Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document
Disclaimer: The Parliamentary Library does not warrant the accuracy of closed captions. These are derived automatically from the broadcaster's signal.
Order In The House -

View in ParlView

(generated from captions) were not claimed by customers and pile on the clothes that

and sell them.

for the clothes, "If I asked too much money and take the clothes anyway. then the big boys would beat me up for the clothes, And if I asked too little money when I got home," he said. my father would beat me up where everybody came out a winner." "So, I learned how to make deals of the little clues you get And these are some about Melvin's early life. an early promise about sex, He made himself that he was gonna get plenty of it, and sometimes I tell him now to this 11-year-old boy, that this promise he made a little bit now. maybe he should ease up on it he made to himself But he stays faithful to those vows going to overcome the world. when he was very small and he was that I wanna explore, MELVIN: There are 50 billion things that I haven't had a chance to do. that I wanna understand, making it work, I had to deal with the pragmatic,

infrastructure, and since there was no I had to be a one-man infrastructure. as sort of like on a unicycle. I thought of myself Joshua Fought the Battle of Jericho? Remember that song Well, what actually happened - is I'm on a unicycle. my Joshua, the situation I blow at this end. I go... (IMITATES HORN)

to the next side of the wall. I pedal real fast "Jesus, we're surrounded!" (IMITATES HORN) And people said, on a fucking unicycle. It's just one guy out there That's what I did. You know what I mean?

You did a good job, didn't you? MAX: He taught me it's possible,

and he taught me you have a choice, and he taught me it's possible and you have to make it. what you want it to be. You have choice to make your life be imposed to you. You don't have to let it his lifestyle. MARIO: My dad didn't change in keeping a low overhead. He early on recognised the power He realised that there is a line - you want and doing what you want. a balance between having what And the more you have what you want,

do what you want. the less you're gonna (PLAYS PIANO) I've got three jackets, So, once you say "Hey, man, I can make anything. two jeans, and some boots," interested in... MELVIN: 'I'm not really

the accolades of it. ..in the outside part of it, by the people of it.' I'm...I'm just really fascinated MAN: Melvin Von Peebles, of the French Republic on behalf of the President

vested in me, and by virtue of the powers of the Legion of Honour. I hereby make you a knight CHEERING AND APPLAUSE and as such, MELVIN: 'I'm fascinated by people, I wanna see what they're doing, I wanna know them, is an extreme hindrance and I find notoriety, in many ways, to, um...to really deal with people. So, I prefer, if possible, to sort of just, like they say, and watch things pass. just lay in the cut That's what I prefer to do. feel any...any major urge And, um, I don't really to be out there, to be, um... it's nice to get paid for your work. ..to be in the limelight other than But outside of that...eh! just hiding in the shadows, I'm a happy camper watching the world turn.' Closed Captions by CSI *

THEME MUSIC 'Welcome to Order In The House, in federal parliament.' a review of the week the Australian economy suffer How much damage will on his great big new tax on mining? before the Prime Minister backs down to deliver a far share We will lose an opportunity for all Australians this legislation. if the Opposition blocks with how Treasurer, Does the Prime Minister agree of the mining tax are, quote, who said yesterday that critics or they are ignorant." "Either lying to you hysterical scare campaign What we now have is an unprecedented opposite which has been sponsored by those and paid for by the Minerals Council. Budget estimates this week, 'While the Senate was occupied by dominated debate in the House. the Government's proposed mining tax run by the mining companies, Buoyed by a vocal campaign the Opposition went on the attack.' by Fortescue Metals Following last week's announcement worth $17.5 billion and investment that it's placed two projects on hold and up to 30,000 jobs, to today's announcement I refer the Prime Minister Mr Tom Albanese, by the head of Rio Tinto, expansion plans that all Rio Tinto's Australian has been put on hold, to other nations like Canada, that capital would shift proposed great big new tax and that the Rudd Government's sovereign risk issue on mining was Rio Tinto's top on a global basis. I ask the Prime Minister, the Australian economy suffer how much damage will before the Prime Minister backs down on his great big new tax on mining? The Prime Minister.

the ASX by Fortescue last Wednesday, I notice that notice was given to been placed on hold. that projects in question have

The Australian newspaper of 20th May I also note two paragraphs in to delay the Solomon project which says that Mr Forrest's move a political statement was last night labelled to the company's plans. more than a genuine setback analyst Nathan Littlewood noted, it goes on to say that Credit Suisse its Solomon feasibility study "Fortescue had not abandoned due for completion later this year, have been held." by which time a federal even would statements much have been made Can I also draw attention to recent by Mr Forrest concerning China has been forthcoming on that. and the response which know, As the Leader of the Opposition will

statements by many, many companies, there will be many, many, many they don't want want to pay more tax. all of whom may have this in common -

to deliver a fair share We will lose an opportunity blocks this legislation. for all Australians if the Opposition blocks this RSPT If the Leader of the Opposition an increase in super from 9% to 12%. he will be denying workers on average earnings He will be denying a worker an additional $108,000 a year. Australians with better super He will be denying working on their retirement. He will be denying all those Australian companies a 2% point tax cut. He will be denying a $5,000 tax break for Australian small business. He will also be denying some 6.4 million Australian taxpayers of a radical opportunity to simplify their tax arrangements and to throw the shoebox away if they so choose when it comes to tax time. That's what's at stake with these reforms. Member for Groom. My question is to the Prime Minister in relation to his comments that the Australian LNG industry has prospered

under a petroleum-resource rent tax. Can the Prime Minister name one gas field in Australia covered by a petroleum-resource rent tax that has exported 1 tonne of LNG in the last 20 years? The Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has the floor. We now have an attack on the PART. From memory, it came in in 1985, so that's 25 years ago. Does the Honourable Member... Prime Minister! ..remember the Gorgon announcement recently? Where has he been for the last 25 years? Amazingly silent as they took receipts in for the PART

and now seek opportunities to change their line. Can I refer to a question from the Member for Groom,

who I say should know better, when he goes away and examines the question given to him by the Leader of the Opposition that he asked today. Clearly that question was carefully choreographed. We don't know from time to time whether he's telling the truth or not. Let's go to the oil and gas sector that has actually created certainty in Australia. I'll remind the Member for Groom and the Leader of the Opposition that in the context of that tax since it was introduced, and it goes to the issue of certainty. Esso and BHT chose to transition

into the petroleum resources tax system in Australia and in doing so extend the life for decades for the Bass Strait oil and gas reserves. Then he goes to the question of the long-term nature of these investments. Let's go to the issue of Pluto, an investment decision made in 2007. Pluto will export LNG from Australia in the financial year 2010/2011. LNG investment in Australia. Let's go to the biggest ever single investment in Australia - Gorgon. Gorgon will export LNG from Australia in the financial year 2015/2016 because we had a debate 25 years ago about the need for tax certainty in Australia, and investment horizon that created attraction for investment in Australia whilst creating long-term opportunities for shareholders. Let's go to the nature of that tax and the Gorgon LNG investment decision. I refer to some comments made in Western Australia on the occasion of that investment. I remind the House of what the Chevron vice-president, George Kirkland, not known to the Leader of the Opposition because he finds economics and investment in Australia boring, but at least known for the Member for Groom, and I quote,

"There's no doubt this positions Australia very, very strongly in the gas world. It really and truly does."

He then went on to say, "The good news is Saudi Arabia is all about oil, And we're seeing that Australia is all about gas. Asia has been growing significantly and where's Australia? In a great position to really deliver on a cost-advantage basis, that market. Yesterday the Treasurer and the Deputy Prime Minister publicly claimed that the Australian resources sector pays on 13% - 17% in tax based on the University of North Carolina

student research paper that was completed over the year ago which does not specifically focus on the Australian resource sector, does not include royalty payments and lumps data from New Zealand in with that of Australia. I asked the Prime Minister, to prevent further misinformation, will the Government now publicly release all Treasury and tax office modelling

in relation to the great big new tax on mining? The Prime Minister. I will call the Honourable Member's attention to the report which has been released by the Treasury which contains copious information. My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister that official ATO taxation statistics on the Tax Office website show that the effective company tax rate for the mining industry is 27.8% and including royalties, it is 41.3%.

Does the Prime Minister stand by the statements of his Treasurer and Deputy Prime Minister that the taxation rate is only 17%? And I seek leave to table ATO taxation statistics 2007/2008, Table 8 and 9, as proof. Leave granted. The Prime Minister. Mr Speaker... Order.

Once again, we have from those opposite those standing in defence of the existing taxation arrangements, which apply to Australia's mining industry. The Member for North Sydney referred to a statement made by the Treasurer on Sunday in reference to a report by the National Bureau of Economic Research. My advice is, that's a credible research institute. Secondly can I draw attention to the fact that when it comes to the combined incidence of both royalties and the company tax rate on mining companies, the Government has seen a 50% drop in the share of tax taken from mining companies' profits over the past ten years, even if you factor in both company tax and royalties. I refer the Prime Minister to the letter dated 17th May 2010 from BHP Milleton chairman Mr Jack Nasser AO to shareholders and released to the Australian stock exchange.

Mr Nasser informed shareholders that last year BHP Milleton paid $6.3 billion in taxes and royalties to Australian government. Order. And that its total effective tax rate is 43%. Deputy Prime Minister! Given that a public-company chairman has a statutory obligation to accurately inform shareholders, does the Prime Minister accept as fact Mr Nasser's statement regarding BHP Milleton's level of taxation? The Prime Minister. Thank you, Mr Speaker, and for the Member for Curtin's newfound interest in accuracy. Can I refer statements which the Honourable Member refers to, and as I said in response to an earlier question, when we are in a process of consultation with the mining industry about a new tax, a range of corporate executive will make a range of statements about that proposition. I would also say to the Member for Curtin that there has been interesting commentary about those remarks as well, including from the former federal leader of the Liberal Party, John Hewson, who has described the reaction more generally

to the RSPT by certain parts of the mining industry as hysterical. I'm quoting Dr Hewson here, who says, "I must say, the positions taken by people,

whether it's Twiggy Forrester or Jack Nasser, I have these waking-up nightmares of Mr Nasser

like he used to attack us over tariff protection or the car industry 25 years ago."

That is simply what Dr Hewson says. I don't necessarily endorse what Dr Hewson says at all but I do draw it to the Honourable Member's attention. 'After relying on the work of the American academics, the Government bolstered its case on Tuesday by releasing new Treasury figures.' The Leader of the Opposition has the call. My question is to the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister aware that Kevin Markle, author of the North Carolina University report, used to accuse the mining sector of being tax avoiders has told The Australian Online that the data was dumped from a subsequent version because the sample was too small and could have involved as few as four companies. Will the Prime Minister now apologise

to Australia's 4,290 resources companies for attacking their reputation? Does he now accept that

sending out the Treasurer and Deputy Prime Minister with such flimsy evidence has made the Government look foolish and irresponsible and will he now release all Treasury and ATO modelling or is he afraid that the real evidence will fatally undermine his great big new tax on mining? MEMBERS: Hear, hear. The Leader of the Opposition refers to the effective tax rates for particular mining companies and the industry at large. I would draw his attention to a Treasury roundup article which has been released today, which says that Treasury's analysis shows that the resources sector faces an average company tax rate of about 12% lower than the average tax rate across all industries. 12. One, two. 12. This is because of the very generous tax concessions that the mining sector enjoys, which reduces their headline rate of company tax. A separate Treasury minute to the Treasurer notes that the average company tax rate to the mining sector was 17% in the decade '04/'05 comparing to 19% for construction, 27% for transport, 29% for finance.

The Treasury notes that the findings in the roundup article for mining are similar to those of the Markle 2009 paper. I would suggest the Leader of the Opposition acquaints himself with economic fact rather than simply acting as the puppet of the MCA in this place. I refer to the fact that a Treasury paper upon which you've just relied in your previous answer, a report which concludes that the mining industry has paid les tax than any other sector

over the past decade. Can the Prime Minister explain why the report relied on data that was six years old, and when the latest data from 2007/2008 is used shows that the mining sector represents just over 7% of income generated by all companies but accounts for 14% of all company tax paid. Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. The member for Goldstein refers to a paper entitled - Disparities in average rates of company tax across industries. The authors are as specified. I recall a question yesterday from the member for North Sydney, the shadow treasurer, asking for the Government to bring forward substantiating material concerning the Government's position on current tax arrangements for the mining industry. In response to that request yesterday, the Treasury brings forward a Treasury note. And in response to that the member for Goldstein stands up and objects to its contents because it concludes that the average company tax rate of the mining sector was 17% in the decade to 2004-05. That is precisely what I said before. (MEMBERS INTERJECT) It compares that to construction at 19%, 27% for transport and 29% for finance. I suggest that the Leader of the Opposition read the paper from the Treasury, digest its contents and stop simply acting as the mouthpiece of the MCA and undertake some independent research which might be in the national economic interest. I refer the Prime Minister to a report by one of the world's largest investment advisers, Citigroup, and I quote - "The mining industry has one of the lowest dividend yields amongst the Australian industries. Over the last 10 years, mining companies have reinvested around 75% of their cash generation back in country through royalties, taxes or capital investment.

Miners reinvest in growth, creating jobs and wealth creation for a country. We believe the proposed resources super profits tax will likely limit their abilities to reinvest." On what basis does the Prime Minister still believe that this big new tax on mining will create more jobs and more investment? As the member for North Sydney would know, there would be a range of opinions on the impact of the government's proposed taxation arrangements when it comes to the mining sector in particular and the economy in general.

Mr Speaker, can I draw also the honourable member's attention to a note released today by Macquarie Research Strategy, by Rory Robertson, which is along these lines - "So Canberra's objective today is not so much to increase taxes on the resources sector as simply to return payments to the public purse from mining company profits to the sorts of shares observed less than a decade ago." The bottom line is this - when it comes to the return to the Australian taxpayer from the mining sector, 10 years ago one dollar in every three in profits came back to the taxpayer through royalties. 10 years later, one dollar in seven

comes back to the taxpayer through royalties. The Leader of the Opposition asked a question about corporate tax - well, come in, spinner! - because if you add the royalties with resource taxes and the company tax rate, in 1999-2000 to 2003-04, you will have royalties, resource taxes and company tax representing 55% in profits and in 2008-09, royalties, resource taxes and company tax representing 27% of profits. This is the data contained in this research note from Macquarie Research, which was just put out today. The bottom line is that the total tax take of these companies, all forms of tax being included within it, when measured against profits has halved over the last decade. My question is to the Prime Minister, Mr Speaker. I refer the Prime Minister to criticism

of his big new tax on mining from Mr John Ralph AC, formerly chief executive of CRA, director of BHP, chairman of the Commonwealth Bank, former president of the Business Council and chairman of the Ralph report, indeed corporate tax reform. Mr Ralph says - "A decision to impose a 40% tax rate on earnings above the bond rate will reduce future investment." He goes on to say - "Only those projects with a very high projected return would proceed. A suggestion that an increase in taxation would result in an increase in investment could only be made by somebody not living in the real world." Does the Prime Minister agree with his Treasurer who said yesterday that critics of the mining tax are "either lying to you or they are ignorant." Prime Minister, is Mr Ralph lying or is he ignorant? Prime Minister. Mr Speaker, the question raised by the member for North Sydney went directly to the impact of the proposed tax arrangements on future investment in the industry, and he cited one particular former mining executive, Mr Ralph, as his authority. Various mining executives will express a range of views on this matter. Mr Don Voelte, the CEO of Woodside, has expressed a view in recent times. He indicated that in fact mining companies could pay more. There are a range of opinions within the mining industry, there are a range of opinions within the general business community. But I go back to the former proposition. One - should mining companies be paying more tax? The Deputy Leader of the Opposition says no. The shadow minister for infrastructure says yes. What does the Leader of the Opposition say? We do not know, because their policy flips and flops in between.

Two...can I say, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition may be against our tax. I am not sure that the shadow minister for infrastructure is necessarily of the view that the mining industry should not be paying more. Look at his statements from earlier today. The second point I would make in response to the member for North Sydney's question is - and he knows this infinitely well - that the whole point of a profits based tax as opposed to a volume based tax is to encourage the expansion of the industry. That is why, if he bothered to search the record of an illustrious predecessor of his - that is, the former Treasurer of the Commonwealth, Peter Costello - and looked at his remarks on the architecture of the Petroleum Resource Rent Tax, he understands and grasps the core significance of ensuring that it assists industry to expand. Let me quote what Peter Costello had to say - "The idea of the PRRT, when it was introduced - I think it was actually introduced by the Labor Party from memory," - he is right on that - it was certainly introduced by the Labor Party, "that the petroleum extractors would be taxed on their profits, except to the degree that they used it for new production or other exploration. In fact, that is a good policy aim." In other words, Mr Costello, the then Treasurer of the Commonwealth,

was saying that a tax on profits is in fact a more rational approach and a more efficient approach to the taxation of the sector - than is a tax on volume. Madam Deputy Speaker, we are now in a situation where the head of the third largest resources company in the world, is describing Australia as having a sovereign risk almost as bad as anywhere in the world and certainly a sovereign risk profile which requires him and his companies to reassess billions of dollars' worth of investment here.

It is not just the dollars of investment that we need to worry about. it is the tens of thousands of jobs that go with it. It is the returns by Rio Tinto that go back to the shareholders of Australia - and that company has an Australian listing, it has a very long and proud history of investment and employment in Australia -

but the returns that that company has go back to self-funded retirees, to superannuation holders and to people who have had the courage to invest in an industry that has underpinned Australia. Madam Deputy Speaker, these men do not speak lightly of their concerns, nor of the impact that it will have on their companies. They are bound by an obligation under the director's law of Australia not to lie. The Treasurer may not understand that. He has probably never done the Australian Institute of Company Directors course. I have. I understand corporate responsibility. I understand director responsibility. I understand the requirements by law that if you abuse them you will go to jail. I understand that what these people are saying is true. And I understand that, when you combine that with a great Australian, someone whom we have all looked to in our past, Mr Herb Elliott, who is the Chairman of Fortescue, that we have someone of integrity in terms of both his own character and of course in terms of his director responsibilities. Today, the Chairman of Fortescue Metals Group has written to his 55,000 shareholders advising them of the company's rejection of the federal government's proposed resource rent tax.

Madam Deputy Speaker, the letter which is available on the Fortescue website, states to the shareholders that the government's proposal is akin

to a socialist funding and taxing device and bad for every Australian - every Australian. Who is going to benefit from this tax? It is not the people who work at the mine sites, not the small businesses who support them, not the shareholders in the company,

not the self-funded retirees and certainly not the people who want to see Australia prosper. Questions without notice. Are there any questions?

The Leader of the Opposition. My question is to the Prime Minister. to Mr Dick Karreman, who runs a family owned quarry in Brisbane, who said in relation to the government's great big new tax on mining - "When you walk into your house tonight, in excess of 70% of that house comes out of one of these quarries." The new home buyers of tomorrow, if this tax is introduced, are going to pay. So I ask the Prime Minister -

why does the government want to make it even more expensive for families to own their own home? The Prime Minister. Mr Speaker, the fear campaign run by the Leader of the Opposition reaches no bounds.

The Leader of the Opposition has been out there talking about the proposed impact of an RSPT on share markets, on superannuation earnings, on food and on everything else under heaven, without a single shred of evidence to back up each and every one of his claims. He said so about share markets - have we looked and seen what the Australian share market has done relative to other share markets across the world? Have we looked and seen what has happened with the Australian share market for mining stocks against mining stocks in other parts of the world? The Leader of the Opposition is engaged in an utterly shameless fear campaign against an RSPT because he has no alternative tax policy. I refer the attention of the Leader of the Opposition to the contents of the modelling in the Treasury document concerning the RSPT and its calculation in relation to economic growth, in relation to employment and in relation to price impacts. I would also draw the attention of the Leader of the Opposition to this. If you are also bringing down the company tax rate across the country, it has an effect also on the price of goods and services in a positive direction for the general community. Mr Speaker, what this all points to is a fundamental lack of policy on the part of those opposite. On Monday of this week we had, I think, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, who has been in the news of late, saying that the mining companies were paying just the right amount of tax. Then on Tuesday we had the shadow minister for infrastructure come out and say that he was open to them paying some more tax. What we have today, however, is volume 3 from the Leader of the Opposition. The Leader of the Opposition gave us tax policy No. 3 today when he said that any fair minded analysis of the evidence would suggest that mining companies are paying more than More than their fair share of tax. So, on Monday they were paying just enough tax, on Tuesday we had Barnaby saying they were not paying enough tax

and now on Wednesday we have the Leader of the Opposition saying that in fact they are paying too much tax - one, two, three tax policies in three days. The Leader of the Nationals. My question is to the Prime Minister.

I refer the Prime Minister to the comments of Mr Brad Page,

head of the Energy Supply Association, who said - "Any additional cost that is imposed on fuels, coal, and therefore the cost of electricity, will one way or another be passed through to consumers." Why should Australian families already struggling to meet the increased cost of electricity prices

be forced to pay more for electricity because of your great big new tax on mining? I find it remarkable again that the Leader of the National Party stands up here and speaks about taxes when his party is now committed to the Leader of the Opposition's policy of introducing a great big new tax on all Australian big businesses, defining "big" with a turnover of more than $5 million, in order to cross-subsidise his plan for a paid parental leave scheme. If you look at the flow-through impact of prices on bread, milk, and right across the food chain, you will see that that impact will flow through

to the actual cost of living

faced by working families right across Australia.

That is why those opposite sitting behind the Leader of the Opposition are so deeply nervous about his great big tax proposal. What is the real impact of this tax? We have heard the real impact of this tax from the people upon whom this tax will fall. What are Fortescue Mining doing? They have suspended $17 billion worth of investment and they are not going ahead with an investment

that would create 30,000 new jobs. 30,000 new jobs have evaporated because of this Prime Minister and his great big new tax. Rio Tinto says that had this tax been in operation over the past decade, $38 billion of investment and the tens of thousands of jobs

which depend on that investment would not have happened. And finally, we have BHP, the big Australian, now blaggarded by this Prime Minister as a foreign company, the boss of which now blaggarded by this Treasurer as an ignorant liar. That is what this government says about the heads of great companies like BHP and Rio Tinto - that because they dare to criticise, they are ignorant liars. What a disgrace! What an absolute disgrace! How dare the Prime Minister and the Treasurer of this country blaggard in this way the businesspeople on whom our economic future so much depends. The head of BHP has said that iron ore mines and uranium mines in Western Australia,

coalmines in Queensland and above all else, the $22 billion new investment in Olympic Dam - the lifeblood of the state of South Australia - are all in doubt because of this Prime Minister. This is the Prime Minister

who is close to slitting the throat of the South Australian economy because of his great big new tax on mining. Let us be very clear about this. This tax here is a triple-whammy tax. It is not about reform. It is just a revenue grab. In fact the greatest travesty of all is the idea that somehow he is enshrining the wisdom of Ken Henry - poor Ken, the most misused man in this country and misused by this Prime Minister. Let us make it absolutely clear. This triple-whammy tax is a tax on jobs. It is a tax on retirees who depend upon the dividends and income from mining shares. Above all else, it is a tax on consumers whose prices will inevitably rise as the price of their power goes up. Mr Speaker, we heard it, didn't we? We heard it the other day from former Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser, who saved this country from the second-worst government in Australia's history. I am very pleased and proud to be able to save this country from the worst government in Australia's history. The Treasurer's paper from 9 May says that in 2008-09, royalties resources taxes and company tax amounted to 27%

and profits, 73%. The only conceivable way they could get those numbers is to redefine profit. Call it something other than what it truly is. But I tell you what matters, what matters is when you go to the tax office website and you have a look at the numbers in the bank. And the numbers in the bank do not lie. Table A says quite clearly that in 2007-08, the total taxable net tax, net tax, of the mining industry was $8 billion on $29 billion, around 27%. In addition, in addition, it was nearly $4 billion, $4 billion on royalty expenses. Which takes it to around 41%.

So this treasurer is asking us to believe his spin rather than the money that has been received by the Australian Taxation Office from the mining sector. The truth is, the truth is the effective tax rate is 17c in a dollar. And that doesn't matter what they do, they simply cannot get over that hurdle, Mr Speaker. They can't get over that hurdle. They can't over the hurdle of the paper in the Henry Report and they cannot get over the hurdle that, that figure of 17c to the dollar, which in the first instance was a study over a decade, was based on data that went through to 2004 - 2005. And of course, the Treasury is updating that, Mr Speaker. And the tax office, the tax office... INTERJECTIONS ..and the ABS has supplied information for 2005-06 and 2006-07 and the conclusion is the same. is the effective rate, Mr Speaker. 17c in the dollar is the effective rate. And of course, why is this distortion between 30 cents, 27 and 17 so important? Because they have locked themselves in the car with the mining industry council who are claiming the effective tax rate is 27. But it is not. And they cannot prove that it is. Because they know, Mr Speaker, they know... Order. ..that mining companies get very generous depreciation.

Everyone in the country, everybody in the country understands

that there is very generous tax treatment for mining because it is capital intensive so it is 17 cents, Mr Speaker. 17 cents in the dollar. And they are terribly embarrassed by the fact that they have locked themselves into this 58-cent figure which has been peddled by the mining industry council right around Australia, Mr Speaker. Member for... The other thing they like to do, they then like to do, is they like to add royalties in. They like to add royalties in to either the headline rate or an effective rate of 27 to get this extraordinary figure that they claim miners are paid. The problem is they are not paying that, Mr Speaker. They are not paying that and that is the whole point. 'While the Opposition says it will vote for the government's parental leave scheme if it has to, it's introduced amendments of its own.' I rise to talk about the paid parental leave bill 2010 and of course the consequential amendments to that bill 2010. There's currently no legislated right to paid parental leave in Australia. These several bills introduced for the first time this right. There should of course have been mandated leave, paid-for parental leave in Australia for a very long time. We or the USA are the last society to ensure that all working families have paid leave to assist parents in the workforce,

particularly the mothers', with the mothers' recovery and making sure we offer the very best possible start for our newborns. Given that it has taken Australia so long and there is decades of other developed nation policy and practice for us to learn from, it is astonishing that the Rudd Labor government is asking the working families of Australia to accept such a shambolic and limited paid parental scheme policy. And that's what's being presented today of course for us in this parliament to consider. Labor's policy is so poor that even their own National Federation Of Australian Women, in their Senate Enquiry submission stressed that Labor's Paid Parental Leave scheme must only be seen as a first step and must be enhanced over time. This begs the question - why should the NFAW and the ACTU

be so cowed and contrite? Who do they think they really represent? They should not be so grateful for just a few crumbs. Why should Australian working women be fobbed off with one small, cheap, inadequate step at a time policy from this Labor government? Australian families deserve a scheme that is equal to the best there is which therefore offers them at least six months of leave to bond with their babies, to recover from the birth and to exclusively breastfeed

if they can or wish to. Labor is only introducing 18 weeks of paid parental leave, paid at the minimum wage for those who have worked at least 330 hours in the ten of the last 13 months. Those primary carers earning over $150,000 will not be eligible and the paid parental leave is to be taxed. I've no doubt that Labor's offer of only 18 weeks of paid parental leave

without superannuation and only at the minimum wage will see many women in families dependent on a second income forced back to work earlier than is optimal for the mother and the baby's wellbeing. That is not what families in Australia expected from any government - although perhaps they thought it was more likely they'd be let down by a Labor government. But after such a long wait for a mandated universal scheme, this is a bitter disappointment. The Coalition's scheme is of course world's best practice. It offers six months of leave at the mother's salary up to $150,000 or the minimum wage, whichever is greatest, and of course superannuation is paid - currently this is at 9%. We have the same eligibility criteria for access to paid parental leave as has been identified by Labor.

We will also of course make sure that women who are self-employed, or in partnerships or contractors are also able to participate in this scheme and will be given appropriate eligibility criteria. I feel quite ashamed, I have to say. As a working woman myself, I want the best for all the women of Australia and here I stand in this parliament with a piece of legislation like this on the table. It should have been much better. You can be assured that the coalition understands what's right and proper for Australia's working families. We will be attempting to amend this scheme. On the other hand, of course, we've put it on the record that we understand that half of something is better than nothing at all. So we've said at the end of the day, if we cannot get our appropriate amendments through, we will wave this impoverished scheme through. But it will a sad day for Australia and for Australia's working families. But I know her position as the spokesperson for... Opposition spokesperson for the status of women. A person who was in government with John Howard over the whole period of 12 years.

You got to start asking yourself, if that was the criticism that's been levied at this government about the introduction of this bill here and now, what have they done for the past 12 years? They had the reins of office. Surely this can't be an extraordinary long-range plan that in the 13th year, they were gonna do all these things?

They had 12 years

and what did they do about paid paternity leave? Well, I'll tell you, Mr Deputy Speaker. They did absolutely nothing. Our commitment to working families through this scheme is in stark contrast of the absence of any effort

to acknowledge paid paternity leave, all paternity leave, throughout the whole 12 years of the Howard government. They refused to deliver paid paternity leave. By the way, they have a track record. It was not just a refusal. They had a very committed position. It must be said that the leader of the Opposition now having...is positioned... ..articulated on the very day of International Day Of Women but don't forget he's also on the record of saying and I quote - "compulsory paid maternity leave, over this Coalition government's dead body." Now that was their position in government. Very clear, very precise in his characteristic offhand way but certainly acknowledging the position when it came down to paid parental leave. "Over their dead body." Well, I don't know, perhaps he did have an epiphany. Maybe there is something in that road to Damascus, I'm not quite sure. He now comes to a position that far from simply being converted, on that one day - and I know, Mr Deputy Speaker, without the consent, support or urging of any other member that sits on the Coalition side - on the very day that he turned up for the International Day Of Womanhood, he decided to come out and say, "We're gonna have six months paid paternity leave at whatever rate people are earning." So if you are earning $150,000 a year, you will get $75,000 paid to you. But we're actually gonna put a slug, we're gonna tax big business. Any business - by the way, what he now refers to as "big business", any business that has a profit line of $5 million - we're gonna slug them so not only they pay for the paid maternity leave for women in their particular business, but they can pay for paid maternity leave for anyone else out there in the workforce, any other businesses. Mr Speaker, I don't know about you, but I've actually had a look to see how many businesses in my electorate that fall under $5-million profit. And I can say, there's a heck of a lot of them. So that would mean, I think the last time we looked, about 98% of all businesses in my electorate

would have some other business paying under Tony Abbott's big, new tax on business, paying the maternity leave for people. Now, no wonder the coalition are a bit taken aback by that. The fact that they wanted to make some criticisms about issues about tax before, one thing they didn't see this is as a tax. They saw this as a levy, a levy. So therefore it wasn't a tax. Well, it can be Tony Abbott's big, new levy on all business out there that earns over $5 million. Mr Deputy Speaker, as is well known, my views on this issue have evolved. I have changed my mind. And I am pleased that I have been open on this subject to the wisdom of others. I am pleased that on this issue I have been able to grow.

I am pleased that over the years, on this issue in particular, I have listened to other people. I have listened to my wife. I have listened to my daughters. I have listened to my colleagues. I have listened to my friends. And I have tried as best I can to enter into their experience, to understand their hopes and their dreams and that is why I am so proud to stand up in this parliament today and to advocate the policy of the Coalition, the policy for a fair dinkum paid parental leave scheme, a scheme which is long overdue

and which sadly has not been delivered by the former government and is certainly not going to be delivered by the current government. I make no bones about the fact, Mr Deputy Speaker, that this policy will be paid for by a levy of up to 1.7% on the taxable company, on taxable company incomes over $5 million a year. I wish it were otherwise, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Were circumstances different, it could've been different. If we had a $20 billion surplus we could've done it differently.

But given the situation that this government places us in, given the fact that this government in just two and a half years has turned a $20 billion surplus into a $57 billion deficit, given that this government has put us in the position where we are borrowing $700 million a week, this is the least bad way to bring about an effective paid parental leave scheme any time soon and it must be done soon. The women of Australia, the families of Australia, have waited too long and they ought not be denied this visionary piece of social policy, this important economic reform any longer. MAN: Hear, hear.

It's interesting, Mr Deputy Speaker, that members opposite have talked about a great big new tax. Doesn't it show how that refrain is getting under their skin? It is getting under their skin, isn't it? It really is getting under their skin. Well, I make two points. First, this is an extremely modest levy.

I made three points, in fact. modest levy compared to the $9-billion-a-year hit that they want to put on the resources sector, let alone the $15-billion-a-year additional hit that they want to put on our economy through the Emissions Trading Scheme that they're still committed to but too gutless to talk about. The second point I make is that this is a genuine reform. It is not just a tax grab to feed. their insensate spending habit

And third, Mr Speaker, I want very much to ensure that this is only a temporary additional burden, even on large business.

And once we've got debt and deficit under control, once we've been able to reduce personal income tax, I would like also to reduce corporate tax

so that there is no long-term additional benefit, even on those large companies earning incomes, corporate incomes, over $5 million a year. The Leader of the Opposition's plan for paid parental leave, has got a plan for paid parental scheme, he's also committed to... The scheme that he's so committed to and is so important only got one line in the budget in reply. And I think most of the business community have come out fairly roundly to say that the tax that he's imposing to impose on business is not something that they at all support. I think it's interesting that he can't even bring himself to say the word tax, he's kindly used it as a levy. It is a tax. It is a 1.7 tax on industry to pay for the Opposition's paid parental leave scheme. The Leader of the Opposition should have been speaking with industry and they have strongly rejected the position that he's put.

Mr Abbott's 1.7% levy will tax thousands of businesses right the way across the country. Now the beauty of what is proposed is that the government's 18 weeks parental leave at the minimum wage

will come on top of existing industrial arrangements that working women have already won. Primary carers will be able to take the government's paid parental leave concurrently or sequentially. In other words, they can take their employer's leave where it exists and the government's leave at the same time. Alternately, they can stack it, taking their employer's leave first, then the government's 18 weeks on the minimum wage afterwards. All but the highest paid women in the workforce, those earning $150,000 a year or more, all but those women will have the opportunity to access this basic entitlement. Now, Mr Deputy Speaker, Labor's paid parental leave scheme is fair for families. Importantly, it's very fair for business. Everyone knows what to expect. Labor has delivered a balanced, considered scheme

of up to 18 weeks at the minimum wage for women who give birth or those who adopt a child. Now this leave will be available to all primary carers who meet the eligibility criteria of work, income and residency tests. The payment will also be transferable to the other parent or carer in exceptional circumstances. It is fully costed, fully funded. A responsible scheme. Now I note that there have been a number of third parties as well who've appreciated the government's steady hand through these consultations. Jaye Radisich the CEO of COSBOA, the Council Of Small Business Organisations Of Australia, had this to say - "What this means is that life is going to be easier for a lot of people. We can do nothing but support that. The paid maternity leave scheme will not mean an added burden for business." The chief executive of the Australian Industry Group, Heather Ridout, told the Sydney Morning Herald last year, she said, "This is exactly the sort of scheme that business wants to support. Over time, it will prove to be another step in getting participation up in the economy." That's a very important point, Mr Deputy Speaker, because as we know from the material in the Intergenerational Report the future needs of the Australian economy are in many ways reliant on a significant boost in the female participation rate. And paid parental leave has a very important role to play in this. These are just a few endorsements, but there are many more. Locally in my own electorate of Bennelong the head of the Ryde Business Forum, Andrew Bland, told me last year, again, that this is just the kind of business-friendly approach that his small law firm needs. Andrew and his wife actually gave up careers in one of the big, top-tier law firms in the city when they were thinking about setting up their family. And what they did is set up a smaller practice in North Ryde. Andrew and his wife they employ five women, all working mums, so an overall staff of seven. But Andrew told me that a friendly workplace, of the type that he and his wife have crafted, they see that as absolutely central to their business success

and being able to have a life and an engaging professional experience as well and that the government scheme is just what his firm needed. It is not beyond belief I think, Mr Deputy Speaker, that with what we're seeing with the Leader of the Opposition is perhaps a cynical delaying tactic to try and hobble the scheme that the minister for Families And Others

have patiently progressed over the last few years. But now we have the Leader of the Opposition saying that the bill needs to be enacted soon and he won't oppose the government scheme. Well, if he is fair dinkum he will commit to passing this bill through the parliament before it rises for the winter recess. Let's hope we see that. Young families across Australia have waited for so long,

I think deserve that certainty. The emphasis is on short-term paid maternity leave or parental leave for those in the workforce, but it ignores the reality that parents balance their work and family responsibilities between them over decades, not just a few weeks or a few months after the birth of a child. The life-course approach is all the more important with the delay in partnering, the increase in longevity,

and the ageing of our population. So, Madam Deputy Speaker, Labor's scheme does not sufficiently recognise that parents have different patterns of family responsibilities and paid work over their lifecycle. More over, the economic circumstances in which Australian families currently find themselves, namely the increased cost of living and housing affordability crisis, as well as interest rate rises, have lead more families requiring two incomes just to make ends meet. The length of paid parental leave now available to parents through private enterprise and the public service varies greatly from a few days to 18 weeks. Few schemes meet the widely acknowledged ideal leave period of a full six months. The government has chosen not to adopt the internationally recognised standard of six months

but has chosen to legislate for 18 weeks, which the Productivity Commission recommended with the strong expectation that employers would top-up the leave entitlement to make up the 26 weeks but that is problematic. This extra time would be made up with annual leave or long service leave paid for by the employers... ..by the woman's employer and would therefore not be available to all working women, for example, those working casual jobs

who would not have any accrued leave. And this bill imposes an additional administrative burden on small business, requiring employers to act as pay masters having to pay the government's parental leave to employees who are participating. These same small businesses will be liable for state payroll tax with the employee on leave, as well as for their replacement. But Labor's second-rate scheme is no great surprise.

Let's not forget that this is the same government which is pursuing in part an anti-family agenda. Stripping funding, slashing appropriations, and reducing services that assist families to stay together and save marriages.

A total of $50 million of family-related funding has been slashed in this budget. The same minister has designed a scheme which is so complex that even yesterday evening, when the Member for Murray and I received a briefing from her own department officials about this legislative package, they couldn't answer simple questions about the operation of the bill. They couldn't advise, for example, how self-employed mothers would be treated under the proposed new legislation. And while the minister has rushed to get this bill into the House, to get this bill on the agenda in an election year so she can make up for her failures to look after Australian families,

her officials confirm that the accompanying rules will not be ready until at least the 1st of October this year. So it is therefore unsurprising that the government is allowing a six-month moratorium on businesses having to make payments to employees so that these details can be ironed out. But there is no guarantee that this government, notorious for its widespread, costly and detrimental public policy failures, can effectively deliver such a scheme.

The week ended with the Opposition Leader unveiling a border protection policy which included a return to the Howard era Pacific Solution. Questions without notice. Are there any questions? The Leader of the Opposition.

Thanks, Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker, my question is to the Prime Minister. INTERJECTIONS The member for Leichhardt!

MAN: Calm down, scooter. Mr Speaker, I refer the Prime Minister to his 2007 promise

be tough on border protection, to maintain offshore processing and, in his own words, "To turn around the boats to keep our borders secure." Since he made that commitment, no boats have been turned around, there have been record numbers of illegal boat arrivals, the Christmas Island detention centre is full, people arriving illegally are regularly transferred to the mainland,

the Curtin detention centre is set to re-open and there have been at least two breakouts from the Villawood detention centre. I ask, given the Prime Minister's failure on border protection, will he now adopt the coalition's border protection policies that worked when we were last and will work again when we are next in government? The Prime Minister. Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.

I notice that the once great Liberal Party has hauled up the surrender flag on tax policy and now moves on to its debate on border protection. Mr Speaker, it took just three days of debate in this chamber on tax before they returned to old faithful. Mr Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition referred to coalition policy. Coalition policy. The question arises as to whether this particular policy actually went through the coalition party room. This has been a matter of some debate today

and we turn to our good friend the member for Cook, who had an interesting discussion on a radio program in Melbourne early this morning on 3AW. Neil Mitchell asked the member for Cook this question - "Has it gone through the party room yet?" Morrison - "It's gone through our internal processes,

as our policies do, and that's appropriate." Mitchell - "So has it gone through the party room yet?" Morrison - "It's gone through our internal processes." Mitchell - "What does that mean?" Morrison - "It's official coalition policy. It's been signed off the way we sign off policy. That's what happened, Neil." Mitchell - "So, does that involve the party room?" Morrison - "It enjoys strong party room support."

Ten times he was asked this question, ten times he refused to answer. We know why, Mr Speaker, because the member for Kooyong has already belled the cat. There was no internal party room process. Which begs the question, Mr Speaker, is this the full-gospel truth or is it the Tony Abbott truth? Is it in writing, Mr Speaker, or is it not in writing?

Mr Speaker, can I say in response to the Leader of the Opposition's question this, back in March in Melbourne he came out through the Melbourne Herald Sun guaranteeing he would stop the boats and shut the border. That's what he said in the Herald Sun. That was his guarantee on 31st March. Now two months later, it's pretty interesting to hear what the Leader of the Opposition had to say in a press conference earlier today.

Listen carefully to what the Leader of the Opposition said today when asked to provide the same guarantee.

The journalist asked, "Can you guarantee you'll stop the boats?" Prime Minister! Prime Minister, resume your seat. INTERJECTIONS Order. The member for Braddon doesn't assist. He will settle down. INTERJECTIONS

Order. The House will come to order.

A question has been asked, the Prime Minister is responding. The Prime Minister will relate his material to the question. The Prime Minister has the call. So, Mr Speaker, today at the press conference the Leader of the Opposition was asked by a journalist, "Can you guarantee that you will stop the boats?"

Abbott replies, "Someone else with a question?" Or the favourite one was the last question of the press conference. Journalist - "Do you guarantee that this policy will stop the boats coming?" Tony Abbott - "Thank you. Thanks. Thank you. Thank you." definitive public policy. That's what I call a rock-solid, ironclad guarantee.

That's what I call straight-talking Tony. That is what I call full-gospel Tony. What we do know, if we do not get it in writing from Tony, we should not give it any attention at all. Closed Captions By CSI

Um, I'll take this one. And that one. Oh, look. And this. Oh, really? This one's for me. Oh, I want that. I like those. Yeah.

Oh, Maude, isn't that stunning? I'd rather have mink. You would? Mink is so everyday. I don't care. We're wishing for what we want, aren't we? Yeah. Well, I want mink. Oh, all right, have mink. I want chinchilla. What do you spend on lunches? Depends. Can't you give me an average?

Well, 65 cents. 65. 65 times 6, that's $3.90 a week. Ooh. How about coffee?

30 cents a day. 30 cents a day. Well, I'll have to say the same. That's the same. Put that there. Well, if you don't spend more than a quarter a day for lunch and if you don't wear stockings, if you don't go to the movies, unless somebody takes you, you can go to school. Oh, yes, and you can't buy any more magazines. Gee, maybe it isn't worth it.

Maybe you want to spend the rest of your life as a car-hop, eh? Oh, don't be a stoop. Ooh, my feet are just killing me. Everything swells up in the heat. It isn't the heat, it's the humid... It's the humidity. Whose turn to wash? Yours, I dry. I'll get started. No, I just meant, why couldn't you help me get a modelling job now? I told you ten times, I don't want to use my influence till you're ready and you won't be ready till you go to school. According to this, I won't need your old influence. "Dorothy Dale places all her graduates in the finest positions." Mmm, she looks like a pretty nifty number.

I'll bet this was retouched. You know, you're not going just to get a better job. A charm school's like college and finishing school combined.

I can read, Maxine.

Well, all I can say is without a social education you're never going to meet a real man. What's the matter with George? Well, he'll never be able to buy you a mink coat. "'Girls', Dorothy Dale asks, 'What is your most important asset?' Answer your smile. Be charming." Be charming, that's what I told you. Gee, I'd love to go back to Denver with a mink coat someday, Maxine. Two mink coats, one for my mother. I guess it won't kill me to have 25-cent lunches. It's too hard to wear stockings anyway. How long a course should I take, Maxine? Six weeks. Gee, wouldn't it be wonderful if after I graduate I start working in the model... Modelling in the store like you for a few weeks. And then one day, in walks a handsome young millionaire. Yeah, wouldn't it be wonderful? And he's standing at the perfume counter and then suddenly he turns around and sees me. We don't say a word for a long time and then he says... Can you start drying the dishes? OK, but it could happen. "Dorothy Dale says, 'A charm school girl's future is unlimited. Once she leaves our doors, she is ready to meet anyone socially and ready to hit her jackpot.'" See? Good evening, Miss Chambers. Good evening, Miss Blaine. Good evening, Miss Chambers. Oh, Miss Eames? About your tuition, you know, each week must be paid in advance. Oh, I'm sorry, Miss Chambers. TELEPHONE RINGS Dorothy Dale's School Of Charm. Oh, yes, we'd be glad to recommend a model. All of our models are highly qualified. Yes, Mr Lawrence. She'll be there at nine. Thank you. Look, could I give you five now and the other five when I come Thursday? Thursday? Thursday. Certainly. Miss Maude Eames - $5. Oh, would you mind making that Leonora Eames? I've changed it. Not at all. Leonora. Leonora, that's charming. Thank you. Thank you. It was a lovely luncheon, Mrs Burton. Burton. Burton. Thank you so much for having me. Pick up your bag. I'm sorry. Thank you. Good afternoon. Good afternoon. Bravo. That was quite nice. Cross your legs, my dear. Now, may we have Miss Eames? Yes, Miss Dale. More confidence, my dear. Speak out. Full tones. What is your favourite fur? Mink. Mine too. Well, believe it or not, this is a beautiful mink coat.

Fourth floor - cosmetics, jewellery, perfume and furs. Oh, miss, just a minute. Only $49.95, plus tax. 5,000. That's not too bad. Do you like the full back? Oh, I adore it. The skins are divine. Simply heavenly. Wally sign his contract with Metro yet? No, not yet. Come along, darling, better have the old one glazed. Oh, you're right. I'd rather make him buy me a new bracelet anyway. Of course you would, darling. Like it, darling? I hope you're not offended because I call everyone darling. What a charming coat. May I see the lining? Only $49.95 plus tax. Plus tax? Charming, darling, charming. I think you haven't been working here long, yes? Yes. Hold these a moment, will you, darling? I'm giving a party, a lovely party, this weekend. On a yacht. We go to Carolina. No, thank you. There'll be lots of people, darling. Fresh air, sunshine and if you don't like it you can leave. No, thanks. Now, don't be a silly bourgeois, darling. You have work to do. I have work to do. Now, we can chat here for hours, but we would still get to the same point, wouldn't we? The yacht belongs to my business associate. Charming. We leave from my place at 6:30 on Friday. Uh... It'll be divine, darling.

Nice relaxation. Toodaloo.

Did you get an invitation? I'm not going. You're out of your head. $99.95. Handmade... Sorry, just looking. Don't you know who the party's for? Smith Ohlrig, whoever that is. Only the wall in Wall Street, dearie. The little poodle works for him. Mmm-hmm. Mmm-hmm. $99.95. Handmade... Let's go, darling.

Parties are supposed to be terrific. They'll have to do without me. Poor you. Only $49.95 plus tax. I'm not going, Maxine. How else do you think girls like us get to meet guys like Ohlrig? There's just no use, Maxine. I just... I just look terrible. I'm not going! I'm not the type for this dress and... Oh, this zipper! And I'm not the type for the yachting party either.

How do you know? You've never been on one. That's the only reason I wanted to go, just to find out what it would be like. But not with those characters. Any man that goes to a party like that has just one idea and that's one idea too many for me.

You can take care of yourself. I don't want to go to a party where I have to worry about taking care of myself. Unzip me, please. Well, it's up to you. But the party's an investment, Maude. I know, I should think of security. That's right. KNOCKS ON DOOR Hi. Who is it? Velma. See? What is security? Money. Period. Exclamation point. Hello. Hi. Here's the fur, girls.

I'm sorry I'm late but I had to work overtime. Thanks, but maybe you ought to go home. Oh, well, I brought some gloves in case you needed them. Thanks. They're stunning, Velma, thanks a lot. Well... I'll see you tomorrow. What's the matter? I'll talk to you tomorrow. Can't I see... Go on, Velma. Have a good time anyway, honey, and spill some champagne. Goodbye. Thanks. If he has a friend, don't forget about me. I'll look terrible in that too. Wait till I finish pressing your coat. You can put this around your shoulders... Please don't get mad, but it's just, well, I resent the whole set-up. Resent it? Yes, right from the beginning when that slimy little man crawled up to me in the store and wiggled his eyebrows. It just makes me feel cheap. Let's face it, girls like us can't pick the way we meet men like,

men like Smith Ohlrig. Why, you should the grateful. Well, I'm not. Oh, no, you want to keep dreaming about little old Prince Charming on a golden horse. You feel cheap. Well, that's touching.

Now let me tell you, I'd be very glad, believe me, to be in your shoes. For Pete's sake, here you are with a chance to meet some decent men, men that could take you out of living in a dump like this. You... You don't know a break when you get it.

Are you from the Ohlrig yacht? That's right. Oh, thank goodness. I thought they'd never send somebody to pick me up. They didn't send me. Oh. I had some business to take care of. Well, couldn't you take me to the yacht first? Don't say yacht. Say boat. Boat, then. Couldn't you, please? It's not a very good party. In fact, it's one of the dullest they've had. Oh, I don't care. I've got to get there.

Why? Well, because... I don't think that's any of your concern. Well, if you're in such a hurry, why didn't you come with the others? Well, I couldn't get off work in time. I'm a model. I phoned Mr Kartos before he arrived, but he said he'd send a taxi out and then somebody would pick me up. If you want to wait till I finish my business I'll take you out.

You couldn't take me now? No. I guess I'll just have to wait till you're ready, then. Come on. Where? You can drive to the office with me. Oh, I couldn't do