Senator PATTERSON (9:42 AM) —I 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—

CUSTOMS TARIFF AMENDMENT BILL (No. 2) 1999.

The Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1999, which is now before the chamber, contains a number of amendments to the Customs Tariff Act 1995. I will only outline the major amendments here.

Schedule three of this bill is operative from the first of July 1998. The amendments to remove the customs duty from inputs to the manufacture of information industries equipment implement the government's commitment to this action announced in the "Investing For Growth" industry statement of December 1997.

Most fully assembled information industries equipment is imported duty free. However, many inputs used in local production of the same equipment attract either the 5 per cent general manufacturing tariff rate or a 3 per cent tariff rate under a tariff concession order.

Following consultation with industry, we have taken action on two fronts. The central element of the government's approach is an acceleration of duty reductions already scheduled under the information technology agreement. With the exception of a small range of finished goods, the government has brought forward by eighteen months the tariff reductions to which Australia is committed under that agreement. A free rate of duty has operated since the first of July 1998.

The second element of the approach has been the creation of a new schedule 4 item in the customs tariff for those inputs not covered by the information technology agreement. This allows the duty free entry for other inputs that are currently the subject of a tariff concession order.

The new item (No. 65) covers inputs to the manufacture of information industries equipment. This equipment is defined in terms of a series of tariff subheadings listed in by-laws written to the new item.

Australian information technology manufacturers will benefit from duty free access to key inputs which will strengthen their competitive position. The cost to government is estimated at $80 million over the eighteen months to the year 2000 and this should translate into reduced costs for industry and lower prices for consumers.

Madam President, schedule four of this bill is operative on and from the first of September 1998. The former Minister for Industry, Science And Tourism, the Honourable John Moore, announced on the twenty-fourth of July 1998, the government's decisions on tariffs and other matters relating to the Industry Commission's inquiry into the medical and scientific equipment industries.

The government accepted the general thrust of the commission's recommendations and the government's decisions were also taken in conjunction with other recent initiatives, particularly those announced in the "Investing For Growth" industry statement. The government's decision in relation to tariffs was to reduce the customs rate of duty to free for goods of tariff headings 9013 to 9033, inclusive, of the customs tariff with the exception of goods which are included in the passenger motor vehicle manufacturing plan, such as speed indicators and revolution counters.

In respect of tariffs, the Industry Commission noted that the bulk (around eighty five percent) of medical and scientific equipment was entered under headings 9013 to 9033 of the customs tariff. About seventy five percent of medical and scientific equipment entering Australia attracts a free rate of duty. The remaining goods are subject to a nominal tariff of five percent. However, most of the goods are entered using the tariff concession system, at a rate of duty of three percent. As these goods do not compete with locally manufactured goods, there is little justification to retain these nominal tariffs.

Schedule 6 of this bill implements the government's decisions in relation to customs tariff rates of duty and by-law arrangements on the Industry Commission's inquiry into machine tools and robots. These changes have operated from the first of April 1999.

The first of the changes involves the reduction of import duty to free for parts of machine tools classified to heading 8466 of the tariff. These subheadings cover parts for machine tools for working metals and were dutiable at five per cent. This action will overcome the present anomaly where in some instances, the importation of the complete machines which incorporate these parts does not incur import duty.

It is the government's policy to reduce the impact of tariffs on inputs to industry. The Australian machine tools industry exports in excess of ninety per cent of its production, and much of that production incorporates goods imported as parts on which customs duty was paid. The removal of the customs duty on parts for machine tools and robots is expected to make

The Australian produced goods more internationally competitive. Based on current data and predicted trade, the anticipated cost to the government in forgone revenue is estimated between $5 million and $5.6 million per annum.

The government has also decided to delete items 48, 49 and 55 of schedule 4 to the Customs Tariff Act 1995. These items provide a free rate of duty on goods which satisfy certain criteria, principally that there are no substitutable goods made in Australia.

Item 48 covers parts and accessories for machine tools for the working of metals. As the duty on these parts and accessories is being reduced to free in this schedule, the duty free concession accorded by item 48 is no longer required and is being repealed. The impact on industry is expected to be negligible because of the offsetting arrangements of tariff reductions.

Item 49 provides a concession to importers for certain parts for machines which incorporate a computer controller, for example, electric lasers and electromagnetic soldering machines. Trade statistics reveal that this item has had little use and its cancellation will have little impact on industry.

Item 55 was created in 1992 to provide an import duty concession for machine tools and parts thereof, for the working of advanced materials, such as carbon fibres and exotic metals. Trade figures indicate that

This particular item has not been used by industry in the past five years or so. The cost to industry through its revocation is expected to be minimal.

The amendments contained in the other schedules of this bill are of an administrative or technical nature and have no affect on rates of customs duty and have no revenue implications.

I commend the bill.

CRIMES AMENDMENT (FINE ENFORCEMENT) BILL 1999

This bill amends section 15A of the Crimes Act 1914.

Effective and efficient mechanisms to ensure that fines are paid are an essential part of any criminal justice system. This bill is a small but significant step in the Commonwealth's ongoing efforts to ensure that federal fines can be enforced at the least possible enforcement cost to the taxpayer.

As a result of the separation of powers requirement in the Commonwealth Constitution, penalties ranging from imprisonment to property seizure can only be imposed on a federal fine defaulter by a court. This requirement has caused some administrative difficulties, because the Commonwealth relies on States and Territories to enforce its fines, and many of these States and Territories have moved to devolve enforcement powers to administrative agencies or to enforcement units within the court system.

The effect of the amendments in this bill will be to allow some corresponding devolution in federal cases. The bill will exempt fine enforcement from the general rule that only a magistrate can exercise federal judicial jurisdiction. Instead, federal judicial jurisdiction to enforce fines will be available to any officer of a summary court with equivalent jurisdiction under State or Territory law, subject to one qualification I will outline below.

There are three main reasons for allowing court officers to enforce federal fines. First, the `fine enforcement' burden imposed on busy magistrates will be eased. Secondly, many rural and regional areas have a court officer in permanent residence, whereas a magistrate may only visit periodically on circuit. In these areas, federal fine enforcement will be easier and more timely if court officers can impose relevant penalties.

Finally, fine enforcement systems in a number of States and Territories rely heavily on court officers to impose penalties for fine default. In these States and Territories, the ability to use court officers in federal cases will allow federal cases to be dealt with more efficiently within the State/Territory fine enforcement system.

As a matter of federal constitutional law, a State or Territory court officer can only exercise federal judicial power if his or her decision is subject to appeal to, or to review by, a magistrate. States and Territories will be notified that their law must allow some scope for appeal/ review if they want officers of their courts of summary jurisdiction to be able to impose penalties on federal fine defaulters.

The financial impact of the amendments is not quantifiable. The amendments will not require additional funding, but will facilitate the use of more efficient fine enforcement procedures.

Debate (on motion by Senator O'Brien) adjourned.

Ordered that these bills be listed on the Notice Paper as separate orders of the day.