2000-06-203916SENATE1518902000-06-20—————The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid) took the chair at 2.00 p.m., and read prayers.Questions Without Notice151891518914:01:0015189West, Sen SueSenator WEST1X4New South WalesALP00—My question is to Senator Herron, representing the Minister for Aged Care. Can the minister confirm whether special or supported residential services will be fully exempt from the GST after 1 July?15189Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QueenslandLPMinister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—I have a brief on that which states that the minister can say unequivocally that aged care will be GST free. This means that there will be no additional cost to residents for their aged care or accommodation either in the fees they pay for care services or in the accommodation bonds or charges they pay.AX5Evans, Sen ChrisSenator Chris Evans—That is the wrong brief againVW4Senator HERRON—I am about 15 seconds into my answer and I have an interjection from Senator Evans, a young man who is trying to make his way with interjections.AX5Evans, Sen ChrisSenator Chris Evans—You didn't listen to the question. It's the wrong brief again.10000PRESIDENT,TheThe PRESIDENT—Order! The behaviour of those interjecting is disorderly.VW4Senator HERRON—Accommodation bonds and charges are GST free. However, residents of aged care facilities will pay GST on additional discretionary services not covered by schedule 1, such as hairdressing or TV hire. That answers Senator Evans's interjection. If he would only wait, he would get an answer. Residents of extra service places will not pay GST on their extra service fees except for amounts that are for additional discretionary services, such as hairdressing and TV hire, as I have mentioned. Service providers will not be out of pocket. They will be able to register to claim refunds—called input tax credits—of the GST paid on their expenses including building, upgrading and all accommodation and care services. This means that all government funded services providing accommodation support and community care and who register for the GST will be able to claim input tax credits for any GST paid on their business costs. Providers will also benefit from the abolition of current indirect taxes, such as the wholesale sales tax and the fuel excise tax, which are currently embedded in their purchases.Aged and community care providers will have access to the government's $500 million package to assist small business and community organisations prepare for the introduction of the GST. Assistance is to be provided through a business skills education and information program on GST business skills, which amounts to $40 million; organisation delivered assistance supporting key industry and professional organisations in the delivery of information and assistance to their members and sectors, $130 million; an adviser education program to increase the number of people able to inform others on business skills and the GST, $7 million; direct assistance providing small and medium businesses and community organisations with redeemable certificates to be used in exchange for products or services to assist in the implementation of the GST, $320 million; and the GST Start-up Assistance Office running costs, $3 million.Transactions involving the payment of subsidies under the Aged Care Act 1997 made by the Commonwealth to aged care providers will not be subject to the GST. This applies to subsidies paid for residential aged care subsidies, community aged care packages and flexible care subsidies. All community aged care services funded under the Home and Community Care Act 1985, the Aged Care Act 1997 or other Commonwealth or state funded programs will be GST free. This includes Meals on Wheels, home help, home maintenance, gardening, transport, respite and social support services such as day care centres, personal and nursing care and community care packages. In addition, privately funded community care services involving the supply of nursing and personal care will be GST free. This ensures that older people and people with disabilities who purchase these services privately will also obtain them GST free. The government is maintaining its commitment to ensure that pensioners and non-pensioners will be fully and permanently protected from fee increases to the four per cent GST pension increase. We have heard nothing from the Labor Party as to what their policy is because they are keeping the GST. There is no unequivocal statement that they are not. (Time expired)15190West, Sen SueSenator WEST1X4New South WalesALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. I was asking about the GST treatment of special or supported residential services, not hostels and nursing homes. I want to know from the minister: are special or supported residential services, from what he has been telling us, going to be treated the same way as residents of hostels, who are entirely free from the GST? Can he confirm that it will be up to providers to determine how much of the fee they pay is related to care and will be GST free and how much is related to accommodation?15190Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QueenslandLPMinister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—Obviously a detailed answer is required for some of those questions. I am happy to take the matter to the minister and provide the senator with an answer. They are details which are not in the brief. I would be the last to answer incorrectly to the Senate, and I am giving an honest and correct answer. It is not in the brief. I will have to get back to the honourable senator with an answer from the minister.1519014:06:0015190Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT5F4TasmaniaLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, Senator Alston. Will the minister inform the Senate how long-overdue tax reform, including $12 billion in personal income tax cuts, will benefit small business and improve the living standards of all Australians? Is the minister aware of any alternative policy approaches for the small business sector, and what would be the impact if these were implemented?15190Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VictoriaLPMinister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts10—Yes, $12 billion, Senator Calvert, is just for starters because there is a great deal that can be done for the small business community, if you are committed to helping them. In other words, the substantial reform of the tax system—which will remove provisional tax, which will remove wholesale sales tax, which will remove stamp duty in a whole range of areas and transactions—in addition to the prescribed payments system, the halving of the capital gains tax rate, the preferential treatment of assets that have been held for 15 years or more and the reform and simplification of depreciation are all critical issues for the small business community, and quite rightly so because they constitute about 50 per cent of the employment in the Australian work force.Madam President, you would have thought that all the major parties would be interested in helping small business, wouldn't you? I suppose the only one who ever tried was Senator Schacht. His idea of helping the small business sector was to reduce the large businesses. Apart from that, all we have ever really had is a Labor Party that has never had a small business minister in cabinet. In fact, it did not even have a small business minister for about five years. I am not sure who in the Senate from the Labor Party represents the public transport union, but I am sure he will get back to it on this. The secretary of that union said recently, `How many small business people stood on polling booths or letterboxed for the ALP in the last state election campaign?' That is really what it is all about, as far as they are concerned.So I did have a look at the ALP web site to see exactly what those opposite have in mind for small business. Well, it is fascinating. You do not actually find any policy documents there. What you find is that the ALP is currently reviewing its policy—and, `As policy positions are refined, they will be published here.' So, in other words, in due course we might get some policy refinements. But what we have got to date listed here are six policy position/discussion papers on things like Family Futures, APEC: Meeting The Challenge Of The New Millennium—I am sure that will go down well in mainstream Australia and the small business sector!—and Framework for an Australian Coastguard. These are the sorts of priorities that Labor is interested in.BE4Newman, Sen JocelynSenator Newman—It's a shame they weren't when they were in government.LD4Senator ALSTON—Of course, they showed not the slightest interest in any of this. So, Madam President, where does small business rate? It rates nowhere, as far as the Labor Party is concerned. If you look at where jobs growth is, it is overwhelmingly in the small business sector. The latest ABS statistics, for example, showed that there were 17,500 new communications jobs in Australia last year. Morgan and Banks say that 65 per cent of Australia's IT companies plan to take on additional staff—and, again, they are overwhelmingly small business.So what is the Labor Party's view of the next 10 years? You have heard that two-word slogan/policy called the Knowledge Nation. What is the ALP's view of where the jobs growth is going to come from? You look at something quaintly called Workforce 2010. What you find there is that what Labor is in favour of is a lift in the number of apprentices and trainees in traditional service areas—meaning higher union membership—like sales, marketing, retail and hospitality. But what happens when it comes to IT&T? It does not even rate a mention in the jobs growth by occupation.Labor predict that there will be a decline in communication services of 50,000 jobs. We know that they do not have a shadow minister for IT. It is an appalling disgrace, and I can understand why Senator Lundy is very put out about that. But they are not alone; they do not have a minister for IT in Victoria either under a Labor government. But it really is a devastating indictment of the attitude of Labor to the small business sector if they not only do not have a policy document, if they do not have a minister in cabinet and now they are predicting a jobs decline in the very area where small business is likely to deliver jobs growth. (Time expired)1519114:11:0015191Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5Western AustraliaALP00—My question is directed to Senator Newman, the Minister for Family and Community Services. I ask the minister: was Senator Lightfoot representing the government's views when he stated yesterday, in relation to long-term residents of caravan parks who are being hit with the GST:These people are lucky. They are no more special than anyone else. It might be an incentive for them to get houses.If that is not the government's view, will the minister take this opportunity to firmly repudiate Senator Lightfoot's statement?15191Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TasmaniaLPMinster for Family and Community Services and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—I think the short answer to that is: yes, people are lucky to be represented by National and Liberal members, which is the opportunity that they have.UI4Ray, Sen Robert10000PRESIDENT,TheThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Ray, cease shouting.BE4Senator NEWMAN—Just by way of example, I understand that when Mr Anthony won his seat in northern New South Wales, he made a concerted effort to meet with and talk with and consistently return to meet with people in caravan parks, unlike the Labor candidate, who showed no such interest. Mr Anthony, by comparison, has continued to show an interest and a concern about his constituents ever since he won that seat. I am sure that the people in his electorate welcome the fact that they are attended by such an attentive local member and a good minister. Opportunities exist for people to have good representatives, as they do now, and I think that people who live in caravan parks or who live in other sorts of accommodation will consider themselves lucky to be so well represented.15191Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5Western AustraliaALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Minister, I do not quite understand that obituary for Mr Anthony. But aren't long-term residents of caravan parks justified in believing that Senator Lightfoot is in fact representing the government's views, given that the government is singling them out among all rent payers by forcing them to pay an up-front 5.5 per cent GST? Why will you not repudiate those views, if that is not the case?15191Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TasmaniaLPMinster for Family and Community Services and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—I think Senator Evans should focus on what he hears from the minister. Perhaps he might like to go back to Hansard and have a good look at what I said yesterday about the subject.1519214:14:0015192Chapman, Sen GrantSenator CHAPMANFF4South AustraliaLP10—My question is directed to the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources. XE4Bolkus, Sen NickSenator Bolkus—Jeannie! Jeannie—10000PRESIDENT,TheThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Bolkus, you are behaving in a disorderly fashion, and you know it. Senator Chapman, would you start again?FF4Senator CHAPMAN—Thank you, Madam President. My question is directed to the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources. With the introduction of the new tax system and the $12 billion worth of personal income tax cuts just 10 days away, will the minister outline the benefits of tax reform for both the Australian car industry and car buyers? 15192Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHINJX4South AustraliaLPMinister for Industry, Science and Resources10—I thank Senator Chapman for that very good question. The car industry and car buyers are looking forward very much to 1 July because that is the day when Labor's absolutely hopeless wholesale sales tax system will be consigned to the dustbin of history. Gone will be the day when the car industry, more than any other, pays the burden of Labor's wholesale sales tax. It is an indictment of Labor that nearly one quarter of the revenue from the wholesale sales tax comes from just one product—the car industry. Under the new tax system the car industry will contribute just three per cent of GST revenue compared to the nearly 25 per cent currently contributed by the car industry under the wholesale sales tax. That will mean a reduction in the tax on an average car, as this Senate well knows, of $2,000, and the industry's export efforts will be considerably enhanced by taking off the load of imbedded taxes on our exports, which should mean the industry can improve on the record export performance last year of $3.2 billion.The industry itself is predicting very strong growth under the new tax system. Just last week the President of Ford Australia, Geoff Polites, predicted that July 2000, just a couple of weeks away, will be the best sales month ever for the car industry in Australia's history. He was not just talking about the best sales month for July; he was talking about the best month ever in this industry's history. He predicts that demand will stay strong for the rest of the year 2000 and then increase over the next three years to the point where car sales in this country will total one million vehicles, which will be a leap in sales of a quarter of a million, nearly a third, compared to the current three-quarters of a million in sales. The industry itself supports Mr Polites' forecast. The industry are quite correct in being so optimistic. They have a very strong policy base to work from. We have a policy framework that has delivered the longest period of strong economic growth in 30 years and has delivered car buyers a low interest rate environment and is delivering a tax reform package to help the industry even more. Compare that to what we get from the opposition. This opposition voted against cutting the tax on cars by $2,000. They have had nothing positive to say about this industry for more than a year. All Mr McMullan, the relevant shadow minister, has done is talk down the industry repeatedly. He predicted massive job losses in car dealers. He predicted thousands of stand downs in the car manufacturing industry. He predicted more industry downturns. And he has been wrong on every count. It seems that the Labor Party have been secretly hoping that this industry would fall flat on its face in the lead-up to the introduction of the GST, and it simply has not happened. Under our opponents, the Labor Party, the industry languished—its sales were static, going nowhere. This industry has had its best three years ever under four years of coalition government. The best years for this industry await it under the new tax system.RF4Cook, Sen PeterSenator Cook—That is not true. That is an outright untruth. That is just not true. 10000PRESIDENT,TheThe PRESIDENT—Senator Cook, you are shouting.RF4Cook, Sen PeterSenator Cook—That's a lie. 10000PRESIDENT,TheThe PRESIDENT—I ask you to withdraw that. RF4Cook, Sen PeterSenator Cook—I withdraw the word `lie', but I wish this minister would tell the truth because he is not telling the truth now.10000PRESIDENT,TheThe PRESIDENT—Senator Cook, now is not the time to be debating the issue. Resume your seat. Senator Minchin, have you finished your answer?JX4Senator MINCHIN—Yes.1519314:18:0015193Crossin, Sen TrishSenator CROSSIN7Y6Northern TerritoryALP00—My question is to Senator Newman, the Minister for Family and Community Services. Is the minister aware that the Treasurer in a statement last night attempted to argue that the negative short-term effects of the GST would be offset by overall growth and competitive supply pressures in the boarding house sector? Can the minister responsible for housing policy confirm that there has been a continued decline of boarding house stock in Australia over a sustained period of time? Given this fact, how can the Treasurer claim that boarding house residents will ever be back in the black? 15193Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TasmaniaLPMinster for Family and Community Services and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—Yes, certainly I have responsibility at the federal level for the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement, which is administered by the states. I also have responsibility at the federal level for rent assistance, which is the assistance for accommodation used by the majority of people on low incomes in Australia. Many more people live in private rentals than live in public housing. The senator may not be aware of the fact that since I became the minister in 1996 I have spent a great deal of time and effort in trying to encourage community organisations and state governments to pay more attention to the value of community housing which, for many of the people who are in hostels and boarding houses, would be a more caring environment than many of the hostels and boarding houses in which they currently live. I would have hoped that when we came into government we would have inherited a very vibrant community housing sector, as is found in Britain and in Europe, for example. It is my wish and dream that Australia will encourage greater numbers of people who are currently living in hostels and boarding houses to be better housed in community housing where they are not only getting a roof but also getting the services they need. For example, many people have mental illness and to leave them simply with a roof over their head that may or may not be adequate is not good enough. This has been a real effort on my behalf since I came into this job. It is true to say that boarding houses come and go and some are excellent and some are not so excellent, but what we believe we have done in terms of the GST is introduce an equitable system which will be fair to everybody. 15193Crossin, Sen TrishSenator CROSSIN7Y6Northern TerritoryALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Is the minister aware that the private group providing some 80 per cent of the boarding house accommodation in Sydney's inner west—that is, In-West Holdings Pty Ltd—has today announced that it is withdrawing from the provision of boarding house accommodation? Doesn't this action disprove the Treasurer's assertion of last night, as well as throw over 300 people onto the streets and into the short-term housing market where the effects of the GST will harm them further? 15193Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TasmaniaLPMinster for Family and Community Services and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—It is obvious that the senator has not thought this through. The Olympic Games are coming to New South Wales. The state government have been very keen to make sure that the Olympic Games is the highlight of their political careers and they have had a long warning time to make sure that people in Sydney are not treated as they have been in some previous games where they have been marginalised and left without homes at all. So the New South Wales Labor government have had plenty of opportunity to monitor what is happening in an area which is their direct responsibility; hostels and boarding houses are not the Commonwealth's direct responsibility. I would have though that Mr Knight, Mr Carr and Mr Egan would have been putting their best foot forward for several years now to see that better housing for people currently living in boarding houses and hostels was provided. If they had been enthusiastic supporters of community housing, we might not be facing this now. (Time expired)1519314:23:0015194Lees, Sen MegSenator LEES8U4South AustraliaAD00—My question is to the Assistant Treasurer, Senator Kemp. Is the minister aware of the many requests made by the Democrats since June last year for specific data relating to the price effects of the changes on caravan parks and boarding house residents?Opposition senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENT,TheThe PRESIDENT—Senators on my left are in breach of the standing orders. It is important that I am able to hear the question.UI4Ray, Sen Robert10000PRESIDENT,TheThe PRESIDENT—Senator Ray, I am speaking. I need to hear the question.8U4Senator LEES—Can the minister explain why these requests were ignored? And can the minister explain why the modelling on boarding houses was not released to us as promised but was released nationally on Channel 9 last night?Honourable senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENT,TheThe PRESIDENT—Order! We will wait, Senator.8U4Senator LEES—This is an issue they apparently care about, but the noise is distracting. This modelling was released last night by Laurie Oakes on Channel 9. Can the minister explain how and why figures in Mr Oakes's version of the report—apparently finished in January this year—have been changed in Econtech's supposedly final report, dated March 2000?15194Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VictoriaLPAssistant Treasurer10—There a number of aspects to Senator Lees's question. Senator Lees was keen to know why she had not received the report earlier from the Treasurer. I will make inquiries of the Treasurer. The Treasurer, as you know, Senator Lees, is always helpful. I will check the points that you have made with him. As far as Laurie Oakes is concerned, Madam President, I am not precisely sure of the source of the data used by Mr Oakes. That is probably a matter for Mr Oakes to deal with.Opposition senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENT,TheThe PRESIDENT—Order! There are persistent interjections on my left.WW4Senator KEMP—Senator Lees, it seems to me that you would be pleased, however, with Econtech's final report, which provides independent support for the government's decision to allow suppliers of long-term commercial accommodation a choice of taxation treatment. Allowing boarding house operators to choose the taxation treatment will result in the lowest price increase for residents. Boarding house operators, as Senator Lees would know, can choose a taxation treatment and switch later if the alterative treatment will result in a lower price rise.This report shows that, in the short run, boarding house residents are likely to experience a similar price rise, regardless of the choice of taxation by a boarding house operator. The Econtech estimate is that, in the short run, boarding house rents under concessional GST treatment would rise by four per cent, while under the input tax treatment they would rise by 3.6 per cent. Given that these are only indicative figures subject to the usual modelling assumptions, these results can only be viewed as broadly comparable. Importantly, the Econtech report shows that in the long run—and I think this is very important, Senator Lees, and I think this will answer your question—people who are charged a concessional rate of GST on their boarding house rent will face a lower price rise than boarding house residents who are input taxed. Under the concessional GST treatment the rise is 1.5 per cent compared with the estimated increase of 3.1 per cent under input taxing. Thus, Madam President, if the boarding house owner chooses to apply the concessional rate of GST, residents will see their rents rise by about one half of the increase if input taxation is chosen.By providing a choice between concessional GST treatment and input taxation, the government is protecting, I believe, those on low incomes from a price rise in rental costs associated with the GST. I think it is also important to note—and Senator Lees would know this as well as anyone in this chamber—that the government is also providing a generous compensation package to those people on low incomes to cover the costs of the GST. The package includes increasing the maximum rate of rental assistance by seven per cent to compensate people on low incomes for rises in rental costs, increasing pensions and allowances by four per cent to compensate low income people for other expected price increases, and of course income tax cuts and increases in family benefits will also benefit many residents of long-term commercial accommodation.15195Lees, Sen MegSenator LEES8U4South AustraliaAD00—By way of a supplementary question, Minister, even the edited version—the one you have laundered—is not satisfactory. The long term is about eight to 10 years, and I do not believe these people should be asked to wait that long. I remind you that it was we who asked for this modelling and that this is unfinished business. Specifically, I ask the minister: why was Mr Oakes able to obtain this report, while our letters, faxes and phone calls to several departments went unanswered? Where is the caravan park modelling? Will the minister undertake to tell us, if he does not have it with him today, when we can pop upstairs to Mr Oakes's office and get that one?15195Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VictoriaLPAssistant Treasurer10—I cannot speak for Mr Oakes, but I am almost sure that he would be very happy for you to pop up to see him. But you are dealing with a serious aspect, in particular the claim that it would take between five and 10 years for the long-run price effects to flow through. According to the advice that I have received, that is nonsense.Opposition senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENT,TheThe PRESIDENT—Order! There are too many senators interjecting.WW4Senator KEMP—The long-run price forecaster will start to flow through when boarding houses are partially refurbished or renovated or when new entrants enter the market.AW5Carr, Sen KimSenator Carr—Why don't you answer the question?10000PRESIDENT,TheThe PRESIDENT—Senator Carr, stop shouting!WW4Senator KEMP—This is likely to come about relatively quickly, thus I think greater emphasis—AW5Carr, Sen KimSenator Carr—You can't answer the question.10000PRESIDENT,TheThe PRESIDENT—Order!WW4Senator KEMP—Senator Carr, you are a complete moron, I have to say. You are a complete and utter moron.10000PRESIDENT,TheThe PRESIDENT—Senator Kemp, I ask you to withdraw that, and it is totally disorderly for Senator Carr to be behaving as he has been.WW4Senator KEMP—Madam President. I withdraw that comment. Of course I withdraw it. The point I am making is—XE4Bolkus, Sen NickSenator Bolkus—Madam President—10000PRESIDENT,TheThe PRESIDENT—Just a moment, Senator Kemp. Were you seeking to make a point of order, Senator Bolkus?XE4Bolkus, Sen NickSenator Bolkus—Madam President, my point of order is that Senator Kemp was the one who was asked to withdraw, and he should have withdrawn.10000PRESIDENT,TheThe PRESIDENT—If you had not been making so much noise you might have heard that he was asked to withdraw and he did withdraw.WW4Senator KEMP—Thank you, Madam President. The apology from Senator Bolkus is accepted. I think that covers the matters that were asked by Senator Lees. (Time expired)15195NaN:00:0015195Lundy, Sen KateSenator LUNDY7G6Australian Capital TerritoryALP00—My question is to Senator Newman, the Minister for Family and Community Services. In light of recent reports that the government is seeking to contract out case management of the unemployed, will the minister categorically rule out any move by the government to transfer any of the existing responsibilities or services of Centrelink to private contractors?Government senators interjecting—15195Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TasmaniaLPMinster for Family and Community Services and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—No, it is not the ACTU; it is the CPSU that she represents. I put out a very clear statement on this matter several days ago. There is no point in going through it again. I will send a copy of it to the senator if she missed it.15195Lundy, Sen KateSenator LUNDY7G6Australian Capital TerritoryALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Minister, in reference to the statement you are referring to, this question is not about the Welfare Reform Reference Group or the McLure report. I do not want to know what that committee says or what that report says, but whether or not this government will categorically rule out the question I asked. Isn't this just the next cab off the rank in the Howard government's implementation of competitive tendering and contracting, a decision it took on 22 November last year, cabinet minute No. JH990381, to push ahead with contracting out of services and functions without any limit placed on the core business of the Commonwealth government? If providing assistance to pension and benefit recipients is not the core business of the Commonwealth to be quarantined off from outsourcing, then what is?15196Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TasmaniaLPMinster for Family and Community Services and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—The senator for the CPSU obviously had a speech to make on behalf of her constituents, regardless of the facts. The facts are that the Prime Minister and I have, on numerous occasions over the 4½ years we have been in government, insisted that there was no intention at all to privatise Centrelink.15196NaN:00:0015196Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TasmaniaAG00—My question is to the Assistant Treasurer. As you will be aware, after the last election some $33 million was disbursed in public funding to political parties, and as a consideration for supply we can expect this will be reduced by $3 million at the next election under the GST. However, the Australian Electoral Commission, acting on Taxation Office advice, is advising political parties that public funding will not be subject to the GST. I ask the Assistant Treasurer: why is that so?15196Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VictoriaLPAssistant Treasurer10—I will check on the source of the information that has been supplied by Senator Brown. I think the general view is that public funding is important to the political process. If you are opposed to public funding, Senator, that rather surprises me, to be quite frank. I would have thought that there was a general bipartisan view that public funding was important in our democracy; that may not be shared by everybody.UI4Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert Ray—You voted against it in '83.WW4Senator KEMP—As Senator Ray reminds us, it has now effectively operated since '83, and I am not aware that anyone at this stage has tried to withdraw it. Senator Brown, I will check on the information that you have received and I will get back to you.15196Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TasmaniaAG00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question—two of them in fact. Firstly, I ask: why is the earlier advice from the Deputy Commissioner of Taxation, Mr Rick Matthews, that public funding is subject to the GST being reversed? Secondly, if public funding is not subject to the GST as a consideration for supply, the technical term, I ask: will such similar considerations for supply as public lending rights for authors and the Dairy Industry Adjustment Program also be exempt from the GST?15196Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VictoriaLPAssistant Treasurer10—Let me make a couple of observations. I will check on the facts of what you have said, Senator. I think that is always wise, not that one does not trust Senator Brown. But I think that a number of us have noted, from long experience in this chamber, it probably is always wise to check on source material. I am a cautious person so I will certainly check on that. Where there is a registered body an input tax credit is claimed in those cases, so I am not quite sure what the general, overall thrust is of the problem you see. Out of courtesy to Senator Brown I will check very carefully what he has asserted to the Senate. Senator Brown, I will get back to you.1519614:36:0015196McKiernan, Sen JimSenator McKIERNAN1I4Western AustraliaALP00—Is the Minister for Family and Community Services aware that, according to a report released earlier this month by the Australian Bureau of Statistics, there are now 66,100 children prevented from accessing child care because of the cost pressures, an increase of 23,600 since 1996? Is the minister also aware that the percentage of children excluded from care because of the expense has doubled since this government was elected from 16 per cent to 32 per cent? Isn't this further proof that the government's spending cuts make child care harder to afford, pushing lower income families out of the system?LI4Patterson, Sen KaySenator Patterson—Absolute rubbish.15196Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TasmaniaLPMinster for Family and Community Services and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—Senator Patterson behind me, who knows a lot about these matters herself, is saying `rubbish' to the opposition's claims, and rubbish they are. Absolutely right, Senator. This government has spent more in every year of the four years that we have been in government on child care than was spent by the Labor Party in the last four years it was in government. The last four years we have been in government we have spent over $4 billion on child care. There have been more child-care centres established and more child-care places available than ever before.What is happening in the child-care area, of course, is that mothers are joining the work force increasingly. There are more sole parents in the work force than there have been for some years. Many families are changing their child care arrangements with the opportunities for family friendly workplaces. They are tending to change the way they use child care. The assistance is there, as I have told the Senate before. Parents on low incomes with two children in long day child care are getting a subsidy from the Australian taxpayer of about $12,500 a year, and families with moderate incomes with two children in child care are getting subsidies of about $10,300 a year. Come 1 July these families will be getting increasing amounts of assistance, which will make child care more affordable than it has been for some time.The interesting thing is that we have had a constant stream of misinformation being put about to the media and to families by our opposition. It is very unfair that the Labor Party has tried to portray child care as being unaffordable. When you take in the amount of the subsidies that the Australian taxpayers are paying now to assist families with child care it is pretty unrealistic of the opposition to try to frighten parents out of using child care at all. But what we are finding is that parents are using child care in different ways. We have got a very good quality child-care system in Australia. Everybody has an interest in having a quality assurance system, and this is what we inherited and what we have built on. Parents and people in the child-care industry should be appreciative of the fact that Australia stands so high in its quality of child care. Only the week before last in New York at a major forum associated with the special session of the General Assembly on women's affairs Australia was hailed for the work it has done and the achievements it has made in terms of child care and domestic violence. I, as the minister for Australia, was very proud to sit there and hear people from outside Australia making claims about it.LI4Patterson, Sen KaySenator Patterson—What did Natasha say? You were not proud of Natasha.BE4Senator NEWMAN—On the other hand, Senator Stott Despoja managed to go to New York and bag her country from afar, to our great shame.3I6Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator Stott Despoja—You are joking, Minister. Are you honestly suggesting—10000PRESIDENT,TheThe PRESIDENT—Order! There is an appropriate time to debate other issues.BE4Senator NEWMAN—Madam President—3I6Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator Stott Despoja—You are a liar.10000PRESIDENT,TheThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Stott Despoja, withdraw that remark.3I6Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator Stott Despoja—Without condition and debate I withdraw.BE4Senator NEWMAN—We have a very good record on child care, and Australian parents value the child-care system. The fees, of course, are not under the control of the government. It is not a centralised economy where fees are set by government. But they were growing at something like eight per cent a year under the previous government. The rate of increase in child-care fees has dropped by half under this government, which is a considerable reflection on the way this government has managed the economy in which those businesses operate. (Time expired)15197McKiernan, Sen JimSenator McKIERNAN1I4Western AustraliaALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. The minister had a lot of words to say in response to my question but did not answer the question. Minister, are you aware that the same report—that is, the report of the Australian Bureau of Statistics—found that the number of children using family day care has fallen by 10,000 since 1996? Does not this in itself suggest that, although family day care is supposed to be the basis of the government's in-home care strategy, the government has made it unaffordable for many Australian families?15198Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TasmaniaLPMinster for Family and Community Services and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—The interesting thing about family day care is that it will be even cheaper after 1 July than it is now. Traditionally family day care has cared for a lot of Australia's babies. Senator McKiernan might like to do something about it, but currently we have a fertility problem in our country and people are not having many babies.LD4Alston, Sen RichardSenator Alston—Too old.BE4Senator NEWMAN—Senator Alston suggests that Senator McKiernan is perhaps too old to help. But there are demographics issues happening in Australia which mean that we have fewer babies—we have fewer nought to four year olds—but we have increasing numbers of children who are in out of school hours care. More children of school age are requiring child care, but I am afraid we do not have so many babies. That might be one of the reasons.1519814:43:0015198Brandis, Sen GeorgeSenator BRANDIS008W7QueenslandLP10—My question is to the Minister for Family and Community Services, Senator Newman. Minister, the government has worked hard to strengthen relations with other countries in our region. Would you advise the Senate of developments in the social policy area that strengthen relations with our regional neighbours?15198Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TasmaniaLPMinster for Family and Community Services and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—I am glad to see Senator Brandis, as a new senator for Queensland, focusing on important meetings which take place in his state. Our government has worked hard to strengthen relations in the region, and our leadership role in restoring peace to East Timor, for example, was lauded around the world. Another development, however, that has received little attention occurred last week—Opposition senators interjecting—BE4Senator NEWMAN—It is clear the opposition is not interested in the region or in good social policy development. Another development that received little attention occurred last week during the first ever Asia Social Policy Ministers Forum which was held in Brisbane, in Senator Brandis's home state. That was a historic and significant event that it seems will now be the first of regular forums of this type in the future. I am delighted to inform the Senate that ministers and their delegates moved last Friday to recommend ongoing forums to discuss major social policy developments that are vital to regional stability. At the forum there were representatives from China, Indonesia, Malaysia, New Zealand, Singapore and Thailand. All were enthusiastic about future ongoing forums, and there is great optimism that the success of the inaugural forum will encourage other Asian nations to participate. The discussions at the forum reinforced the common interests that Australia shares with the nations that participated. Ageing populations, the drift of population from country to city and changes to traditional family structures are all placing pressure on social security systems around our region. Responses to these challenges will be varied, of course, according to each country's own circumstances, but what is certain is that no country can afford to ignore the slow but steady demographic and social changes in the interests of stability in their own country as well as regional security. Ministers and delegates from the world's most populous nation, China, and the fourth most populous, Indonesia, expressed great concern at the social challenge caused by the depopulation of traditional rural areas and the drift to cities where unemployment and social unrest are growing. China, a country with 800 million people living in rural areas and an economy undergoing great change, faces a challenge that we in Australia could hardly begin to fathom. Social security means regional security. It is a fact that participants at the forum are well aware of. Interestingly, Professor Stephen Fitzgerald, the Chairman of the Asia Australia Institute and a former ambassador to China, confirmed this when he addressed the forum participants on the importance of such meetings to healthy regional ties. As we work towards the reform of our welfare system, it makes sense to cement our ties with regional neighbours, each learning from the others how we respond to common challenges. This was a significant meeting. I am very disappointed, in fact, that it has been given very little attention when it is something of such long-term importance to Australia's wellbeing and to the wellbeing of the region.1519914:47:0015199Campbell, Sen GeorgeSenator GEORGE CAMPBELLNB5New South WalesALP00—Thank you, Madam President, for elevating me up the list. My question without notice is to Senator Kemp, the Assistant Treasurer. Can the minister confirm that analysis by the Treasury shows that the net recurrent GST compliance cost to business will be $385 million a year beginning in 2001-02? Does the government expect business to absorb these costs or pass them on to consumers through higher prices?15199Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VictoriaLPAssistant Treasurer10—I thank Senator George Campbell for the question. I thought that was a very clever ploy, actually, because I was getting ready for one of Senator Murphy's questions. It was a very clever ploy indeed, Senator Campbell.656Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator Forshaw—You don't just get the wrong brief; you get the wrong questioner.WW4Senator KEMP—That is a very good point, actually. That is why I thought it was a clever ploy.10000PRESIDENT,TheThe PRESIDENT—Senator Forshaw, you should not be talking across the chamber and Senator Kemp should not be talking back, especially when he is called to answer Senator George Campbell's question.NB5Campbell, Sen GeorgeSenator George Campbell—If I could take a point of order, Madam President, Senator Kemp is casting aspersions on the chair. I simply responded to your call.10000PRESIDENT,TheThe PRESIDENT—There is no point of order.WW4Senator KEMP—That was a pretty powerful point of order. Let me make it clear: business may face some start-up costs associated with the GST.Government senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENT,TheThe PRESIDENT—Order on my right! Senator Kemp, there is too much noise on my right. I am having difficulty hearing the answer.WW4Senator KEMP—The government has never denied that business may face some start-up costs associated with the GST. These costs, of course, include registration for the GST, training of staff and owners and ensuring that accounting processes are compatible with GST requirements. AW5Carr, Sen KimSenator Carr—Are these recurrent costs or not?10000PRESIDENT,TheThe PRESIDENT—Senator Carr, there is an appropriate time for you to take the matter up, and it is not now.WW4Senator KEMP—These costs may vary among various industries, and the costs will be minimal for a well-run business with good accounting and record keeping practices. Some businesses merely need to activate a GST module on their existing accounting software. Other businesses, of course, Senator Campbell, may be required to revise some of their accounting procedures. Many start-up costs associated with making accounting systems compatible with the GST will be tax deductible and businesses will benefit from updated equipment that may assist their general business activities. The average net recurrent costs, if I remember correctly, have been estimated, I think in the RIS statement that was tabled when the bill was debated—I am testing my memory here—at some $240. This measure provides a more accurate reflection, I suspect, of the recurring costs of the GST. I think, because Senator Campbell—H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator Ian Campbell—George Campbell.WW4Senator KEMP—I was referring to Senator George Campbell. There was a very interesting article published some time ago by Mr Chris Jordan who is the Chairman of the New Tax System Advisory Board. This article was published in the Sun Herald and is entitled `Burden of complying is no more than a myth'. I think it probably would be of help if this article, which is not a long article, were incorporated in Hansard in response to the question by Senator Campbell. I seek leave to incorporate it.10000PRESIDENT,TheThe PRESIDENT—Is leave granted?656Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator Forshaw—You plagiarist. Why don't you write your own?WW4Senator KEMP—Time is running out. I am quite happy to read extracts, but I assumed it was a serious question. I am providing some very detailed points to Senator George Campbell, so I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard the article by Mr Chris Jordan. Leave not granted.15200Campbell, Sen GeorgeSenator GEORGE CAMPBELLNB5New South WalesALP00—In my question I was referring to an analysis by the Treasury showing that the net recurrent GST compliance cost to business will be $385 million per year, starting from next year. Senator Kemp totally ignored that part of the question. My supplementary question is this. Is it true that the Treasury analysis deals with only one facet of tax reform and that the study on which it is based—by Dr Tran-Nam of the University of New South Wales—shows a net recurrent GST compliance cost to business of $657 million? Does the government agree with Tran-Nam's analysis?15200Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VictoriaLPAssistant Treasurer10—I will look at the analysis by the good doctor. I can understand why Senator Faulkner refused to allow Mr Chris Jordan's paper to be incorporated in Hansard. This is what he says—5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator Faulkner—Show it first, fool!10000PRESIDENT,TheThe PRESIDENT—Senator Faulkner, I ask you to withdraw, and you should not be shouting across the chamber in that fashion.5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator Faulkner—I withdraw. On a point of order, Madam President, I make the point that normally, if a minister wishes to incorporate anything other than an answer to a question, the opposition is given the courtesy of examining the document first. That was not done on this occasion and, accordingly, as the usual courtesies in this place were not extended by the government, leave was refused and will always be refused under those circumstances.10000PRESIDENT,TheThe PRESIDENT—There is no point of order. I call Senator Kemp.5L6Ferris, Sen JeannieSenator Ferris—He didn't withdraw.10000PRESIDENT,TheThe PRESIDENT—He withdrew when he first stood up.WW4Senator KEMP—It was an exceedingly petty point by Senator Faulkner. The reason he did not want Mr Chris Jordan's article incorporated in Hansard is this. This is how it starts off:Some media have carried exaggerated reports on the cost of compliance to small business with the introduction of the new tax system. In fact, compliance costs relating to the introduction of the GST for most small businesses will be negligible, and many can expect to enjoy substantial long-term benefits.It is a very interesting article by Mr Chris Jordan. I regard the behaviour of the Leader of the Opposition as quite petty and, indeed, pathetic in this matter.1520014:55:0015200Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEYHX5QueenslandAD10—My question is addressed to Senator Alston, the minister representing the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. Minister, the government's restructure package for deregulation of the dairy industry was based on projections that the farm gate price for liquid milk would fall by from 8c to 15c a litre. Is the Minister aware that the current projections are for the farm gate price to drop by more than 20c a litre and up to 30c a litre? Can the minister tell the Senate how many dairy farmers will exit farming on these new figures, given that AFFA told the estimates committee hearing that 4,000 were vulnerable on the 8c to 15c a litre figure? Will the government adjust the restructure package, given these new, much lower, farm gate prices?15200Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VictoriaLPMinister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts10—This is just a continuation of Senator Woodley's very crude attempts to curry favour and to distort the government's approach. In fact, Senator Woodley recently put out a press release dated 16 June 2000 saying:Australian dairy farmers know they are being sold a pup with dairy deregulation. Farmers know dairy deregulation is about as inevitable as a car crash.He goes on to say it is all our fault. Of course, as we know, he has been out there for months, bagging dairy deregulation and pleading for a plebiscite amongst the farmers. When they had one in Victoria, it was passed. In fact, Victoria—N26Abetz, Sen EricSenator Abetz—87 per cent.LD4Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTON—Oh, it was only 87 per cent! He must have had a few of his mates there voting against it. In other words, it was overwhelmingly supported by the farmers themselves. Senator Woodley knows this, and he also knows that farmers in other states regard themselves as being vulnerable if Victoria goes down that path unilaterally and that therefore they demanded in effect that action be taken and that an adjustment package be put in place. Now the industry requested that, Senator Woodley. The way you carry on, you would think somehow we had dreamed it up and imposed it on an unwilling industry, irrespective of their wishes. That is far from the truth. The federal government has not been out there trying to generate support for any particular package—8O6O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien—The Deputy PM says you were there.LD4Senator ALSTON—That's very interesting.HX5Woodley, Sen JohnSenator Woodley—Madam President, I rise on a point of order on the standing order that says that the minister, in answering a question, may not debate the issue. Obviously, Senator Alston is debating the issue. There is plenty of opportunity for that. I would ask him—through you, Madam President—if he would answer the question I asked.LD4Senator ALSTON—The question asked whether the government's deregulation package was based on projections—10000PRESIDENT,TheThe PRESIDENT—I have not ruled on the point of order. Are you speaking to the point of order?LD4Senator ALSTON—I am—and I am simply responding to that part of the question.10000PRESIDENT,TheThe PRESIDENT—There is no point of order.LD4Senator ALSTON—Thank you, Madam President. Of course, the false premise in Senator Woodley's whole approach is that somehow we are delivering up a package that the dairy farmers do not want. That is absolutely contrary to the facts. I noticed an interjection a moment ago suggesting that Mr Anderson was not supportive of that proposition. Well, in fact, as Mr Anderson said in a letter to the editor of The Land only a couple of weeks ago:The industry requested an adjustment package, first to provide some assistance for loss of quota and second to allow producers forced out of the industry to leave on the best possible financial terms. The result is the biggest industry assistance package in Australia's history.I do not know why you are opposed to this sort of assistance, Senator Woodley.10000PRESIDENT,TheThe PRESIDENT—Senator, your remarks should be directed through the chair.LD4Senator ALSTON—Madam President, I should have said, through you, that I cannot understand why Senator Woodley wants to maintain this crusade in the face of the fact that the farmers themselves wanted support from the government and wanted an industry adjustment package. They are getting it, as Senator Abetz reminded us, and they voted overwhelmingly for it. If you want to go on pandering to a phone box minority on this issue, you are dramatically out of line with the wishes of the vast majority of dairy farmers.15201Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEYHX5QueenslandAD10—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Is the minister aware that money from the restructure package will not be in farmers' hands until November this year? Has the minister read comments by National Party member Ian Causley that `There is no doubt that there is worse to come ... there will be a lot of people in all states that will leave dairying'? Minister, a New South Wales dairy consultant told my office this morning that there is the possibility of suicides if farmers fail to cope with the disastrous drop in their income. What is the government going to do to avert this tragedy?15201Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VictoriaLPMinister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts10—My understanding is that payments have in fact already commenced, contrary to the suggestion that they will somehow not commence until November. Of course there will always be restructuring in any farm sector, depending upon the prices and the long-term prospects of those engaged in rural activities. To simply say that some farmers perhaps having to leave the land negates the biggest assistance package in history is probably the ultimate non sequitur. The fact is that the farmers themselves wanted very significant assistance, the government has been prepared to come to their aid and the farmers themselves resent the fact that you are going around bagging this package. If Senator Woodley purports to represent this area of activity, the sooner he realises that he should consult those who actually do know something about what the package involves the better.BH4Hill, Sen RobertSenator Hill—Madam President, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice PaperQuestions Without Notice152021520215:02:0015202Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4South AustraliaLPMinister for the Environment and Heritage10—I have some supplementary information to a question without notice from Senator Bourne that was asked on 5 June 2000. I seek leave to have it incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted.The answer read as follows—Cox Peninsula Transmitter: SaleSupplementary information to Senator Bourne's question on 5 June 2000.As part of the tender process for Cox Peninsula, the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts were consulted by the Minister for Finance and Administration on the national interest implications of the disposal of the facility. Under the licence that has been granted Christian Vision to operate Cox Peninsula, there is a national interest assessment procedure which enables the Minister for Foreign Affairs to determine whether any of Christian Vision's services are contrary to the national interest. In reaching such a determination, the Minister will have regard to the effect of the service on Australia's international relations. This procedure is similar to that in the Broadcasting Services Amendment Bill (No. 4) 1999, which was reported on by the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee on 4 April. Once this Bill is enacted, it will apply to Christian Vision's broadcasts from Cox Peninsula.1520215:02:0015202Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5Western AustraliaALP00—I move:That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Family and Community Services (Senator Newman), to a question without notice asked by Senator Evans today, relating to the goods and services tax and long-term residents of caravan parks.What happened today is that the minister refused to repudiate Senator Ross Lightfoot's comments made yesterday about the GST impact on caravan park residents. What the minister is doing is endorsing those remarks. When asked about this issue yesterday, Senator Lightfoot said:These people are lucky. They are no more special than anyone else. It might be an incentive for them to get houses.That was Senator Lightfoot's depth of understanding of the issue; that was the government's degree of empathy for the position of caravan park residents, who will be the only group faced with a 5½ per cent GST on their rent. That is the level of understanding, empathy and support for people in caravan parks that this government has. Senator Ross Lightfoot is occasionally one out in the Liberal Party. He is occasionally regarded as a bit of a character, as sometimes running against the current orthodoxy of Liberal Party views. But on this occasion, Senator Ross Lightfoot and the Liberal Party are as one. They have that view of people who live in caravan parks; that is, if they do not like it, if they think there are going to get poorer as a result of having to pay tax on their caravan park rents, that will give them an incentive to go and buy houses. What a complete lack of understanding! Senator Ross Lightfoot is the Marie Antoinette of the Liberal government. She said, `Let them eat cake.' He said, `Let them go out and buy houses.'They have no understanding that the majority of people living permanently in caravan parks are on low incomes, they have no understanding that the majority of people who live in caravan parks and boarding houses are in fact on pensions or social security payments, and they have no understanding that most people who live in caravan parks live there because they cannot afford houses. They live there because they make a choice to do so and because, in their economic circumstances, that is the best option for them. Many of them do not have the ability to buy a house, many of them do not have the sorts of options that Senator Lightfoot, from a very privileged background, has. They do not have the sort of superannuation he got from the state parliament to make those sorts of decisions. They live from hand to mouth and they struggle to make ends meet. Many of them are among the battlers of our society, and they live there because they have to—because Sydney land prices or the availability of housing in the various areas of Australia mean that other options are closed off to them. They live there out of the necessity. It is highly contemptuous of Senator Lightfoot and the minister to refuse to show some empathy for these people and to treat them with the disdain and the French aristocracy's view of the world that Senator Lightfoot expresses. These people are going to be made poorer by being the only group who are forced to pay a GST on their rents. These people are already struggling and doing it tough; they will be made to do it tougher under one of the unfairest aspects of a very unfair GST.It is staggering that Senator Lightfoot does not have more appreciation of the issues and that the minister does not have either. Senator Lightfoot might like to go out to Mount Magnet, to Leonora, to Wiluna, to Meekatharra and to other places in the outback of Western Australia where large numbers of people live in caravan parks and boarding houses—as other Western Australian senators would know—who are forced, because of the lack of permanent accommodation and housing options, to live in caravan parks and boarding house arrangements. Those people will have no sympathy for Senator Lightfoot's views. In fact, I am sure that they will want to know what the member for Kalgoorlie, Mr Haase, has to say about their plight. There are thousands in my own state of Western Australia living in boarding houses and caravan parks who will not at all appreciate the tenor of these remarks and the government's complete lack of sympathy for their situation. As I understand it, there are more than 80,000 of these people living in boarding houses and caravan parks in New South Wales alone.I want to mention boarding houses because most of the people living in boarding houses are in fact on the disability support pension. Many of them are people with severe disabilities. These are the people who are doing it toughest in our society, who lack opportunity and support and who are struggling to make ends meet on social security payments, but they are the only ones who are going to be forced to pay the 5½ per cent tax on their rent. They are being singled out. They are being treated very harshly. The government will not show any sympathy, any empathy or any support for their plight. The National Party have proved themselves to be totally ineffective as representatives, and Senator Lightfoot today represented the government's real view about these people. They do not care about them. The coalition do not care about the circumstances of these people. They see this as an incentive for them to buy houses. (Time expired)15:07:0015203Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSONLI4VictoriaLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Foreign Affairs10—Day after day, the Labor Party decide they are going to have one scare campaign after the other. We can predict this. The Australian public can expect that, for the next 13 days until the GST is implemented, there will be a scare a day, as we had today in one of the questions about the implementation of the GST and the start-up cost. They never talk about the wholesale sales tax cost and what it cost in High Court charges. They never talk about whether or not you would have wholesale sales tax on cotton wool buds, frozen yoghurt or swimming pools. They never talk about all the anomalies that happened under Labor, all the increased costs with the implementation of their ramshackle wholesale sales tax system. All they can do is carp, complain and scare people. They did it with nursing homes when we had a policy about nursing homes. They do it all the time. They skate on the circumference of truth. They often tell untruths about our policies, and they do it again here today.FF4Chapman, Sen GrantSenator Chapman—They do it all the time.LI4Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSON—Yes, you are right, Senator Chapman, they do it all the time. It is one of the largest tax reforms in Australia's history. We are putting in place tax reform to ensure that we have finances without having to borrow as Labor did. Labor borrowed $10 billion from the next generation in their last year to pay for their splurges. We are actually putting in place a tax reform system which will enable us to have finances and the states to have the finances to pay for schools, roads and hospitals. Our tax base was shrinking, and we have done what was needed. We have had the guts to bring in a reform that will be good for all Australians and provide us with income into the future.The Labor Party comes in here every day with yet another scare tactic. It has never been the intention of the government that long-term residents of caravan parks or other forms of commercial accommodation like boarding houses should suffer any disadvantage. The operators of commercial residential premises—that is, caravan parks, camping grounds, hotels, motels, hostels, boarding houses and other premises—will have the option of not charging GST on services supplied but will not be entitled to input tax credits. They are the normal input taxation rules that apply to other rental accommodation. Alternatively, they can charge GST on 50 per cent of the price of the long-term accommodation and they will then be able to claim input tax credits.I had a discussion this morning with some colleagues who have people who live in caravan parks in their electorates. They have had some concerned people come to them but, when they have had them come into their offices and explained to them what is going to happen, the people go away understanding the system and understanding that they are being treated fairly compared with other people. We constantly have Labor Party people telling absolute untruths about what is going to happen. The operators of commercial residential premises will have the option of choosing the tax treatment that serves them and their residents best. This should result in rents being lower than they would have been if there had been no choice available. Long-term residents of commercial accommodation, such as caravan parks and boarding houses, will also benefit from the compensation measures included in the tax reform package. We never ever hear the Labor Party in this chamber talk about this. Not once has one member on the other side got up and talked about the whole tax package. They talk about only one side of it. They do not talk about the compensation. They do not talk about the seven per cent increase in rent assistance to enable people to cope with the rise in rental costs. Additionally, they do not say that pensions will increase by four per cent to deal with the inflationary effect of the GST.AW5Carr, Sen KimSenator Carr—How much will inflation increase?LI4Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSON—The pensions and benefits will stay two per cent ahead of that inflationary rise.AW5Carr, Sen KimSenator Carr—Let's see!LI4Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSON—That is another tactic. `Let's see,' they say. We will have taxation relief for people living in caravan parks. People who have incomes will have taxation relief. But we do not hear them talk about that. When they had a tax policy in 1993 it was `l-a-w law tax cuts'. They went to the 1993 election and told the Australian people they were going to have tax cuts. What did they do? They came in afterwards and said that they were not going to do it. Many older people live in caravan parks. They said all pensions would be taken out of the tax system. Two days after the 1993 election they came out and said, `Sorry, that was an error in our policy. We didn't mean to say that.' That is the sort of treatment older people got under Labor. (Time expired)15:12:0015204McKiernan, Sen JimSenator McKIERNAN1I4Western AustraliaALP00—Senator Patterson has finished. I thought she had finished when she sat down.LI4Patterson, Sen Kay1I4McKiernan, Sen JimSenator McKIERNAN—That is very decent of you, Senator Patterson. It is unfortunate that you did not use your five minutes of debating time—and I never interjected once—to speak to the motion in front of the chamber at the moment, which of course was moved by Senator Evans and asks that the Senate take note of the response from Minister Newman to his question about your coalition colleague—10000DEPUTY PRESIDENT,TheThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Address the chair, please, Senator McKiernan.1I4McKiernan, Sen JimSenator McKIERNAN—About Senator Patterson's coalition colleague, Senator Ross Lightfoot, senator for Western Australia. He is Senator Boswell's coalition colleague as well. Senator Lightfoot had this to say yesterday on the matter of the GST and its impact on people who choose—some choose wilfully and some do not have the choice—to live in caravan parks. Senator Lightfoot said:These people are lucky. They are no more special than anyone else. It might be an incentive for them to get houses.How insensitive can you get! I am sure that when Senator Boswell gets up here to defend his coalition colleague he will distance himself from the insensitivity of Senator Lightfoot—or perhaps he will not. All too often in this chamber Senator Lightfoot goes out on the public stage and makes outrageous and sometimes even racist statements and nobody on that side of the chamber distances themselves from what Senator Lightfoot has to say.How many of them came into this chamber at the first opportunity after Senator Lightfoot made his statements about the white Zimbabwean farmers coming into Australia and when he was questioned about what would happen to the black workers of those white Zimbabwean farmers, who were also being attacked, who were also being maimed, who were also being mutilated and whose families were also being threatened? `There is going to be no room in Australia for the black ones.' Did any of his coalition colleagues come in here and defend him or repudiate his statements or even distance themselves from what Senator Lightfoot had to say? No.Earlier in the year, the good coalition senator from Western Australia put out a media release headed `Worried about your wife and children? Go home and check!' This was about illegal immigrants coming into the country. Senator Lightfoot's media statement had this to say:Despite his strong support for the introduction of a limited three year visa, Senator Lightfoot has variously described the illegal arrivals as queue-jumpers, criminals and law-breakers as well as possible carriers of communicable disease. He makes it clear that he would prefer to see the immigrants returned to their last port of embarkation.It goes on to quote Senator Lightfoot as saying:... we simply cannot become the refuge for all of the world's troubled, dispossessed or religious zealots, who see Australia as a natural haven.Further on, he has something to say about the prejudice and intolerance that they bring in with them. If there is anybody in this particular chamber—and my colleague Senator Eggleston would know this—who knows anything about prejudice and intolerance, it is our good colleague Senator Lightfoot from Western Australia. He knows all about it and, indeed, we have witnessed some of his comments in this place in the past. Very shortly after he arrived here, he had some words to say about Aboriginals in this place.5F4Calvert, Sen PaulSenator Calvert—When are you going to start playing the ball, not the man?4L6Eggleston, Sen AlanSenator Eggleston—What about the GST? That's what we're talking about.1I4McKiernan, Sen JimSenator McKIERNAN—What about about this statement? See if Senator Eggleston will distance himself from this statement. Senator Calvert, will you distance yourself from your coalition colleague for making this remark:These people are lucky. They are no more special than anyone else. It might be an incentive for them to get houses.Do you, Senator Calvert, agree with those remarks? Does Senator Eggleston agree with those remarks? Does Senator Boswell agree with his coalition colleague? Is he indeed speaking on behalf of the coalition when he makes these very insensitive remarks that show no understanding? (Time expired)15:17:0015205Eggleston, Sen AlanSenator EGGLESTON4L6Western AustraliaLP10—Whatever the intent of Senator Lightfoot's remarks, the fact remains that under the coalition government housing has become far more affordable. It has become far more affordable because the coalition has managed the economy better. Interest rates are lower and, after the new tax system is introduced on 1 July, most people in Australia will be paying only 30 cents in the dollar as tax, and they will have a higher disposable income and more money to spend on mortgages. So more Australians will be getting into housing and buying their own house.AW5Carr, Sen KimSenator Carr—What about interest rates?4L6Eggleston, Sen AlanSenator EGGLESTON—Interest rates are nowhere near the levels they reached at the height of the totally irresponsible and utterly bad administration of the Hawke and Keating governments. Interest rates under the Howard government have been at record lows. Right now, they are slowly going up, but they are miles away from the horrific rates they reached in the late eighties under the Hawke-Keating regime. That is something which I am sure the Labor Party does not like being reminded of, but it is something that I assure you the people of Australia will never forget. They will never forget that the Labor Party is a party of inept and incompetent economic managers.The new tax system that we are bringing in means that most Australians are better off in a general way. While the Labor Party, as Senator Patterson said, are picking an issue a day on the tax system—something to attack the government with as we count down, with 10½ days to go—it is my bet that, once the tax system is introduced and the new system is in place, we will not hear a word from the Labor Party, because they know the benefits to the Australian population will be so good. The Labor Party strategically know they have to go in and try to score a few points now because they sure are not going to score any after 1 July. They will find that the Australian people will like the $12 billion in tax cuts, they will like the fact that most people will be paying only 30 cents in the dollar, they will like the fact that wholesale sales taxes will go and they will like the fact that almost all consumer goods in the shops will be cheaper and that cars will be cheaper, and they will find that it is really nice to have the extra money to buy the cheaper consumer goods.AW5Carr, Sen KimSenator Carr—They know that's not true, as well!4L6Eggleston, Sen AlanSenator EGGLESTON—Senator Carr, if you think that, you are sadly mistaken. They know it is going to be good for them. Let us look at the question of taxation on caravans in caravan parks. What the Labor Party is doing here is utter nonsense. It has never been the government's intention that long-term residents of caravan parks and other forms of commercial accommodation should suffer any kind of disadvantage under the new tax system. Operators of commercial residential premises, which include caravan parks, camping grounds, hotels, motels, hostels, boarding houses and other like accommodation, have the option of not charging the GST on services supplied but then, in turn, are not entitled to claim input tax credits. The normal input taxation rules apply to rental accommodation as they do to any other kind of business. In other words, if they do not charge the GST, the owner of the caravan park or boarding house cannot reclaim the input tax credit. Or if they charge 50 per cent on the price of the long-term accommodation, they can then claim the input tax credits, and that should result in rents being lower than would have otherwise been the case. In other words, there is a benefit to the people who live in caravan parks and other kinds of commercial accommodation like that in having to pay the GST on half the cost of the rent, because it means the owner of the premises can offer the accommodation at a cheaper rate. I do not think that is any problem. I am sure people will appreciate the fact that they pay a net lower rent because the owner of the accommodation is able to claim back the input tax credits and therefore offer a cheaper rent. (Time expired)15:23:0015206Quirke, Sen JohnSenator QUIRKEZS6South AustraliaALP00—Something that stands out like a Senator McKiernan tie—and that is something quite dramatic in this chamber—is Senator Lightfoot being ignored by his own people. In fact, I must say to Senator Eggleston that it took him a bit to get `Senator Lightfoot' out, and I congratulate him, because he succeeded in getting that name `Lightfoot' out, whereas all the others could not do it. In particular, the minister could not do it. I think what we have had put before us this afternoon is a fascinating debate in which poor old Senator Eggleston and Senator Patterson had to defend Senator Lightfoot. Anyone would know that if you do that successfully then indeed you are doing pretty well around here. Senator Lightfoot—I can say that; I make the disclaimer here now—and I have been on a number of trips together, and I find him delightful company. Indeed, a number of his views I do not agree with—and the statement he made yesterday was rather interesting—but, in essence, I think Senator Lightfoot is a good-hearted chap who goes out there and, sadly, ties himself up to a lot of wrong causes. But I must say this: at least he is forthright about the whole matter. The government today was not even mentioning his name—except for Senator Eggleston. Basically, what Senator Lightfoot said, talking about these people who are soon to be taxed, was that they are really very lucky. In fact, he said:These people are lucky. They are no more special than anyone else. It might be an incentive for them to get houses.I must say that I have not met too many rich people living in caravan parks. It may well be the case that there is a—how will I put it?—Kerry Stokes out there or some of the Packer family who really secretly want to live in a caravan park. But, somehow or other, I do not think so; I doubt that proposition. But it may well be that Senator Lightfoot is right—that this tax will be the thing that will make them go down to the bank, take some money out and buy a house. I will wait to see how that goes.We were given a number of good little chestnuts this afternoon by the government speakers. In fact, if we go to Senator Patterson's speech, there were a couple of good things there. She said basically that the Labor Party brings up a tactic a day. Well, wrong, Senator Patterson; very wrong indeed. This one was brought up by our friends the National Party. If anybody did not see the weekend press, then maybe they could have made the mistake and thought that we brought it up. But if you actually put on a television set at the weekend or read a newspaper, you would have seen that the National Party was having one or two problems on this issue for all sorts of reasons.Then we were told, `Look, if we took the GST off, then the owner of the caravan park could not claim input credits, and that means the rents would go up anyway.' Well, I will give you another choice. Don't have the GST or any of the rest of it and leave it alone, and then it does not go up at all. It seems to me that that is a Hobson's choice. Then we were told that people in this area are treated more fairly than others. I cannot fathom that, because they are going to be charged the GST. It might be a half GST, but they are the people in rental accommodation who are going to be directly charged the GST. Then Senator Eggleston told us that they should be happy because they are only going to pay 30 cents in the dollar in their general tax. I do not know where this has come from, but I doubt that there are many people living in caravan parks who are really going to be paying 30 cents in the dollar income tax, because a large number of them are unemployed, old and have nowhere else to go. But, again, if there are some people in this category who are only paying 30 cents in the dollar after the new tax system, then good luck to them. Then we are told that this is going to be a whole new system that is going to be of benefit to rent payers; that it is going to lead to cheaper rates further down the track. Well, I will make this prediction here now to the Senate: nothing is going to go down after 1 July and a lot of things will go up. (Time expired)Question resolved in the affirmative. 1520715:28:0015207Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEYHX5QueenslandAD10—I move:That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts (Senator Alston), to a question without notice asked by Senator Woodley today, relating to Australian dairy industry.One could hardly call the answer given by Senator Alston an answer. He did not answer any of the questions I asked, and most of the information he supplied was nonsense. Deregulating the price farmers get for milk was supposed to lower the retail price and increase exports. That was the theory; the reality has been quite different. But let me say at the outset that there is some good news today; that is, the price for manufactured milk on the export market has risen. Let us welcome that and hope that that continues.Deregulation of the Australian dairy industry was proposed by the Kennett government in Victoria, where the majority of dairy farmers are based. A proportion of Victorian farmers produce milk more cheaply than other producers in Australia. Some people attribute that to poor environmental management, others to economies of scale. Most Victorian milk is exported, so the news today for those farmers who are involved in the export market is good. Some Victorian farmers felt that they stood to gain from deregulating the price of milk. Naturally, it was argued that Australian consumers would benefit from a cheaper retail price for the milk they bought, although that has yet to be proven.At the same time, a significant proportion of Victorian, Western Australian, Queensland and New South Wales dairy farmers questioned the potential for milk exports to rise in a corrupt world market. I must say that even the ABARE prediction from which I quoted a moment ago does say that the overproduction by other countries will mitigate the benefit which will accrue to our farmers. However, key Victorian dairy industry figures are now admitting that many farmers in that state also will be worse off following deregulation, and that was the state that was supposed to reap the most benefit.Farmers themselves, and this is what Senator Alston does not understand and certainly did not answer, are also questioning the restructure package—not whether they need one but whether or not it is adequate. It seems that the federal government may have jumped the gun a little in legislating the restructure package before deregulation was achieved by the states and, for that reason, they are getting most of the criticism. That may be a little unfair, Senator Boswell, but there is an impression that the coalition is taking the lead on deregulation when in fact the states do have the ultimate authority in that particular instance.I agree with National Party MP Ian Causley. He is probably right when he predicts, as he did on ABC radio this week, that his party will get the blame for an issue where there is shared responsibility between the states and the Commonwealth. What I am disappointed in is the ping-pong match which has gone on between various political parties and between the state and the Commonwealth on this matter, and in that game of ping-pong the ball very much has been the dairy industry itself.With a looming federal election, the government may have a tragedy of their own to deal with, let alone the tragedy for dairy farmers. About 20 seats are rated marginal by the Australian Electoral Commission following the last election and, of these 20 seats, many have dairy farms within their boundaries. The dairy seats could include Dawson, Hinkler, Wide Bay, Forde, Herbert, Longman and Capricornia in Queensland; Page, Richmond, Eden-Monaro, Lindsay, Macarthur, Macquarie, Paterson and McMillan in New South Wales; and Flinders and McEwen in Victoria. As we know, the Howard government are already in hot water with farmers in Queensland in the sugar seats, which include some of the dairy seats, over the removal of the sugar tariff. The dairy issue has the potential to loosen several coalition MPs' tenuous holds on marginal electorates and unseat the government. It is bad for farmers, it is bad for consumers and it looks as though it may also be bad for the government.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENT,TheThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! The time for the debate has expired.YE4Boswell, Sen RonSenator Boswell—I seek leave to make a five minute statement on the dairy industry.Leave not granted.YE4Boswell, Sen RonSenator Boswell—Can I ask who denied me leave?8O6O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien—Organise it another time—not in this debate, not now.YE4Boswell, Sen RonSenator Boswell—I will deny leave to anyone on your side.Question resolved in the affirmative.152091The ClerkThe Clerk—A petition has been lodged for presentation as follows:1520910VI4ReidTo the Honourable the President and the Members of the Senate Assembled in the Parliament.The petition of the undersigned show: our commitment to retaining the Artillery Barracks, Burt Street, Fremantle, Western Australia, and all buildings pertaining thereof, as it now stands, together with the inclusion of the Army Museum of Western Australia as part of that site.Your petitioners respectfully request that the Senate overturn any proposal to sell or lease the site for any purpose, other than its present use.10Senator ReidVI4Senator Reid (from 10 citizens).Petition received.Notices152091520915:34:0015209Coonan, Sen HelenSenator COONAN2M6New South WalesLP10—Pursuant to notice given on the last day of sitting, on behalf of the Regulation and Ordinances Committee, I now withdraw business of the Senate notices of motion Nos 1, 2, 3, 7 and 8 standing in my name for three sitting days after today; business of the Senate notices of motion Nos 1 and 2 standing in my name for four sitting days after today; and business of the Senate notices of motion Nos 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6 standing in my name for six sitting days after today.15209Senator Faulkner to move, on the next day of sitting:That the Senate— (a) notes the repeated attempts of the Greenfields Foundation to avoid scrutiny by the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC); (b) shares the concern expressed by the AEC in its `Election 1998—Funding and disclosure' report that the Greenfields Foundation provides a model for those who wish to avoid full and open disclosure of political donations; (c) supports the recommendations of the AEC which are designed to prevent such potential circumvention of the intention of the public disclosure provisions in the Electoral Act; and calls on the Government to bring forward legislation to amend the Electoral Act in accordance the recommendations of the AEC.Senator Allison to move, on the next day of sitting:That the Senate— (a) notes that: (i) 18 224 people died in 1998 due to tobacco or tobacco-related illnesses according to the Medical Journal of Australia, (ii) the Federal Government spends $112 on anti-smoking measures for every death from tobacco-related disease, (iii) this figure is one thousand times less than the more than $118 000 per death spent on anti-drugs campaigns, (iv) $419 619 is spent for every road death on `black spot' and road safety campaigns, (v) anti-tobacco controls were allocated $3.8 million in the 1998-99 Budget, (vi) in 1997-98 the net government revenue from tobacco was $4.2 billion, (vii) a recent report has found that whilst the Commonwealth spent around $4.2 million, and all governments spent $12 million, two pharmaceutical companies have spent around $30 million on anti-smoking education in the 1999-2000 financial year alone, and (viii) Australia is behind other countries in its commitment to tobacco control; and urges the Federal Government to redress the serious shortfall in the budget for anti-smoking measures.15:35:0015209Coonan, Sen HelenSenator COONAN2M6New South WalesLP10—On behalf of the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances, I give notice that 15 sitting days after today I shall move: No. 1—Civil Aviation Amendment Order (No.2) 2000, made under the Civil Aviation Regu-lations 1988, be disallowed.No. 2— Civil Aviation Amendment Order (No.4) 2000, made under the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988, be disallowed.No. 3—That Exemption No.CASA EX28/-2000, made under regulation 308 of the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988, be disallowed.I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a short summary of the matters raised by the committee.Leave granted.The summary read as follows—Civil Aviation Amendment Order (No.2) 2000; Civil Aviation Amendment Order (No.4) 2000; and Exemption No.CASA EX28/2000 made under the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988The making words of Orders (No.2) and (No.4) 2000 state merely that they are made under the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988. Civil Aviation Amendment Order (No. 2) 2000The Explanatory Statement accompanying this Order is unclear. In the fourth paragraph of the Statement there is a reference to subparagraph 4.1A(a), as requiring a certain capability of an automatic pilot, but in the following paragraph of the Statement there is a reference to the need for automatic pilots to comply with subparagraph 4.1A(d). The Explanatory Statement advises that the purpose of the Order is described as being to insert a Note in subparagraph 4.1A(d) “to clarify the effect” of the provision. In such cases, it may be preferable that the meaning of a legislative provision be clarified by another legislative provision and not by means of a non-legislative Note.Exemption No. CASA EX28/2000This instrument exempts Aerosonde pilotless aircraft which are operated from East Sale by Aerosonde Robotic Aircraft Pty Ltd from many of the provisions of those Regulations while the aircraft are being used to demonstrate their suitability for meteorological work.The final sentence of this instrument provides that it “stops having effect at the end of July 2000.” However, the penultimate paragraph of the Explanatory Statement states that it “stops having effect at the end of June 2000.” The Committee has written to the Minister seeking advice on these matters.Leave of Absence15210Motion (by Senator O'Brien) agreed to:That leave of absence be granted to Senator Harris for the period 19 June to 22 June 2000 inclusive, on account of ill health. Business1521015210Item of business were postponed as follows:General business notice of motion no. 591 standing in the name of Senator Allison for today, relating to the grey headed flying fox colony in the Melbourne Botanical Gardens, postponed till 21 June 2000.General business notice of motion no. 594 standing in the name of Senator Stott Despoja for today, relating to women's rights, postponed till 21 June 2000.Committees152101521015210Motion (by Senator Bourne, at the request of Senator Murray) agreed to: (1) That the following matters be referred to the Community Affairs References Committee for inquiry and report by 14 May 2001: (a) child migration to Australia during the twentieth century, with particular reference to the role and responsibilities of the Australian Commonwealth and state governments; (b) in relation to government and non-government institutions responsible for the care of child migrants: (i) whether any unsafe, improper, or unlawful care or treatment of children occurred in such institutions, and (ii) whether any breach of any relevant statutory obligation existing under state or federal law occurred during the course of the care of former child migrants; (c) the full range of appropriate measures required to assist former child migrants to reunite with their families and obtain independent advice and counselling services; (d) the efforts made during the operation of the child migration schemes or since by the Australian state and federal governments, the United Kingdom Government, and any other non-government bodies which were then responsible for child migration to: (i) inform the children of the existence and whereabouts of their parents and or siblings, (ii) reunite or assist in the reunification of the child migrants with any of their relatives, and (iii) provide counselling or any other services that were designed to reduce or limit trauma caused by the removal of these children from their country of birth and deportation to Australia; (e) the need for a formal acknowledgment and apology by Australian governments for the human suffering arising from the child migration schemes; (f) measures of reparation including, but not limited to, compensation and re-habilitation; (g) the convening of an international conference of Commonwealth count-ries involved in child migration schemes; (h) statutory or administrative limitations or barriers adversely affecting those former child migrants who wish to pursue claims against individual perpetrators of abuse previously involved in their care; and (i) any other matters considered relevant by the committee.Miscellaneous15211Motion (by Senator O'Brien at the request of Senator Faulkner) agreed to:That there be laid on the table by the Assistant Treasurer (Senator Kemp), no later than 11 am on 22 June 2000, the correspondence from the Australian Taxation Commissioner to the Australian Electoral Commissioner of 19 April 2000 and any written response to such correspondence by the Australian Electoral Commission.Miscellaneous15211Motion (by Senator Bolkus) agreed to:That there be laid on the table by the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources (Senator Minchin), no later than 4 p.m. on 26 June 2000, any documents, including (but not limited to) internal memos, internal reports, consultants' reports, tender documentation, tender submissions or appendices to tender submissions, held by the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation relating to: (a) the nature of the fuel required in the new nuclear reactor at Lucas Heights; and (b) the implications of the fuel specification for the type and nature of waste produced by the reactor.Documents15211152111521110000DEPUTY PRESIDENT,TheThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—In accordance with the provisions of the Auditor-General Act 1997, I present the following report of the Auditor-General: Report No. 47 of 1999-2000 - Performance Audit - Survey of Fraud Control Arrangements in APS Agencies.Bills15211R1061BillsR107815211Bills received from the House of Representatives.15:39:0015211Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15Western AustraliaLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts10—I indicate to the Senate that those bills which have just been announced 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.1521115:39:0015211Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15Western AustraliaLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts10—I table revised explanatory memoranda relating to each of the bills 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—NEW BUSINESS TAX SYSTEM (INTEGRITY MEASURES) BILL 2000The New Business Tax System (Integrity Measures) Bill 2000 contains two important integrity measures. The Review of Business Taxation, chaired by John Ralph, AO, recommended the measures and the Government announced on 11 November 1999 that it would adopt them. The measures will:limit the extent to which taxpayers can use non-commercial losses to reduce the tax paid on their other income; andrequire that prepayments for services under tax shelter arrangements be deducted over the period during which the services are provided, rather than being immediately tax deductible.The non-commercial losses measure will improve the integrity of the tax system by limiting the extent to which losses from an individual's non-commercial business activities are used to reduce the tax paid on other income such as salary or wage income. The Ralph Review of Business Taxation noted that there was a significant revenue leakage from unprofitable activities carried out by taxpayers and that many of these activities are more like hobbies and/or lifestyle choices.The Review recommended, and the Government accepted, that it was necessary to implement a systemic solution to this issue rather than continue to rely on the current law which is resource intensive to administer. The new rules I am introducing today do not change the existing general law tests that determine whether an individual is carrying on a business activity; nor do they deny the deductibility of a loss from that activity. The rules ensure that individual taxpayers carrying on a business activity either alone or in partnership may only claim a loss from that activity against their other income in an income year if they satisfy one of five tests in that year. The tests look at the activity's level of turnover, history of profitability, the value of real property used in carrying on the business and the value of other assets used in carrying on the business. Only one of the tests needs to be passed to enable an individual's loss from a business activity in a year to be deducted against the individual's other assessable income, such as wages and salary.There is also a discretion to allow the losses where the business is affected by special circumstances, such as natural disasters, or is in its start-up phase.In addition, if an individual is carrying on a primary production business, the measure does not apply where their non primary production assessable income (excluding net capital gains) is less than $40,000. This assists those small primary producers who find it necessary to support themselves through moderate amounts of off-farm income (particularly during periods of hardship), while genuinely, at the same time, seeking to pursue their farm activities on a commercial basis.Where a test is not satisfied in an income year, the loss is deferred and can be offset in a future year against income from the activity or against other income if one of the tests is satisfied.These rules will apply to assessments for the 2000-01 income year and later income years.The estimated increases in revenue from the measure are $30 million in the 2000-2001 financial year, $230 million in 2001-2002 and $170 million in 2002-2003.The second measure in the bill deals with prepayments. Again this integrity measure is based on the recommendations of the Ralph Review of Business Taxation.The measure introduces new rules on when prepaid expenditure for services in respect of `tax shelter' arrangements is to be deductible. The effect is to align the deduction for the expenditure with the period during which the services are provided rather than being immediately deductible when the payment is made.Under the existing law, prepayments for things to be done wholly within 13 months, including those relating to tax shelter arrangements, are immediately deductible for small business taxpayers and for payments outside a business. This rule has given rise to many tax minimisation schemes, particularly end-of-year schemes. These new rules will reduce the tax advantages that are derived from participation in these tax shelters by limiting immediate deductibility for prepayments. This measure will promote equity in the tax system and more productive investment activity.The new rules will apply to prepaid expenditure incurred by all taxpayers under tax shelter arrangements after 1 p.m. Australian Eastern Summer Time on 11 November 1999. However, certain prepayments will be specifically excluded from the operation of the new rules. These include prepayments for:interest on borrowings to acquire real property or interests in real property, publicly listed shares or units in widely held unit trusts;premiums for building, contents or rent protection insurance;interest on infrastructure bonds;irrevocable commitments entered into before 11 November 1999; and arrangements which have an ATO product ruling, where the ruling issued or the application had been lodged with the ATO before 11 November 1999. The estimated increases in revenue from the measure are $40 million in the 2000-2001 financial year, $100 million in 2001-2002 and $90 million in 2002-2003.Full details of the measures in this bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum.I commend the bill.TAXATION LAWS AMENDMENT BILL (No. 6) 2000This bill amends the income tax law to allow a beneficiary rebate in respect of the payment of the Community Development Employment Projects Scheme Participant Supplement. The payment was announced in the 1998-1999 budget and will be subject to the Pay-As-You-Earn and Pay-As-You-Go withholding systems. The amendments will apply to payments made on or after 11 November 1999 and to assessments for the 1999-2000 year of income and all later years of income.To assist with the implementation of the GST, the Government is providing direct assistance certificates to small and medium enterprises and to community sector bodies when they register for the GST. These certificates will not be subject to tax. This bill amends the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 to ensure that GST direct assistance certificates are exempt from tax that may arise from the receipt or redemption of the certificates.This bill also gives effect to the announcement by the Minister for Health and Aged Care on 24 May 2000, that high income earners will be subject to the Medicare Levy Surcharge from 1 July 2000 if they purchase private hospital cover on or after 25 May 2000 with excesses greater than $500 for singles or $1,000 for families.Those with these high excess policies purchased on or before 24 May 2000 are not affected.This addresses concerns that high income earners have been purchasing inadequate health insurance to avoid the Medicare Levy Surcharge. It will encourage those who can afford to do so to purchase comprehensive hospital insurance and use the private health system when hospital treatment is required.Full details of the measures in this bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum.I commend the bill.Debate (on motion by Senator O'Brien) adjourned.Ordered that the bills be listed on the Notice Paper as separate orders of the day.Bills15213R107715213Bill 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.1521315:41:0015213Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15Western AustraliaLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts10—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—In just over 50 days, Australia will see the implementation of the most significant tax reform since World War II, including the largest tax cuts in Australia's history. The reform package also includes large increases to family assistance, increases to pensions and all other government benefits, the abolition of wholesale sales tax and the introduction of the GST.As part of the implementation phase of the GST, the government has embarked upon an extensive information and community education program. Both the Australian Taxation Office and GST Start-Up Assistance Office have played key roles with comprehensive seminar programs, the provision of booklets and fact sheets on the operation of the GST, and several infolines addressing both tax issues and the business skills needed to prepare for tax reform.The Australian Taxation Office has also issued a large number of rulings on detailed operation of the law in relation to the GST.As a result of the detailed examination of the law through the rulings process, feedback received from taxpayers on the GST legislation, as well as comments from the New Tax System Advisory Board, several issues have been raised by interested parties including the need for amendments. The government has looked at the issues raised and considers that a number of amendments need to be made to ensure that the legislation remains consistent with the government's original intentions.The amendments in this bill will apply to the A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Act 1999 (the GST Act) and related legislation. They give effect to the measures announced in the Treasurer's Press Release No. 37 of 3 May 2000 as well as some other issues not previously announced.The measures in this bill cover approximately 30 minor policy issues and 9 technical issues. The majority of the amendments are concessional in nature and will be welcomed by business. In addition, there are a small number of amendments which are regarded as anti-avoidance measures to ensure that aspects of the law operate as intended. The other amendments are technical in nature but are essential to ensure that the legislation operates effectively.Some of the more important amendments contained in this bill are as follows.This bill will amend the GST Act to give the Commissioner of Taxation the power to issue guidelines to specify that certain fundraising events undertaken by charities can be treated as input taxed. These fundraising events could include a fete, ball, or other similar event that is separate from and nor forming part of a series of similar events. Events involving the sale of small fundraising items such as badges, flowers and confectionery will be included provided the charitable entity is not in the business of selling such items.Where the fundraising event does not meet this description, the amendments provide that a charitable entity may make a request to the Commissioner to apply his discretion to treat an activity as input taxed. In applying his discretion, the Commissioner would need to have broad regard to whether the charitable entity is in the business of making such supplies. In addition, the Commissioner must be satisfied that the fundraising is genuine and the proceeds are for the direct benefit of the charity.This bill amends the GST Act to make the delivery of livestock to a processor a taxable supply. This confirms the government's policy in respect of food to ensure that, as far as practicable, farmers should be in a position to sell their produce subject to GST.This bill also amends the GST Act to ensure the lease or hire of goods by pre-schools, primary schools and secondary schools to students are GST-free provided the school retains property of those goods. These supplies will be GST-free as long as there is not any transfer, or agreement to transfer ownership of the goods to any student or anyone else at any stage, and the supply must be directly and principally for use by that student in a GST-free education course supplied by the school.Other measures in this bill relate to:streamlined processes to let businesses inform insurance companies of their input tax credit status;allowing more flexible arrangements for accounting for GST for transactions between agents and principals;clarifying the GST treatment of supplies involving non-residents;rules for calculating GST;taking borrowing out of the financial supplies de minimus threshold except for those borrowings that are related to making financial supplies;applying consistent principles to GST turnover tests to assist pubs and clubs; andtwo revenue protection measures to prevent stockpiling of alcoholic beverages.The amendments in this bill demonstrate that the government is responding to consultations and is prepared to make changes necessary to ensure an effective tax system.Full details of the amendments in this bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum.I commend the bill.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.Committees15215152151521515:42:0015215Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSONLI4VictoriaLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Foreign Affairs10—Madam Deputy President, I seek leave to make a short statement on a motion that went through, in connection with which there was a misunderstanding in terms of the government's position.Leave granted.LI4Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSON—My statement is with regard to the motion put forward by Senator Murray on British child migrants. Whilst the government acknowledges that it does not, or did not, have the numbers in the chamber to deny formality of the motion, we do however want it recorded in Hansard that we oppose this matter being referred to the Community Affairs References Committee for inquiry.The government would have sought to oppose this motion for a parliamentary inquiry into former British child migration as the issues have already been extensively covered in the British inquiry and by inquiries conducted in Australia by state governments. The government's views on an inquiry as well as on other matters canvassed in this motion have been outlined in the Australian response to the UK response to the House of Commons inquiry tabled on 27 January.Successive Australian governments have sought to help former child migrants deal with the consequences of their experiences through financial assistance to the Child Migrants Trust—about $760,000 since 1990—and by assisting them in other ways such as to access their records through the National Archives of Australia and waiver of citizenship fees. State and territory governments have also provided counselling and health services, which are also available to the general population.The travel fund established by the UK government is an initiative of that government, and it covers child migrants to Canada and New Zealand as well as Australia, and the British response does not seek an Australian contribution to it. So we have provided our own financial support in response to the needs of former child migrants for some years in advance of the British initiative. They were the reasons why we were opposing this motion on the voices, although our comments were not made at the time. I thank the Senate for its indulgence.Bills15215Messages from His Excellency the Governor-General were reported informing the Senate that he had assented to the following laws:Fuel Sales Grants Bill 2000Fuel Sales Grants (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2000Product Grants and Benefits Administration Bill 2000Bills1521515:44:0015215O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TasmaniaALP00—I move:That the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Amendment Regulations 1999 (No. 9), as contained in Statutory Rules 1999 No. 333 and made under the Customs Act 1901, be disallowed.As the Senate would be aware, this instrument has already been disallowed in the House of Representatives. While logic might suggest there is no need to proceed with this motion today, there are in fact good reasons to do so. Under the Acts Interpretation Act, each house has an independent power of disallowance. While either house disallows any regulation, no regulation that is the same in substance may be made within six months of the date of disallowance. However, if I had in fact withdrawn this disallowance motion, it would then be open to the other place to remake the regulation and to approve that action by resolution—that is, the government would not need to bring this regulation to the Senate to remake it in the same terms. But, and subject to this motion, if the Senate disallows this regulation now, as well as the disallowance, in effect, by the House of Representatives, then the government would be obliged to seek the agreement of both houses to remake the same resolution. So if the Senate wishes to retain the power to disallow the regulation which has been disallowed in the House of Representatives, it needs to carry this motion. So by persisting with this disallowance motion, the Senate will be preserving its options in relation to this matter.In April this year, I moved a motion to have this regulation referred to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee for inquiry. The reason for the reference was obvious: it appeared that a significant number of small businesses would be adversely affected, many of them probably forced to close their doors, if the regulation were passed into law. However, the government and the Democrats combined to block that reference because, according to the Democrats, they were close to a deal with the government to fix it. That never happened because the regulation was fatally flawed. The opposition has moved that this regulation be disallowed because in our view it is ill conceived and ill considered and, as I say, it would have put people out of business, it would have put people out of jobs, and it would not have made a positive contribution to the environment. That is a fact according to the minister himself, and the minister's own department, the Department of Transport and Regional Services, also cast doubt on its impact on the environment.Madam Deputy President, you must be asking yourself: how could the government and the Democrats let this situation arise in the first place? This regulation was intended to implement one part of the Measures for a Better Environment document agreed between the government and Democrats to secure Democrat support for the GST. The regulation would have inserted a new 4C into the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Amendment Regulations 1999. That would have subjected the importation of any used diesel engines designed for use in road vehicles to the permission of the Minister for Transport and Regional Services or an authorised officer. Approval would then have been required for each individual engine. The minister, or the minister's delegate, would then only grant permission for the import if the engine complied with the current Australian design rules. The application design rules are 30/00, Diesel Engine Exhaust Smoke Emissions, and 70/00, Exhaust Emission Control for Diesel Engine Vehicles. The importer would then have been required to have each engine undergo a full certification test, as specified in the current emission ADRs and the test report provided by the Department of Transport and Regional Services for its approval. This would have to occur prior to the arrival of the engine in Australia and would have added between $2,000 and $15,000 to the price of each engine, depending on its size.This regulation was so flawed, so fatally flawed, that the Department of Transport and Regional Services prepared and issued a Regulation Impact Statement which was quite critical of its impact. That statement confirmed industry concerns that the cost of undertaking an emission test would result in a limited number of or no used diesel engines being imported. That statement advised that it is not possible to determine the proportion of health costs attributable to imported second-hand diesel engines but said that it was likely to be small, given that they account for less than one per cent of the diesel motor vehicle fleet. The department statement also advised that the total cost of this impact had not been quantified, and it also said that, although there would be some benefits in terms of reduced emissions, those could not be estimated without extensive research.In an astonishing statement on his own law making, we also had the Minister for Transport and Regional Services confessing baldly to the negative environmental impact of the regulation. On the 7.30 Report on 23 March this year, Mr Anderson had this to say about his own regulation:I have to say that we are now in receipt of more accurate information which suggests that the environmental benefits that they— and by `they' he meant the Democrats—were concerned about are not as evident as they thought. They may, in fact, be negative and I can confirm to you that I'm looking again at this.Mr Anderson should not pass the buck on this one. It is important that he does not try to blame anyone else, particularly his colleague Senator Hill. Mr Anderson was personally involved. In the same 7.30 Report item, Senator Allison made it clear that Mr Anderson has the ownership of this policy and of this regulation. Senator Allison said:Well, it was Mr Anderson, in discussions with Meg Lees, who agreed to this restriction. So it isn't something that the Federal Government should now be saying they want to walk away from, I would have thought.So Mr Anderson owns this mess just as much as the Democrats own this mess.According to an email dated 5 June, the details of which have been provided to me and which appears to be from Senator Allison to a company called National Truck Spares, Senator Allison has conceded that there were `gaps in our knowledge' in relation to the regulation, that is, the Democrats were happy to push this issue without really knowing what the outcome would be. I might say that is no way to make policy. I shudder to think of this issue in the context of public policy making practice and just how ill conceived it was. Mr Anderson's own department obviously did not have much input. That is clear from the regulation impact statement issued by the department. The overall tenor of that statement gives a strong indication that the policy and deal done to effectively ban the import of these engines were not their work. The department obviously did not conceive them.It is also clear that the industry did not conceive this policy, nor was the industry involved in the drafting or development of the policy. So Mr Anderson and the Prime Minister relied on the information from the Democrats. Then, in the cool light of day, and when some of the facts—not just the Democrat rhetoric—became known, this minister has been forced to allow this regulation to be disallowed in the House of Representatives and, hopefully, here. This minister and the Prime Minister were conned. We are aware that there has been a lot of hand-wringing on this issue. Mr Anderson was saying privately to the industry, `Yes, I understand,' but in the end he simply gave up.I understand there were also some interesting discussions with the minister's sparring partner in cabinet, Senator Hill. I understand that there were discussions, again in secret, with another old colleague of the minister, Ms Wendy Machin. Ms Machin was representing some parts of the industry affected by the proposal. I also understand that there were a number of discussions with the Democrats—again, these discussions were in secret, but they obviously came to nothing.A number of media articles about this matter shows just how scatty the process has been. Not only did they get it badly wrong to start with; they could not even amend the original to make it work. An article in the Weekly Times by David Mackenzie on 12 April 2000 reported that the regulation was to be dropped and that a deal was reached that involved `quotas set at the current level of imports'. The article also said, `Engines more than 10 years old will not be allowed without passing the emissions testing standards of the original plan.' Then we saw a different version of the deal reported by Kath Cummins in the Financial Review on the following day, 13 April this year. In reporting on a `compromise' reached between the government and the Democrats, Ms Cummins said:Under the compromise an imports quota is expected to be established and the ban will apply to engines over 15 years old only.That was April and now it is 20 June, and the plan has collapsed completely. As I said, obviously another deal with the Democrats has come unstuck. If there is a new deal some time in the future, we need to be sure that there is, firstly, a proper and open process of consultation with all stakeholders. It is time this government tried a bit of transparent, honest and effective decision making for a change.15:56:0015217Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VictoriaAD00—The Democrats will not be supporting Labor's move to disallow the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Amendment Regulations 1999 (No.9). This regulation would have applied on 1 July. It requires that second-hand engines be tested and certified for compliance with Australian standards before being imported into Australia. It was in fact a suggestion made by the Minister for Transport and Regional Services to overcome the likelihood that Australia could well become a dumping ground for old second-hand diesel engines as our emission standards progressively caught up with those in the Europe, the UK and the US. So it was not, Senator O'Brien, the suggestion of the Democrats. We identified the problem, but we certainly did not put forward a solution to it. It was the minister for transport who did that.I think it is ironic that the Labor Party should move a disallowance of this regulation in the House of Representatives. Perhaps they want Australia to continue to be a backwater in air pollution. Perhaps they are proud that they left office with Australia having one of the oldest and dirtiest fleets of trucks in the OECD. We still have 30- and 50-year-old trucks rumbling around in this country. They are badly maintained, and there is no requirement that they be tested for the filthy black emissions that they produce. Perhaps Labor are also proud that we have in this country an alarming and increasing rate of asthma. One in five children under 12 in this country has asthma. Thanks to the Labor Party our emission standards are currently five to seven years behind Europe. Thanks to the Labor Party we tolerate twice as much sulphur in our diesel as most other developed countries. I remind the Senate that, no matter how new or how well maintained your diesel engine is, high sulphur diesel will create particulates. They are the bits that form black smoke that creates the brown smudge over the horizon of our cities today.Let me remind the Senate, too, about the changes that our negotiations with the government over tax reform will mean to diesel emission standards. In 2002, Euro 2 diesel vehicle emission standards will apply to all new light diesel vehicles. In 2003, all light diesel trucks will need to comply with Euro 2, and vehicles will therefore be tested in service to make sure they do. Euro 3 will be introduced for all new medium and heavy diesel vehicles in 2002 and for continuing models in 2003. By 2006, Euro 4 will apply for all new diesel vehicles and by 2007 all diesel trucks must comply. By that time, Australia will at last have caught up with Europe, the UK and the US. When you look at that program, it becomes very obvious that until those vehicles that are already on the road are tested for compliance with our standards in 2003, there would be nothing in place to stop Australia becoming a dumping ground for engines that cannot be on the road in other countries.The changes to registration fees in Japan, which were designed specifically to reduce the age of cars and trucks in that country, have had the effect of thousands of older vehicles being dumped in Australia: 25,000 used cars and four-wheel drive vehicles were imported into Australia from Japan last year. The Chamber of Automotive Industries expects the total to reach 120,000 by the year 2003. So, like a Third World country, Australia is already taking hand-me-downs from Asia and Europe, and this situation will get progressively worse as those countries properly deal with their air pollution problems. In New Zealand the imports of used cars now outnumber imports of new cars, and that measure has wiped out the assembly industry in New Zealand. Whilst they are largely new cars, cars older than 15 years can still be imported unhindered. The objective of this regulation is to see that Australia's new emission standards are not undermined by unfettered opportunities to import second-hand diesel engines, thereby extending the life of dirty, old diesel vehicles in this country.There was never an intention to close down engine importing businesses through this measure, and I do not believe it would have done so. The importers claimed that the cost of testing would be prohibitive. Frankly, I find this difficult to believe. There are at least two engine testing organisations in Australia that I know of—one in Victoria and one in Western Australia—and they tell me that they can test engines without them being put in vehicles for a sum much closer to $1,500 or $2,000. Senator O'Brien said today the cost is $15,000. The shadow minister for transport called it a $12,000 surcharge, which is complete nonsense. It is not a surcharge, it is the cost of testing, and I think that the cost of testing, as has been put about by the industry, can be challenged. However, having said that, we did agree to look at this question again to see if a measure could be developed that would meet the same policy objectives, and we would have been prepared to accept that. I might say that the Australian Trucking Association and the Motor Traders Association are quite happy to support the current regulation. They do not see a problem. In fact, they tell me that there are engines available in this country for spare parts and for pumping water from dams, but that, because of the huge numbers of engines available, particularly in Japan, it is easier to simply import engines than to source them in this country. Another problem with engines pensioned off in Australia is that, thanks to the previous Labor government, there has been no requirement to properly maintain diesel engines—or any other kinds of engines—and so they tend to be in poorer condition than those in other countries where lower sulphur diesel is available and stricter requirements on emissions apply.The pressure over this regulation has come from the importers and from farmers who say these engines are needed for farm equipment and they are not prepared to pay the cost of testing. Again, I am not convinced that this is the problem it is said to be. However, in our view, we could have solved the problem by amending the regulation to omit the need for testing by prohibiting the importation of engines over 10 years old unless they have been tested and are compliant with current emission standards. We could have imposed a quota roughly equivalent to the 4,500 that are currently being imported each year, and we could have implemented a review of the situation three years from the introduction of the legislation. In my view, that would have solved some of the problems that are said to be around with this regulation.Senator O'Brien is partly right: part of the problem in considering these issues has been the lack of data. There are gaps in our knowledge, and I have said that a number of times, but again the government was not relying on the lack of knowledge of the Democrats in this respect. We know, for instance, the total number of engines imported into this country but we do not know where they end up. We do not even know what their age is, and we certainly do not know their condition. Perhaps a review after three years would give us a better understanding of the trends and the risks to our policy objectives. I hope we can find a way forward on this issue. We would be very concerned should this disallowance proceed or should there be exemptions—for instance, in new regulations—from testing or for farmers or for spare parts. How could we possibly guarantee that an engine imported into this country ends up on a farmer's dam or in pieces rather than in an old truck? I simply cannot imagine how that would happen. You would need a Customs officer to accompany each vehicle to its final destination and then somehow make sure that it stayed there. We simply do not have the necessary mechanisms to guarantee that a system based on exemptions would not be rorted.It is now up to the government to fix this problem. As I said earlier, we are very happy to support the current regulation. We are also happy to support modified arrangements, provided that the policy objectives are not undermined and provided that our new emission standards are not seriously at risk from a measure which would see dumping of second-hand diesel engines in this country.16:06:0015219Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALDYW4QueenslandLPMinister for Regional Services, Territories and Local Government10—The government is comfortable with the disallowance of this regulation, as the original regulation has resulted in a number of unforeseen consequences which would have had an adverse impact on business. I might say that both the government and, I assume, the Democrats have received a number of representations. Certainly a lot of my Liberal and National Party parliamentary colleagues have been approached and have taken a great deal of interest in this regulation. The regulation has already been disallowed by the House of Representatives so, regardless of what this chamber thought, in any case the regulation could not go ahead. So it is sensible to allow this motion to pass in the Senate, as the government allowed it to pass in the House of Representatives. So we will be supporting the disallowance motion.It is the government's intention to introduce a more appropriate regulation, and we are working towards a position in consultation with the Australian Democrats and with the other stakeholders. We are aiming at finding an outcome which meets the environmental objectives of the regulation whilst reducing the unintended impacts on industry. The government is hopeful that a new regulation will be made in the near future. I have to say, without entering too much into the at times acrimonious debate between the Labor Party and the Democrats, I do agree with Senator Allison that the Labor Party does not really seem to be too interested in environmental matters. Their interest in the environment is only relevant where there is a vote in it. Of course, former Senator Richardson was a past master of that. It is recognised that he manipulated the environment movement to win an election or two in times gone by. The Labor Party's record on the environment is fairly shallow.We intend to move forward to try to make sure that we get the right balance here. To that end, I am pleased to announce today that the government has decided to establish an interdepartmental committee, the membership of which will include the Department of the Environment and Heritage, the Department of Transport and Regional Services, and the Australian Customs Service to determine appropriate compliance measures which will underpin the new regulation. In addition to that, as I say, the government will continue to discuss this matter with the Democrats and other interested parties. We are looking towards a new regulation that would place an age limit on vehicle engines, together with perhaps more relaxed requirements for parts and non-road uses which clearly have no impact on urban air quality. So, as I mentioned, the government will be supporting the disallowance motion.16:10:0015220O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TasmaniaALP00—In reply, I must say that having listened to Senator Allison's contribution I gained the impression that Senator Allison thought she was defending this regulation with the ultimate aim of preserving it, when in fact it has already been disallowed and Senator Allison knows that. In fact, Senator Allison apparently sent a fax to Re Engine Pty Ltd which said, amongst other things:No action was taken in the Senate today to stop the disallowance of the regulation—I interpose there: I do not know how we in the Senate can stop the disallowance in the House of Representatives. It went on:so it is effectively disallowed. I will raise the matter with the Minister for the Environment tomorrow and suggest that, since we have not yet found a way forward, we should take up your suggestion of a review.I am not sure if that is the review the minister has just proposed, which Senator Forshaw described as somewhat Sir Humphrey-like, but it is certainly not the open and transparent process that the opposition would be seeking, not the process that we would be seeking involving the industry where there are many jobs and many businesses which would have been affected had the regulation that is the subject of this resolution come into effect. So it really is hard to understand the basis of Senator Allison's comments that somehow the Democrats were here to defend a regulation which was defunct.But having dealt with that nonsense—because that is all it was—I come back to the point that I started on, and that is: the role of this chamber in relation to the subject matter of this regulation will be preserved by the success of this motion. We simply ask that the Democrats use their commonsense—if, indeed, they have any—and preserve the right of this chamber, were the government to introduce such a flawed regulation. Perhaps what Senator Allison is saying is that the Democrats want the flawed regulation to come back and they want the jobs to disappear, without any benefit to the environment.Frankly, the reality is that if this regulation had come into effect lots of the older diesel engines that might have been replaced with newer ones—perhaps not to the standard that Senator Allison might like, but newer and better ones, less polluting ones—would have continued to pollute. That is what the minister was saying, and that is what I was referring to in my original address—that is, that this regulation in its current form is counterproductive to the environment. So it is all right to use the word `environment' and claim that the measures you are supporting will assist it, but when the evidence does not exist to support your proposition perhaps it is better for the Democrats to admit that they got it wrong, that they want to work towards a better outcome for the environment—as the Labor Party does and has done all along in this process—and stop playing cheap politics on the matter.As for the proposition that we might amend the regulation, I would ask—through you, Mr Acting Deputy President—the rhetorical question: how? There is no power for this chamber to amend a regulation, no power at all. We simply have the power to accept it or disallow it. It is the government which proffers the form of the regulation, lays it before the houses of parliament—the House of Representatives and the Senate—and those chambers decide whether the regula-tion will come into effect or whether it will be disallowed. That is the extent of our power. I am sorry that I have to explain the pro-cesses to Senator Allison and the Democrats, but apparently they do not understand them. As I said in my earlier contribution, the Labor Party look forward to this matter being dealt with through a process which is honest, transparent and open, and to there being an effective decision making process. We do not see that an interdepartmental committee is necessarily going to achieve that outcome. Notwithstanding the proposal by the government to have a review, which appears, on the face of it at least, to be an in-house review, the opposition will be urging the government to involve those industries currently involved in the importation of diesel engines so that the outcome on this matter can achieve both the aims that Senator Allison says the Democrats have—that is, to improve the environmental outcome, which, I might say, is the view of the opposition—and to preserve the jobs of lots of people who work, particularly in regional Australia, in businesses which import the engines and supply them to on-road and off-road users. But I will say that it is gratifying that the government have recognised the difficulties, the fatal flaws in this regulation, and are content to support the disallowance of their own regulation. The Labor Party will continue to pursue this matter in the interests of the community and in the interests of the environment. To that extent, that is all I need to say. As to the cheap shots from Senator Allison about our credentials on the environment, our credentials are well known.Question resolved in the affirmative. Bills15221R107715221Debate resumed.16:16:0015221Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4Western AustraliaALPDeputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate00—The Indirect Tax Legis-la-tion Amendment Bill 2000 is another ex-ample of the incompetence of the gov-ern-ment and in particular of the minister respon-sible for the detailed implementation of the GST, Senator Kemp, the Assistant Treasurer. Sena-tor Kemp continues to display, in his approach, a lack of understanding of what is in-volved in the implementation of the GST and to propose that this is an easy and simple thing to do. Here we are just days before the GST is implemented and the government is introducing another 211 amendments to its own legislation. This is the government that said it was introducing a new and simple tax; yet here we are again dealing with something like 211 amendments on top of the already 1,700 GST and related amendments the Senate has already dealt with since the passage of the primary bills last year. This is typical of the way, though, in which the government and Senator Kemp in particular have botched the implementation of the GST. As I have said before, we on this side expect nothing more from Senator Kemp, because his incompetence in our view knows no bounds. What these amendments further demonstrate is that if this government does not understand its own tax system, how does it expect ordinary Australians to understand it? We have seen the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation, Mr Hockey, in the other place trying to comprehend all of this, but he cannot even explain how his own tax system works. If he cannot understand how it works, again I ask the question: how can he expect ordinary Australians and businesses to cope? We had Senator Kemp in question time yesterday not able to tell us why salted peanuts are taxed while unsalted peanuts are not and why sushi is taxed but sashimi is not. It is all in the simple 29-page food index, Senator Kemp told us. So if Senator Kemp cannot explain how his new, simplified GST will work, again we have the question: how can ordinary Australians be expected to understand? And if not understanding the law is not a defence against the law, what defence do they have in these circumstances?What Senator Kemp has also failed to tell us is why food is taxed at all. The 29-page simplified food guide is a guide to the broken promises of Mr Howard and Senator Lees. Look at all of the food items that are GSTable. What happened to the promise that food would be GST free? Obviously this became a joint Democrat and coalition non-core promise, because we know where the Democrats and the coalition priorities are: million-dollar tax breaks for casino owners and high rollers at the expense of making food GST free as was promised. We have here a government that have not got a clue about their own tax which is being implemented by a minister who has no clue about his own tax. Senator Kemp follows in the footsteps of the other minister who also has no clue about the GST, Minister Hockey. What we have here with Minister Hockey and Senator Kemp is Tweedledee and Tweedledum, although I am hard pressed to know who is dumber—Minister Hockey or Senator Kemp—when it comes to explaining how their new, simple, easy to understand GST will work.YE4Boswell, Sen RonSenator Boswell—I raise a point of order, Mr Acting Deputy President. That is a reflection on a member of the other place.10000Lightfoot, Ross (The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT)The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Lightfoot)—You should withdraw that comment, Senator Cook.RF4Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOK—I withdraw that comment. But I do recall that in January Minister Hockey said, `No price can be rounded up beyond 10 per cent.' We then had the Treasurer say, `No price will go up by 10 per cent.' Mr Costello also said that he knows of no circumstances in which a price will go up by 10 per cent, but Mr Hockey said that they cannot go over 10 per cent. Yet the opposition have demonstrated time after time that prices are going up by either the full 10 per cent or beyond 10 per cent. Everyone knows that prices are going up already, ahead of the GST. The people of Australia already know that prices are going up and that they will go up even further when the GST comes in. Just as prices will go up, so will interest rates, because we all know that higher prices means higher inflation which ultimately leads to an increase in interest rates. Let us understand the dimensions of what this government is trying to foist upon the nation. Let us be reminded, each time we have these amendments coming before us, of just how hopeless this government has been at the implementation of the GST but, more importantly, how deceitful it has been in explaining to the Australian public what the full impact will be. The people of Australia were told in January that the government had issued instructions to the ACCC to ensure that no prices went up by more than 10 per cent; but, when we asked to see those instructions and sought from the ACCC an assurance in evidence before the Senate estimates committee, they said no such instructions existed. Here we had the government caught red-handed, engaging in wilful and deliberate deceit, seeking to mislead the Australian public. If only the government itself could be referred to the ACCC for investigation!In terms of deceit, we saw only recently that workers compensation premium increases in New South Wales,approved by the ACCC, were going up by 12.4 per cent. When the government was asked how this could be so, the government's defence was that, of the 12.4 per cent, only 10 per cent was due to the GST directly and the other 2.4 per cent was due to other matters, including supplier costs. As we understand it, the supplier costs in question relate to the fact that the liabilities that the insurer—in other words, to use the definition in the act, the supplier—is up for in the future will increase because of the broader tax package in terms of payouts. In other words, the 2.4 per cent is due to the government's tax package. Whether it is due specifically to the GST or not does not matter. If it is due to the tax package, it has gone up by more than 10 per cent. Yet the ACCC said that, if these future contingent liabilities are taken into account, then the premiums going up by more than 10 per cent to 12.4 per cent can be justified.But remember, this is something the government promised could not happen. This is something that the government said by law would never happen. The Treasurer himself said he could not think of anything that would go up by anything even near 10 per cent—but it has happened. The deceit, the untruths, the deliberate misleading are all part and parcel of the government's attempts to hose down the GST bushfire that is now running out of control across Australia. Speaking of the bush, we have the National Party. As I said recently, the National Party are like that old, obedient and trusty sheepdog—YE4Boswell, Sen RonSenator Boswell—Not the tail that wags them.RF4Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOK—Not the tail that wags the dog. The dog is being wagged by another tail. And haven't the events of the weekend and the last few days proven that statement to be true! They are there, ready and willing to be trodden on and kicked about by their Liberal Party masters, led by the Treasurer and now by the Prime Minister. The Treasurer, and now the Prime Minister, tell the National Party when to stand, when to sit, when to speak and—on that increasingly rare occasion when they speak out—when to shut up. And haven't the National Party been told to shut up over the issue of the GST on caravan parks!Despite the rhetoric, despite the threats of resignation by the likes of Minister Anthony, the good old National Party have been told by their Liberal Party masters to roll over, and that is exactly what is happening. The leader of the National Party in this chamber—he is present as I speak—has led the roll-over, and cannot stand up to the Treasurer or the Prime Minister, even when his own rank and file members have unanimously called for the removal of the GST on caravan parks. I say to Senator Boswell as leader of the National Party in this chamber, `What are you going to do to represent the views of your own National Party constituency in this place?' The answer, sadly, seems to be nothing—absolutely nothing. This has led to the charge that, as the leader of the National Party in this place, Senator Boswell obeys his Liberal Party masters, taking whatever policy scraps they throw at him off the Liberal Party policy table.The bottom line is this: in the eyes of the Liberal Party, the National Party are a joke, a nuisance that is tolerated but not respected, and used but not valued—but who, importantly for the Liberals, will roll over when told to do so. That is the bottom line for the Liberals: the National Party will roll over and do as they are told. When the Treasurer or the Prime Minister click their fingers, the National Party come to heel. Just as a cocky would click his fingers to bring his trusty old sheepdog to attention, the Liberal Treasurer and Prime Minister click their fingers and the National Party roll over—as and when required. And haven't they done that in regard to the issue of the GST and long-term caravan park residents!Let us look at that rollover in detail, as outlined by Minister Anderson's press release of 19 June. This is the big win the National Party had. This is how the National Party stands up to the Liberal Party. This is how, in the words of Minister Anthony, the National Party `punches above its weight.' Certainly, he has a keen sense of irony. Well, what was the substance of their `big win' over the Liberals? According to Minister Anderson, the National Party's `big win' was that the ACCC would `pay special attention' to the situation of long-term caravan park residents. I do not know where the Deputy Prime Minister has been, but isn't that what the ACCC has been doing anyway—or is supposed to have been doing? Everywhere we turn, the ACCC is paying `special attention' to businesses by threatening them with $10 million fines. So what Mr Anderson has basically secured is a promise that the ACCC will now be used to harass and threaten caravan park landlords into keeping down caravan park rents or face the prospect of having their businesses destroyed by way of a $10 million fine.Let us look at another `big' National Party win. The New Tax System Advisory Board will enter into discussions with representatives from tenants associations to ensure that the option of using input taxing is simple and clearly understood. So what we have here is an admission by the minister that the GST is not simple and not clearly understood. Further, it is an admission by the National Party that the government's $430 million propaganda campaign has been an absolute failure. So we finally have, from no less than the Deputy Prime Minister, an admission that the GST is horrendously complex and that the government has wasted $430 million of taxpayers' money on a propaganda campaign that has failed. If the GST on caravan parks were simple and fair, why does it now require the New Tax System Advisory Board to explain the input tax option to ensure that it is clearly understood and simple? We have always said that the GST is a dog's breakfast of a tax, and this just proves it.So we have the National Party securing a win that the ACCC will be used to harass and threaten caravan park landlords and a commitment that, after the expenditure of $430 million on a so-called information campaign, the New Tax System Advisory Board will be required to explain how simple and clear the GST is for long-term caravan park residents. But what about a commitment that the GST will be removed from the rents of long-term caravan park residents? Did the National Party secure that win? Of course, they did not. Despite all the bluster and rhetoric at the National Party conference, when push came to shove the Nationals did as they always do: rolled over, lay down and did as they were told by their Liberal Party masters. I mean, why do the Nationals bother even having a leadership team? Why don't they lead? Er, why don't they lead?YE4Boswell, Sen RonSenator Boswell—You should have practised the speech!RF4Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOK—They are followers, and they follow Liberal Party orders to a T, sadly led by, well, the interjector.YE4Boswell, Sen RonSenator Boswell—You haven't even read the speech! You don't know even what it is about! Now go out and practise it before you come in!RF4Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOK—Thank you for the interjection—through you, Mr Acting Deputy President, to Senator Boswell. It is clear that the point is beginning to irk him. All I suggested is that he should stand up to the Liberal Party on behalf of his members. He should not proclaim as wins the things that the ACCC are supposed to do anyway but actually make the effort to represent people in caravan parks and change this dog's breakfast of a tax and, when the Liberals say `Jump!', he should not ask the question, `How high?' It is pitiful to witness the once great National Party being led not by Senator Boswell or Mr Anderson but by the Treasurer and the Prime Minister. Let us look at exactly what happened at the New South Wales National Party conference. Mr Gary Nehl, the Deputy Speaker of the House, implored the National Party conference to keep the promise that the National Party had made at the last election: that there would be no GST on residential rents. In fact, Minister Anthony even circulated an election pamphlet to that effect in his seat of Richmond only to come to Canberra and vote in favour of taxing long-term caravan park residents. So Minister Anthony misled and deceived those 6,000 caravan park residents in his seat of Richmond. Somehow I do not think they will be as easily deceived at the next election. Lastly, on this issue, I want the National Party to explain why part of the $430 million being spent on a propaganda campaign could not have been used to take the GST off caravan park residents, why $2 million being spent by the PM to go to London to have tea with the Queen could not have been put towards taking the GST off caravan park residents, and why spending $30,000 on Thai silk curtains in the Prime Minister's office is more important than taking the GST off caravan park residents. These are questions that the residents of caravan parks want answers to. They want them from all politicians but, more particularly, they want them from the National Party that has claimed that they will do it.The Indirect Tax Legislation Amendment Bill 2000 contains no less than 11 separate schedules constituting a further 211 amendments to the new, easy, simple-to-understand GST. It covers changes to charities, agents, financial suppliers, insurance and alcoholic beverages, just to name a few. This bill is just another testimony to the increasing complexity and cost of the GST that is being foisted on Australian businesses and charities. With just days to go before the GST, the government, along with the Democrats, is forcing more costs and disruptions onto charities, as if charities have not had a hard enough time as it is coping with this dog's breakfast of a tax. But today was very illuminating for this chamber because we saw for the first time the Democrats trying to distance themselves from their own GST. We had Senator Lees try and distance herself from the fact that she is responsible for the imposition of the GST on two of the most vulnerable groups in society: boarding house residents and long-term caravan park residents. Senator Lees is now trying to walk away as fast as she can, but in reality she cannot. This GST is her GST, and nothing she does, or pretends to do by way of feigned concern for boarding house residents, will change that fact. The bottom line is that, when Senator Lees had a choice, she chose millionaire casino high-rollers over boarding house residents. Senator Lees chose the rich over the poor and now, along with the Prime Minister, she will be happily residing in a luxury London hotel when low-income boarding house residents and caravan park residents start paying the GST. I conclude my contribution to the second reading debate by indicating that we will not oppose this legislation.16:35:0015225Murphy, Sen ShayneSenator MURPHYFX5TasmaniaALP00—The Indirect Tax Legislation Amendment Bill 2000 is actually a further 211 amendments to the GST, which was supposed to be the `very simple tax system'. I have got the explanatory memorandum here—I think this is the most up-to-date one—and it is 75 pages long. There some points in it that I will go to shortly. This was supposed to be a simple taxation system. The ANTS booklet says:Once fully implemented, the Government's tax reform plan will, in fact, reduce the tax take but collect revenue in a fairer, simpler and more open way. It will do so in a way that benefits families, businesses and the wider community.I am yet to find the families, businesses and wider community that think the tax reform this government is proposing to be simpler, easier, more beneficial or more open. It is simply not the case.The piece of legislation that we are considering at the moment has 211 additional amendments and 75 pages of explanatory memorandum, but regarding this piece of legislation the Treasurer said back in January that there would be no more amendments. He said there would be no more changes to the legislation. That is the reality, and yet on a daily basis we are seeing more changes being proposed because this is such a big mess. This very simple process, this very simple new tax—sorry, it is a new tax system, not a new tax—is so simple and so fair and is going to be so readily accepted by the community that we have had to spend $430 million in promoting it. Not that that is enough. Each and every day that the parliament sits, and even outside of the parliamentary sitting periods, we have government ministers promoting this tax system and supposedly delivering a better outcome for Australians. We know that is simply not the case because of the processes that have been put in place in terms of business confidence. Whilst businesses were probably initially cajoled by the government into believing that there was a greener paddock on the other side of the hill, that we could make a change to the tax system and that all would be better, I think it has now been consistently shown, and the Yellow Pages Small Business Index shows, that business confidence is at an all-time low.I know that in my own state six businesses have already closed and say it is as a result of the GST. It might be that the GST was going to be the last straw for them. I acknowledge that some small businesses have been confronting difficulties, but many of them have said—indeed, all six of these have said—that the reality is that they were just not prepared to cop the additional cost of dealing with this new simpler, fairer tax system and, as a result, have closed their doors. I will quote a media release which came out with the February 2000 Yellow Pages Small Business Index. It says:The survey covering 1,200 small businesses across Australia and completed two weeks ago found that over the past quarter regional proprietors'—and these are the ones I am talking about from my state—confidence about their business prospects for the year ahead fell 27 percentage points to a six-year low of a net 21 per cent. The previous lowest confidence figure was 39 per cent recorded in July 1997.Those things must tell the government a story. As I said, this process is so simple that we have the Australian Taxation Office putting out—and I do not know whether I have page numbers for this—a substantial document called the food index. This is on top of the ACCC's consumer guide. By the time you get all this paperwork in your shopping trolley, there will be no room for groceries. I think it was summed up pretty well by a cartoon I noticed in one of my local papers in Tassie which went to the very question of how the poor old punters will have to deal with this new tax system. It displays a shopper who has their accountant in the shopping trolley. He has the books, and he is advising the consumer which products to buy. I will quote in part from the comic strip—656Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator Forshaw—You should incorporate it.FX5Murphy, Sen ShayneSenator MURPHY—I should actually seek leave to have it incorporated, Senator Forshaw, because it would be a very good example.YE4Boswell, Sen RonFX5Murphy, Sen ShayneSenator MURPHY—I might seek leave in a minute. I know Senator Boswell would support it!10000Lightfoot, Ross (The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT)The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Lightfoot)—Perhaps you might be kind enough, for the sake of Hansard, to say what paper you are quoting from and what date it is.FX5Murphy, Sen ShayneSenator MURPHY—Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President, I will do that. It was the Hobart Mercury of Friday, 16 June this year. It is a cartoon by Polly. Looking at the shelf behind the shopper, you have products with `a bit of GST'. There are some with `definitely no GST, we think'. Then we have `GST with sauce', `more GST for your dollar', `a smidge of GST maybe'. This bloke has really caught the feeling about this tax. There is also `plus GST' and then he has `GST free'. How confusing can you be!656Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator Forshaw—What about shaving cream? Has it got a good lather?FX5Murphy, Sen ShayneSenator MURPHY—Yes, there is lather with GST. What I find interesting about the food guide is that if you buy live fish it is GSTable, except if it is a crab. You can get live crabs GST free. I find that very interesting. Live sheep are taxable. Live cows are taxable. Live salmon, live trout and other live fish are taxable, but live crabs are GST free. I am curious about that. I wonder whether it is a mistake or not. Of course, we have had a whole range of other interesting comparisons pointed out with regard to this particular food index. If you want to buy a few old bones for the poor old dog you have to pay tax on them, but if you buy the same bones to make soup there is no tax. I know my dog is going to be eating soup bones because I am not going to pay GST on the bones, particularly if GST has already been paid on the live animal. It is a very interesting set of circumstances. This document is about 50 pages in total. This is one I got straight off the Net, so I have not got it in book form.We then have the consumer guide from the ACCC. That is supposed to help the poor old shopper determine whether he is being ripped off or not. He is going to have this little booklet and he is going to have to ask, `What is the price, and what is the GST on it?' You are going to have to sit down with your long shopping docket outside the shop to try and work out whether you have been ripped off with the products that you have bought—if you can work out which ones were GSTable and which ones were not and, of course, you have to take your food index for that. I cannot see how that is a simple process for the poor old shopper.If this were a simple process, you would have defined very clearly the tax movements. We would not have had to give the ACCC extraordinary powers, which they are never going to be able to implement anyway. The government is now considering a set of circumstances put up by the business tax reform coalition which limit the ability of the ACCC to do anything about price exploitation matters to a period of four weeks after a complaint. If the government now puts in place a mechanism where it restricts the ACCC's investigations—and actually doing something about price exploitation—to four weeks from the time of receiving a complaint, they have no hope. They are literally going to be inundated with thousands of complaints.This was for a simple tax system. If it is so simple, why do we have all of these problems? As Senator Cook said, why do the National Party have such a problem with the poor old mobile home and long-term caravan rentals? What a ridiculous situation for them to be in. The National Party allowed the Democrats to negotiate an arrangement for tax on food. Mrs Helen Dickie, the President of the National Party—and Senator Boswell might be able to confirm whether she is the national president or the New South Wales president—YE4Boswell, Sen RonSenator Boswell—Both.FX5Murphy, Sen ShayneSenator MURPHY—Even better. She was right when she said that the National Party had become irrelevant in a sense. It had no capacity to go and argue for its constituency in a government in which it is supposed to be an equal partner. It is no wonder that the cockies' corner up here has been shrinking away, and it will continue to shrink away to non-existence.656Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator Forshaw—Where are they?FX5Murphy, Sen ShayneSenator MURPHY—There is one over there. The Leader of the National Party in the Senate, Senator Boswell, is across the chamber. I did not catch what Senator Boswell said when he had the microphone and when he was trying to placate the poor old long-term residents of caravan parks and the like. But, Senator Boswell, those people are looking to you for a bit of leadership.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT, TheThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—You should address your comments to the chair, Senator Murphy.FX5Murphy, Sen ShayneSenator MURPHY—Through you, Mr Acting Deputy President: Senator Boswell, those people are looking to you to take up the argument on behalf of those who the National Party claim are their constituents. They stumbled on Telstra. They could not get up. They were down on their knees, and Senator Alston got his foot on Senator Boswell's throat on Telstra and kept him down there.YE4Boswell, Sen RonSenator Boswell—$740 million.FX5Murphy, Sen ShayneSenator MURPHY—Well, I never. Isn't that an amazing thing! We know that $740 million is going to disappear into thin air. The other aspect of the GST that is very important to the consumer is the price of petrol. What have we had on the price of petrol? We have had the one-time Acting Treasurer—I do not think he has acted as Treasurer since this statement—Mr Joe Hockey saying that petrol prices would go down, we have had the Prime Minister saying that they would not go up and we have had the Treasurer saying that no petrol price anywhere would rise at all. Then we have had the Assistant Treasurer, from time to time, come in here and say that petrol prices need not rise, whatever that means. But we know petrol prices will rise as a result of the GST. There is no question about that.YE4Boswell, Sen RonSenator Boswell—Petrol prices do not rise with the GST. They go down 7c.FX5Murphy, Sen ShayneSenator MURPHY—I would like to be as sure of winning Tattslotto, Senator Boswell, through you, Mr Acting Deputy President. In fact, I would like to challenge you on a Tattslotto ticket.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT, TheThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESI-DENT—Are you talking about challenging me, Senator Murphy?FX5Murphy, Sen ShayneSenator MURPHY—No, Mr Acting Deputy President, but if you want to take some on the side, you can.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT, TheThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESI-DENT—I would suggest you direct your comments through the chair, Senator Murphy.FX5Murphy, Sen ShayneSenator MURPHY—Petrol prices will go up as a result of the GST. There is no doubt about that. The inflation that will occur with the GST will guarantee that. Yet what have we heard from the government about that? The same old rhetoric, going nowhere. The one thing that seems to be left for the government to cling to is the tax cuts that are supposed to cover everything. These cover-all tax cuts for the people are going to cover the increase in the prices, cover the increase in the cost of petrol, cover the increase in the cost of services and cover the cost of increases in rent, whether in long-term caravan parks or not.There is no way that the tax cuts you are talking about are going to do that. That is the only thing you have going for you; that is the only thing you seem to be mentioning nowadays. Everything else is gone. To back that up the government say, `We will keep the GST.' I do not know whether that means you think it is so terrible that you are trying to lump it onto us. That is the endgame for the government. You just want to hang on and say, `Look, don't blame us because they will keep it too.' What an extraordinary set of circumstances! If you thought this was so good, you would not have to say anything about what we might or might not do. The government would not have to say anything about that. That is the whole process that you are going through. You have had to roll this tax back because you know that it is a bad tax. You know that you have stuffed this up monumentally.YE4Boswell, Sen RonSenator Boswell—I raise a point of order, Mr Acting Deputy President. I draw your attention to that word and I ask: is that an appropriate term to be used in the parliament?10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT, TheThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESI-DENT—I am advised that it is an accepted part of Australian colloquialism, Senator Boswell, but I thank you for drawing my attention to it.FX5Murphy, Sen ShayneSenator MURPHY—As I was saying, nothing is greater evidence for the fact that this has been stuffed up monumentally than if you read the 75-page explanatory memorandum. I find it interesting in terms of the 211 amendments this represents. I was curious about the explanations to some of those amendments. In the short time that we have available, I wondered whether or not they help clear up the confusion that might exist across a range of businesses and even non-profit bodies. It says here in schedule 1, relating to non-profit bodies:Date of effect: Various.... ... ...Financial impact: Negligible.Compliance cost impact: Most amendments will reduce compliance costs, others will have no impact.That is about as clear as mud. If you go over the page, it states:Proposal announced: The amendments to education goods and sewerage services were announced in the Treasurer's Press Release No. 37 of 2000. The other measures have not been announced.That is very informative. It then states:Financial impact: Minimal.Compliance cost impact: Nil.I can go over a few more pages to read some more examples:Proposal announced:—this is administration—Not previously announced.Financial impact: The impact from the crediting and interest measures is unquantifiable.That is all very interesting, but I do not know how helpful it is. (Time expired)16:55:0015228Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TasmaniaAG00—I want to reiterate that the Greens have always been and remain totally opposed to the GST because of the unfair impact it will have on Australians, particularly the way in which it will widen the already increasing gap between the haves and the have-nots in this country. This piece of legislation, which is one of many pieces of legislation coming before the Senate to tidy up all the anomalies and inconsistencies of what was supposed to be a simple tax system but has turned out to be a mess, leads to a particular set of circumstances which cannot be allowed to go unnoticed—that is, the potential, under the legislation as it stands, for political parties to get charity status and therefore escape the GST on fundraising activities. Questions about this have been raised in the past, not least by a study from the Australia Institute, conducted by Institute tax specialist Julie Smith, called Defining charity in a new tax system. The result of that was flagged by the director of the Australia Institute, Dr Clive Hamilton, on 24 May. He said:“Our study exposes a loophole allowing political parties to claim the same GST-free status as charities running a soup-kitchen or a women's refuge. Political parties will enjoy a tax break at the expense of other groups.”He went on to give this example:“Caviar served at a political party dinner for corporate donors will be GST-free whilst the snags at the local child care centre's regular Saturday morning sausage sizzle and handmade furniture from a sheltered workshop will attract the new tax.”Ms Smith, who did the study, said:... political parties were classified as gift-deductible entities under a broad and arbitrary income tax definition. Under GST legislation, gift-deductible entities—and that includes political parties, as she points out—were eligible for GST-free treatment as charities if they charged their clients cheaply enough for the goods and services provided.She continued:“Community childcare centres are not counted as charities, and there is even legal doubt about whether some bodies including advocacy and self-help groups for the disabled are considered charitable.“The result is that the restrictive pricing rules for determining GST-free activities of charities are likely to cause significant damage to some genuine charities relying on various sales activities to finance their work, while treating organisations such as political parties to unwarranted tax breaks ...”Ms Smith said:“For example, sheltered workshops who use their profits to support the employment of disabled workers pay full GST on what they sell ...”The Prime Minister was asked about this on ABC Radio in Hobart on 27 May, a couple of days after the Australia Institute raised the question. He was being interviewed by ABC Radio's Tim Cox and was asked why political parties will get charity-like status under the GST. His reply was: ... because they're not-for-profit organisations—I can assure you the Liberal party does not make any money—Whatever one might think about that opinion from the Prime Minister, inherent in those words is corroboration that political parties will get this tax-free status. I should in fairness say that the Assistant Treasurer and an opinion from the tax office that were consequent on that discussion said that that is not the case. So what we have is confusion reigning in this situation.I want to help the Senate and, indeed, the Prime Minister to end that confusion, because I think it will bring politics into unnecessary disrepute if we do not clear it up. Why should political parties in certain fundraising activities get tax deductible status that does not apply to little athletics, let alone to child-care centres? I want to flag that, in the committee stages, I will be moving an amendment to schedule 1 on page 12 of this bill to add the following to the definition of a `gift-deductible entity': ... provided that the entity is not a political party that is registered under Part XI of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918.I put it to the Senate that this ought to get unanimous support. On the one hand, we have organisations like the Australia Institute—and, indeed, I share their concern—saying that there may be a loophole here for political parties; on the other hand, we have the Assistant Treasurer and the tax office saying that there isn't a loophole. What we do know is that there is some confusion and that my amendment will end that confusion. It is certainly not going to go against the clear intent of the Assistant Treasurer when he said that political parties are not going to be treated as charities. I think it is very important that we clear the matter up.Mr Acting Deputy President, you will be aware that in question time today I asked the Assistant Treasurer whether the public funding of political parties—which you get, as you know, after an election—would be tax deductible, and he did not know. I asked that question because of a letter to Margaret Blakers in my office, going back to last January, who had sought advice from the tax office on just that matter. I should reiterate that, after the last election, political parties in this country were paid $33 million in public funding—that is, taxpayers' money—to reimburse them for their political campaigns. When you apply the GST to that amount, over $3 million will be deducted at the next election from the $33 million. So it concerned me. The Deputy Commissioner of Taxation said, `Yes, the GST will apply,' and so it should, of course, because it will apply to a whole range of other public entities, including farmers and authors who get payments from government in return for giving up certain rights. It did worry me when the New South Wales Greens sought a ruling from the Electoral Commission and were told, `No, the GST won't apply to public funding; the $3 million in tax won't be taken out.' The Electoral Commission said that it was relying on information or advice from the tax office.Once again, we have got confusion here. We have two pieces of apparent Taxation Office advice saying diametrically opposite things. What I am hoping is that, when the Assistant Treasurer, Senator Kemp, acquaints himself with this issue, he will come back to the Senate and make it clear that the electoral funding is subject to the GST, just the same as the public getting money from government is subject to the GST—the dairy structural assistance program being one. Lots of money there is earmarked to go to dairy farmers under structural assistance, but they are going to be GSTed. Authors who give up their right to exclusively sell books in bookshops and allow them to go to libraries, where they are read more cheaply by the public—what a great institution libraries are—get what is called public lending rights as a result of that. That public lending right is going to be GSTed. So political candidates who stand for election and get funded afterwards through public funding should in fairness expect that that funding will also be GSTed. We might not like it, but this has been approved by the parliament so we have to pay up, the same as everybody else. I was very alarmed to see that there was a ruling coming from the Electoral Commission based on tax office advice which said, `No, you won't have to,' particularly as that came just three months after the tax office had told us, `Yes, you will have to.' I can see only two reasons for this apparent conflict in advice: either the left hand of the tax office does not know what the right hand is doing, or there has been political pressure brought to bear on the tax office in those three months to get it to reverse its advice so that the political parties and politicians will be exempt from having their public funding GSTed. We wait to see what the Treasurer has to say on that matter. But here is the opportunity to clear up the question as to whether political parties should be treated as charities in some of their fundraising activities and therefore made exempt. Of course they should not. I hope that I will have multipartisan support for this simple amendment to at least put that confusing matter to rest.17:07:0015230Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRYZW4TasmaniaALP00—The Indirect Tax Legislation Amendment Bill 2000 we are dealing with is further legislation in respect of the so-called new tax system, the goods and services tax. The legislation we are considering contains over 100 new amendments to the goods and services tax, the GST. Specifically, a total of 145 amendments are contained in 11 schedules. What is important about these 145 amendments is that they continue the Liberal-National Party government's rollback of the goods and services tax whilst, of course, pretending that it is not rolling it back. And there have been other examples of legislation in this regard. The Liberal-National Party government will also use this bill to make, effectively, a number of other amendments to the GST prior to its commencement on 1 July. The significance of the new amendments is that they build on top of the 1,026 amendments to the goods and services tax that have been moved since last year and the many hundreds of new tax system amendments—for example, those relating to the ABN and the PAYG system—that are still before the parliament in other legislation.The bill, in respect of the 11 schedules we are considering, deals with charities and some non-profit bodies—expanding the range of GST-free supplies in areas relating to water, health and education, supplies involving non-residents; simplifying the way the GST applies between principals and agents; the financial supplies for entities which are not financial institutions; the precise rules for calculating the goods and services tax—for example, rounding; some technical matters concerning joint ventures; various technical insurance issues; the administration of the GST between the tax office and taxpayers; an anti-avoidance provision concerning the stockpiling of alcoholic beverages; and other subjects relating to livestock, housing and second-hand goods. If we look at the detail of the legislation, as I have said earlier, it represents significant change in a number of critical areas. The amendments represent, in a variety of forms, the government's response to the various complaints from industry groups and individuals in respect of the goods and services tax.There is one area of important complaint that has received a significant degree of media coverage over the last few weeks in relation to caravan parks that is not contained within this legislation. But I will say a little bit about that later on. According to a colleague of mine in the other place, Mr Craig Emerson, the member for Rankin—remembering that this is the so-called `streamlined new tax system for the new century'—the weigh-in of GST legislation and explanatory material is now up to 5.1 kilograms.XE4Bolkus, Sen NickSenator Bolkus—That's astounding!ZW4Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRY—It is astounding, Senator Bolkus. The new simplified tax system now weighs in at an additional 5.1 kilograms. I understand that, should we finish this legislation in this fortnight of sitting before that crucial date of 1 July, the weigh-in for GST legislation will be 6.1 kilograms. One of the arguments for this so-called new tax system was that it would be made simpler, but instead we are seeing amendment after amendment. Quite frankly, that is not unusual in respect to legislation. But we are not just seeing a few amendments; we are seeing hundreds of amendments that are supposedly attempting to simplify the application of the goods and services tax.Before I touch on a couple of specific issues, I want to draw to the Senate's attention the Commonwealth government's principal revenue raising estimates as outlined in Budget Paper No. 1. With the implementation of the goods and services tax, the income tax collected from individuals in the year 1999-2000 will be approximately $75,694 billion. With the much trumpeted tax cuts, that decreases to $68,109 billion in the year 2000-01.Then there is revenue from a range of other indirect taxes, excluding the GST. One of the arguments is that we should simplify the indirect tax base and have a GST; that is one of the central themes of this government. But, despite the introduction of a GST, there are government and Treasury projections for tax from other sources. Let's take excise duty on petroleum products and crude oil. This financial year it is projected to be $11,419 million and increasing to $12,968 million in the year 2001; that is an increase of 13.6 per cent. Other excise is projected to increase from $2,783 million to $6,810 million in the year 2000-01; that is an increase of 144.7 per cent.If we go to this in a little more detail, page 513 of Treasury paper No. 1 refers to other excise including beer. The revenue collected from excise on beer is currently $892 million, increasing to $1,441 million—an increase of 61.6 per cent. That is a staggering increase in indirect tax in respect of excise on beer. The revenue collected from excise on spirits will increase from $152 million to $245 million. The revenue collected from excise on tobacco products will increase from $1,740 million to $5,124 million—a staggering increase of 194.5 per cent. The revenue collected from excise duty on unleaded petrol will increase from $5,044 million to $5,993 million—an increase of 18.8 per cent in revenue collection in this particular area.The argument was that the GST was to replace the existing indirect tax base in order to simplify the tax system. Of course there is a whole range of other complications, but in this one very important area the GST does not do this. The revenue from the other areas of indirect taxation, specifically excise tax—after income tax and after the GST—will still be a total of $26,168 million in the year 2000-01. How does this come about? Aside from the obvious—that the goods and services tax is not replacing other indirect taxes within our tax system—there is a double whammy in respect of the goods and services tax because excise is indexed against the consumer price index. Within that CPI increase over the next year will be a significant component relating to the introduction of the goods and services tax. It varies—we have had different figures put forward. We accept that it may be four or five per cent. Effectively, the government is getting a bonus in revenue through the indexation of the excise tax to the consumer price index because of the GST. It is getting billions of dollars in additional revenue because of the GST. If this government were fair dinkum about the introduction of a goods and services tax, it would exclude the inflationary component of that from the CPI. This is why the beer industry, for example, are absolutely outraged, and rightly so, about the treatment they are receiving in respect of the introduction of a goods and services tax. Not only that, it is well known in respect of beer and excise that the Prime Minister misled the people of Australia, and that is putting it mildly, when he claimed in a number of radio talkback shows that the beer price increase would be 1.9 per cent. Of course, it turns out that he was referring to packaged beer, not to beer sold by the glass in clubs and hotels. Not only are beer drinkers and the breweries outraged, but so are people who live in rural and regional Australia in particular, who will have to pay higher petrol taxes as a result of the introduction of a goods and services tax. I know the government argue that they are introducing a subsidy to be paid to petrol station proprietors. It will be interesting to see whether that works, but that is another issue. However, for that subsidy to be effective and for petrol prices in rural and regional Australia not to increase as a result of the GST, the government will need to make a much greater subsidy payment than they have so far indicated.I have two other points about the wholesale sales tax and the GST. I have made a number of comments about the wholesale sales tax in debate in this chamber before. But we note that on many occasions the Assistant Treasurer triumphantly rises to his feet in question time usually in answer to a so-called dorothy dix question from his own side—in other words, he has prepared the question for the person who has asked the question—to outline the success of the Australian economy. We hear figures about declining unemployment and very solid growth, and I acknowledge that in a number of areas the economy is doing well. But the principal argument that this government has fallen back on in terms of supporting the GST is that it is good for the country, it is good for the economy. But I put it to the Senate: how will the economy perform any better than it is at the present time with a GST? We have not had the introduction of a GST yet. This wholesale sales tax, which is so often derided by the government, is one of the most important areas of revenue collection for government at the present time. So we have the economy doing well with a wholesale sales tax which is often criticised because it is a 1930s tax. So what? The wholesale sales tax was introduced back in the 1930s, approximately 70 years ago. But the GST is not a new tax. I think the GST was invented by the French and was introduced into France approximately 20 years after the wholesale sales tax was introduced into the Australian economy and, regrettably, the GST has spread throughout most OECD countries, except for the United States—one important exception. There again is an interesting comparison with Australia. Look at the strength of the US economy, and they do not have a GST. So to the argument that the wholesale sales tax is old and outdated, so what? The Australian economy is booming with the wholesale sales tax. It is absolutely booming. I think that is a point that should not be lost in this debate. Senator Kemp talks about a number of characteristics of the Australian economy, but he never mentions the wholesale sales tax. He always talks about how great the economy is going to go after 1 July with a GST, but he never mentions one of the critical taxation ingredients to the equation—the wholesale sales tax, that tax that is so often incorrectly derided and criticised by this government. The GST might be replacing the wholesale sales tax, but it is not replacing a whole range of indirect taxes, particularly the excise taxes that I referred to earlier.We have had a number of other controversies about the GST in recent weeks. We had the controversy about caravan parks. I am sure no-one would have missed hearing about the National Party's 80th birthday celebrations at their national conference last weekend. Issues relating to beer, dairy deregulation and caravan parks were raised—in fact they are all we heard of during the National Party conference and their 80th birthday celebrations. At that conference, Ms Helen Dickie, the Federal President of the National Party, indicated that the National Party are in some trouble. There have been a range of other people within the National Party, including Mr Causley, Minister Anthony and a number of others, who have indicated that they are very concerned about the GST. But Ms Helen Dickie has hit on the solution. She said, `Well, for a start, let's stop using the word “coalition”. It does not help us. We must talk about the National Party, be it in government or in opposition.'The National Party must go down in history as one of the silliest parties in terms of the GST. The National Party has signed up to a GST. It has signed up to higher prices in rural and regional areas. It has signed up to more paperwork for small business and farmers. It has signed up to tax cuts. Half of the farmers in this country do not earn any income, so what use are income tax cuts to them? Yet the National Party has signed up to it. It has signed up, effectively, to higher petrol prices in rural and regional Australia. And then, of course, there is the issue of caravan parks, and there is a whole host of other policy matters and outcomes that relate to the GST that are much more magnified in their consequences and hurt much more in rural and regional Australia. The National Party has signed up to it. It just shows how much it is in the control of the Liberal Party that represents the interests principally of urban big business.The National Party president's solution is that the National Party has to start calling itself by its own name—the National Party. I suggest to the National Party, which has ignored the interests of people in rural and regional Australia—its own base—that it is going to have to do a lot more than call itself `National Party' if it is to overcome its neglect of the interests of people living in rural and regional Australia. It is not just in respect of the GST—it has neglected service areas such as education and health, and it has neglected investment in infrastructure and roads. All of these areas have been ignored by this Liberal-National Party government. I will not use the word `coalition'. The National Party has been in it up to its neck with the Liberal Party. It has been the doormat of the Liberal Party. The Liberal Party gives it a few bickies occasionally to try to keep it happy. I note some interesting analysis: the National Party represents the six seats with the lowest income in this country.XE4Bolkus, Sen NickSenator Bolkus—Not for very long.ZW4Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRY—Exactly, Senator Bolkus—hopefully, not for long. Mr Howard has gone on record and said that he is not going to back down on the issue of caravan parks. At a committee hearing I was at yesterday—and it has been reported in today's press—I heard that the government is proposing to do a U-turn on the taxation treatment of artists. We had a very effective presentation from artists, who want exemption of areas of their income from the impact of the new business system. So the Liberal Party is going to back down in respect of the way the new tax system applies to artists—I think the National Party will be interested in that. The poor old National Party—the government is not going to back down in respect of caravan parks. I am sure the National Party must be thrilled to hear this. The government, rightly so, is taking up the concerns of artists and doing another backflip, another roll-back, of the tax system. (Time expired)Debate (on motion by Senator Herron) adjourned.Bills15234R102515234Debate resumed from 10 April, on motion by Senator Ian Campbell:That this bill be now read a second time.(Quorum formed)17:30:0015234Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT4J4South AustraliaALP00—The Social Security and Veterans' Entitlements Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Matters) Bill 2000 gives effect to a range of 1999 budget savings measures by making various amendments to nine acts. The specific changes relate to international payment rules, including portability and qualifying residence; changes to the use of tax file numbers, with the objective of strengthening compliance with social security laws; changes ensuring the four per cent pension increase is extended to those participating in the pension bonus scheme; and technical changes to associated social security changes. The majority of amendments are of a technical or consequential nature and are supported by the opposition. However, in outlining our position I wish to focus on three issues which have implications for contemporary debate on welfare reform. The issues I wish to address relate to, firstly, standardising the overseas portability of social security and related payments; secondly, datamatching in social security payments using tax file numbers; and, thirdly, extending portability to payments made by the Department of Veterans' Affairs.The international portability provisions of the Social Security Act deal with the rules for the payment of social security benefits and allowances when a beneficiary leaves Australia on a temporary basis. Currently, each payment has its own international portability rules and there are many inconsistencies. For example, the age pension, bereavement allowance and the disability support pension—if the recipient is severely disabled—are completely portable for up to 12 months. After this time they continue to be portable but at a reduced rate proportional to a person's working life residence. At the other end of the spectrum, Jobsearch, Newstart, carer allowance and sickness allowance are among the payments portable for a maximum of three months at the present time. The proposed amendments will standardise these rules in a central area of the act with a standard maximum portability period of 26 weeks. It should be noted that the portability of payments is subject to the beneficiaries remaining qualified for them. For example, the Newstart allowance is not portable unless the person complies with the government's increasingly onerous activity tests. The government has framed its case for change by extolling the virtues of a standardised and simplified system. These terms are the government's euphemisms for measures that generate savings. Changes to international portability will lead to annual administrative savings of up to $10.7 million.We acknowledge that standardising the 26 weeks will advantage recipients of payments currently portable for three months. However, the conditions attached to payments such as Newstart, carer allowance and youth allowance mean that it is unlikely that a person can fulfil activity tests and other eligibility criteria while absent from Australia, thus the extension of portability is unlikely to apply in practice. On the other hand, the opposition is concerned that these changes will reduce the capacity of the system to support Australian residents with special needs. For example, a disability support pensioner who seeks treatment overseas will now lose the benefit after six months. It should be noted that we are debating this bill less than three months after the release of the interim report of the welfare reform reference committee. This report stressed the importance of developing a more responsive, flexible welfare system that can tailor programs and payments to individual circumstances and need, yet the minister is already pushing through changes in legislation that make the system less flexible—changes which standardise rather than individualise the system. The minister may have endorsed the report in principle, but the government clearly is not interested in practical measures that will realise the committee's vision for reform. This would require investment, imagination and sensitivity to the complex barriers which exclude some Australians from participation in our economic and social life. I point out that the opposition will soon move amendments to address our concerns about the proposed international portability rules. I understand the committee stage of the bill will not be dealt with today.The submissions received by the Senate Community Affairs Committee from the National Welfare Rights Network and the Department of Family and Community Services have helped flesh out the arguments and the dimensions of the debate. After close consideration of the submissions Labor remains unconvinced that the administrative gains from streamlining provisions and the small number of people who will be affected by changes are sufficient reasons to justify reducing entitlements and reducing flexibility and responsiveness in portability. If, as FACS argues, the numbers taking advantage of more generous portability provisions for disability support pensioners are few, there is little chance retention of portability of 12 months will see a flood of individuals using the period to relocate overseas for long periods of time. In addition, the legislation is structured to ensure that participatory obligations override portability.FACS claims that less than 100 wife and widow B pensioners will be affected by the proposed reduction in maximum portability periods to 26 weeks. It should also be noted that these payments will soon be phased out. It is Labor's view that the demand for consistency is not as strong as maintaining certainty of entitlement for the affected few. Nor is Labor convinced by the department's argument for doubling the period before which a person re-entering the country can be eligible for further portability. We are not convinced that the integrity of the system is threatened by the current arrangement as the present system provides an adequate test of a person's commitment to this country. Similarly, we see no compelling arguments to remove the opportunity for people to return overseas within the prescribed period due to unforeseen circumstances. Given that the measure allows discretion on humanitarian grounds, is a low volume transaction—Centrelink reports only 16 cases a year—and has been stringently enforced, it would appear to be a weak case to remove the provision. The purpose of our amendments will be to ensure a system that is sufficiently flexible to support and meet individual needs while allowing for the consolidation and centralisation of portability rules. We will not be sold a piece of legislation that uses what is an otherwise noble exercise to reduce the entitlements of a small number of our citizens.I turn now to data matching. It was a previous Labor government that initiated the process of data matching in order to enhance the integrity of the social security system. We remain committed to a system which ensures that payments are the province of those who are eligible and that people receive what they are entitled to. Currently, reliance on identity data such as name and date of birth makes it difficult to identify persons who inadvertently or deliberately provide different details to agencies such as Centrelink and the Australian Taxation Office. The amendments will allow tax file numbers to be used as the primary data-matching tool. It is a change the opposition supports.The provisions will empower the secretary to obtain information, including tax file numbers, from the Commissioner of Taxation for the purposes of establishing or verifying a claimant's or recipient's qualification, payment rate or entitlement to be paid. I note that the government's second reading speech in the House assured the parliament that the Privacy Commissioner's office was consulted in the development of this proposal and that all data matching will be undertaken in strict observance of the commissioner's guidelines. Accordance with privacy guidelines will require behavioural adjustments on the part of the Australian Taxation Office. Breaches of the kind observed in recent weeks will not be tolerated.While the opposition is supportive of measures that address welfare fraud, we hope that the minister and her colleague Mr Abbott will not use savings made from improved data matching to brand all welfare recipients, and particularly those on unemployment benefits, as cheats. This is our hope, but I suspect it is a forlorn one. This government has shamelessly used the issue of welfare fraud to drive its tough and punitive approach to welfare reform. The language of `cheats', `bludgers' and `job snobs' has been used as a political weapon to harden community attitudes towards the disadvantaged.BE4Newman, Sen JocelynSenator Newman—By the press, not by the government.4J4Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT—I am glad you interjected, Minister. For the minister to object, particularly when we have the minister in the lower house, Mr Abbott, at times wallowing in press comments, in radio interviews, using those phrases consistently—BE4Newman, Sen JocelynSenator Newman—No.4J4Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT—He does use those phrases, Minister. I beg to differ.BE4Newman, Sen JocelynSenator Newman—We don't talk about `bludgers'. We don't talk about `cheats'.4J4Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT—Minister, I stand to be corrected and so on, but all I can say is I believe that this minister, Mr Abbott, wallows in the image of being tough on people in the welfare area, and he does use those phrases—remember, these are Australian citizens—and uses them, as we say, for the political purposes of this government. It is called wedge politics in America, and it is a feature this government has taken up here with a vengeance.BE4Newman, Sen JocelynSenator Newman—Rubbish.4J4Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT—You may say `rubbish', Minister, but it is true. This Liberal coalition government has been advised by Republicans from the Republican Party in America, who have been past masters of wedge politics in the last 20 years. And this is wedge politics of the worst order, when you have remarks made by Mr Abbott in particular. The government has created an environment where the genuinely needy, the honest and those who make honest and inadvertent mistakes are all under suspicion. I am proud to say that that is not the Labor way.I turn to portability of Veterans' Affairs benefits. As shadow minister for veterans' affairs this is my own area. Schedule 3 amends the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 to extend the changes relating to the portability of Department of Family and Community Services, FACS, benefits and allowances to payments made by the Department of Veterans' Affairs. This involves changes to the administration of rent assistance, telephone allowance, pharmaceutical allowance and remote area allowance. The opposition believes it is important to remove disparities between the portability provisions applying to FACS and DVA pensioners.At the present time, rent assistance, telephone allowance and remote area allowance are not payable when a DVA pensioner is temporarily overseas. The opposition supports the payment of rent assistance and telephone allowance for a maximum of 26 weeks upon temporary absence. We also support the portability of remote area allowance for a maximum of eight weeks. As remote area allowance is paid to assist with the high cost of living in remote areas, we do not think that it is appropriate to continue paying the allowance for extended absences when the additional expenses are not being incurred.A more vexed issue concerns the proposed changes to the portability requirements for pharmaceutical allowance. This amendment would limit its payment for temporary absences to a maximum of 26 weeks. Under the current rules, pharmaceutical allowance was payable until the following 1 January after the person left Australia. This means that the period of payment could vary from two weeks to 12 months, depending on when the recipient taxied down the runway. The opposition recognises that a person who temporarily leaves Australia in the first half of the calendar year will, under this amendment, receive their pharmaceutical allowance for a reduced period. Nonetheless, we support this amendment. There is no reason why time of departure is an appropriate means of determining length of portability.While this section of the bill will benefit Australian veterans, the opposition is appalled by the government's failure to provide a comprehensive response to the validation study on morbidity of Vietnam veterans and their children. I do acknowledge that in the budget there are a number of areas where the government has made a number of changes. I would have hoped that maybe amendments to this omnibus bill, which contains amendments to the Veterans' Entitlements Act, would implement initiatives in those areas that the government has accepted from the validation study on the morbidity of Vietnam veterans and their children. I hope that during this debate, Minister, you can give some indication to the Senate of when the government will introduce legislation to take effect in those areas which you announced in the budget relating to the morbidity study.I want to take this opportunity to again point out that the major report in this area found, for example, that suicide is three times more prevalent amongst children of Vietnam veterans up to the age of 35 and that there is also a significant increase in the levels of spina bifida, cancer, cleft lip and cleft palate amongst the children of Vietnam veterans. There are still some areas where parts of the veteran community want more response, but the major response they want is to get the legislation in so the benefits can be made available. We accept, Minister, that in some areas we are moving into uncharted or new areas when we pay benefits to the children of veterans because of genetic defects such as spina bifida, cancer, cleft lip and cleft palate. This will establish new principles under the Veterans' Entitlements Act. But as these veterans and their children have waited a long time to prove the point that there is a case—and it has now been accepted by the government—the veteran community would like to see that legislation promptly introduced. The opposition will do everything to facilitate the legislation going through the parliament rapidly to ensure that those veterans and their children get a speedy as possible remedy for the distress they have been suffering for many years. This government likes to speak of mutual obligation, but its obligations are narrowly conceived and based on spending less not more. The government will extend portability requirements to veterans—BE4Newman, Sen JocelynSenator Newman—Not true; not correct.4J4Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT—Well, Minister, I think that is correct. Thank you for your interjection. The government will extend portability requirements to veterans but will not address the urgent physical and psychological health needs of their children. I hope the minister can respond here to give us an indication of when that legislation will be before us. Minister, it is not as though this report on the Vietnam veterans has just suddenly appeared. There have been several morbidity studies and the validation of them has been going on now for several years. When the final validation report came out six months ago and we asked the government to immediately announce what measures it would take we were told to wait until the budget. So there was at least six months for DVA to prepare the appropriate legislation. So I am a little disappointed—unless you can give me a compelling reason why my disappointment is unreasonable—that the legislation will not at least be introduced before we rise for the winter break at the end of this month.I accept that this issue in relation to the Vietnam veterans has gone on for a long time when both parties have been in government. There is no doubt that at long last we have to accept that there are unique circumstances affecting the Vietnam veterans and their children. Although the recommendations in the report that have been accepted by the government go into new areas, it will mean that these children in particular will now get the care that they require. Even though that may be costly on a per capita basis, we certainly should not begrudge spending that money on these veterans and their children. We look forward to not only the care being provided to those who have suffered spina bifida, cleft palate, et cetera but also the effective measures that can be taken to counsel adult children of Vietnam veterans who have been committing suicide at nearly double the rate of suicide in the normal population. This is a real tragedy. In a week in which this parliament has been in a very sombre mood due to the suicide of one of our own members, the issue of suicide is very contemporary with us all. (Time expired)10000Murphy, Shayne (The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT)The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Murphy)—Before I call Senator Bartlett, I would like to remind senators that, when a quorum has been called, senators are not able to leave the chamber until such time as a quorum has been reached. It is obligatory upon the President or Acting Deputy President, if a senator does leave the chamber, to request the Black Rod to go and bring them back. I am sure that is not a situation that many senators would enjoy. So to avoid that in the future, we hope that senators will remain in the chamber when quorums are called.17:51:0015238Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QueenslandAD00—Mr Acting Deputy President, being in the chamber is so much fun that I do not know why anyone would ever want to leave! In the debate on the Social Security and Veterans' Entitlements Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Matters) Bill 2000, I am speaking on behalf of the Australian Democrats. It is another social security and veterans' entitlements amendment bill. As is often the case, it contains a variety of amendments, most with similar themes surrounding issues of portability of payments when people are overseas or returning from overseas. It amends a number of related acts: not just various social security acts but also taxation, health insurance and, of course, the Veterans' Entitlements Act.The bill seeks to streamline the administration of international portability of these payments. Streamlining, simplification and clarification are always a worthy goal in any legislation and particularly in social security and veterans legislation. Of course, in doing that, one has always to ensure that people's entitlements are not unreasonably reduced as part of that streamlining process. That is the issue in relation to some aspects of this bill. Certainly, the Welfare Rights Centre have highlighted a number of areas where they have concerns. As the Democrat spokesperson in this area for a few years now, and a researcher into it before that, I certainly pay a lot of attention to the views of the Welfare Rights Centre in terms of social security and other legislation, because these are people who work with this act and with people affected by it, day in and day out. They often see the people who are crunched between some of the anomalies and who are let down by the legislation and fall through the cracks. They are probably the best in the country by a long way at identifying potential problems with amendments, as well as problems with existing arrangements.They have certainly expressed concerns, through the Senate inquiry process and their submission, about the reduction of portability periods for disability support pensioners; about the extension of the period for which a person re-entering Australia can be eligible for further portability; and, in particular, about the removal of the unforeseen circumstances exception. They also have concerns about the imposition of proportionality portability after 26 weeks on age, wives' and widow B pensions, and also about the insertion and removal of specific visa types by ministerial determination. As the Democrat spokesperson also on immigration issues, I am aware of the enormous number of visa types and, indeed, the wide variety and ever-changing nature of those, and I can understand the difficulty in keeping the Social Security Act and related acts up to date all the time, with the various changes that are often being made by the immigration minister. Sometimes I wonder how much some of those changes from the immigration side of things are thought through in terms of their impact on the entitlements of people, but that is probably a separate issue and a separate debate that I will not go into at length now.In a number of those areas that I have outlined, the concerns that have been expressed by others are concerns that the Democrats also share. I do think that there is justification for the provision in this bill for enabling specific visa types to be put into the bill by ministerial determination, but some of those other areas that reduce entitlements are of concern. Certainly, the Democrats will be listening closely to any further rationale that the government may put forward as to why they are desirable and necessary. The opposition, through Senator Schacht, have indicated that they will be circulating some amendments, obviously, before we get to the committee stage of this bill, and we will look at those closely as well.It is worth noting that this legislation was listed for Thursday and we are now dealing with it on Tuesday—following on from the Sydney Harbour Trust Fund Bill, which was listed for Monday of next week and which we started dealing with yesterday. It does not necessarily make life easy in terms of ensuring that we have adequate time to consider things; nonetheless, I think we will be able to do that with this particular piece of legislation. Certainly, those issues that I have outlined are ones which we will be paying attention to.Another amendment that I will be moving in the committee stage is one which has been circulated for a day or so and it relates to the treatment of the wartime disability pension under social security income testing arrangements, as against the veterans affairs arrangements. An anomaly has existed there that I am sure all speakers in this debate are aware of, and it has existed for some time. I will not speak on that at length now; I will wait until I move my amendment. Given that this is a bill dealing with veterans' entitlements and, indeed, a bill that aims to streamline administration, it is an ideal bill in which to try to remove the anomaly that treats some veterans unfairly. The Democrats will seek to have that positive change made through this particular piece of legislation. I will move an amendment in that regard and talk to it further during the committee stage of the debate. I will leave further comments on it until then.Other than the particular aspects that I have mentioned as being of potential concern, the Democrats are supportive of the remainder of the bill. We do think that the enabling of ministerial determination to insert and remove visa types is something which is appropriate in the circumstances. As always with moving something to a mechanism of ministerial determination, it reduces the accountability of the parliament. There is no doubt that there is less automatic scrutiny of ministerial determinations of delegated legislation than there is of full legislation—despite the fine work of the regulations and ordinances committee, I might add. It does reduce the opportunity for scrutiny and also obviously reduces the ability of the parliament to amend determinations that they do not like. It is a less desirable mechanism but, in this case and with this particular issue, the Democrats do think it is one which is worth making that sacrifice over, for ease of administration; and so we will not be opposing that aspect of the bill.17:58:0015239Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TasmaniaLPMinster for Family and Community Services and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—I thank senators for their contribution to the debate. Firstly, I make it clear for the benefit of Senator Schacht, who has an interest in other veterans affairs legislation, that the advice I have just received from the Minister for Veterans' Affairs is that the budget legislation for veterans affairs is to be introduced next week into the House of Representatives.4J4Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator Schacht—Very good!BE4Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMAN—Thank you. I turn to the issues that are particularly important in this debate and that have attracted the most attention from the senators opposite. I just want to emphasise some points. The simplification of the portability provisions is going to benefit about 90,000 customers every year. The simplification will improve service delivery and benefit customers only if the new rules are consistent. As I said in a debate yesterday on social security legislation, simplicity is a vital element in people being able to know what their entitlements are, to access them and to have staff administer them efficiently and properly, according to their entitlement. The consistency of the new rules is a vital element of the simplification process. The proposed changes to the bill, which have been flagged by the Democrats and are apparently being considered by the opposition, undermine the purpose of simplification. I do not know how many more times I am going to have to stand up here in this place to talk about the need for simplification of what is a very complex system that we have tried hard to make simpler. The purpose of trying to increase simplification was acknowledged by the committee as a commendable purpose, and I see these proposed changes, in undermining the purpose, as a very backward step.A longer short-term portability period for the disability support pension for the non-severely disabled wife and widow B pensions is unjustified because a small number of customers travel for periods longer than 26 weeks and the payment of ancillary benefits such as rent assistance and pharmaceutical allowance will help many tens of thousands of customers who travel, including migrants. As most honourable senators will know, it has been an issue on which we have been lobbied for many years. I am sure those who are able to travel will be very appreciative of the payment of ancillary benefits. In addition, the longer short-term portability period would be inconsistent with the residence based Australian welfare system, and it would be reasonable if the community questioned a policy that allows people on social security benefits to remain overseas for a prolonged period of time. The retention of the non-proportional period of 12 months is not justified because, under Australian social security agreements with the major migrant source countries, the portable rate for permanent absences starts immediately—this has not had any effect on the number of people wanting to settle in agreement countries—and absences longer than 26 weeks are considered long term and subject to a proportional rate. Further, availability of the ancillary payments for the first 26 weeks will assist many migrants while they are making up their mind as to whether they settle in their country of origin. In addition, the retention of the 12 months non-portability period for former residents and the reinstatement of the secretary's discretion is unjustified because the proposal is consistent with the residency principles of the Australian social security system, it requires a former resident to manifest a commitment to resume residence in Australia, it will prevent former residents returning to Australia only to obtain an indefinitely portable pension and return overseas and it will prevent abuse of the secretary's discretion power.Let me also emphasise that all customers who are overseas on 20 September this year will be fully protected. All customers on allowances will be subject to the old rules until they return to Australia. All pensioners—wife and widow B, DSP and age—who are overseas at the time of implementation will be protected until they return to Australia for longer than 26 weeks. This means that many of those who are constantly commuting, such as some wife and widow B pensioners and some disability pensioners, will be able to preserve their old portability rules forever, provided they spend less than 26 weeks in Australia every time they return. The saving provision would therefore preserve the old 12-month portability period for all wife, widow and DSP pensioners currently overseas until they return to Australia for longer than 26 weeks. For example, if a widow B pensioner returns to Australia on 21 September and goes overseas again in February the following year, she will get another portability of 12 months. Also, the 26-week saving provision will preserve the old non-proportionalised period of 12 months and other portability benefits, including the right to use the spouse's working life residence in Australia for the calculation of the proportionalised rate for all pensioners on long-term portable benefits—DSP for the severely disabled, aged, wife and widow entitled persons—currently overseas until they return to Australia for longer than 26 weeks. For example, an aged or severely disabled DSP pensioner who is overseas on 20 September, returns to Australia on 21 September and goes overseas again in February the following year will get the non-proportionalised rate for the full 12 months, as per the old rules. In other words, the people who are overseas at 20 September will be fully protected. Although this was evidence that was given to the committee, it did not seem to feature at all in the minority report or be taken into account at all. In other words, this is going to apply to people going overseas in the future. I do not think grandfathering those who are currently using the system is an unreasonable way to introduce new rules.It is a matter of some concern to me personally that, by agreement with the ALP, this bill was referred to a Senate committee with a report date of 5 June. That was so as to expedite the passage of the legislation before the end of June, as there is a compensation measure relating to the new tax system attached to this bill. Labor, not being ready to proceed, puts the passage of the bill in jeopardy.4J4Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator Schacht—We were told it was going to be Thursday. It's come forward two days.BE4Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMAN—You had a report back on 5 June, Senator.4J4Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator Schacht—Why did you tell us Thursday?BE4Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMAN—We have got changing priorities in legislation. There were other people who were—XE4Bolkus, Sen NickSenator Bolkus—You're a disgrace! Why don't you get out of our way?BE4Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMAN—It is all very well for you to—4J4Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator Schacht—You said Thursday. You bring it on today; we agreed to come on today—BE4Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMAN—I am very happy that you agreed to come on today, but I would have thought you have had enough time to know whether you are going to support amendments or produce amendments. You have had a committee system. The committee system was introduced to reduce the amount of time in the committee of the whole. You may not have been here long enough, Senator Schacht, or you may have forgotten the history of the committee system. It was to avoid long debate in the committee of the whole.XE4Bolkus, Sen NickSenator Bolkus—Mr Acting Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. Maybe the minister does not appreciate that Senator Hill should have been here for the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust debate. But he has more important things to do than this parliament. Senator Newman ought to recognise that.10000Lightfoot, Ross (The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT)The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Lightfoot)—What is your point of order? There is no point of order.BE4Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMAN—I am simply making the point that the senators opposite could have been and should have been ready to proceed with this bill from the moment the Senate received the committee's report. You have had plenty of time to be ready, and you are still not. You are ready to come in here and take the part of the shadow minister. I am very appreciative of your coming, Senator Schacht. It was very nice to hear your views about a number of veterans matters.4J4Schacht, Sen Chris10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT, TheThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESI-DENT—Senator Schacht, how many more times do I have to speak to you?4J4Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator Schacht—We could have told you to stick it until Thursday.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT, TheThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESI-DENT—Senator Schacht!BE4Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMAN—Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President. It is nice to have silence. I am pointing out once again that this is not a brand-new bill which has suddenly been dropped into the lap of the opposition. It is a bill which has been around for a considerable amount of time and which has been before a Senate committee, and the committee has produced two reports on the matter. The opposition put down a minority report, and I would have thought that at that time they would prepare their amendments, ready for the debate whenever it was brought on. The noise and cackle from the other side of the chamber is just sound and fury. It produces nothing.XE4Bolkus, Sen NickSenator Bolkus—It is your pathetic performance. Tell your Manager of Government Business to get his act together.BE4Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMAN—Senator Bolkus, your party does not seem to think too much of your performance, so let us not have anything about mine.XE4Bolkus, Sen NickBE4Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMAN—You are having an enforced retirement, as I understand it, Senator.XE4Bolkus, Sen NickSenator Bolkus—Yes? Who told you that?BE4Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMAN—Some of your friends.XE4Bolkus, Sen NickSenator Bolkus—Look at the little smirk on her face. Isn't it pathetic?BE4Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMAN—It is a pity that the opposition do not like it when I smile on them, but I am perfectly happy to scowl if that is what they prefer. Nevertheless, I have said all that I intend to say at this stage. I thank the other parties for being prepared to come in two days earlier than was originally down on the Notice Paper.XE4Bolkus, Sen NickBE4Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMAN—I have said thank you for that. I am only sorry that you were not ready to bring in your amendments, fresh from the committee's minority report. I would have thought that was the efficient thing to do if you were an efficient opposition. Nevertheless, we wait with keen interest to see your amendments.Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time.Ordered that consideration of the bill in committee of the whole be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting.Bills15242S24515242Consideration resumed from 19 June.18:10:0015242Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4South AustraliaALP00—I suppose my first question is: where is the minister?H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator Ian Campbell—He is here.XE4Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUS—Madam Chairman, this is not a minister, as we know. This is Senator Campbell. Are you filling in for this debate, Senator?H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator Ian Campbell—Your manager agreed to this arrangement.XE4Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUS—We do have a particular problem, one that I need to place on the record. We were advised that the minister could not be here for this debate. We are dealing with a very important and substantial piece of legislation, one which deals with the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust and the continuing care in the future of some pretty important land around Sydney Harbour. We are at the committee stage. We started the committee stage last night with the relevant minister, Senator Hill, in place. I think it shows the greatest disrespect to this issue, if not to the Senate, that Senator Hill has decided that there are more important things for him to be doing at this stage than to be here to handle this legislation.This is an action which comes at the end of a series of actions which really are quite dismissive to those who have an interest in this legislation. This is a promise that was made by your Prime Minister; a promise that was followed up by pretty empty legislation in terms of meeting the commitments that the Prime Minister made. There was no meaningful consultative process, so we had a Senate committee do what the government should have done, and that was consult with all the interested parties to this debate. That process has come up with some 99 amendments from us and the Australian Democrats. This is not in recognition of the role that the opposition parties play in the Senate but in recognition of the work done by people in the community—people like Tom Uren, who is sitting up in the gallery at the moment and who has been working with community people around Sydney Harbour. We wanted them and their views to be taken seriously. The fact that the minister is not here is another sign that this government is not taking this issue seriously.Last night, we went through the part of the debate which went to the objects clause and the purpose of the legislation. I think we had a pretty exhaustive discussion in respect of that. Though there are a number of issues that can be pursued and should be pursued with the minister, it seems we are not going to get the opportunity to do that during the course of the debate this evening. I would like to place on the record a request for the minister to look at the batches of amendments that are going to come up in this debate both this evening and tomorrow and to take them seriously. This government should have no concern about adopting amendments or developing amendments which, for instance, govern the conduct of the trust, issues of pecuniary interests, the establishment of community advisory committees, the tenure of trust members, the definition of the land and so on. Many of the amendments that we are putting up offer protection and good policy processes, and those are the sorts of amendments that the minister and the government should be flexible enough to pick up.The other point I make to the minister is: your government have made some commitments, and this is an opportunity to meet them. It is too late in the day to come into the parliament and say, `While we said that the land, or part of it, would be transferred to the Sydney Harbour trust and, from there, to the New South Wales government, we have now come up with another option for the land, and we're not going to guarantee that the land will go as we promised it would go.' It is an opportunity for them—and they should seize it, once this bill is amended—to keep the faith with people in and around Sydney. We are not just talking about North Shore Sydney here; we are talking about a lot of people in New South Wales who have an eye to the significance of this land environmentally, historically and in terms of the interests, history and connection with the land of indigenous Australians.10000CHAIRMAN, TheThe CHAIRMAN—The question is that amendment No. 1 moved by Senators Bolkus and Bartlett be agreed to.Question resolved in the affirmative.18:15:0015243Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15Western AustraliaLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts10—I take this opportunity to table a supplementary explanatory memorandum relating to the government amendments to be moved to the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust Bill 1999 [2000] and inform honourable senators that the memorandum was circulated in the chamber on 20 June 2000. I also want to respond briefly to Senator Bolkus's comments on the presence of the Minister for the Environment and Heritage in the chamber for this debate. Senator Bolkus would respect the fact that the minister has a close personal involvement in this bill. We did inform the Manager of Opposition Business that, if it were to be brought on in this timeslot, the minister would be very briefly delayed. I said that we would not bring it on if it caused an issue for the opposition—in other words, if they were not happy for it to be handled by me then we would find some other bill to do. Clearly, there has been a communication breakdown. But I said that I would be happy to handle the bill. Senator Hill is just briefly delayed and is expected to be here. We do regard this legislation as very important and, furthermore, we share Senator Bolkus's sense of the importance of Sydney Harbour and its environs not only for the people who live around Sydney Harbour but for other people as well. He and others would agree that, with the exception of the Swan River, it is probably one of the most important waterways on the globe.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator Brown—You haven't been to Hobart!H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—I have been to Hobart—from Sydney, on the water, Senator Brown. It is an important bit of water for all Australians. I would encourage all Australians to visit Sydney at some stage in their life, because it is one of the most beautiful cities in the world and one of the great natural harbours of the world.18:18:0015243Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4South AustraliaALP00—It should also be noted that the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust Bill 1999 [2000] was scheduled to come on straight after question time today. It was only because the Minister for the Environment and Heritage could not make it that we agreed for it to be deferred—at that stage, we thought until another day. Let us also put it in that sort of context, Senator Ian Campbell: that we are trying to accommodate your leader's other priorities. We are in the position we are in now because Senator Hill is out there trying to sort out cabinet problems he has with his colleagues.H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator Ian Campbell—We are doing this because you guys don't want to do workplace relations, if you want the full truth, if you want to have a debate about managing government business in the Senate. We are doing this because you don't want to do workplace relations and you won't cognate.XE4Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUS—We have here a situation where we should proceed with the amendments. I seek leave to move opposition amendments Nos 15 and 16 on sheet 1778 together.Leave granted.XE4Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUS—Also on behalf of Senator Bartlett, I move:(15) Clause 6, page 4 (lines 19 to 31), omit the clause, substitute:6 ObjectsThe objects of the Trust are the following: (a) to acquire, hold and preserve Trust land for the benefit and inspiration of present and future generations; (b) to remediate, rehabilitate, conserve and interpret that land in accordance with appropriate conservation and management plans; (c) to protect and conserve the environmental significance of Trust land, including its natural, heritage, historic, indigenous and cultural significance; (d) to ensure public ownership and control of Trust land; (e) to maximise public access to Trust land; (f) to conserve and manage Trust land consistently with such land becoming a national park, and in accordance with New South Wales law; (g) to transfer right, title and interest in all Trust lands to New South Wales within 10 years for no consideration for inclusion in Sydney Harbour National Park or retention in public ownership by New South Wales for the benefit of the people of Australia; (h) to cooperate with the Commonwealth, New South Wales, local government bodies and community groups in furthering the above objects.(16) Clause 7, page 5 (lines 1 to 23), omit the clause, substitute:7 FunctionsThe functions of the Trust are the following: (a) to carry out the objects of the Trust; (b) to develop and implement plans relevant to Trust land in accordance with the objects of this Act and with the Natural Heritage Charter, the Burra Charter and the Guidelines for the Protection of Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Places. (c) to remediate, rehabilitate, conserve and manage Trust land consistent with such land becoming a national park; (d) to remove buildings and structures on Trust land that are not of heritage value and that have been identified in an approved plan as not to be retained because of the natural significance of the Trust land; (e) to undertake community consultation relevant to the conservation and management of Trust land; (f) to apply such money as is appropriated by the Parliament, or otherwise received in accordance with this Act, in furtherance of the objects and functions of the Trust; (g) to promote appreciation of Trust land and its environmental and heritage significance. (g) to carry out functions incidental to or conducive to the performance of its other functions.We detail here two pretty important amendments which go to both the objects, in amendment No. 15, and the functions, in amendment No. 16, of the trust. In terms of objects, we do what the government will not do with their legislation—that is, give some real structure to the operation of the trust. We give to it a medium- to long-term vision and assign to it, through these two particular amendments, medium- to long-term functions as well.Amendments agreed to.18:20:0015244Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4South AustraliaALP00—by leave—I move, also on behalf of Senator Bartlett, opposition amendments Nos 17 and 18 on sheet 1778:(17) Clause 8, page 5 (line 24) to page 6 (line 5), omit the clause, substitute:8 Powers (1) The Trust has power to do all things necessary to carry out the objects and perform the functions of the Trust. (2) The Trust's powers include, but are not limited to, the following powers: (a) manage Trust property in accordance with plans prepared under this Act; (b) negotiate and enter into agreements with the Commonwealth, New South Wales, local government bodies and other bodies; (c) acquire and hold real and personal property; (d) enter into such short-term leases or licence agreements as are in accordance with the objects and functions of the Trust, for a period of no longer than 10 years from the commencement of this Act, inclusive of any options clauses; (e) enter into agreements or contracts not involving an interest in land; (f) form, or participate in the formation of, companies; (g) accept gifts, grants, bequests and devises made to it; (h) raise money, by borrowing or otherwise, but not on the security of Trust land. (3) The Trust has no power to sell or transfer an interest in Trust land otherwise than to New South Wales in accordance with the objects, functions and powers of the Trust. (4) The Trust has no power to enter into leases or licence agreements except in accordance with paragraph (2)(b) and once a plan is approved any such agreements must accord with that plan.(18) Clause 9, page 6 (lines 6 to 11), omit the clause, substitute:9 Minister may give directions (1) The Minister may give written directions to the Trust in accordance with the objects of the Trust and the provisions of this Act as follows: (a) where the Trust fails to perform its duties in relation to the objects, functions and powers of the Trust; or (b) where it is reasonable for the Minister to give such a direction. (2) The Minister, in giving such directions, must have due regard to any New South Wales or local government laws that apply to any Trust land. (3) The Minister must give reasons for any such direction, by public notice as soon as practicable after the direction is given. (4) The Trust must comply with any direction of the Minister in a way that is consistent with its objects, functions and powers.The government is trying to do something similar to what we are doing with these two amendments, but we do not find the government's amendments adequate. Amendment No. 17 assigns to the trust a range of powers to fulfil and perform the objects and functions that we have already assigned to the trust in the previous vote. Amendment No. 18 details—and, in fact, constrains—the manner in which the minister may be able to intervene in the operation of the trust. The government's proposal allows ministerial discretion to ride at will. We do not think that is appropriate. Through amendment No. 18, we provide a process whereby the minister gets involved only where the trust fails to meet the objects or functions.As I say, if the minister were here at the moment, we would sequentially go through every part of these subclauses and ask him what in particular he has problems with and why he cannot adopt them. This is a question that I place on notice to the minister: what problems does he have with each of these particular subsections, are there any that he can adopt—any that he can accept or any that his cabinet colleagues will allow him to accept—and can he seriously look at them with a view to trying to get something workable out of this process after this legislation is amended?18:22:0015245Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TasmaniaAG00—These amendments are quite a considerable improvement on the legislation. However, they leave open the potential for the minister to give directions that would not result in the outcome that the Greens believe there should be, and that is that all of these lands become part of the Sydney Harbour National Park. We have agreed to objects which allow the transfer of lands to New South Wales for retention in the public ownership and for the benefit of the people of Australia but not necessarily as national park. That leaves the option open to the New South Wales state government to accept lands over the next 10 years—and there will be a number of governments involved in this—and, while retaining the lands in public ownership, to look at alternatives to national park status. I am a little concerned that it says here in the amendment from the Democrats and the opposition that the minister, which in this situation would be Senator Hill—XE4Bolkus, Sen NickSenator Bolkus—Senator Minchin.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—Senator Minchin or Senator Hill?XE4Bolkus, Sen NickSenator Bolkus—Who rules the roost?QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—Ultimately cabinet, of course, and that is what this amendment means—that the Prime Minister, the minister or whoever is giving directions to Senator Hill `may give written directions to the Trust in accordance with the objects of the Trust'. These objects include transferring land to New South Wales, where it may not necessarily become a national park—and I am looking here to governments other than the Carr government, although it is included in this—`where it is reasonable for the Minister to give such a direction'. The first section here states:(a) where the Trust fails to perform its duties ...The second section states:... or(b) where it is reasonable for the Minister to give such a direction.I wonder why that subclause is there. Should the `or' not be `and'? Section (b) seems to me to either be redundant or weaken section (a), which says that the minister can intervene if the trust is failing to perform its duties and can make it do so.18:25:0015246Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4South AustraliaALP00—That does raise a point that needs to be addressed. In addressing it, I point out to Senator Brown that the driving force for this particular subclause was the recognition that there may be instances in which the minister may need to give a direction. But in recognising that, there was also recognition that the minister can give such a direction in certain circumstances only. One of those circumstances is where the trust fails to perform its duties in relation to the objects, but section (b) is subject to the introductory part of that subclause. That introductory part states: The Minister may give written directions to the Trust in accordance with the objects of the Trust and the provisions of this Act ...So in a sense the minister's directions have to be in accordance with that. There has to be due regard to any New South Wales or local gov-ernment law that applies to any trust. `Due regard' should in fact be taken to mean that those directions should not be in contraven-tion of those New South Wales government or local government laws that apply—other-wise, if they were to be in con-tra-ven-tion, you cannot say that an otherwise illegal direction should be seen to be legally valid. Finally, clause (3) also requires that those directions must also, by public notice, be publicised. So essentially you do have some constraints on the minister's power of intervention, the last of which is a need for the minister to publicly notify people as to the direction. That of course will ensure there is accountability as well in those circumstances where his direction is valid for the reason that it is within the objects of the trust.Amendments agreed to.18:27:0015246Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4South AustraliaALP00—by leave—I move, also on behalf of Senator Bartlett, opposition amendments (8), (10) to (12) and (20) to (25):(8) Clause 3, page 2 (after line 23), after the definition of plan area, insert:public employee means a person who is a member, officer or employee of: (a) the Australian Public Service; or (b) the public service of a State or Territory; or (c) an authority of the Commonwealth or of a State or Territory; or (d) a local government body.(10) Clause 3, page 2 (after line 23), after the definition of public notice, insert:relevant local government body means a municipal council in the local government areas where Trust land is located.[interpretation](11) Clause 3, page 2 (after line 25), after the definition of repeal time, insert:State Minister means the New South Wales Minister with responsibility for the Sydney Harbour National Park.[interpretation](12) Clause 3, page 2 (lines 26 to 28), omit the definition of suitable person, substitute:suitable person, in respect of a member or nominated person, means a person with considerable experience or qualifications relevant to one or more of the following: (a) the natural environment; (b) conservation and heritage; (c) indigenous culture; (d) history; (e) maritime services.[NSW members](20) Clause 12, page 7 (after line 22), after subclause (1), insert: (1A) The Minister must not appoint a member of the Trust unless the Minister has first: (a) sought expressions of interest from suitable persons by public advertisement; and (b) considered any expressions of interest lodged in accordance with the advertisement.[appointment of members](21) Clauses 13 to 19, page 8 (line 9) to page 9 (line 18), omit the clauses, substitute:13 Terms of office and conditions of appointment (1) A member is appointed on a part-time basis, and holds office until the end of a period of 3 years after appointment, or until the repeal time, whichever occurs first. (2) A member may be reappointed. (3) A member holds office on the terms and conditions (if any) in relation to matters not covered by this Act that are prescribed in the regulations. (4) A member must not engage in any paid employment or conduct that conflicts, or may conflict with the proper performance of the member's duties. (5) A member is to be paid the remuneration that is determined by the Remuneration Tribunal. If no determination of that remuneration is in operation, the member is to be paid the remuneration that is prescribed. (6) A member is to be paid the allowances that are prescribed. (7) Subsections (5) and (6) have effect subject to the Remuneration Tribunal Act 1973. (8) The chair may grant leave of absence to any member on the terms and conditions that the Chair determines.[terms and conditions](22) Clause 20, page 10 (line 3), after “employment”, insert “or conduct”.[termination](23) Clause 20, page 10 (after line 5), after paragraph (c), insert: (ca) the member fails to disclose a pecuniary interest in accordance with section 56A; or[termination](24) Clause 20, page 10 (after line 10), at the end of the clause, add: (3) A member may resign his or her appointment by giving the minister a written resignation.[resignation](25) Clause 20, page 10 (after line 10), at the end of the clause, add: (3) The Minister must not terminate the appointment of a member appointed on the recommendation of New South Wales without first consulting New South Wales.These amendments go to aspects of the trust membership. In amendment (8) we talk about who a public employee may be—we need a definition of `public employee'. In amendment (10) we define what a `relevant local government body' is in terms of the requirements or disqualification provisions for trust membership. In amendment (11) we define the `state minister'. Amendment (12)—and this is probably the most critical part in terms of the sorts of prerequisites, the sorts of identities, we think would be suitable for the trust—defines a `suitable person'. A `suitable person' is defined, in respect of a member or nominated person, as a person with considerable experience or qualifications relevant to either the natural environment, conservation and heritage, indigenous culture, history or maritime services.Amendment No. 20 ensures that the selection or appointment of a member of the trust is governed by a process which ensures public advertisement. The minister may not appoint a member of the trust unless the minister has first sought an expression of interest from suitable persons by public advertisement and has considered those expressions of interest. Amendment No. 21 goes to the terms of office and conditions of appointment. We think it is important for a body such as this—a body which may find itself from time to time in conflict with a government minister—to have some security of tenure. In amendment No. 21 to clause 13, we provide for a three-year term of appointment, we provide for reappointment and we also introduce the concept of conflict of interest.Amendment No. 22 is a technical amendment. Amendment No. 23 ensures that a member must disclose a pecuniary interest. Amendment No. 24 provides for a process for resignation. We also need to have some security in terms of the members appointed on the recommendation of the New South Wales government, and amendment No. 25 ensures that the minister must not terminate the appointment of a trust member who has been appointed on the recommendation of the New South Wales government without first consulting New South Wales.As I said, these are important amendments in that they do provide a structure, they provide security and they provide some sense of independence of the trust from government. We think these are amendments that quite simply could be adopted by the government, but we just cannot understand the level of intransigence that has been brought to this debate, with the government not even prepared to pick up amendments such as these.18:32:0015248Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TasmaniaAG00—These amendments make a great improvement to the make-up of this very important trust which is going to oversee the transition of these former Defence lands to a part of the great Sydney Harbour National Park. I will support them. Senator Bolkus knows that I always have some concerns about the lack of definition of `environmental qualifications' in the appointment of people to trust boards and so on. During the Franklin River campaign in Tasmania, the Chief Commissioner of the Hydro Electric Commission was an environmentalist; you will not find a logging authority around the country which does not have as its head somebody who claims to be an environmentalist with long environmental experience; and you will not find anybody in industry who does not claim that they themselves are environmentalists, no matter what they are doing to the environment and what extractive activities they are in. So when it comes to a definition here saying that a suitable person— H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator Ian Campbell—Bob, you're an environmentalist, I hope.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—I would claim to be. I am no different in that sense, but I do not have an environmental qualification. Mr Temporary Chair, the interjection from the government was that I claim to be an environmentalist, and I am agreeing with the government, as I find myself doing from time to time. This definition of a suitable person to be on the trust states that they must be:... a person with considerable experience or qualifications relevant to one or more of the following: (a) the natural environment; (b) conservation and heritage; (c) indigenous culture; (d) history; (e) maritime services.I would have preferred to have seen a much clearer definition than having `considerable experience'. I can name any number of environmental defaulters who would claim to have experience in the environment. In such matters as indigenous culture, for example, I would like to see an indigenous person specifically appointed to represent the indigenous people of the Sydney region. But, as I said, this is a very great improvement on the appointment by direction of the minister that was in the original government legislation, and I therefore support it.Amendments agreed to.10000Lightfoot, Ross (The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN)The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Lightfoot)—The question is that clause 11 stand as printed. Question resolved in the negative.18:35:0015248Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4South AustraliaALP00—by leave—I move, also on behalf of Senator Bartlett, opposition amendments Nos 27 and 29:(27) Clause 22, page 11 (lines 9 to 13), omit the clause, substitute:22 Vesting of Trust land (1) From the beginning of the day on which this Act commences, all right, title and interest that the Commonwealth holds in the land specified in Schedule 1 vests in the Trust without any conveyance, transfer or assignment. (2) The regulations may prescribe any additional Sydney Harbour land that is a Commonwealth place as land to be vested in the Trust. (3) The Minister must, by notice published in the Gazette, specify: (a) that land prescribed by regulations under subsection(2) is to vest in the Trust; and (b) the day from which the land is to vest. (4) From the beginning of the day specified in the notice, all right, title and interest that the Commonwealth holds in the land vests in the Trust without any conveyance, transfer or assignment.(29) Clause 24, page 12 (lines 1 to 6), omit the clause, substitute:24 Transfer of Trust land (1) The Trust holds the land for and on behalf of the Commonwealth. (2) Subject to subsection(3), the Trust must transfer an interest in any Trust land to New South Wales on completion of remediation and rehabilitation in accordance with an approved plan. (3) The Trust may transfer an interest in any Trust land to New South Wales before the completion of remediation and rehabilitation, with the consent of New South Wales. (4) The Trust must transfer the freehold or other interest of all Trust land to New South Wales before the tenth anniversary of the day on which this Act commences.Amendment No. 27 vests the land in the trust. It will provide that, from the commencement of this legislation, all right, title and interest that the Commonwealth holds in the land specified in the schedule—and unlike the government, we attempt to specify the land—vests in the trust. We provide that the regulations may prescribe that any additional Sydney Harbour land is a Commonwealth place as land to be vested in the trust. We provide for publication in the Gazette of the land prescribed by regulations. We also provide that, from the enactment of the legislation, in essence the trust can basically handle and take care of the land in accordance with its objects and functions.As it now stands, there is no requirement on the Commonwealth to vest any land in any particular time frame. There is nothing to force it, and there is nothing to stop the Commonwealth not vesting the land at all. This goes back to that commitment that the Prime Minister made in 1998, where he made it clear, for instance, that some land on the harbour would be transferred. He said that the trust:... will have 10 years to complete the task and after that time the Commonwealth will transfer North Head, Middle Head and Georges Heights for inclusion in the Sydney Harbour National Park.He provides that the trust will have a certain period to take care of and remediate the land. But this legislation does not fulfil the Prime Minister's promise. This legislation breaches the faith that the Prime Minister tried to establish between himself and those to whom he was talking, the stakeholders and the broader community of Sydney and New South Wales. What we are tying to do here is vest the land. What clause 29 is doing is ensuring that, for instance, the trust holds the land for and on behalf of the Commonwealth. But we provide a mechanism whereby the trust must transfer an interest in any trust land to New South Wales on completion of remediation and rehabilitation, in accordance with an approved plan.There is no reason to keep the land in Commonwealth ownership longer than is required for the remediation and rehabilitation. That should be reflected in legislation, and that is what amendment No. 29 seeks to do. We do provide that the trust may transfer an interest in any trust land to New South Wales before the completion, with the consent of New South Wales. We also provide that the trust must transfer the freehold or other interests of all trust land to New South Wales before the tenth anniversary of the day on which this act commences. Basically, we provide a mechanism through which the Prime Minister's promise and commitment that he gave before the election in 1998 can be met, and that is through amendment No. 29, clause 24, subclause (iv). Ultimately, by the tenth anniversary the land must be transferred.You have to ask yourselves why the government is not prepared to do this. Why isn't the government prepared to meet the commitment made by the Prime Minister? Why is this one of those non-core promises? No matter how often you ask that question, no matter how often people involved in New South Wales—people like Tom Uren, who is still here in the gallery listening to the debate—ask that question of government and of government representatives, we still cannot get an answer. We think that is not good enough. We think the parliament should provide for a transfer of land in accordance with the commitment, but we also think that there is no reason to keep the land in Commonwealth ownership after it has been rehabilitated.10000Lightfoot, Ross (The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN)The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Lightfoot)—I would like to acknowledge the Hon. Tom Uren, who is in the gallery this evening.18:40:0015250Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TasmaniaAG00—I support this amendment. It is crucial, as Senator Bolkus says, and it is really fundamental. If this legislation gets through as other amendments would reshape it, it will lead to a piece of legislation which really does give the green light to a fantastic amenity for Sydney, for New South Wales, for Australia, for the world. This is the right way to go. It takes the worry out of this legislation to a big degree and converts it into exciting legislation indeed. The opposition and the Democrats are to be congratulated for that. I wholeheartedly support these particular amendments which, as Senator Bolkus has said, are the heart of the restructuring of this legislation to make it very special indeed.Amendments agreed to.10000Lightfoot, Ross (The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN)The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Lightfoot)—The question is that clauses 21 and 23 stand as printed. Question resolved in the negative.18:41:0015250Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4South AustraliaALP00—by leave—I move, also on behalf of Senator Bartlett:(4) Clause 3, page 2 (lines 19 and 20), omit the definition of management plan.(5) Clause 3, page 2 (lines 21 and 22), omit the definition of management plan area.(6) Clause 3, page 2 (after line 23), after the definition of member, insert:plan means a conservation plan and a management plan prepared under Part 5 of this Act and under the relevant New South Wales law.(7) Clause 3, page 2 (after line 23), after the definition of plan, insert:plan area means the land covered by a plan under section 27.(9) Clause 3, page 2 (after line 23), after the definition of public employee, insert:public notice means a notice published: (a) in the Gazette; and (b) in a daily newspaper circulating in the Sydney region; and (c) in a local newspaper circulating in the areas where there are Trust lands.(30) Heading to Part 5, page 13 (line 2), omit the heading, substitute:Part 5—Plans(31) Clause 26, page 13 (lines 4 to 9), omit the clause, substitute:26 Trust to prepare plans (1) Within 18 months after the commencement of this Act, the Trust must prepare plans for the land identified in Schedule 1 as the Trust land at: (a) Middle Head; and (b) Georges Heights; and (c) North Head. (2) Within 2 years after the commencement of this Act, the Trust must prepare plans for the land identified in Schedule 1 as the Trust land at: (a) Woolwich. (b) Cockatoo Island; and (3) Within 18 months of any land being vested in the Trust under subsections 22(2), (3) and (4), the Trust must prepare a plan in respect of that land. (4) The Minister may extend a period mentioned in subsection (1), (2) or (3) on application, in writing, by the Trust provided that the Trust has by public notice informed the public about the application and the reasons for the extension of time.(32) Heading to clause 27, page 13 (line 10), omit the heading, substitute:27 Plan areas(33) Clause 27, page 13 (line 11), omit subclause (1), substitute: (1) A plan must cover the whole of a Trust land site(the plan area).(34) Clause 27, page 13 (lines 11 to 16), omit “management”(wherever occurring).(35) Clause 27, page 13 (line 12), after “any”, insert “Sydney”.(36) Clause 27, page 13 (lines 17 to 25), omit the note and subclauses (3) and (4).(37) Clause 28, page 13 (line 26) to page 14 (line 6), omit the clause, substitute:28 Content of plans (1) A plan must accord with the objects and functions of the Trust. (2) In preparing a plan, the Trust must fully consider the following: (a) the plan area as part of a greater area of public lands around Sydney Harbour; (b) the purpose of this Act for the Trust to transfer the interest in Trust land to New South Wales for inclusion in Sydney Harbour National Park or retention in public ownership by New South Wales for the benefit of the people of Australia; (c) the significance of Sydney Harbour and Sydney Harbour National Park to the local community, the relevant local government bodies and the wider state, national and international community; (d) the natural significance of Trust lands; (e) any other plans prepared or being prepared by the Trust; (f) all relevant New South Wales law and any policies, principles or plans prepared or being prepared by New South Wales in relation to Sydney Harbour and Sydney Harbour National Park. (3) A plan must conform with the principles of ecologically sustainable development, including such principles contained in Commonwealth and New South Wales law. (4) A plan must also contain the following: (a) a history and description of the plan area; (b) an assessment of the environment and natural and cultural heritage significance of the area; (c) an identification of present and proposed land management practices in the area or parts of the area; (d) objectives for the management of the area; (e) policies in respect of the management of the area; (f) anything else required by the regulations. (5) A plan must make detailed recommendations and provide options, where necessary, concerning the implementation of the plan and the period over which such implementation should occur. (6) A plan must provide detailed estimates, including of the costs of remediation, rehabilitation and conservation in relation to the plan area, and the timeframe for expenditure of the estimates.(39) Clause 29, page 14 (lines 7 to 26), omit “management”(wherever occurring).(40) Clause 29, page 14 (after line 21), after paragraph (3)(a), insert: (aa) must take into account any advice or recommendations received from an advisory committee; and(41) Clause 29, page 14 (lines 23 to 26), omit subclause (4).(42) Clause 30, page 14 (line 27) to page 15 (line 15), omit “management” (wherever occurring).(43) Clause 30, page 14 (before line 28), before subsection (1), insert: (1A) When the Trust has completed a draft conservation plan concerning the significance of Trust land, the Trust must give public notice of the plan and make it available for inspection at the offices of the Trust.(44) Clause 30, page 15 (after line 10), after paragraph (3)(a), insert: (aa) must take into account any advice or recommendation received from an advisory committee; and(45) Clause 30, page 14 (line 11), omit “may”, substitute “must”.(46) Clause 30, page 15 (lines 12 to 15), omit subclause (4).(47) Clause 31, page 15 (lines 16 to 27), omit the clause, substitute:31 Minister to consider draft plans (1) The Trust must submit a draft plan, together with a written report on its consultations under sections 29 and 30, to the Minister. (2) Before considering the draft plan, the Minister must provide a copy of it, together with any relevant material, to the State Minister and must consult that Minister about the draft plan. (3) In considering the draft plan, the Minister must take into account any suggested alterations or recommendations made by the State Minister. (4) The Minister may: (a) support the draft plan; or (b) suggest alterations to the draft plan; or (c) make recommendations to the Trust. (5) The Minister must refer any suggested alterations or recommendations, including those made by the State Minister, to the Trust.(48) Clause 32, page 15 (line 28) to page 16 (line 13), omit the clause, substitute:32 Trust to consider draft plan (1) The Trust must consider: (a) the draft plan; and (b) the written report to the Minister on its consultations under sections 29 and 30; and (c) any suggested alterations or recommendations made by the Minister or the State Minister; and (d) any advice or recommendations received from an Advisory Committee; and (e) any submissions made in accordance with subsection 29(2) or 30(2); and (f) the objects and functions of the Trust and the purposes of this Act;and must endorse the draft plan either with or without alteration. (2) The Trust must publish its decision by public notice and include reasons for the decision. (3) The Trust must forward the endorsed draft plan to the Minister, together with all relevant material referred to in subsection (1).(49) Clause 33, page 16 (lines 14 to 21), omit the clause, substitute:33 Minister to approve plans (1) The Minister may approve or reject the plan. (2) If the Minister rejects the plan, the Minister: (a) must not do so unreasonably; and (b) must act in accordance with this Act; and (c) must give public notice of his or her decision, with reasons.(50) Clause 34, page 16 (lines 22 to 31), omit “management”(wherever occurring).(51) Clause 34, page 16 (line 26), omit “or a part of a management plan area”.(52) Clause 34, page 16 (lines 28 and 29), omit “or the part of the area”.(53) Clause 35, page 17 (lines 1 to 8), omit the clause, substitute:35 Commencement of plan A plan takes effect in respect of a plan area from the beginning of the day specified in the notice.(54) Clause 35, page 17 (lines 7 and 8), omit “, or the part of the management plan area,”.(55) Clause 36, page 17 (lines 9 to 14), omit “management”(wherever occurring).(56) Page 17 (after line 14), after clause 36, insert:36A Plans to be disallowable A plan (including an amendment to a plan) prepared under this Part is a disallowable instrument for the purposes of section 46A of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901.(57) Clause 37. Page 17 (lines 15 to 23), omit “management”(wherever occurring).(58) Clause 38, page 17 (lines 24 to 27), omit the clause, substitute:38 Implementation of plans (1) It is the duty of the Trust to implement a plan approved under this Part as soon as practicable after it has been approved and in accordance with this section. (2) The Trust must employ competent and skilled people to implement a plan. (3) Plans for the Trust lands referred to in Schedule 1 as Middle Head and Georges Heights must be implemented within 5 years after the commencement of this Act. (4) Plans for the Trust land referred to in Schedule 1 as North Head must be implemented within 5 years after the commencement of this Act but must not be implemented without the consent of New South Wales. (5) Plans for the Trust land referred to in Schedule 1 as Woolwich and Cockatoo Island must be implemented within 10 years after the commencement of this Act. (6) The Minister may extend a period mentioned in subsection (3) or (4) on application, in writing, by the Trust, provided that the Trust has by public notice informed the public about the application and the reasons for the extension of time.These amendments all go to the preparation of management plans by the trust. During Senator Brown's last contribution, I could not help thinking that not only are we seeing legislation being processed in this place but also we are witnessing the makings of a lost opportunity, a real lost opportunity, for this country. We are talking about land that, over the next few months with the Sydney Olympics, will be seen by millions and millions of people. We are talking about land that is important in terms of its historical significance, in terms of the making and the developing of this nation. We are talking about land that has history before the arrival of white settlers. We are talking about land that has ongoing value both heritage and environmental wise. Also, we are talking about an opportunity for this nation to be proud of what it is doing with this land and to present what it is doing to the rest of the world as a showcase of environmental, heritage and indigenous concern.But, instead of that, we have a government that is not prepared to look at even the most minute detail that, in its coming together with others, may present some vision for the future for Sydney and for the land we are talking about here. We could be presenting ourselves to the world as a nation that does know how to take care of some of its most important and valuable assets. But because of shortsightedness, because of pig-headedness, because of whatever it might be, we have a government that is incapable of designing legislation to protect this monument of Australian history.We find that again with these clauses that I am moving now. Through these clauses, we provide for the trust to develop plans for the land as identified, for the preparation of those plans to be with public scrutiny, for plans to be developed in the broader context of the significance of the trust lands. We are talking about implanting in the legislation more comprehensive requirements to ensure good planning. We are talking about public participation, access to the public to be involved in this. We are talking about, in essence, ensuring that a process be put in place to provide for good management in terms of remediation, rehabilitation and establishment for the future. It is a real pity that this government cannot see the value of amendments such as this. It is a pity that this government cannot see the value of doing this properly.Amendments agreed to.Progress reported.Bills15253R9161525318:45:0015253Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15Western AustraliaLPManager of Government Business in the Senate10—On behalf of Senator Gibson, I present the report of the Economics Legislation Committee on the provisions of the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 11) 1999, together with the Hansard record of the committee's proceedings and submissions received by the committee. Ordered that the report be printed. Bills15253R10611525318:46:0015253Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15Western AustraliaLPManager of Government Business in the Senate10—On behalf of Senator Gibson, I present the report of the Economics Legislation Committee on the provisions of the New Business Tax System (Integrity Measures) Bill 2000, together with the Hansard record of the committee's proceedings and submissions received by the committee.Ordered that the report be printed. Personal Explanations1525418:46:0015254Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6South AustraliaADDeputy Leader of the Australian Democrats00—Madam President, I wish to make a personal explanation.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENT,TheThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Does the honourable senator claim to have been misrepresented?3I6Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA—Yes.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENT,TheThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Please proceed.3I6Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA—In question time today Senator Newman accused me of `bagging' Australia at a UN Women's Conference. This was a hurtful and offensive suggestion. I am wondering, firstly, on what basis she made this assertion. I think it is simply her presumption that I `bagged' Australia. There is no other basis—10000DEPUTY PRESIDENT,TheThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator, you cannot debate the issue. You have to state where you have been misrepresented. 3I6Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA—I have been misrepresented in that the minister claimed that I `bagged' Australia. In fact, I was unable to give a speech at the formal part of the UN Women's Conference as my attendance at that conference was thwarted. I was denied participation in the government delegation, in stark contrast to the 1995 Beijing UN conference at which Australia's delegation included Labor, Liberal and Democrat members.As a means of explanation, the forum at which I spoke during the Beijing Plus 5 conference was hosted by WEDO, the Women's Environment and Development Organisation, which launched a platform for action in relation to achieving fifty-fifty representation for men and women by 2005. I gave a speech detailing the achievements of Australia when it came to women's representation, a speech detailing the success of Australia in granting women the right to vote, including the success in my home state in granting women the right to vote and stand for parliament from 1894 and on a federal level from 1902. I spoke extempore. So I am wondering to what speech notes the minister was referring. Did she perhaps have a representative at the meeting? Did she hear the speech personally or did she make it up? Maybe she was referring to a press release issued not in the US but in Australia 10 hours before I spoke, which referred to my support for the campaign for fifty-fifty representation and my lamenting the fact that we still have a fair way to go, something I would have hoped the government agreed with. I did not bag my country. But, considering the government's agenda on women and the anti-women actions of the very minister charged with representing women's concerns, I sure could have bagged this government on its agenda affecting women.Documents152541525418:49:0015254Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5Western AustraliaALP00—I move:That the Senate take note of the document.I rise to speak on the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission report Access to electronic commerce and new service information technologies for older Australians and people with a disability. I think it is important to start by noting that access to information of government services without discrimination on grounds such as age and disability is a human right. This is the context of the report and of responses to the report. The report tells us something we already know: digital technology offers people with a disability and the elderly access to information and services that have previously been unavailable due to inappropriate formats or inaccessible locations. For example, the availability of information of goods and services over the Internet offers improved access to people who cannot turn pages, who cannot see or read print, who cannot hear, who cannot read English. Given the significance of these benefits, it is of concern that ABS data cited by the commission highlights a digital divide with substantially lower access to the Internet and technologies such as EFTPOS and phone banking for people over 55 than for younger people. Focus groups, as part of this research, also found that accessibility of equipment and information formats across most electronic commerce technologies and affordability and equipment access barriers were problems for people with a disability. Labor is concerned that people with a disability and older Australians are unable to access key services at a time when the government shift to automated services, including interactive voice response systems and telephone bill payment, continue apace. This is not to say that the increasing use of Internet services by agencies such as Centrelink is not an important and positive development. Rather, we are concerned that key client groups, such as recipients of the disability support pension or the age pension, are not receiving appropriate levels of service. Labor thus supports the commission's call to ensure as far as possible that `online and automated services are used to complement and enhance availability of direct human services rather than completely substituting for it'. The commission found much to criticise in terms of the accessibility of the Commonwealth government's own web sites. It was pleasing to learn that cabinet had recently taken a decision to evaluate web site accessibility by June 2000 and achieve W3C standards compliance by December 2000. However, a decision is one thing; evidence and implementation is another. If the government is to consider implementing the commission's thorough and thoughtful recommendations, it will require a major change in attitude. It will require a real commitment to the development, ratification and implementation of disability standards to ensure equal access to existing and future technologies. The government's record on disability standards does not make me hopeful of forward movement, embracing universal design and developing accessibility benchmarks. For example, cabinet is yet to ratify the accessible public transport standards under the Disability Discrimination Act, which were signed off by the states and the Australian Transport Council more than 12 months ago. The minister did not release the interim report of the Welfare Review Committee in formats accessible to people with disabilities. This was in contravention of the department's inclusive consultation guidelines and was of particular concern, given the report's focus on participation requirements for disability support pensioners. Appropriate formats only became available after the National Council on Intellectual Disability instigated legal action against the minister, the department and the committee under the Disability Discrimination Act.To achieve international best practice on technology accessibility will require leadership from the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth must first get its own house in order before moving to ensure that state and local government, industry and community organisations address access issues. The commission has set out a way forward that will require specification of clear accessibility benchmarks, not presently provided in government policy, and recognition of these standards in the Disability Discrimination Act. If the Commonwealth fails to follow this path, it will remain the case that everyday technology, such as ATMs, will be inaccessible to people with physical disabilities or vision impairment simply because the keypad, the card and money slots are positioned too high, the screens lack contrast and there are no tactile indicators on the keys. We have learnt today that this is the state of play in Australia. We must now move swiftly to ensure that all Australians can participate in, and benefit from, technological developments.18:53:0015255Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEYSF4VictoriaALP00—I want to add some points to what Senator Evans said. On page 9 of this report, some figures set out the position of those who use the Internet in Australia: 73 per cent of those aged from 18-to 24 years-old use it, 56 per cent of those from 25-to 39 years-old use it, 44 per cent of those from 40 to 54 years-old use it and 16 per cent of those aged 55 and over use it. The Internet and other electronic equipment are growing apace, and we in the more mature part of the community ought to keep up with it. As Senator Evans said, we should be able to keep up with it, but we should get help in doing that—help in the sense of accommodating the electronic equipment to suit those who are disabled and those who are aged. Those who are disabled are not necessarily aged and those who are aged—or most of us—are not disabled, or in any event do not have disabilities that stop us living a full and exciting life.There should be things in place to give us confidence to use electronic equipment, such as the Internet and computers, and the way forward should be cleared. Yesterday at Melbourne airport, I met an old friend of mine, Tom Hogg, who said that he, in the old days—two or three years ago—did what I now do, that is, write out my reports in longhand and get someone else to key them in and put them on the Internet. He said, `No, no, no.' He has now gone into consulting, and he said that, in consulting, you have to be able to use a computer, and he is now able to do that. He said that time and attention to the detail has enabled him to do that. He got the right equipment but, even more important than that, he devoted himself to the task of learning.O15Tierney, Sen JohnSenator Tierney—What is your word speed?SF4Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEY—I have not got a word speed—that is exactly it. I have to get a word speed. I can with some help type with two fingers: one finger from the left hand and one finger from the right hand. But I intend to go ahead and try to achieve what Tom Hogg has done. My wife, similar to me, is now in her sixties and is able to achieve this. She has more ability and probably more intelligence—10000Lightfoot, Ross (The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT)The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Lightfoot)—Is this relevant to the motion, Senator Cooney?SF4Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEY—I am talking to the motion. I am talking about that which has not hit you yet. When you get a bit older, Mr Acting Deputy President, you will probably understand what I am talking about. But no doubt, by then, you will be able to cope with all these things. When I was in Culgoa in the Mallee many years ago, I remember when electricity was brought in, then the radio came in and then more cars came into the area. So there have been big changes in my lifetime.H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator Ian Campbell—And then the new tax system came in.SF4Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEY—You talk about the new tax system, but one of the things about the new tax system is that it should be of a nature that can be understood by people who have disabilities and who are aged. Unfortunately, I do not think it has yet got to that stage.I stand up now to speak on behalf of people who are getting older and those who have disabilities. I commend the commissioning of this report, and I commend the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission for producing this and for bringing forward an issue that is going to become more important as the population gets older and more of us live for longer than ever before. People with disabilities need to be able to use this equipment, and it should be, as Senator Evans said, equipment that is made in such a way that people like me and people with disabilities can use it.18:58:0015256Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15Western AustraliaLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts10—I would like to briefly add to the comments made, particularly those made by Senator Cooney. This government is very committed to increasing access to the Internet, and creating and improving access to electronic commerce, particularly for older Australians and people with disabilities. One of the great things that Senator Cooney will find is that, if he buys his computer after 1 July, the 22 per cent tax imposed by the Labor government on computers, modems and any other bits of hardware that he needs to get to access the Internet will be abolished. As a result of the commitment of this government and the decisions of this Senate, that iniquitous tax on people trying to get involved in the information economy will be abolished and a GST of 10 per cent will be imposed, which will reduce the cost of computer equipment and all you need to get onto the Internet by somewhere between eight and 15 per cent at the retail level. It is a huge win for people who want to get into the information economy and who want to take advantage of the very things that Senator Cooney was saying. I am glad that he will personally benefit from the savings delivered to people who buy computers and other bits of equipment after 1 July.Question resolved in the affirmative. 15257NaN:00:0015257Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5Western AustraliaALP00—I move:That the Senate take note of the report.I seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted; debate adjournedAdjournment1525710000Murphy, Shayne (The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT)The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Murphy)—Order! It being 7.00 p.m., I propose the question:That the Senate do now adjourn.1525719:00:0015257Coonan, Sen HelenSenator COONAN2M6New South WalesLP10—I want to talk a little bit tonight about reconciliation. With the spotlight focused so firmly on reconciliation with indigenous Australians, it is, I believe, incumbent on each of us to search our hearts and our consciences and to ask: what does reconciliation mean to me? I accept that reconciliation means different things to different people. For some it means accepting collective responsibility for past wrongs, expressing that regret and making reparation in a treaty. For others it means addressing the profound disadvantages of today's Aboriginal people in practical ways so that we can move forward together and build a nation as one Australia.The local community at Moree in the federal electorate of Gwydir in north-west New South Wales has already taken some significant steps towards achieving its own version of reconciliation. Known in the past for racial tensions, Moree has now staked a claim as a rural township leading the way in reconciliation. In something of a bold social experiment, the Moree community is actively engaged in grassroots reconciliation. I had the opportunity to visit the town of Moree just last weekend, which allowed me to examine some reconciliation measures at first hand. The spotlight has certainly been on Moree of late, with a delegation of federal cabinet ministers, led by the Prime Minister, visiting a few days before the weekend. The Prime Minister was in town to attend the Croc Eisteddfod Festival, which has a strong reconciliation and indigenous theme modelled on the successful Rock Eisteddfod. It encourages high school children to explore their creative sides in a drug and alcohol free environment. According to Gwydir Valley Cotton Growers Association Chairman, Dick Estens, the Prime Minister's visit gave Moree the incentive to drive the reconciliation cause further.Perhaps the most visible and successful manifestation of practical reconciliation in Moree is the initiative of the Gwydir Valley Cotton Growers Association—the Aboriginal Employment Strategy. This is a truly inspiring initiative in which local Aboriginal people have been able to tap into the commercial prosperity of the community. Indeed, that has been considerable. The success of the cotton industry and that of local growers is very impressive in itself. Australia is in fact the word's third largest cotton producer, with the Gwydir region being one of the country's major production areas. The success of the cotton industry is the same success that started the Aboriginal Employment Strategy that has employed 270 local Aboriginal people in the past two years in full-time and part-time jobs in cotton, in related farm sector services and in retail. The coalition government has committed over $600,000 towards this project as part of the Community Development Employment Project aimed at improving social cohesion and building self-esteem and skills among indigenous communities.In May last year the coalition announced its indigenous employment policy: a new $52 million indigenous employment program, effectively doubling existing funding, and an indigenous small business fund, providing $11 million over three years. Altogether $115 million per year will go to improving employment outcomes for indigenous Australians. The emphasis will be on private sector opportunities and support for indigenous small business. Major features of the program include a strategy to encourage CEOs to recruit and train indigenous staff, private sector structured training and a national cadetship program for cadets in the private sector. This scheme, along with its practical implementation in Moree, demonstrates the commitment of local business, industry and the community to turn around the divisions of the past.I also had the opportunity to visit Forward Personnel, an employment placement and support agency for indigenous and non-indigenous people with disabilities. This is another program where the mutual commitment of community leaders and business makes it such a success. I met with some of the clients, two of whom rode into Moree on their horses. Indeed, they were placed in employment because they were capable of riding. They had horses, they had not been able to get jobs and they were given jobs on stock routes. On visiting Moree last weekend the contrast between that forward looking community today and the Moree of the past could not be more pronounced. As recently as the 1960s a virtual apartheid existed, with Aboriginal people barred from certain areas in the town. Now there is a real commitment to breaking down even subtle barriers to Aboriginal advancement, with employment and educational opportunities becoming the tools for bridging the racial divide. Warren Barnes, Aboriginal Employment Strategy manager, has been quoted as saying:Apologies and treaties are important steps in the reconciliation process, but what often goes unnoticed are the achievements that go beyond words to real outcomes for aboriginal families. Three years ago, Moree was demanding that the Government fix its problems and calling for more punishment for the crimes, but we've shown the town can fix its own problems.One of the most proactive agencies for reconciliation is the Moree Plains Shire Council, whose general manager, Vince Paparo, insists that reconciliation is a mainstream issue for the community. At the heart of the council's approach is the recognition that Moree could not and cannot achieve its full economic potential without reconciliation. The council is currently developing a proposal to establish a working facility for practical reconciliation to highlight the importance and dignity of employment as well as the symbolic and spiritual significance of the indigenous population's cultural heritage and shared history.The initiative has the potential to become a centre of national significance, to provide a practical program, projects and training to assist other communities in Australia faced with the need to address Aboriginal unemployment and achieve reconciliation. The aim of the proposal is to build on and expand the grassroots initiatives of community groups in Moree in a unique centre of excellence in business opportunity and enterprise, research and education as well as history and culture. These are worthy objectives that have my full support.I would like to take this opportunity to thank Councillor Tony Dennison for his facilitation of my visit to Moree and my wonderful hosts Neil and Ann and David and Danielle Statham of Keytah for their hospitality. It was also my great pleasure to meet with many locals who contribute so greatly to the ongoing process of reconciliation. No-one would suggest that all of Moree's difficulties have been solved, but brave and important first steps are being taken, and I believe that they need recognition. It is essential that the momentum build and continue. Moree has much to look forward to as the effects of practical reconciliation heal the divisions of the past.1525819:09:0015258Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5Western AustraliaALP00—I rise tonight to speak about a letter that has been provided to me from a family of one of the residents of the Riverside Nursing Home in Victoria. I have shown the letter to Senator Campbell in anticipation of seeking leave to have it incorporated in Hansard. Senator Campbell was agreeable to that, so I formally ask that it be incorporated into the Hansard.Leave granted.The letter read as follows—March 19, 2000XXXXXXXWANTIRNA-VIC 3152XXXXX (Home)XXXXX (Bus.)Mr Kim Beazley MPParliament HouseCANBERRA ACT 2060Dear Mr Beazley,My father, XXXXXs been a resident of the Riverside Nursing Home for five years and he regards it as his home. He is now in the terminal stages of Alzheimers Disease and does not cope very well with change. The move to St Vincents has been distressing not only for the relatives who had minimum consultation from the Aged Care Department but also for the residents themselves. We have been appalled by the decision making process by the Minister and would like to raise the following points for consideration:. Our family was already traumatized by the recent death of my sister's only child.XXXXX aged 24 was tragically killed in a motorcycle accident at the end of last year. I'm sure you would agree that it is every parent's nightmare to lose a child. To bury your only child is something I find difficult to even begin to contemplate. We, as a family, and particularly my sister, XXXX were already struggling.. The first we knew of the kerosene baths at Riverside was through the media on 24th February 2000.. The Minister's department knew of the baths on January 17Th 2000 and yet did nothing for a month.. We were particularly anxious as our father had two very deep pressure sores and we were understandably concerned of the effect of kerosene on these wounds.. My father's medical records indicate two entries stating he had a kerosene bath, yet the staff was adamant that he and four other residents were not bathed. I'm not sure which is worse, a kerosene bath or false medical records!. The department made no attempt to inform my sister XXXX or myself (as my father's administrators) of any of their enquiries into the home thereby heightening our anxiety levels even further.. The department failed to inform us of their relatives meeting on Sunday 5th March. A family who had received a letter informed us. Apparently only a small number of relatives received notification. At this meeting we provided contact details to the two department representatives.. At that meeting the two Aged Care Department representatives claimed they had no knowledge of the planned move to St Vincents Hospital the following day despite the plansbeing published in the paper that morning. These two representatives provided no information on the outcome of their investigations thereby heightening the stress levels of all relatives present. The two representatives promised that the decision would be couriered to all relatives early the following day.. Several relatives had not received their letters by late morning and I received mine late in the day, addressed to Ms Langhorn! .. We once again heard of the decision through the media.. There was no consultation prior to moving the relatives and it was only after a blockade and a demand for information from the department that Maree Bowman made an appearance. The Minister declined to attend.. This day proved an extremely distressing one for our family members with our father not being settled until later that night.. Prior to giving consent to move our father, my sister, Kaylene spoke to the Aged Care department in Canberra and was assured that there was no time limit on the stay at St. Vincents. The following day we were informed that their stay at St Vincents would be for 4 weeks with another 6 weeks at the Mercy hospital, thereby requiring yet another move.. On that same day we had a junior doctor suggest to us that we stop feeding my father and allow 'nature to take its course'. This suggestion brought back the memories of XXXX death for my sister who was incredibly distressed. This incident is a direct result of the Ministers decision to move the residents to St Vincents Hospital.. The department organised a. further relatives meeting on 8th March, however once again we were not informed that it was to occur. At that meeting we once again provided contact details to the department representatives.. As a member of the Relatives Committee at Riverside I downloaded the two Aged Care Standards Agency reports from the internet for April & July 1998 but have found they have since been removed when attempting to find the latest report. Although I have requested a copy of this report I have not received it to date.. Given the concerns about Riverside were raised in these reports as early as 1998 why did the Minister not conduct spot checks of the home during that time?. The Relatives Committee constantly raised issues of concern.. Following the publications of excerpts of the most recent report, we have been informed that it was our father who had maggots in his wound. According to the report it was noted on his file that the 'family were not to be informed'. Incidents such as these have meant that our stress levels have continued to remain high. If the Minister had done her job properly, incidents like this one would not have been covered up.'. The Minister has been negligent in her duty to the most vulnerable members of our society and should resign.. Whilst the Minister has excused her lack of Ministerial duty by claiming that her department did not inform her., she must take ultimate Ministerial responsibility for her lack of action.I would appreciate it if you would take up the above matters with the Minister and the Prime Minister and hopefully they will respond, although I suspect they will, bury it instead.Yours sincerelyLyn XXXXXXAX5Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANS—I thank the Senate. The letter is from a family who wrote to Mr Beazley in March. It got referred to me as the opposition spokesperson on aged care. I have spoken with the family. They were happy for me to table the letter. We blacked out the family name, et cetera, just for reasons of privacy. I sought to bring the letter to the parliament's attention because it is the most eloquent and moving description of the human tragedy that surrounded the Riverside Nursing Home and the treatment of the residents there. I thought it was important that I bring it to the parliament's attention because this letter describes better than anything anyone in this place could say the tragedy and the human cost of the closure and evacuation of the residents from Riverside Nursing Home.It provides an important lesson for the parliament and for all members of parliament about how we ought to proceed in a public policy sense with dealing with a nursing home which is not providing good quality care. That is the reason why I sought to have the letter incorporated and brought to the parliament's attention. We could spend an awful lot of money on a commission of inquiry and they would not do as good a job of describing the reasons why we should make sure this is never allowed to happen again. No older Australian or their family should ever have to suffer what the families involved at Riverside had to suffer as a result of the closure and evacuation of that nursing home.The letter describes—and I encourage senators to read it—the distress of the family, whose father was a long-term resident at Riverside. He was one of those who was bathed in kerosene, despite having very deep pressure sores. Although there was some argument about whether he was one of those bathed, they believe he was bathed. He was also the person who was suffering from a maggot infested wound, which they only found out about much later in the piece. They also found out that the medical reports had been marked in relation to that wound with the words `family not to be informed'. So there was a deliberate attempt to cover up the condition of their father and the suffering that he was going through. They found out all of this information later on, so in addition to the trauma of the evacuation, the closure and the fact that they had to move him to St Vincents, they have had to suffer the revelations about how their father had been treated. Obviously, that has been highly distressing to them.The other key point that they make is about the absence of consultation with the family: the fact that in a number of important instances they were not informed of what was going on. They feel they were kept in the dark, they were treated very shabbily in terms of being provided information about what was happening to their father, and they have some specific concerns also about what was said to them in a particular incident at St Vincents, when a doctor apparently suggested to them that they stop feeding their father and that they `allow nature to take its course'. So they have had this added trauma of the concern about the treatment of their father.Their letter is a very well written analysis of the problems, of what occurred at Riverside, and of the way the family and the residents were treated. It is important for us to look at it, because the Aged Care Act provided that the government, when faced with a situation where they had serious concerns about the care of residents—and certainly the minister argues this, had no choice in the end but to close the nursing home and evacuate the residents. The minister claims that was the only public policy option left to her. If that is the case, then clearly we have got to be able to do much better. When we have to act in a serious manner to protect residents, we have got to be able to provide a system that provides much better treatment of the residents than was provided at Riverside.Most of these residents had dementia and were physically very frail, and some were already in the process of receiving palliative care. They were greatly traumatised by the move. A person of that age and in that condition can find such a move and disruption fatal. The family have obviously had to live with the trauma, the upset, the difficulties of establishing contact in a different environment and of travelling to a new location, and all those sorts of things. They also had to deal with being informed that the care their relative had been given was substandard—and for many of them that was the first time they found out that the department had a view that the standard of care their family member had been receiving was substandard.The lessons from this are, in my view, that the closure and the evacuation of residents from a nursing home because of poor quality of care ought to be the absolute last resort. The minister said she had no option; my view is that we cannot allow it to happen again. If it is the case that the Aged Care Act provides no better solution when you have a provider who is providing inadequate care, when there is a serious concern about the care provided to residents—and I think that is to be tested—then we have to find a much better response. There is a suggestion I want to explore, which is that we develop a mechanism whereby an administrator is put in place at the direction of the minister and the residents are left in situ in the nursing home. That certainly would provide a much better solution than what we saw at Riverside. Sure, there were some problems with the physical surroundings at Riverside, but most of the issues went to the standard of care—they went to the management, the supervision and the provision of care to those residents—and they could have been addressed by the provision of new administration, by getting one of the reputable aged care providers to take over the administration of the nursing home, at least in the short-term, and to provide proper care to those residents without the disruption of evacuation. It would have also allowed for long-standing relationships with carers and other staff to have been maintained. It would have been a much better result for those residents, for their families and for the staff.I understand that putting in such a mechanism is not simple, that there are some difficulties. That mechanism has been supported by a number of people. It is a suggestion which I endorse. I think it is one we have to look at very seriously. I think it is not beyond the wit of this parliament to devise a mechanism that allows for that to occur. The Commonwealth pay 80 per cent of the funds that support those nursing homes. We issue the licences, manage the accreditation and certification, and ensure that standards are met. We have the power to ensure that proper care is provided. We ought to make sure that we have a mechanism that ensures, at a time when the minister is convinced that proper care is not being provided, that we have effective sanctions. Most of the sanctions that we have currently are financial sanctions against the provider. What happens when you have a financial sanction against a provider is that they receive less government funds for a period. What do they do when they get less government funds? They reduce the quality of care, they cut the staff hours and they reduce the quality of food because they have less income coming into the nursing home. So most of the sanctions we currently apply against nursing home providers result in, directly or indirectly, them providing even worse care than they provided previously when we raised concerns about their treatment. I think we must have much more effective sanctions than we have got. I do not think the financial penalties are the answer because they tend to hurt the residents. Certainly I think the appointment of an administrator to put new administration into a nursing home that has provided consistently poor care and which we have serious concern about is the answer. We ought to make sure that we get support to amend the Aged Care Act to make sure that the Riverside situation never occurs again and that we have a much better mechanism for protecting the elderly and allowing them to stay in situ in the nursing home when that is the best option for them.1526219:19:0015262Tierney, Sen JohnSenator TIERNEYO15New South WalesLP10—I rise tonight to urge all states and territories to agree with the moratorium on online gambling and to also urge them to take notice of the studies that have been released in recent times on the impact of gambling in this country. Findings from the University of Canberra's National Centre for Social and Economic Modelling have been published in today's Australian. They reveal that in some states the poorest 10 per cent of people in the community are spending more on gambling in total than they spend in total on health and education as a proportion of their income. This compares with the wealthiest 10 per cent of society, who spend a much lower proportion of their money on gambling. The latest of these statistics shows the extent of the vast problem we have with gambling in this country.I have spoken many times about the extent of problem gambling. I have spoken about the figures that were revealed in the Senate's own Netbets inquiry where people from, for example, the Break-Even Western Problem Gambling Service gave evidence. They said that every problem gambler affects directly and indirectly in their families, in their workplaces and in other places another seven to 10 people. The states and territories are ignoring these estimates and we now have before us the next tidal wave of gambling about to hit this country—and that is online gambling. There are predictions that the online gambling industry could reach a worldwide turnover of $100 billion a year. The states and territories are simply ignoring the current problems they are facing with gambling and they are also ignoring this future tidal wave that is about to descend on this country. If the states accept something like online gambling without any controls, they are creating an environment where problem gambling will skyrocket yet again in this country.I want to speak specifically today about the latest statistics on gambling from the University of Canberra. It was reported on the front page of the Australian today that:The typical poor household out-drinks, out-smokes and out-gambles the top end of town.The study did a breakdown by states of what people spend their money on. The richest 10 per cent of our society were compared, state by state, with the poorest 10 per cent. I am very concerned about the results, as indeed all members of the Senate should be. Take my own state of New South Wales, for example. The top 10 per cent of wealthy households in New South Wales spend, on average, just over one per cent of their weekly income on gambling. By comparison, the lowest income earners spend 6.5 per cent of their weekly income on gambling. In dollar terms, the top 10 per cent of society averages an income per week of $1,800. They spend $31 per week, on average, on gambling. The bottom 10 per cent are the battlers. They have, on average, $503 per week and they spend $33 per week on gambling. It might not seem like a lot of money but, to low income earners, it can mean a massive difference to the quality of life of their family.What is particularly concerning, if you look at those figures proportionally, is that the lower income earners are spending six times, proportionally, what the higher income earners are spending on gambling. The study backs up the findings of last year's Productivity Commission report and also the Netbets inquiry from the Senate. We have all heard stories of some of Australia's richest people spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on a single bet, whether that be on horse racing or gambling; but these wealthy people are not living from week to week, and they are not worrying about having to put food on the table. The central message is that the poor are spending a much larger proportion of their income on gambling than are people with higher incomes. It is the states and territories that are reaping this money. They are addicted to gambling revenue, as much as the problem gamblers themselves are. With the expansion of online gambling, this could become much worse.Most recently, the Tasmanian Gaming Commission approved five new licences for online casinos and sports betting. Here in the ACT, two new online gambling licences were issued. This is despite a call from the minister for social security, who is the minister in charge of the Ministerial Council on Gambling, to call a moratorium across the states and territories until we get a proper set of regulations and controls in place. These states and territories have ignored totally the studies and statistics about Australia's chronic gambling problem.We are ready now to enter another phase of this gambling and what we need, with online gambling coming, is a national framework of regulation to be set up. This is now urgent because the latest studies show that, even in the early stages of online gambling, this form of gambling is being taken up at a very rapid rate. Lasseter's Casino, which has been operating for the last seven months in the Northern Territory, reports that between April and September last year it brought in another 16,000 online players and had a turnover of $18 million. The company predicts that this turnover will now grow at a rate of 75 per cent a month. The same goes for Canbet in the ACT: a turnover of $47 million in 1998-99, and the company expects that in the following year this will double.But it could get much worse with the new technology coming into play: every household with a television set could, with online gambling, become its own little casino. You do not need digital television to do this, and you do not need a computer; all you need is an ordinary television set with a smart set-top box, which costs about $600, and the screen of your TV then turns into a monitor and you can do sports betting and online gambling in the home. Given the current destructive path that gambling is forging in this country, we should really be the last to roll out the red carpet to online gambling.There should be a moratorium, as our minister Senator Jocelyn Newman has called for, across all states and territories. During this moratorium, a national regulation framework to protect consumers can be designed and the impact of online gambling can be studied closely, particularly in the Northern Territory where it is has been operating for seven months. Then we should be looking at a decision on where we go with online gambling in the future. It is time for the states and territories to act, to work in unison with the federal government. It is time for the states and territories, who have primary responsibility for gambling, to really start being honest about the extent of problem gambling in this country and to do something about it in an effective way.19:27:0015263Senate adjourned at 7.27 p.m.Documents1526315263The following government documents were tabled:Agriculture and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand—Record and resolutions—17th meeting, Melbourne, 3 March 2000.Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet—Requirements for annual reports, May 2000.Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission—Report—Accessibility of electronic commerce and new service and information technologies for older Australians and people with a disability, March 2000.15263The following documents were tabled by the Clerk:Goods and Services Tax Rulings GSTR 2000/1 (Addendum), GSTR 2000/3 (Addendum), GSTR 2000/14, GSTR 2000/17 and GSTR 2000/18.Product Rulings PR 2000/66 and PR 2000/71-PR 2000/73.Taxation Determination 2000/25.Taxation Ruling TR 2000/8.Answers to Questions on Notice15265The following answers to questions were circulated:15265(Question No. 1990)199015265Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator Faulkner5K4New South WalesALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, upon notice, on 3 March 2000:(1) Has the department, or any agency of the department, commissioned or conducted any quantitative and/or qualitative public opinion research (including tracking research) since 1 October 1998, related to the goods and services tax (GST) and the new tax system; if so: (a) who conducted the research; (b) was the research qualitative, quantitative, or both; (c) what was the purpose of the research; and (d) what was the contracted cost of that research.(2) Was there a full, open tender process conducted by each of these departments and/or agencies for the public opinion research; if not, what process was used and why.(3) Was the Ministerial Council on Government Communications (MCGC) involved in the selection of the provider and in the development of the public opinion research.(4) (a) What has been the nature of the involvement of the MCGC in each of these activities; and (b) who has been involved in the MCGC process.(5) (a) Which firms were short-listed; (b) which firm was chosen; (c) who was involved in this selection; and (d) what was the reason for this final choice.(6) What was the final cost for the research, if finalised.(7) On what dates were reports (written and verbal) associated with the research provided to the departments and/or agencies.(8) Were any of the reports (written and verbal) provided to any government minister, ministerial staff, or to the MCGC; if so, to whom.(9) Did anyone outside the relevant department and/or agency or Minister's office have access to the results of the research; if so, who and why.(10) (a) What reports remain outstanding; and (b) when are they expected be completed.(11) Are any departments and/or agencies considering undertaking any public opinion research into the GST and the new tax system in the future; if so, what is the nature of that intended research.(12) Will the Government be releasing the full results of this taxpayer-funded research; if so, when; if not, why not.15265Alston, Sen RichardSenator AlstonLD4VictoriaLPMinister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts10—The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) Yes. (a) Donovan Research (b) Both (c) The purpose of the research was to assist in the development of a public information campaign. (d) $209,000.(2) In line with usual practice, AFFA developed a list of five consultants (with the assistance of the Government Communication Unit (GCU)) which was approved by the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and the MCGC. The consultants were invited to submit proposals to the Department. (3) No. (4) (a) The research tender brief and list of consultants were approved by the MCGC, as is usual practice. (b) These were approved out of session. (5) (a) Donovan Research and Worthington Di Marzio (b) Donovan Research (c) A panel of representatives from AFFA and GCU. (d) Value for money, understanding of the brief and size of the research sample.(6) The research has not been finalised.(7) Focus group reports were presented in January 2000.(8) Focus group reports were provided to the MCGC via the GCU, the Australian Taxation Office as part of the whole-of-Government GST communication strategy and the office of the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry.(9) Yes. Ethnic Communications Pty Ltd and Gavin Jones Communications were provided with copies of the focus group report to help them develop communication strategies relating to the rural GST Start-up Assistance program. The Department has engaged Ethnic Communications to develop a communication program for farm managers of non-English-speaking background; Gavin Jones Communications has been engaged to develop a similar program for Indigenous Australians.(10) (a) Benchmark research and tracking research reports (b) Benchmark report due late March 2000; tracking research late April 2000 and late June 2000.(11) The Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry is not considering undertaking such research at this time.(12) It has been the practice not to release research results before the completion of a public information campaign.15266(Question No. 2102)210215266Allison, Sen LynSenator Allison1M6VictoriaAD00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care, upon notice, on 13 March 2000:(1) When will the Federal Government respond to the report, People Living with Psychotic Illness: An Australian Study 1997-98.(2) (a) Will the Government implement the eight key recommendations for action; (b) has the Government set a time line for the implementation of this action; (c) how will the Government assess the results of its action; and (d) what are the cost implications of the recommendations.(3) If the Government does not plan on implementing the eight key recommendations, what action does it plan to take to address the issues raised.15266Herron, Sen JohnSenator HerronVW4QueenslandLPMinister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—The Minister for Health and Aged Care has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) This report was prepared for and released by the Government (Department of Health and Aged Care) therefore a formal response is not planned. The report identifies areas for policy and program directions that will be considered in the ongoing development of the National Mental Health Strategy.Furthermore, funding has been committed under the National Mental Health Strategy for further analysis of the data and reports by the Study Group involved in the report's preparation.(2) (a) The report does not make specific recommendations however, it identifies areas for policy and program directions that will be considered in the ongoing implementation of the National Mental Health Strategy.(b) The National Mental Health Strategy is now in the seventh year of an agreed ten year period and so actions will continue for the next three years.(c) State, territory and Commonwealth governments report annually on reform achievements of the National Mental Health Strategy in the National Mental Health report. (d) As no specific recommendations are included in the report, there are no direct cost implications. (3) The National Mental Health Strategy is an ongoing program of mental health reform agreed to by Health Ministers in 1992. During its seven year operation, Commonwealth funding for mental health services in Australia has increased by 49% and community based services spending by States and Territories has grown by 70%. In response to the need to continue to address improvements in mental health care, the Commonwealth is providing $300 million for mental health over the five-year term of the new Australian Health Care Agreements, as well as $28 million over three years for national projects.This money will continue to support national initiatives and assist States and Territories to improve mental health services provision for all Australians with mental health disorders, regardless of their diagnostic category.15267(Question No. 2104)210415267Brown, Sen BobSenator BrownQD4TasmaniaAG00 asked the Minister for Environment and Heritage, upon notice, on 9 March 2000:(1) Is it a fact that clause 8, attachment 9, of the Regional Forest Agreement signed between the governments of Tasmania and the Commonwealth obliged the Tasmanian Government to implement land clearance controls by the year 1999; if so: (a) is Tasmania now in breach of the agreement for having failed to implement that part of the agreement; and (b) what is the Commonwealth doing to require the state of Tasmania to comply with the agreement.(2) Does the Minister regard the milestone dates for the implementation of agreement commitments to be indefinitely flexible.15267Hill, Sen RobertSenator HillBH4South AustraliaLPMinister for the Environment and Heritage10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:(1) No. The commitment specified in clause 8, attachment 9 of the RFA obliges Tasmania to introduce by the year 1999 mechanisms to encourage native vegetation retention and management including the protection of riparian vegetation, consistent with the agreed outcomes of the National Vegetation Initiative as set out in the Tasmanian Partnership Agreement.The Tasmanian Government have indicated that the issue of native vegetation retention will be addressed as part of the development of the Tasmanian Biodiversity Strategy. A native vegetation retention system is under consideration by the Tasmanian Heads of Agencies Group responsible for environment and resources matters. It is in the process of developing options for consideration by the Tasmanian Cabinet.(a) No.(b) Tasmania has provided the Commonwealth with two RFA implementation reports highlighting progress against milestones. The Commonwealth is satisfied that Tasmania is using their best endeavours to implement the milestones set out in the agreement.(2) No.15267(Question No. 2114)211415267Brown, Sen BobSenator BrownQD4TasmaniaAG00 asked the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, upon notice, on 17 March 2000:What has the Australian Government done in response to the cyanide spill at the Esmeralda Mine in February 2000. 15267Hill, Sen RobertSenator HillBH4South AustraliaLPMinister for the Environment and Heritage10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:On 18 February 2000 I met with the Ambassador to the Republic of Hungary, His Excellency Dr Istvan Gyürk, to convey Australia's concern for the accident and discuss the spill. At the meeting I asked the Ambassador to inform me of any useful technical advice or assistance that Australia could offer to Hungary and expressed my preference for Australian technical assistance to be given as part of the international rehabilitation effort. My Department, Environment Australia, has also sought advice from the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) as to the nature of the assistance that would be appropriate. Australia has been invited to send representatives to an initial meeting on 25-26 May 2000, convened by UNEP in response to the spill and its consequences, which has the objective of developing an international approach to industry codes of practice, management systems, and implementation mechanisms to manage cyanide in gold mining and processing.The UNEP team that has been examining the spill and its consequences released its report on 19 April. My department is examining this report and will advise me further on its implications.Officials from my Department and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade have been in regular contact with the Romanian Ambassador to obtain information on the spill.Our Head of Mission in Hungary, Ambassador Higgie, met with the Hungarian Environment Minister, Minister Pepo, on 9 March 2000 to discuss the cyanide spill. At the meeting, Minister Pepo kindly arranged for Ambassador Higgie to visit the affected area, which has since successfully taken place on 14 March 2000. The Minister and ministry officials also discussed the approaches of a number of Australian companies which have offered assistance to Hungary since the cyanide spill. Minister Pepo recently wrote to me clarifying the nature of the assistance which Australia could offer Hungary, and I am carefully considering his suggestions.15268(Question No. 2129)212915268Bourne, Sen VickiSenator BourneTW4New South WalesAD00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 5 April 2000:With reference to the answer to question on notice no. 1913 (Senate Hansard, 4 April 2000, p 12906) and in particular to (4), in which the Minister referred to a list of cases handed over to the Chinese during the third round of the Human Rights Dialogue in August 1999:(1) Can the names be specified of the cases mentioned in the list other than Wang Youcai, Xu Wenli and Qin Yongming; if not, why not.(2) Have any of those mentioned in the list: (a) been released from prison or detention since August 1999; if so, whom; or (b) had the terms of their imprisonment or detention modified since that date; if so, whom.(3) Has the Australian Embassy made any representations to the Chinese since August 1999 about all or any of the cases mentioned in the list; if so, when and what was the response.15268Hill, Sen RobertSenator HillBH4South AustraliaLPMinister for the Environment and Heritage10—The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) Yes. The list is attached.(2) (a) Yes. In late February or early March of this year, Lin Hai (Shanghai) was granted early release from gaol. This was approximately a year and a half before his original release date;(b) No. It is difficult to obtain information on prison conditions. A number of Embassies in Beijing, who represent governments closely monitoring Human Rights in China, believe that the conditions of imprisonment of individuals whose cases are formally raised by foreign governments are more likely to be ameliorated.(3) The Australian Embassy in Beijing has not made any representations to the Chinese since August 1999 about any of the cases mentioned on this list.15268(Question No. 2135)213515268Brown, Sen BobSenator BrownQD4TasmaniaAG00 asked the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, upon notice, on 6 April 2000:With reference to the scientific research conducted on elephant seals on Macquarie Island:(1) (a) Are tags that have been glued on to the backs of the animals removed by ripping the tags off the skin; and (b) is the Minister aware that this results in an open gash on the back of the seal.(2) Does the Antarctic Animal Ethics Committee authorise the removal of tags from the seals in this manner.(3) Who is authorised by the committee to remove the tags.15268Hill, Sen RobertSenator HillBH4South AustraliaLPMinister for the Environment and Heritage10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:(1) (a) The devices are not removed by ripping them off the skin of the animals. Electronic tracking devices are glued to the hair, not the skin, of the elephant seals. During the period that the devices are on the animals the hair may grow by 10 or 20 millimetres. The devices are then removed by carefully separating the device from the hair using a scalpel. This may result in a shaved patch.(b) Removal of the tracking devices has not resulted in open gashes on the backs of seals. Rarely, if the device has been attached over an area of skin that contains an existing cut or abrasion, that wound may become exacerbated. However, careful selection of attachment sites and minimising the amount of adhesive used greatly reduces this problem.(2) The Antarctic Animal Ethics Committee does not approve the removal of tracking devices in the manner described in your question.(3) The Antarctic Animal Ethics Committee gives approval to qualified field personnel to undertake the approved research. The activities are authorised by a permit from the Tasmanian Parks and Wildlife Service. In giving its approval the Antarctic Animal Ethics Committee requires that the field personnel have appropriate experience or qualifications, or that they receive proper training in those techniques before undertaking them.15269(Question No. 2146)214615269O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TasmaniaALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Trade, upon notice, on 10 April 2000:(1) How many agencies within the Minister's portfolio are administrated by a board.(2) Are all members of the above boards appointed by the Governor-General on the advice of the Executive Council; if not, who is responsible for making board appointments.(3) In each case, does the Remuneration Tribunal have a role in the setting of fees, allowances and other benefits for members of the boards; if not: (a) under which section of the relevant legislation are such fees, allowances and benefits authorised; and (b) how is the value of these fees, allowances and other benefits determined.(4) In each case, what is the nature and value of fees paid to board members.(5) What other benefits, such as mobile phones, home computers and home phone/facsimile machines, are provided to board members by virtue of their membership of a government board.(6) What class of air travel, what standard of accommodation and what car allowances are paid to board members and, in each case, what is the value of these benefits and who determines that value.(7) Are board members entitled to, or do they receive, any spouse benefits; if so, what is the nature and value of these benefits.(8) (a) On how many occasions since January 1998 have the above fees, allowances and other benefits been varied, (b) what was the reason for each variation; and (c) what was the quantum of each variation.(9) If variations to fees, allowances and other payments to board members were not determined by the Remuneration Tribunal, who determined the quantum and timing of each increase.(10) Do board members qualify for, and are they paid, superannuation benefits; if so, are such payments additional to, and separate from, other allowances they receive.(11) Do board members receive any additional allowances if they are appointed to board sub-committees; if so, are such additional benefits provided for in the relevant legislation.15269Hill, Sen RobertSenator HillBH4South AustraliaLPMinister for the Environment and Heritage10—The Minister for Trade has provided the following answers to the honourable senator's questions:(1) This response applies to Austrade only.(2) No. Board appointments are made by the Minister for Trade following approval by the Cabinet.(3) The Remuneration Tribunal sets fees, allowances and other benefits for board members.(4) Chairman $50,000/annum Deputy Chairman $31,500/annum Member $21,000/annum Membership of the Board Audit and Risk Committee - $5000 per annum.(5) None, other than the operational requirements of the Managing Director who is a member of the Board. (6) Air travel - Business class Accommodation - an allowance is paid for overnight travel determined by Remuneration Tribunal; T/A per overnight stay: Sydney $350 Other capital $290 Other than a capital $210 T/A Part day:$60Mileage is paid at the standard rate when a Member uses his/her personal car for business travel. The amount payable is based on the rate that applies to Austrade employees and is calculated on the basis of a return provided to the Board Secretary.(7) Board members may have their spouse/partner accompany them to official events at Austrade expense where there is considered to be a benefit to the work of the Commission as a whole.(a) Once - March 1999 (b) Remuneration Tribunal (c) Remuneration: Chairperson $1,500 per annum Deputy Chairperson $1,850 per annum Member $1,150 per annum Audit Member $1,500 per annum T/A - Sydney Increase - $30 T/A - all other capital cities a decrease of $30 T/A - other than capital cities a increase of $10(9) All variations were approved by the Remuneration Tribunal.(10) Yes, board members qualify for, and are paid superannuation benefits. Such payments are additional to, and separate from, other allowances they receive.(11) Yes, board members appointed to the Audit Committee receive allowances ($5,000 per annum); determined by Remuneration Tribunal.15270(Question No. 2155)215515270O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TasmaniaALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, upon notice, on 10 April 2000:(1) How many agencies within the Minister's portfolio are administered by a board.(2) Are all members of the above boards appointed by the Governor-General on the advice of the Executive Council; if not, who is responsible for making board appointments.(3) In each case, does the Remuneration Tribunal have a role in setting of fees, allowances and other benefits for members of the boards; if not: (a) under which section of the relevant legislation are such fees, allowances and benefits authorised; and (b) how is the value of these fees, allowances and other benefits determined.(4) In each case, what is the nature and value of fees paid to board members.(5) What other benefits, such as mobile phones, home computers and phone/facsimile machines, are provided to board members by virtue of their membership of a government board.(6) What class of air travel, what standard of accommodation and what car allowances are paid to board members and, in each case, what is the value of these benefits and who determines that value.(7) Are board members entitled to, or do they receive, any spouse benefits; if so, what is the nature and value of these benefits.(8) (a) On how many occasions since January 1998 have the above fees, allowances and other benefits been varied, (b) what was the reason for each variation; and (c) what was the quantum of each variation.(9) If variations to fees, allowances and other payments to board members were not determined by the Remuneration Tribunal, who determined the quantum and timing of each increase.(10) Do board members qualify for, and are they paid, superannuation benefits; if so, are such payments additional to, and separate from, other allowances they receive.(11) Do board members receive any additional allowances if they are appointed to board sub-committees; if so, are such additional benefits provided for in the relevant legislation.15270Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator Vanstone7E4South AustraliaLPMinister for Justice and Customs10—The Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) The Minister under Section 315 of the Migration Act appointed the Migration Institute of Australia (MIA) as the Migration Agents Registration Authority (MARA). The MIA is administered by a board which also administers the MARA.(2) The members of the board are elected by the membership of the Migration Institute of Australia Limited, under corporations law.(3) The Remuneration Tribunal does not have a role in the setting of fees for members.(a) Board remuneration is authorised under section 317 of the Migration Act.(b) The value of fees for board members is set by the board, on the advice of an independent remuneration consultant.(4) Board members are allocated $385 and the president $450 per 8-hour day of time spent on Authority business. In 1998/99 a total of $177,747 was paid in Board remuneration. (5) MARA is not a government board. (6) Board members generally use economy air travel and five star accommodation, although this may vary according to circumstances, for example if there is not an economy seat available. Board members could be paid car allowance to travel to a board meeting, although to date this has occurred infrequently. The rate of car allowance paid is equal to that of the commercial traveller's rate at that time. (7) Board members are not entitled to and do not receive spouse benefits.(8) (a) Since January 1998 benefits have been varied once.(b) The variation was a CPI increase in line with an increase in registration fees for migration agents.(c) The quantum of the variation was $5 per day for each member and the president.(9) The variation was determined by the board on advice from the independent remuneration consultant.(10) Superannuation is included in the daily rate paid to board members.(11) The daily rate applies to time spent on Authority business by members appointed to board sub-committees. No additional allowances apply.15271(Question No. 2169)216915271Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator Faulkner5K4New South WalesALP00 asked the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources, upon notice, on 17 April 2000:With reference to the department's 1998 report, Review of Greater Commercialisation and Self Funding in the Co-Operative Research Centres Program, which provides on page 4, table 1-3, details of sources of funding for all 68 Cooperative Research Centres (CRC) for their full contract period, usually 7 years:(1) Can details be provided of the sources of funding for all 68 CRCs for the 1999-2000 financial year and for the forward estimate period.(2) Can details be provided of the breakdown of the global CRC funding figure, by source of funding, for the 1999-2000 financial year and for the forward estimate period.(3) Do industry contributions to CRCs attract any form of tax concession at present.(4) Can details be provided, for as many years before and after as possible, of the analysis carried out by the department, or other information held by the department, on the amount of business expenditure on research and development before and after the reduction from 150 per cent to 125 per cent, in 1996, of the tax concession for business expenditure on research and development.(5) Can details be provided of any analysis carried out by the department on the effect on business expenditure on research and development as a result of the decline in value of the 125 per cent tax concession, with the pending decrease in the corporate tax rate under the `Ralph' reforms.(6) (a) Has the department carried out any analysis of the price elasticity of business expenditure on research and development related to the level of tax concession, for example, what change in the level of business expenditure on research and development does the department expect for a 1 per cent increase or a 1 per cent decrease in the level of tax concession; and (b) can full details be provided of any such analyses carried out by the department.15272Minchin, Sen NickSenator MinchinJX4South AustraliaLPMinister for Industry, Science and Resources10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:(1) Details are only available for the whole of contract term, not by single financial year.(2) No financial year detail is available. The attached table provides the source of funding for the full contract term of all 72 Centres established since the commencement of the CRC Program in 1991 (table 1-3 from page 4 of the Department's 1998 report, Review of Greater Commercialisation and Self Funding in the Co-operative Research Centres Program updates, see following table). Contributions by Participants and Program Funds for the full Contract period (5-8 years) (millions)Research CategoryCRC Program FundsUniversitiesIndustryCSIROState Govt AgenciesOther C'wealth AgenciesOthersTotalManufact.236214220117212915852Info & Telecom.2063132383418542865Mining & Energy21013174243203132893Ag. & Rural Based2992041632182714181 177Environ32430676166187121161 194Medical 211125207495635141824Total1 4861 3451 0788265722732245 804(3) Eligible companies may be able to claim the benefits of section 73B of the Income Tax Assessment Act (ITAA) (the research and development tax concession) in respect of contributions to CRCs.(4) The report by the Bureau of Industry Economics (BIE), R&D, Innovation and Competitiveness (Research Report 50, 1993) is the most recent published analysis of the R&D Tax Concession. Other reports which provide information on the R&D Tax Concession and business expenditure on research and development include:. Government Response to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Resources, The Effect of Certain Public Policy Changes on Australia's R&D (April 2000).. Mark Mathews and John Howard, A Study of Government R&D Expenditure by Sector and Technology (February 2000).. House of Representatives Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Resources, The Effect of Certain Public Policy Changes on Australia's R&D (August 1999).. Australian Industry Group, Trends in R&D Expenditure in Australian Manufacturing, 1999.. Productivity Commission, Telecommunications Equipment, Systems and Services (May 1999).. Industry Research & Development Board, R&D Scoreboard `98 (November 1998).. Business Council of Australia Survey of R&D Expenditure Report (1998).. OECD Proceedings: Policy Evaluation in Innovation and Technology - Towards Best Practice, Chapter 7 by Ralph Lattimore, R&D Fiscal Incentives in Australia: Impacts and Policy Lessons, 1997.. Industry Commission, Research and Development (Report No. 44, 15 May 1995).. Australian National Audit Office Audit Report No. 12, Administration of the 150% Taxation Incentive for Industry R&D, 1993-94.Furthermore, the Department of Industry Science and Resources organised a Research and Development Tax Workshop on 24 March 1999.Business expenditure on research and development and the R&D Tax Concession were canvassed at the National Innovation Summit held in February this year. Recommendations on these issues are being considered by the Innovation Summit Implementation Group. An evaluation of the R&D Tax Concession is scheduled to be conducted later this year.The following tables contain figures indicating the amount of business expenditure on research and development for financial years 1990-91 to 1997-98 and the claimed expenditure under the R&D Tax Concession for 1990-91 to 1997-98: YearBusiness Expenditure on R&D ($m)1990-912,1001991-922,6351992-932,8621993-943,1191994-953,5081995-964,3431996-974,2001997-984,034(Source: 1997-98 Research & Experimental Development: Businesses, Report No. 8104.0, Australian Bureau of Statistics; Figures are at current prices) YearClaimed Expenditure for the R&D Tax Concession ($m)1990-912,1901991-922,6971992-932,9701993-943,3891994-953,9241995-964,4591996-974,1501997-984,322(Source: AusIndustry)(5) The report by the Bureau of Industry Economics (BIE), R&D, Innovation and Competitiveness (Research Report 50, 1993) provides some analysis of the potential effect on business expenditure on research and development as a result of a decline in value of the R&D Tax Concession, with a decrease in the corporate tax rate.The report discussed the potential effects on the assistance provided by the R&D Tax Concession arising from a reduction in the corporate tax rate. The BIE concluded that, while recognising a basis for an increase in the R&D Tax Concession to maintain the nominal value of the R&D Tax Concession with a lower corporate tax rate, it did not argue strongly in its favour. This conclusion was based on the recognition that a reduction in the corporate tax rate makes all business activities more attractive to industry, including research and development.The lower corporate tax rate agreed under the Review of Business Taxation effectively offers an extra 6 cents in the dollar of after tax profits, to firms for discretionary investment.The last decrease in the corporate tax rate occurred in the period 1993/94 to 1994/95 when the rate was reduced from 39% to 33%. During this period business expenditure on research and development increased from $2,862 million in 1992/93 to $3,508 million in 1994/95.(6) (a) The Department has not undertaken any analysis of the price elasticity of business expenditure on research and development related to the level of the R&D Tax Concession since the report of the BIE noted above. The report discussed the effects on research and development expenditure of alternative tax concession scenarios.This report indicated that increasing the tax concession may increase research and development expenditure, while reducing the concession may lower research and development expenditure. However, the report also noted that the R&D Tax Concession is just one of many influences on the research and development performance of companies. Other factors include creating a competitive advantage, market opportunities and technological strengths.The Australian Industry Group survey, Trends in R&D Expenditure in Australian Manufacturing (1999), indicated that 75% of companies cited factors such as trading conditions and profit pressures as more important than the R&D Tax Concession in influencing their decisions on research and development.(b) Section 8.6 (pp176 to 177) of the BIE report noted above provides full details of the BIE discussion on the “erosion of assistance arising from reductions in the company tax rate”. A copy of this section is available from the Senate Table Office.15274(Question No. 2191)219115274Murray, Sen AndrewSenator Murray3M6Western AustraliaAD00 asked the Assistant Treasurer, upon notice, on 26 April 2000:With reference to the Auditor-General's report no. 23 of 1999-2000, The Management of Tax Debt Collection: Australian Taxation Office, tables 8 and 9 on pages 140 and 141:(1) Does the Government propose to punish company directors who are debtors to the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) by making them ineligible to be company directors.(2) What enforcement programs are in place to recover the debt due from company directors who are individual ATO debtors, and whose companies also have active ATO debts.15274Kemp, Sen RodSenator KempWW4VictoriaLPAssistant Treasurer10—The following answer is provided to the honourable senator's question:(1) The function of deregistering Directors or preventing them from managing corporations is one which is vested in the Australian Securities and Investment Commission (ASIC) under the Corporations Law. The ATO has liaised with ASIC to have companies deregistered.(2) The ATO frequently uses Director Penalty provisions under Divisions 8 and 9 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936. Directors of companies have a duty to ensure that companies meet their tax obligations, or put the companies into liquidation or voluntary administration. If the obligations are not met directors may be given a Directors Penalty notice requiring them within 14 days to either:. pay the estimates as required;. enter into a section 222ALA payment agreement;. appoint an administrator of the company under the Corporations Law; or. begin to be wound up.If this requirement is not met directors become personally liable to a penalty equaling the amount not paid. These debts are vigorously pursued by the ATO.15274(Question No. 2193)219315274Brown, Sen BobSenator BrownQD4TasmaniaAG00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 1 May 2000:(1) Has the Government, or any of its officials, including United Nations officials, been approached regarding the interests of any Northern Territory businessman or member of the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly, present or past, in East Timor in 1999 or 2000; if so: (a) who is involved; (b) what are the details; and (c) what was the response.15274Hill, Sen RobertSenator HillBH4South AustraliaLPMinister for the Environment and Heritage10—The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) (a) During 1999 and 2000, officials in Australia and in East Timor have been approached by numerous individuals from the Northern Territory on various matters related to their existing and potential business interests in East Timor.(b) Their queries covered a very wide range of issues related to business operations in East Timor, including questions on entry requirements; queries on social, political and security conditions; assistance on property and tenancy matters; questions on duties and sales tax obligations; transportation queries; queries on meetings with interlocutors in East Timor to discuss specific issues; and a range of consular matters.(c) In response to these queries, officials have given detailed briefings on the social, political and security situation in East Timor; provided travel advice; provided advice on commercial/regulatory matters in response to specific queries; facilitated meetings and dialogue with interlocutors in East Timor; and provided other assistance reflecting officials' consular responsibilities towards Australian citizens.The Government is, of course, not in a position to respond to this question on behalf of United Nations officials.15275(Question No. 2225)222515275Brown, Sen BobSenator BrownQD4TasmaniaAG00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, upon notice, on 12 May 2000:(1) How many jobs are threatened in the latest round of job cuts by Queensland Rail.(2) How are these cuts justified given that the Queensland Government posted an operating surplus of $227 million.15275Alston, Sen RichardSenator AlstonLD4VictoriaLPMinister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts10—The Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) I have no information about the number of redundancies being considered by Queensland Rail.(2) This is a matter for the Queensland State Government.