Timor's humanitarian and reconstruction needs. Together with the $14 million previously committed to East Timor, this is the largest ever contribution to an international humanitarian crisis by Australia. This commitment has Labor's wholehearted support.My colleague the shadow minister for foreign affairs, Mr Brereton, visited East Timor as a member of the Australian parliamentary group observing the 30 August ballot, and again more recently in the company of the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Cunningham. He said on his return that the scale of the destruction he witnessed was quite overwhelming. The task of reconstruction is enormous. What was a very poor society burdened by decades of oppression and exploitation was razed from one end to the other by the pro-Indonesian militia and their TNI backers. It was a systematic and highly organised campaign of vengeance and destruction. In the history of decolonisation this century, it is difficult to find a comparable case where a new nation was forced to start so near absolute zero. We still do not know how many people died. Around 140,000 East Timorese are still in squalid refugee camps in West Timor, where militia intimidation is still rife and the risks of disease, including cholera, are growing by the day.In East Timor, where the wet season has begun, more than 70 per cent of homes need to be rebuilt. Schools, shops, public services and health centres—all need to be rebuilt or repaired. Roads and other basic infrastructure are in an appalling state of disrepair. On top of this, the key institutions of an independent nation need to be established: a public service, political and judicial institutions and effective health and education services. Usually a new state would at least inherit working institutions of some sort from the former colonial regime, but that is not the case in East Timor. I do not think anyone can underestimate the challenges ahead for the UNTAET and for East Timor's leaders. They will need all the help they can get. All this amounts to an enormous task, and the demand on our aid budget will be an enduring one. No-one should say that they have any doubt about that. The international community—the European Union, the United States, Japan and many other countries—have responded generously, but a large measure of responsibility will undoubtedly rest with Australia. We must be in this for the long haul.Here can be found an anomaly. As honourable senators will recall, the Prime Minister announced the Defence (East Timor) Levy, the so-called Timor tax, on 23 November. When he did so, he foreshadowed an estimated $3.683 billion of additional expenditure over the period 1999-2000 to 2002-03. The overwhelming majority of this expenditure—$3.562 billion or 96.7 per cent of the total—relates to the Australian Defence Force: $1.355 billion for the ADF deployment in East Timor; $529 million on capital equip ment; $1,547 million for force expansion, being the raising of two additional battalion groups; and $131 million for the income tax exemption for pay and allowances of ADF personnel on eligible duty outside Australia. All these commitments extend over the current financial period and out to the financial year 2002-03.By comparison, the $60 million of humanitarian and reconstruction aid for East Timor in the current financial year amounts to a very modest 1.62 per cent of the additional expenditure outlined in the Prime Minister's statement. Indeed, the commitments announced by the Prime Minister put our overall foreign aid effort into an interesting perspective. The point I wish to draw to senators' attention, however, is the absence of any forward commitment on aid for East Timor. Unlike the commitments to the Australian Defence Force deployment and force expansion, this is a one-off, one year only additional allocation. Obviously, the government considers itself unable to make a forward commitment on aid. But the reality of a very large and ongoing demand on our aid program is clear. It raises interesting questions for next year's aid budget.Examination of the statistical annexe of this year's development assistance budgetary summary gives the sorry tale of the government's stewardship of our foreign aid. In the last budget of the former Labor government—1995-96—Australia's official development assistance in constant 1998-99 prices was $1.635 billion or 0.32 per cent of GNP. In the first Howard government budget this was slashed by 9.4 per cent to $1.481 billion and the ratio fell to what was then a historic low of 0.28 per cent of GNP. In the following year there was a further cut of 1.9 per cent and the ratio again fell to 0.27 per cent of GNP. In 1998-99, the aid budget amounted to $1.478 billion, a slight increase of 1.7 per cent but a further fall in the ODA to GNP ratio of 0.26 per cent. This year's budget involved an aid vote of $1.5 billion, an increase of $22 billion over 1998-99. In effect, while it maintained the status quo, the ODA to GNP ratio was projected to fall to a new low of 0.25 cent.Since the budget, of course, Australia's East Timor commitments and an additional $35 million over three years for the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries Initiative have pushed our foreign aid to slightly more than $1.6 billion. The minister anticipates that our ODA to GNP ratio will increase from the previously projected 0.25 per cent to 0.28 per cent. But what happens next year?Australia will unquestionably be obliged to continue a very significant amount of assistance to East Timor. We must do that but, as the minister's statement rightly makes clear, Australia's aid program is much more than simply East Timor. We have very large and important commitments in Papua New Guinea, the South Pacific and East Asia. We also have smaller but still important programs in South Asia, Africa and the Middle East. And we are likely to face other significant demands on our resources—not only in our immediate region but also further afield.The challenge for the Minister for Foreign Affairs will be how the aid budget will accommodate new, large and ongoing demands. There will certainly be a strong temptation on the part of the Treasurer and the Minister for Finance and Administration to accommodate at least part of these demands through cuts from elsewhere in our aid budget from programs in Africa and South Asia, the two regions where the greatest numbers of the world's poorest people are to be found. The Foreign Minister has given no forward commitments on aid to East Timor. Equally significantly, he has given no guarantee that further aid to East Timor or elsewhere in our region will not be at the expense of other established programs further afield.The minister observed in his statement that volume is not the only—or necessarily the most important—measure of foreign aid; the quality and impact of development assistance are what counts. No-one would disagree with this but it is equally true that resources, the actual volumes of aid, are critical. It is ridiculous to suggest otherwise. The government continues to pay lip service to the United Nations 0.7 per cent of overseas development aid to the GNP ratio target. But lip service is all that it is. As the 1996 Simons report made clear, such a commitment has very little, if any, credibility unless a realistic framework is set for Australia to work towards the ultimate goal. We await next year's aid budget with keen interest.Question resolved in the affirmative.Business1162811628Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell)—by leave—proposed:That the question for the adjournment of the Senate today shall not be proposed till after a motion for the adjournment is moved by a minister.15:43:0011628Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—The opposition supports the motion on the understanding that the meaning of that motion is consistent with the letter that has been distributed by the Manager of Government Business, which in effect will have us debating the ANTS package, a bill regarding the NCA and then adjourning, as I understand the circumstances. I just want to be clear with Senator Campbell that that remains the government's intent.15:44:0011628Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I confirm that a letter has been sent to leaders, whips and indeed some deputy whips. I do not have a copy of that letter with me, but I think Senator Carr has. I am happy, quite frankly, to seek leave to have that incorporated.Leave granted.The letter read as follows—SENATOR THE HON IAN CAMPBELLManager of Government Business in the SenateParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the ArtsSenator FaulknerSenator LeesSenator HarradineSenator BrownSenator HarrisSenator CarrSenator O'BrienSenator BourneI am writing to confirm the government's legislative programme for the remainder of today. It is the Government's expectation that the bills agreed for debate in the non-controversial time for today can be completed before 2.00pm. Should this time not be sufficient it would be our intention to conclude these bills after the debate on the ANTS package of bills is complete.In addition, I understand that there is a general agreement to consider the National Crime Authority Amendment Bill 1999 but not for its consideration in the 12.45pm timeslot. I therefore propose that this bill be debated at the conclusion of the debate on the ANTS package. It is intended that the Senate not rise until all stages of the ANTS bills and any messages on bills returned from the House of Representatives have been considered.The question for the adjournment of the Senate would then be proposed. To facilitate this I intend moving a motion to allow an open-ended adjournment this afternoon after Question Time.December 9th, 1999H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—There is one thing that needs to be clarified. Obviously it will be in the record for posterity's sake, but it does state that we may need to deal with messages. I do not think Senator Carr mentioned that. We are not expecting a message. There may be a message on TLAB 8 but that will be getting here at a reasonable time. We are not sure what we are doing with that yet. We do not expect messages on the ANTS package, but we are still trying to determine that with advice from our legal counsel. It is our intention to finish ANTS. It is our intention to do the NCA if there is an agreement on that. It is then our intention to adjourn for this millennium.Question resolved in the affirmative.Ministerial Statements116291162915:46:0011629Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I table a statement to parliament on the 30th session of the UNESCO General Conference by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, and I seek leave to incorporate the statement in Hansard .Leave granted.The statement read as follows—IntroductionI had the honour to lead the Australian Delegation to the 30th Session of the UNESCO General Conference, held in Paris in November. Australia is a founding member of UNESCO, the Organisation responsible within the United Nations system for the promotion of education, science and culture.We have been active in the Organisation throughout its history and are presently the 9th largest contributor in accordance with, a contribution scale set by the United Nations.For these reasons and because of the important role that UNESCO can play in promoting basic education in developing countries, the Government attaches much importance to this Organisation.Australia's Election to the Executive BoardAn important objective for Australia at the Conference was our election to the UNESCO Executive Board as the nominated candidate of the Pacific sub-group of the Asia-Pacific region. We were successful, obtaining one of the largest votes we have ever achieved. We have already begun our two-year term on the Board, represented by Professor Ken Wiltshire of the University of Queensland, who as Chairman of the Australian National Commission for UNESCO, is widely known and respected within the Organisation.UNESCO ReformUNESCO has had a number of successes in recent years, including for example, the World Science Conference held in Budapest in June-July and the Education Conference in Melbourne. However, it also has been subject to some well-founded criticism for poor management practices and a lack of focus in its program activity on core functions—those areas where UNESCO has the capacity uniquely to add value.One of the Government's major objectives during this year's Conference, and during our current term on the Executive Board, will be to give strong support to improved management in the Organisation.It was therefore, pleasing, that together with others, we were able to achieve a consensus on a zero nominal growth budget for the next biennium (2000-2001). This budget approach will require significant administrative and managerial efficiencies to ensure that budgeted program activities are carried out.Australia's Election to the Finance and Administration Group of ExpertsLikewise our contribution to efforts to promote managerial reform will be facilitated by our recent appointment to a 12-member group of experts on administrative and financial management. Election of a new Director-General One of the most important events during the Conference was the election of a new Director-General to replace Mr Federico Mayor who had served two six-year terms. While there was no guarantee, the expectation was that the new Director General should come from the Asia-Pacific region as none of the previous incumbents, in the 50 year history of the Organisation, had come from this region.Members will be aware that, in keeping with the importance we attach to the reform of the Organisation and consistent with our active engagement in it, Australia nominated Gareth Evans for this position. Despite a very credible campaign which attracted much interest, he was not successful.The new Director-General, Mr Matsuura of Japan has already outlined in some detail the strategy he proposes to follow in revitalizing UNESCO and refurbishing its image. His thoughtful and determined approach has attracted widespread support amongst members.Australia will give Mr Matsuura its full support in his endeavours and we look forward to working with him, including through our membership of the Executive Board.Pacific Island Involvement in UNESCOAustralia is a member of the Pacific sub-group of the Asia-Pacific region within UNESCO. During the Conference we worked very closely with the Pacific Island Delegations and were deeply appreciative of the strong support that they gave to our Executive Board candidature.The importance attached by Pacific Island countries to UNESCO and to its programs is reflected in the growth in membership—from 6 Pacific members in early 1989 to 16 members after Palau and the Federated States of Micronesia joined during this General Conference.One of our priorities in the period ahead will be to develop further the excellent relations with these countries and to build on the support that we are able to offer them in UNESCO.Australia's Election to the Bureau of the World Heritage Committee During the General Conference there was a meeting of the States party to the World Heritage Convention followed by a meeting of the World Heritage Committee, of which Australia is a member. At the meeting we were successful in being elected to the Bureau of the Committee, as the vice-chair for the Asia-Pacific region.This outcome gave us the opportunity to pursue our objective of hosting the Committee meeting in the year 2000 in Cairns and serving as Chair of the Committee. As Senator Hill announced over the weekend, Australia's invitation to host this meeting was accepted on the third of December at the 1999 session of the Committee held in Marrakech, Morocco. It was clear during the extraordinary session of the Committee, as it has been at other meetings, that the effort that Australia puts into protecting its natural and cultural heritage is widely regarded as being at the forefront of world practice.The Committee meeting in Cairns will also give us the opportunity to place a special emphasis not only on Australia's world heritage properties, but on the importance of extending the reach of the Convention into the Pacific region.As Senator Hill said on the weekend, "Cairns is a gateway to the Great Barrier Reef and Queensland's Wet Tropics, providing us with an excellent opportunity to showcase Australia's exemplary standards in World Heritage management".YouthThe UNESCO General Conference was also notable for the particular emphasis it gave to youth participation. UNESCO, through its Associated Schools Project, and in cooperation with the French Government, hosted the World Parliament of Children, marking the 10th anniversary of the entry into force of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Australia was represented at this important occasion by students Caitlin Goss from Queensland and Ryan Hall from Victoria. The Parliament produced a Youth Manifesto which was formally presented to the General Conference. It will also be tabled at the Millennium session of the UN General Assembly in New York.The Associated Schools project I have just mentioned forms a valuable global network of schools which places particular emphasis on education and exchanges in the field of heritage, sports and drugs. I had a productive discussion with the Secretariat official responsible for the project and look forward to its wider implementation in Australia.The General Conference itself also had a Youth Forum at which Australia played a particularly prominent role. Not only did Professor Wiltshire as co-Chair of UNESCO's Youth Council, address the Forum, Australia was elected to the Youth Forum's Drafting Committee, and the two Australian delegates, Mia Handshin and Cameron Forbes, played a leading role in the debate on UNESCO's youth strategies and its youth agenda into the 21st century. The Australian delegates worked in close cooperation with their colleagues from the Asia Pacific region.Bilateral MeetingsI took the opportunity of the Conference to meet bilaterally with a number of colleagues including Mr Claude Allegre, French Minister for National Education, Research and Technology. My discus sions with Mr Allegre included the recent signing of an MOU by Mr Allegre and Dr Kemp on Education Collaboration and Mutual Recognition of Qualifications, which provides a good platform for ongoing dialogue on education cooperation.I also met with Mrs Margarethe Vestager, Danish Minister of Education and Ecclesiastical Affairs, with whom I discussed increasing the utilisation of information technology in teaching, reforms in adult education and improving the quality of education through enhanced teacher skills. I also met with Mr Kadel Asmal, Minister of Education of the Republic of South Africa.These exchanges were useful and provided valuable opportunities to explain Australian Education policies and to learn from the experience of others.ConclusionMr Speaker, let me conclude by paying tribute to the work done in supporting the involvement of the Australian Government in UNESCO by the Australian National Commission. The Commission has amongst its members some of the most eminent Australians in their field who contribute to the work of the Commission in their own time and often at their own expense. The effectiveness of the Australian National Commission is widely recognised by other National Commissions, many of which have sought to follow the Australian model.Australia's participation in UNESCO enhances our national standing through showcasing Australia's expertise in such areas of human endeavour as bioethics, oceanography, hydrology, indigenous culture and education. It brings direct benefits to Australia in terms of consultancies and trade in services that flow from the contacts that are made during the various meetings. But most importantly our active and effective participation can contribute to needs of countries, particularly those less well off than Australia, through the improvement of basic education standards, the promotion of bioethics and the protection of heritage and human rights.11631Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—I move:That the Senate take note of the document.I seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted; debate adjourned.Committees11631116311163115:46:0011631Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—I present the government's response to the report of the Community Affairs References Committee on its inquiry into child care funding, and I seek leave to incorporate the document in Hansard .Leave granted.The document read as follows—Government response to the Senate Community Affairs References Committee Report on Child Care FundingCommonwealth Department of Family and Community Services9 December 1999IntroductionThe Government welcomes the opportunity to respond to the Senate Community Affairs References Committee Report on Child Care Funding. In its examination of key child care issues, the report supports many of the Government's important child care reforms.There have been significant developments in the area of child care funding since the Committee commenced its Inquiry. The proposed merging of the two existing child care payments into a single, simpler and more generous Child Care Benefit, as announced in the Government's Tax Reform Package, will address many of the Committee's major concerns.The Child Care Benefit (CCB) to be introduced in July 2000 provides for significant increases in assistance for many families, particularly low income families, and greatly simplifies arrangements for claiming assistance. As part of the overall CCB package the Government has also announced the introduction of a multiple child rate across all service types (excluding occasional child care), and a 10 per cent loading for part-time care in long day care centres. The 10 per cent loading will be particularly beneficial to those families who pay a higher fee for part-time usage.The Department of Family and Community Services is also addressing the Committee's concerns regarding data that is available on child care. The Australian Bureau of Statistics was commissioned to review the data needs of the Children's Services Program and the most effective methods for collecting the data. A Commonwealth/State Working Group has been established to produce a minimum data set for Children's Services across all jurisdictions, and ensure deficiencies in current data are overcome and that consistent, timely data are available for all users. In addition, a Census of Child Care Services, covering all service types, was conducted in May 1999. Preliminary data is currently available for internal Departmental analysis. It is expected that publicly available data will be provided in February 2000. This response addresses each of the recommendations made by the Committee and comments on both the minority report submitted by Government members of the Committee and the dissenting report submitted by the Australian Democrats.Recommendation 1:The Committee recommends that the Department of Family and Community Services, in conjunction with the other major collectors of data on children's services, adopt a more coordinated approach to data collection to ensure that overlap and deficiencies in the current data collection are overcome.ANDRecommendation 2:The Committee recommends that the Department of Family and Community Services expedite the processing of results from future surveys and census collections so that up-to-date information is available for policy development and planning purposes.The need to adopt a more coordinated approach to the collection of data in the area of community services is widely recognised. In October 1997, the Standing Committee of Community Services and Income Security Administrators (SCCSISA) proposed the improvement of community services data as a high priority, and commissioned the National Community Services Information Management Group (NCSIMG) to carry out this task.The work of the NCSIMG covers a broad spectrum of community services including child care, aged care, disability services, family support services, child welfare, and emergency relief and crisis services. The NCSIMG is focusing on the development of consistent national community services information so that there is improved access to quality information for the community, governments, service providers, consumers of services and non-government organisations. The NCSIMG is expected to report in late 1999.To focus on the data needs in the area of child care, a sub-committee, the NCSIMG Children's Services Data Working Group, has been established. The NCSIMG Children's Services Data Working Group constitutes representatives from Commonwealth and State/Territory governments and agencies involved in the collection and use of child care data. Membership includes the Department of Family and Community Services, State Government Departments, the Australian Bureau of Statistics and the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. A key role of the NCSIMG Children's Services Data Working Group is to produce a National Minimum Data Set for Children's Services to ensure overlap and deficiencies in current data collections are overcome, and consistent, timely data are available for all users. In addition, the Department of Family and Community Services commissioned the Australian Bureau of Statistics to review the data needs of the Children's Services Program. The ABS reported in December 1998 and there are now several mechanisms in place to address the concerns outlined in Recommendation 1:- The Census of Child Care Services is being conducted in 1999 and on a biennial basis in the following years. The Census of Child Care Services is the major data collection mechanism for the Program and has been conducted regularly since 1986. The Census provides accurate information on services, children and staff. Information provided by the Census is used extensively for policy analysis, planning and administration of the Children's Services Program. Each time the Census is conducted, users of child care data are consulted for their data needs and the forms are tested extensively to ensure accurate results are obtained.National Office will continue to work with the State Offices in the Department of Family and Community Services to determine a core set of data items to be collected for future Planning Advisory Committee (PAC) meetings. This will ensure national comparability in core data collected.- The feasibility of introducing a Data Warehouse Model will be investigated in 1999. Such a model would overcome problems of overlap or deficiency in current data collections through providing an output-oriented, one-stop, `statistical data shop' for the Commonwealth Children's Services Program.The latest Census of Child Care Services was conducted in May 1999 to allow access to selected preliminary data for internal Departmental analysis by July/August, and comprehensive data for the 2000-01 Budget cycle.Strategies are in place to reduce the processing time for Census results, including the use of an electronic form, which will enable services to directly download data from their computer systems. Other possibilities of expediting the processing and release of Census results are currently being examined and assessed by the Department.The introduction of the new Child Care Benefit in July 2000 will necessitate the development of a new computer system. This provides a welcome opportunity to address the limitations in currently available administrative data and system design features.Recommendation3:The Committee recommends that the Government support the `mixed economy' model, whereby both community-based and private-for-profit services play a valuable role in the provi sion of child care, by encouraging both services and especially ensuring that community-based services continue as viable service providers.ANDRecommendation 4:The Committee recommends that to ensure the continuing viability of community-based services:- a one-off grant be provided to community-based centres in recognition of the additional costs associated with supporting committees of management and the need to upgrade management facilities to improve efficiency;- consideration should be given to expanding funding for restructuring within the community-based sector; and- funding be provided to develop innovative models of child care based on the community development approach.The Government is committed to the continuation of both community based and private-for-profit services. However, the Government is satisfied that the level of assistance provided to help community based services adjust to the funding change has been sufficient and does not believe further assistance for this purpose is warranted. Account also needs to be taken of the Government's objective of providing a level playing field for both the community and private sectors.Since the election of the Coalition Government in 1996, the changes to child care funding have removed inequities which existed between the two service types with the view of establishing a more competitive mixed economy model.In relation to the Commonwealth's largest child care funding program, Childcare Assistance, both community based and private-for-profit centres now have the same conditions applying to their accessing of these funds on behalf of families using their services.Significant assistance has been made available to assist community based services to adjust to the funding change and to help ensure their ongoing viability. The 1996 Budget provided $8.3m over two years for centres to obtain financial and management advice. Services were also eligible to apply for funding to undertake minor capital upgrading which would assist them to develop more efficient operating arrangements.Ninety three percent of services (1022 of approximately 1100 centres) took up the offer to obtain financial and management advice at a total cost of $3.6m and a total of $3.4m was provided for minor capital and equipment.The Commonwealth also funds capital upgrade grant programs. Ongoing programs for established community based services include the Minor Capital Upgrading Program at $1.5m per year and the Capital Replacement and Upgrade Program at $1.9m per year for centres 15 years old or older.A range of one off grants is available to all new, Commonwealth funded, community based long day care centres:- set up grants, currently paid at $35 per approved place, assist with expenses such as phones and insurance;- establishment grants are paid six weeks prior to the centre opening for the employment of a director (for a maximum of six weeks salary); and- equipment grants are available for the one-off purchase of toys and is paid as a component of the per place capital grant for long day care centres.The Government also funds a range of support mechanisms to services such as Field Staff Resources Pool workers, in-service training and support from the Resource and Advisory Agencies to ensure support is targeted at services' needs:- the Field Staff Resources Pool (FSRP) funds are used to employ fieldworkers on a short term basis to assist with the establishment of new child care places and community based or non-profit services;- in-service training funds cover the support offered to staff and management committees of Commonwealth funded children's services by means of workshops, seminars, train-the-trainer programs, on-the-job training and through State based conferences; and- the Resource and Advisory Agencies are funded to provide support, advice and in-service training to workers and managers in children's services. Their objective is to support and improve the management and quality of care of these services.The Government recognises that the community sector has a particularly important role to play in the provision of child care in rural and remote areas where mainstream services, including private sector participation, are not sustainable.In rural and remote areas, access to mainstream child care services is supported through a range of measures:- $6.8m per year in Disadvantaged Areas Subsidy (DAS) for long day care community centres in areas where no alternative centre-based care is available;- $4.4m per year in DAS for rural/remote and isolated urban fringe Outside School Hours Care services; and - $12m per year provided for multifunctional children's services which deliver a mix of centre-based and family day care, occasional care and outside school hours care. Of these, 14 services provide access for the general community, and 28 cater specifically for indigenous children.In addition, 30 mobile services deliver child care in the form of playgroups and occasional care in remote areas. They also provide toy libraries and broader information and support for parents.The development and establishment of new services in such areas involves community development activities to ensure that services meet the particular needs of specific communities and that they are viable in the longer term. This work is currently being supported by Departmental staff and options for improving its scope and effectiveness are being considered.Recommendation 5The committee recommends that the review of the centres' charging practices referred to the Child Care Advisory Council be conducted as a matter of priority.The Council reported to the Minister for Family and Community Services on 30 April 1999.In its review the Council considered a number of alternative approaches to the payment of Childcare Assistance and assessed the impact of these options using a computer model it had commissioned.The Council has advised the Minister that there would be risks to service viability if changes were made to funding and charging practices at this time. The Council proposes to revisit the funding and charging issue when it can take account of its examination of the regulatory environment and the new Child Care Benefit and payment arrangements.Government reforms appear to be having the effect of reducing the gap between hours of care paid by families and care actually used by families. Between 1995 and 1997, the gap between hours paid and used fell by 15% and thereby provided a reduction in the cost to the taxpayer of services charging for unused care.Recommendation 6:The Committee recommends that the 20 hour limit continue, providing that the current provisions to exempt families in crisis situations and families with a child who has a disability from the limit remain in place.This recommendation reflects current Government policy and is noted.Recommendation 7:That:- the Commonwealth provide stand alone OSHC services with a payment to cover the costs of increased administration at the beginning of each school year ;- where OSHC services amalgamate or are established in a school central to an area to ensure future viability, funding for travel between school and services be provided if suitable transport arrangements already exists. If no suitable travel arrangements are available, capital grants be made available so that OSHC services may operate their own transport;- the Commonwealth seek the assistance of the States and Territories to ensure that OSHC services maintain access to school premises free of charge or at a low or nominal fee; and- the Department of Family and Community Services address the apparent anomaly whereby Childcare Assistance is provided on a different basis for families using more than one type of care.All Outside School Hours Care (OSHC) services (including Vacation Care services) have been offered a range of assistance during the transition to the new funding arrangements introduced in April 1998.This support included training of services; business and marketing advice; equipment grants; telephone support (OSHC Helpline); transitional grants; personal visits (individual assistance); and one-off funding for services facing closures.This assistance provided services with the opportunity to purchase equipment such as computers and software; and training to assist with the peaks and troughs of administration workloads (e.g. increase in administration at the beginning of the school year). All services that engaged an adviser were provided with a written report that outlined areas for improvements in business practices.Individual support visits continue to be offered to all services to assist with setting up of administrative procedures and to answer questions about the new Childcare Assistance arrangements. Feedback indicates that services are very positive about the assistance received.Most elements of support concluded on 30 June 1999. However, the OSHC Helpline, personal visits (individual assistance), and one-off funding for services facing closures have been extended until 31 December 1999.From 1 July 1999, private operators can take over sponsorship of existing Commonwealth funded (stand alone) OSHC services.As mentioned in response to Recommendation 4, the Government also funds a range of support mechanisms to services such as Field Staff Resources Pool workers, in-service training and support from the Resource and Advisory Agencies to ensure support is targeted at services' needs.The Department regularly reviews these programs to ensure service needs are being met. Such reviews are also informed by pilots in various States and Territories trialling different forms of administrative support services.Providing transport to and from a service is primarily the responsibility of the family. There is no funding allocated to services solely for transport. However, under the Restructuring Assistance—Minor Capital Upgrading initiative (up to $7,000 on a competitive basis), services could submit a joint application with other services in order to pool funds to purchase more expensive items such as minibuses. Some services (individually) received grants for a contribution towards buses.The cost of hiring school premises varies significantly between and within each State and Territory. Some services are currently charged little or no fee, some may contribute to the school fund for electricity etc. while other services are required to contribute more fully for the use of the premises.Most State/Territory Departments of Education have devolved school funding issues to the local level e.g. school councils or Principals and each outside school hours care service/sponsor needs to negotiate with the school council/principal to determine the rate/fee for the use of the building.A multiple child rate is currently in place, with families with multiple children in one type of service, receiving the higher multiple child Childcare Assistance rate. This system treats long day care (ie. centres and family day care) and outside school hours care as different service types. The Government is aware that both families and services view this arrangement as unsatisfactory and a multiple child rate across all sectors has been included in A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Act 1999 on31 March 1999. The introduction of the multiple child rate will coincide with the introduction of the new Child Care Benefit in July 2000.It should be noted, however, that as a result of the recent reforms to school age care, 93,000 families (as at May 1999) have registered with Centrelink for Childcare Assistance. Many families previously ineligible are now able to claim financial support from the Commonwealth Government for the first time.Recommendation 8:The Committee recommends that given the important role played by Family Day Care (FDC) in providing alternative care options for families, the current arrangements for the provision of an operational subsidy for FDC should continue.The Government notes the Committee's recommendation.The Government recognises that Family Day Care plays an important role in the delivery of flexible, affordable and quality child care options for families. In particular, flexible care arrangements allow FDC services to meet a wide range of families' needs including long day care, part-time care, occasional care, emergency care, and care outside standard hours. FDC is also well suited to provide baby places, and is a basis for the development of flexible service models in high need rural and remote areas where mainstream services are not sustainable.Operational subsidies have continued for Family Day Care, and assist with the cost of running co-ordination units which perform a range of functions essential in efficient the operations of the current model of FDC. Around $60m annually is available for FDC operational subsidies.The Government is committed to a policy framework which would enable FDC services to continue in their current role. A two stage process is underway to work closely with service providers and families to develop and implement quality measures for Family Day Care.Stage 1 of the Project to develop and implement a quality improvement and accreditation system for Family Day Care has been completed. Two project teams including family day care experts and the Department of Family and Community Services have prepared proposals for a FDC quality assurance implementation model and quality measures.These reports are being considered as part of Stage 2. The Department has engaged independent consultants to review the proposals and to undertake a cost-effectiveness study of various quality assurance implementation models.Recommendation 9: The Committee recommends that urgent action be taken to better target child care assistance to low income families, particularly those with more than one child, by the introduction of a `top up' or `supplement' to the current rate of Childcare Assistance.This recommendation has been addressed as part of the Government's Tax Reform package which, with the introduction of the Child Care Benefit (CCB), is expected to provide an increase of up to $7.50 per week for a low income family paying average fees for one child in full time centre based care. Additional weekly benefits will be available where two or more children are in care.Affordability is influenced by a range of factors including the fees that child care services set. These fees are not controlled by Government and over recent years have increased at a rate much higher than economic indicators such as the Consumer Price Index and Average Weekly Earnings. It is a welcome fact, however, that the rate of fee increases for centres has halved under this Government (4% per annum) compared with the average increase between 1991 and 1996 (8.5% per annum).In making decisions about child care funding, the Government must weigh up the formal child care needs of families with the broader demand for Government spending on the range of services provided for people at the various stages in their life cycle. The Child Care Program demonstrates the Government's significant ongoing commitment to assisting families to access high quality care within a framework of efficient processes, effective targeting and overall fiscal responsibility.From 1 July 2000, it is anticipated that families with one child in full-time care, who are eligible for the maximum rate of Child Care Benefit, will receive $120 per week ($2.40 per hour) in Government assistance. The exact amount of assistance payable at that time will depend on a number of factors such as indexation between now and the implementation date of 1 July 2000. Maximum assistance will be available for families with incomes under $28,200 a year, tapering down to a minimum rate of assistance when income reaches $81,000 a year for families with one child in care.The CCB will also continue to provide additional rates of assistance for families with more than one child in care, that is, a family with two or more children in care will receive a higher per child rate of Government assistance than a family with only one child in care.The CCB will further address child care affordability by providing a 10 per cent loaded rate of assistance to families utilising centre based part-time care. The loaded rate is in recognition of the higher fee many families using part-time centre based care have to pay.These new arrangements provide generous assistance for low-income families using formal child care. For example, a low-income family with two children in formal care would receive a government subsidy of up to $251 per week, or over $13,000 per year.To accompany the introduction of the CCB the Government has also announced a range of changes to the personal income tax system and family payments. This integrated package of reforms will provide significantly more assistance to families in recognition of the costs incurred by families, substantially improve work incentives for low and middle income families and greatly simplify the complex array of assistance currently provided to families.Recommendation 10:The Committee also recommends that the Department of Family and Community Services conduct research to establish criteria to judge affordability levels for families accessing child care as a matter of priority.This recommendation is noted. As noted under Recommendation 9, the Government provides generous assistance to families using formal care.For low income families (for example a sole parent earning around $30,000 per year) with two children in full time care, Government assistance covers around 75%of the average fee in centres ($12,400 in annual assistance), and around 80% of the average fee in Family Day Care ($11,500 in annual assistance).- for a middle income family (earning around $45,000 per year) Government assistance would be around 60% of the average fee in centres ($10,000 in annual assistance) and 65% in Family Day Care ($9,000 in annual assistance).Regular research is undertaken to enable the Government to monitor the affordability of child care for families. This analysis of data, monitoring of child care expenditure and its impact on families, will continue to be a high priority with the introduction of the new Child Care Benefit (CCB).Current data sources include a regular census of child care services and ongoing analysis of Department of Family and Community Services administrative data.Recommendation 11The Committee recommends that the review of the Quality Improvement and Accreditation System being undertaken by the Child Care Advisory Council be completed as a matter of priority.The Commonwealth Child Care Advisory Council has made substantial progress on its review of the Quality Improvement and Accreditation System (QIAS).Following a comprehensive review process, the Council has now prepared two papers for consultation with the sector. The first proposes a revised set of Principles of quality care and the second is an issues paper outlining the Council's proposed approach to improving the QIAS process. The aim is to streamline and simplify the QIAS's administrative requirements and make a clearer distinction between the accreditation and quality improvement components of the System.Consultations on these two papers are scheduled to continue until November 1999. The Council will then finalise its recommendations and submit its final report to the Minister in February 2000.Recommendation 12:The Committee recommends that additional funding be provided to centres which cater for very high needs families in socially or economically disadvantaged urban areas.The Government is committed to providing support to disadvantaged families. Initiatives announced in the Tax Package, including the new Child Care Benefit and improved and simplified benefits for families, will provide an integrated approach to assisting families who are socially or economically disadvantaged. This builds on the current system of Childcare Assistance which targets maximum benefits to low income families.Issues relating to disadvantaged families are complex, and go beyond child care and child care funding mechanisms (for example, the Committee refers to crime prevention, family support and child protection). The Government recognises these complexities. Indeed, the establishment of the new Department of Family and Community Services is evidence of the Government's commitment to the comprehensive examination of issues facing families, disadvantaged families in particular.Funding available through the Children's Services Program such as Disadvantaged Areas Subsidies (which focus on rural and remote areas) and special recurrent grants for Aboriginal services aim to support the supply of child care services in areas where no alternatives exist, to ensure that families continue to have access to appropriate child care.Extension of similar support to urban disadvantaged areas is not considered to be warranted at this stage as there is no evidence that there is a correlation between under-supply of child care services and such areas. Furthermore, families often use child care in locations other than where they live (for example, close to where they work, study, or in transport corridors).Child care planning processes have been significantly strengthened under the National Planning System for Child Care. Planning Advisory Committees in each State and Territory continue to meet regularly to assess local needs and assist Government in determining where to allocate new child care places. The future priority of the National Planning System will be to ensure that new places are only targeted to areas with an identified need and that growth is contained in areas of over supply.The Department of Family and Community Services has analysed and will continue to monitor closures in areas of social disadvantage. Recent analysis refutes the claim that service closures have had a disproportionate impact on disadvantaged areas. For the three year period from July 1996 to June 1999, 51% of service closures were in advantaged areas, 37% in disadvantaged areas, and 12% in highly disadvantaged areas.Recommendation 13:The Committee recommends that the costs required to implement any proposal to introduce universal child care payments to all families with young children be investigated to ascertain whether such a proposal could be at all viable.This recommendation is noted.The Government, as part of its Tax Reform Package, has recently announced a simplification of twelve different types of assistance for families into three payments. This simplification is designed to provide an integrated package of payments to families, that better meet their needs and will be implemented from 1 July 2000.Once the new system is in place this type of investigation could be undertaken to examine whether further simplification is viable.MINORITY AND DISSENTING REPORTSMinority reportThe Government has noted the Minority Report tabled by Government members of the Inquiry.Dissenting reportA dissenting report was tabled by the Australian Democrats focussing on the viability of the formal sector and the growth of unregulated "backyard" care. Its recommendations included:- increasing the Childcare Assistance ceiling;- increasing the 20 hour and 50 hour limits;- removing Childcare Rebate eligibility for informal, unregulated "backyard" care; and- maintaining the operational subsidy for Family Day Care.The Government has announced its intention to significantly increase Childcare Assistance with the introduction of the Child Care Benefit from July 2000.From 1 July 2000, it is anticipated that families with one child in full-time care, who are eligible for the maximum rate of Child Care Benefit, will receive $120 per week ($2.40 per hour) in Government subsidy. The exact amount of assistance payable at that time will depend on a number of factors such as indexation between now and the implementation date of 1 July 2000. Maximum assistance will be available for families with incomes under $28,000 a year, tapering down to a minimum rate of assistance when income reaches $81,000 a year for families with one child in care.The Government does not support the recommendations to increase the 20 hour and 50 hour limits and notes the exemptions that are available to meet special circumstances, as well as the support for these limits by the Majority Report.In relation to eligibility for the Childcare Rebate for informal care, the Government believes that it is important that families are able to choose between different types of care and notes that by far the majority of informal care is provided by relatives. In addition, concerns about families moving to informal care are not supported by data available on the Childcare Rebate from the Health Insurance Commission.In 1995-96, around 92% of families receiving the Childcare Rebate were using formal care, 4% were using informal care and 4% were using both types of care.In 1997-98, the formal sector had increased its share to 94%, while 2.7% of families were using informal care, and 3.3% of families were using both.In 1998-99, the formal sector again increased its share to 94.9%, while 2.2% of families were using informal care, and 2.9% of families were using both.In relation to the operation of Family Day Care services, the Government is committed to a policy framework which would allow these services to continue to provide quality alternative child care to long day care centres.A two stage process is underway to work closely with service providers and families to develop and implement quality measures for Family Day Care.Stage 1 of the Project to develop and implement a quality improvement and accreditation system for Family Day Care has been completed. Two project teams including family day care experts and the Department of Family and Community Services have prepared proposals for a FDC quality assurance implementation model and quality measures.These reports are being considered as part of Stage 2. The Department has engaged independent consultants to review the proposals and to undertake a cost-effectiveness study of various quality assurance implementation models.Documents11638116381163810000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—In accordance with the provisions of the Auditor-General's Act 1997, I present the following report of the Auditor-General: Report No. 21 of 1999-2000—Financial Statement Audit—Audits of the Financial Statements of Commonwealth entities for the period ending 30 June 1999.Documents116381163815:47:0011638Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—Documents are tabled in accordance with the list attached to the Order of Business . In accordance with the usual practice, I ask that the list be incorporated in Hansard .Leave granted.The list read as follows—Administrative Review Council—Report for 1998-99.Attorney-General's Department—Report for 1998-99—Corrigenda.Audio-Visual Copyright Society Limited (Screenrights)—Report for 1998-99.Australian River Co. Limited (formerly ANL Limited)—Report for the period 1 July 1997 to 6 December 1998.Commonwealth Government of Australia—Consolidated financial statements for the year ended 30 June 1999.Companies Auditors and Liquidators Disciplinary Board—Report for 1998-99.Copyright Agency Limited—Report for 1998-99.Department of Defence—Special purpose flights—Schedule for the period January-June 1999.Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs— A new agenda for multicultural Australia, December 1999. Responding to diversity: Progress in implementing the Charter of Public Service in a Culturally Diverse Society —Access and equity report for 1999.Department of Industry, Science and Resources—Energy use in Commonwealth operations—Report for 1998-99.Family Court of Australia—Report for 1998-99—Erratum.Federal Court of Australia—Report for 1998-99.Freedom of Information Act 1982 —Report for 1998-99 on the operation of the Act.Genetic Manipulation Advisory Committee—Report for 1998-99.Migration Agents Registration Authority—Report for 1998-99.National Crime Authority—Report for 1998-99.Snowy Mountains Council—Report for 1998-99.Sydney Airports Corporation Limited—Statement of corporate intent, 1999-2004.Tobacco Research and Development Corporation—Report for 1998-99—Corrigendum.Treaty—Multilateral —National interest analysis for treaty previously tabled—United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification in those Countries experiencing Serious Drought and/or Desertification, particularly in Africa, done at Paris on 17 June 1994. [The text of this Convention was tabled in the Senate on 30 November 1994 ]Committees11639116391163915:47:0011639Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT5F4TASLP10—On behalf of Senator Lightfoot, I present the 10th report of the Publications Committee and seek leave to move a motion in relation to the report.Ordered that the report be adopted.1163910000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—The President has received letters from party leaders seeking variations to the membership of certain committees.Motion (by Senator Ellison)—by leave—agreed to:That senators be discharged from and appointed to committees as follows:Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee— Substitute member: Senator Schacht to replace Senator McKiernan for the consideration of the provisions of the Customs Legislation Amendment (Criminal Sanctions and Other Measures) Bill 1999Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee— Discharged: Senator Calvert as a substitute member for Senator Ferris for the committee's inquiry into the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service and the importation of salmon Substitute member: Senator Calvert to replace Senator McGauran for the committee's inquiry into the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service and the importation of salmon.Bills11639Message received from the House of Representatives acquainting the Senate that the House has agreed to the amendments made by the Senate to the following bill: Australia New Zealand Food Authority Amendment Bill 1999 [No. 2] Bills11639r61111639Message received from the House of Representatives returning the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Bill 1998, acquainting the Senate that the House has agreed to certain amendments made by the Senate, disagreed to other amendments made by the Senate, made two unrelated amendments, and requests the reconsideration by the Senate of the bill in respect of the amendments disagreed to, and seeks the concurrence of the Senate in the unrelated amendments made by the House.Ordered that consideration of the message in committee of the whole be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting.Committees11639116391163915:49:0011639Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT5F4TASLP10—On behalf of Senator Cooney, I present the 21st report of 1999 of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills.Ordered that the report be printed.Bills11639r866Billsr908Billsr927Billsr95011639Debate resumed.15:50:0011639Knowles, Sen SusanSenator KNOWLESTH4WALP10—Before the debate was adjourned I was referring to the new tax system that is currently before the Senate for debate and various aspects of it. In particular I was referring to the cost of motor vehicles and how the Labor Party would wish to have motor vehicles stay at a higher cost than they will be under the new tax system. During their 13 years of government, the Labor Party consistently increased tax on motor vehicles. We now have it at a level of 22 per cent.But it is not just the tax on the motor vehicle itself when one goes to buy it: there are also the taxes embedded in the construction and manufacture incurred by all of the companies involved in putting that motor vehicle together. Under the new tax system, those taxes will all be removed and there will be a 10 per cent goods and services tax at the end. That is the only tax—at the end. At the moment there is 22 per cent at the end and there are all of the other embedded taxes all the way through the system.The Labor Party will say that there is a buyers strike at the moment in terms of motor vehicles. Some people might be a little reluctant to buy a motor vehicle at the moment, but let us look at the facts. Total motor vehicle sales in the month of November are only half a per cent below the record sales levels achieved in November 1998, but they are nine per cent higher than in November 1997, which was the previous record year. Locally manufactured passenger vehicles are selling well. Total sales for Commodore, Falcon, Camry and Magna for the first 11 months of 1999 are only three per cent below their 1998 record levels and are 13.8 per cent higher than in 1997. The same applies to truck sales and so on.But we go on to all of these examples that the Labor Party keep on giving, trying to frighten people about the impact of the new tax system. There is no evidence to support the scare campaign. Anyone would think we were coming up to an election in the next six months the way this scare campaign is now getting so out of hand. As I think Senator Murray said prior to the adjournment of this debate, once the next election comes by, this whole system will be in place and people will understand how it works. Everyone who is grizzling about it, particularly the opposition, is afraid of change, and they want to make sure that people are frightened as a conse quence. Anyone would think that a country had never gone through a change of tax system before. Not so! People will know that the new tax system will be less complicated.I want to refer particularly to one of the bills that we are talking about today, which is A New Tax System (Pay As You Go) Bill 1999 . As I said before, there are so few on the other side who have ever run a business, who have ever had to file tax returns for the business, who have ever had to pay the bills, that they do not know the difference between what is currently the practice and what will be the practice after the pay as you go system is instituted. I want to say quite frankly that when I was in business one of the greatest imposts in running a business was having to deal with five levels of wholesale sales tax and, most importantly, having that wholesale sales tax sitting on the warehouse shelf prior to selling the goods to the customers.Under this system, you collect the goods and services tax and remit it, but meanwhile you have the tax sitting in your bank account, not the government's bank account. That provides cash flow benefits. But the opposition cannot understand it. They cannot comprehend that it provides a cash flow benefit, whereby companies can use the tax money that they are collecting in their bank account. The use of that is a very important factor to a lot of small businesses. But the objective of the policy is to make sure that a modernised income tax assessment system is implemented.There are many things that I would like to say about this, but I know that we are now under time constraints, that this bill and one other bill have to be dealt with before we rise tonight. But I do want to make reference to a couple of other things which are not insignificant, and one is the claim by the opposition that there are going to be complex returns. I have said for years, ever since the 1993 campaign, that if any of the people who claim that this is a complex return actually ran a business, they would understand how complex the system is today. In comparison, you have one A4 sheet to fill out and return with money you have had sitting in your own bank account—give me the one A4 sheet any day. That is the important part about it.Of course, the Labor opposition will talk about discouraging tourism and everything else. Is there anyone in the opposition who will not travel to a country because it has a consumption tax? What absolute and utter nonsense! Yet somehow they think that people coming into our country as tourists should not pay and contribute to our taxes. It is absolutely ridiculous to think that we can pay it in other countries but people visiting us cannot. I remember a few years ago I went to New Zealand. Of course, the first thing that I did was get into a taxi to go into the city. I said to the taxi driver, `What do you think of the goods and services tax?' She turned to me and she said, `The what?' I said, `The goods and services tax.' She could not believe that I was actually asking the question. She said, `That's been here for ages.' I said, `Yeah, but how did it affect your business?' And she said, `My husband and I run the cabs. The way it affected our business is that we were able to buy another cab because we had tax benefits that we didn't previously have under the old system.'So the ogre that is painted about other countries having a broad-based consumption tax is sheer and utter nonsense. We have heard in the last few days about Christmas vouchers and all of these things, that next year Christmas will be more expensive. Let us face it: this is the last year that mums, dads and grandparents will have to pay 22 per cent tax on toys. Next year, they pay 10 per cent. To say that gift vouchers and things like that—Senator Calvert interjecting—TH4Knowles, Sen SusanSenator KNOWLES—That is quite right, Senator Calvert—all of those things that children like. To say that gift vouchers for services are going to be taxed is also complete and utter nonsense. Last year I gave gift vouchers to relatives for various services, and most of those services will be well under $50,000. They will not even be in the net, and it will not cost a brass razoo more next year from this year.656FORSHAWSenator Forshaw—Why didn't you buy them a present?TH4Knowles, Sen SusanSenator KNOWLES—I won't tell you what the service was! I will leave that to your imagination. The envelope was nicely wrapped! I have got to tell you that the service would not be one cent more expensive next Christmas from last Christmas. It is nonsense about vouchers and toys and everything else being more expensive—they will not be. We have never shied away from the fact that some things will be more expensive; other things will be much less expensive. Let us face it: the common denominator that the Labor Party conveniently forget all the time is that that is precisely why compensation is being paid to everyone. Whether they are in the tax system or out of the tax system, they will have more money left in their pockets to be able to spend to compensate them for anything that might be higher in cost.15:59:0011641Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRYZW4TASALP00—The bills we are debating today concern the goods and services tax. Of course, we all remember that the goods and services tax, introduced by the Liberal-National Party, was the tax we were never, ever going to have. Who can forget the famous words of the Prime Minister that `never ever'—and he repeated it a number of times—would this country have a goods and services tax. Of course, the goods and services tax is the tax that taxes just about everything.As most people would be aware, the goods and services tax package passed the Senate some months ago. Those who are avidly listening to the broadcast might wonder why we are debating the issue yet again. The reason we are debating six bills concerned with the goods and services tax is that we are considering—here in the Senate, at this time of year and on our last day of sitting—more than 1,000 amendments to the goods and services tax legislation that we have already passed.The amendments that we are considering in the Senate amend just about every aspect of the goods and services tax. This is from the Liberal-National Party coalition—supported by the Australian Democrats—who claimed that this was to simplify Australia's tax system. We passed the goods and services tax bills, and here we are, a few months later, putting forward hundreds of amendments to that package. Of course, there is one amendment that is missing in the package we are considering, and that is an amendment to remove the exemption from the goods and services tax from casino high rollers. The package we are considering reflects the policy of the Liberal-National parties. Regrettably, the GST bills were agreed to and passed this Senate through a deal with the Australian Democrats.There have been a number of claims made about the goods and services tax. I do not wish to roll out all of the claims made by the Liberal-National parties, but a number of them include claims that it will create jobs, that it will tax the cash economy, that it will improve employment, that it will improve savings by taxing consumption, that it will remove a tax from exporters, and that the GST will simplify the tax system. That last claim is about the most fantastic claim of them all.Time does not allow me to go into many of the claims made by the Liberal-National parties, but the issue I want to touch on today is this issue of simplification of the tax system and the related difficulties the GST will cause business. As I said earlier, the very fact that we are already considering more than 1,000 amendments to the goods and services tax package that was passed a few months ago is an indication that the GST is a far from simple tax. When considering the amendments, we need to understand that the GST is a tax at each level of production, distribution and sale of goods or services. A GST is levied on the value added at that level. The seller is liable for the whole GST to that point, less the tax already paid by the previous sellers. For this reason, its collection is particularly onerous.To collect the GST is bureaucratic. It involves a great deal of paperwork. In particular, this places a significant burden on small business. Small business is one of the big losers with a GST because, as is well known, the GST will replace the wholesale sales tax. One of the virtues of the wholesale sales tax is its simplicity. It has only a small number of tax collection points.Debate interrupted.Distinguished Visitors1164210000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Murphy)—Order! I draw the attention of honourable senators to the presence of a former Liberal senator, Shirley Walters, in the President's gallery.UNKNOWNHonourable senatorsHonourable senators—Hear, hear!Bills11642r866Billsr908Billsr927Billsr95011642Debate resumed.16:04:0011642Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRYZW4TASALP00—The GST imposes the massive burden of increased paperwork on small business, because the vast majority of small businesses did not have to act as tax collectors in this country. There will be well over 1.4 million new tax collection points as a result of the GST, and these will overwhelmingly be small business. Small business will have to pay the administrative costs associated with the collection of the GST. Of course, you do have to subtract from that the paltry $200 payment that the Liberal-National parties will be paying to small businesses to assist in its collection.We have already seen commentary from informed quarters about the cost of the GST to small business. Recently an article by Tom Allard, who is an economics correspondent, examined the Australian Taxation Office's requirements for the collection of GST information. He spoke to a number of tax people and the comment was that, for small business in particular, many of whom do not have computerised business systems, the collection of the GST:". . . will be like doing your annual tax return every month or every quarter," said Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu tax partner, Mr John Cohen. "If you have all the information on hand, it will take an hour or two. If you have to go chasing it up, that will mean you are looking at a day or longer."A day or longer for small business to collect the GST!Apparently the instruction document from the tax office amounts to some 130 pages.A 130-page instruction booklet! This is from an informed correspondent.There has been a survey of small business. The average cost to a small business to prepare for the GST will be $3,500. That is the average cost. That is a significant amount of money for small business operators. Obviously the paltry $200 that this government is offering to small business goes nowhere near meeting that average cost of $3,500 for small business.I want to touch on a point that Senator Knowles raised in her contribution. She made the point about having been a small business operator and small business having to pay a variety of taxes. She pointed out quite rightly that small business has to pay payroll tax, superannuation guarantee contributions, workers compensation taxes and a range of other charges. She was quite right. But what has happened with the introduction of the GST? The GST is not replacing payroll tax. Remember the argument we used to get from this government that payroll tax should be abolished? Well, businesses are still going to be paying payroll tax and the significant other taxes that they have to pay. But, in addition to those taxes that Senator Knowles referred to, they are going to have to pay a GST—a whacking great new tax on top of the taxes they already pay. What is even worse, as I have already outlined, is that the paperwork involved in a GST is much more significant than the paperwork for the other taxes that they currently have to collect and/or pay.It seems to me that it is very hard to argue that the goods and services tax is leading to a simplification of the current tax system. We are dealing with hundreds of new amendments. It is going to make life a lot tougher for most businesses. For large businesses it will not be so bad. They have computerised stock systems where they can calculate their sales very easily. But small business operators, many of whom do not have computerised systems, will have to either purchase them or struggle on collecting the tax and carrying out the calculations without computer hardware and software. So it is not too bad for big business, but it is really going to hurt small business.The GST has been referred to by the current Treasurer, Mr Costello, as the new tax for a new century. He has contended that it is going to streamline Australia's tax system. But I draw the Senate's attention to some interesting figures that were calculated by my colleague Mr Emerson—a member in the other place—at the point in time when we had 756 amendments to the goods and services tax legislation. Mr Emerson calculated that the GST acts previously weighed 4.2 kilograms but that, with the addition of 756 amendments, the GST tax acts now weigh 4.4 kilograms. And we have to add roughly another 200 grams on top of that, given the other 300 or 400-odd amendments we have received since Mr Emerson kindly carried out his last calculations. Also, the sheer volume of new tax legislation that we are considering does not include the regulations that will need to be made and we are yet to see.The government has consistently—and falsely—argued that this is all simplification. The fact of the matter is that, in terms of size and weight, the Income Tax Act has not got any smaller or simpler. The GST is a big new tax, adding more pages to the tax act. You could stack all of Australia's tax acts next to me and they would go over my head. There is so much paperwork involved with the changes to the tax system—WH4McGAURANSenator McGauran—The detail goes over your head, too.ZW4Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRY—We know the detail goes over the National Party's head, Senator McGauran. I will come to the National Party shortly. You have provoked me, and I will come to the National Party shortly.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Murphy)—We could do with a little less provoking and a little less attention paid to the provokers.ZW4Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRY—We have to continue to draw the failings of the National Party to the attention of the Australian people—but that is for a little later. In the last few weeks the Senate not only has been bombarded with hundreds of amendments to the goods and services tax legislation but also has had a number of controversies involving the introduction of the goods and services tax. I have touched on one area already—the cost to small business—but we have also had controversy over the taxation of club membership, the taxation of charities and the issue of a tax on a tax. The GST will apply to a range of state services and those states supply state taxes; so we will have a tax on a tax.With respect to charities, the debate has been raging in considerable detail and very fiercely over the last few weeks, and it is here that I want to make some criticism of the Australian Democrats. Suffice it to say, of course, we would not have a GST without the Prime Minister Mr Howard going back on his `never ever' commitment. But the other partner in this `tax adventure'—as the Prime Minister once referred to it as—is the Australian Democrats. Without the Australian Democrats, this country would not have a GST. What I find a little disturbing—aside from the fact that the Democrats supported the GST package—are two significant issues that have arisen in respect of the GST. We debated one earlier this week, and that was the diesel fuel rebate issue. The Australian Democrats signed an agreement with the government that said that the diesel fuel rebate for the forest industry would be reduced. The government walked away from that agreement, and the Democrats did not stand them up. The Democrats did not say to the government, `You signed up to the deal; you keep it.'As Senator McGauran wanders around the chamber, he is reminding me that this highlighted a failure of the National Party. They allowed the coalition to sign up to an agreement that reduced the diesel fuel rebate to the forest industry workers in this country. That was clearly to the disadvantage of people who work in forest industries in rural and regional areas. But that is all I am going to say about the National Party because, frankly, their input into taxation—in fact, into most areas of policy—is so minor we really do not need to spend a great deal of time on them.I return to the Australian Democrats. I have mentioned the diesel fuel rebate issue. But we have heard a lot from the Australian Democrats in the last few months about charities and the dreadful impact of the GST on charities. I am glad Senator Woodley is in the chamber today because, quite clearly, there are major problems for charities with the goods and services tax. There are major problems with the cost of collection and the definition of the services and sales offered by charities. This will obviously impose additional paperwork and additional cost and affect the service delivery of charities. What annoys me about the position of the Australian Democrats is that we have had a number of public comments in recent weeks from the Australian Democrats, saying that this is bad news for charities, that the GST and its application requires change and that it should not be hurting charities.I ask the Senate: why did the Democrats sign up to the deal they did with the government on the GST? Why did they sign up to the deal? It was not as though the problems that charities were going to experience with a goods and services tax were not well known. We had pages and pages—hours of evidence—from charities before the Senate committees on the adverse impact of the GST. The Democrats were there, but did they listen? Did they stand this government up when they carried out their negotiations in respect to the GST package? No. And yet after they have carried out their deal with the government, here we have the Democrats complaining and trying to unravel the problems they themselves already knew about. That is one aspect of this issue that makes me particularly angry. It is hypocritical. I do not use that word often in political debate. I think it is overused. But the Democrats heard the evidence, they knew the problems for charities, they did the deal with the government on the GST and then, afterwards, they make public statements about the need to change the arrangements for GST on charities. I call that hypocrisy.I want to conclude my contribution by briefly referring to the issue of a tax on a tax. As I have said, the claim from this governement has been that there is going to be a simplification of the tax system. We are dealing with over 1,000 amendments to the GST legislation here today, a few months after the GST was first passed. There are the problems for small business: small businesses will be the new tax collectors, over a million of them; and they will do the extra paperwork. The tax acts are getting longer, not shorter. They are weighing more every day with each new amendment. It is getting more and more complex and yet we were expected to believe that this was the new, simple tax system for the new century.I must say one word about Botswana. The Treasurer is fond of quoting Botswana. Botswana has a wholesale sales tax. It is one of the few countries that does have a wholesale sales tax. I point out to the Senate that Botswana has an enviable economic record. In terms of economic growth, it is usually the leader in Africa. So the allegation that the wholesale sales tax retards growth is just nonsense.There is the issue of a tax on a tax, as well. That issue has not been resolved yet. State governments can impose various state taxes on a variety of services, particularly in the financial services area, and we are going to have the GST on top of those taxes—a tax on a tax. We were told that this was not going to happen, that we would have a simplification of the system and that we would not have taxes on taxes. But this is happening in a significant number of areas and has not yet been resolved.16:19:0011645Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEYHX5QLDAD00—I, too, want to address the legislation which is before us. I will concentrate mainly on the GST and charities so that the chamber can be informed in this debate. I think that proper information is sadly lacking in this debate most of the time.We have heard all sorts of comments over the last few days about the impact of the GST on charities and also comments about the Charities Consultative Committee. Currently, charities enjoy sales tax exemption, at least in most cases. However, there are two deficiencies within the current system. Firstly, sales tax applies only to goods, not to services, yet many services are utilising goods on which tax was paid. The input tax credits available under the GST will apply to all goods and services and thereby the reform will be a benefit. Secondly, the sales tax exemption certificate captures only the sales tax immediately payable on the good. Yet research shows that up to 50 per cent of sales tax falls on goods used by businesses to create other goods and services. The sales tax exemption will not touch these embedded taxes. By contrast, the GST and its input tax credits will pick up embedded indirect taxes.The GST does increase compliance costs for charities, and we have kept the pressure on the tax office to minimise that impost. Already the tax office has made considerable progress, as is outlined in the report of the Charities Consultative Committee, in terms of favourable rulings, direct financial assistance, updating the ATO web site and manuals, a three-stage training and education program and site visits by the ATO. The GST start-up office has allocated around $40 million in its direct assistance and $25 million through organisation delivered assistance to the charitable sector to assist with other start-up costs. When the free training, free manuals, site visits, web site updates and direct financial assistance are taken into account, the compliance costs faced by charities look considerably less than some of the more alarmist organisations have been claiming.Australia is not the first country to have a VAT and to be grappling with the problem of how charities should interact with the indirect tax system. Virtually all OECD countries and governments have exempted charities. That means that charities do not collect VAT on their services but cannot collect input tax credits on their purchases either. This has the advantage of significantly reducing compliance costs for charities in terms of not lodging returns. However, it increases their costs in terms of purchasing goods without input tax credits. Only the UK and Canada have offered zero rating for charities and, in both countries, only on a limited range of activities. Most fundraising activities, for example, are VAT exempt rather than zero rated.The approach proposed by the Australian government, to give them credit, has the widest reach of zero rating of any OECD country. In Canada and the UK, input taxing applies to a much wider range of revenue raising options than the Australian proposals, including membership fees, fundraising events, sponsorships and so forth. The government's original proposals would have left any major fundraising activities taxed. What was agreed between the Prime Minister and Senator Lees in June this year was that a Charities Consultative Committee would be set up and, by December this year, would provide some guidance to charities on what was in and what was out.The committee finalised its work on 24 November. It has done a huge job of gathering the issues and concerns raised by charities and seeking to respond to them. The committee has been extremely open with its processes, publishing on the tax office web site the questions and answers that it has developed. I pay public tribute to the chair, deputy tax commissioner Rick Matthews and his tax office team for their enormous amount of work and their preparedness to listen and learn. The committee has been very much a two-way process, with the tax office learning about charities and charities learning from the tax office about the GST.I also pay tribute to the other members of the committee nominated by the charities and churches. They are Peter Davidson of ACOSS, Father Brian Lucas of the Catholic Church, Paul Bird of the Brotherhood of St Laurence, John Hodge of the Salvation Army, Patrick McLure of Mission Australia, John Landau and Janet Kahler of ACROD, Marion Reilly of the Community Housing Federation, and Chris Thorpe of St John's Ambulance. I particularly acknowledge the work of Associate Professor Miles McGreggor-Lowndes of the Program on Non-profit Corporations at the Queensland University of Technology. He was nominated to the committee as an independent expert by the Democrats. Professor McGreggor-Lowndes has made a huge contribution to improving the two-way flow of information between the tax office and the charitable sector. I think his contribution has already been immense and will continue to be so.The tax office has been extremely accommodating of the charities within the confines of the legislation as it stands. The rulings which have come through the process have sought as much as possible to keep charities out of the GST net in addressing over 300 questions raised by the charities. Most of them were resolved in this process. I hope that a lot of the disinformation being peddled around the charitable sector, often by people who should know better, will be put to bed when the charities receive the full briefing from the tax office next year. I appeal to the Labor Party not to use and manipulate the well-intentioned honorary officials of the charities for their own political purpose.RF4COOKSenator Cook—Don't you do it!HX5Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEY—We should all be working for the best possible deal for charities rather than scoring political points.RF4COOKSenator Cook—That's what you're doing.HX5Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEY—Then again, I do not expect much from Labor.RF4COOKSenator Cook—You sold out the Australian charities in the community. You should be ashamed of yourselves.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Sherry)—Order! Senator Cook, please resist interjecting.HX5Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEY—I do listen to Senator Cook. I will not say any more than that. After all, Labor refused to recognise the RSPCA as a charity for 10 years and only begrudgingly did so at the Democrats' insistence. If the RSPCA could not attract Labor's sympathy in government, what hope have charities for honest and fair dealings from Labor now? But I digress.As a direct result of the information fed to the tax office through the committee, I am pleased that the government has comprehensively responded to all the issues raised by the consultative committee. The major conces sion is in relation to non-profit sub-entities, allowing non-profit entities greater structural flexibility with regard to GST registration. Many charitable organisations have numerous divisions, branches or committees that do not meet the definition of an entity in the GST act. The amendments will allow certain non-profit entities to treat separately identifiable units of their organisations as though they were separate entities for GST purposes. To be considered a non-profit sub-entity, the branch must maintain an independent system of accounting, be separately identifiable by activity or location from other parts of the entity and be referred to in the entity's records as a sub-entity for tax purposes.Sub-entities will not be required to register for the GST if they have taxable income of $100,000 or less once the amendment agreed between the Democrats and the government is made to this bill today. This is a much more generous treatment than the $100,000 threshold for not-for-profit entities as a whole. It allows an entity to be divided several times to utilise several $100,000 thresholds. The sub-entity provisions will allow many volunteer organisations with low overheads but fairly extensive fundraising to move right outside the GST net. Within a church organisation, for example, such as St Vincent de Paul, they will allow each individual branch or chapter to be separately registered, dramatically reducing the impost of the GST on that organisation.It should be remembered that the $100,000 threshold is not a total turnover for an organisation. Rather, it is the net after subtracting all GST-free and GST-exempt supplies. That includes sales of second-hand goods; any raffles or bingo; any goods sold for less than 75 per cent of their direct cost; the provision of housing; any goods that fall within the health, education and aged care or child-care exclusions; and the income of a school tuckshop. It is a very significant concession, which the Democrats are pleased to support. It also has the widest zero rating of charitable activities of any OECD country and a very generous exemption option that goes beyond those of Canada and the UK.As a result of the final report of the Charities Consultative Committee, a number of other significant issues were raised. I have spent the last three days discussing with the Treasurer the government's response. The government has agreed to soften the test for determining what supplies by a charity are non-commercial and therefore GST free. The committee identified major problems with the market value test proposed by the government, making the other test, referring to the total cost of providing the service, more important.The law as it stands says that a good is non-commercial if it is sold for less than 50 per cent of its total cost. As a result of discussions today with the Democrats, the government will be moving to increase this benchmark to 75 per cent. That means, for example, that if a charity has a membership fee of $75 a year and it costs $100 per year per member to service those members, the whole membership will be GST free. This is a major concession that will leave most of the core activities of a charity GST free. In addition to that, the Treasurer will seek a more generous ruling from the tax office to ensure that journals and newsletters not commercially sold are GST free.Charities will also be able to claim input tax credits for reimbursing the cost of volunteers. The 30 per cent of charities with non-standard accounting periods will still remit GST quarterly rather than monthly, reducing compliance costs. Government grants to charities will be increased by a full 10 per cent for the GST without any discount for unproven cost savings. Financial supplies within charitable or church groups, for example loans to schools, will be GST free. The tax office will provide a lenient approach to dealing with not-for-profit entities in the first year, with a dedicated section within the tax office for the not-for-profit sector.The Charities Consultative Committee will continue in existence to oversee the implementation of the GST across the sector and to deal with any further issues raised by charities. The government will further discuss with the Democrats a two stage inquiry into the tax treatment of charities in the new year, com mencing with a review of the legal definition of `charities' by the Australian Law Reform Commission. That issue has yet to be finalised.I wish to commend the government on its preparedness to deal with the issues raised by the Charities Consultative Committee in such a constructive and comprehensive manner. When we set up the committee in June, it was with the intention of sorting out the real, rather than the imagined, problems charities are having with the GST. The committee has been a huge success in terms of getting favourable rulings out of the tax office, favourable policy changes out of the government, and a better understanding of the entire system among charities. Charities will now be able to structure their affairs in the way that best suits them, either taking advantage of the generous zero rating or the generous GST exemption balancing lower compliance costs against the collection of input tax credits.The government has, to its credit, responded well to the problems identified by the committee. Continuing the good work of the committee is essential to the smooth implementation of the GST with the lowest possible impact on the charitable sector. The Democrats will be supporting the amendments to be moved by the government to these bills later today. We will also continue to support the work of the Charities Consultative Committee and monitor the impact of the GST on charities and will raise any new problem areas with the government as needed.16:33:0011648Boswell, Sen RonaldSenator BOSWELLYE4QLDNP10—This legislation has been around the parliament for a number of years. I am pleased that the Democrats are supporting it. I think most people realise that if we are going to be able to fund our social responsibilities—Senator Schacht interjecting—10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Sherry)—Order, Senator Schacht!4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—I was only trying to assist. 10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Don't assist in that way. Please stop interjecting.YE4Boswell, Sen RonaldSenator BOSWELL—If we are going to meet our responsibility to fund many of the social requirements, such as the Red Cross—4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—But you are taxing the Red Cross at the same time.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator Schacht, I am not going to ask you again.YE4Boswell, Sen RonaldSenator BOSWELL—Senator Schacht, we have been through this debate on many occasions. What is fundamentally recognised right throughout Australia is that if we rely on our present antiquated wholesale sales tax regime we will not be able to meet the needs of the underprivileged, of the people who require some sort of support from the Australian government. That has been recognised by the Salvation Army, the Red Cross, ACOSS, the peak bodies and many other service providers. That is why they support the general principle of the GST.We have to recognise, as most of these people have recognised, that if we are going to support the underprivileged, the people who require special services, we must have a new way of taxing in Australia. Trying to bring down a new taxing regime requires some sort of adventure. Many red herrings are going to be thrown up such as we are going to tax the lamington drives and the pie drives. If we do not take this big step into the future, then we will certainly not be able to provide the benefits that are required to sustain the underprivileged. That is what this debate is all about. Fortunately, the Democrats have recognised the need to do this. The step forward will have to be an adventure.One of the easiest things to do in this world is to knock and criticise, and to put up this great barrier of fear and uncertainty. That has been done time and time again. It is very negative and does not get Australia anywhere. This tax system has been going since about 1930. I think the wholesale sales tax was brought in to fund some programs just before the last war. It has been sustained and kept here and from time to time increased. It certainly does not meet the needs of the present day. What we have decided to do, with the support of the Democrats, is to move forward.Senator Schacht interjecting—YE4Boswell, Sen RonaldSenator BOSWELL—You have been around politics a long time, Senator Schacht, just about as long as I have, and you know all the right buttons to press to get up a bit of a fear campaign. No-one has ever said in this Senate that you are not a good politician. You are, but you know in this case that you are totally wrong. Not only are you totally wrong but you have not been able to carry with you what I would consider is your constituency—ACOSS, the Salvation Army and those sorts of people. Fortunately, the Democrats have seen some sense in this debate. They have come along and got on board with us because they see the need. They have a vision for the future. They can see that although we have something that worked in 1930 and then in 1940, it is not necessarily going to work in the new millennium.We are fortunate in this parliament to have at this time some progressive thinking people who understand that we do have to move forward. But the Labor Party have the anchor out and are trying to stir up some sort of fear campaign. Senator Schacht, you got left out of this debate badly. The Labor Party have been absolutely sidelined on this debate. You are now belatedly trying to get back into the debate in the last few minutes. You have missed out badly. You have set yourselves out on the sideline. Let us just get through this debate and see whether you can add something.There will be many more debates that are going to affect Australia. Let us see whether you can decide to be part of them. I am sure we would welcome some progressive thoughts from the Labor Party. There have been very few lately, but we live in hope rather than in expectation that you will come up with some policies that we can look at. If they are any good, we can give them a run.16:40:0011649Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—by leave—Thank you, Senator Boswell, for some very positive remarks. Senator Boswell drew attention—he is not the first person in this chamber to draw attention to this fact—to the total lack of policies from the Labor Party on the issue of tax reform. It is astonishing that the Labor Party could have travelled this distance and have no known or discernible policy on tax reform.I would like to respond to a number of the other issues which have been raised during the second reading debate. The truth of the matter is that the opposition have barely touched on the content of this legislation but rather have used the second reading debate as a time for a bit of a rant on the new tax reforms that we have put into place. They have taken the opportunity to further scaremonger and spread inaccuracies. It really has been a very poor performance by the opposition. I do not know what anyone can do to assist an opposition that has adopted a no policy position. The fact of the matter is that they have comprehensively failed to talk about the substance of the legislation. They have even failed to mention the alternatives. They have brought the Second XI into the chamber, unfortunately. They show so much interest in this legislation that we have to put up with the inane comments of Senator Schacht and his colleagues.The Labor Party continue to strongly support, as we understand, the wholesale sales tax which taxes goods at 12, 22, 32, 37, 41 and 45 per cent. It is a cascading tax which is embedded in the price of most goods we buy. Labor senators failed to mention that the GST will remove between $7 and $8 billion a year from business costs because it is not a tax on business like the wholesale sales tax. As my colleague Senator Boswell put so well, they mentioned nothing of the substance of their own policies, nor did they mention their generally appalling record, noticeably increasing the wholesale sales tax after the 1993 budget, after running an election campaign which said that taxes would not have to rise. Of course, then they removed the l-a-w law tax cuts.The Labor opposition are also complaining about the fact that the government is consulting on the new tax system and amending it to address legitimate concerns. Frankly, we are a consultative government; we work with people and we are happy to listen to people. We certainly learnt the lesson which the Keating Labor government never learnt; that is, you have to get out and talk to people and listen to people.The Labor opposition have constantly complained about this legislation but they show no interest in it. All they can do is send Senator Schacht. I do not even know whether Senator Schacht is in the B team. He is more likely to be in the C team in the Labor opposition—so I hear from his colleagues.As government members have mentioned, the government has been involved in an extensive consultation process. It has involved a broad cross-section of industry and community sector representatives, the states, the territories, the tax office and the Commonwealth departments. Through this process, we have assessed the finetuning required to ensure that the GST is implemented in the most effective way. These bills include amendments that the government considers necessary to provide a smooth transition to the new tax system, and I will briefly remind the Senate of the main points. As announced by the Treasurer, we are extending the cash basis for accounting for the GST by doubling the existing cash accounting threshold to $1 million. The government will also provide special rules for retailers, with a mixture of taxable and GST-free supplies, so that the commissioner will be able to determine alternative, simpler methods of calculating GST liability for retailers selling such goods. Both of these measures are very good news for small business. The government has also listened to the constructive suggestions of the ATO's charities consultative group and is extending the definition of `non-commercial suppliers of residential accommodation by charities'. The market value and cost of supply tests will be extended for the non-commercial suppliers of residential accommodation by charities from 50 per cent to 75 per cent. The government has also listened to the view that the ACCC's price exploitation powers do not cover situations where prices are unfairly increased prior to 1 July 2000. To put the issue beyond any doubt, this bill will amend the Trade Practices Act 1975 to ensure that the ACCC's powers enable it to take immediate action in respect of any unreasonable price rises before 1 July 2000, in addition to its post-1 July 2000 powers. The government also proposes a number of amendments relating to the application of GST and state deregulated insurance schemes; in particular, amendments to simplify the application of GST to workers compensation and compulsory third-party insurance. The bills also propose an amendment removing the value of any state stamp duty from the calculation of GST on insurance premiums. The bill contains amendments to make sure that the domestic telecommunications industry is not put at a competitive disadvantage to foreign competitors because of the GST. The Treasurer announced on 19 August that there would be an immediate income tax deduction for small and medium sized businesses for expenditure incurred in acquiring or upgrading plant or software to prepare for the GST, and we will be moving amendments to that effect.The treatment of general insurance has also been simplified by these bills. Included in this package of bills is the new pay as you go system, which will be more commonly known as the PAYG. PAYG will be a single, comprehensive, modern collection system that will replace outdated income tax collection systems. PAYG will take advantage of the opportunities provided by the GST and the business activity statement. The new system will reduce compliance costs by removing uncertainty and reducing the amount of paperwork and the number of payment dates. Full details of the measures in the bills are contained in the respective explanatory memorandums. As honourable senators will be aware, the A New Tax System (Tax Administration) Bill 1999 was referred to the Senate Economics Legislation Committee for consideration. The committee's report highlighted concerns raised by organisations that a provision in the endorsement of deductible gift recipient measures in the same way prevents the use of funds for fundraising expenses and administration costs. This is simply not the case. The measure is intended to formalise the existing requirement that deductible gifts be used only for the purposes covered by the law in order that the original gifts attract tax deductions.As clearly set out in the explanatory memorandum, at paragraph 6.16, the principal purpose of a fund includes purposes incidental to the fund. This includes certain ancillary costs such as cross-subsidisation of administration and fundraising activities. It is stating the obvious that there is no fund without fundraising activities. I am advised that the Commissioner of Taxation is preparing a public ruling to this effect. The ruling will be issued for comment soon after the legislation has been passed. I commend these bills to the Senate.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills read a second time.Ordered that consideration of these bills in committee of the whole be made an order of the day for a later hour.Committees116511165111651Debate resumed.16:50:0011651Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW656NSWALP00—I understand that earlier today consideration of Senator Bartlett's notice of motion was adjourned to a later hour. In the meantime the opposition and, I understand, the other parties in the Senate have had an opportunity to consider their positions on this proposed reference to the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee. Ordinarily we would have some concern given that the notice of motion was introduced only yesterday and it is being debated on the very next day without the opportunity for the Senate committee to consider the proposed terms of reference. But, equally, we understand that, given that today is the last sitting day for this session and the need to determine this matter expeditiously, it is appropriate that we try to finalise it today. The opposition have considered the proposed reference and indicate that we are prepared to support the reference, provided the terms are amended to exclude the specific references in paragraphs (a) and (b) in the notice of motion. To that effect, I have circulated an amendment, which is on sheet 1687. I move:Omit all words after "7 March 2000".For the record, if our amendment were to be carried the motion would read:That the provisions of the Northern Prawn Fishery Amendment Management Plan 1999 (No NPF 02) made under the Fisheries Management Act 1991 and tabled in the Senate on 24 November 1999, be referred to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 7 March 2000.The original notice of motion, as moved by Senator Bartlett, went on to make particular reference to:(a) the impact of the plan on the environmental sustainability of the Northern Prawn Fishery and overall fishing effort; and(b) the likely impact on the viability of existing prawn trawler operators and whether the plan will favour larger commercial operators.Our amendment would remove those particular references. The purpose of our amendment is that, in considering what particular matters the committee should look at when it examines this instrument, it is clear that the various parties likely to appear before the committee would wish to raise a number of issues not necessarily limited to the matters contained in Senator Bartlett's notice of motion. Further, the terminology is not necessarily such that we agree with all aspects of the way in which those particular references have been put forward.I understand also that the government was considering some alternative wording. We ourselves were looking at alternative wording, but in the end the most appropriate course is to do as we invariably do with references of legislation or instruments such as a regulation to a Senate legislation committee and that is to refer the bill or the instrument for inquiry and report. The committee is quite competent to understand and determine what the key issues will be, arising from the written evidence and the evidence put to the committee at public inquiry. On that basis, it is appropriate to refer the matter as I have outlined.We do acknowledge that some aspects of the particular issues that Senator Bartlett's motion drew attention to are important, such as sustainability for both the environment and the industry. The impact upon the stakeholders in the industry is also an important aspect. Whether the processes that have been undertaken to date—and the decision of AFMA to introduce new controls—have been properly followed is an issue the committee would most likely look at. There has been an examination of the AFMA decision by his honour, Justice Toohey, and clearly that is a matter that the committee would have some regard to and need to look at. The impact upon particular regional centres in Australia would also be something that would be raised. Rather than try to spell all that out in detailed terms of reference, we think it is appropriate to amend the notice of motion. The committee will give its full consideration to all issues raised by those appearing before it and report once it has concluded the processes of the inquiry. I seek the Senate's support for this amendment.16:57:0011652Troeth, Sen JudithSenator TROETHGX5VICLP10—I would like to indicate on behalf of the government that we are prepared to accept the amendment which Senator Forshaw has moved. Like the Labor Party, the government had an alternative form of words which it would have been prepared to pursue, but like anyone else I can read the weight of numbers in the Senate. As Senator Forshaw has indicated, perhaps it is better to leave the reference comparatively broad so that committee members who wish to do so can pursue certain aspects. We will support the amendment moved by Senator Forshaw.17:58:0011652Harris, Sen LenSenator HARRIS8HCQldIND00—To clarify my own personal understanding, the amendment that has been moved by Labor removes the terms of reference. Could the chair indicate whether that will in any way restrict the ability of the committee to report on all issues. I find it unusual for a motion to be put up to recommend an inquiry, in this case into the Northern Prawn Fishery Amendment Management Plan, without a set of terms of reference. Could you clarify that for me, please?10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Sherry)—Senator Harris, it is not for the chair to comment on the matter that you have raised. I draw your attention to Senator Troeth's remarks, which meet your requirements.656FORSHAWSenator Forshaw—It actually enhances it.8HCHarris, Sen LenSenator HARRIS—Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President.16:59:0011652Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—I will indicate the Democrats' view on this issue of referring this matter for Senate committee inquiry. It is an issue of some debate in parts of the country, including my own state of Queensland, both from those that are concerned about certain aspects of the plan and those that are strongly supportive of it. I welcome the support of all parties in the chamber for the opportunity for the Senate to actually examine the issue in sufficient detail in an area such as this where we are given the legislative authority to be able to consider and disallow or otherwise plans such as this. We have that authority, and when the community raises concerns it is appropriate for us to give consideration through the processes of the Senate. With an issue such as this, it is much more appropriately done through a committee inquiry, which allows consideration of the issues which is hopefully less political and heated than debates in the chamber can be. I think it will be useful from that point of view of ensuring that community concerns are considered and heard.From the Democrats' point of view, I think it is worth emphasising that we have not got a position of having decided to support any disallowance at all. Our focus will be particularly on ensuring the environmental sustainability of the fishery. Some argue very strongly that this new amended plan enhances the sustainability of the fishery. That will be an issue that we will be looking at closely in relation to the inquiry. But I do think it is important that there is an opportunity for community voices to be heard in relation to the issue. It therefore puts a requirement on those who have a concern about the plan as amended to put forward their concerns and their views in detail and have them tested by a Senate committee giving proper consideration to all aspects of the matter. So it is simply a mechanism to ensure that the views of all sides on this particular issue, which has been an ongoing one, are able to be given consideration in as clear a way as possible.Again, I emphasise that, from the Democrats' perspective, we have no finalised view about the adequacy or otherwise of the plan, and that is indeed the purpose of enabling the Senate as a whole to have an examination of it through the Senate committee process. I welcome the support of all parties for going down this procedural path and ensuring that there is that opportunity for community views to be heard. I hope that as part of that process the final stage in relation to the development of this plan, which is consideration of it by a house of parliament if it chooses, would address the issue in a more complete sense.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Sherry)—The question is that the amendment put forward by Senator Forshaw be agreed to.Question resolved in the affirmative.17:03:0011653Harris, Sen LenSenator HARRIS8HCQldIND00—by leave—I register my support for the motion.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—The question now is that the motion, as amended, be agreed to.Question resolved in the affirmative.Notices116531165317:04:0011653Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—by leave—On behalf of Senator Greig and pursuant to standing order 78, I give notice that, at the giving of notices on the next day of sitting, Senator Greig will withdraw business of the Senate notice of motion No. 1 standing in the name of Senator Greig for 14 sitting days after today for the disallowance of the Northern Prawn Fishery Amendment Management Plan 1999 (No. NPF 02), made under subsection 20(1) of the Fisheries Management Act 1991.Bills11653r71911653Message received from the House of Representatives acquainting the Senate that it had agreed to the amendments requested by the Senate.11653Bill (on motion by Senator Troeth) read a third time.Bills11653r866Billsr908Billsr927Billsr95011653Consideration resumed.17:07:0011653Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—I table supplementary explanatory memoranda relating to the government amendments to be moved to the bill. The supplementary explanatory memoranda were circulated in the chamber on 9 December.17:07:0011653Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—Madam Chairman, I heard the minister say, `to the bill'.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—I was planning to deal with the bills seriatim so the first one would be A New Tax System (Pay As You Go) Bill followed by A New Tax System (Tax Administration) Bill, the indirect tax and consequential amendments bill, and the indirect tax and consequential amendments bill No. 2. The explanatory memoranda were in fact to No. 2. I actually have a statement to make in relation to No. 2 and then I am going to go on to deal with the pay as you go bill. Has that clarified and helped the situation?RF4Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOK—That has satisfied a considerable amount of my curiosity on what is being put before us. Perhaps I could take a moment to completely resolve my curiosity.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—You may.RF4Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOK—I have a question to essentially put—through you, Madam Chair—to the government and the Australian Democrats. It is my understanding that the Treasurer and Senator Woodley, on behalf of their respective parties—the coalition and the Democrats—held separate press conferences this afternoon announcing proposed changes to the charities treatment in the GST legislation and separately confirmed each other's view that some of these changes would be enacted today. Perhaps the minister or Senator Murray could confirm that. My curiosity at this point is: which bill are they amending—it is probably (1) and/or (2), but if they could just say that it would help me prepare for the debate on it.17:09:0011654Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—Senator, I will provide you with the advice; I am just waiting for my advisers to come in. I suggest we move on and then I will provide you with the advice.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—The only Democrat-government amendments that we have received at the table are to No. 2 and they are on sheet EF255. I can only assume that there are more coming. Before we commence, can I just make a statement that there is a government amendment appearing on sheet EF254 to A New Tax System (Indirect Tax and Consequential Amendments) Bill (No. 2) 1999 and it has been presented in the form of a request. It is clear from the explanatory memoranda accompanying the amendment that it should not be a request. Its effect is to provide relief to the funeral industry for taxation which would otherwise be imposed by the industry. The amendment will therefore be treated as an amendment.17:10:0011654Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—I have just been advised, in relation to the question that Senator Cook asked, that the amendments will be in bill No. 2.A NEW TAX SYSTEM (PAY AS YOU GO) BILL 1999The bill.17:10:0011654Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—The Australian Labor Party will not be opposing this legislation. We chose those words quite carefully and our reasons for doing so have been set out in some detail in the speech in the second reading debate. I must say I do not know that all of the reasons have been properly set out as we would want them, but I will not take the time of the chamber to go back over that issue now.What I want to do is to indicate that one of our anxieties about this legislation—and the reason why we have framed our position as I have announced—is given stronger credence by a press release from a Melbourne based company, Pitcher Partners, that the new GST and pay as you go tax system `will create a surge in businesses going broke next year'. I will get this on the record because it does underscore quite importantly why we adopt the position we do. The press release continues:Melbourne based Pitcher Partners, which deals mostly with businesses turning over between $1 million and $20 million a year, said the increase in insolvencies could begin early in the new year and peak in the second half of 2000. `There will be a general uncertainty arising from the unknown consumer reaction to the introduction of a GST,' the firm's managing partner, Tim Jonas, said in a statement. `It is possible that consumers will withdraw their spending temporarily or change their spending habits by, for example, spending available cash on new cars because of predicted savings.'The new pay as you go tax system to be announced on July 1 2000 would also cause problems for companies that had not planned ahead for a duplication of payments caused when the old and new systems overlap. Mr Jonas said he thought businesses in the overheated building and construction industry `where a number of small businesses have grown into big businesses with big commitments' would be hardest hit. `As these operators take advantage of the buoyant times, many are failing to keep an eye on management and costing issues,' he said. `When the bubble bursts, the combination of cashflow problems and the demands of the PAYG system could tip many businesses over the edge,' Mr Jonas said.It is worth emphasising that last comment:`When the bubble bursts, the combination of cashflow problems and the demands of the PAYG system could tip many businesses over the edge,' Mr Jonas said.As I said, we are not going to oppose this legislation but we have some anxieties about it. The expression of view by Mr Jonas, from a responsible firm expert in dealing with business accounting particularly for businesses with turnovers between $1 million and $20 million a year—that is, typically small business—is not an idle voice in this debate. He is a person in a position of expertise and authority when it comes to the needs of small business and we want to register concern about the legislation and our anxiety about it.At this stage we will be committed to keeping a watching brief. We are worried about what the outcomes might be. We would hope that the government would be sensitive enough to authoritative voices from the specialist sector in the business community that know about these things, be sympathetic to helping overcome any problems and, hopefully, be swift in doing so—that is, overcome them without delay so that people do not have to get burnt in order to get better—but that they can be anticipatory about some of the problems. It is important to have these views on the record. I have committed them to the record. As I said, we will not oppose the legislation.17:15:0011655West, Sen SueSenator WEST1X4NSWALP00—Minister, I did pose some questions following on from some answers I received about the treatment of wheat consigned to the Australian Wheat Board. The questions were taken on notice and it took 39 days until you gave me the answers. I raised some questions and alerted you to the fact that I would be asking further questions in the committee stage or earlier. I had hoped that you could have answered some of them in your final speech but you did not do so. My questions relate to the treatment of wheat being sent to the AWB. Is that going to be treated as being purchased from farmers by the Wheat Board? Or will the Wheat Board be interpreted as an agent for the purposes of selling the wheat for farmers?17:16:0011655Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—Senator, I did hear your remarks in the Senate. It was a rather interesting speech that you made, if I remember rightly, not so much for its content but for the way it was delivered. I have got a brief on the matters you have raised. That brief is coming down and as soon as it comes into my hands I will provide you with the answers. I had the remarks that you made to the Senate analysed by my advisers. You fooled me, Senator: I thought you were going to ask me a question on it in question time. I was ready to respond to you at 2 o'clock today, but the folder has now gone up.Mr Temporary Chairman, I can now assist Senator West. Senator West was concerned about a variety of questions, but one of the principal ones was: will farmers have to distinguish between GST-free sales of wheat to the Australian Wheat Board? The short answer is no. In detail, all sales of wheat by farmers to the Australian Wheat Board will be taxable. It is only sales made by the AWB to overseas buyers that will be GST free. Sales by the farmer to the AWB are not export sales, even though the AWB will export some of the wheat. The Wheat Board is the exporter, not the farmer.The Wheat Board will be entitled to claim input tax credits for the GST included in the amount paid to farmers. Farmers will be able to claim input tax credits for all their business inputs, regardless of whether their sales of wheat were taxable or GST free. If the Wheat Board loans money to farmers, there will be no GST payable by the farmer in respect of the loan payment. When payment for wheat is made by the Wheat Board, that is the time that the farmer who operates on a cash basis will account for the GST.With regard to the farmers operating on an accruals basis, the Australian Taxation Office is working with the industry to determine a time at which the GST liability will arise. Just to round off your comments, sales of wheat that were delivered prior to 1 July 2000 but where payment is received after 1 July 2000 will not be subject to the GST. That probably covers the questions that you raised.17:20:0011656West, Sen SueSenator WEST1X4NSWALP00—That answers a lot of the questions that I raised. I am trying to be constructive here and to get answers to questions that I have been asked and cannot answer. With regard to the treatment of the GST in relation to contractors, more and more these days we are seeing, particularly for the smaller farmers, that contractors may be used for planting and/or harvesting and/or spraying with herbicides or pesticides. What is going to be the relationship there? Are they going to have to pay a GST? I presume, when they pay the contractor, that the GST input is reclaimable because that is an input. What is the contractor going to have to do with it?17:21:0011656Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—Senator, your assumption was correct. When the contractor is paid the GST, he will have to remit it with his normal monthly or quarterly payments.17:21:0011656West, Sen SueSenator WEST1X4NSWALP00—How are sharefarmers going to be treated? There is quite a bit of wheat or other grains harvested by sharefarmers, that is, a payment is made to the owner of the land, who is another farmer, and sometimes the payment comes in a percentage of the harvest or a percentage of the return. I am not sure whether you can come up with an answer for that one straightaway or whether it needs to be taken on notice. I am also interested in how you are going to treat sharefarmers. Will they be treated the same way as farmers as far as their inputs go?17:22:0011656Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—Sharefarmers would be carrying on an enterprise, and they would have the same general commitments. If there is some particular legal structure which you are unsure about, we are very happy to provide that advice to you. If there is a particular case of a sharefarmer who has been in contact with you and has a particular question, we will facilitate an early response. But the general principles apply. Whether you are a sharefarmer or a farmer elsewhere, there will be an entity to which the general sorts of compliance rules will apply.17:23:0011656West, Sen SueSenator WEST1X4NSWALP00—I do not have a particular case in mind. It was the other questions that prompted me to think of sharefarmers. I am also interested in knowing what the requirements and obligations of the owner of the land will be and what they will and will not be able to claim, because they will not be producing the crop. The sharefarmer will be producing the crop and therefore, I assume, will be the one that can get the farming inputs deducted. I am interested in knowing how the farmer who owns the land is going to be treated. I guess it is a bit like a lease situation; they are leasing part of their land.17:24:0011656Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—If someone else owns the land, there are two quite separate entities, and the rules will apply to each particular entity. If there is a registered entity, the farmer who is producing the wheat would have obligations under the GST, but of course he would be able to claim the input credits.17:24:0011656West, Sen SueSenator WEST1X4NSWALP00—My final question relates to forward selling. The AWB does a lot of forward selling of crops into outyears, and a lot of the contracts are over a number of years. How are those going to be treated, particularly those with a transitional type of arrangement? For example, the contract was entered into two years ago and it is a five-year forward selling contract: how is that going to be treated?17:25:0011656Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—I want to make it clear that sales of wheat which were delivered prior to 1 July 2000, where payment is received after 1 July 2000, will not be subject to the GST. I think that probably deals with the matters you raised. If there are any other queries, I am happy to address them.17:25:0011656Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—I will make this quite brief because we want to move on, but I cannot let this opportunity pass. I note that the minister in his initial explanation made the very clear distinction that a wheat farmer selling wheat, which is subsequently exported, to the Wheat Board is not the exporter—the Wheat Board is. It is the activity of the Wheat Board which is zero rated. I am paraphrasing the minister; I am not quoting him directly. The sales transaction by the farmer to the Wheat Board is not zero rated, but the on-sale by the Wheat Board is.I have to say that during the election campaign—after which the government claimed a mandate for a GST—I was in several debates over the impact of the GST and how it would operate. I believe I can put my hand on Liberal Party information sent out in the election context that assured wheat farmers that, if they were exporters, they would be zero rated. I tried to make the distinction in the same manner that the minister has now made. By an inclination of his head, he nodded in the affirmative to confirm the explanation. My question is: Minister, if I now produce for you that Liberal Party election material, would you agree with me that electors who believed that would have been misled because the explanation was not correct?17:27:0011657Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—No, Senator. If the farmers were direct exporters, they would be zero rated for their exports. But the exporter is the Wheat Board. This arrangement is what the farmers want. This arrangement is well known to the National Farmers Federation, and it is an arrangement which they want. Farmers want the cash flow which comes from this sale. The farmers sell the wheat to the Wheat Board, the Wheat Board pays the GST and the farmers get the cash flow benefit. This is actually what they want. The short answer is: if the farmers directly exported wheat into an export market, they would be zero rated.17:28:0011657Murphy, Sen ShayneSenator MURPHYFX5TASALP00—I have a question about motor vehicle lessors and hirers and the effect of the GST on their buying vehicles prior to 1 July 2000, on which they would pay the wholesale sales tax. If they subsequently sell them, they would also be subject to the GST, which means that they would be double taxed. I do not want to misrepresent what the officers explained to me in brief but, if I understood them correctly, if you bought a car after December 1998 and sold it prior to 1 July 2000, that would be the case. I would like to have that explained.17:29:0011657Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—We do not agree that there is a double taxation issue, because post 2 December 1998 was the date that the GST would be built into the lease price. The issue was well known by the 2 December date, and the new arrangements that were coming in after 1 July were known. Presumably, those who were leasing cars made the adjustment in the lease price.17:30:0011657Murphy, Sen ShayneSenator MURPHYFX5TASALP00—As I understand it—and I am trying to understand it—WW4KEMPSenator Kemp—You are trying!FX5Murphy, Sen ShayneSenator MURPHY—Not quite as trying as you can be, Minister, I can tell you. I have had it put to me that, whilst it was not the intention of the GST legislation to double tax things, an amendment proposed in this A New Tax System (Indirect Tax and Consequential Amendments) Bill (No. 2) 1999 , that has a relationship to section 18—10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Calvert)—I do not think we are debating the No. 2 bill. We are on the A New Tax System (Pay As You Go) Bill 1999 at the moment.FX5Murphy, Sen ShayneSenator MURPHY—Good, I am pleased about that. I want to ask this question.WW4KEMPSenator Kemp—If you just want to ask this question and that is it, and then you will leave the chamber and go to dinner, I will take the question.FX5Murphy, Sen ShayneSenator MURPHY—I am very appreciative of your indulgence, Minister, but it is an important issue, at least to the accountants who wrote this letter. I am not saying they are right, wrong or indifferent, but I would like to know the answer. They say that, as a result of this bill, there will be a double taxing effect—that is, if a hire car company buys a car prior to 1 July 2000, pays wholesale sales tax on it and then subsequently sells it as a second-hand car, they will be subject to the GST. As I understand the current act, before this amendment has gone through, they would have been able to claim an input tax credit for the WST.17:32:0011658Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—The answer is no, they could not in the original bill. The amendment does not alter that particular aspect. That is my advice.17:32:0011658Murphy, Sen ShayneSenator MURPHYFX5TASALP00—I thank you for that, but I have a letter here that sets out a range of processes. Whilst I will accept at face value what you say, I would like a written response, if I could have one, that sets out in a detailed form exactly what the state of play is.17:33:0011658Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—Thank you, Senator. We appreciate the constructive manner in which you are entering the debate. If you would like to pass the letter to my advisers, I will ensure that in a short period of time we will provide you with a written response to that letter.Bill agreed to.A NEW TAX SYSTEM (TAX ADMINISTRATION) BILL 1999The bill.17:34:0011658Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—This is the second bill, and not the A New Tax System (Pay As You Go) Bill 1999 ?10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Calvert)—It is the A New Tax System (Tax Administration) Bill (No. 2) 1999 .RF4Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOK—I apologise for my inattention, Mr Temporary Chairman. It must be the end of a long year's sitting, and one in which we have all spent a huge amount of time in here arguing the complexities.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—Even the clock's worn out!RF4Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOK—Even the clock is kaput, although it could be the millennium bug. It just worries me if it is; I have to fly home some time later this week.3M6MURRAYSenator Murray—In which case we will stay here.RF4Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOK—Maybe I'll catch the train to Perth.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—It's not 31 December.RF4Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOK—It is not 31 December; we still have some days to tick by. My understanding was that a range of amendments was circulated in the chamber from the Australian Greens. Is that true? Is it intended that those amendments will be proceeded with?10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—If it is the wish of the committee, we could postpone the bill.17:35:0011658Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—The amendments will be put by Senator Brown. Apparently he is leaping down the stairs at this moment on his way to make his contribution. I am sure he will be here shortly, if that is of assistance.17:35:0011658Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—I just hope that as a result of the great kindness that you have extended, this does not extend the debate for many hours. It is like someone missing a catch in the slips when the batsman's on zero and he may go to 100! It is a very kind act, Senator Murray. I just hope it does not backfire on you. I am talking so as to enable Senator Brown to get to the table to ensure that this aspect is carried out as expeditiously as possible.17:36:0011658Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—Good things come to those who wait! Thank you very much, I appreciate that, Senator. I move:Page 223 (after line 23), at the end of the bill, add:Schedule 19—GST liability of eligible non-profit organisations 1 Heading to Subdivision 38-G Repeal the heading, substitute:Subdivision 38-G—Eligible non-profit organisations 2 Section 38-250 Repeal the section, substitute:38-250 Supplies by eligible non-profit organisations A supply is GST-free if it is supplied by an *eligible non-profit organisation. 3 Section 38-255 Repeal the section, substitute:38-255 Second-hand goods A supply of *second-hand goods is GST-free if the supplier is an *eligible non-profit organisation and the goods were supplied to the organisation as a gift.4 Section 195-1 Insert: eligible non-profit organisation means a non-profit organisation whose objects or purposes include activities in the public interest, but does not include a non-profit organisation that benefits only its own members. The following are examples of eligible non-profit organisations: (a) a university, college of technical and further education, school or other organisation whose primary function is: (i) education; or (ii) training; or (iii) research and development; Note: Supplies by eligible non-profit organisations are GST-free under Subdivision 38-F but certain supplies by those organisations are also GST-free under Subdivision 38-B. (b) a hospital, hospice, nursing home, medical centre, refuge or community centre; (c) a provider of welfare services, personal care, child care, counselling, emergency services (including surf lifesaving and fire-fighting), public housing, community housing or emergency housing; (d) a recreational, arts or entertainment organisation that supplies services to the general public as well as to its members; (e) an organisation that assists community members through research, advice, representation, advocacy, lobbying, dissemination of information and translation; (f) an environment organisation; (g) an overseas aid organisation; (h) an amateur sporting organisation that supplies services to the general public as well as to its members; (i) a trade union, student union or professional organisation; (j) an indigenous organisation; (k) a charitable institution; (l) a trustee of a charitable fund; (m) a *gift-deductible entity; (n) a philanthropic organisation; (o) a library, a community broadcaster, a community television organisation, or a provider of community internet services; (p) a parent organisation, a school canteen or a tuckshop.This is the amendment that is required to ensure that the non-government sector in Australia is not disadvantaged by this legislation. It is the amendment that fulfils the assessment by the sector itself that there cannot be a polyglot of changes that will help to overcome the myriad of problems faced by the charitable and non-government sectors in the country.This is a real chance to prevent all the problems that are going to arise. I say to our friends in the Democrats: this is the opportunity to protect this sector from the GST. There have been opportunities in the past, but here is a final chance to do the right thing by the sector that you have always represented. Don't increase the compliance costs, don't make it more difficult, don't force non-government organisations to swap people in the field for more accountants, don't put hundreds of non-government organisations out of business, don't diminish the community sector, don't hit charities across the board, and don't think that the amendments made on the run today will do the job.The Greens warned in July 1988—before the last elections—about the billion dollar impact on the non-government sector of the then looming GST package. Now that warning has been vindicated, and there has been a scramble in the last few days to try to make up for it a little. I notice the figure of $65 million extra to the charitable sector has been mooted by the government, and I will be looking to a breakdown of that figure so that this committee can understand what exactly is meant by that. I say to the Democrats here and now: this is the opportunity to do the right thing by the non-government sector, including charities, sporting groups, environmental organisations, indigenous groups and social welfare groups not strictly classified as charities—people representing the dispossessed, the poor, the disadvantaged and those value systems that are not to the fore in this age of materialism.The opportunity is here. We are on the last evening of the sittings for 1999. It would be a breakthrough for the Democrats to get back to their original bailiwick and their original constituency and to take this opportunity. This amendment I put forward is not just an amendment; it is a challenge to the Democrats to do the right thing by their constituency. I noted that at least one poll during the week found that 35 per cent of Democrat voters approved of the GST. What a situation we are in here this evening where the opportunity to get back to that constituency, at least as far as community groups are concerned, is now before the Democrats. It is a very important opportunity. I hope this committee will take it. Of course, it is able to take it if the Democrats support it.I asked during my contribution for the government to give a breakdown of the $65 million that is being offered to the charitable sector by Mr Costello under the new arrangements. I wonder if the minister would be good enough to provide an outline of where that $65 million is coming from and who it is going to.17:41:0011660Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—I understand the information is actually in the letter that Mr Costello signed. The last paragraph on the first page of that letter says:Had the community and education sectors been able to take advantage of the immediate tax write-off it is estimated this would have amounted to around $10 million. Therefore, an amount of $10 million was deducted from the Direct Assistance Program and redistributed to the community and education sectors through the Organisation Delivered Assistance Program ($8 million to the charitable and community sector and $2 million to education).On the next page it goes on to say:These funds are additional to their pro-rata share of the $130 million Organisation Delivered Assistance Program funding. This is reflected in the higher average level of funding in the community and education sectors compared to the business sector. In total, the community sector is expected to benefit from the direct assistance program by about $40 million (depending on registrations) and by about $25 million through organisation delivered assistance. Furthermore, the GST Start-up Office has made an offer to set up a reference site for the community sector that would provide practical information on what charities need to do to minimise compliance costs.And the cost of that initiative is around $500,000. For the interests of the committee, I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard the press release on the charitable sector and the GST that was issued today by the Treasurer and the letter that was sent by the Treasurer to Senator John Woodley—the Democrats' spokesperson on charities' taxation. Congratulations, Senator; you are accumulating titles. I will also incorporate in this package another letter to Senator John Woodley from the Treasurer. So, with the committee's approval, I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard the Treasurer's press release and related correspondence.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Calvert)—Is leave granted?17:44:0011660Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—Yes, leave is granted, even though I have not seen this letter and it has not been distributed in this chamber and we are presumably going to get that only after there has been some debate on this matter. I think that both Senator Woodley and the minister might have had the good grace to have delivered a copy of that letter much earlier in the piece, knowing that this debate was consequent. It is very difficult to debate matters like this if you do not have the detail.From that small contribution from the minister, could he break up again the components from this new $65 million apparent largesse to the charitable sector and give the specifics? A term like `organisation delivered assistance' does not mean much to me or anybody else in this place or anybody in the community who might be wanting to know how this assessment was made. Can I put it this way: is this $65 million a make-up for an assessment of a burden on the charitable and non-government organisations in Australia because of the GST, or is this new money going to that sector which is a benefit to the sector which it did not have before? Has there been an assessment which has led to this figure being the one that is on the press release today? If so, is it catch-up or is it new money going to the charitable sector that is entirely unrelated to a finding that the charitable sector was facing imposts that were not known about when the government and the Democrats made the deal in May?10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—Before the minister answers, he sought leave to incorporate those letters and press releases. Is leave granted?17:46:0011661Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—Mr Chairman, on the question of whether leave is granted, could I address you for a moment and, through you, the minister. I am in a similar situation as Senator Brown: I have not seen the Treasurer's press release for which leave to incorporate is being sought. I do not want to raise artificial difficulties here. This chamber works well when the usual courtesies are observed. The usual courtesy is that we are shown documents for which leave is being sought to incorporate and we can satisfy ourselves about those documents. I do not wish to contend this matter, because it is a minor point in the overall debate. But if we are to agree to leave for the incorporation of the Treasurer's statement, which I understood to be also leave for the incorporation of Senator Woodley's press release, will the minister who is seeking leave give leave to include at the same time a press statement of Wayne Swan MP, the shadow minister for family and community services, dealing with this same matter? If leave is allowed for our document, I am happy to concede leave to the government document and the Democrats document.17:48:0011661Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—The intention was to assist the committee, not to involve it in a big debate. Senator Brown was not in the chamber. We asked him to come down so he could move his amendment. Senator Brown wanted to know the substance of what was said by the Treasurer. I thought it may have been of assistance to incorporate it but, seeing it has just led to a debate and has led to people making unfortunate comments, I withdraw my request. I thought it was just going to be of assistance to the committee. If it is just going to lead to a debate and attempts at point scoring, I will forget it.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Calvert)—Perhaps you might like to table it.WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—That may also lead to another debate. Frankly, I did it with the purest of intentions to help the committee. I got a serve from Senator Brown and then I got a deal proposed by Senator Cook. Forget it. I do not propose to table it and nor do I propose to incorporate it in Hansard . I thought I was assisting the committee.17:49:0011661Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—I want to say again that, if the government want to put their statement down, I have no objection. If Senator Woodley wants his in, I have no objection. But I think it is a bit petulant to say that, if we want ours in as well, you are going to withdraw the whole thing. I put it to the minister that maybe he should reconsider and agree to our statement going in as well. That clears the whole record and we can get on with this debate.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—There is no movement. I call Senator Brown.17:49:0011661Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—In the letter from the Treasurer to Senator Woodley dated 8 December, on page 1, from which the minister quoted earlier, under the heading `Implementation and compliance costs relative to business', the Treasurer says:Charities do not pay income tax and as a result income tax deductions are of no use to them. The only way to provide assistance for training and new equipment therefore is through the grants process.To specifically recognise the above situation, the Government has provided additional funding through the GST Start-up Assistance Office to the charitable, community and education sectors to offset the tax write-off for small businesses.Had the community and education sectors been able to take advantage of the immediate tax write-off it is estimated that this would have amounted to around $10 million. Therefore, an amount of $10 million was deducted from the Direct Assistance Program and redistributed to the community and education sectors through the Organised Deliverance Assistance Program ($8 million to the charitable and community sector and $2 million to education).I ask the minister: what about the rest of the non-government sector? There are thousands of organisations out there which will need assistance to adjust to the new GST set-up and to start up adequately to meet its needs, but I notice that this facility is confined to the charitable and community sector, and there is $2 million to education. Does `community sector' cover the rest of the non-government organisations and, if not, where is the limitation there?17:51:0011662Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—A range of measures have been designed to assist groups. Groups will be working with peak bodies in the non-government sector to get further assistance. There is a very comprehensive program. We have been able to provide, as a result of the discussions today, some additional assistance to the charitable sector. A very wide range of assistance is available now to non-government bodies. For bodies concerned about the compliance arrangements, their own associations will often be assisted directly. There will be direct contacts with the tax office. There is a wide range of means by which bodies can become compliant with the new tax system.17:52:0011662Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—There are about 100,000 community groups out there. That averages out at about $100 a piece. Would this cover environment groups?17:53:0011662Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—It covers charitable bodies and tax deductible bodies. If an environment group is a tax deductible body, it will be covered. If it is not, it will not be covered. I am looking at my advisers to make sure that what I am telling you is correct, and I see no demur.17:53:0011662Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—On page 2, in the second paragraph, it reads:In total, the community sector is expected to benefit from the direct assistance program by about $40 million, depending on registrations, and by about $25 million through organised delivery assistance. I presume that that $40 million includes the $10 million we have just been referring to.WW4KEMPSenator Kemp—No, it does not.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—So that $10 million is additional to the $65 million in this paragraph?17:54:0011662Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—Bear with us. I want to make sure that we give you accurate information. Proceed with your next question. We will come back to it.17:54:0011662Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—My next question follows on from it. The sentence goes on to say that `the community sector is expected to benefit . . . by about $25 million through organisation delivered assistance'. What is `organisation delivered assistance'? Finally, there is another sentence:Furthermore, the GST start-up office has made an offer to set up a reference site for the community sector that would provide practical information on what charities need to do to minimise compliance costs.That is worth about half a million dollars. What sort of practical information is envisaged to be given to community groups to help them minimise compliance costs?17:55:0011662Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—A great deal of information is available to community groups and, indeed, all groups. A web site is available. Peak bodies that have been funded are conducting their own programs. There is an enormous range of material. If you wish, I would even be prepared to have you briefed in detail so that you can see yourself the amount of information that is available to the community sector. We are working closely with the community sector—in fact, all sectors—to make sure that we have as smooth a transition as possible to the new tax system.We have been very comforted in the last couple of days by some very important statements made by bodies such as the Salvation Army and the Wesley City Mission. Even Mr Wirth of the RSPCA made some pretty positive statements about the impact of the new tax system. Included in those comments was a recognition of the discussions and consultations that are occurring with the sector. It is in the government's interests to make sure that this works well. We are pulling out all stops to make sure that that is achieved. There is no lack of enthusiasm on our part to make sure that everyone has the information on hand which will assist them to comply with the new tax system.17:57:0011663Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—There are other organisations that do enormous good in our community which are all but wringing their hands in despair, not just at the direct costs for them of the GST package of the Democrats and government but also at the compliance costs. They despair most about the compliance costs. We await the answer on what `organisation delivered assistance' is.When we get to this help with compliance costs through practical information, the experience I have heard about is that for non-government organisations the seminars came much later than for business. Many people who have been to those seminars have gone away shaking their heads. They are completely bewildered by, amongst other things, the new lexicon of terms and economic jargon. The government and the Democrats have a huge amount of work to do to help the organisations that survive this—and thousands will not—to come to an understanding of what is required of them in this massively new field that the GST package represents. As far as the half a million dollars listed in the Treasurer's letter goes, is this additional to the advice system that is already set up, or is this a costing of the already existing advice system?17:59:0011663Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—I know that you would not be part of a deliberate scare campaign. Quite rightly, people in the charitable sector have gone on record today saying that this is just singularly unhelpful and sometimes just politically driven and does not have the real interests of the community sector at heart. I am sure that you are not part of that, Senator.We have to keep some perspective. We are bringing in a tax system which 156 countries around the world have variants of. This is not reinventing the wheel. Virtually every modern economy has a GST type system. The government is keen to have a world's best practice system. That is what we are seeking to do. You suggest that there is fear and huge concern out there, but you should be careful you do not overstate the case. Of course people are interested. Of course people want to find out what is required. Of course some people are concerned that they have to adopt a new system. We understand that. Of course they want to make sure that they can become compliant. We are determined to assist them. But it is wrong to suggest that hundreds of thousands of organisations will close down or that the people who go to seminars are hopelessly confused as a result. After every seminar, as far as I am aware—certainly after those put on by the tax office—we do a survey of people who have been to the seminar and ask their views.I have heard this sort of comment before. Someone had said that some seminar went very badly. We went back and checked the fact sheets of what people said about the seminar and we found that the reverse was the case. I think the seminar program is going pretty well. Certainly I have had my staff attend some of these seminars to see how they are going. I do not know whether you have been to one. If you are concerned I would advise you to go to one and listen to what people are saying.Let me deal with the specifics. The $500,000 is new money. To make it clear—I may have to amend slightly what I said earlier—the $10 million is part of the $25 million organisation delivered assistance. This is money that is delivered typically by, we can classify them as, peak bodies. These are bodies which know their own sectors, which know what people want.We are going to have a new tax system. It is going to be a far better tax system. I urge you to adopt a positive approach and not join the scare campaign. There are some who are attempting to drive this for political reasons, not to help the community sector or the charitable sector.18:03:0011663Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I am not going to get into the business of who has been where and to what, but let me state on the record that people are worried, Minister. If you believe that that is not the case, then you haven't got your ear to the ground. There are major and minor community groups across the country who are extremely worried. You and the government and the Democrats have a very big job to alleviate that worry. It is not just a worry because there is a new system that is not well understood. Organisations are very concerned about the compliance costs and the impact this will have on many of them. I did not say that hundreds of thousands of organisations would be going to the wall. I said there were 100,000 groups out there and that thousands of them may not survive this tax change.On page 3 of the letter from Mr Costello, the Treasurer, to the Democrat spokesman Senator Woodley, the government says that it will be grossing up grants to charities by 10 per cent and that this means that charities will get the benefit of cost savings. The grants will be the same but the costs will be lower. This is not the rule the government is applying to itself or that it expects of its own agencies and so on. Above that it says:Because of the abolition of the wholesale sales tax and the removal of the embedded wholesale tax and the inputs to charities, operating costs to charitable entities should fall. As a result there may not be the need to gross up government grants by a full 10 per cent to maintain the relative funding position before and after the introduction of the GST.But is this not a recognition that the previous position of the government and the Democrats that the GST was at worst going to be cost neutral is understood now not to have been right? Has that led to this need to gross up the grants to offset the taxation impost?18:05:0011664Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—This is made clear in the press release. The gross-up is 10 per cent. So they will get the benefit of cost savings with the removal of embedded taxes.18:05:0011664Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—But the point I am making here is: is this just a new grant to charities or is this to make up for the fact that charities were going to lose under the GST and a recognition of fact that they were going to lose under the GST? Therefore, is this arrangement required to offset a loss that the GST would have accrued? It has to be one or the other.18:06:0011664Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—It does not have to be one or the other. It is making it crystal clear that the embedded taxes which will be removed will be translated into cost savings as a result of the new tax system. This is quite straightforward. It is what the charities wanted. It is very good news, and it gives them an assurance that they may not have felt they had before.18:06:0011664Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—You are wrong. Some charities accept that with improvements they will get by, that they will be—I think the Prime Minister used the word—`comfortable' with this. But others do not. In particular, they and the non-government sector are aghast at the compliance costs and the complexity this puts on them in everything they do—a whole accounting system that was not there before. You are quite wrong, Minister, in saying that their lot is better. They tell me that they do not believe that. They are gravely concerned. This is not my scaremongering; this is what I am told by the community about the compliance costs, the complexity and the whole difference in the working ethos of charities that this is going to bring into the Australian charitable system. By the way, there are GST systems overseas which protect charities and non-government organisations. They do not apply to charities. That is what my amendment is to afford to the non-government sector in Australia.That is why I say here is an opportunity for the Democrats to protect the very sectors that they have stood for these many years, not just the charitable sector as such but the community sector, people who give long hours of service to the community, including extraordinary volunteerism in this country. Many of these volunteers are going to say, `Why bother?' when they see more and more of the dollars that they earn going into bookkeeping and compliance costs. Whereas in the past they have voluntarily done a lot for the community sector freely, they are now going to find themselves in the position of having to account for it and doing all the paperwork as well. They are going to say, `Why should we bother?' And you, Minister, say that they are all looking forward to this. You are wrong.WW4KEMPSenator Kemp—Did I say that?QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—If you did not say it, the implication you give is that it is scaremongering to represent that those people are worried about it and you are wrong in that. That is why I believe that this amendment should be supported.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Watson)—The question is that the amendment be agreed to. Senator Brown, as no-one else has risen, you may speak again.18:09:0011665Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—Thank you. Minister, does the consultative group being established include people from the non-charity health or education sectors? Will grants to non-charitable groups, for example, landcare groups, get the 10 per cent increase that is going to what is in the charitable sector? I note that Senator Woodley is not here now, but maybe Senator Murray could answer that, having been involved in these negotiations, because that is a very critical area of interest to the bush and to environmentalists.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—I regret, Senator Brown, I cannot call Senator Murray, but I call the minister.18:10:0011665Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—I am advised that representatives on the consultative committee are not from the education sector or the environment sector; they are from the charitable sector because that represents the work they are doing.18:10:0011665Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—Does the consultative group include people only from the charitable sector and not the non-government sector? The second question I asked of the minister was: will the grants to non-charities, for example, landcare groups—a very explicit example—also be topped up by 10 per cent? `Grossing up' I think is the term that the Treasurer used.WW4KEMPSenator Kemp—I think we have made the position clear, Senator.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—No, you have not. I asked a specific question, which is: will landcare groups get the extra 10 per cent top up? Will the Australian Conservation Foundation get the extra 10 per cent grossing up that is being mooted by Mr Costello?18:12:0011665Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—What we have announced today is directly in relation to charities and tax deductible bodies. Therefore, bodies like the ACF would, of course, be included in that. I would have to see who the grant is coming from, but what we have done today is provide the assurance that a lot of people were looking for.18:12:0011665Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—So it would be specific. With the Australian Conservation Foundation obviously being a recipient of grants and being an organisation that is going to have to register, will its grants be grossed up by 10 per cent?18:13:0011665Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—I can be corrected, but my understanding is that the ACF is a gift deductible body. If that is the case, this applies to the ACF.18:13:0011665Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—Will the grants coming from state government or local government organisations also be grossed up?18:13:0011665Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—That is a matter for the states, Senator. I have no doubt that the various bodies will be making their views known to the state governments. But that is a question that the state governments will have to deal with.QD4BROWNSenator Brown—So it will not happen.Senator MURRAY (Western Australia) (6.13 p.m.)—For the record, this is an amendment which was before us in June. At that time we put our views on the record. We regard this as probably the widest proposed definitional structure put in any GST or VAT system worldwide, which is obviously the intent of the mover of the amendment. In so doing, it does not meet the intended structure of the act, but it may—I am sure that would be an unintended consequence—provide opportunities for tax avoidance and issues that we cannot foresee at this time. So we will not be supporting the amendment.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—The question is that the amendment be agreed to. There is only one voice, Senator Brown. You may have your dissent recorded, if you wish.QD4BROWNSenator Brown—Yes. I will have it recorded, thank you, Mr Temporary Chairman.Amendment not agreed to.18:15:0011666Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—I have a couple of questions before we pass off this bill, and I think it is now appropriate that they be put. People in the charitable sector—not unlike I imagine those Senator Brown was referring to—expressed to us considerable disquiet about this legislation, and I do not think they will be easily assuaged by the dulcet tones of the minister, but we will see. However, one of the questions that has arisen is in the A New Tax System (Tax Administration) Bill 1999 and goes to the interpretation of clause 5, schedule 7, section 31-125. The issue here is: does that clause preclude the use of the gift fund to pay for fundraising and other administrative costs, which in turn—WW4KEMPSenator Kemp—Senator, just to expedite things, I wonder if we can have the clause reference again.RF4Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOK—It is 31-125.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—Do you have a page number?RF4Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOK—It is clause 5, schedule 7, section 31-125.WW4KEMPSenator Kemp—We will just pause until we find it. Senator, I wonder if one of your advisers might be able to pop around to see one of my advisers to point out the specific clause, and then we can deal with it.RF4Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOK—I am happy to hand my note to one of my advisers to meet one of your advisers behind the arris, and if the advisers can concur—WW4KEMPSenator Kemp—And provided that they come back!RF4Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOK—Well, at this hour, they may want to use it to abscond, but if they do come back we can get on the record what the interpretation is. My question arises from sincere concerns expressed to me by charitable organisations about how the provisions of that section of the bill would operate, and whether that would in fact impose extra costs on their fundraising activities and on their administration. I think advisers are vanishing out of the chamber on either side. While that is under way, I have before me a draft form for a business activity statement that is being issued, as I understand it, by the Australian Taxation Office as part of the advice to small business on what type of compliance requirements will come to them as a result of the GST being imposed. It is a two-page form and, in itself, appears as simple as any government form ever does—which is to say that it is exceedingly complicated. It appears that the questions are almost banal but, unless you know the technical meaning of some of the questions, the questions are loaded. However, I draw the attention of the chamber to this draft business activity statement form that business would be required to comply with, which has been issued by the Australian Taxation Office. The purpose of my doing so is that what accompanies this form is this document, which goes to 136 pages. This document is the draft business activity statement instructions and this is the form you have to fill out, but there are 136 pages that you ought to be familiar with, to know about, in order to be able to fill out the form.QD4BROWNSenator Brown—Everybody is going to love it!RF4Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOK—Exactly! I will take that interjection. I think irony is in use here: everyone is actually going to hate it. I think you were being an ironist, if I may say, Senator Brown, in your interjection. My mind is taken back to 1996. One of the platforms that the Howard government ran on in that election was that they would cut red tape and compliance costs for small business. We do know that, as a result of that pledge, some effort was made. But the end result was that, irrespective of what the government claimed, small business organisations representing the users—that is, the small business organisations speaking for their members—compl ained. They conducted surveys and then brought down results that showed that the actual burden of red tape would increase significantly under the government. Here we have what looks to be, as I have described it, a fairly simple form, but you have to become au fait with an encyclopaedia of instructions in order to comply with it. Not only does that kill the election promise stone dead but that was dead anyway; it seems to be an excessive amount of extra work that small business needs to undertake as part of meeting the compliance requirements of this tax. The relevant question to bear in mind here is the nature of small business. The scarcest resource in a small business is time. Most small businesspeople are, characteristically, overpressed and complete the formal compliance with tax and other requirements by state and local government, as well as the Commonwealth government, after the close of normal business hours in what is regarded as their spare time. They do it at night or they get up early in the morning or take time out of family activities in order to comply. The biggest complaint by small business is that overheads are killing them and the filling in of forms is turning them into clerks delegated to do work for the government rather than small business entrepreneurs turning their attention to their core business activity and spending the time and energy that they need to to promote their businesses.We know there is a high bankruptcy rate among small business, that there is a high failure rate and that people who start out idealistically as entrepreneurs quickly come face to face with the harsh reality of a competitive, cutthroat business climate. In those circumstances, one has to be sympathetic to their needs in order to give them the elbow room to go about their core business activity. Minister, this is my question: is it necessary to have 136 pages of business activity statement instructions in order to fill out a two-page form? Isn't there some better way in which the Australian Taxation Office can provide an outreach service so small businesses are not turned into clerks for the government, perpetually filling out forms and unable to give their attention to their core business? If the tax office has not been provided with sufficient funds to do so, will you ensure that it is provided with sufficient funds and that the sham of an easy compliance tax—the so-called friendly tax, the so-called simple tax—is removed as a burden on the back of many of the productive assets in this nation, that is, the small business sector?18:23:0011667Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—We are always delighted when you stand up and support small business because you would have to say that for 13 years the Labor Party went missing in action supporting small business.ZW4SHERRYSenator Sherry—What did you do to small business with superannuation?WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—Superannuation is booming. The DIYs are growing rapidly.ZW4SHERRYSenator Sherry—All the paperwork; all the forms.WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—For a man who spends 96 per cent of his waking hours thinking about superannuation, Senator, it is amazing how wrong you often get it.ZW4SHERRYSenator Sherry—Merry Christmas, Rod.WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—He's leaving the chamber. One down, 75 to go.3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—I'm still here, Senator.WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—I appreciate that the B team is going to be brought in; I understand that, Senator Conroy. A number of questions have been asked by the Labor Party. I would be happy to give an answer if anyone was remotely listening to me. Perhaps I will come back to it.18:24:0011667Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—I had asked the minister if he could clarify the uses to which a fund can be put—section 30/125(5). Did you make some remarks on that? This is the right bill for that, I understand. The issue is really whether the costs associated with administration, fundraising and marketing should be construed widely. While the opposition are conversing I would appreciate your putting that on the record.18:25:0011667Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—Thank you, Senator Murray, you are forever helpful in dealing with the vagaries of our colleagues. Senator Cook asked me a question, but I will leave that. Senator Murray, you asked me whether ancillary costs such as fundraising and administration are legitimate expenses against the gift fund. Yes, ancillary costs are recognised as legitimate expenses to be charged against the gift fund. The intent of the legislation is to ensure that funds are used only for the principal purpose of the fund, authority or institution for which the deductible gift recipient is endorsed. Ancillary activities are considered to form part of the principal purpose. The Commissioner of Taxation has advised me that a ruling to this effect will be issued soon after the legislation has been passed.I find it very difficult to attract Senator Cook's attention. I am trying to respond to your question, Senator Cook.RF4COOKSenator Cook—I'm listening.WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—You're all ears; I'm delighted. Senator Cook was worried about the paperwork. This government is in the business of cutting compliance costs to small business, not increasing compliance costs to small business. The form of instructions you held up, somewhat dramatically I thought, we have tested with small business and practitioners. The reaction was very positive, with ratings around eight out of 10. This government always aims for 10 out of 10 so we will look to see what else we can do, but I congratulate the people receiving eight out of 10. It is certainly a better mark than the mark some colleagues on your side would receive.Let me make this clear: people have to refer only to the section they need to look at. Small business were happy; they wanted a comprehensive book which dealt with a wide range of issues. People will not be expected to read all that; they will deal only with the section that is relevant to them. That is why the backup material and instructions may be large even though the form is small. This has been very carefully tested. People wanted a comprehensive booklet they could refer to and that is what we have provided. The first tranche of Ralph committee reports have gone through this parliament—tremendous changes which will cut compliance costs to small business. Mr Ralph's comments in the overview report looked very closely at how we can cut compliance costs to small business—the simplified tax system is one example. This government is concerned with paperwork and this government is cutting paperwork.Bill agreed to.A NEW TAX SYSTEM (INDIRECT TAX AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS) BILL 1999The bill.18:29:0011668Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—My first amendment is to require that the price docket that a consumer will encounter in a supermarket or when they are purchasing a service shows clearly and openly on that docket what the amount of the GST is that they are expected to pay, what the value of the good or service is that they are purchasing and what the final price would be. This is quite an important amendment. We have moved it before and it has been rejected in this chamber before. It was, I thought, cynically defeated by the Australian Democrats. Senator Woodley almost laughingly rejected this amendment in the committee stage the last time we debated GST bills by simply labelling it a Labor stunt. If this is the Democrats' idea of a Labor stunt, they are sorely misguided. They do not appreciate the anger and annoyance that Australians have about trying to understand this dog's breakfast of a tax. The Democrats are not prepared to provide the necessary transparency for consumers to know how much tax they are paying. The amendment, if carried—I commend it to the chamber—will provide that the tax is shown on the docket that announces the price of the good or the service.I want to spend a moment persuading the chamber why this amendment should be adopted. The first and fundamental point is the right of ordinary Australians and the right of consumers to know what the price of the good or service is. At the moment we have a dog's breakfast: some things are in and some things are out. In the government's original bill, education and health were excluded. Now many more things are excluded. Knowing where the borderline is between what is in and what is out is always a question of uncertainty. I gave in my speech on the second reading the example of bottled mineral water—if it comes in a bottle it is exempted but if it comes in a cask it is not. You cannot expect consumers in Australia to wander around the supermarket with a trolley on Saturday morning, kids in tow, knowing all the complexity and shopping according to a perfect understanding of what is in and what is out of this tax. The first argument in merit as to why this provision should be agreed to is that it would enable people to know what is in and what is out. It would prevent shonky operators from pretending that things that are out are in and arguing that those price rises are due to the tax. That is the advantage of transparency—that it is the right of consumers to know.The first part of this argument goes to helping consumers appreciate and understand what is in and what is out. That is a very confusing issue in this dog's breakfast of a tax. We will have then exposed a safeguard against shonky operators pretending that they can just jack up prices willy-nilly, arguing that it is a consequence of the tax when it is not. My only conception of why people would oppose it on this ground is that they want to protect the shonky operators, that they want to deny the public's right to know or that they are happy for the confusion that this generates to reign and are not prepared to take reasonable steps to put an end to it.The second point I want to make is the right of taxpayers to know the amount of goods and services tax that they are paying. All of us who receive our wages and salaries with a wages and salaries slip are used to seeing what the gross amount of wage or salary is, what the level of tax deducted from that gross amount is and what the net level of income is. There is a requirement on those employers deducting instalments of taxation for wage and salaries earners to tell them by giving them each time they are paid a slip setting out what the tax level is.That enables a wage or salary earner to see whether they are being taxed properly and, if they are not, to raise the matter, and not wait until the end of the year, when they file a tax return, to have to then pay a tax bill because they were undertaxed during the year and they are suddenly hit out of the blue with a big demand from the tax office to pay within 30 days a sum that they did not anticipate. Or, even worse, there could be a situation where more than the required tax has been paid, that is to say, more of the money they were entitled to receive was taken away from them by the tax office and the government has had the use of it for most of the year, not the wage earner, and has used funds belonging to the wage earner and is not paying those funds back with interest that ought to have been provided or with any appreciation of the inconvenience that has been created to the wage earner.That is the situation that applies with respect to wages and salaries. Why can't we have the same degree of transparency when it comes to prices? I have to say that I can anticipate what the government is going to say. In the normal sneering and dismissive way that we have come to see as an institution from the Assistant Treasurer, we are going to be asked, `What about the wholesale sales tax?' The point is that this is a tax on the end product of the good or the service. It is a retail tax, and it is a tax that can be shown simply. An embedded tax is much harder to calculate and more difficult to illustrate in the same way. This is not in that category. Therefore, consumers of goods and services should be able to at least be given those particular figures.We know that in the transitional phase of the introduction of a GST there are going to be unauthorised price hikes. A shopper that can compare the price of the good or service before the GST with the price after the GST is a shopper able to be discriminating and to spot the rorts and report them to the ACCC. We know the ACCC are underfunded. We know of their inability to provide against the wholesale exploitation that will be undertaken by unscrupulous price setters—cloaked by the transition phase of the introduction of the GST—whose activities will not be able to be detected because there are insufficient inspectors to do so.We know that they have emphatically declined the opportunity to take the route in which they themselves run any sort of effective and comprehensive wholesale spot checking arrangement to ensure that what is occurring out there in consumer land conforms with the law. We know that the petty amount of funding the government has given the ACCC will be spent on a so-called education campaign, that is to say, `It is up to you to declare if you are offending'—a very unlikely situation. Why would someone who wants to use the confusion over the transition of the tax system suddenly be struck with an uncharacteristic degree of honesty and fess up to the ACCC that they are shonks?We know the ACCC's modus operandi—considering the funds given to it by the government and the limitation on its ability to detect fraud, non-compliance and artificial price rigging—is to conduct an education campaign. I would like to believe that all Australians were honest. I know from my own experience that there are some shonks in our society. The ACCC is not equipped in these circumstances to deal with it.I come back to the final argument that I want to put here, and I am glad that Senator Woodley is now in the chamber. The last time I put this argument to him he responded by saying, `This is just a Labor stunt.' Well, I can say this: tell the mounting number of confused Australian consumers out there that they are not entitled to know what the tax is. If the Democrat slogan for political life is `keep the bastards honest', why aren't the Democrats keeping the government honest by ensuring that there is consumer power, that individual consumers are empowered by knowing how much tax they are paying? Why is it that suddenly the `bastards' in this case—and I use that in parenthesis because it is a Democrat phrase—are not being kept honest?The answer is that the Democrats are part of this plot—the Democrats have done this deal. It is a dirty deal. It is a deal that imposes a flat indirect tax on Australians that cannot be compensated for over the long term and which will make poor Australians worse off. The Democrats want to conceal the extent to which this occurs by voting down an amendment which would provide true and open transparency.That is the reason, and that might be said to be a harsh judgment. If it is, I will be the first to remove the accusation and apologise. What will cause me to do that will be the Democrats exercising what they told the Australian people—keeping the bastards honest—and doing so on this occasion by voting for the amendment. If they do carry out what their slogan suggests that they exist to do, then I will say, `Look, I got you wrong, fellas—I am sorry about that. I apologise for it.' But if you do not and if you want to keep consumers in the dark and ignore the right of taxpayers to know how much tax they are paying, I am afraid those actions will convict you. I now move:(1) Schedule 1, page 12 (after line 13), after item 43, insert:43A After section 29-80 Insert:29-85 Tax receipts When a business provides a consumer with a receipt or docket issued in respect of a *taxable supply the receipt or docket must separately include: (a) the price of the goods or services excluding the GST; (b) the amount of the GST; and (c) the total price including the GST.18:42:0011670Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY3L6VICALP00—I rise to support Senator Cook's amendment.WW4KEMPSenator Kemp—You surprise me.3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—That may come as a great surprise to you, Senator Kemp, but I am sure Senator Cook was expecting it. I rise because I want to talk about the issue of transparency and to illustrate what a hypocritical position the government is taking on this.VW4HERRONSenator Herron—What about your wholesale sales tax? What about that?3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—I am happy that Senator Herron is here and making a contribution because I always enjoy Senator Herron's contributions. Senator Herron keeps shouting out about wholesale sales tax. I remember the ANTS package advertising—those flunkeys that you had as your front people, the Business Coalition for Tax Reform, running an advertising campaign with that other flunkey, Bob Hogg, helping.WW4KEMPSenator Kemp—A point of order, Mr Temporary Chairman.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Watson)—I do not think there is a point of order.WW4KEMPSenator Kemp—There was a reflection on a former distinguished colleague of Senator Conroy.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—There is no point of order.3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—Thank you very much, Mr Temporary Chairman, I could not agree with you more. As I was saying, the Business Coalition for Tax Reform and all the collective flunkeys that you put out the front for you ran a huge $4 million or $5 million campaign about transparency and hidden taxes. But not once at any stage did they indicate that they were supporting your position or that they were prepared to argue against a GST that was not transparent. Where is the $4 million advertising campaign from those flunkeys now to say this hidden tax, the GST, is outrageous? The government made great play about all these hidden taxes and then the moment you get a chance to shine a torch onto the GST, what do you do? You run for cover and you vote it down.Where are the Democrats—one of my favourite parties—on the question of transparency? They are demonstrating their bona fides on issues like transparency at the moment. A resolution has gone to the Democrats executive, a resolution that they tried to knock off and that they tried to say they did not want to have debated. They were going to rule it out on a whole variety of spurious grounds. Then someone pointed out to them the rules of their own organisation. They could not deny the motion to do with a poll of their membership on the GST package. Why are they hiding that?We have seen the ballot for the leadership and that is fair enough. You had no choice; you had to do that. You tried to knock it out the first time, it did not work. The second time you had to have it. But the Democrats executive have said, `We are open and trans parent. We will hold a vote on the GST package. We couldn't do it last financial year. We couldn't do it before 30 June because time did not permit.' We are almost six months down the track and the Democrats executive have yet to circulate their motion about whether their membership supports the GST package. I guess six months is a long time to organise a petition. But no, they are in the middle of holding one at the moment.It cannot be that hard to get a bit of transparency from the Democrats. If they were genuine about transparency—given that they are always saying that they are about, as Senator Cook so articulately put it, keeping the bastards honest—they would be doing two things: they would be putting this package to their membership and they would not be hiding from their membership. That is what they would be doing. They would be in this chamber supporting the transparency of the GST provisions.The fact that the government wants to hide from the Australian public the GST impact on individual price dockets is no surprise. Those on the opposite side can run but cannot hide on this one, to borrow someone else's phrase, because the Australian public are more than awake to what is going on. They are awake to the GST. They are awake to the fact that clubs are charging for it already, that insurance companies are charging for it already and that prices are not going down like you claimed.They know that car prices are not going down. We have had more reports in today's papers saying that car prices are not going down. They know that air fares have gone up when you told them that they had gone down. They already know—you cannot hide from this. Voting this amendment down, as you are indicating you are going to do, is not going to save you. It did not save Jeff Kennett. It did not save the Liberals. It did not save the Gippsland seat.Senator McGauran interjecting—3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—You laugh, Senator McGauran, but I would not be laughing if I was named McGauran and I mentioned Gippsland. I certainly would not be laughing, because they are out there waiting.I am going to borrow another one. Wayne Goss once said that they were waiting for Paul Keating with baseball bats, sitting on their verandahs, and it would not matter how long it took. Jeff Kennett just found that and the coalition just found that. You are going to find that, because this brazen attempt to cover up the impact of the GST has already caught up with you at a federal level. You may say that they are just state results, but what happened in Holt?A voter turned up in Holt and the bunting on the fence said `Vote against the Democrat GST'. What happened to the votes in Holt? You may say that it is a safe Labor seat, but the referendum was on the same day. The referendum itself could only poll 49 per cent. The Labor candidate polled 65 per cent. The coalition did not want to face the music on the GST. They did not turn up for the ballot. They did not say, `Let us have a bit of a referendum on the coalition.' No, they ran for cover. They did not even want to field a candidate. They did not want to have to face up to the first electoral test of the real impact of the GST.You may ask: what happened to the Democrat vote? In similar circumstances when the coalition have chosen not to stand a candidate in an election, the Democrat vote has been between 20 and 25 per cent. You may say that that still does not sound like much, but this is in a safe Labor seat where you would not necessarily get a lot more for the coalition. So a reasonable and fair benchmark of the GST and the issues around the GST to do with transparency was the Holt by-election. What did the Holt by-election show? A six per cent primary swing to Labor and seven per cent two-party preferred. What did the Democrats get? What was the outcome for the Democrats in the Holt by-election? Was it 25 per cent? Was it 20 per cent? Was it 16 per cent? Was it 15 per cent? No, it was lower.WH4McGAURANSenator McGauran—Tell us.3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—I will tell you, Senator McGauran. I will put you out of your misery, because misery is what you are going to get for this vote. It was 14 per cent. It took Senator Allison two days to put out a press release to hide her own embarrassment at the shocking performance of the Democrats.They claimed it as a great swing to them. They only got five or six per cent in the main election in Holt. They got 14 per cent in the by-election and they were trying to claim that that was a great result. But anyone who knows even half of anything about politics knows the Democrats should have got in the mid-20s. They got 14 per cent only with no conservative candidate. That is the fate that awaits Senator Allison. That is the fate that awaits the Democrats.Notwithstanding Senator Bartlett's very courageous stand on this issue, his head is on the chopping block because of his colleagues. They can all comfort themselves that some of them are not up this time. They may comfort themselves, but it does not comfort Senator Allison. It does not comfort Senator Bartlett. It does not comfort Senator Stott Despoja. Those Democrats have to face the music because they are going to vote down today transparency on dockets. We are looking forward to the high-rollers amendments. We know you are all looking forward to those as well.This is a party that has turned its back on transparency not only in the parliament but also in its own party. It is too scared to put the vote on this package. Six months down the track and 1,000 amendments later, they still have not had time for their national executive to do a membership vote on the package. So it is no surprise today to see that they are voting against transparency, because they are voting against transparency in their own party.I intend to make a number of other contributions on the high-roller amendments, and I know Senator Murray always enjoys my contributions. I am assuming we have some charities amendments as well.HX5WOODLEYSenator Woodley—This is the speech we got last time.3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—Not quite. Back then, Senator Woodley, it was, `There isn't time to hold a membership ballot. We can't be expected to just ballot every time we've got to make a decision.' But no, we got the commit ment from your own national executive, despite attempts to nobble it, that you would ballot the package. What is the problem? Where is the ballot? It is a new idea, you see—a ballot six months later. It is not the same argument. Last time you had the fig leaf of `not enough time'—a fig leaf just big enough to cover a few bits to say, `We won't—Senator Murray interjecting—3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—Maybe not for you, Senator Murray. I do not know.3M6MURRAYSenator Murray—On a point of information, how is the clock going?UNKNOWNThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Watson)The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Watson)—Five minutes to go.3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—Thank you for clarifying that for me, Senator Murray. I do appreciate it. The technology of the hourglass round there has got me a bit stumped as well. They had the fig leaf: `There isn't enough time, we can't hold the ballot. We can sacrifice transparency.'8O6O'BRIENSenator O'Brien—It was going to reveal something.3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—The fig leaf fell away and revealed plenty, Senator O'Brien. It revealed a pretty tawdry state of affairs in the Democrats—a situation where they are too afraid to ballot their own membership on the GST package. And if you want to run the furphy when you get up next, Senator Woodley, that you had already held a ballot on indirect taxation, you had got a position and all you are doing is implementing it, then you are not going to fool me. You are certainly not fooling your own membership. They know what they balloted on last time. They know you ratted on them in this deal, and they will be waiting for you when they finally get to have the vote.I will wind up now because there is only four minutes to go. Senator Murray is keen to hear my next contribution on the next amendment, and I would not want to hold him up on that. So I will wind up there, and I look forward to my next contribution on the casinos.18:54:0011673Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—We will not be supporting this. We have had this debate at great length with the first bill, and anyone who is interested should refer to my remarks there.18:54:0011673Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—I will not press the rewind button. We debated this at length before, and our views have not changed. Question put: That the amendment (Senator Cook's ) be agreed to.18:59:00The committee divided. (The Chairman—Senator S. M. West)24Bishop, T. M. Brown, B.Carr, K. Conroy, S.Cook, P. F. S. Cooney, B.Crossin, P. M. Crowley, R. A.Denman, K. J. Evans, C. V.Forshaw, M. G. Gibbs, B.Hogg, J. Hutchins, S. P.Ludwig, J. W. Mackay, S.McKiernan, J. P. McLucas, J. E.Murphy, S. M. O'Brien, K. W. K. *Quirke, J. A. Schacht, C. C.Sherry, N. West, S. M.38Abetz, E. Allison, L.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. Ferris, J.Gibson, B. F. Greig, B. A.Harris, L. Herron, J.Hill, R. M. Kemp, R.Knowles, S. C. Lightfoot, P. R.Macdonald, I. Mason, B. J.McGauran, J. J. J. Murray, A.Newman, J. M. Parer, W. R.Patterson, K. C. L. Payne, M. A.Reid, M. E. Ridgeway, A. D.Tambling, G. E. J. Tchen, T.Tierney, J. Troeth, J.Watson, J. O. W. Woodley, J.Bolkus, N. Minchin, N. H.Campbell, G. Heffernan, W.Collins, J. M. A. Ferguson, A. B.Faulkner, J. P. Lees, M. H.Lundy, K. Vanstone, A. E.Ray, R. F. Alston, R. K. R.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the negative.19:03:0011674Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—by leave—I move opposition amendments Nos 2 and 3:(2) Schedule 1, page 26 (after line 16), after item 111, insert:111A Subsection 126-10(1) Omit the definition of total monetary prizes , substitute: total monetary prizes is the sum of *monetary prizes you are liable to pay, during the tax period, on the outcome of *gambling events (whether or not any of those gambling events, or the *gambling supplies to which the monetary prizes relate, took place during the tax period).(3) Schedule 1, page 26 (after line 16), after item 111A, insert:111B Section 126-32 Repeal the section.These amendments deal with what has generically become known as the infamous high-roller amendment. I wish to take a few moments to address the chamber on why the Senate should adopt these amendments. The first point is that the Australian Bureau of Statistics—interestingly, today, 9 December—published a series entitled Casinos . The accompanying news release said that the figures released today by the Australian Bureau of Statistics indicate that the Australian casino industry recorded an operating profit before tax of $93 million during 1998-99. If we go to the actual document released by the ABS—Casinos , reference 8683.0—and to the summary of findings, under sources of income it is readily established what Senator Rod Kemp could never give as an answer to Kerry O'Brien—YW4MACDONALDSenator Ian Macdonald—Senator Kerry O'Brien, please!RF4Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOK—Kerry O'Brien being the television commentator—in what is now the most infamous television interview that I think Senator Kemp has ever had the displeas ure to be associated with. Members of the Senate may recall that it was during the debate in the Senate on the GST. Kerry O'Brien, the television moderator, kept coming back to Senator Kemp and asking him the value of the high-roller rebate that the government was proposing to give. Now we have the statistics from no better source than the Australian Bureau of Statistics. In the summary of findings—under `Sources of income', where the figures are broken down—it is clear that the benefit of the high-roller rebate, according to the ABS, is $29 million. That is the benefit that this government wants to hand, with the compliance and connivance of the Australian Democrats, back to the casinos for the advantage of the high rollers.Before we get too far into this debate, let us remind ourselves that a high roller, according to Casinos, is one of those gamblers in the big room who, on the turn of a dice, bets half a million dollars a throw. That is a high roller. There is competition between the casinos to attract international high rollers to gamble in Australian casinos.In its original bill, the government did not provide that there would be any GST holiday for the high rollers. But, in its amendment that it introduced as we debated the original bill, it did provide a rebate for the high rollers, and that is the amendment that the Democrats supported, with the notable and noble exceptions of Senator Bartlett and Senator Stott Despoja. Now there is an opportunity for the two new senators from the Australian Democrats who have joined us in the Senate since that vote was conducted to establish their political careers from the ground up as not being intimidated by the casino bosses of this country and as being able to vote along with Senator Bartlett and Senator Stott Despoja and to stand with the Labor Party and say that high rollers should not be given a free run in this country, that they are the wealthy elites that should pay tax like the rest of us and that they should not be given this special advantage that the government is determined that they should get. And they should not be given it, especially given that, despite all that has been said—and there is more to come, I am sure—about what the Democrats have allegedly negotiated for charities as an exemption, charities will still have to pay the GST. The charities will still be in the GST net but the high rollers will be out of the net and they will not have to pay.This is an important amendment because it is an amendment that addresses morality. It says, `Let the wealthy pay their tax and let'—as my future amendments will do—`the people in charities be given a chance to minister in the voluntary way that they do to the needs of recipients of charitable services in Australia. Let them do their job properly, but don't let the wealthy off.' This is an important amendment with regard to that, because it will not let the wealthy off.What are we actually talking about here in real terms? The practice of Australian casinos is that, if you gamble in the high-rollers room and you lose, the Australian casinos, in order to keep your custom as a high-roller gambler, rebate up to 50 per cent of your losses—that is, at the end of the day when you clean your chips off the table, if you have suffered losses, they give you 50 per cent of your losses back so you do not lose too heavily—and, if you make a win, you do not have to pay that back to the casino. Casinos compete among themselves as to how much discount they give to their high rollers on their losses in order to attract the high-roller trade.Does the working class person down at the pokies who has a substantial loss get a rebate? No, they do not. Do the mums and dads playing the keno wheel get a rebate? No, they do not. Do the ordinary Australians playing blackjack who have substantial losses get a rebate? No, they do not. But, if you are gambling half a million dollars a throw and you are a high roller, you do get a rebate if you lose your dough. We think that that ought not to be allowed as a practice in which there is no GST paid. As a consequence, our amendment will ensure that, if casinos want to conduct this practice for whatever commercial reasons, they still pay the full amount of GST on the losses. It would, in my submission to the Senate, be immoral if that was allowed not to be the case.So there is an amendment before the chamber which addresses morality, and there is an opportunity for the Democrats—who have constantly said that their purpose in life is to keep the bastards honest—to keep the casinos and high rollers honest. I remind them that, according to the ABS today, the profit made by casinos in Australia last year was $93 million. There is obviously a desire by casinos to maximise their profit, but they ought to pay their full level of tax.I want to come to a very serious part of this debate. The arguments I have canvassed are not new in this chamber—I have canvassed them before and my colleagues Senator Sherry and Senator Conroy have canvassed them powerfully as well. The argument now is whether or not the Democrats did or did not vote for the high-roller amendment when it was last before the chamber. The opportunity that is presented to the chamber now is to clear this up once and for all. What is certainly clear from the record is that Senator Bartlett and Senator Stott Despoja voted against the high-roller amendment, and I commend them for it. I hope they do so again, and I hope the two new Democrat senators join them. But what is disputed in this chamber—although, if one goes to the record, there is no dispute because the record is quite clear—is what in fact the Democrats did.We knew when we voted for this last time that the government needed only one or two votes to win. But what happened was that four or five of the Democrats took what Senator Robert Ray accurately dubbed the `chicken walk': they went through that door at the end of the chamber and did not vote. They have turned around and said, `You can't blame us for the high-roller amendment; we never voted for it.' But by—as a conscious act—deliberately absenting themselves from the chamber, they guaranteed it was carried. They were able to say to the government, `We helped get your amendment through. We've honoured our side of this dirty deal for a GST.' They were able to have it both ways.Well, we have come to a moment of truth: they cannot have it both ways now. This is a moment when they have to actually vote according to their conscience and, given that this is a moral amendment, there can be only one outcome: they should vote for the amendment and against the government's bill. I challenge the Australian Democrats to do that—not to take the chicken walk; to stand up and make the vote on this issue. We know that the previous decision created all sorts of shock waves in the Democrats camp. We know that it led to a challenge to the Leader of the Australian Democrats and to infighting within their ranks. I do not want to canvass all those issues at any length, other than to say that what is clear here is that the rank and file members of the Australian Democrats are unhappy with their leadership. I have been in situations in my own political party where that has occurred in the past, and one knows that, at the end of the day—no matter how deep the distress being acutely felt by idealistic and well-meaning members of the party who think that their politicians in the Senate will abide by the inspirational goals of the party—smart party officers can sometimes win the vote despite the dissent.Here is a chance for the Australian Democrats to unite their own party, to overcome the dissent, to give the aspirational, idealistic members a reason to believe that they are led properly and morally by their elected representatives. Here is a chance for them to unite the party. The way they should do so is by voting for this amendment. I challenge them to do it. The alternative for the Democrats is to deepen the rift and widen the dissent and create even greater bitterness internally within their own party.I am not going to make a fatuous speech about the role of the Democrats in Australian politics because I am not given to that sort of speech making. But they do have a role here and one would hope that they have the confidence of the people who vote for them. This is a chamber elected by proportional representation where minority parties and groups can be elected. It would be a sad thing if there was a complete disjunction between the behaviour of minority party representatives and the reasons why individuals in our community vote in that way.I understand, although we do not have a clock, that I am just about out of time. So let me say once again that the moment of truth has arrived. There is no doubt where the Labor Party stand on high rollers or on casinos that give them rebates. We think they should be taxed according to the GST if other Australians are to be taxed according to the GST. Our preference is for no GST. We have lost that battle; there is a GST. Do not let the high rollers out of the net. That is where the Labor Party stand. I am sure other parties in this chamber will speak for themselves. But we know from the past record that is not where the coalition stand. They think their high-roller mates should be let off. We know from the past record that the minority parties and the Independents here voted with us. So the question comes to the door of the Democrats. It is a moral amendment. I hope they act that way.19:17:0011676Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY3L6VICALP00—I want to follow up on a number of comments and support the amendment that Senator Cook has moved. I think that, unfortunately, there has been a fair bit of dissembling on this issue—some significant dissembling. There are members of the Democrats who have even attempted to pretend that they voted against the high-roller amendment. It is hard to believe, but true. I have a Hansard here of 23 September when, in a speech about casinos and other issues, I was making a contribution in my normal spirited way, and Senator Allison took a point of order.ZW4SHERRYSenator Sherry—High spirited.3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—I thank you, Senator. I take that as a compliment. Senator Allison said:Mr Acting Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. Senator Conroy is misrepresenting my position. I did not walk out of the chamber; I did vote on that occasion.She is talking about the high-roller amendment. That was on 23 September 1999. That did surprise me, because I had a very vivid recollection. If you go to the Hansard of that day, you will read that I stood up a number of times during the ringing of the bells to clarify that this was in actual fact the high-roller amendment that we were going to be dealing with. It was confirmed in the Hansard that my memory was correct. It was con firmed in the Hansard that the Acting Deputy President at the time indicated quite clearly that this was to be the vote on the high-roller amendment. I had to check the voting records of who did vote on that particular afternoon. Senator Woodley, you did not vote. You were not in the chamber at the time. As Senator Cook mentioned, I think it was Senator Ray who called it the `chicken walk'. There were five Democrats—3M6MURRAYSenator Murray—Given that we weren't in the chamber, how would we know that you were voting on the high-roller amendment?3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—I am afraid that, when it comes to a parliamentary vote, ignorance is not a defence. Ignorance on how you vote or do not vote in the chamber is not a defence. There were five Democrats not recorded as voting on this particular amendment. You would probably call it the shame file, if Derryn Hinch was still on the air. It was Senator Lees, Senator Murray, Senator Woodley, Senator Bourne and—yes, you've guessed it—Senator Allison.Today is her chance to put it right. She may come in and speak in this debate. She may come in and say that she was not in the chamber and she did not realise. Maybe that is the defence that they will come up with. I tell you the punters in Victoria are going to want a better one than that. That may be the defence, but she has the chance today, right here, right now, to come in here and vote with the Labor Party to deny the Packers, the whales and all of the big gamblers their little GST-free frolics.There were two Democrats that had the courage to say, `No, enough is enough. We cannot stomach passing this amendment. We cannot stomach giving the richest people in this country and some of the richest people in the world an exemption from the GST.' They are some of the big, corrupt Indonesian gamblers that have lived off the graft and corruption in Indonesia and lived off the graft and corruption in Malaysia. They are the sort of high rollers known in the gambling fraternity as the whales. Who were those two senators that had the courage to reject the pressures and the thuggery of the Democrats party room?HX5WOODLEYSenator Woodley—I am the head whip.3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—A frightening prospect, Senator Woodley. It is a frightening prospect, facing you in full flight. Senators Bartlett and Stott Despoja had the courage to vote with the noes. There were only 28 and they are all here on the parliamentary record. Senator Allison is not one of them.I am hoping that Senator Allison will come into this chamber today and vote the way that she has been telling the public she voted. Here it is again:Senator Allison —Mr Acting Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. Senator Conroy is misrepresenting my position. I did not walk out of the chamber; I did vote on that occasion.Well, she has the chance to set that part of the record straight.But what have been the consequences for those courageous Democrat senators who said, `I can't stomach this'? We have seen the headline `Democrat knives out over GST'. Lincoln Wright said:Senior Australian Democrats are out to replace Senators Andrew Bartlett and Natasha Stott Despoja for opposing the party's GST deal with the Howard government. A senior source has told the Canberra Times there was politics of revenge at work in the party whereby senators seen as disloyal over the GST deal have been targeted for punishment.Can you believe that, Senator Brown? Isn't that extraordinary. The article continues:There was a hope that people could forget about things, but that hasn't happened yet, the source said. "I don't want to overstate it, but there is a view that considerable punishment should be meted out to the people who are disloyal."It goes on to say:The tension over the GST deal is manifested in what one source—DT6BARTLETTSenator Bartlett—It is my considerable punishment that I have to sit and listen to you.3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—I have to agree with Senator Bartlett that it is a punishment. I am sorry that it is one of those hideous things they are forcing you to do. The article continues:The tension over the GST deal is manifested in what one source said was a subtle channelling of issues away from those who are unsympathetic to the deal or not being told about various things.Mr Cherry is quoted in this article as well:Mr Cherry said yesterday, "There are some hard feelings on both sides. The GST deal was still"—wait for this—"the great unmentionable in the party room. Nevertheless, the Democrats were very proud of their conscience vote and the right to dissent."There you have it: further evidence that the Democrats do not have the guts to front their membership to conduct a ballot.John Cherry, the deputy national president, says that it is `the great unmentionable'. It continues:But Mr Cherry, who has been touted as a possible future senator—an adornment to this chamber—said he was happy where he was and pointed to the role Senator Bartlett still had in the tax talks over charities and greenhouse gas emissions.I note that today a press conference was held and a press release was put out. I wonder whether Mr Cherry had noticed this, because the top of this Democrats press release says `Australian Democrats' charities taxation spokesman'. I looked for Andrew Bartlett's name and instead found Senator John Woodley's name. Perhaps this is more evidence of what was described as the subtle channelling of issues away from those who were unsympathetic to the deal. Senator Woodley's name is on this press release yet John Cherry says that Senator Bartlett is doing a great job on the charity stuff.I can only surmise what is really going on in the Democrats party room. You can usually read all about what is happening in the party room of the Labor Party. No great shocks or surprises come out of our caucus. You get to read all about it. The article goes on:Mr Shoeman—another adviser to the Democrats—also sees himself as having a key role in Senator Lees's political success. At a birthday party for Senator Lees in Canberra this week, Mr Shoeman referred to his key role in helping lift her profile—that is, Senator Lees's profile—after a political focus group was shown a photograph and they guessed Senator Lees's name as American actress Meg Ryan.If that is political success, I would hate to see political failure. If you are desperate to claim something, that one will do. They could not get the name right on the photograph. Congratulations, Mr Schumann.We have often seen the Democrats being congratulated on their role by the Treasurer. He talked about their being recently referred to as the fairies at the bottom of the garden. But they were no longer the fairies at the bottom of the garden; they were the fairies at the table in the coffee room. What a proud title that is. They are not the fairies at the bottom of the garden; they have come in to have a cup of tea at the table.Senator Murray then described them not as fairies but as trolls. The article continued:But one Democrat source said that not only were the fairies at the bottom of the garden invited in for a cup of tea at the kitchen table; they were invited to the Lodge for dinner.Good grief! Can you imagine?ZW4SHERRYSenator Sherry—And to the casino afterwards.3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—And perhaps down to the casino afterwards, but I doubt that. I know that Senator Woodley would not be seen at the casino. The article continues:One Democrat source described the dinner at the Lodge as "very pleasant, though not a lot of politics was discussed". The Democrats had gained an insight into the broader direction of the Prime Minister's thinking. "The Prime Minister had been quite good company", they said.Well, jolly ho! That is an excellent outcome for them; they get dinner at the Lodge. Senator Kemp, do you get dinner at the Lodge? Did you get to join the fairies at dinner?WW4KEMPSenator Kemp—No.3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—No, perhaps not. This amendment goes to the heart of morality, as Senator Cook has already said. This is an amendment about the casinos and whether the Democrats will take the chicken walk or whether they will have some courage and stand up to the Packer family, the Star casino group and the powerful vested interests in this country that want to see the money in their pockets.This amendment will take conservatively $30 million off the bottom line of Kerry Packer, Star casino, Burswood and the rest of them. That is what is at stake here. They have struggled to get a few extra dollars to stop torn rags being sown together and charged the GST. They will sit here and vote or run out to make sure the government has the numbers to give the Packer family, the Star casino group and all the rest of the casinos a $30 million GST tax break. That is what is at stake here.Those casinos are struggling like the charities. Today, they had a fall in their profits. According to ABS figures today, the casinos' profit margins have dropped to only $365 million this year. This is a struggling group. The Crown Casino is a struggling small family business. I know that the Democrats are sympathetic to struggling small businesses. These casinos have made only $365 million. Sorry, the $365 million is only from the high rollers. That is the high-roller component. Unfortunately, that is only the high rollers.Their profits are massively benefiting from this amendment that you want to pass today. It is beyond me how some of the Democrats who have expressed concerns about charities, about the impact on the poor, about the impact on the weak in our society, can stomach looking in their mirrors at night. I am sorry that Senator Woodley appears to be leaving the chamber because he was one of the people for whom I held hope. I hoped he would see through this government, through this amendment. He has walked out of the chamber, and I am willing to bet he is not coming back to vote against the amendment when we have this vote.He knows that when the bells ring they are ringing for him. They are ringing to say, `Come and vote against the Packer family, come and vote against Star casino, put $30 million back on the table of welfare groups, back in the pockets of charities. Don't give Kerry Packer and the Packer family, Crown Casino, this vote. Do not pass this.' That is what those bells will be ringing for. There can be no Democrat in the building who does not know what this vote is going to be about. There will be no ability to say, `I didn't realise.' What we are going to see today is whether the Democrats can be bought and paid for by a dinner at the Lodge or whether they have the courage to stand up and say, `This is wrong. We won't do it.'19:31:0011679Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—I did not go to the dinner at the Lodge—3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—I wasn't trying to embarrass you by making that point.DT6Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETT—They don't serve good vegetarian there, that's all. Otherwise I would have been there. We have heard a lot from two Labor speakers, two Labor frontbenchers, on taxation issues. Probably one line that is worth noting as correct was Senator Cook's—that the arguments he has put forward tonight are not new. That is the nub of the whole issue. We have heard nothing new tonight, nothing we have not already heard before. All we have had is the Labor Party re-running their arguments, re-running their stance and re-running their posturing from when the debate was first had back in June. That is fair enough, I suppose, in some senses.Senator Conroy highlighted my position on this issue and the broader GST, which was very nice of him. It saves me having to do it myself. My position is well-known publicly, and I am happy to have it on the record both in this chamber and in the broader community. But that debate has been had, and that vote has been had. The proper role I see for the Democrats, including me, in relation to the taxation issues is not just revisiting debates and votes from five months ago on this issue or any other issue; it is dealing with the reality of what we have now, and looking forward. The reality is that we are going to have a GST from 1 July next year. Different people have different views about whether or not they would prefer that to happen, but it is going to happen. The best role that all of us can play, I would suggest, is not to continue to just recycle the arguments from back in June but to look at ensuring that the changes that are made operate as effectively as pos sible. That is what the Democrats have been doing, including me.Senator Conroy talked about the role of charities and quite rightly pointed to the strong and positive role my colleague Senator Woodley has played, along with all of us, in ensuring that any potential negative impacts on charities are removed or minimised. That probably in itself demonstrates that the suggestion that the GST is some unmentionable in the Democrats' party room is absurd. We have obviously been talking considerably about the GST in the context of ensuring that it does not impact negatively on charities. The end product of that is some of the positive measures, which Senator Conroy kindly drew attention to, that we have announced today.As he would see if he noted those measures, that is not the end of the matter. We have ensured an ongoing role for the consultative committee. All of us within the Democrats will continue to play a constructive role in ensuring that we continue to monitor the implementation of the GST both up until it comes into operation and once it comes into operation. That is a constructive policy based role we are playing. I would suggest to all senators that it would be beneficial to them. It is clear that Labor is going to focus its whole election efforts around attacking the GST and highlighting community discontent about the GST. That is fine as a political strategy and you can keep doing that but it would be helpful, I suggest, if you also put forward constructive policy ideas of your own.Senator Conroy was happy to quote newspaper articles containing media speculation. Let me quote a newspaper article of my own, which is not just speculation about what might be happening but which is based on straightforward facts. Let us look at the role the Democrats have played and continue to play, as we have demonstrated today in bringing forward more constructive changes and in putting forward ideas to make further changes—and not only after we have made an agreement. We continue to pressure the government and succeed in getting changes out of the government for further improvements. Contrast that to what the Labor Party has done on business tax. They made an agreement which had no improvements in it at all. They did not make a deal; they capitulated, they rolled over. They accepted it lock, stock and barrel, with no improvements. And that is the end of the story.Contrast that to what the Democrats have done in terms of agreements reached back in May and June. We are continuing to work, continuing to put forward ideas, continuing to highlight the problems and continuing to get results. It is worth quoting from an article by Margot Kingston in the Sydney Morning Herald on 27 September—not some idle speculation about internal party stuff but a factual assessment of Labor's position on tax issues:. . . Labor agreed to capital gains taxes which overwhelmingly benefit the wealthy, dramatically disadvantage small business compared with big business and big shareholders and give retrospective tax cuts to those already holding assets. This agreement was an acknowledgment that Labor has officially vacated the battleground of public policy debate.If we are looking at a shame file, right at the top of that file is the Labor Party's position on business tax. Senator Conroy said we can read all about what happens in the Labor Party party room in the media all the time. I have seen some reports about some people in the Labor caucus who stood up and argued against business tax. I have not seen Senator Conroy's name mentioned as a strong defender speaking out against this nasty deal that is going to give a big windfall to the high rollers and the wealthy against those who are not. Maybe they did not quite get that story. I am sure Senator Conroy was at the front of the queue complaining loudly and standing up for the battlers, and the journalists did not get that piece of information. They only picked up Mark Latham and a few others. Given the media has missed out on that fact, you might like to put that on the record so we can be clear that you stood up for the battlers on that occasion and just did not quite have the numbers.This is a bigger indictment in terms of outcomes and inability of the Labor Party as a whole to use political leverage to change proposed legislation for the better of the battlers and for the benefit of that justice they are going on about so much. I would suggest that, rather than vacating the battleground of public policy debate, they actually put forward some ideas and try to generate some improvements to legislation, whether it is tax or anything else. Just recently, in respect of not just business tax but the government's approach to refugees, we saw Labor Party speakers stand up in the chamber and say, `This measure of the government's is a bad measure. It's not going to work. It's stupid, but we're going to support it so that the government can wear the consequences of its failure. We're not going to fall into the government's so-called trap and oppose something that we know is not going to work.'Speaking personally, I wish you had taken that approach on the GST, although it would have been worse for the people of Australia because, going by your record on negotiating with business tax, you would have agreed to it lock, stock and barrel. We would have got the whole damn thing and it would have been a hell of a lot worse than the package that we have with all the many improvements that the Democrats brought in and continue to make.It is important to re-emphasise that we have an important role as legislators. Sometimes we forget and are just throwing political rocks around the place and point scoring. As legislators considering legislation, we try to ensure improvements, bringing forward positive changes and putting forward ideas. It seems that Labor's basic approach is now to support government legislation or else. They come to agreements on the spot without negotiating any changes whatsoever or else they just rerun arguments that have already been heard in this chamber, putting forward amendments and basically rerunning the entire speech. That may be useful from a political point scoring point of view, but in actually ensuring positive moves forward and concrete improvements, I am afraid it does not produce any positive benefit at all.I encourage the ALP to look a bit more broadly. It is clear that they will focus at this stage—they have no other ideas of their own—on playing on and highlighting community concerns and fears about the GST.3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—You voted against it.DT6Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETT—I have put my position on the record. I did vote in relation to it but I have accepted the fact that I lost on that one. That is a bit of a shame, but we all lose things occasionally and the fact is that it is going to happen and that is a reality. Not just the ALP but more particularly the Australian public would benefit from everyone accepting that that is a reality, that that is going to happen, rather than just sitting and wailing about it and going on about doom and gloom and the sky falling in. We should be putting forward positive changes and working constructively in any areas where improvements can be made. There is no doubt that issues will continue to come to light where improvements can be made. But you are not going to go to the next election with a policy of removing the GST. Everybody knows that. That is not feasible. We have it and we are stuck with it.I suggest that the best way forward is to propose ideas of how to improve it rather than simply revisiting old arguments, old debates and old votes that have already been put forward. Matters should be resolved in this chamber for better or for worse. I suggest that is the role that the Democrats are playing. Not surprisingly, it is an unfortunate aspect of Australian politics that people like to highlight differences of opinion as though disagreeing on things is somehow an appalling thing rather than an indication of a variety of viewpoints and a diversity and richness of opinion.The fact is that the Democrats are working together as one in a forward looking way on this issue. We are working together as one in looking for areas that need improvement, looking to keep pressing for positive changes. We have achieved some more of those today, which is part of what this debate tonight is about. That is a far more constructive approach to take. That is the approach that I am taking in relation to this issue. Simply just revisiting arguments that have already been put and resolved in this place months ago is not a constructive way to go.I encourage the Labor Party, while they are relaxing over their Christmas break, to reconsider their approach on this issue. This might be your final fling on this. This might be the last time we get to hear all this stuff trotted out. Sadly, I fear not. They will recycle these debates over and over again. But I would encourage you, at least while you are recycling the point scoring, to put some useful, forward looking constructive stuff in there as well. The other stuff is entertaining, but it is nice occasionally to cogitate on something of substance. Maybe you could make it your New Year's resolution when you are thinking out those things. In the meantime, for the benefit of the Australian public as well as for people in this chamber, it would be more helpful to focus on accepting reality and looking forward rather than simply rehashing some point scoring arguments from the past.19:44:0011682Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I support the amendment. I think what we have just heard is a total abrogation of the Democrats' position, which was to make society fairer. How anybody can say that recycling this is not a valid exercise when we are talking about providing a tax shelter for high rollers is beyond me. Senator Bartlett said that no alternatives came forward from the Labor Party. Well, there certainly were from the Greens, which were very constructive tax alternatives and which are part of the Democrats' past policies, including ecotaxes which could have raised $6 billion. But that has been turned down in favour of the GST.At the end of this exercise let us remember this: the GST is here because the Democrats voted for it. The policy shift has been from one of advocating good policies to taking the role of allowing in bad policies and then adding cottonwool to them. That is something the Democrats will have to live with. The debate is going to be fast and furious next year as the whole of the community gets hauled across the coals of the GST. The Democrats are going to have to substantiate their pivotal role in it. I think that Senator Conroy and Senator Cook are absolutely right: it is unconscionable that the Democrats should be sheltering high rollers in this situation. Here is an opportunity to rectify the unconscionable possibility that the Democrats are going to bring into law this shelter for high rollers when so many other people in the community are going to be disadvantaged.There is much more I could say. I have to say that this is a seminal moment. It is an opportunity to put things right. I heard nothing at all in what Senator Bartlett had to say to justify this sheltering of the high rollers, of handing millions of dollars of taxpayers' money to the already wealthy, both within this country and who fly in from outside to attend the tables of the casinos in Australia. It is unconscionable, and it is an opportunity for the Democrats do the right thing by their own policy, by their own membership and by the Australian electorate.19:47:0011682Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY3L6VICALP00—I rise to respond to a number of the comments from Senator Bartlett. Firstly, I am disappointed that he has left the chamber but perhaps that is where he is going to be for the vote this time, unfortunately for him. I am disappointed because I thought I had tried to highlight the courageous position that Senator Bartlett had taken in the face of some of the thuggery that has been going on in the Democrats. It is disappointing that he chose to attack the Labor Party for again highlighting the inequity that he knows this bill represents and that the GST represents. I was reminded by Senator Cook that the contribution just given by Senator Bartlett was similar to those old movie reels of Neville Chamberlain coming out of the plane, standing on the steps, waving the piece of paper and saying, `Peace in our time.' The politics of appeasement from Senator Bartlett. `The fight,' he says, `is over. It is lost and we've got to move on.'WW4KEMPSenator Kemp—Why don't you fight him on the beaches!3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—Well, he talked about reality. The reality will be right here, right now, in this chamber when those bells ring. The reality says that you can come into this chamber and vote to get rid of an unfair impost on Australian taxpayers.3M6MURRAYSenator Murray—Mr Temporary Chairman, I raise a point of order. Are we going to have a dinner break? If Senator Conroy is going to take another 20 minutes I would like to call for a dinner break, and then we can go on all night. So I would like to know how long he is going to take.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator McKiernan)—That is not a point of order, Senator Murray.3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—If it settles both Senator Murray's head and his stomach, I intend to be brief.WW4KEMPSenator Kemp—Mr Temporary Chairman, I raise a point of order. As a bit of indulgence—10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—No, Senator Kemp, you are on a point of order. You will raise your point of order or you will resume your seat.WW4KEMPSenator Kemp—My point of order is that I think we are happy with a serious debate, but this is time wasting. I was under the impression that people were anxious to make sure they made their points and made sure that we did not unduly delay the Senate. I am sorry to say that does not seem to be the case.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—There is no point of order, Senator Kemp.3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—Senator Kemp and Senator Murray, I will try to be as quick as I can, pending interruptions.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—You now have another 15 minutes, Senator Conroy.3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—I will not be taking all of them. It is the case that Senator Bartlett said, `The ALP have not proposed any improvements.' Well, I look at this amendment and I say that this is an improvement. This is $30 million less for some of the richest people in this country and in the world. To charities, the homeless and single mums this is a $30 million improvement. Not for me, I do not gamble. It is not going to affect me. But this is an improvement for them. This represents unfairness at its ugliest.Senator Bartlett is now indicating that he has succumbed to those knives in the Democrats party room; I guess we should not be too hard on him. He did do the right thing last time; he did stand and fight. But it is disappointing to see that he appears to be indicating that he will not support the amendment this time. That disappoints me because he did fight the good fight. I know they have persecuted him. I know that it has been hard for him since he had the courage to stand up to the leadership of the party, and I respect him for that. But it will disappoint me if we do not see Senator Bartlett sitting with us on the same side of the chamber this time. I want to respond just briefly to a couple of the things that Senator Bartlett said because they did represent a fairly substantial retreat from his position of courage to stand up to this GST. They did represent the politics of appeasement by saying,`We can't beat it. We can't do what's right; we can't vote against rich people getting $30 million when charities are struggling to get 20c out of this government.' I am conscious of the time. I am conscious that we would like to try to complete this debate so I will wrap up there.19:52:0011683Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRYZW4TASALP00—I am conscious of the time, but I will make a couple of comments. I will take up Senator Bartlett's and the Democrats' challenge. I would like to add a different perspective to the argument about casino high rollers, and it is from the perspective of having worked in a casino for some four years—Rest Point Casino from 1976 to 1979. Rest Point was Australia's first casino. We now have nine or 10 casinos; there has been a significant expansion in casinos. I worked as a night cashier and auditor at Rest Point. I had significant contact with people who came to gamble at Rest Point—particularly high rollers. In my capacity as a cashier I often watched the high rollers. You became fairly well aware of who was a high roller and who was not. I would watch the high rollers come in from the airport in their chauffeur driven cars and go up to Rest Point. They would go to the best rooms in the hotel—usually complementary. It was not just the room, of course; other services—food, liquor—were complementary.Often the high rollers would deposit their money in the safety deposit boxes of the casino and quite often I had the job of secur ing their cash and valuables in the safety deposit boxes. Many thousands of dollars would be put into the envelopes along with their other valuables—jewels, et cetera. When we talk about casino high rollers, we are not talking about the poor of society; we are talking about the very wealthy elite, not just from Australia but from overseas as well. I have had some first-hand experience of high rollers. They have plenty of money; they are looked after very well by casinos. I understand why they are looked after very well because the objective is to take their money off them. If high rollers are silly enough to gamble for long enough they will lose money.What I cannot understand is why high rollers should not pay their fair share of taxes. That is what Labor is proposing. High rollers should pay along with everyone else in the community. That is what Labor is proposing. We have had a huge expansion of gambling in Australia—I think too much gambling, despite my work background in casinos. We have had too much expansion of gambling in Australia over the last couple of decades. The number of casinos has grown from one—Australia's first at Rest Point—to nine or 10. We have also had a significant expansion in other outlets for gambling. Labor's approach here is not to tax the lower middle income earner—who, unfortunately, is at times caught up in the cycle of gambling—but to have a real go at these high rollers. It is perfectly ethical and I really cannot understand why the Australian Democrats are running from this amendment.3M6MURRAYSenator Murray—We haven't had a chance to speak, yet.WW4KEMPSenator Kemp—Just sit down, Nick.ZW4Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRY—I was going to be kind to the Australian Democrats, but I am going to have my say. I was going to be kind to Senator Kemp, but I will have my say. Senator Kemp, I can understand why you get so dejected during this debate because I know about your defence of the high roller amendment on the 7.30 Report . I read some of the commentary at the time from some of your Liberal Party colleagues—your defence goes down as one of the worst contributions in public debate and public policy in this coun try. So I can understand why you are singly depressed over this debate about high rollers. We have over 1,000 amendments before us touching on almost every conceivable—WW4KEMPSenator Kemp—Don't get personal, Nick.ZW4Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRY—It is legitimate criticism, Senator Kemp; it was an appalling performance.WW4KEMPSenator Kemp—Don't get personal, Senator.ZW4Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRY—If you want to keep interjecting and interrupting, then I will respond, Senator Kemp. It was one of the worst performances we have seen. We have over 1,000 amendments here tonight, revisiting almost every aspect of the GST. I cannot understand the logic of Senator Bartlett when he says we should not be revisiting the issue of high rollers when we are revisiting almost every aspect of the GST tonight, because of the incompetence of the government in drafting its amendments.I would remind the Australian Democrats about the package they signed up to in respect of the diesel fuel rebate. The government broke the agreement at the time, and I believe the Australian Democrats are perfectly entitled on this particular issue to inject a bit more fairness into the Australian tax system, particularly in relation to the goods and services tax, and vote for the high roller amendment. It is one of many we are considering in this debate tonight.The fact that high rollers have to pay another $20 to $30 million in tax should not cause anyone any loss of sleep. I say to the Australian Democrats: think about the issue. We have another opportunity. It is not too late; the tax does not come into effect until 1 July 2000. We have many other amendments and issues in dealing with the GST. We are revisiting many of the issues involved with the GST, so it is perfectly legitimate for us to recycle this amendment. It will inject a little more fairness into the GST—not a great deal, but at least another $20 or $30 million worth of fairness from people from this country and overseas who can afford to pay a little more GST into government coffers. That small amount of revenue in the budget context will be very useful in contributing to health and education in this country.It is a perfectly reasonable amendment and it is perfectly reasonable to revisit it before the GST comes in. I urge the Australian Democrats—and I am not being particularly personal with the Australian Democrats—to support this amendment. It is very reasonable in the context of the negotiations that occurred and the agreement that was reached with the government. The government broke the agreement in one area. You have made some points about charities and apparently that has been accommodated in some way. It is perfectly reasonable for the Australian Democrats to accommodate the Labor Party and the Greens—I do not know how Senator Harradine is going to vote on this amendment—and to take this opportunity to inject this one last little bit of fairness into the GST.20:00:0011685Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—We are in the unfortunate position where senators are wandering in with full stomachs, having had their dinner. Those of us who are here carrying through the debate—Senator Kemp, Senator Conroy, Senator Cook, me and maybe other senators—are hoping that we get a dinner break at some stage.It is time to wrap up the Australian Democrats' position on this Labor amendment. I think we have been subject to a fairly broad ranging attack of a different tone, depending on the senator, on the Australian Democrats and, in particular, not only on this amendment but on our characteristics as a party generally. I must say I find it rich and offensive to be lectured on morality by the Labor Party. I also find it extraordinary to be lectured about our capacity as negotiators by the Labor Party. In fact, this week is a typical summary of the Labor Party's abilities. I have referred to them before as the Collins class party—noisy and ineffective. What happened this week was that they beat up on all the charities, they made a tremendous fuss and noise—and they got absolutely nothing out of it. The people were bored, the media were bored, there was very little public reaction. Whilst that was going on we quietly beavered away with the charitable groups, with the senior people in the charitable community, and we got plenty. That is typical of how it goes.We also had the spectacle of having newspaper articles quoted at us. Listen to what senior journalists say about the Labor Party. Anyone can find quotes from newspapers. Kenneth Davidson referred to the ALP leadership. This is what he had to say:Once more the ALP leadership has yoked its future to spiv capitalism . . . That is not very nice. Then we have Mr Alan Ramsey, who is a very senior journalist. Unlike Senator Conroy, who was trying to make political points, he is a person who appraises the political scene. I noted Senator Conroy used the word `appeasement' about us. Here is Alan Ramsey referring to Simon Crean as `the great appeaser'. In terms of their principles, he says this:It was no deal at all—talking about the business tax deal—just a shameless sell-out of ALP principle, something Labor has been good at in the `90s.You have got form, you have got history. Here is another one about the Labor Party—and they are renowned as a party who get their snouts in the trough of whatever is going on, whatever enriches their lives appropriately. Here is a slogan they have come up with: `Less tucker, more ticker'. Less time in the trough. Let's have a bit more ticker from you. What else does Alan Ramsey say? He refers to the Hon. Simon Crean, saying:Crean was a ridiculously cheap buy.He says:Beazley hasn't had a fresh idea since taking over from Keating almost four years ago . . . He refers to Mark Latham's remarks as:. . . as much a monstering of his own party's political cowardice.You can throw words at us about our political courage and so on, but these are senior people appraising the performance of the Labor Party over many years. It is about time you paid more attention to morality and policy content, had more courage in trying to do the right thing by Australia and paid less attention to getting your snouts in the trough—more ticker and less tucker is the summary. That is a selection of newspaper quotes I can pick on.Then there was the question of the Democrats' political life and how they run their party. I do not think any other party has democracy throughout its system as we do. For instance, the good Labor senators selected here are, I think, each selected by a small group of people. The Labor Party generally is a gerrymandered organisation. You do not have one value, one vote. Union delegates have a far higher vote weighting. If it was an electoral system for the country as a whole it would be a disgrace. It is characterised by branch stacking. It is characterised by factionalised bullyboy tactics. Typical in Western Australia, one of the MPs got his jaw broken recently by one of the bullies who are sanctioned by a weak leadership. Members of the Senate are referred to as `head kickers' and `thugs' because of their behaviour. It is a party with corrupt internal politics. Senator Conroy is a man with a winning smile, but I am telling you that the perception of Labor is that it has an ugly style. You cannot attack the morality of others when you have form as you do.That is enough about the interplay that has gone on on the political side. Let us get back to the amendment itself. The high-roller amendment is really not well understood, and the existing policy is not well understood. The GST is applied on the margin, the difference between gross receipts and gross costs. So I thought to myself, `Let me just test the proposition that you are putting up.' So, shocking person that I am, I thought I would write to the states and territories. I thought, `They are the people who benefit from the GST; let's see if they support the Labor Party's position.' So, on 30 November—and, as today is 9 December, they have had plenty of time—I faxed every Premier and every Chief Minister of the states and territories. Do they support your position? Do the Labor Premiers support your position, Senators Cook and Conroy?RF4COOKSenator Cook—Do you want me to answer that, Mr Chairman?3M6Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY—I hope you do, in due course. The reason I put that proposition is that I wrote to them in good time and so far I have only had two replies, and the two replies I have had so far about your amendment—Senator Quirke interjecting—3M6Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY—I can feel that I am touching a nerve. The two replies I have had so far—and I attached your amendment—were that the people concerned fully support the government's position; and there is no support yet from the Labor Premiers for your position. Frankly, I am in the position where I agree with the government's policy and with the way in which it is outlined, but I thought I would test it with the very people who are the beneficiaries, which includes the Labor Premiers. Well, they did not reply. What does this turn out to mean? It means that once again this is about politics and not about policy. You have not worked it through. It is on dodgy morality and dodgy politics and it is just not properly worked through. And you won't even get your Labor colleagues in the states to support you on this. It is hopeless. And I bet you that none of them comes to the party. So, for those reasons, we will not support you.20:09:0011686Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEYHX5QLDAD00—I listened to this debate with great interest both in the chamber and when I went out for little while some time ago. I was interested in the debate which went on—particularly the beating of chests by the Labor Party on behalf of the poor of Australia and with how much they hate the high rollers. I was very interested because I know from my own experience over a number of years that, when there has been an opportunity for the Labor Party to do something about gambling and casinos, they have been one of the first to build more casinos and collect more revenue in Labor states from gambling.As a matter of fact, a few years ago in Queensland when they were in government, the Goss Labor Party decided, when we already had too many casinos in Queensland, that we needed another one. Where did they build it? They built it in the Treasury Building in Brisbane—heritage listed, one of the grandest buildings from the last century, but which they did not mind desecrating and turning into a casino. Not only that, but a bit of dubious tinkering went on in Brisbane with the sale of shares. When it was discovered that it might not be possible to award the licence that they wanted to award to Jupiter's—who already had a casino on the Gold Coast—because Daikyo had been fingered at that time and clearly would not be a suitable member of the Jupiter's Casino consortium to grant another licence to, would you believe that the Labor Party all of a sudden pulled out of the negotiations and allowed a few weeks in which Daikyo could divest itself of the shares! So it was then quite safe to award the licence to the Jupiter's Casino consortium. Very interesting, the way in which the Labor Party goes about making sure that gambling, which is such a terrible blight on this community, should not be limited but in fact should have the opportunity to increase. It is very interesting to see where the casino was built. It was built using two buildings. One was the Treasury Building, and the other one was across a little park, Queen's Park. I forget the name of the other building, but it was also a very old government building. It is interesting because of the history in which I was involved in relation to that park. In 1978, under the Bjelke-Petersen regime, a group of Christians were arrested for singing hymns in Queen's Park. However, when the Labor Party wanted to build a casino on the same site, it did not matter that Christians had been arrested there, or whatever: they brought in the bulldozers and ripped the park apart.Then, of course, there is the Melbourne casino. It is interesting that we look like having an inquiry into the Melbourne casino, now that Labor is in power in Victoria. I predict that some obvious corruption under the Kennett regime will be shown up. The Senate tried to have an inquiry into the Melbourne casino, and that was set up just a couple of years ago with a Democrat and some Labor and Liberal members. The inquiry began, and we asked Victorian public servants to appear, and Mr Kennett said no. What happened? Labor and the Liberal party rolled over and said, `Oh well, if Mr Kennett says no, we'll close the inquiry down.'The challenge to Labor, if they really feel strongly about this whole issue of gambling, is to reconstitute the Victorian casino inquiry in the Senate. It probably will help their state colleagues, and certainly the Democrats would support it.20:14:0011687Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—We will not be supporting this amendment. The contribution of the Labor senators in particular reminds me of Groundhog Day . We had a very long debate previously. I refer those who are remotely interested in the debate to my remarks on the first set of bills which came before this chamber. As I said, we will not be supporting the amendment. Question put: That the amendments (Senator Cook's ) be agreed to.20:19:00The committee divided. (The Chairman—Senator S. M. West)27Bishop, T. M. Brown, B.Carr, K. Collins, J. M. A.Conroy, S. Cook, P. F. S.Crossin, P. M. Crowley, R. A.Denman, K. J. Evans, C. V.Forshaw, M. G. Gibbs, B.Harradine, B. Harris, L.Hogg, J. Hutchins, S. P.Ludwig, J. W. Lundy, K.Mackay, S. McKiernan, J. P.McLucas, J. E. Murphy, S. M.O'Brien, K. W. K. Quirke, J. A. *Schacht, C. C. Sherry, N.West, S. M.37Abetz, E. Allison, L.Alston, R. K. R. Boswell, R. L. D.Bourne, V. Brownhill, D. G. C.Calvert, P. H. *Campbell, I. G.Chapman, H. G. P. Coonan, H.Crane, W. Eggleston, A.Ellison, C. Ferguson, A. B.Ferris, J. Gibson, B. F.Greig, B. A. Herron, J.Kemp, R. Knowles, S. C.Lees, M. H. Lightfoot, P. R.Macdonald, I. Mason, B. J.McGauran, J. J. J. Murray, A.Newman, J. M. Parer, W. R.Patterson, K. C. L. Payne, M. A.Ridgeway, A. D. Tchen, T.Tierney, J. Troeth, J.Vanstone, A. E. Watson, J. O. W.Woodley, J.Bolkus, N. Reid, M. E.Campbell, G. Minchin, N. H.Cooney, B. Tambling, G. E. J.Ray, R. F. Heffernan, W.Faulkner, J. P. Hill, R. M.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the negative.20:21:0011688Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—by leave—I move opposition amendments Nos 4 and 5:(4) Schedule 1, page 28 (after line 14), after item 121, insert:121A Subparagraph 165-5(1)(c)(ii) Omit "the principal effect", substitute " a principal effect".(5) Schedule 1, page 28 (after line 14), after item 121A, insert:121B Subparagraph 165-5(1)(d)(i) Omit "2 December 1998", substitute "13 August 1998".I move these amendments because there is a need to tighten up the anti-avoidance provisions of the amending bill. The critical thing in this bill which we believe is a floodgate for tax avoidance that should be tightened is the provision that we seek to amend in 121A subparagraph 165-5(1)(c)(ii) where we seek to omit the words `the principal effect' and substitute the words `a principal effect'.It may seem that that is an extraordinarily funny amendment because it sounds almost the same—and that is the danger in it. This talks about schemes that are designed specifically to avoid the GST. In the legislation, if `the principal effect' of an avoidance scheme is to avoid the tax, then there are defensive provisions to prevent it occurring. What we are changing it to is that if `a principal effect' of a scheme is that it will avoid the GST, then there ought to be protection to the revenue.It is not a complex debate. It should be a debate that is accessible intellectually, with respect, even for the Australian Democrats. I see Senator Harradine in the chamber. We were both in the chamber when we dealt with the bottom of the harbour legislation.EP5FERGUSONSenator Ferguson—Are you that old?RF4Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOK—Yes, that old. I am sorry to say I am greying fast. We know the capability of tax avoiders is to design schemes which it could be held at law had a principal effect of not avoiding tax but an important effect of which was that it did. If you keep what is in the amending bill, that sort of avoidance will get off scot-free. They will be able to defend themselves by saying, `This was not done to avoid tax, it was done for X. It just happens to have avoided a lot of tax along the way. You beauty! Thank you for my bank account.' We think that type of slipperiness in the drafting of the legislation should be stamped out.If a scheme is designed for another purpose but a principal effect of it is that it still avoids the tax, a court should be able to strike it down. That is the explanation behind our amendment. I want to say a few words in defence of it and hopefully persuade my colleague senators at this late hour in the chamber to vote for it.EP5FERGUSONSenator Ferguson—Have a go.RF4Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOK—I will have a go. Thank you. Firstly, I cannot understand why the government would not vote for it. The government have, over successive opportunities on tax, preached loudly—and we will no doubt hear it again tonight—that they are very tough on tax avoidance. If you are, do this. Stop talking about it and let us judge you by your actions. Do this and help stamp out tax avoidance and also protect the revenue.The government has an obligation to protect the revenue of this nation and one of the first principles of tax law is fairness or, as it is expressed, equity. If some people who are on higher incomes have more discretionary income left over such that they can engage high priced lawyers and accountants to find slippery holes in the tax act, they have an advantage over ordinary wage and salary earners who spend every red cent to keep their families afloat. It means that if you have extra discretionary income and you get the slippery lawyers and the smart accountants, you can avoid tax.Tax avoidance is a recreational opportunity for the wealthy in this country. If you believe in fairness, you are tough on avoidance in order to ensure that ordinary wage and salary earners, who have all of their tax taken out of their pay packet every week, are treated fairly and equally like everyone else, and there is not this case where respect for tax law is abolished because everyone knows it is open slather for those who can buy their way through the maze of legislation. To the government, I say: a fundamental principle of tax law is equity and fairness. Be tough on tax avoidance; amend the provision this way.Let me say a few words to the Australian Democrats. I have been saying a lot of words to them tonight and they have been saying a few back to me. In the interchange, they have lost and I have won. There are still many questions they have put back that deserve answers but I am not going to do it tonight. You will just have to wait. I can assure you that every one of the points you have put to me will be answered in full, in technicolour, in cinemascope, on the wide screen with dolby stereophonic sound.ZS6QUIRKESenator Quirke—After the next election.RF4Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOK—No, no. The raison d'etre for the Democrats, as it is proclaimed broadly—and I think it is stamped on the forehead of every Democrat—is: `keep the bastards honest'. We had this discussion earlier. While that phrase was coined by Don Chipp to refer to other politicians, it ought also to be a phrase that informs legislation and fairness in the community. Keeping the bastards honest is to stop tax avoidance, because that is dishonest in the main. It has an ill intent. It is meant to use funds to avoid the revenue. If you believe the slogan that is tattooed on your forehead, `keep the bastards honest', stop tax avoidance and vote for this amendment. Mr Temporary Chairman, I acknowledge that you are an Australian Democrat, and that message is meant for you as well.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Bartlett)—Through the chair.RF4Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOK—Naturally, through the chair, and with great respect. It is getting late. I do not intend to develop this argument much further because it is a simple and straightforward concept. I do commend the amendment to the chamber, and I trust we are unanimously resolved so Australians out there looking in at what we are doing can say, `They might disagree about the GST, they might disagree about some of the elements that were left in and out of the GST package, but at least those in the Australian Senate are united about stopping tax avoidance because they voted for the one amendment that does that.'Senator Woodley interjecting—20:30:0011689Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY3L6VICALP00—I am disappointed to hear you are so closed minded, Senator Woodley. I had higher hopes for you. I have a question for the minister.EP5FERGUSONSenator Ferguson—We haven't got very high hopes for you, Stephen.3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—And I am very proud to hear you say that, Senator Ferguson. The Democrats have announced a series of changes today—and that is a very becoming outfit, Senator Hill. I was hoping that Senator Kemp would be in his today as he has often commented on my sartorial—5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Senator Kemp wasn't invited.WW4KEMPSenator Kemp—It's actually worse than that: I paid and I'm in here.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Bartlett)—Order!3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—This is an amendment that goes to the crux of whether you believe the tax avoidance industry should flourish or not. I was shocked to see that the Democrats agreed originally to water this down, and I can only assume that that was because it was not properly explained. This is a very simple amendment that changes a word: `a' to `the'. That may not sound like it is important to the average piece of legislation, but in this instance it is the amendment that opens the floodgates to allow tax avoidance. It is the amendment that will see the spivs and the high rollers getting out of paying their—5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Mr Temporary Chairman, I rise on a point of order. For heaven's sake, will you put the clock on Senator Conroy.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—For the information of senators, the clock technology has failed us, but I am happy to say that Senator Conroy's time is up if you wish me to rule that way.3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—And I appreciate the encouragement I get from my own side, as with you, Senator Woodley. This is an amendment that says the high rollers, the spivs, can get out of paying tax. I am sure that the true impact of this was not explained properly in the Democrats party room. We have a situation where courts will now look at the interpretation of this legislation and will be able to let through to the keeper all of the dodgy schemes, all of the bottom of the harbour style amendments and schemes that we saw in the late 1970s and early 1980s. This is because the Democrats have agreed to this amendment.You will not be able to get an honest answer from the government on the revenue implications of such a simple change, because there will be substantial revenue implications, but the government wants to try to say that there are no revenue implications from this, which is disappointing. So, for those who are in the chamber and are listening around the building, this is an amendment—EP5FERGUSONSenator Ferguson—There's nobody listening. The journos are out having a drink.3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—I know there are Christmas parties taking place tonight, but we can live in hope that people will understand that, even though this does appear to be a very small change, it is a substantial change, which Senator Faulkner is aware of.Honourable senators interjecting—3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—If I could be looked after from the chair, I would appreciate it. If you could settle the interjectors down, it would be much appreciated, and then I could possibly finish.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—Listen to Senator Conroy's contribution in silence, as he always does to everyone else's.3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—I urge senators to support this amendment and put an end to the tax avoidance that will take place because of it.20:34:0011690Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I support the amendment, and I just foreshadow a question so the government can talk to the advisers about it and save us some time. This package allocates $500 million for the implementation of assistance to small business in the non-profit sector, as we all know. The question I will be putting is: is there any new money in the agreement announced today? If so, what is the total? We can have an answer to that later on. I am quite happy for time to be taken on that.20:35:0011690Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—The government will not be supporting this amendment moved by Senator Cook. The amendment would reverse an amendment to the general anti-avoidance provision that was passed in the parliament when the first series of bills implementing the new tax system were passed. It is, in our view, nonsensical to suggest that there can be more than one principal effect. The amendments made to the general anti-avoidance provisions at the time were in response to informed comments by tax practitioners about the scope and wording of those provisions.Having Senator Cook get up and talk about tax avoidance always reminds me of the very famous debate we had in this chamber on R&D syndicates. They were a massive rort; they were the welcome mat for tax avoiders put out by the Labor Party. This government removed them. What did the Labor Party do? The Labor Party opposed our closing down of these rorts.The truth of the matter is, Senator Cook, it is no good your getting up and talking to us about tax avoidance with the record of the previous government, particularly with your own personal record, on the infamous R&D syndicates. We will not be supporting this amendment. We do not need to be lectured by the Labor Party on tax avoidance. We have spent most of our time in government trying to close down the schemes which they allowed to flourish.20:36:0011691Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TASIND00—My policy over the last few days is not to delay the committee and to see that we all get home in good time, as other matters have occupied the time of other senators as well, particularly in the committee areas. I just wanted to say that I support this amendment. It does not have retrospective effect; it has prospective effect. It has my support. Question put: That the amendments (Senator Cook's ) be agreed to.20:42:00The committee divided. (The Chairman—Senator S. M. West)27Bishop, T. M. Brown, B.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.Harradine, B. Harris, L.Hogg, J. Hutchins, S. P.Lundy, K. Mackay, S.McLucas, J. E. Murphy, S. M.O'Brien, K. W. K. Quirke, J. A. *Schacht, C. C. Sherry, N.West, S. M.37Abetz, E. Allison, L.Alston, R. K. R. Boswell, R. L. D.Bourne, V. Brownhill, D. G. C.Calvert, P. H. *Campbell, I. G.Chapman, H. G. P. Coonan, H.Crane, W. Eggleston, A.Ellison, C. Ferguson, A. B.Ferris, J. Gibson, B. F.Greig, B. A. Herron, J.Kemp, R. Knowles, S. C.Lees, M. H. Lightfoot, P. R.Macdonald, I. Mason, B. J.McGauran, J. J. J. Murray, A.Newman, J. M. Parer, W. R.Patterson, K. C. L. Payne, M. A.Ridgeway, A. D. Tchen, T.Tierney, J. Troeth, J.Vanstone, A. E. Watson, J. O. W.Woodley, J.Bolkus, N. Reid, M. E.Campbell, G. Minchin, N. H.Ludwig, J. W. Hill, R. M.McKiernan, J. P. Tambling, G. E. J.Ray, R. F. Heffernan, W.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the negative.Bill agreed to.A NEW TAX SYSTEM (INDIRECT TAX AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS) BILL (No. 2) 1999The bill.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—I have another statement to read. Another government amendment appearing on sheet EF254 revised to the A New Tax System (Indirect Tax and Consequential Amendments) Bill (No. 2) 1999 has also been presented in the form of a request. It is also clear that this amendment should not be a request as it provides relief from taxation which would otherwise be payable under the bill. This amendment will therefore be treated as an amendment.20:45:0011691Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—by leave—I move government amendments Nos 1 to 3:(1) Schedule 1, page 11 (after line 4), after item 46, insert:46A Subparagraph 38-250(2)(b)(ii) Omit "50%", substitute "75%".(2) Schedule 1, item 73, page 20 (lines 4 to 9), omit section 63-25, substitute:63-25 Registration turnover threshold for non-profit sub-entities Regulations made for the purposes of paragraph 23-15(2)(b) may: (a) provide that they apply only to *non-profit sub-entities, or only to other non-profit entities; or (b) specify one amount for *non-profit sub-entities and a different amount for other non-profit entities.(3) Schedule 2, page 61 (after line 25), after item 7, insert: 7A Section 15 Repeal the section, substitute:15 Funeral agreements (1) If, before 1 July 2000, you enter, or have entered, into an agreement for a supply consisting of the provision of a funeral (or a right to the provision of a funeral): (a) section 11 and this Part (apart from this section) do not apply; and (b) the supply of any right under the agreement relating to the provision of a funeral is taken to be a supply made on or after 1 July 2000 only if the funeral is provided on or after that day. (2) If you entered into the agreement before 1 December 1999 and the funeral is provided on or after 1 July 2000, the supply is GST-free to the extent that the consideration for the supply is paid before the earlier of the following: (a) 1 July 2005; (b) if a review opportunity (within the meaning of subsection 13(5)) arises—when that opportunity arises.The amendments are important and have come after a high degree of consultation with relevant authorities. We think they make a substantial contribution to improving the bill which is before the chamber.The first amendment relates to the GST status of the non-commercial activities of charities. A supply by a charitable institution, a trustee of a charitable fund or a gift deductible entity is currently GST free if it is provided for consideration that is less than 50 per cent of the consideration that the supplier provided to acquire the thing supplied, if I may give a technical explanation. After consultation with charitable organisations, it has been decided to increase the threshold to 75 per cent, which will allow more supplies by charities to be GST free. This amendment amends subparagraph 38-50(2)(b)(ii) of the GST act to change the non-commercial threshold from 50 per cent to 75 per cent. The chamber will be aware that the Treasurer made a very extensive and important statement today, and copies of the Treasurer's press release and associated papers have been distributed to the chamber.The next amendment relates to the issue of funerals. The government is proposing to amend the GST transition act to make agreements for prepaid funerals entered into prior to 1 December 1999 and paid in full prior to 1 December 1999 to be GST free. If the funeral agreement was entered into prior to 1 December 1999 but was not paid in full before 1 December 1999, the recipient is effectively given until 1 July 2005, or an earlier review date if one exists, to pay for it, and it will be a GST-free supply. Any consideration paid before 1 July 2005 or an earlier review date, if one applies to the agreement, is taken to be for a supply which is GST free.The amendment will also ensure that section 11 estimates of the GST transition act 1999 will not apply to prepaid funerals. Section 11 allows the Commissioner of Taxation to determine methods to work out the extent to which a right could reasonably expected to be used after 1 July 2000 where it is not clear. This would entail an assessment of the likely time of the death of the purchaser of the prepaid funeral and will no longer be required. We have had extensive consultations with the funeral industry, which have been very productive. They are pleased with the amendments which have been moved by the government. We have received a letter from the Australian Funeral Directors Association which, in summary, reads:On behalf of all members of the Australian Funeral Directors Association and the Australian Cemeteries and Crematoria Association, please accept our thanks for your recent undertakings to amend legislation relating to the transitional period provisions for the GST and the funeral industry. The outcomes, as described in your correspondence of 30 November were very pleasing, and may I say, very sensible. The amendments have certainly provided clarity and relative ease to the application of the GST, particularly for prepaid funerals.This is an amendment that a particular sector has welcomed. I therefore have pleasure in moving that particular amendment. I commend the amendments to the chamber.20:49:0011692Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—The Labor Party will not be opposing these amendments. I use those words to indicate that we are not wildly enthusiastic about supporting them, but we will not oppose them because, puny as they might be, they do represent some improvement to the current situation. It is not our desire to see charities in any way made victims of the GST. The truth about what we have just heard is that there has been a public outcry in this nation from charities about the impact of the GST on their operations and the fact that they are now hamstrung with a tax. This means that the laudable voluntary sacrifices of many people who work for an idealistic purpose for Australian charities to deliver a service to Australians in need are now being taxed, and there is less time for the volunteers to spend doing their core functions of helping those in need because they have to fill out forms and be a branch of the tax office. It means that more time is spent by charities on being a branch of the tax office, which erodes their income, meaning that there are less funds available to serve the purpose for which they were established. The outcry has been widespread and unanimous.That has spooked the Australian Democrats. There has been a meeting in private between the Democrats and the government and, at well past the eleventh hour, we now have imposed on us a series of amendments which have not been through the proper channels of parliamentary scrutiny and on which we are forced, at the eleventh hour, to make a decision. We will not oppose them because, on our reading of them, we think they alleviate some of the problems a little, and we will not stand in the way of that alleviation.The fundamental problem remains. You can start compromising—salami slicing a bit here and a bit there, adding a bit where it is painful and a bit more in some other corner—but you won't solve the problem that way. The problem is that charities in Australia will have to pay a GST. You can change some of the rules to make it a bit softer, but charities in Australia will still have to pay a GST. A GST takes from their core functions, ties up volunteers and turns charities into branches of the tax office. It means that funds that they want to use for charitable purposes have to go into administration in order to meet the needs of complying with the tax administration requirements. That is the fundamental problem.Let me take one quick step back in time. Remember, this government told us when the GST came down, `No-one will be worse off.' Remember those words? The Senate inquiry found that people would be worse off, and the government changed its language. It said, `No group will be worse off.' Even that is wrong: groups will be worse off. There has been an underestimation of the amount of inflation that will be induced in this economy by the imposition of a GST. The Reserve Bank of Australia disagrees with the government about what the impact in the first year will be. Next year, as a result of the GST, we are looking at an inflation rate in this country of between five and seven per cent.But what did the government tell Australians? It said at the election that it would be 1.9 per cent. It forgot to tell everyone that that is in the second year. The knock-on effects of a five to seven per cent inflation rate are going to have further impacts in pushing up the inflation figure as well, and it is going to erode the value of money over time. So `no group is worse off' is also a furphy.Then, of course, we had the impact on revenue of the deal the government did with the Democrats. We were told that the value of that deal was $1.8 billion. That is the value of the buy-off. What happened just last month? The Prime Minister rocked into the House of Representatives and said, `We have to have a Timor tax to pay for our presence in Timor. That will cost $1.3 billion.' If you look at the revenue impact, the $1.3 billion that the Timor tax will raise is to pay for the Democrats deal on the GST, which cost $1.8 billion. It could be called the Lees rather than the Timor tax levy.Then we were told that education was free, that it was exempted from the GST. It is a pity about school uniforms; you have to pay a GST on them. It is a pity about books; there will be a GST there. It is a pity about shoes for schoolkids; there is a GST there. It is a pity about sporting equipment and other things; there is a GST there. It is a pity about private tuition to help kids catch up.Senator Lightfoot interjecting—RF4Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOK—But we are told that education is free and that it is just a pity about all those other expenses that real families in Australia have to meet, Senator Lightfoot. Then we were told that health was GST free. It is a pity about many of the creams, ointments and other treatments that Australians have to use for health purposes, because they will have to pay a GST on them. We were told all of these things, and then we were told about charities. We were told charities were going to be looked after. Let us go and see what this package contains.The starting point in doing that is a quote from Senator Murray, the Democrats spokesman on tax, who has now been superseded, it seems, by Senator Woodley, who is the Democrats spokesman on charities and tax. Senator Woodley, I have to say, with the greatest respect to you: you ought to have left the task with Senator Murray; he would have done it better. Senator Murray said this yesterday on behalf of the Democrats:The fact is that we agreed charities would be within the new tax system. For those charities who don't want to be in the new tax system, well, they are going to be.The new tax system is the GST, folks. Charities are going to be in it, as far as the Democrats are concerned, and they are. Now they have just said, `We've got the handcuffs to the GST on you, but this time we've put a little bit of lighting in to make it less painful. But you're still handcuffed to the GST.' That is the effect of the Democrats amendments.Senator Woodley, now in his new, exalted role as charities taxation spokesman for the Democrats, put out a press release—I have a copy of it here—announcing the impact of the changes that the Democrats have negotiated with Peter Costello, the Treasurer. There are 11 dot points about the so-called breakthroughs that the Australian Democrats won in their negotiations with the Australian Treasurer. `Won' would be a very odd word to use in these circumstances. Let me go through some of these. In the first point, it says:. . . also have the effect of making virtually all membership fees GST-free. 3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—Virtually? What does that mean, Senator Cook?RF4Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOK—It does not mean that they have actually solved the problem; it means that some are free and some are not. There is nothing we can do here in the time available to us, since we are being ambushed at this late hour on the last day of sitting before Christmas, and you have to carry it before you leave because you cannot get out until you do. We have not been able to conduct the proper scrutiny to see what `virtually all' means. It is a value word. Which people are left out, and which groups are the ones who `virtually' did get in? Who suffers? In the first dot point we have a few weasel words; there is no clear undertaking. What sort of deal was this? They did not solve the problem; they virtually solved the problem.In the second point, they talk about `most fundraising activities'. Again, not all fundraising activities have been solved; only most, according to the overblown phraseology of the Australian Democrats' press release. I will come to how overblown it is in a minute. Again, who has missed out? What are the most common activities, and who suffers? In that dot point again, they use the words `as a separate sub-entity'. That is to say, they are now organising the books of charities to create the charity and separate sub-entities of the charity, at the government's suggestion, to avoid the tax. That is all right for charities. I applaud it if charities can avoid the tax; that is good. But what we have here is a precedent in which the government is showing charities how to avoid tax. What about the rest of the tax avoiding community out there? Do you think they will not follow suit? Of course they will.The ALP position is no tax. If you have no tax, no GST, you do not have to avoid it, do you, because you do not have to pay it. The third dot point is where it gets awfully tricky for the Australian Democrats. Let me bracket together the third dot point of this press release and the eighth dot point. It is worth while reading them. The third dot point says:. the Treasurer will seek a more generous ruling from the Tax office . . . The eighth dot point says:. the Tax office will be instructed to provide a lenient approach . . . I do not know, Senator Woodley, whether you know anything about tax law in this country, but no-one can tell the tax office what to do. Certainly the Treasurer cannot. He cannot require them to provide a more lenient ruling. He cannot tell the tax office, as your press release says he will, `I instruct you to do this.' The tax office is an independent statutory authority, and so it should be. If governments could tell tax collectors who to collect from and who not to collect from, the system would be corrupt. It has got to be like the judiciary—beyond the power of governments to influence the administration of the act. The administrators of the tax act ought to be like that figure that stands on top of the courts, the woman with the blindfold, scales in one hand and a sword in the other. It has got to be fair and fearless.The Treasurer cannot tell the tax office what to do, nor should he. But your press release, Senator Woodley, says a big victory the Australian Democrats have achieved is that the Treasurer will tell them. I have got some news for anyone who might believe your press release: he cannot and he will not. If he tries, they will say, `No, you can't.' The press release reads:The Tax Office will be instructed to provide a lenient approach . . .Instructed to provide? Maybe you want to pull the wool over the eyes of some people who are gullible Democrat voters. He cannot do that. Maybe you want to boast that you have achieved a breakthrough. You have not. What you are doing here is dressing up a defeat to appear as if it is a victory and claiming it as a right. It is absolutely untrue.Let me go through some of the other points. There is a claim about input tax credits on volunteers. What does this mean? It means more book work for charities and less attention to their core standards. Quarterly, not monthly. Good. I am pleased about that. And so it goes.Finally, the following statement by the Australian Democrats—it is in heavy type so that you cannot miss it—takes the cake:The Government to further discuss with the Democrats a two-stage inquiry into tax treatment of charities next year . . .The unfortunate thing about Senator Woodley's press release is that I actually read the Treasurer's press release. That is not what he says. You say this is what you have got an agreement on. You use the words: `to further discuss'. You have not got a deal, you have only got an agreement to talk about a deal. You have written about a two-stage inquiry into the tax treatment of charities. The Treasurer does not say that. He talks about the definition of charities. So there is no deal here to even talk about an inquiry into charities per se and all of their needs; it is, according to the Treasurer, just into the definition of what constitutes a charity. Again, boastfulness and overzealousness are leading to misrepresentation and a pretence of winning when you are losing. That is the deal that has been struck tonight, and that is the deal that I think will be found wanting.Nothing announced today in the coalition-Democrat deal on charities changes the fact that all charities are to become tax collectors for the Howard government. Their fundraising activities will still be hit by the GST. If they restructure to stay below the $100,000 threshold, they will be slugged by the GST on all the goods and services they buy. If they enter the system above the $100,000 threshold, they will be entitled to GST input tax credits but the GST will apply to all of their commercial operations, and they will give to the government millions of dollars of revenue from the GST each year. In addition, they will still suffer the massive compliance costs that every single charity in this country fears will come at the expense of services to the disadvantaged.Today was the government's chance to get this issue right and exempt all activities of charities completely from the GST net. They failed. Instead, in a decision reminiscent of the nursing homes fiasco, they decided to tinker at the margins. Where they should have exempted all of the activities of charities from the GST net, they instead left the GST applying to activities like chocolate drives, lamington drives, operation teddy bear, charity fetes, charity dinners and concerts. Where they should have exempted government grants to charities from the GST net, the GST will still apply to all community grants, including grants to disability, homelessness and emergency relief organisations. Where they should have removed the $100,000 threshold entirely, they have not. The catch 22 for charities still remains: those who are above the $100,000 must pay the GST and those who are below must absorb the cost of the GST on all of their inputs.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Crowley)—Order! Senator, your time has expired.RF4COOKSenator Cook—Madam Temporary Chair, I had not been warned that my time was about to expire and I cannot see a clock in the chamber that is timing speeches.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—I am sorry, Senator Cook. I am advised by the clerks that a hand-held clock is being used to record times. I do appreciate that you had no warning.RF4COOKSenator Cook—I appreciate what you are saying. I just want to make the point that up until now we have been notified all evening that we have had a minute or two to go, and I would have appreciated that. But I can seek the call later.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—That may have been because I took over from Senator Bartlett at the time. If it is my fault, I apologise.21:05:0011696Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—Can the minister give an answer to the question that was asked earlier about how much in excess of the $500 million allocated for implementation and compliance costs for small business and non-profit organisations there is in this package announced today.21:06:0011696Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—The money announced today, $65 million, is new money to the community sector. That is the important thing.3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—Out of the fund.WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—It does come from the $500 million start-up funds, but it is new money to the community sector.21:06:0011696Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I want to pursue this because it is quite an important point. What I get from that answer is that the $500 million remains the same but there is now $65 million extra to the community sector, so $65 million has come off the small business sector. Is that correct?21:06:0011696Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—No. The money announced today is $65 million. That is new money which is being allocated to the community sector. It comes from the $500 million start-up assistance.3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—So how much would a $200 voucher be worth now?WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—It has not come off money which has already been allocated to the small business sector; it has not come off that money at all. I know it is worrying and distressing for you that there is an additional sum of money for the community sector—I know that is of concern to you—but we and the Democrats think that this is a good thing and we support that. So that is not correct, as it has not come off any money which has been allocated to the small business sector. I know this worries you because of the campaigns that you like to run but this is good news for the community sector.21:07:0011696Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—The obvious question to the minister is this: if it has not come from the small business sector and if $500 million has been allocated to the small business and non-profit sector for implementation and compliance costs, where has it come from?21:08:0011696Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—Senator, I have explained to you that the money announced today—the $65 million—is new money to the community sector. It does come from the $500 million start-up but we have not pulled any money out of assistance to the small business sector.21:08:0011696Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—This is extraordinary. There is $500 million allocated in the package back in May for the small business sector and the community sector and today there is a big announcement which says $65 million is going to the charit able sector, as a result of the Democrats using their pressure on the government. Now we find it is taken off somebody else. It is taken off some other part of the community sector that was going to be helped to meet compliance. It is a cheat. It is a con. If I am wrong about that, let the minister get up and say where it is coming from.Now $500 million was allocated in May, and it was going to go to the Australian community to help in compliance and start-up with the GST. The charities have rightly said, `We are really worried about the impact this is going to have on us,' the Democrats go into a huddle with the government and, hey presto, on the last day of parliamentary sittings out comes a package late in the afternoon which says, `Sixty-five million dollars—new—is going to the charitable sector.' The minister has just confirmed that. When I say, `Does this mean $565 million is now going into compliance and start-up for small business and the community sector?' the minister says, `No. It is still $500 million.' Well, $65 million is being taken off somebody else who needs it, according to the Lees-Howard decision in May, for compliance and start up.RF4COOKSenator Cook—Who's lost out?QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—That is the question. Let the chamber hear who has lost out so those people can know it.21:10:0011697Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—Senator, this is a worry for you because, after all your efforts and campaigning, you have achieved nothing for the community sector and nothing for charities specifically. The fact of the matter is that, despite the immense amount of time you take up in the chamber with your interventions, you have achieved nothing. What we announced today was $65 million that was allocated to the community sector. Not all the $500 million has been allocated—do you understand that? Not all the $500 million has been allocated and the $65 million comes out of that $500 million—that is the point we are making.21:11:0011697Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—The Democrats have fallen for a con. The Democrats have been taken for a ride. I wonder if this simple question was asked at Treasurer Costello's table: where is this $65 million coming from? Tonight we have found out: it is coming from the small business sector or other parts of the Australian community that were otherwise going to have this allocated to them for compliance and start-up costs, and the government here is not going to say who that is because they in turn are going to be in revolt tomorrow.WW4KEMPSenator Kemp—It was not allocated.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—It was not allocated but it was put aside for this purpose. The fact is the government has been too clever by half because it has refused to say—and it has been questioned about this before—what the split between the community sector and the small business sector for compliance and start-up costs would be. But what has happened here tonight is that we now know that the small business sector is going to lose out because there is going to be $65 million less there for compliance costs.So what do you say to the two women in the second-hand shop I was in, very close to here, last week? The women, who have got together to set up this little business, said, `We are really worried because we cannot afford $3,000 for the computers that are required to enable us to meet the GST.' They were quite confused. What they were saying is, `We're going to stop selling second-hand television sets because in that way we do not have to go into this compliance business.'There are many such businesses across the country, and for those who are wanting help with compliance there is now $65 million less. There is going to be another swag of small businesses going to the wall, not just a few of them but a lot of them, as a result of today's decision by the Democrats and the government because this money is not going to be there to help them through the very difficult times ahead. You do not have to be an economic guru to know that if you take that money out of the small business sector there will be more bankruptcies, more failures and more jobs lost. If the government could say tonight, `We've got an extra $65 million here,' there would be some validity to this arrangement with the Democrats. As it is, it is the two-card trick, it is the double shuffle and it is a con.21:14:0011698Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY3L6VICALP00—I have two very quick technical questions that some organisations are keen to know the answers to. They are to do with retirement villages and the GST. Minister, under loan licence arrangements, which are the most common for the church and charitable sector, is a refund in the form of a deferred management fee GSTable? Is any increase in the market value that is sometimes shared between what is referred to as the outgoing resident and the owning institution significant to the GST?21:15:0011698Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—Senator, I have checked with my advisers. They would need more information from you on this than the information that has been tendered here. They do not want to give what could be seen to be, in effect, a tax ruling without having all the information on hand. If you have more details there, I am quite happy for my advisers to see that. But until we can see the full details, they feel that it would be best not to make what would, in effect, be seen to be a ruling.Amendments agreed to.Bill, as amended, agreed to.A New Tax System (Indirect Tax and Consequential Amendments) Bill (No. 2) 1999 reported with amendments, remaining bills reported without amendments; report adopted.11698Bills (on motion by Senator Kemp) read a third time.Bills11698r96211698Debate resumed.21:18:0011698Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEYSF4VICALP00—My remarks on this bill will be short. What the bill seeks to do, as I understand it, is to make sure some uncertainty about the basis upon which investigative powers exercised by the National Crime Authority have been supported is clarified. One of the remarkable features of this bill is that it is retrospective to 1984. That creates problems and that has been dealt with in the usual efficient way by the Scrutiny of Bills Committee. I think the minister would agree with that.I am told that there have been discussions on this and in these matters you must trust. The minister who brings forth the bill assures the Senate that this bill does not affect adversely any person in the past. In other words, this is not a bill that catches a person up in a criminal investigation who was not previously caught up or does not cure a matter that would otherwise legitimately be open to that person.The National Crime Authority is the creature of statute. It has wide powers to combat crime. The powers have been given by the parliament. The parliament decides what those powers should be and the parliament has to be very responsible in what it does. Powers in areas of criminal investigation should be strictly interpreted. There has been recent experience where they have been strictly interpreted by one court but other courts have, in my view, allowed them to be interpreted more broadly than they should. It is important and essential that the powers of this body be confined; that retrospectivity not be used unless it can be used safely; and that this chamber, together with the parliament as a whole, keeps its creature within the restraints that are necessary to allow it to investigate crime, which is ongoing, while at the same time protecting our civil life.21:21:0011698Greig, Sen BrianSenator GREIG86XWAAD00—The Australian Democrats have some serious concerns about the process through which this bill has arisen and what we see as the inadequacy of the minister to satisfy the core question that lies at the heart of the National Crime Authority Amendment Bill 1999 . We are also very uncomfortable with the fact that it is being rushed through both houses of parliament on the very last sitting day of this session on what is the very last session for the year.The question we ask is: why? Why is the government rushing through the bill at this time? Indeed, I have asked that question and the response has been curious. The govern ment alleges that, because of a hypothetical proposition put to an inquiry by the Queensland police, this bill is necessary. Again I ask: why? Senators with longer experience than I have in this place will know that the government does not list bills that are merely to deal with hypotheticals. Actually I would have thought the government never engaged in this sort of exercise without strong reason.But the only reason that has been offered to the Australian Democrats is that there is a hypothetical problem with the National Crime Authority Act. This is all very curious. Bad legislation is most often legislation that is created in haste without the proper mechanism for scrutiny, and my fear is that in this instance bad legislation may be the result. Only a proper inquiry can reveal that, but it is an inquiry that will not occur for this bill. The Democrats have strong reservations about that.The purpose of the bill is largely intended to bring about what is perceived to be the original intention of the legislation. Our key point of contention, as I have outlined, is the comprehensive retrospectivity of the bill. If applied, the retrospective imposition of this bill will go back to 1984, a 15-year period. I think it is quite extraordinary that there should be such strong and anxious agitation from the government that this retrospective action must be taken urgently on what amounts to a totally hypothetical case. In this regard the bill is highly precipitous, and to the best of my knowledge there has not been any research into the actions and prosecutions of the NCA for the last 15 years in order to see if any citizen or corporation may be adversely affected by the extraordinarily retrospective nature of this proposition.I sincerely hope that the real reason for this legislation is not revealed in the coming months. There is a legitimate suspicion on the part of the Democrats, because in my six months time spent in the Senate, I have never been lobbied so strongly by the government or its operatives as I have been in this case. At its heart, the essence of this bill is really about the rights of citizens and their ability to comply with the law. This bill relates directly to criminal law, and I submit that criminal law ought not be dealt with in this rushed and haphazard way. It deserves greater scrutiny and greater attention to the detail of the rights, as well as the obligations, of citizens whom this bill may affect.This bill is being presented on the hypothetical notion that the current operations might—and I stress `might'—be challenged by someone who has been wrongly convicted under previous actions of the NCA. It is worth noting that within the concluding comments of the Scrutiny of Bills Committee on this legislation, the committee stated:. . . there is no explanation of why the operation of the amendments needs to be backdated to 1984. The Explanatory Memorandum merely comments that the amendments `clarify the nature of the State and Commonwealth legislative framework that supports the National Crime Authority'. While ambiguities in section 55A of the Principal Act may be corrected by the amendments, those amendments also expand the scope of the NCA's powers. They do so both prospectively and retrospectively.This retrospective operation appears to have the potential to validate NCA activities as far back as 1984 which were undertaken under a State mandate that had no equivalent provision in the NCA's own legislation—as required by the Principal Act. A question arises about the number and nature of such NCA activities.In reference to these concerns, the committee asked the minister to provide greater detail on the effect of the bill, particularly as it relates to the effect of the proposed changes, why the changes are necessary and why the changes are needed retrospectively. In answer to the third and perhaps most pressing question, the minister responded with just four lines:Without retrospective operation, NCA actions since 1984 authorised under state law could be challenged. This would jeopardise a range of matters where the evidence was obtained by reliance on state powers such as the confiscation of drugs and the prosecution and subsequent conviction of persons involved in organised crime.In other words, people may have been wrongly convicted because the NCA had acted outside its powers. I make the point that anybody at any time can challenge the validity of legislation. Ultimately, all legislation stands or falls on the say-so of the courts. There is nothing new in this regard. I still fail to see the need for the rush on this amend ment bill. Are we really to believe that the nation stands to become overrun with drug barons and corporate fraudsters who might be released in their dozens at a moment's notice? There is no evidence that this will happen, and my inquiries reveal that there are no cases before the NCA or the minister to that effect. On the face of it, it could reasonably be argued that these amendments may not be necessary. They seek to clarify and reinforce the status quo rather than alter and/or expand it.I am unaware of any court case that may have prompted the alleged pressing need to refine these powers, and I note that nothing in the NCA Act prevents the conferral of powers, functions or duties on the NCA or the Federal Court by law of a state. As the High Court determined in February 1998 in Gould v. Brown:Many statutes have been enacted providing for federal office holders to receive additional powers and functions as conferred by the laws of another legislature within the federation. Such legislation is permissible.I understand that the government and opposition have agreed on a position to support this bill, with proposed amendments from the opposition. On that basis, this bill will pass the chamber tonight. It is the very real hope of the Democrats that the passage of this bill does not come back to haunt the parliament in future. We defer to the minister, Senator Vanstone, who to date has indicated to the Democrats that this bill is not in response to any real-life case of litigation against the NCA that may be on the horizon. We must take those assurances on face value.Given the joint support for this bill, the Democrats are not proposing to bring it to a division but take this opportunity to record our strong reservations about it, particularly with the wholesale retrospective nature of it. We are not opposed to retrospective legislation per se, but as a party we have historically argued that retrospective legislation is best dealt with on a case by case basis and in accordance with clear need. This legislation is wholesale, not case by case, and is not founded on any clear need. Our serious concerns with it remain unchanged.21:28:0011700Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPJustice and Customs10—As all honourable senators know, time tonight is at a premium, and for that reason I will keep my remarks very short. I want to thank Senator Cooney and Senator Greig for contributing to the debate. I am conscious of the unusual circumstances that surround this bill and the difficult issues that it asks us to address. It is a credit to those who are supporting the bill that they have been prepared to make what some might see as a difficult decision but one that is necessary.The government proposed these amendments to confirm what had been understood by the Commonwealth and the states since the inception of the authority to be the meaning of section 55A of the National Crime Authority Act 1984. The shadow minister for justice and customs, Duncan Kerr, expressed concerns to me about making sure that the ability of states to confer powers on the NCA was strictly circumscribed. The government did not and still does not share that concern to the same extent, given the excellent working history between the Commonwealth and the states on matters relating to the NCA scheme. The Commonwealth and the states legislating together to achieve a national result is a very good example of federalism at work. However, there is nothing offensive in the opposition amendments, so we can easily live with them. We certainly did not want to do anything beyond what the amendments circumscribe the National Crime Authority to, and we have therefore agreed to it.The amendments made by the bill confirm the ability of the states to confer powers, duties and functions on the National Crime Authority and that conferral of powers by the states may extend to the investigation of any relevant criminal activity, provided that there is Commonwealth legislation conferring powers of the same kind. I would like to thank the opposition for a very constructive and cooperative approach in dealing with the bill. I would assume they would always have that, but of course I also assume they had it because the NCA is their brainchild—it is legislation of Labor's that in fact is being clarified in this respect. Nonetheless, it is not often enough that we see a cooperative approach in this place, and I am pleased to see it.During the storm of political confrontation that is around, generally it is easy not to notice these occasions; therefore I think it is important to note them. I would also like to note the involvement of the Chair of the National Crime Authority, Mr Gary Crooke QC. Mr Crooke, with my agreement, made himself available to discuss with both the opposition and the Democrats the problem of section 55A. I think his willingness to provide briefing of that kind was appreciated by all. It certainly was appreciated by the government.We acknowledge that the bill presents an awkward problem—it is an awkward problem. Someone has come up with an interpretation that no-one thought had been the case, and everyone had been operating under what they believed at the time to be the appropriate interpretation. The passage of the bill is essential to ensure that a safety net is placed under the very important work of the National Crime Authority. I believe that the bill will ensure in a very fair manner that the work of the authority is protected.I would like to note the work of the Scrutiny of Bills Committee and trust that the responses that I have made have given adequate comfort to those who are supporting the bill. The Scrutiny of Bills Committee and the Regulations and Ordinances Committee play a very valuable role in ensuring that in any legislation people's rights are not inadvertently trodden on in the desire to seek another policy goal.I would like to say to Senator Greig that Senator Cooney, I, Senator Crowley and others who have served on those committees would probably all say that their first question of officials, or anyone who can answer it, when any government says there has been an interpretation problem—or sometimes it is described as a technical error or whatever—is, `Is there a case on foot that you are seeking to remedy?' because that has often been the case that the committees will not have been informed of that.You have been correctly advised, Senator Greig, and to the best of my knowledge there is no case on foot. I think it is proper to deal with this legislation when there is not. I would have more concerns if the legislation were being rushed in to deal with one particular matter; in fact, it is being dealt with promptly to ensure that it is dealt with outside the colour of any particular case being on foot. I think, where it is possible, that is how it should be done. I am comforted that I know of no case that this affects, rather than being alarmed by it. I think possibly you were suggesting that there is no need for it because there is no case on foot. I am very pleased that I do not know of one on foot because it means we are dealing with it in proper and calm circumstances.I do not regard the circumstances as being hurried simply because we are at the end of the year. The only point is that if we leave it any longer, we stand a risk of just such a situation eventuating before we come to deal with the bill. I conclude by again thanking senators for their contribution.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.11701The bill.21:34:0011701Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPJustice and Customs10—Madam Chairman, I think Senator Cooney might have an amendment he wishes to move. Perhaps we could deal with that first.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—We have not seen it up here.21:34:0011701Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEYSF4VICALP00—Madam Chairman, could you just give us some moments. I do not know whether the communications that have come across have been as accurate as they might have been.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—The chair does not have a copy; the amendment does not appear to have been circulated.21:35:0011701Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPJustice and Customs10—Perhaps I could give Senator Cooney some time by sharing a few thoughts on any particular matter while this is sorted out. What I can explain to the chamber, as I indicated in my remarks, is that the shadow minister for justice and customs wanted to ensure, as I indicated to Senator Greig, that the rights being clarified were being just that—clarified—and not drastically extended. He asked that an amendment be prepared that would curtail our amendment in just such a fashion.We can all relax; it is all right. Senator Cooney, you can get your blood pressure down, I can stop raving on and we can proceed. I was unaware that the amendment that I thought was going to be moved here by agreement has apparently, rather expeditiously, been dealt with in the other place. Most unusual for them to expeditiously deal with matters! Usually they leave them to be tidied up here. Apparently they outshone themselves today and dealt with it. The amendment you do not want to move has already been moved. It has already been incorporated. We can all just say yes and go home.Bill agreed to.Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.11702Bill (on motion by Senator Vanstone) read a third time.Bills11702Message received from the House of Representatives agreeing to the amendments made by the Senate to the following bill: Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 4) 1999 Committees1170211702Message received from the House of Representatives notifying a change to the membership of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade.1170210000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—I have received letters from a party leader and an Independent senator seeking variations to the membership of committees.Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell)—by leave—agreed to:That senators be discharged from and appointed to committees as follows:Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts References Committee— Participating member: Senator Harris for the committee's inquiry into telecommunications and electro-magnetic emissionsFinance and Public Administration Legislation Committee— Substitute member: Senator Mason to replace Senator Lightfoot for the 1999-2000 additional estimates hearingsForeign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee— Substitute member: Senator Mason to replace Senator Payne for the 1999-2000 additional estimates hearingsRural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee— Participating members: Senators Crossin and McLucas Senator Harris for the committee's inquiry into the provisions of the Northern Prawn Fishery Amendment Management Plan 1999 (NPF02)Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee— Participating member: Senators Crossin and McLucas.Valedictory1170211702The PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT10000PON/A10—Is leave granted for valedictory statements to be made without a question before the chair?Leave granted.10000The PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—There being no objection, it is so ordered. I should like to speak first and offer my thanks to the Senate, the Clerk of the Senate and all those who serve in the Senate—those in the chamber, particularly. Those in the chamber we perhaps get to know best from some points of view, but we all remember that there are parts of the Senate quite scattered from the chamber and people whom we perhaps do not see very often but who are, in fact, absolutely vital to the func tioning of the place and to the services which are provided, And to them go my thanks.My thanks also go to the Joint House Department, which has the job of administering the building and providing so many of the services. Of course, many of them we do not see. The basement is filled with staff. From some points of view, it is one of the most interesting parts of the building, and it is certainly absolutely vital to the functioning of the building and the way that we are all able to do our business within. I also wish to thank the Parliamentary Library, Hansard and everybody who makes it all work. There are really only a couple of handfuls of senators and members, but the total staff within the building is quite significant, and without all of them participating and being absolutely committed to what happens we would not be able to fulfil our roles as senators and members. In thanking those within the building and the departments that I have mentioned, I also of course include those who these days are contractors to the parliament in one form or another and provide some of the services that we need to do the job that we are doing.So, to everybody who is part of the Parliament House family, my sincere thanks for the roles that you have played during this year. I wish you well for Christmas and for the new year.21:40:0011703Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—Madam President, I hope it is recognised that I have dressed for the occasion.7L6HOGGSenator Hogg—Yes, we saw that.BH4Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILL—Madam President, I would like, on behalf of the coalition, to thank you and to thank your deputy and obviously, also, to thank the Clerks and all of the officials and staff and those who work in the front line and behind the scenes, whether they are in the Library, Hansard, attendants, security, drivers—everyone who helps make this parliamentary process work. We are demanding. We require of them long hours in sometimes quite difficult circumstances. We appreciate their dedication to parliamentary democracy and to the effectiveness of this Senate in particular. From a parliamentary perspective, this has been a long and challenging year, although—if my friends in the opposition will not mind me saying—from the coalition's perspective, also a very successful year. We are pleased that we have been able to achieve pretty much the whole of our agenda during the course of this year. Whilst the opposition in this place have not always made it easy, on each occasion on which they have finally lost, they seem to have taken it with reasonable grace; and I appreciate that. In fact, the spirit during the course of the year has not been too bad. Even though Senator Faulkner likes to take a prominent position during question time, we know that it is within the spirit of the contest, and nobody takes it too seriously in a personal sense.I particularly wanted to take the opportunity to thank my colleagues for their dedicated effort during the course of this year. Obviously, my deputy, Richard Alston, my ministerial colleagues—5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Is he still trying to undermine you?BH4Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILL—No, I have only one problem with Richard Alston, and that is whether he will turn up for the division later tonight. In every other regard he does a fantastic job, but he is just a touch unreliable when the bells are ringing.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—We shall quote you.BH4Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILL—He knows that is my view. I would like to thank Ian Campbell, the Manager of Government Business in the Senate. He has had a particularly challenging year and has excelled in his job. I would like to thank our whips, Paul Calvert and Helen Coonan, and our whip Julian McGauran, who I think is serving elsewhere just at the moment. In fact, to all of my colleagues who have done a great job during the course of this year and helped us to deliver the numbers when they were needed, I express my appreciation.I suppose in a way for those on the other side, the bad news I have is that next year will be just as demanding as this year. The government's reform agenda has hardly started. Much is expected of the Senate during the course of the year in delivering the next phase of the Howard government's program, and we look forward to coming back and participating in the contest and convincing others in this chamber of the merits of our program and ultimately in succeeding in the votes.Madam Deputy President, in concluding, I also wish all honourable senators and others in this place a happy Christmas and a good rest. I look forward to the return of everyone in the new year.21:44:0011704Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—As we all know, the Senate is never really an easy place to work and I do not think that this year has been any exception for any of the senators or those in this building who do so much to assist our work.Many senators would recall that at the beginning of the year the Economics References Committee undertook that very important task of the reference on the so-called new tax system. It performed as Senate committees must. My colleagues, I think, would like to acknowledge the work of Senators Cook, Conroy and Sherry on that committee. They performed a sterling service to all Australians and, as is so often the case, they were very well supported by our staff. In this case, Mr Jody Fassina and Mr Chris Fry took a very prominent role in supporting Labor senators on that committee. There were 24 full-day hearings on that committee over a period of three months, a report which laid bare the problems surrounding the goods and services tax, as senators would recall, and even in the Senate tonight we are still dealing with those problems that were identified by senators on that particular committee. It was a massive exercise, well supported, as you would recall, Madam Acting Deputy President Crowley, by the Department of the Senate, the committee secretaries and staff, Hansard and those who assisted us with travel arrangements, as the caravan toured around the nation.I wanted to mention the role of the other references committees in relation to the GST inquiry. I wanted to mention the economics committee. I wanted to mention the employment committee so ably chaired by my col league Senator Collins. I wanted to mention the Community Affairs References Committee, so ably chaired by you, Madam Acting Deputy President. The environment references committee was engaged in this task as well. This was a very big job. It was a job well done by all those senators who were involved. I am pleased to acknowledge the effective task that so many were engaged in, in exposing the iniquitous and unfair goods and services tax.It is important at a time like this to remember that in the middle of the year there was a significant change in representation in this chamber. As far as the Labor Party is concerned, we farewelled one of our colleagues, Senator Margaret Reynolds, a good friend to all on this side of the chamber. I am pleased to note that Margaret was the only one who left the Senate at that time who voluntarily retired. I suppose it is the way we all want to go out, is it not? Let's face it.We are joined by two new colleagues from Queensland in Senators Ludwig and McLucas. We are delighted that they have so soon become such effective members of Labor's Senate team.84NLUDWIGSenator Ludwig—Hear, hear!5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—I acknowledge that they appear to agree, too. I wanted to acknowledge that this year we celebrated 50 years of proportional representation in the Senate. With a number of others in this place, not just senators but many in this building, I was involved in the important seminar that was held on this milestone. It is worth acknowledging that that was a very worthwhile exercise and one worth us remembering at this time.As I have said, the goods and services tax legislation has dominated the legislative agenda in the Senate, and still does as the government and the Australian Democrats desperately try to deal with the anomalies.YE4BOSWELLSenator Boswell—Remember it's Christmas. Be gracious.5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—Of course, Senator Boswell. I always am, as you know. I just wanted to say that even at Christmas we are faced with the challenge of dealing with the anomalies of this unfair and iniquitous tax that we have been lumbered with. And I am sure many senators would acknowledge the achievement of seeing the second wave of Mr Reith's industrial relations legislation washed up on the shore.There are many who are involved as far as the opposition is concerned with ensuring we are a very effective Senate team. Let me first express the debt of personal gratitude I have to my deputy, Senator Peter Cook, who has had so many onerous responsibilities this year and has undertaken them and fulfilled them with such great effect. I thank him very much for it, as do my colleagues. I want to thank the manager, Senator Kim Carr, for all his efforts, the whip, Senator O'Brien, and his very able assistants, Senator Denman and Senator Quirke, as the office holders in the Senate on behalf of the opposition, who fulfil their role so effectively.At this time, we remember, as Senator Hill has mentioned, the many people in the building who support all of us, regardless of what side of the parliament we sit on. They include those in the Senate department, such as the Clerk and his deputy and others. Of course, we particularly acknowledge the role of Dr Rosemary Laing, who has special responsibilities as far as non-government senators are concerned. We thank her for her assistance. To all in the Department of the Senate, we thank you so much. At the moment, we have the Clerk and the Deputy Clerk at the table, so I can say that directly to them. This goes to office services, Hansard, the attendants in the building, the people responsible for security, the cleaners and those in the Table Office. So many people in this building are so important to us all.I thank Madam President and Madam Deputy President for their efforts over the year. We always remember the work of the Parliamentary Library, Hansard and the Sound and Vision Office and the sterling efforts of Comcar. To all those people, who are too numerous to mention, as far as the opposition goes—I know that I speak for every senator in the chamber—we genuinely appreciate all that they do. It is a pity that we only really have this one opportunity in the year to thank them for all they do in supporting all senators in this place.I want to particularly mention two members of the Senate staff who have gone on to bigger and brighter careers. The first is Tim Holding, who was a long-term staff member for Senator Ray and a very well known face around this building for a long time. He is now the member for Springvale in the new Bracks government in Victoria. I also want to mention two staff members of Senator Jacinta Collins. Mr Anthony Byrne has played an important role in this building. He had a stunningly successful by-election victory in the seat of Holt. Ms Jenny Lindell, also a member of Senator Collins's staff, has been elected to the seat of Carrum. I would like to acknowledge and thank those two staff members for their contributions, particularly on this occasion.As I always do, I thank my own staff at this time, including Lenka, Vikki, David, Antony and Colin, who work here in Parliament House, and Jenny and Helen in my electorate office. I also thank Christine Cannon and Tess Shannon, who have been doing part-time research duties. A long-term member of my staff, Renee Gamble, well known around the building, has left to go overseas. I wish her well for the future and look forward to celebrating her marriage on the weekend.I need to note the tower of strength that is George Thompson, the leader of the staff on this side of the building. He is there not for just my staff but for all the senators' staff. He is a tower of strength and we appreciate all that George has done for such a long period. We know that he is very much enjoying his long service leave at the moment. We look forward to seeing him again soon in the new year.I join with other colleagues in wishing everyone in the chamber a merry Christmas and a happy new year, happy new century or millennium or whatever we want to celebrate.Senator Jacinta Collins interjecting—5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—You are right; maybe it is a little early for that. As Labor senators, we want to thank our staff and those who have supported us, not only here in Canberra but in our electorate offices throughout the year. It has been a tremendous team effort. We appreciate all that they have done in supporting us in this chamber.Before I sit down, I want to specifically thank two other people. I want to thank, first of all, Kim Beazley and his team in the House of Representatives. What an outstanding year it has been for the opposition, so ably led by Kim Beazley, as we prepare to take the reins of government at the next election. We know in this place that we are really a supporting act for our colleagues in the House of Representatives.2L6BISHOPSenator Mark Bishop—I didn't know that.GB6COLLINSSenator Jacinta Collins—I didn't know that.5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—Some of my colleagues did not know that. I can assure you that it is right.7L6HOGGSenator Hogg—We are not fixing up their mistakes.5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—But we are trying to fix up the government's mistakes. We thank Kim and Simon and our colleagues in the House for their comradeship and friendship over the year. I know my colleagues join me in saying that very sincerely.Finally, I will place on record in a personal note my thanks to the long-term national secretary of the Australian Labor Party, Mr Gary Gray, who has announced his intention to retire early in the new year. I know my colleagues would want me to note at this time that he has played a very important role in rebuilding Labor's fortunes after our defeat in 1996. He is a person who has been important to us all on this side of the chamber. We will miss Gary a great deal. I have certainly valued his friendship and guidance over a long time.He will be a loss to the Labor Party, a serious loss at an organisational level, but I am confident that, as we continue our rebuilding process and our preparation for government, the party and the opposition will go from strength to strength, particularly in the Senate. I wish everyone on both sides of the chamber, all around the building and else where who has had an association with us a very merry Christmas and a happy new year.Bills11706r89011706Message received from the House of Representatives returning the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 8) 1999, acquainting the Senate that the House has agreed to amendments Nos 1 to 7, 9, 10, 15 and 16 made by the Senate, disagreed to amendments Nos 8, 11 to 14, 17 and 18 made by the Senate, and requesting the reconsideration by the Senate of the bill in respect to the amendments disagreed to.Ordered that the message be considered in committee of the whole immediately.Schedule of the amendments to which the House of Representatives has disagreed:(8) Schedule 5, page 24 (after line 12), after item 11, insert:11A After section 30-220Insert:30-222 How much you can deduct for certain gifts of land (1) This section contains the rules for working out how much you can deduct for a gift of property that you made to a recipient covered by item 1 or 2 of the table in section 30-15 if: (a) the property is land or an interest in land; and (b) the recipient is: (i) an *environmental organisation or a fund, authority or institution covered by the table in subsection 30-55(2); or (ii) a public fund established and maintained under a will or instrument of trust solely for the purpose of providing money, property or benefits to an entity mentioned in subparagraph (i). (2) If you sell land that you own to an entity mentioned in paragraph (1)(b) for less than its market value, you can deduct the difference between the market value of the property on the day you made the sale and the actual sale price. (3) If you give land that you own to an entity mentioned in paragraph (1)(b) but you retain the right to live on that land for the remainder of your life, you can deduct the market value of the property subject to your life interest.30-223 How much you can deduct for land affected by a conservation covenant (1) This section contains the rules for working out how much you can deduct if the value of land is decreased by a conservation covenant. (2) If you enter into a conservation covenant in respect of land you own and the market value is decreased because of the covenant, you can deduct the difference in the market value of the land before and after you entered into the covenant. (3) In this section, conservation covenant means any approved form of agreement relating to the management, use and development of an area of land that is registered or noted on the land title and requires the landholder and all subsequent landholders: (a) to maintain native vegetation and undertake any other actions required to conserve the biodiversity values of that land; or (b) to maintain buildings or structures or other items of cultural significance that are registered on a recognised Commonwealth, State or Territory heritage register; and includes, but is not limited to, an agreement under the following provisions: (c) sections 304 to 311 of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 ; (d) sections 69B and 69C of the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 (NSW); (e) sections 41 to 44 of the Native Vegetation Conservation Act 1997 (NSW); (f) section 51 of the Nature Conservation Act 1992 (Qld); (g) section 3A of the Victorian Conservation Trust Act 1972 ; (h) sections 69 to 72 of the Conservation, Forests and Lands Act 1987 (Vic); (i) section 23 of the Native Vegetation Act 1991 (SA); (j) section 30B of the Soil and Land Conservation Act 1945 (WA); (k) section 29 of the Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990 (WA); (l) sections 37A to 37H of the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1970 (Tas).(11) Schedule 5, item 16, page 25 (line 5), omit "cultural ".(12) Schedule 5, item 16, page 25 (line 10), omit "cultural".(13) Schedule 5, item 16, page 25 (line 20), after "section 30-15", insert "or by section 30-222 or 30-223".(14) Schedule 5, page 26 (after line 20), after item 16, insert:16A After Subdivision 30-FInsert:Subdivision 30-FA—Restrictions on prescribed private fundsGuide to Subdivision 30-FA 30-310 What this Subdivision is about This Subdivision prevents certain private funds from being, or continuing to be, *prescribed private funds.Table of sectionsOperative provisions 30-312 Restrictions on prescribed private funds[This is the end of the Guide.] Operative provisions 30-312 Restrictions on prescribed private funds (1) A private fund which makes, or has ever made, a gift or contribution or provides, or has ever provided, a benefit of any other kind (including a loan) to a political party that is registered under Part XI of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 , or an associated entity within the meaning of that Act, is incapable of being a *prescribed private fund. (2) If a *prescribed private fund makes a gift or contribution or provides a benefit of any other kind (including a loan) to a political party that is registered under Part XI of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 , or an associated entity within the meaning of that Act, the fund ceases to be a *prescribed private fund by force of this subsection and is deemed never to have been a *prescribed private fund.16B Subsection 30-315(2) (after table item 88)Insert:88A Prescribed private funds section 30-312 (17) Schedule 5, item 21, page 27 (line 14), after "section", insert ", or under section 30-222 or 30-223,".(18) Schedule 5, item 24, page 28 (line 14), at the end of the definition of prescribed private fund , add "or a fund to which Subdivision 30-FA applies".House of Representatives statement of reasons for disagreement with certain proposed amendments:Senate Amendments 8, 11-13 and 17These amendments propose significant additions to measures contained in the Bill that will provide taxation incentives for personal and corporate philanthropy in Australia. Broadly, the amendments provide that where a property owner covenants a property for conservation purposes and that results in a reduction in the value of the property then any reduction in the value of the property should be treated as a tax deduction. The amendments also extend the ability to deduct amounts over five years to such donations and also where property is donated a capital gains tax exemption should apply.Substantial changes like these need to be considered in depth in the context of their cost as well as their effectiveness. Any decisions need to be taken within the budgetary constraints of government but also with the objective of getting the most effective outcome in terms of conservation.Accordingly, the House of Representatives does not accept these amendments.Senate Amendments 14 and 18The amendments propose changes to the measure that will allow tax deductibility for donations to what will be known as prescribed private funds. Broadly, prescribed private funds will have to operate in the same way as public ancillary funds but will not have to seek and receive funds from the public. The purpose of the amendments is to preclude a fund that provides funds to political parties from being a prescribed private fund.Item 6 of Schedule 5 of the Bill will amend the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 such that a fund can only be a prescribed private fund if it is established solely for the purpose of providing money to a fund or institution that is listed under Subdivision 30-B of that Act. If a fund is established to provide funds to any non-listed institutions it cannot be a prescribed private fund. Political parties are not listed in Subdivision 30. The amendment is unnecessary.Accordingly, the House of Representatives does not accept these amendments.22:01:0011708Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I move:That the committee does not insist on its amendments nos 8, 11 to 14, 17 and 18 to which the House of Representatives has disagreed.These amendments, as those of us who were involved in the debate only yesterday know, propose significant additions to measures contained in the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 8) 1999 that will provide taxation incentives for personal and corporate philanthropy in Australia. Broadly, the amendments provide that, where a property owner covenants a property for conservation purposes and that results in a reduction in the value of the property, then any reduction in the value of the property should be treated as a tax deduction. The amendments also extend the ability to deduct amounts over five years to such donations and also, where property is donated, a capital gains tax exemption should apply. Substantial changes like these need to be considered in-depth in the context of their cost as well as their effectiveness. Any decisions need to be taken within the budgetary constraints of government but also with the objective of getting the most effective outcome in terms of conservation. Accordingly, the government does not accept these amendments.Amendments 14 and 18 propose changes to the measure that will allow tax deductibility for donations that will be known as prescribed private funds. Broadly, prescribed private funds will have to operate in the same way as public ancillary funds but will not have to seek and receive funds from the public. The purpose of the amendments is to preclude a fund that provides funds to political parties from being a prescribed private fund. Item 6 of schedule 5 of the bill will amend the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 such that a fund can only be a prescribed fund if it is established solely for the purpose of providing money to a fund or institution that is listed under subdivision 30B of the act. If a fund is established to provide funds to any non-listed institutions, it cannot be a prescribed private fund. Political parties are not listed in subdivision 30. Therefore, the amendment is unnecessary. Accordingly, the government does not accept these amendments.I made it clear on behalf of the government in our consideration, particularly of amendments Nos 8, 11 to 13 and 17, that the government are serious about developing a policy that will encourage the donation of property for conservation values. We heard the Minister for the Environment and Heritage make that commitment in this place in the last day or so. We believe that such a policy needs to be developed in an integrated fashion. We believe that tax deductibility and tax breaks, tax advantages, for that activity is a sensible path to take but that it needs to be considered in a broad and detailed context, with the benefit of good quality research into the options, the pros and cons, and the costs and benefits.I do not think anyone in this place, particularly people like Senator Brown, who has dedicated most of his life to conservation and the environment, would like to see the resources of the Commonwealth not aimed at enhancing conservation outcomes to achieve the very best bang for the buck, to use a colloquialism and a cliche. The government are determined to do that. We are not afraid of investing money in the environment. Senator Brown and others may not approve of the way we go about that. He may not enjoy the fact that we had to sell Telstra to invest billions back into the environment. But I am sure that we would all agree around the chamber that investment in the environment should be done on a value basis. If a government were to squander taxpayers' money on environmental investments, it would put that sort of public investment into ill repute and would not encourage the public backing of that sort of investment. So we need to proceed cautiously.I do not mean to delay unnecessarily that sort of decision. We are not talking about that. Senator Hill has made it clear that it is a high priority of his and of the cabinet's to develop an integrated policy package in this regard. I know very well that these measures will be under the close scrutiny of all of us who take seriously environmental benefits, environmental reform and improving Australia's natural heritage in this place. I count myself amongst those. The government will not be accepting these amendments.22:07:0011709Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—It is deeply disappointing that the government has not been able to accept the amendments which would have made this legislation so much better. The amendments that the Democrats and Greens put forward, which were supported by the Labor Party, would have meant that people who, out of the goodness of their heart, donate land—and wildlife—which is of high conservation value to the nation in perpetuity would get the same tax breaks as people who donate cultural items such as paintings. No good reason has been advanced here as to why, if you give a painting to a national collection, you get a better tax break than if you give a living part of Australia's heritage.I note the government says that it is going to do its sums and that there will be a package to cover such things as being able to extend the tax deduction over five years for land donations, the same as with art works, in the coming year. I note also that the same argument applies to the refusal by the government to accept a tax break for those people who put covenants on their land. They may be at a disadvantage because that could, for example, lower the price of land.The government is now on record as having to work hard on those measures and to follow up this bill with substantial improvements. Once again, I say that the aim of this bill—which is to give tax breaks to people who do the right thing by the land and turn it over to be part of the nation's heritage—is laudable. It is high time we caught up on giving people who do the right thing by the environment the breaks, instead of those people who do the wrong thing by the environment. The net sum this year has been a massive injection of funds into the hands of people who pollute, who degrade the environment, who destroy forests and who are doing the wrong thing by the nation's environment—that is, under the same minister who brings this legislation forward. It is disappointing that the government has not been able to accept the improvements on this legislation that the Senate made earlier today.22:09:0011710Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—The Senate should not be surprised that the government has decided not to support the Senate's amendments in relation to a charitable trust like the Greenfields Foundation. The only conclusion that the chamber can come to in this circumstance is that the government intends to use the philanthropy provisions of the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 8) 1999 for the purposes of a political rort with the Greenfields Foundation. You can try to assist a government in a committee stage, as this opposition has in relation to the issue of what—WW4KEMPSenator Kemp—You had better be able to explain it all to these other bodies.5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—What the government has to explain is why, if you do not intend to use these provisions as a mechanism, you have a foundation like the Greenfields Foundation receiving gifts or donations and having them treated as tax deductible if you do not want to use that device. Why do you not agree either to the amendments that the Senate is insisting on or to some of the other alternatives and options which, on behalf of the opposition, I have placed before this chamber? After all, it is quite clear that the Treasurer could simply indicate that, for the purposes of the act, the Greenfields Foundation is not a prescribed fund. The Treasurer can do that now. We would need only an assurance from the Assistant Treasurer that he will do so and there would be no need to progress these amendments. That option was put on the table but rejected by the government.I made some suggestions in relation to the way the government might make the regulations under the Income Tax Assessment Act in relation to prescribed funds. I suggested, for example, that if the Greenfields Foundation were to be a prescribed private fund in the terms of this particular bill, then, if the government was willing to regulate separately for the Greenfields Foundation so that this chamber could disallow that regulation in relation to the Greenfields Foundation, that would be another way forward.RF4COOKSenator Cook—That is reasonable.5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—All the options that I have placed before the Senate are very reasonable.RF4COOKSenator Cook—I think you are being excessively reasonable.5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—I am always excessively reasonable. All these options have been placed before the committee. They were not understood, of course, by Senator Kemp. Try as his advisers might, they did not seem to be able to get him across the detail of what the opposition was proposing.The situation is this. There is no alternative but for the parliament and the Australian people to come to the conclusion that the government intends to use these philanthropy provisions in this bill as a device to accept donations or gifts from either private individuals or corporations and not only to cover up those gifts or donations in failing to disclose them but to allow those gifts and donations to be tax deductible. They should not be tax deductible in that circumstance if you have an operation, a front, like the Greenfields Foundation which masquerades as a charitable trust but in fact is nothing other than a shonky funding arm of the Liberal Party that now has been found by the Australian Electoral Commission to be an associated entity of the Liberal Party under the terms of the Commonwealth Electoral Act.The government want to have these Liberal Party entities able to receive donations that are tax deductible. They want to have a process in place that is nothing other than a transparent rort. As far as the opposition are concerned, and I certainly hope as far as the Senate is concerned, we are not going to accept this. Why won't the government accept these Greenfields amendments if they do not want to use this device in the shonky interests of the Liberal Party? Why won't they accept one of the proposals that have been placed before this committee by the opposition? You have to ask yourself that question, Madam Chairman. The reason is that the Liberal Party have absolutely every intention of using this shonky deal, this rort, to receive donations, to allow those donations to be tax deductible and to have the Greenfields Foundation—which is a self-declared charitable trust—be able to use this device. I do not think the Senate should cop it. I do not think the Australian people should cop it, and I will tell you what: the opposition will never cop it.22:17:0011711Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—The government have requested the Senate to reconsider basically two blocks of amendments, one of which contains the amendment that relates to, in broad terms, the Greenfields Foundation and related matters and tax deductibility for donations to such foundations. The other is the Democrat amendments which broaden tax deductibility for people donating land or putting conservation covenants over their land. These are both important issues, and I will speak to both of them as briefly as I can while still giving them sufficient substance to explain our position on them. I am sure the opposition think they are important issues, although they spoke only about the Greenfields amendment and did not actually express any commitment to the environment as part of their comments on the amendments before us. But I am sure that is implicit in everything they believe in, and I hope their concern for improving our taxation treatment and providing incentives for people who want to improve land conservation is as strong as their concern as to whether or not the Liberals might be getting some extra donations through a dubious source. On behalf of the Democrats, I will speak particularly to the amendments related to conservation measures. I acknowledge Senator Campbell's and Senator Hill's comments about what the government are considering doing next year in relation to developing a comprehensive package of measures to provide improved taxation incentives for environmentally responsible behaviour or other activities that would lead to improved environmental protection. We would not want to give the impression that we do not believe they are genuine in relation to that, and we appreciate the commitments they have given on the record.In his comments on the motion he put forward, Senator Campbell said that issues such as these need good quality research and that we need to put them forward as part of an integrated policy package. I am quite pleased that the government like the idea of developing an integrated and broader policy package to bring forward more measures to provide taxation incentives for people to protect the environment. Nonetheless, the amendment put forward by the Democrats previously and accepted by the Senate is a self-contained proposal. It does not affect the operation of the taxation act or put the rest of it out of kilter or anything like that. It is a clearly defined proposal—self-contained and quite workable. No argument has been put forward that it is not workable in a legislative sense so I do not see why such a positive measure should be removed while we wait for the promise of an integrated policy package somewhere down the track. I know that the government have enormous resources, much more than the Democrats have, and could bring a lot of extra assistance to bear in relation to some of the research on this. Nonetheless, I would not want to let the comment pass about the need for good quality research without putting on the record that, given the limited resources that we have—certainly we could do with more resources to assist us in our research—the research that the Democrats receive through our staff and through people who assist us, including people in the environment movement who assist us in researching amendments such as this, is of the highest quality. Given the time of year and the valedictory nature of the speeches already made and those that will come after, it is probably appropriate to put on the record that the research the Democrats receive from our staff and from those in the community more broadly who assist us is of the highest quality. Some good quality research has gone into this amendment. I am sure the parliamentary secretary was not trying to imply that it had not or that shoddy research had led to this amendment, because it was good quality research. It is a good quality amendment that will produce good quality outcomes for the environment.While the offer put forward by Senator Hill is appreciated and, as I say, is recognised as genuine, nonetheless, the Democrats believe that the amendment we have put forward and which has been agreed to by the Senate is of good quality and will produce clear-cut outcomes. The fact that the government are willing to consider producing even more good quality amendments or proposals of their own is good stuff. But I do not see why we should sacrifice this one in waiting for other proposals to be put forward. So the Democrats at this stage are keen to insist on the amendment that we put forward and that was agreed to by the Senate in relation to environmental measures, particularly improving the taxation incentives for land conservation.The government's reasons for not supporting the amendment include such things as its cost as well as its effectiveness. There is no doubt that this will be effective. If the government can come forward with other proposals that are even more effective, then we will be at the front of the queue supporting them. In the context of the costs, work has been done that gives some indication of the costs. As with any of these measures, it is hard to give a precise cost because it is hard to know what take-up there is. As I said in my contribution when this bill came up the first time, people may think any forgone revenue—it may be $2 million as CSIRO suggests, or maybe it is $4 million—due to a measure such as this is worth while because it is such a good measure; they may even be prepared to forgo greater revenue.In a sense I hope there will be a larger forgone revenue in the short term because that would mean a greater saving for the taxpayer in the long term in terms of having to repair environmental damage. In a sense the cost, while important, is a misnomer because whatever cost there is to forgone revenue now would be repaid many times over. Indeed, the greater the forgone cost, the greater the benefit in the long term. Nonetheless, if the chamber chooses to insist on this amendment, the government would have plenty of time to provide costings and extra assessment of this measure. We would be happy as a party to look at that when they bring those extra resources they have to bear on this issue and this measure.There has been no suggestion put forward from any side in relation to this proposal that it is not workable or that it will not produce a positive conservation outcome or indeed that it will even produce a negative financial outcome. I do not think it is something worth backing away from at this stage. I hope the chamber agrees with that.The bill as a whole does contain some other positive measures, including environmental measures. I acknowledge those and congratulate the government on them. I find it difficult to understand why the government would be willing to sacrifice proceeding with all those positive measures simply because of this small measure, but that is a decision for them to make and justify.The Democrats also considered seriously the Greenfields amendment, and it is appropriate for us to address it in our comments. As I indicated previously when this amendment was moved by the opposition, the Democrats support for it is in no way meant to suggest that we believe it is the government's intent to try to use this bill to assist in the generation of slush funds or the provision of extra incentives for people to donate to front organisations that may then fund the Liberal Party. I am not particularly interested in allocating intent to the government about that. Nonetheless, it is best for public confidence in the political system. The government would be insane to ever try to prescribe the Greenfields Foundation as a prescribed private fund, but any other fund could be set up in the future that may be there to assist any political party—except the Democrats, of course, who do not get into that sort of thing. The broader principle at stake is one that is worth taking seriously, from a policy point of view as well as from the point of view of public perception.The government have given a reasonable explanation of their rationale for not accepting this amendment, which ends with the statement that the amendment is unnecessary from their point of view. It may be unnecessary from their point of view, but it does not create a problem and they have not put anything forward to say that this amendment stuffs anything up—it does not ruin the tax act or make it harder to do anything. If it is unnecessary and just makes the tax act a couple of extra paragraphs longer, that is not something that is insurmountable for the government. It may be unnecessary from the government's point of view, but they have not put forward any reasons why it is a problem. Until they do, I see no reason for the Democrats to change their position.Senator Faulkner put forward to Senator Kemp a number of other options to address this. As I said before, I cannot imagine the government would ever want to prescribe the Greenfields Foundation as a prescribed private fund. Ascribing, hypothetically, bad intent to the government just briefly, they might want to set up some other fund to do dubious things, but they would never do it with the Greenfields Foundation. I do not know why the government could not give the commitment to issue a direction in writing, through the Treasurer, as is contained within the bill, that the foundation would not be a prescribed private fund and thus resolve the whole problem. If the amendment is that much of a difficulty then they could go down that path. I realise that, politically, you do not want to give any hint that there is anything dodgy about the Greenfields Foundation—you would not want to give credence to that—but if this amendment is that much of a problem for you, then I suggest you reconsider going down that path. You are never going to do it anyway, so you may as well solve the whole problem and issue the declaration in writing as you are empowered to do under the provisions in the original bill. But that is just a suggestion to the government as a way out of the particular amendment.At the same time, we do still have the other amendments there in relation to improving environmental landcare, and I am sure the opposition are equally committed to those as they are to the issues of the Greenfields Foundation amendment, despite their not commenting on them at this stage. It would address the problem in relation to those particular amendments if you took that path, I would have thought, and you may wish to think about that.Nonetheless, returning to the successful Democrat amendments that are in dispute here, the Democrats believe that at this stage they are definitely worth insisting on. We do not believe they will cost a significant amount. In terms of any cost that is part of the amendments, the benefits and extra assistance in terms of reduced future expenditure will be reaped many times over. We would encourage the government to have an extra think about that in the intervening period when they get to reconsider the legislation, assuming that the Senate agrees to insist on those amendments.22:31:0011713Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—Briefly, the position I find myself in is trading between the Greenfields argument and the argument for the tax deductibility of land donations. I am an environmentalist and I want to see that legislation up. I think the government has missed a great opportunity here and I will do everything I can to assist in stopping the rort that may come out of this glitch in this legislation. I have no doubt that Senator Faulkner and others will be watching it very closely indeed, and the government had better watch out. I do not know what the outcome will be, but I will support this legislation because it is so important to the advancement of land conservation in this country.22:32:0011713Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—Senator Bartlett invited the opposition to make some comments on the other elements of the question before the chair, and I think that was a reasonable thing for him to do. In fact, he invited me to make some comments in relation to those amendments which cover environmental gifts. The amendments extend the government's proposals for increased tax concessions for philanthropy to environmental philanthropy. The amendments propose to create a new kind of philanthropy where land-holders donate land of conservation value to approved environmental bodies, or, if they enter into environmental covenants over land that they continue to own, the land-holders will be able to claim as a tax deduction the economic loss that they incur. This will be a significant incentive for land-holders, many of whom will be farmers, to conserve remnant ecosystems. At the moment these land-holders generally face the economic incentive to clear the land of its natural habitat and put the land into production either from cropping or from grazing.This proposal before us has had the support of the Senate. As I understand, it has the support of the entire environmental movement. It has the support of the CSIRO. Frankly, I think that Senator Hill probably actually supports it as well. Senator Hill came to the Senate to oppose the amendments but did indicate at the time that he agreed with the principles. I think that he probably supports the proposals but has decided on some sort of cynical political trick to try and announce them himself next year and then perhaps claim them as the government's own initiatives. That would be the way we would expect Senator Hill to do business.In relation to the question of environmental gifts, this bill is bringing in a new regime of taxation for philanthropy, and it is for that reason that the opposition takes the view that this bill is the appropriate place for the Senate and the parliament to deal with measures dealing with environmental philanthropy. As I have been invited to do so, let me make it absolutely clear to senators in the chamber that Labor will be opposing the government proposal to not insist on the Senate amendments in this area as well. I hope that I very eloquently dealt with the issue of the Greenfields amendment—8U4LEESSenator Lees—Definitely. You did a great job.5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—Thank you for that most generous comment. As Senator Lees appears very clear—I was invited to do so, as you know, by the Australian Democrats—I will not say any more about this shonky and shadowy area of Liberal Party fundraising.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—Order! The question is that the motion moved by Senator Campbell that the Senate not insist upon its amendments be agreed to.A division having been called and the bells having been rung—6H4HARRADINESenator Harradine—Madam Chair, I rise to seek leave just to ask a question of you.Leave granted.6H4HARRADINESenator Harradine—Madam Chair, I felt that the motion of the government should separate Senate amendments No. 8, Nos 11 to 13 and No. 17 from the remainder. I thought that might have been a way of going about things because the motion that is currently being put is combining two very separate matters.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—Senator Harradine, I am not in a position to be able to divide it now. Nobody requested it to be divided beforehand. It could only be divided now by leave. Are you wishing to seek leave to do so?6H4HARRADINESenator Harradine—I would like to seek leave to do so, Madam Chair.Leave granted.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—So, Senator Harradine, you would like to divide it so that we are voting on No. 8, Nos 11 to 13 and No. 17. That leaves Nos 14 and 18 together. I will now put the question again. The question is that amendments No. 8, Nos 11 to 13 and No. 17 not be insisted upon.22:44:00The committee divided. (The Chairman—Senator S. M. West)30Abetz, E. Alston, R. K. R.Boswell, R. L. D. Brown, B.Brownhill, D. G. C. Calvert, P. H. *Campbell, I. G. Chapman, H. G. P.Coonan, H. Crane, W.Eggleston, A. Ferguson, A. B.Ferris, J. Gibson, B. F.Herron, J. Hill, R. M.Kemp, R. Knowles, S. C.Lightfoot, P. R. Macdonald, I.Mason, B. J. McGauran, J. J. J.Newman, J. M. Parer, W. R.Patterson, K. C. L. Payne, M. A.Tchen, T. Troeth, J.Vanstone, A. E. Watson, J. O. W.33Allison, L. Bartlett, A. J. J.Bishop, T. M. Bourne, V.Carr, K. Collins, J. M. A.Conroy, S. Cook, P. F. S.Cooney, B. Crossin, P. M.Crowley, R. A. Evans, C. V.Faulkner, J. P. Forshaw, M. G.Gibbs, B. Greig, B. A.Harradine, B. Hogg, J.Hutchins, S. P. Lees, M. H.Ludwig, J. W. Mackay, S.McKiernan, J. P. McLucas, J. E.Murphy, S. M. Murray, A.O'Brien, K. W. K. *Quirke, J. A.Ridgeway, A. D. Schacht, C. C.Sherry, N. West, S. M.Woodley, J.Ellison, C. Denman, K. J.Heffernan, W. Ray, R. F.Minchin, N. H. Lundy, K.Reid, M. E. Bolkus, N.Tambling, G. E. J. Campbell, G.Tierney, J. Stott Despoja, N.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the negative.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—The question now is that the Committee does not insist on its amendments Nos 14 and 18.22:48:00The committee divided. (The Chairman—Senator S. M. West)30Abetz, E. Alston, R. K. R.Boswell, R. L. D. Brown, B.Brownhill, D. G. C. Calvert, P. H. *Campbell, I. G. Chapman, H. G. P.Coonan, H. Crane, W.Eggleston, A. Ferguson, A. B.Ferris, J. Gibson, B. F.Herron, J. Hill, R. M.Kemp, R. Knowles, S. C.Lightfoot, P. R. Macdonald, I.Mason, B. J. McGauran, J. J. J.Newman, J. M. Parer, W. R.Patterson, K. C. L. Payne, M. A.Tchen, T. Troeth, J.Vanstone, A. E. Watson, J. O. W.33Allison, L. Bartlett, A. J. J.Bishop, T. M. Bourne, V.Carr, K. Collins, J. M. A.Conroy, S. Cook, P. F. S.Cooney, B. Crossin, P. M.Crowley, R. A. Evans, C. V.Faulkner, J. P. Forshaw, M. G.Gibbs, B. Greig, B. A.Harradine, B. Hogg, J.Hutchins, S. P. Lees, M. H.Ludwig, J. W. Mackay, S.McKiernan, J. P. McLucas, J. E.Murphy, S. M. Murray, A.O'Brien, K. W. K. *Quirke, J. A.Ridgeway, A. D. Schacht, C. C.Sherry, N. West, S. M.Woodley, J.Ellison, C. Denman, K. J.Heffernan, W. Ray, R. F.Minchin, N. H. Lundy, K.Reid, M. E. Bolkus, N.Tambling, G. E. J. Campbell, G.Tierney, J. Stott Despoja, N.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the negative.Resolution reported; report adopted.Bills11715Messages received from the House of Representatives returning the following bills without amendment: Migration Legislation Amendment (Migration Agents) Bill 1999 War Crimes Amendment Bill 1999 Valedictory1171522:52:0011715Lees, Sen MegSenator LEES8U4SAAD00—I would like to take this opportunity to thank the entire Democrat team for the tremendous effort that they have made in what has been a very busy year. All members of the team—all senators, all their staff, all the pooled staff who are known as leader staff—have met a huge workload very successfully with a great deal of determination, and I believe they have really made a positive difference.It is very risky to start singling out any particular individuals—you always miss someone. I know that all my colleagues have rushed between committee hearings, have kept up with correspondence, have met yet another lobby group. This year, after all, has been dominated by tax, tax and more tax. Hardly a week or a question time has gone by without us having to deal, in one form or another, with tax—initially with the ANTS package and, in the latter part of the year, with the business tax package. I will not say anything much about my two new colleagues, who have hit the ground running and are doing such an excellent job, or my deputy, who has managed to get across all her portfolios with a tremendous amount of success.I must mention tonight, with a great deal of thanks, Senator Murray, who has got the tax debate together for us with a tremendous amount of determination and skill. He has attended numerous committee meetings. I think he has had more meetings with lobby groups and with those putting various points of view on tax than could reasonably be expected of anyone. In mentioning Senator Murray and giving him that special thanks, I also have to include John Cherry, our economics researcher, who has also done a job beyond the realms of possibility but nevertheless has survived through to this, the last day of sitting this century.I also want to thank all of the people who are involved in the running of this place. Senator Reid and Senator Faulkner went through a long list of people. I will mention but a few of the 3½ thousand people who work in this building while we are here and those who are here when we are not here keeping it running—everyone from the Comcar drivers to the grounds people to those who work in the canteens. To all those committee staff who do not just work here but are on the road for a good part of the year, we also wish them all the very best for the Christmas season, and a relaxing and restful Christmas. I want to specially mention here that our thoughts are with Senator Boswell, in what will be for him and his family a very difficult Christmas. For the Democrats, it has been a very successful year and we are looking forward to a break over the Christmas period. We will see you back here next century.22:56:0011716Boswell, Sen RonaldSenator BOSWELLYE4QLDNP10—Of course, this is the speech that we all look forward to every year—the last speech before we go our various ways to enjoy Christmas with our families and our friends. It has been a big year for the coalition. It has been a big year for the National Party, in which we have changed leaders and lost a couple of our colleagues in our fight with One Nation. So it has been an awkward year, yet a good year, for the National Party as we go into the year 2000.On a personal note, I would like to say thank you to everyone—and I include everyone in the Senate, from all sides—for their expressions of sympathy following the tragedy that has befallen my family. I sincerely thank people for coming up and putting their hand on my shoulder and wishing me all the best. I thank everyone who has sent letters and expressed their condolences to me and my wife. It has been of great help. Can I also thank my colleagues Senator Julian McGauran, Senator David Brownhill and Senator Grant Tambling. We have been reduced in numbers but I do not know that we have been reduced in effectiveness. I am glad we are playing a very important role in the coalition as we move forward in so many big issues—the GST, the tax review. We are there, and we are kicking a few goals to get the unemployment rate down to 6.7 per cent. It seems we are going quite well.To my colleagues in the Liberal Party, I wish them all the best and I thank them for their esprit de corps and their comradeship. My colleague Senator Harradine, who has been sitting on my right for a number of years, has been a great mate, and I thank him and all my friends in the Democrats and the Labor Party and the Independents. I also would like to take this opportunity to wish you a very happy Christmas. Take a great break, get together with your families and enjoy the Christmas holidays.22:59:0011716Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TASIND00—Senator Boswell is always a hard act to follow. He is a person who is highly respected around this place and right throughout Australia. I often hear people talk of Senator Boswell. He seems to be able to get his message across to people in various nooks and crannies—even to those in the far-flung areas of Tasmania.Just listening to his speech, I thought how much of a family we are in this Senate. We have our bickerings across the chamber, but I think we are really a family. We feel for other honourable senators when tragedy strikes, which it has for three of our colleagues this year. I believe it is important to recognise that particular fact. So many people outside this parliament consider that we get in here and take sides, and it is true to a certain extent, but I would like to see this chamber continue to act as a house of review and for its committees to continue to act in the bipartisan manner that they have, although I do feel that there is creeping into some of the committees an attitude that the party line must be held irrespective of the arguments and submissions that are received by the committees. I might be naive, but I do not believe Senator Faulkner quite meant what I took him to say. He indicated that we in this chamber are supporting acts for our colleagues in the House of Representatives.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—I was congratulating Kim Beazley. I thought you might join me in that.6H4Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE—I do. I wish him and all of his colleagues and members of the House of Representatives, if they are listening, a happy Christmas and all the best for the new year.I will now express thanks and appreciation to a number of people. First of all, things have not been very easy from my side and in my office, particularly in the first half of this year and also last year, but we are now dealing with this year. I express my great appreciation for the support given to me by my family. I also express gratitude for the support that has been given by the officers of the Senate, the Clerks, the corporate management and the Black Rod.There were times when I had to have advisers who were skilled and expert in various fields of activity. I suppose if you have been here for 24 years and you do not know where to get some good advice, whose advice to take and whose not to, you might as well give the game away. I can remember on one occasion we needed another computer urgently. I must say that the services of the Senate were there, and I do appreciate the support that the Senate's officers have given us.I have been a bit lenient on the PLO since 1 July, but it is obvious that the Democrats and of course the opposition and others have kept the PLO busy. I think Senator Faulkner made specific mention of the PLO. I have given her a bit of a rest, but I do appreciate the work done by her and her office. I cannot speak highly enough of the procedures office, the committees and the library.I thank the reporting staff. I have taken the view that it is not much use spruiking in this place unless there is some outcome. I appreciate the work of the reporting staff and the Joint House. To all of the people who make this place run, may I thank you personally. Please take this as a personal thankyou. I wish you, honourable senators, colleagues and all who have assisted over the past year a very happy Christmas and all the blessings for a great year 2000.Leave of Absence11717Motion (by Senator Hill) agreed to:That leave of absence be granted to every member of the Senate from the termination of the sitting this day to the day on which the Senate next meets.Adjournment11717Motion (by Senator Hill) proposed:That the Senate do now adjourn.1171723:06:0011717Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT5F4TASLP10—I will take only a couple of minutes. As the whip, I want to acknowledge that Senator Alston turned up for our last division! As Government Whip in the Senate, I want to thank my opposite whips in all the parties for the cooperation I have had, and in particular Kerry O'Brien. I believe that during the year we have built up a very good relationship, and I hope it continues next year. The place does not work without trust and cooperation between the two whips, and Kerry has been a very trustworthy and a very good Opposition Whip.I would like to thank my deputy whip, Helen Coonan, the Clerks, our PLO, Gail, and John, Bev and Angie in the subprogramming office, who all work so hard. In particular, the reason I am on my feet tonight is that, during the year, as you all may know—and I know Llewellyn in your office, Kerry, is aware—Clare left on 12 months unpaid leave and Suzanne Ferguson took over as a stand-in. In actual fact, Suzanne has been an absolute charmer.2M6COONANSenator Coonan—She has been a standout.5F4Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT—Yes, thanks, Helen. She has been a stand out whips clerk in our office. Not only has she had to cope with Brian Harradine and Len Harris and everybody else but has also managed to fit in a few other activities. Throughout all that she has kept a good sense of humour, and it has been a pleasure to work in the office this year—even under pressure. Suzanne is going to the Prime Minister's Office. I wish her all the very best, because I think she deserves that. She will certainly enhance that office, and we are looking forward to Clare coming back next year. On behalf of all government senators, and I guess most of you have had to work with her, I wish her all the best for her future. She is a lovely person. She has performed a wonderful job for me, and I am going to miss her.1171823:08:0011718Harris, Sen LenSenator HARRIS8HCQldIND00—Madam Deputy President, I rise this evening on behalf of Pauline Hanson's One Nation in the closing hours of this sitting to congratulate and thank the President of this chamber, you and the Acting Deputy Presidents who have presided over this chamber in a polite and efficient manner. Madam Deputy President, I would also like to congratulate you as the Chair of Committees and also congratulate all of the deputy chairs who have worked so diligently in the chamber. It would be remiss of me not to also express my gratitude to the Clerk of the Senate and his deputy—which I can personally do as they are in the chamber with us—and all of the support staff who back them up.As one of the new senators—one of the class of 99—I have appreciated the cordial manner in which we have been received into this chamber. I, on behalf of Senator Ridgeway and on behalf of new senators who are not in the chamber at the moment, thank all of our fellow senators for the cordial manner in which they have accepted us. As well, I express my gratitude to the Black Rod, the chamber staff and all of those others who back up this chamber for all of their help. I thank my staff and my family, without whom I could not represent the people of Queensland with the diligence and the effort that I do.In closing, I would like to wish each and every one of my fellow senators a Christ filled and blessed festive season to celebrate the birth of Our Lord. Irrespective of whether you believe that we are entering into the new millennium next year or the year after, I wish you God's safe speed and travel and look forward to meeting again with you next year.1171823:11:0011718Ridgeway, Sen AdenSenator RIDGEWAY8G6NSWAD00—I do not want to take much of the time of the chamber nor to diminish from the words of high spirits, but I do want to take the opportunity to remind the Senate of one of the ongoing tragedies that continues in Australia despite a royal commission of inquiry and the expenditure of nearly half a billion dollars and the deaths of some 250 Australians. As we move towards the end of this century, I think that these are things that ought to be remembered and perhaps become fresh in our minds for the 21st century. I am of course referring to Aboriginal deaths in custody.I feel compelled to speak about them because of events over the past 10 years. This matter has been the topic of recent articles in the national media, particularly over the last few days. My heart goes out to the Murray family, whom I know personally, from the north-west of New South Wales—my home state. Senators may recall a young man by the name of Eddie Murray. He was only 21 years old when he hanged himself in a police cell in Wee Waa 18 years ago. The lawyer from the Aboriginal Legal Service who had represented Mr Murray around that time described him as a vibrant young man, full of life, defiant and purposeful and someone who was not suicidal or defeated by life itself. Only a few days ago another branch of the Murray family, this time from Walgett, lost their son who, coincidentally, was also called Eddie—Eddie Russell. He was 25 and found in a cell in Long Bay Gaol in Sydney with a television cord around his neck.Both of these deaths should never have occurred, but they are just two stories behind the statistics. They are two families whose lives have been devastated by the sorrow and the sheer waste of Aboriginal deaths in custody. The recent case of Eddie Russell breached what I regard as a phenomenal number of the recommendations of the royal commission. As we go into the celebration of the season, I think we should also remember those who have lost people, particularly those in recent times.Eddie Russell's death sums up the pitiful state of affairs of Aboriginal incarceration in Australia, and it shows that, after so much money having been spent and so much energy being expended in conducting a thorough, unprecedented national inquiry, we really have not progressed much at all. The fact that Eddie Russell was in that cell is an indictment itself.We have had a royal commission which produced 300-odd recommendations and the core theme of that was about keeping Aboriginal people out of custody. Despite the money that was spent, a recent report from the Australian Institute of Criminology found that since 1989 when the royal commission started there had been 99 Aboriginal deaths in custody. Since that time there have been another 147 Aboriginal deaths in custody. The alarming thing about that figure is that indigenous people might represent only two per cent of the Australian population but they constitute more than 15 per cent of all of those who have died in custody. Something must be wrong, when we look at those statistics. If death does not discriminate, then our justice system must.I think it is appropriate on this occasion, without dampening the high spirits, to remind the Senate that Aboriginal people across Australia were greatly heartened by the fact that the federal government of the day did call a royal commission in 1987. We all thought that finally there would be answers, finally there would be solutions and strategies put in place that would stop Aboriginal people from dying in custody in such extraordinary numbers. Finally, we thought, there would be some accountability. But time has shown that our expectations were perhaps too high. Aboriginal deaths in custody have in fact escalated, reaching a peak in 1995 of an additional 17. It is not surprising that in recent years the number of indigenous youth incarcerated has increased by some 55 per cent. These increases in indigenous adult and juvenile justice imprisonment have outstripped any increase amongst non-indigenous people.It is fair to ask on this occasion the questions that Aboriginal people are now asking about why and why and why. Where has all the money gone, what has it achieved, and why are people still dying in custody? Government words have not translated into actions. It is hardly surprising, though, when you consider that there is no longer any requirement by the Commonwealth government for state and territory governments to report on what steps they have taken to implement the recommendations of the royal commission. It is now simply at the discretion of state and territory governments to choose whether or not they report on the steps they have taken to implement those recommendations, and many choose not to. The only organisations monitoring are those like the Australian Institute of Criminology and the various community based organisations and support networks that are there for the families in their hour of need.My plea to the chamber is best summed up in the words of Ray Jackson, of one of these groups in Sydney. Mr Ray Jackson said, of the royal commission's final report, that this is a living, breathing report and it cannot be allowed to die. We as senators of the Australian parliament have a responsibility to all Australians, Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal, to truly give effect to all of the recommendations of the royal commission. It perhaps is too late to save the life of Eddie Russell, but it is not too late for real outcomes to be delivered to Aboriginal people and outcomes that will deliver living people to their families. If we as senators are to fulfil our responsibilities to indigenous Australians, then we have to grapple with all of the factors that have contributed to these groups being in this position.I remind the Senate of one of the recommendations of the commission. I think it is particularly relevant and could become a means of reviving cross-party support for the implementation of the more than 300 recommendations. That recommendation relates to the objective of reconciliation. In the overview, Commissioner Johnston, back in 1991, spoke about reconciliation. He said that the process of reconciliation demands a very strong commitment to the elimination of Aboriginal social, economic and cultural disadvantage, which is the basic reason for the disproportionate number of Aboriginal men and women in custody.There needs to be an effective response to the ongoing and growing numbers of Aboriginal deaths in custody. I would say to senators that there is a new need to commit to the following. There needs to be a return to the full cross-party support for the implementation of the recommendations. We need to renew our commitment to report annually on what steps are being taken by the Commonwealth, state and territory governments. Federal, state and territory governments need to honour their commitment that was made during the 1997 Ministerial Summit on Aboriginal Deaths in Custody, and we as senators need to reaffirm our commitment to eliminating indigenous disadvantage with the recognition that this will only be achieved through empowerment, self-determination and reconciliation.In closing, I think it is apt to remember the people who tonight and over the Christmas period will be locked away in jails. To them and to everyone here I want to send my wishes and respect and we wish them a merry Christmas as well. I wish that to everyone here on this occasion.1172023:21:0011720Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TASIND00—I have been here for 24 years or so. We have just heard one of the most telling speeches on one of the most serious and urgent problems confronting Australia, confronting the leadership of Australia and the leadership in each of the various states. I hope that this speech that we have heard from Senator Aden Ridgeway gets widespread attention. I certainly was honoured to be here tonight to listen to his speech on that serious matter.1172011720The DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT10000PON/A10—Thank you, senators. In joining you, Senator Harradine, may I also recognise the severity and the importance of the issue that Senator Ridgeway raised and also remember the children of those who are incarcerated in prisons in this festive season. To those of you who have the opportunity, as I certainly have, to participate in the Angel Tree, which is a project that enables people to provide gifts for the children of prisoners, I would thoroughly recommend your participation in an anonymous way in that very able way of giving. I say Merry Christmas to everybody, a happy new year, thanks to everybody that works here, including the two clerks and my colleagues on both sides and in the middle.Senate adjourned at 11.23 p.m., until Tuesday, 15 February 2000, at 2 p.m.Documents1172011720The following documents were tabled by the Clerk:Defence Act—Determinations under section 58B—Defence Determinations 1999/54 and 1999/55.Answers to Questions on Notice11721The following answers to questions were circulated:11721(Question No. 1230)123011721O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 5 August 1999:With reference to the answer (reference CASA07) to a question placed on notice at the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee estimates hearings on 3 June 1999, which stated that the proposed new structure of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) aviation safety compliance division is a product of, `(i) a review of the Aviation Safety Surveillance Program; (ii) [the] move to a system-based auditing regimen; (iii) a general reassessment of surveillance priorities':(1) (a) When did the review of the aviation surveillance system commence;(b) when was the review completed; (c) who undertook the review; (d) what was or were the qualifications of the reviewer or reviewers; and(e)what was the cost of the review.(2) Were all the recommendations from the above review considered and endorsed by the CASA Board Safety Committee; if so, when were the review findings considered.(3) If some of the review recommendations were not endorsed:(a) which recommendations were rejected; and(b) what was the basis for their rejection.(4) Were the decisions taken in respect of the above review endorsed by the board; if so, when did the board endorse the Safety Committee decisions.(5) If the board did not fully endorse the Safety Committee decision in relation to the above review how, and on what basis, was the board decision to vary the Committee's recommendation made.(6) (a) When did the general assessment of surveillance priorities commence; (b)when was the assessment completed; (c)who undertook the assessment; (d) what was, or were, the qualifications of the assessor or assessors; and(e) what was the cost of the assessment. (7) Were all the recommendations from the above assessment considered and endorsed by the CASA Board Safety Committee; if so, when were the assessment findings considered.(8) If some of the assessment recommendations were not endorsed (a)which recommendations were rejected; and (b)what was the basis for their rejection.(9) Were the decisions taken in respect of the above assessment endorsed by the CASA Board; if so, when did the Board endorse the Safety Committee decisions.(10) If the Board did not fully endorse the Safety Committee's decisions in relation to the above assessment: (a) where did the Board vary the recommendation; and (b) what was the basis for that variation.11721Macdonald, Sen IanSenator Ian MacdonaldYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—The Minister for Transport and Regional Services has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:The Civil Aviation Safety Authority has provided the following information:(1) (a) The review of the aviation surveillance system for medium and high capacity operations commenced on 16 October 1997.(b) The review of the aviation surveillance system for medium and high capacity operations was completed on 31 July 1999.(c) The General Manager, Airline Operations Branch, assisted by staff of the branch.(d) The review was managed by the General Manager and conducted by senior staff of the branch (District Flight Operations Managers, District Airworthiness Managers) as part of their duties. These officers possessed high level expertise in CASA's regulatory operations and particularly its surveillance needs.(e) No record was kept of the cost of the review.(2) No. The Board Safety Committee did not exist when the review was completed.(3) Not applicable.(4) No.(5) Not applicable.(6) (a) May 1999.(b) Mid-June 1999. (c) The General Manager, General Aviation; Operations; the General Manager, Airline Operations; the seven CASA Area Managers and the three CASA Airline Office Managers.(d) All the assessors were senior managers within CASA's Aviation Safety Compliance Division.These officers possess high level expertise in CASA's regulatory operations and particularly its surveillance needs.(e) No record was kept of the cost of the assessment.(7) Not applicable. Refer to CASA's answer to Question 2.(8) Not applicable.(9) No.(10) Not applicable.11722(Question No. 1290)129011722Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 23 August 1999: (1) What is the annual cost to the department of news clippings purchased or produced by the department.(2) (a) Are the clippings provided regularly to the appropriate shadow ministers; and (b) in each instance, which shadow ministers receive a copy of the department's news clippings.(3) (a) Are they provided to the appropriate Australian Democrats spokespersons; and (b) in each instance, which spokespersons receive a copy of the department's news clippings.(4) Are the department's clippings routinely provided to other members of Parliament; if so, which members and/or senators and in what capacity are they provided with a copy of the department's clippings.11722Ellison, 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) $204,000.(2) (a) Yes.(b) The Shadow Minister for Employment, Training and Population (Mr Martin Ferguson AM MP), the Shadow Minister for Education (Hon. Michael Lee MP) and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Shadow Minister for Education (Senator Kim Carr). (3) (a) No(b) Not applicable.(4) There are no other copies routinely provided to other Members of Parliament. A copy is routinely provided to the Senate Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training.11722(Question No. 1317)131711722Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Arts and the Centenary of Federation, upon notice, on 23 August 1999:(1) How many departmental liaison officers are employed in, or were seconded to the Minister's Office as at 23 August 1999.(2) (a) What are the names of the officers; (b) what are their employment classifications; and (c) what duties are they assigned, that is, to which policy areas or agencies are they allocated responsibility.(3) What was the total cost to the department of these officers.11722Alston, Sen RichardSenator AlstonLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—The Minister for Arts and the Centenary of Federation has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) As at 23 August 1999, one departmental liaison officer (DLO) was employed in my office.(2) (a) Peter Rush (b) Executive Level 1 (c) Allocated all policy areas within my responsibilities.(3) The staff costs to the department for the period 21 October 1998 (being the date on which the second Howard Ministry was sworn in) to 23 August 1999 are estimated to have been $65,000. The Department's accounting records do not separate administration costs incurred by the DLO, as distinct from those incurred by my office. Consequently, it is not possible to advise the amount of non-salary costs incurred by the DLO.11722(Question No. 1446)144611722Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator Faulkner5K4NSWALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care, upon notice, on 20 September 1999:(1) Since 3 March 1996, how many decisions of the department and all portfolio agencies have been the subject of applications for review under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977.(2) Of these applications, how many related to: (a) agency staffing matters; (b) agency client matters; or (c) other (please specify general area).(3) How many applications: (a) have been: (i) finalised, and (ii) withdrawn by the applicant; and (b) remain unfinalised.(4) (a) What was the cost to the department or agency of defending each of these actions; and (b) what was the quantum of costs where they were awarded against the Commonwealth where appropriate.11723Herron, Sen JohnSenator HerronVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—The Minister for Health and Aged Care has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:DEPARTMENT(1) 29(2) (a) 0; (b) 29; (c) 0.(3) (a) (i) 10; (ii) 13; (b) 6.(4) (a) $265,188; (b) $50,010.PORTFOLIO AGENCIESThe following agencies reported decisions which were subject to review under Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977:Health Insurance Commission(1) 7(2) (a) 3; (b) 4; (c) 0.(3) (a) (i) 3; (ii) 2.(b) 2.(4) (a) $290,469; (b) $57,000.Professional Services Review(1) 4(2) (a) 0; (b) 4; (c) 0.(3) (a) (i) 3; (ii) 0.(b) 1.(4) (a) $47,737; (b) 0.PHIAC(1) 1(2) (a) 0; (b) 1; (c) 0.(3) (a) (i) 0; (ii) 0.(b) 1.(4) Not knownPrivate Health Insurance Ombudsman(1) 2.(2) (a) 0; (b) 2; (c) 0.(3) (a) (i) 2; (ii) 0.(b) 0.(4) N/A (Applicants payed respondents costs. Therapeutic Goods Association(1) 1(2) (a) 0; (b) 1; (c) 0.(3) (a) (i) 0; (ii) 1.(b) 0.(4) (a) $38,980; (b) Nil.11723(Question No. 1464)146411723Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator Faulkner5K4NSWALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care, upon notice, on 20 September 1999:(1) Since 3 March 1996, how many decisions of the department and all portfolio agencies have been the subject of applications for review under the common law, including prerogative writs.(2) Of these applications, how many related to: (a) agency staffing matters; (b) agency client matters; or (c) other (please specify general area).(3) How many applications: (a) have been: (i) finalised, and (ii) withdrawn by the applicant; and (b) remain unfinalised.(4) What was the cost to the department or agency of defending each of these actions; and (b) what was the quantum of costs where they were awarded against the Commonwealth, where appropriate.11723Herron, Sen JohnSenator HerronVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—The Minister for Health and Aged Care has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) Since 3 March 1996, no decision of the Department or any Portfolio Agencies have been the subject for review under the common law, including prerogative writs.(2) Not applicable.(3) Not applicable.(4) Not applicable.11723(Question No. 1482)148211723Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator Faulkner5K4NSWALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care, upon notice, on 20 September 1999:(1) What are the: (a) formal qualifications; (b) relevant experience; and (c) employment classification/grade, of each departmental officer who has made initial stage decisions regarding requests under the Freedom of Information Act, since 3 March 1996. (2) What are the: (a) formal qualifications; (b) relevant experience; and (c) employment classification/grade of each departmental officer who has made internal review decisions regarding requests under the Freedom of Information Act since, 3 March 1996.11724Herron, Sen JohnSenator HerronVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—The Minister for Health and Aged Care has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:The data required to answer this question is not readily available. To provide a complete answer an extensive manual search and consultation would need to be undertaken which would require considerable time and diversion of resources.Generally, however, no officer below Executive Level 1 is authorised by the Secretary to make an initial stage decision and no officer below Senior Executive Service Level 2 is authorised by the Secretary to make internal review decisions.11724(Question No. 1530)153011724Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator Faulkner5K4NSWALP00 asked the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, upon notice, on 21 September 1999:(1) Of the requests for disclosure of information under the Freedom of Information Act dealt with by the department, or any agency in the portfolio, since 3 March 1996, how many requests have been made by:(a) a member of the House of Representatives; or(b) a member of the Senate.(2) Of the cases relevant to (a) and (b) in (1), how many requests regarding access were:(a) partially successful; or(b) refused.(3) Of the cases relevant to (a) and (b) in (1), how many requests regarding charges were:(a) partially successful; or(b) refused.(4) Of the cases relevant to (2) and (3), how many of the department's or agency's written reasons for decision used, as grounds for refusal under the Act, a reference to members of Parliament having access to parliamentary processes to seek information from departments.(5) Is the department, or any agency in the portfolio, aware of any provision contained in legislation, or departmental guidelines, or practice where the applicant's employment provision can be, or has been, used as grounds for refusing access to documents and/or refusing to waive charges, other than that set out in (4).11724Hill, Sen RobertSenator HillBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:(1)(a)Department 1GBRMPA nilAHC 1DNPW nilAGO nil(b)Department 7GBRMPA nilAHC 1DNPW nilAGO nil(2)(a)Department 2GBRMPA not applicableAHC 2DNPW not applicableAGO not applicable(b)Department nilGBRMPA not applicableAHC nilDNPW not applicableAGO not applicable(3)(a)Department 1GBRMPA not applicableAHC not applicableDNPW not applicableAGO not applicable(b)Department 2GBRMPA not applicableAHC not applicableDNPW not applicableAGO not applicable(4)Department nilGBRMPA not applicable AHC not applicableDNPW not applicableAGO not applicable(5)Department noGBRMPA noAHC noDNPW noAGO noThe information provided above relates to the:Department- Department of the Environment and Heritage. AGO- Australian Greenhouse Office. AHC- Australian Heritage Commission. DNPW- Director of National Parks and Wildlife. GBRMPA- Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority11725(Question No. 1541)154111725Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator Faulkner5K4NSWALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, upon notice, on 20 September 1999:(1) Of the requests for disclosure of information under the Freedom of Information Act dealt with by the department, or any agency in the portfolio, since 3 March 1996, how many requests have been made by: (a) a member of the House of Representatives; or(b) a member of the Senate.(2) Of the cases relevant to (a) and (b) in (1), how many requests regarding access were: (a) partially successful; or (b) refused.(3) Of the cases relevant to (a) and (b) in (1), how many requests regarding charges were: (a) partially successful; or (b) refused.(4) Of the cases relevant to (2) and (3), how many of the department's or agency's written reasons for decision used, as grounds for refusal under the Act, a reference to members of Parliament having access to parliamentary processes to seek information from departments.(5) Is the department, or any agency in the portfolio, aware of any provision contained in legislation, or departmental guidelines, or practice where the applicants employment provision can be, or has been, used as grounds for refusing access to documents and/or refusing to waive charges, other than that set out in (4). 11725Alston, Sen RichardSenator AlstonLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) (a) 2; (b) 1.(2) (a) and (b) Nil—requests withdrawn.(3) Nil—requests withdrawn.(4) Not applicable.(5) No—the department deals with requests for access to documents and waiver of charges made under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act 1982.11725(Question No. 1635)163511725Brown, Sen BobSenator BrownQD4TASAG00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care, upon notice, on 29 September 1999:With reference to the claims made by the Minister (House of Representatives Hansard, 8 February 1999, p.2061) concerning health rebates and `Dr 747':(1) (a) In what State did Dr 747 practise; and (b) was Dr 747 at the time a member of the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists (RANZCP).(2) (a) Over what period of time (that is, on what dates) did the consultations take place; (b) at what times (were these visits on separate days or were there several per day).(3) Did this practitioner see the one patient 747 separate times.(4) (a) How did Medicare approve multiple visits per day, if that was the case; and (b) was it done manually via a supervisor, given that 2 visits on one day attracts attention.(5) (a) At what level was the official in Medicare who approved these many visits; and (b) how was this approval given, in writing or by telephone.(6) (a) Was the approval documented; and (b) can the documentation be tabled.(7) Did the Health Insurance Commission consider the consultations medically necessary.(8) If the consultations were medically necessary, why is more than 50 sessions (and more than 160 sessions under Item 319) considered not medically necessary and therefore not fully rebated.(9) If they were medically necessary, why was Dr 747 apparently `counselled'.(10) If they were not necessary, why was Dr 747 not disciplined. (11) (a) Who was Dr 747 counselled by; and (b) where and when did that counselling take place.(12) (a) Was Dr 747 subject to peer review by colleagues; and (b) was the case brought to the attention of RANZCP; if so, with whom and when; if not, why not.(13) How was the servicing pattern of Dr 747 divulged to the Minister.(14) Does the Minister: (a) access the Medicare servicing patterns of individual doctors; and (b) review files of individual practitioners.(15) How does the Minister's knowledge of the 747 case comply with the secrecy provisions of the Health Insurance Act 1973.11726Herron, Sen JohnSenator HerronVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—The Minister for Health and Aged Care has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) (a) and (b) I am not aware of the identity of the psychiatrist, the State in which the psychiatrist practised or whether the psychiatrist was a member of the RANZCP.(2) (a) and (b) I am informed by the Health Insurance Commission that the pattern of behaviour continued from 1993 through to 1995. It is inappropriate to disclose particular dates but the records indicate that there were many instances of several visits per day for a particular patient.(3) Yes.(4) (a) and (b) Multiple visits per day are not prohibited as long as the test of clinical relevance is satisfied. The doctor did not seek approval.(5) (a) and (b) See answer in (4).(6) (a) and (b) See answer in (4).(7) The doctor in question provided assurances and expert evidence to the Senior Medical Adviser of the Health Insurance Commission that the services were medically necessary.(8) Because the RANZCP has a different view than Dr 747. The Minister concurs with the College.(9) It is normal practice to counsel someone whose average number of consultations per patient is extremely high.(10) The Health Insurance Commission decided that referral to the Director of Professional Services Review was not appropriate having regard to the doctor's explanations.(11) (a) and (b) The doctor was counselled by the Senior Medical Adviser of the relevant State on 20 December 1994.(12) (a) and (b) The case was considered by the Health Insurance Commission's Consultant on Psychiatry and in non-specific terms by the RANZCP during 1994. (13) As de-identified Medicare data.(14) (a) and (b) No.(15) The secrecy provisions do not apply to de-identified data.11726(Question No. 1639)163911726Allison, Sen LynSenator Allison1M6VICAD00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care, upon notice, on 29 September 1999:With reference to community representation on the Radiation Health and Safety Advisory Council:(1) By what process are members selected to the council.(2) What are the details of the process by which Mr Peter Raue was appointed to the council as the community representative.11726Herron, Sen JohnSenator HerronVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—The Minister for Health and Aged Care has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) The Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Act (1998) establishes several categories of appointment to the Radiation Health and Safety Advisory Council and requires that the Minister consult with the Chief Executive Officer of the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Authority (ARPANSA) and such consumer and environmental groups as the Minister considers appropriate before making appointments to the Council.(2) I followed the requirements of the Act. Mr Raue was appointed as the member to "represent the interests of the general public". I saw this position as requiring a lay member with relevant interests and general community involvement to remind the Council to keep the interests of the public firmly in focus. It is not necessary that this position be filled by a lobbyist or spokesperson of a community group or environmental group.11726(Question No. 1684)168411726Greig, Sen BrianSenator Greig86XWAAD00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, upon notice, on 19 October 1999:With reference to the October 1999 meeting of the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR) to discuss illegal fishing: (1) Which countries are the worst perpetrators of illegal fishing.(2) Which of these countries are members of the CCAMLR.(3) What quotas have been set from 1997 to the present date for: (a) southern bluefin tuna; (b) patagonian toothfish; and (c) orange roughy.(4) What is the estimated catch for the same period and species, taken by countries not subject to CCAMLR control.(5) What are the estimates of illegal fishing within CCAMLR boundaries, both high seas and exclusive economic zones.(6) What are the present catch certification regimes for: (a) southern bluefin tuna; (b) patagonian toothfish; and (c) orange roughy.11727Alston, Sen RichardSenator AlstonLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) In terms of the nationality of vessels (determined by their flag state) it appears that many countries are involved in illegal fishing. However Australia is not in a position to maintain a definitive list of illegal fishers and this question may be best answered by approaching the CCAMLR Secretariat in Hobart directly.You should also note that the vessels flag state does not always reflect the nationality of the bene ficial owners of vessels fishing in an Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated (IUU) manner. The commercial interests behind IUU fishing often use countries that have weak fisheries controls, to register their vessels in order to avoid the stronger controls and international fisheries obligations of their native country.(2) As noted in the answer to your first question, Australia is not in a position to answer this question definitively. The question may be best answered by approaching the CCAMLR Secretariat in Hobart directly.(3) Orange roughy (OR) and southern bluefin tuna (SBT) do not occur in the CCAMLR area and are therefore not dealt with by CCAMLR.Most global stocks of Patagonian toothfish fall within the CCAMLR area and are subject to CCAMLR conservation measures. Member parties to CCAMLR implement these conservation measures at the domestic level.CCAMLR sets TAC's for Patagonian toothfish in the CCAMLR area. Broadly speaking the control and monitoring of these TAC's are managed and implemented at the domestic level by member parties with exclusive economic zones within the CCAMLR area and by the CCAMLR Secretariat in respect of high seas area catches within the CCAMLR area.The following table gives figures on total allowable catches for Patagonian toothfish for both Australia and the entire CCAMLR region.Patagonian toothfish TAC's (tonnes)1996—19971997—19981998—1999Macquarie Island (AFZ—outside CCAMLR area) 1,0001,500600HIMI (AFZ—Inside CCAMLR area)3,8003,7003,690CCAMLR Total (incl EEZ's and high seas CCAMLR waters)8,828*18,24514,414* Applied in 3 statistical areas in 1996-97, remaining areas where not subject to TAC control. Application of TAC's was extended to remaining statistical areas in 1997-98 giving rise to the increase in TAC's in subsequent years.(4) and (5) As noted above orange roughy and southern bluefin tuna do not occur in the CCAMLR area and are not dealt with by CCAMLR.IUU catch estimates for Patagonian toothfish include catch taken by non members of CCAMLR within exclusive economic zones and high seas within the CCAMLR area as this catch is not reported to the CCAMLR secretariat, therefore the figures detailed below answer both questions 4 and 5.IUU Catch for 1996- 1997 was estimated between 82,000 and 74,000 tonnes.IUU catch for 1997—1998 was estimated at 18,000 tonnesIUU catch for 1998—1999 was estimated at 16,600 tonnes Source: CCAMLR Secretariat—based on estimates provided by member parties.(6) Catch certification regimes are:(a) Southern Bluefin TunaThe CCSBT is considering implementing a Trade Information Scheme (TIS) which makes the landing of southern bluefin tuna into the territory of any of its members subject to the presentation of standardised documentation.(b) Patagonian toothfish (CCAMLR)The CCAMLR catch documentation scheme is designed to ensure that all catches of Patagonian toothfish inside and outside the CCAMLR area are taken, and accurately recorded in accordance with agreed CCAMLR measures, and are accompanied by a catch document on entry to CCAMLR party markets.The scheme relies on a paper document that must be completed at the time of landing/transhipment. The document details the species taken, the area from which the fish were taken, the quantity of fish taken, and the company and vessel details of the catching vessel. The completed document must then accompany the export/import of Patagonian toothfish to its end destination. Before any export or import of Patagonian toothfish can take place the accompanying document must be verified by a responsible flag state agency.CCAMLR parties are required to determine from the catch document whether toothfish seeking entry to their markets were caught inside or outside the CCAMLR Area. If caught inside the CCAMLR Area CCAMLR members should determine if the toothfish were caught consistently with CCAMLR conservation measures. Toothfish may be denied access to CCAMLR party markets under the scheme.(c) Orange roughyThere are no trade/catch certification schemes in place or currently proposed for vessels fishing for orange roughy.11728(Question No. 1694)169411728Allison, Sen LynSenator Allison1M6VICAD00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care, upon notice, on 21 October 1999.(1) With reference to the $4.5 million grants program for research and public information on health effects from mobile phone radiofrequencies: (a) how many projects have been funded and to what value; (b) can details be provided of each of the projects funded; and (c) have any funds been allocated for epidemiological studies on the effects of mobile phone tower emissions. (2) With reference to the research project which replicates the Telstra Royal Adelaide Hospital study on transgenic mice: (a) can details be provided of the departures in methodology from those of the original study; (b) what are the rationale and implications for such departures; and (c) is it the case that equipment used in this study is being funded by Motorola; if so, why.11728Herron, Sen JohnSenator HerronVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—The Minister for Health and Aged Care has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) (a) Four projects have been funded, two of which are pilot studies. Funding approved to date totals $1.365 million.(b) (i) Professor Barrie Vernon-Roberts heads a team examining "Effects of GSM-like fields on tumour incidence in E1-pim-1 mutant mice."The study examines in vivo—biological genetic effects, testing the hypothesis that exposure to GSM-like RF fields affects lymphoma rates in E1-pim-1 transgenic mice.(ii) Dr Con Stough is the principal researcher for the project titled "The effect of 900 MHz RF radiation on human neuropsychological responses".The study involves human testing of memory, attention and problem solving.(iii) Professor Bruce Armstrong is principal researcher for a pilot study titled "A case-control study of brain and other tumours in adults and exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic energy in the use of mobile phones."This is an epidemiological study that forms the Australian component of an international case control study of adult brain tumours. The hypothesis being tested is whether exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic energy in the personal use of hand-held radiotelephones (mobile phones) is associated with an increased risk of cancer in vulnerable tissues close to where the phone is normally held when in use.(iv) Dr Pamela Sykes is principal researcher for a pilot study titled "Effect of radiofrequency exposure on intrachromosomal recombination in mutation and cancer."The study examines in vivo—biological genetic effects, testing the hypothesis that radiofrequency induces somatic intrachromosomal recombination (SICR) in pKZ1 transgenic mice.(c) No.(2) (a) The major variations in methodology between the current study being undertaken by Prof Vernon-Roberts et al, to that undertaken by Dr Repacholi et al, relate to better control and standardisation of exposure systems and dosimetry. The current study is also testing a range of doses, and has increased mice numbers. (b) The rationale for the change in methodology was to more accurately measure exposure of individual animals, thus countering the principal criticism by the international radiation research literature of the earlier study. Mobile phone fields are highly directional, with different spatial orientation affecting the amount of energy absorbed. As a result, in the previous study it was not possible to determine the specific exposure levels (the specific absorption rate—SAR) of individual animals. The changed method in this study improves the precision of SAR measurement. The increased number of mice will improve the statistical power of the study.(c) Yes. Motorola donated the special exposure tubes to restrain the animals during exposure, ensuring a fixed spatial orientation to the field so the dosimetry is well defined. The installation and related costs, along with other items of equipment such as specially designed holding cages, have been funded through the grant. The highly specialised equipment, designed and manufactured by Motorola to obtain as close to "real life" simulation as possible, would not have otherwise been available.Independent monitoring of the exposure systems and specific absorption rates (SAR) was undertaken by Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA) during installation and commissioning, and continues on an ongoing quarterly basis. In addition, there is a fortnightly independent check (by the Defence Science Technology Organisation) of power levels within the exposure modules.The provision of equipment is consistent with the initial advertisement and supporting documentation, which stated:"Management of research should be independent of industry, although industry may be involved in areas requiring specific technical expertise or equipment not otherwise available."11729(Question No. 1724)172411729Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator Faulkner5K4NSWALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care, upon notice, on 2 November 1999:(1) What has been the total cost to the department, and each agency in the portfolio, of legal advice obtained from the Attorney-General's Department in the 1998-99 financial year.(2) What has been the total cost to the department, and each agency in the portfolio, in the 1998-99 financial year of legal advice obtained by the department from other sources.11729Herron, Sen JohnSenator HerronVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—The Minister for Health and Aged Care has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:Attorney General's Department (including Australian Government Solicitor)(1)Department of Health and Aged Care$1,976,707Australian Institute of Health & Welfare6,515Australia New Zealand Food Authority8,081Health Insurance Commission345,611Private Health Insurance Ombudsman911Professional Service Review168Private Health Insurance Administration CouncilNILAged Care Standards & Accreditation Agency10,828Australian Radiation Protection & Nuclear Safety AuthorityNILTherapeutic Goods Administration16,500Other(2)Department of Health and Aged Care$170,177Australian Institute of Health & Welfare4,190Australia New Zealand Food Authority11,729Health Insurance Commission332,401Private Health Insurance Ombudsman8,919 Professional Service Review64,731Private Health Insurance Administration Council44,210Aged Care Standards & Accreditation Agency63,000Australian Radiation Protection & Nuclear Safety Authority99,115Therapeutic Goods AdministrationNIL11730(Question No. 1743)174311730Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator Faulkner5K4NSWALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 2 November 1999:As a dollar amount, and as a percentage of the department's total outlay on salaries, what was the cost in the 1996-97, 1997-98 and 1998-99 financial years of: (a) staff training, (b) consultants, and (c) performance pay.11730Ellison, 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:Dollar amount% of total salaryTotal salaries for staff 1996-97$317,680,000Total salaries for staff 1997-98$334,321,000Total salaries for staff 1998-99$111,619,000What was the cost of staff training in 1996-97$19,700,0006.20%What was the cost of staff training in 1997-98$13,300,0003.97%What was the cost of staff training in 1998-99$7,900,0007.07%What was the cost of consultancies in 1996-97$5,212,0001.64%What was the cost of consultancies in 1997-98$11,808,0003.53%What was the cost of consultancies in 1998-99$10,214,0009.15%What was the cost of performance based pay in 1996-97$233,6480.07%What was the cost of performance based pay in 1997-98$199,9800.06%What was the cost of performance based pay in 1998-99$155,5650.14%Note: For much of the period referred to above (1996-1999), the portfolio referred to is the Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs (DEETYA). During the above period, the portfolio underwent a number of restructures, involving large numbers of staff transferring to other agencies in response to Government directives. These included:- Transfer of staff to Commonwealth Services Delivery Agency (pre cursor to CentreLink) on 1 July 1997, and- Transfer of staff to Employment National on 1 May 1998.On 21 October 1998, the DEETYA portfolio was split as part of machinery of Government changes, resulting in large transfer of staff to the newly created Department of Employment, Work Place Relations and Small Business. This change also resulted in this portfolio becoming Education, Training and Youth Affairs.11731(Question No. 1747)174711731Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator Faulkner5K4NSWALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, upon notice, on 2 November 1999:As a dollar amount, and as a percentage of the department's total outlay on salaries, what was the cost in the 1996-97, 1997-98 and 1998-99 financial years of (a) staff training; (b) consultants; and (c) performance pay.11731Alston, Sen RichardSenator AlstonLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:Cost of training, consultants, and performance pay, and as a percentage of the department's total outlay on salaries1996-97 Cost(Percentage)1997-98 Cost(Percentage)1998-99 Cost(Percentage)(a) Training$3,007,707(1.52)$3,882,573(1.84)$3,102,226(1.60)(b) Consultants$8,549,679(4.33)$8,634,834(4.08)$13,732,464(7.09)(c) Performance pay$0(0)$0(0)$311,423(0.16)Source: Records of expenditures on training, consultants and performance pay have been extracted from the annual reports of relevant years. The total cost of salaries, leave, and allowances has been utilised.The total outlay for departmental salaries, leave, allowances and the cost of training, consultants, and performance pay are listed in the following table:Cost of training, consultants, and Performance pay, and as a percentage of the department's total outlay on salaries1996-97 Cost(Percentage)1997-98 Cost(Percentage)1998-99 Cost(Percentage)(a) Training$3,007,707(1.52)$3,882,573(1.84) (Note 2)$3,102,226(1.60)(b) Consultants$8,549,679(4.33)$8,634,834(4.08)$13,732,464(7.09) (Note 4)(c) Performance pay$0(0) (Note 1)$0(0) (Note 3)$311,423(0.16) (Note 5)Explanatory NotesAs the Departmental Performance Management Scheme for the SES was being trialed, no performance pay was made in 1996-97.This figure differs from 2.21% as reported in the 1997-98 Annual Report. Business Services Unit has not been able to verify the base used to calculate the figure in the 1997-98 Annual Report. As only the cost of training was reported in percentage terms in the 1997-98 year, there is no effect on other numbers.No performance payments were made in 1997-98, as the new Departmental Performance Management Scheme was still being trialed and implemented.The cost for staff training for the year 1998-99 was $3,102,226. This differs from what is reported in the 1998-99 Annual Report. A corrigendum is currently being issued.Total performance pay for 98-99 is $311,423 (for SES: $281,333, for Non-SES officers in BRS: $30,090). This differs from what is reported in the 1998-99 Annual Report. A corrigendum is currently being issued.11731(Question No. 1768)176811731Conroy, Sen StephenSenator Conroy3L6VICALP00 asked the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources, upon notice, on 12 November 1999:For each of the years 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998 and 1999: (a) how many overseas trips did the minister responsible for industry undertake; (b) what countries were visited on those trips; and (c) of those trips, how many were accompanied by a business delegation.11731Minchin, Sen NickSenator MinchinJX4SALPIndustry, Science and Resources10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:YearOverseas TripsCountries VisitedAccompanied by a business delegationMinister198951. Japan, Philippines, USA, Italy, West Germany, France, Belgium1. No1. Senator Button2. UK, Belgium, Ireland,2. Yes2. Senator Button3. New Zealand3. No3. Mr Jones4. India4. No4. Senator Button5. New Zealand, Brazil, USA, UK, Thailand199051. Vietnam, Japan1. Yes1. Senator Button2. Singapore2. No2. Senator Button3. Russia, Japan, Korea, Vladivostok3. No3. Mr Crean4. USA, Canada4. No4. Mr Crean5. Malta, Spain, Italy, Germany, France5. No5. Mr Crean199151. Japan1. No1. Senator Button2. UK, France, Germany, Hungary, Czechoslovakia (Europe)2. Yes2. Senator Button3. Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia3. Yes3. Senator Button4. Greece, Hungary, Belgium, France (Europe)4. No4. Mr Beddall5. New Zealand5. No5. Mr Beddall199241. Hong Kong, China, Korea, Vietnam, Laos1. No1. Senator Button2. Japan, USA2. No2. Mr Beddall3. Vietnam, Indonesia, Singapore, Malaysia3. Yes3. Mr Beddall4. New Zealand4. No4. Mr Beddall199361. Japan, China, Hong Kong1. No1. Mr Griffiths2. Indonesia2. Yes2. Mr Griffiths3. Malaysia, Hong Kong, Japan3. No3. Mr Griffiths4. Eritrea4. No4. Senator Schacht5. France, Germany, Japan5. No5. Senator Schacht6. New Zealand6. No6. Mr Free199461. Laos, Thailand1. No1. Senator Schacht2. France, Germany, United Kingdom, Switzerland2. No2. Senator Cook3. Indonesia3. No3. Senator Cook4. Japan, India, Vietnam4. Yes4. Senator Schacht5. New Zealand5. No5. Senator Schacht6. Singapore6. No6. Senator Cook 199561. China, Hong Kong1. No1. Senator Cook2. Japan, China, Philippines, Vietnam2. Yes2. Senator Schacht3. China3. No3. Senator Schacht4. Indonesia, Japan, Korea, Hong Kong4. No4. Senator Cook5. Korea, France (OECD), United Kingdom5. No5. Mr Lindsay6. Thailand6. No6. Mr Lindsay199661. USA1. No1. Mr Moore2. Singapore, Malaysia2. No2. Mr McGauran3. Hong Kong, Philippines3. No3. Mr Prosser4. Singapore, Indonesia4. No4. Mr Moore5. Korea, Japan, Hong Kong5. No5. Mr McGauran6. New Zealand6. No6. Mr Prosser199751. Germany, United Kingdom, USA1. No1. Mr Moore2. USA, Chile, Argentina, South Africa2. No2. Mr Moore3. Japan, China3. No3. Mr Moore4. Singapore, Indonesia, Thailand4. No4. Mr Moore5. France, London5. Yes5. Mr Thomson199841. United Kingdom, Germany, France, Belgium, USA1. No1. Mr Moore2. France2. Yes2. Mr Moore3. Japan, China, India3. Yes3. Mr Thomson4. New Zealand4. No4. Mr Truss199941. Indonesia1. No1. Senator Minchin2. Taiwan, Japan2. No2. Senator Minchin3. USA, Canada3. No3. Senator Minchin4. USA4. No4. Senator Minchin11733(Question No. 1777)177711733Carr, Sen KimSenator CarrAW5VICALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 23 November 1999.(1) What information is collected by the Government on the practices of universities with regard to the commercial consultancy activities undertaken by their staff. (2) (a) Has the Government undertaken any research or analysis of these activities; and (b) specifically, can information be provided on: (i) the consulting rules or guidelines prevailing in the `Great Eight' universities; (ii) in the case of each of these eight universities, the amount of money recovered in the 1998-99 financial year to cover the costs associated with the use of university facilities and resources by staff engaged in consultancy work; and (iii) the steps taken by the Government to oblige universities to recover these costs and to adjust the entitlements of staff, for example in superannuation, who spend significant amounts of their time while employed by the university working on commercial consultancies under various arrangements.(3) What steps has the Government taken to investigate the common practice where university staff engaged in commercial consultancy avoid tax by having their consultancy fees paid to their institution, for lodgement in special dedicated accounts for their use in travel, conference attendance and other purposes.(4) Has the Government sought the advice of the Australian Taxation Office on this matter.11734Ellison, 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) None. This is an internal matter for universities.(2) (a) The Commonwealth has not undertaken research or analysis of university practices with regard to the commercial consultancy activities undertaken by staff.(b) (i) and (ii) No. See (a) above. (iii) The Commonwealth would expect universities to recover costs, such as those relating to the use of facilities associated with consultancy work. Under the competition principles agreement, staff engaged by universities may undertake private consultancies, subject to university requirements. Universities were required to review their policies in this area to ensure that private consultancy services fully compensate the university for any resources used or risks taken. The entitlements of staff is an institutional matter.(3) and (4) Senator Carr's question has been drawn to the attention of the Australian Taxation Office for appropriate action.